This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This is not a place to add commentary. The first, longstanding, paragraph is encyclopedic in tone and content. The second, new, paragraph is not encyclopedic in tone and content. It is POV commentary, with some content not even germaine to the article itself (e.g., "Musical styles as well as individual playing styles vary greatly. Then there are the electric guitar players as well as the acoustic guitar players.") Some of the "facts" are undocumented (e.g., "Three of the primary reasons this rumor has persisted is due...") and the grammar is shocking (e.g., again, "Three of the primary reasons this rumor has persisted is due..."). The point of the section is not to answer the question. It is to explain the phenomenon of the question itself.
However, to avoid reversion wars, I have put this in the talk page to be resolved quickly. While I do not wish to be uncharitable, I think this addition has seriously downgraded the quality of the article, when we have a hard enough time getting quality NPOV articles on CCM artists and music that meet Wikipedia standards. -- Holford 01:00, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Why make a fuss over Jimi's alleged comment, and then declare it untrue later in the article. All the endless name-dropping about meeting people and doing covers just looks like a weak plea for validation. 2602:304:AF5A:F09:7DAB:715F:759D:B26 ( talk) 08:34, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
I just heard of him today and he is something! Salvation Army Band - Yancyfry
Image:WhatADay.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot ( talk) 12:59, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
The whole page reads like a long advertisement for the subject as a whole, and Christianity in part. This is why I added the NPOV tag. WhyDoIKeepForgetting ( talk) 01:17, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
I don't notice any remaining POV. Why is the tag still on this page? Parableman ( talk) 01:27, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
"is described as being a wonderful blend of ambient jazz and funk, as well as being accredited with creating some of the tastiest jazz-funk licks to come out of Music City in a long, long time." No wonder this article is so long. Barring objections, I'm going to work on it some over the next couple of days. Dgndenver ( talk) 14:05, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
The paragraph that talks about Roundabout currently reads "The songs were comprised of looped pieces." User_talk:JHunterJ keeps trying to correct this. First edit changed it to "The songs were composed of looped pieces". Since the album is entirely improvisational it's wrong to suggest that it was composed. Second edit was "The songs comprised looped pieces". I this second better except that the songs themselves use multiple loops and therefore stating that the songs were comprised of loops is more correct than the other two. The songs are loops created with Phil's JamMan and possibly other looping devices. He layers multiple loops over each other. On some tracks he uses a decay feature where the sound fades out over time and new ones are added. On other tracks, he uses the device to create traditional loops: a bed over which he can improvise lead lines. An other others he stacks multiple sounds without decay again allowing for improvisation once the base loop has been defined. This is why the songs themselves are comprised of loops.
Please note that I didn't undo your change earlier in the article made along with the first correction of comprised to composed. So I do understand the correct usage. There isn't a need in this case to correct the grammar until the subject is fully understood. I hope I'm helping you to understand the subject more fully. -- Walter Görlitz ( talk) 20:22, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Hey guys, what genres should we put down for him. I know for sure he does pop music. But I think that we should put genres in the genre boxes if we only have a source for that particular genre. We should find sources listing what genres he does; instead of just putting down what we think he plays. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sprecher ( talk • contribs) 07:25, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Should there be any mention that his son, Ian, who has already been established as a musician in other sections of this article, is the bassist for the band Hot Chella Rae? Their song "Tonight Tonight" peaked at #7 on the Billboard Hot 100. There are plenty of other musicians, actors, and athletes who have successful children mentioned in "personal life" sections. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bpjoyce10 ( talk • contribs) 05:51, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
WP:MOSLQ indicates that "On Wikipedia, place all punctuation marks inside the quotation marks if they are part of the quoted material and outside if they are not. This practice is sometimes referred to as logical quotation. It is used here because it is deemed by Wikipedia consensus to be more in keeping with the principle of minimal change. This punctuation system does not require placing final periods and commas outside the quotation marks all the time, but rather maintaining their original positions in (or absence from) the quoted material." So albums and songs that don't have punctuation as part of their names need to have the punctuation moved outside of the quotes and formatting. I made a few changes but don't have time to check the whole article. Could someone spend some time to improve? -- Walter Görlitz ( talk) 03:41, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
I read the part of the article about the "brief hiatus" in Keaggy's recording career and the Ted Nugent quote about "Whatever happened to that Phil Keaggy guy...." and I took quick notice that a painful and difficult time in Keaggy's life had been clipped out of the story. Keaggy had become a member of the Bob Mumford "Shepherding" cult, a.k.a. "The Ft. Lauderdale Movement," via the Love Inn community in Freeville, NY, where he and his wife resided. He was not exactly being held prisoner, but as is most often the case with cults, he was probably under some form of heavy psychological pressures and inducements to be highly conforming and obedient to the leadership's directives and plans for his life. (I was in the same cult, but in Massachusetts, and I got out of it earlier than he did.) It was my understanding that during this time, he was mostly assigned to make dupe tapes for distribution of the syndicated Scott Ross Show. (We can probably tell Ted Nugent that that is what happened to that Phil Keaggy guy--he went from being a genius to being a Borg drone.) I was also told by a Christian concert producer that Phil Keaggy was never seen on the road except in the presence of other Love Inn people traveling with him, most notably Teddy Sandquist who was allegedly his shepherd. They appeared to have Keaggy on a somewhat short leash.
