Talk:John Phillips (musician)

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians (assessed as Mid-importance).

Pop music Low‑importance

	Pop music portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pop music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to pop music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Pop musicWikipedia:WikiProject Pop musicTemplate:WikiProject Pop musicPop music articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Doo Wop

"they could not have been intimidating because they sang Doo Wop songs". Doo Wop was to 1950s youth culture what hip-hop has been to more recent generations ; it was associated with African-American street culture. The author of the original article clearly lacks historical context. Prairie Dog

Then change it: Be bold. :-) — Frecklefoot | Talk 16:55, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

Naval Academy

John Phillips was accepted to and attended the United States Naval Academy, but did not graduate, leaving to pursue his beatnik music lifestyle. Some say that the song "California Dreamin'" was inspired by his stay at the Naval Academy, and him missing "LA." --66.74.77.102

This type of information is fine for the article. Be bold and add it. :-) — Frecklefoot | Talk 14:34, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

Indeed he had an appointment to the Naval Academy class of 1958, I believe. He left at the end of plebe summer before classes began. Most likely he did not write "California Dreamin" during this time. It would make it 1954 while most agree the song was written in '63 or so. Who has time to write a good song during plebe summer? --ProdigySportsman 02:11, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No one is saying that the song was written during this period... only that it was inspired by his time away from LA.Tgpaul58 (talk) 14:03, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Either way, it's wrong. It has been stated many times by both John and Michelle Phillips that "California Dreamin'" was written after a walk they had taken in New York, after returning from the Virgin Islands. It was supposedly the first time Michelle had seen snow, she wasn't dressed for it. They stopped into a church to get warm, rather than to pray. Michelle was pleading to John and Denny to move to California, where she was from.Johnsmusicbox (talk) 23:42, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It could be wrong. But the USNA thing played out (and was not in the article for a long time). There are stories from his classmates of him playing the guitar and such. I think stuff like this belongs on talk until substantiated. Not in any way pushing it. Or trying to play sneaky games with talk versus article. Just the man was more than what his later life in rocknroll was. Can ask first wife if you want... TCO (talk) 21:44, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Consensual Sex

I object to using the word consensual in the paragraph about the incest without quoting someone. The word consensual has a specific meaning, a meaning that cannot be gleaned from the misuse of the word by trash-mag People. I suggest that unless we can quote an individual saying that the relationship became consensual, we instead leave that info out. Hipocrite (talk) 13:52, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's directly quoted from the source, but under the circumstances it might be best to wait till at least more orignal sources state it (not just ones that couple the people article). Since she's doing a video interview on Oprah tomorrow, it should clear things up anyway. I apologize because before I saw this on the talk page I also added the statement to Mackenzie's page, while I was adding the fact that both were under the influence of drugs during the rape (which is kind of an important fact to leave out in these circumstances). We could also add how she stated that she doesn't hate her father and doesn't want people to look down on him for it.24.190.34.219 (talk) 15:46, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also object to the use of the word "consentual". It's "consensual". Malbolge (talk)

I fixed it for you ;). Tgpaul58 (talk) 14:02, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No way this was consensual. She says he raped her: http://us.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/TV/09/23/mackenzie.phillips.oprah/index.html --Bernardoni (talk) 22:04, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that was a bit rash. However, even if Mackenzie used the word "consensual", I would say she got that wrong. Consensual in the real sense means that both people agree on it. How can any kind of agreement take place after you were raped in the first place? And if the rapist is a figure like your father? Anyway, Mackenzie says it was like the Stockholm syndrome which is explained als "signs of loyalty to the hostage-taker". In other words, she got the idea of a consensual relationship wrong and we shouldn't use that word. --Bernardoni (talk) 22:10, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

She, herself, says that she was first raped but then it became consensual. She says it was consensual, therefore it was. She is qualified to speak about her view of the relationship. Your and my opinion on the issue of incest is irrelevant. =//= Proxy User (talk) 01:01, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Someone who is a minor can not consent to a sexual relationship. Also, I doubt very much that anyone can consent to a sexual relationship with an authority figure such as a father especially if he has helped addict you to drugs.Tgpaul58 (talk) 13:58, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. That she uses the word "consensual" just shows her confusion. It is highly illogic of her to say the relationship was consensual AND akin to the Stockholm syndrome (see above). Therefore, we should present facts and not opinions, and I think the facts speak for themselves. Incest and abuse of a dependent person is what it is. So far for the detached point of view that befits this encyclopedia. Let me add that this sadly gives a whole new meaning to one of the Mamas and the Papas (how ironic) and that it's highly unlikely that I'll ever be able to listen to one of their songs again without thinking of this. --Bernardoni (talk) 21:48, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to this BBC article, she claims that they started sleeping together when she was 19. She wasn't a minor. --121.45.160.32 (talk) 04:52, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not to add to the argument, but I just wanted to point something out. Statements like:

"she uses the word "consensual" just shows her confusion. It is highly illogic of her to say the relationship was consensual AND akin to the Stockholm syndrome... therefore, we should present facts and not opinions"

Are completely irrelevant to this discussion. In fact, that statement is an opinion. It is a fact that she herself used the term, so that can be stated in the article with a source (in an example like, 'so and so stated the relationship was consensual'; not just saying 'the relationship was consensual'). No matter what any of us think if it's impossible that it was consensual or not, we can not interpret the information ourselves, that's original research. If however, an outside secondary source makes a comment on how the relationship could never really be consensual, then we can report and cite that. Basically, it makes no difference what any of us think of the situation. It is a fact to report or quote what someone said, it is an opinion to interpret quotes or words used by people (and thus against wiki policy), even if we think "she got it wrong". 24.190.34.219 (talk) 03:02, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article on Mackenzie Phillips has more on this issue. The respective paragraph in this article should be updated, too. 62.152.162.206 (talk) 04:12, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sex after death

When i got to the article today, after 24 hours away from it, i noticed that the incest allegation was under the sub-head of "Death." It made me laugh. Then i fixed it by putting in a new sub-head, "Posthumous allegation of incenst" -- which is a bit long, i know, but is accurate, while anything shorter than that would not be accurate. cat yronwode, not logged in 64.142.90.33 (talk)

Fixed "tone"

The section on "After" the Mamas and Papa's had a "tone" tag. I rewrote the section and took the tag off. It now has better tone -- but still could use lots more refs. That's another issue, of course. Catherineyronwode (talk) 01:09, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Claim vs. allegation

I reverted the edit of allegation from claim back to claim from allegation. Here's my reasoning:

Claim: to assert in the face of possible contradiction[1]

Allegation: a claim of a fact by a party in a pleading, which the party claims to be able to prove.[2]

Since MacKenzie Phillips' has admitted publically she engaged in a consensual, incestutous relationship with her father, and her father is dead and these claims cannot be proven (see definition for allegation), "claim" seems to be the better, more correct choice of terminology here. What she reports happened may be contradicted (see "claim), but it can never be proven (see "allegation") because the other party is deceased. SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 02:18, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

solo album

I was trying to clean up some possible vandalism surrounding this entry.

1969: John Phillips (John) Recorded at RPM Studios Johannesburg South Africa 1969

There was some commentary added that it wasn't the same John Phillips. It was completely removed, and I started to added it back minus the commentary. However I was having trouble verifying if it truly existed. Hopefully someone here with more knowledge can verify if it belongs or not.--Cube lurker (talk) 20:58, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "The Mamas and the Papas" section

I found this rather difficult to follow at times. Some sentences were convoluted, while others seemed fragmented. Overall there wasn't enough information provided; there were several gaping holes in the narrative, which was rather confusing. Unfortunately I'm not sure how it could be improved. I'll think on it, I guess. But by all means go ahead if you agree with me and come up with a solution yourself. I'm not quite as, uh, "bold as some... and I'm not at all familiar with the pertaining topic. I was never a fan of early-to-mid-60's folk-pop, I always preferred the later 60's and 70's prodigies like Bridget St. John, Nick Drake, Leonard Cohen, Roy Harper. But that's beside the point. I'm just rambling. See, this is why I don't actually edit articles! Kind regards, and lots of love, D. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.105.6 (talk) 02:18, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"You could have any man you want. Why would you take mine?"

While this quote/anecdote from Michelle Phillips quoting Mama Cass is very tasty ("You could have any man you want. Why would you take mine?"), it really doesn't have anything to do with John Phillips. I am more than reluctant to remove it myself, however. Mousebelt (talk) 16:46, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Undue weight

This is one of the saddest, most ill-represented articles I've ever come across on Wikipedia. This subject is regarded as one of the greatest songwriters / vocal arrangers of the 20th century. This is a travesty that clearly displays s non-NPOV toward tabloid content and trivial sensationalism. This is poorly researched and disgracefully honored. Shame. Maineartists (talk) 01:54, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 30 October 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved (non-admin closure). Jenks24 (talk) 06:30, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

– Possible primary topic by usage (more than four times the pageviews of all sixty-some other John Phillips combined) and significance (Rock Hall of Fame). Hameltion (talk | contribs) 04:57, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak oppose, there's so many noteable and historical figures with the name that I'm finding it hard to just pick the musician as PRIMARY. I wouldn't be terribly upset if consensus says otherwise, however.--Ortizesp (talk) 07:36, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Far too many with this common name on the list for him to triumph over all by long-term significance. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:17, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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