Talk:Jefferson Starship/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Response to removing my edits to introductory paragraph: I have asked for a dispute resolution

Hello AbleGus, I see you have once again removed my edits, so I have asked for guidance by asking for assistance from other Wikipedians. I hope this will be helpful to both of us. Certainly, repeating the same old arguments is not getting the job done. I hope you will agree.Cheryl Fullerton (talk) 20:18, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Lead

Having seen a notice on the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard, I'm going to see if I can break this logjam. I've redone the lead, based on what I can see in the article, and what I know about writing leads. A couple of salient points:

1. The lead generally doesn't require citations; it should summarise the information in the body. (WP:LEADCITE) In particular, putting ten citations in the opening sentence is incredibly off-putting to the leader, and a tell-tale sign that there has been an edit war or other dispute that nobody's been able to resolve satisfactorily.

2. There is currently 22k of prose. For that, you want a lead of roughly two paragraphs. (WP:LEADLENGTH)

3. The article says almost nothing about the band's musical style or what importance or input came from the various members. Since there's no information in the body, I can't put it in the lead. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:56, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Ritchie333 Thank you for your input and for taking the time to look into my case.

I agree with the points you made, especially point #3. I have tried over the years to include information about the band's, Jefferson Starship, contributions to music history and to present a more balanced, NPOV, by presenting information about other band member's contributions, only to have my edits immediately and consistently dismissed by another editor, the same editor in all cases.

Thank you for pointing out that citations are not used in summary paragraph. I will remember for the future.Regards,Cheryl Fullerton (talk) 00:41, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

User:Cheryl Fullerton I am willing to try to compose a neutrally worded RFC if that is what is wanted. I closed the DRN thread because there was no response from another editor, but either mediation or an RFC can also be done on the article talk page. Is there an issue to be worked?

Just to clarify, citations are normally not used in the lede paragraph. That does not mean that they are always wrong, but they are not required, and, as User:Ritchie333 points out, if there are too many, it distracts from what the reader wants to see. Sometimes editors work so hard at editing that they forget that not all readers are editors, and that readers have a variety of degrees of interest, and of reading styles. We need to consider both casual readers and researchers (and other sorts of readers). What they all have in common is that they can read English, but you knew that. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:27, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

User:Cheryl Fullerton User:Ritchie333 says that the body of the article says very little about the band's style. That means that if you want the lede to say something about the band's style, first put it in the article body to summarize, and then summarize it in the lede. Or don't put it in the article body or the lede. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:40, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

User:Robert McClenon Hi Robert Thank you for your suggestion. Are you saying I should try to make edits to the body and lede and then ask for other editors comments? I will try again, if you think that's the best way to get a better balance and more neutral information into the article. I do not know if the other editor will revert my edits as has been the case in the past. Regards, Cheryl Fullerton (talk) 19:05, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

@Cheryl Fullerton: I would tackle the article as follows:

Find a source for every uncited claim in the body, and add it. There are quite a few in the article; I don't want to tag them all with because that's disruptive.

Add a section on the band's musical style, based on some of the sources you find that talk about it, assuming you can find any.

I wouldn't worry about the lead for now. It's been reasonably stable since I did the update, which leads me to believe that it's okay. Generally speaking, when I'm doing major improvements to an article, I tend to work primarily on the sourcing first, then copyediting the prose, organising the layout, and the lead is pretty much the last thing I do. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:19, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Proposal to change "Origins" section of article to "Formation and Early Years: 1974-1978"

Hello, All interested editors, I propose to change the first subheading of the article from "Origins" to "Formation and Early Years: 1974-1978" which would be consistent with other classic band articles such as those of Journey and Fleetwood Mac. This would improve the article by moving the focus of the first third of the article from other bands, their music, and musicians unrelated to Jefferson Starship, to the focus of the band Jefferson Starship, its members and its music. I propose that the "Origins" section then be edited towards a balanced history of each of the founding members and their contributions to the band, the first four gold and platinum albums and hit songs, their first greatest hits album, and the history-making events of 1978 which led to the leave-taking of the two lead vocalists and the drummer. Comments or suggestions appreciated!Cheryl Fullerton (talk) 00:49, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello Cheryl. I am not in favor of your proposed change to the first subheading from "Origins" to "Formation and Early Years 1974-1978" in this article. I do not feel combining the content in the Origins Section in with the time period from 1974 to 1978 is beneficial to the article. These are two separate subtopics containing sufficiently different information. The "Origins" section charts the evolutionary process that led up to the 1974 reorganization into Jefferson Starship, which is very much related to the topic of this article. It also serves to introduce all of the individuals who were members of the band in 1974 into the narrative, as they all participated in the recording of at least one of the four Slick and Kantner collaboration albums. The section 1974-1978 covers the history of Jefferson Starship during that time. As currently constituted, this 1974-1978 section covers the information about Marty Balin coming on board, the four studio albums, the compilation album Gold, the charting singles during that era, and the events that led to the personnel changes in 1978. The present article provides a balanced history of the organization during that period. I am not in favor of merging the "Origins" and "1974-1978" subsections of the History into a single grouping covering two disparate subjects, and feel the article should retain the present format.

Regards, AbleGus (talk) 04:27, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

I think "Origins" is shorter and to the point. In general, the less verbose we can make things, the more the casual reader will be engaged. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:16, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

@Cheryl Fullerton:@AbleGus:@Ritchie333: After reading the article and getting a better understanding of the band's complicated history, I also think simplicity works best for the first section, but to be consistent, the years could be added to the word Origins. I'd also consider making some changes with the subsequent titles, again for consistency. It also includes a split of the "Next Generation" section into two different sections. They only used the "The Next Generation" name for two of the 14 years covered by that section, after which the original Jefferson Starship name was revived. Maybe the eras should be split. What do you think about this? (I know some of the date ranges overlap)

• 1970-1974: origins
• 1974-1978: early years
• 1979-1984: changing personnel
• 1984-1991: Kantner departs and Starship era
• 1992-1994: The Next Generation years
• 1995-2016: Jefferson Starship name revived
• 2016-present: post-Kantner era

TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:55, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello TimTempleton. I am in favor on your suggestion to label the first section "1970-1974: origins." I do not think there is enough content at two paragraphs for 1992-1994 to be split into a separate subsection from 1995-2016. Maybe we can keep them together and label it "1992-2016: revival" instead? How about these headings?

• 1970-1974: origins
• 1974-1978: commercial success
• 1979-1984: changing personnel and sound
• Kantner departs and transition to Starship
• 1992-2016: revival
• 2016-present: post-Kantner era

AbleGus (talk) 04:59, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

@Ritchie333:@Timtempleton:@AbleGus:

Hello Ritchie333, AbleGus and TimTempleton, Thank you for commenting on my proposal. I would ask that we reconsider maintaining the “Origins” section—at least as it now stands, as it currently assumes a non-neutral point of view that there was, as AbelGus has stated, an“evolutionary process that led up to the 1974 reorganization into Jefferson Starship, which is very much related to the topic of this article.” This is an opinion, which has been promoted by management marketers that the 1974 founding of the band, Jefferson Starship was a “reorganization” or evolution of another, earlier band, Jefferson Airplane. That is a promotional angle or spin that has been countered by other valid sources which have been referenced many times in prior discussions, but which, when I have attempted to add them to the article, have been consistently reverted by AbelGus, They state that Jefferson Airplane ended/broke up/died by 1972, and that after solo albums were not successful, a new band was formed that included some members who’d been in Jefferson Airplane, but certainly not all. Key Jefferson Starship band members had not been in Airplane and key Airplane members played no part in Jefferson Starship. Again, the historical fact that Jefferson Starship was a new band, distinct from Jefferson Airplane—in sound, songwriters, key band members, producers, in era and in commercial success---is accurate. The interpretation of it as being an evolution of another—and therefore, reducing the significance of the band for which the article is based—including the lead introductory paragraph of the article-- is biased and an opinion and, therefore, should be reduced or balanced by the alternative point of view with the facts.

As it stands now, the Origins section pays far too much attention to this other band, and on members of it, and on their personal lives, which are unrelated to the band, Jefferson Starship. Therefore, I propose that either a) this section be changed to “Formation and Early Years 1974 – 1978, with simplified references to the histories of each and all founding members of Jefferson Starship (and links to other articles to read more about individuals or past bands), or, b) if it is necessary to retain an “Origins” section, I am in agreement with Ritchie333 and Tim Templeton that it should be simplified, and it should be edited to create a more balanced history of ALL founding members which is NPOV and does not make assumptions as to the start of this band. I will say, however, that I do not agree with Tim Templeton’s date ranges of “1970 – 1974 Origins” as it assumes by beginning this range with the year “1970,” that the band name “Jefferson Starship” – which was taken from the cover of a 1970 solo album is of greater importance than it actually is. I would prefer to reference the band name’s origination in either “Formation and Early Years 1974 – 1978” or an edited “Origins” section. Again, I am proposing a simplified, more balanced, NPOV article that focuses on the subject of the article. Regards, Cheryl Fullerton (talk) 18:48, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello Cheryl,

Thank you for your additional response to this discussion. I do not agree that using the heading "Origins" is inaccurate or exhibits a non-NPOV. The evolutionary process from Jefferson Airplane to Jefferson Starship is validated by sources containing multiple direct quotes on the subject by Paul Kantner and Grace Slick. This includes Kantner specifically stating "I wouldn’t so much call Jefferson Starship a spinoff as, perhaps, an evolution," ((https://web.archive.org/web/20160307165710/http://www.yuzu-melodies.fr/Paul-Kantner-The-songs-of-Jefferson-Airplane-and-Jefferson-Starship-are-as-relevant-now-as-they-were-in-the-60s_a1299.html) or a Kantner quote saying that Jefferson Starship as "a continuation of Jefferson Airplane" (https://web.archive.org/web/20180707062402/http://www.njherald.com/story/23602165/kantner-still-pilots-jefferson-starship). Direct quotes by Grace Slick from 1975 (https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=qyEfAAAAIBAJ&sjid=KZcEAAAAIBAJ&pg=7193,2688665&dq=paul+kantner&hl=en) and 2019 (https://relix.com/articles/detail/the-core-jefferson-airplane/) both refer to the transition from Jefferson Airplane to Jefferson Starship as a "name change." Wikipedia articles should be based on sourced information. This is not "promotional spin" as you have alleged, but rather an accurate presentation of the events that happened. It is based on sources, and based on quotes from persons with direct knowledge of the process.

The "Origins" section as it reads now is similar in scope to other biographies of Jefferson Starship, such as the AllMusic entry, which covers the four collaboration albums starting with "Blows Against the Empire" in 1970 and progressing through the lineup changes in Jefferson Airplane that have later significance for Jefferson Starship, such as David Freiberg and Marty Balin. Again, it is important for this article to provide background information on the process that led to Jefferson Starship in 1974. The Jefferson Starship Wikipedia article as presently constituted does provide a balanced and accurate narrative. All members of the band Jefferson Starship are introduced and discussed in the article, there is no omission of content here. I do not think your suggestion to change the heading to “Formation and Early Years 1974 – 1978" would improve the article. The "Origins" and "1974-1978" sections cover two sufficiently different topics on this subject, and should maintain separate headings for their different places in the timeline. I agree with Timtempleton about placing a subheading on the Origins section with a time frame of 1970-1974. This is useful as it presents the reader with an idea when this all was occurring within the larger narrative. I feel the article is presented with a NPOV and the information in the origins section is related to the subject. I think it should remain largely as currently configured, and I am not in favor of the suggested changes proposed by Cheryl Fullerton.

I would recommend the following headings in the history section:

• 1970-1974: origins
• 1974-1978: commercial success
• 1979-1984: changing personnel and sound
• Kantner departs and transition to Starship
• 1992-2016: revival
• 2016-present: post-Kantner era

Regards, AbleGus (talk) 05:29, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

@AbleGus:@Timtempleton:

Hello AbleGus, Timtempleton, other editors With regards to the suggestion to further delineate the sections of this article, I do not agree with “1970-1974: origins” as it assumes that 1970 (let alone through 1974) was a significant era for the band, Jefferson Starship, when it was not. Though some would like to claim that the subtitle of Paul Kantner’s solo album, Blows Against the Empire: Paul Kantner/Jefferson Starship was key historically for the band which was founded in 1974, that is not NPOV. It is another marketing angle, countered by valid sourcing—including quotes from Paul Kantner himself--that has been recently espoused across the internet when, in fact, it is simply where the name for the new band came from. That is a point which can be covered briefly in a section entitled, “Formation and Early Years 1974-1978.” I do agree that 1974 – 1978 was commercially successful for Jefferson Starship, but so was 1979-1984; in fact, every album released by this band went gold, platinum or double-platinum and they had innumerable hit singles—all of which can and should be covered in the introduction without reference to a former band not directly related to Jefferson Starship, so as to delineate just 1974-1978 as “commercially successful” would be inaccurate and misleading. 1979-1984: changing personnel and sound is also inaccurate as four key members of the band did not change. Only the vocalists and drummer changed which is not unusual for a band that lasts awhile. Emphasizing “changing personnel” is incorrect and it again puts emphasis where it should not be placed. I would not be opposed to “1979-1984: Musical Evolution” with information on the new producers and a focus on harder rock and guitar-emphasized songs as that would be true historically. I have no issue with “Kantner departs and transition to Starship,” as long as the content is accurate. “1992-2016: revival” is also misleading as this period was not a revival of the band. It was Paul Kantner beginning to use the name again for solo projects, violating a legal agreement and being sued by multiple band members for doing so. He did, ultimately, gain permission but he then hired a rotating cast of musicians—most of whom had never been in Jefferson Starship nor were on any of the hit recordings—so it was definitely “Jefferson Starship: The Next Generation” and that is what I feel would be more honest for 1992-2016. That section could cover the dropping of The Next Generation, the broken contract and subsequent legal challenges, and the facts regarding Kantner’s use of many different musicians for his concerts and live recordings. These are the facts and Wikipedia should be a place to find facts. It was not a revival of the band. Last, I have no issues with “2016-present: post-Kantner era” as long as the content is factual and not promotional which has been a great concern on this page; for example, it should be made clear that the current bandmembers using the name were simply who were playing with Paul Kantner at the time he died. Prior to his death, his was generally not a stable line-up but frequently changed. Important: As long as more than one editor, even with differing opinions, are allowed to edit this page with valid sourcing and facts, these should also be allowed in any of these sections going forward. In summary, I would propose: Origins (since that is what the majority has preferred, though see above for comments on keeping it simple, balanced, factual and NPOV)

• 1974 – 1978: Early Years and Commercial Success
• 1978 – 1984: Musical Evolution and Continuing Commercial Success
• 1984 – 1985: Kantner Departs and Transition to Starship
• 1992 – 2016: Jefferson Starship: The Next Generation
• 2016 – Present: Post Kantner-Era Jefferson Starship

Regards,Cheryl Fullerton (talk) 22:40, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello Cheryl,

Thank you for your response to this discussion. I think including "1970-1974" along with the word "origins" for the first section of the history is an accurate and useful way to label this section. It correctly indicates the time period that is being covered in this "origins" section, which is the years from 1970 to 1974. Again, your statement that "Paul Kantner/Jefferson Starship" is a somehow a subtitle to the album Blows Against the Empire is unsourced and inaccurate. The album was named Blows Against the Empire and it was co-credited to Paul Kantner and "Jefferson Starship." No source labels "Jefferson Starship" as anything but a co-credit on this album. The use of the name as a co-credit refers to the artists appearing along with Kantner on this album, which is also indicated in the Jefferson Starship AllMusic biography. It is on topic and reasonable to the include this information about the initial use of the name "Jefferson Starship" in article about the the subject Jefferson Starship. Again, I disagree that merging the "origins" and "1974-1978" into a single section is the best course for this article. These subtopics are cover different enough topics, namely the period leading up to the reorganization in 1974 in the former, and then the latter section covering the history of the band from 1974-1978.

Regarding your suggestion about labeling the "1974-1978" section as "commercial success" being misleading, I do not agree. Three of the four albums released from 1974-1978 were certified platinum (one double), which had not yet happened for the organization, at least at that level. Yes there were four gold selling studio albums and one gold selling compilation released from 1979-1984, but the article itself already discusses the sales certifications, so adding "Continuing Commercial Success" for the period "1979-1984" is unnecessary and not keeping with the concept of keeping the headings simple. I do not agree with your suggestion that the bands "innumerable hit singles—all of which can and should be covered in the introduction." Placing a list of songs in the lead of the article is redundant since they are all already covered in the body of the article at the correct spot in the narrative. It does not serve the reader to simply list a grouping of songs unless you are providing a reason why they are being mentioned, such as an award or accolade. I also do not feel "early years" is the most suitable label for an organization evolved from an entity that existed for years prior to the 1974. I would suggest "1974-1978: commercial success" or if that is not agreeable, simply "1974-1978" to cover this period.

Yes, for the period of 1979-1984, not all or even the majority of the personnel changed, but the point is that there were multiple membership changes in the group from 1978 to 1979. I think that helps to delineate the two time periods. Per above, "Continuing Commercial Success" does not keep the headings simple. It is common for a group to experience line-up changes over time, but three of them within less than six months is not so common, especially when you consider the circumstances of each change. "Musical evolution" glosses over the personnel changes that precipitated the change in musical direction in the first place. I would suggest either my previously submitted "changing personnel and sound" or agree with using "changing personnel" as user TimTempleton submitted.

I believe we agree on the "Kantner departs and transition to Starship" labeling. I am in favor of leaving the date range "1984-1985" off, only because I want to avoid confusion with the separation between the Jefferson Starship and Starship articles, which is currently placed at the departure in 1984. I disagree that the content in that section is inaccurate. The information involving the settlement is sourced.

I disagree with your assessment on the "1992-2016" section that it was not a revival of the band. Kantner billed it as such, and there are sources that indicate this. Kantner stated he was "reclaiming his band" (https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-1992-05-17-9202140175-story.html). Yes he violated the agreement not to use the name, and that is explained. The article already covers the 2007-2008 lawsuit from Grace Slick and Bill Thompson (the owners of name Jefferson Starship), and settlement which allowed him to continue the name. The assessment that this constituted a "solo project" is your own opinion of the revival, and is not sourced that it was ever billed as such. The 1992-present band also included membership stints by Marty Balin, Papa John Creach, David Freiberg, Donny Baldwin, and Peter Kaukonen, who were all also members of the band Jefferson Starship within the period of 1974-1984. The article already sufficiently covers the band members during this period starting in 1992. The group was billed as "Jefferson Starship: The Next Generation" for approximately two years, but "The Next Generation" was dropped by 1995, so it was not in effect for the full time frame. "Revival" better describes the entire period. I agree that Wikipedia should provide a factual presentation of the information, and the fact is that Kantner claimed he took back his band starting in 1992, and eventually was granted permission to do so by the owners of the name.

I agree that the section from 2016-present should be labeled "Post-Kantner era." I disagree that the information is "promotional" in this section. The band members in Jefferson Starship after Paul Kantner's death are more than just "the current bandmembers using the name were simply who were playing with Paul Kantner at the time he died." They were playing in Jefferson Starship prior to his death, and were granted permission to continue using the name after he died by Grace Slick (one of the owners of the name). Sources are provided for this information.

I would again suggest the following headings for the history section (with alternatives in parenthesis):

• 1970-1974: origins
• 1974-1978: commercial success (or leaving it as "*1974-1978")
• 1979-1984: changing personnel and sound (or "1979-1984: changing personnel")
• Kantner departs and transition to Starship
• 1992-2016: revival (and not splitting into two sections)
• 2016-present: post-Kantner era

Regards, AbleGus (talk) 05:31, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

@Cheryl Fullerton:@AbleGus: I worry that this discussion has gotten so long, it will discourage others from participating. I think we need to break the discussion up into pieces. The first section is Origins, starting in 1970, but Cheryl's position is that Jefferson Starship had minimal roots in Jefferson Airplane, and history should start in 1974. I don't see how you can discuss Jefferson Starship's formation and not address Jefferson Airplane. I'll do some more reading and see if I can sort this out. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 05:59, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

I have to agree with Tim on this, the discussion on this talk page just seems to be out of proportion. Two things to note : 1) The Beatles (which is a Featured Article, so should be used as an example of what to do) does talk about The Quarrymen and about three years of basic history before the group was formed. However, a principal difference is they were not already famous in 1957, while the founding Starship members were from their stints in Airplane, so that needs a bit more explanation. So, basically, AbleGus' suggestion sounds about right. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:46, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

@Timtempleton:@Ritchie333:

Hello Tim, I agree that this discussion has gotten too long. It’s been going on for years, back and forth with AbelGus advocating for a focus on the band Jefferson Airplane and their musicians and Jefferson Starship just being a spinoff of that band and of a 1970 Kantner solo album and my belief and understanding based on my own sourcing that the historical truth is that Jefferson Starship was a new band formed two years after Airplane ended, and after Kantner and Slick solo albums did not do well [Jeff Tamarkin, Got a Revolution: The Turbulent Flight of Jefferson Airplane, p. 266]. This new band was simply made up of some former members of Airplane who knew one another, but not ALL members of the new band had been in Airplane, and that these founding members were equal members and contributors to the success of this new band. I also have felt strongly, as opposed to AbelGus, that the article should focus on Jefferson Starship and not another band and its members who have their own Wikipedia articles. Jefferson Starship’s band members—particularly those who wrote, recorded, performed the actual classic hit songs and albums—and that actual music—should be the focus of the article. I have attempted to edit the article to at least be more balanced and focused on Jefferson Starship but have been immediately reverted and argued against by AbelGus, hence my bringing this to Dispute Resolution. My belief is that the article should represent facts and be balanced and not feature singular opinions dominated by any one editor. Now that you are taking the time to do research yourself, let me provide a few links since AbelGus has done so: https://musicianguide.com/biographies/1608000727/Jefferson-Airplane-Jefferson-Starship-Starship.html; https://projects.sfchronicle.com/2017/jefferson-lawsuit-timeline/ ; https://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/29/arts/music/paul-kantner-of-jefferson-airplane-dies-at-74.html ; http://www.classicbands.com/jefferson.html ; http://www.classicrockhereandnow.com/2012/09/an-interview-with-paul-kantner-captain.html?m=1; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c7x1H_JqP2c; Regards, Cheryl Fullerton (talk) 19:24, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello Ritchie333, the discussion is definitely out of proportion, I also agree. I have been trying to edit this article, and other related articles (Jefferson Airplane, Jefferson Starship album pages, the Starship band article) but have been blocked from doing so by AbelGus on each of these articles every step of the way and have tried to get intervention by other editors and Wikipedia, hence the back and forth for years. I would point out that not all of the Jefferson Starship founding members were in Jefferson Airplane. Key members and songwriters, Craig Chaquico and Pete Sears were not members of Airplane though Chaquico appeared on three of Slick and Kantner’s solo albums prior to the formation of Jefferson Starship and Sears had been on one of those as well. These were musicians who’d worked together in the past but who also had a wide variety of other prior musical backgrounds, as do members of other bands that form, and I feel strongly that all members should be represented from the top, along with more of a focus on the bands musical evolution and legacy. Airplane was one aspect of the history of some of the Jefferson Starship members but it was not their entire history nor was it the history of Chaquico or Sears; therefore such a heavy emphasis on a previous band and on musicians (Kaukonen and Casady) who had nothing at all to do with Jefferson Starship is inappropriate and detracts from the subject of the article. Certainly a reference to the interesting histories is fine, but not the focus and weight that is currently being placed on these elements in the article, burying the actual history of JS and its equal members and music deep down in the article where few will even have the patience to read it. Regards, Cheryl Fullerton (talk) 19:24, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

The NY Times source [[1]] says that Jefferson Starship was the successor to Jefferson Airplane. So Jefferson Airplane has to be included in an origins section. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:48, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

@Timtempleton:@Ritchie333:

• • To be clear, I have no problem with mentioning Jefferson Airplane in the origins section; however, it should not be the focal point of the introduction, the article or of the origins section. It was a band that several Jefferson Starship members had in common; however, these same members had also been in other bands in their pasts, and Jefferson Starship also had different key members and songwriters who had not been in Airplane. The way it has been written leads readers of Wikipedia to the conclusion that Jefferson Airplane and a solo album of Paul Kantner’s from four years prior to the formation of Jefferson Starship were the beginnings of/reasons for this new, 1974 band, which they were not.Cheryl Fullerton (talk) 23:38, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Timtempleton and Richie333 that the information on Jefferson Airplane should be included in the origins section. Even the two biographies Cheryl Fullerton included in her sources both combine the history of Jefferson Airplane, Jefferson Starship, and Starship into a single entry, indicative of an acknowledgement of the connection. There is a clear relationship between Jefferson Airplane and Jefferson Starship, and the Wikipedia article on Jefferson Starship should retain this information in the origins section. Regards, AbleGus (talk) 03:49, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

@AbleGus:@Ritchie333:@Cheryl Fullerton: I just made a minor change to the lead to clarify that Jefferson Starship was founded by a group of musicians including former members of Jefferson Airplane. That seems to be the best way to address this long discussion, and sets the tone for the rest of the info. FWIW - as far as I can tell, only two founding members had no prior connection to Jefferson Airplane. The Jefferson Airplane members were the most well-known of the Jefferson Starship founders - hence the attention on them in the Origins section. I don't think anything else in the article implies that this was just a new Jefferson Airplane project. Cheers. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:45, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello editors, @Timtempleton:@Ritchie333:@AbleGus:

Tim, thank you for contributing to the article's introduction. I have also made a few edits to remove redundancies and make key corrections. (See below)

I made some edits to the summary paragraph to simplify things, hopefully. I added the original personnel that formed the group and removed "a group of musicians" and added the accolades of their greatest hits albums. I removed the "band went through several major changes" as only the drummer and vocalists changed. I removed "genres" as JS was a rock band. Starship evolved into "pop." I removed "evolved from several solo albums they recorded" as this is inaccurate and not sourced. These were separate projects entirely. I also removed "the following year's album Spitfire was a top five hit" as all JS albums were either gold or platinum and, in fact, Red Octopus, went double-platinum with the hit "Miracles" peaking at #3 on the Billboard single chart. Thank you, Cheryl Fullerton (talk) 22:34, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

That's fine. Although I think it now reads more like the band is a new incarnation of Airplane than the way I had it. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:31, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello Cheryl. I have reverted your most recent edits to the lead paragraph back to the previous version from user Ritchie333. Many of the sentences you added were duplicated in the second paragraph of the lead section, which made them redundant. Setting aside our dispute of "formed" versus "evolved" for now, the list of "original personnel" you claim "formed the group" omits that Pete Sears replaced Peter Kaukonen six months after the reorganization. The band membership is already sufficiently spelled out in the article and does need to be duplicated here, especially with incorrect information. There was only one compilation album (Gold) issued by the band between 1974-1984 and not two as you assert. That is also already covered in the article. I restored "The band went through several major changes in personnel and genres through the years while retaining the Jefferson Starship name" to the article. Losing both lead vocalists and a drummer, especially all within several months, are major changes to the personnel of the group. The "genre" or musical style of the band changed from the 1974-1978 period which featured a series of soft rock singles ("Miracles", "With Your Love", "Count on Me", "Runaway"), to a hard rock (and arena rock) sound from 1979-1984 exemplified by "Jane", "Layin' It on the Line", "Rock Music", "Find Your Way Back", "Winds of Change". The collaboration albums referenced here are an evolution centered on Slick and Kantner that bridged the transition between Jefferson Airplane and Jefferson Starship. Not coincidentally, these albums also featured all individuals who were the members of the group Jefferson Starship in 1974, including the three individuals (Chaquico, Kaukonen, and later Sears) that were not in Jefferson Airplane. "Spitfire" reached number 3 on the Billboard Hot 200 Album Chart, which is a separate accolade from the sales certifications mentioned earlier, so it should remain. The name Jefferson Starship was no only "picked up again in 1992 by Paul Kantner," alone, it was "a revival of the group led by Paul Kantner" and that wording should remain. The lawsuit information already is sufficiently present in the second paragraph of the lead section, it is redundant to restate it here. The multiple contract violation lawsuits is misleading. A single lawsuit was filed by Chaquico alone in 2017. There was a licensing dispute in 2007 that also involved the name, but that was mostly about Kantner's use of corporate sponsors with the name. Besides, that suit between the owners of the name Jefferson Starship (Bill Thompson and Grace Slick) and Kantner is already covered in the article and does not need to be repeated here in the lead. RegardsAbleGus (talk) 03:30, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Proposal for changes to Jefferson Starship Introduction

@Timtempleton:@Ritchie333:@Robert McClenon:@AbleGus:

Hello, TimTempleton, Ritchie333, AbleGus, Robert McClenon,

AbelGus’s automatically reverting my work again, which has been happening for years, on all of the related pages for this band, and which is why I brought this to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard, involving other editors to be a part of this and yet AbelGus did not respond to that so it was closed. I have as much right as an editor to edit this page any other editor. As Wikipedia states, “An editor who repeatedly restores their preferred version is edit-warring regardless of whether those edits are justifiable. ‘But my edits were right so they are justifiable,’ is no defense.” AbelGus has been edit-warring for years on all of the related pages and should have brought comments to me first for discussion involving other editors, rather than immediately reverting, which has been the pattern. AbelGus reverts first first and then provides arguments. Not once have I, as an independent editor, been allowed to have my edits remain, even when providing valid sourcing. My hope with Dispute Resolution was that we would follow Wikipedia’s rules for verifiability which state, “If reliable sources disagree, then maintain a neutral point of view and present what the various sources say, giving each side its due weight.” Instead, however, my valid edits are reverted. I will give this one more try. If I’m again argued down and not allowed to edit this page, or even to “give each side its due weight”, then I will follow the next step: “If, despite such efforts, one or more users fail to cease edit warring, refuse to work collaboratively or heed the information given to them, or do not move on to appropriate dispute resolution, then consider making a request for administrative involvement. The standard way to do this is to add a report at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring.”

Here is my last ditch effort to collaborate on this page. If I left up a second paragraph, that was my mistake. My edit was meant to replace the two paragraphs which did contain redundancy, I agree, and to simplify the introduction. Also to make it more balanced and less about opinion (spin) and more about fact. Your point of view has been made clear, and I am stating that it is fact and neutral balance about Jefferson Starship, the band, that needs to be included in this introductory section, as well as the Origins section, and the rest of the article. It is currently slanted towards AbelGus’s point of view, picking and choosing from different sources, and immediately reverting any other editors work, to bolster one point of view.

Having said that, I do agree with you on a few points and am willing to concede those points. Again, there should not have been two paragraphs so I have edited mine to incorporate your input on points where we agree. Here is what I believe is a balanced, NPOV, Introduction to the article and that incorporates facts, including the input of @Ritchie333 and @TimTempleton. I strongly invite @Ritchie333 and @TimTempleton and @RobertMcClenon to review this edit and the reasonings behind the edits below which are solely to address AbelGus’s latest arguments for automatic reversions of my edits:

Jefferson Starship is an American rock band from San Francisco, California, formed in 1974 by former members of Jefferson Airplane, Paul Kantner, Grace Slick, David Freiberg, Johny Barbata and Papa John Creach, along with Craig Chaquico and Peter Kaukonen for the first tour. Pete Sears replaced Peter Kaukenon in time for the first album, Dragon Fly. Former Airplane frontman Marty Balin subsequently joined the group in 1975. Between 1974 and 1984, they released eight gold, platinum or double platinum-selling studio albums and two gold greatest hits albums. Their second studio album, Red Octopus, reached No. 1 four consecutive weeks during 1975 on the Billboard 200 and their third album, "Spitfire" reached number 3 on the Billboard Hot 200 Album Chart. Slick and Balin both left the group in 1978, along with Barbata, leaving the remaining members to recruit Mickey Thomas and Aynsley Dunbar as their replacements. Slick rejoined the group in 1981. Kantner quit in 1984 and took legal action towards using the name; the remaining members becoming Starship. The band name, Jefferson Starship was retired in 1985, but it was picked up again in 1992 by Paul Kantner, which has continued with new members following his death in 2016. Contract violation lawsuits over the use of the name Jefferson Starship post-1985 by various original band members have been brought and settled.

I added the reference to Peter Kaukonen which had not been in the prior version of the introduction and since you would like that included, I have also included a reference to drummer Aynsley Dunbar who replaced Barbata. These are the musicians which were in the original band, from 1974 – 1984 and wrote, recorded and performed the hit music as separate from the post-91 Kantner use of the name which did include a wide variety of musicians. I believe that the personnel does need to be included in the introduction, whether or not it goes into more depth on these individuals in the article. This is consistent with other, similar articles on Wikipedia about classic bands such as Fleetwood Mac, I replaced “The band went through several major changes in personnel and genres through the years while retaining the Jefferson Starship name” as that is vague and invites interpretation. If your point is to establish that vocalists and drummer left, but do not make mention that Kantner, Freiberg, Chaquico and Sears remained, it leaves the impression that this band fluctuated and it did not; at least not from 1974 – 1984. As far as your interpretation of the band changing genres, that is simply not true. “Ride the Tiger” on the first album, Dragon Fly, was anything but soft rock, and “Be My Lady” and “No Way Out” on Winds of Change and Nuclear Furniture were soft mellow ballads. The band, from 1974 – 1984 played a variety of genres of music that were widely accepted by fans. My reference to the two compilation albums from this period is in reference to “Starship’s Greatest Hits: 10 Years & Change (1979-1991)” which went gold as well and includes the years 1979 – 1984. Gold only covered the first four albums of the band, 1974 – 1978. I am including both of these hit compilation albums. I am removing the reference to solo albums in the introduction as they were not a factor in the formation of Jefferson Starship other than that the albums did not sell well “Grunt was losing money by the bucketful—Manhole, which had taken six months and a fortune to record, had only hit a disappointing number 127—and RCA was not pleased.” [Jeff Tamarkin, Got a Revolution, p. 266] It doesn’t make sense to refer to solo albums of two of the band members in the introductory paragraph and it is addressed in the article. I will add your desired reference to Spitfire but will add Red Octopus, then, as it achieved sales success as well. Kantner beginning to use the name again was not a “revival of the group.” That is your opinion. Paul Kantner began using the name again for concerts and invited many different musicians to perform with him over the years. It was not a revival of the 1974-1984 group so I have not included it. I also disagree that that multiple contract violation lawsuits is misleading. Grace Slick and Bill Thompson also sued Paul Kantner in 2007 over his use of the name in which they referred to Kantner as a “fraud” and “putting out an inferior product.” https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-news/jefferson-airplane-inc-sues-founding-member-paul-kantner-201973/https://accessonlinefrontprod.ao.apps.nbcuni.com/articles/where-is-the-love-jefferson-airplane-sue-each-other-58666 This was settled. So Chaquico’s lawsuit was not the only lawsuit filed over the use of the name (and note that Chaquico did not “threaten” a lawsuit as is stated but to be accurate, he filed a lawsuit in federal court https://www.courthousenews.com/lead-guitarists-suit-jefferson-starship-survives/#:~:text=Chaquico%20sued%20his%20former%20bandmates,to%20retire%20the%20band's%20name. Your statement that the 2007 lawsuit was about use of corporate sponsors does not agree with the facts and what was stated in the multitude of articles about this in the press. Your statement that there is no need to put it in the introduction because it is in the body of the article can also be said about Chaquico’s lawsuit so why mention one and not the other, unless you have an agenda about that? I say we mention the topic in general in the introduction and then go into detail in the body of the article. Otherwise, mention all lawsuits over the name in the introduction. My understanding is that there were others, as well. At this point, since they are dealt with in the article, as you said, then they should only be referenced in general at the lead. Regards, Cheryl Fullerton (talk) 01:40, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

This will never be settled with a wall of text. Perhaps we break this into pieces and address the issues one by one, over time. There's no rush. How about pick the one item that bothers you the most and go from there? TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 05:55, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello Cheryl. I am opposed to your suggested re-wording to the introductory paragraphs. I do not feel an extensive chronicle of the personnel changes that you have laid out should be included in the introduction. It is redundant as it is already contained in the body of the article. This is also consistent with other Wikipedia articles such as Journey or Chicago that do not contain such listings in the lead paragraphs. Both of those groups have had less band members overall than Jefferson Starship. The departure of both lead vocalists, and subsequent return by Slick a few years later would constitute "major changes in personnel", and should be mentioned as such in the lead paragraph. The "changes in genre" should be retained as well. The musical style of the band changed with the addition of Balin. The departures of Balin and Slick later in the decade precipitated changes that led to another shift in musical style. This change in the band's sound is acknowledged in other sources, such as the Jefferson Starship AllMusic Biography, and should be included here. There is no need to further distinguish "double platinum" from "platinum" and it is already listed in the body of the article about Red Octopus, and the compilation album “Starship’s Greatest Hits: 10 Years & Change (1979-1991)” was not released until 1991, so it is outside the time frame given in the sentence, "between 1974 and 1984." Red Octopus was also not number one on the Billboard Hot 200 Album Chart for four consecutive weeks, it reached number one four times, on non-consecutive weeks, in 1975 . That Red Octopus reached number one on the album chart is is already in the body of the article. The reference to the collaboration albums are illustrative of the evolution occurring during this period from Jefferson Airplane to Jefferson Starship, and this should remain. Those three future Jefferson Starship members who were not in Jefferson Airplane (P. Kaukonen, Chaquico, and Sears), first worked with Kantner and Slick during those albums, indicating their importance in the various parties coming together. Kantner called the 1992 relaunch a revival (https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-1992-05-17-9202140175-story.html), as did the AllMusic Jefferson Starship Biography (https://www.allmusic.com/artist/jefferson-starship-mn0000840050/biography), which stated "Kantner revived Jefferson Starship in the '90s." It is your unsourced opinion that it is not a revival. The 2007 lawsuit filed by Slick and Thompson was precipitated by Kantner's use of corporate sponsors with the name. Otherwise, they would not have waited over fifteen years from when he first began using the name to file it. Regardless of those specifics, I am not in favor of repeating the information on the 2007 lawsuit and settlement in the lead paragraphs. That topic is already sufficiently covered in the article. We also should not add unsourced information on other lawsuits besides those of Thompson and Slick or that of Chaquico over the name Jefferson Starship that you believe were filed. There are a somewhere in the neighborhood of a dozen lawsuits of more involving this organization, many unrelated to Kantner using the name Jefferson Starship starting in 1992, and listing them all in the lead paragraph is off topic. In conclusion, I am not in favor of Cheryl Fullerton's suggested changes to the article. Regards,AbleGus (talk) 05:47, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Adding additional music history to Intro

@AbleGus:@Ritchie333:@Timtempleton: I'm adding a bit more musical history to the opening paragraph because of a comment made by an editor who noted not much was being said about the actual music Jefferson Starship made. Highlighting notable achievements in the introduction is in line with other Wikipedia articles for similar classic bands such as Journey, Boston, REO Speedwagon and others.Cheryl Fullerton (talk) 01:44, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello Cheryl. I have made some changes to your additions to the opening paragraph. Specifically, I removed the listing of "best known" songs. Simply providing a list of songs without some type of notable associated accolade for context as to why they are being provided does not read like an encyclopedia article. Using the Jefferson Airplane article as an example, it mentions two songs in the lead paragraph based on them being part of the Rolling Stone List of the 500 Greatest Songs of all time. Regards,AbleGus (talk) 04:48, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

@AbleGus:@Ritchie333:@Timtempleton:

Hello AbleGus, Ritchie333, and TimTempleton,

AbelGus, your deletion of my list of Jefferson Starship’s “best-known songs, claiming “that it does not read like an encyclopedia article, is not sufficient grounds for making this removal. As we know, single hits are in every way as legitimate as albums and are instrumental in giving a band exposure to fans that are then motivated to buy the albums and attend their concerts. In fact, I borrowed this phrase from the introduction to the article on Wikipedia that references the notable singles for the band, Boston, which is a comparable band in the classic rock genre. Having said that, and in the spirit of collaboration for the improvement of the article, I have added a bit of additional information regarding these best-known songs, and I have replaced this portion of the opening paragraph. I have retained the reference to “best known songs” at the end of the paragraph as it is acceptable on Wikipedia to reference notable, recognizable, singles.

Here is the link to the Wikipedia article on Boston https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_(band)

Proposed edit:

Jefferson Starship is an American rock band from San Francisco, California, formed in 1974 by a group of musicians including former members of Jefferson Airplane. Between 1974 and 1984, they released eight gold or platinum selling studio albums, including Red Octopus, which went double-platinum and reached No. 1 four non-consecutive weeks during 1975 on the Billboard 200. Their 1978 greatest hits album, Gold, also went gold. Some of the band’s best-known songs crossed chart genres including, “Miracles,” and “Count on Me,” which were in the Top 10 of the US Pop Charts while “Find Your Way Back”, “No Way Out,” and “Layin’ It on the Line” were in the Top 10 of the US Mainstream Rock Charts. “With Your Love,” “Runaway,” and “Jane” all reached Top 20 positions on the US Pop Charts. Other best-known songs during this 10-year period included “Ride the Tiger,” “Stranger,” and “Be My Lady.”Cheryl Fullerton (talk) 23:56, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello Cheryl. I removed the list of "well known songs" because providing a the song names alone without a specific accolade, such as citing an award they received, does not provide ample context to indicate why it should be included in the lead. Therefore, it does not improve the lead paragraph of the article, and should not be inserted. Your statement "single hits are in every way as legitimate as albums and are instrumental in giving a band exposure to fans that are then motivated to buy the albums and attend their concerts," does not indicate why providing such a list is needed in the article's lead section instead of placing it within the body of the narrative. Discussing those singles in the article body is merited, and is already done so in this article, but that not sufficient reason why it should automatically be included in the lead section. It is commonly accepted a successful band will record albums and release singles in the course of their history, so an extensive list of albums or singles in the lead section is not required to inform the reader of them. They will see them in the body of the article, where more detail is provided, or in the discography section.

A review of the lead section for a Wikipedia article of another band, Chicago (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_(band), does not provide a list of best known songs for a group that had three songs top the Billboard Hot 100 chart. It only mentions "If You Leave Me Now" specifically for winning a Grammy award. The lead of The Beatles article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Beatles) only mentions their debut single, and then only to indicate how it raised the profile of the group, making them more successful. There is no list of the numerous chart topping singles the Beatles released in the lead section of that article. This indicates a song list in the lead section is not necessary for an article on a band. While some articles might include this, it is by no means universal in articles of this type. Again, without some reason why the songs are being listed, it does not improve the article, and thus should not be added into the lead section.

Specific to the body of your edits, I do not think they should be implemented. There is no need to indicate a separate sentence on the certification of the compilation album Gold as it can easily be added to the existing sentence about the studio albums. The fact Red Octopus reached number one on the album chart is a notable achievement in and of itself. That it did so on four non-consecutive weeks is not remarkable enough to merit inclusion in the lead section. It is accurate information but does add any context to the accomplishment of reaching number one, so it should not be added. The specific songs you are highlighting are all already mentioned in the article body, along with their chart positions. There is no reason to list a series of songs again in the lead simply because they are best known or to restate the chart positions. The AllMusic Biography of Jefferson Starship does not contain such a list of songs in the opening paragraph, so this type of listing of the most well known songs is not appearing in the opening paragraph of other biographies of the group.

You have also inexplicably deleted the following information from the paragraph: "The band went through several major changes in personnel and genres through the years while retaining the Jefferson Starship name. The band name was retired in 1984, but it was picked up again in 1992 by a revival of the group led by Paul Kantner, which has continued following his death in 2016." Those sentences all contain important information about the band and should be retained in the paragraph. The personnel transitions in 1978 to 1979 are effectively the dividing line between two subsections of the band history narrative. The 1984 Kantner departure and settlement regarding the name, the revival of the group by Kantner in 1992, and the continuation of the group after Kantner's 2016 death are all major topics of the article body. In fact, they are very close to the headers of those individual subsections of the history. Removing them from the lead makes the article lead far less of a summary of the contents of the article. To conclude, I do not think your proposed changes should be implemented to this article. Regards, AbleGus (talk) 06:32, 25 April 2021 (UTC)