The item that makes it seem like the '73-'76 episode is severely edited is that the article doesn't even mention where he lived during this time period. The fact that he picked up everything and moved into a Christian community in rural New York is a fairly significant life event. It should at least be mentioned.
It might be that he has never spoken of these things and there is nothing in print that could be used as documentation. In this case, it can't go in a wiki article. But, he did go through a strange and difficult time that lasted several years, and he came out on top. It seems this part of his life should be documented. It was definitely more than a brief hiatus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jkshrews ( talk • contribs) 21:11, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 3 external links on
Phil Keaggy. 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.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 06:13, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Phil Keaggy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.guitarjamdaily.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=324&Itemid=46When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 18:48, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Is there any ref or documentation for the claim: "The effect requires picking the string, raising and then lowering the guitar volume knob for each note in a melody"? I have always assumed Keaggy was just switching in a gating effect. I've seen him play live, and have never seen anything like this, nor have I seen any concert footage of him manipulating the volume knob "for each note in a melody". I think someone just put this sentence in here without knowing how he really got the effect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.27.168.23 ( talk) 19:27, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Phil Keaggy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 13:24, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
The inclusion of the "Rumored comments" section doesn't make sense to me. Rumors aren't facts, they're just hearsay. In this case, they're actually known to be false--it's even stated in the article that they're false--so then why are they included at all? I don't agree with the guy above who says it's an "urban legend" and therefore merits inclusion. Maybe if the rumors weren't known to be bogus, this reasoning might make sense; but since they are known to be B.S., I just don't understand why they're in the article at all. I feel this entire section should be stricken, but if anyone can point me to a Wikipedia rule that says it should remain, I will listen. Chillowack ( talk) 07:46, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This is not a place to add commentary. The first, longstanding, paragraph is encyclopedic in tone and content. The second, new, paragraph is not encyclopedic in tone and content. It is POV commentary, with some content not even germaine to the article itself (e.g., "Musical styles as well as individual playing styles vary greatly. Then there are the electric guitar players as well as the acoustic guitar players.") Some of the "facts" are undocumented (e.g., "Three of the primary reasons this rumor has persisted is due...") and the grammar is shocking (e.g., again, "Three of the primary reasons this rumor has persisted is due..."). The point of the section is not to answer the question. It is to explain the phenomenon of the question itself.
However, to avoid reversion wars, I have put this in the talk page to be resolved quickly. While I do not wish to be uncharitable, I think this addition has seriously downgraded the quality of the article, when we have a hard enough time getting quality NPOV articles on CCM artists and music that meet Wikipedia standards. -- Holford 01:00, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Why make a fuss over Jimi's alleged comment, and then declare it untrue later in the article. All the endless name-dropping about meeting people and doing covers just looks like a weak plea for validation. 2602:304:AF5A:F09:7DAB:715F:759D:B26 ( talk) 08:34, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
I just heard of him today and he is something! Salvation Army Band - Yancyfry
Image:WhatADay.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot ( talk) 12:59, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
The whole page reads like a long advertisement for the subject as a whole, and Christianity in part. This is why I added the NPOV tag. WhyDoIKeepForgetting ( talk) 01:17, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
I don't notice any remaining POV. Why is the tag still on this page? Parableman ( talk) 01:27, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
"is described as being a wonderful blend of ambient jazz and funk, as well as being accredited with creating some of the tastiest jazz-funk licks to come out of Music City in a long, long time." No wonder this article is so long. Barring objections, I'm going to work on it some over the next couple of days. Dgndenver ( talk) 14:05, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
The paragraph that talks about Roundabout currently reads "The songs were comprised of looped pieces." User_talk:JHunterJ keeps trying to correct this. First edit changed it to "The songs were composed of looped pieces". Since the album is entirely improvisational it's wrong to suggest that it was composed. Second edit was "The songs comprised looped pieces". I this second better except that the songs themselves use multiple loops and therefore stating that the songs were comprised of loops is more correct than the other two. The songs are loops created with Phil's JamMan and possibly other looping devices. He layers multiple loops over each other. On some tracks he uses a decay feature where the sound fades out over time and new ones are added. On other tracks, he uses the device to create traditional loops: a bed over which he can improvise lead lines. An other others he stacks multiple sounds without decay again allowing for improvisation once the base loop has been defined. This is why the songs themselves are comprised of loops.
Please note that I didn't undo your change earlier in the article made along with the first correction of comprised to composed. So I do understand the correct usage. There isn't a need in this case to correct the grammar until the subject is fully understood. I hope I'm helping you to understand the subject more fully. -- Walter Görlitz ( talk) 20:22, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Hey guys, what genres should we put down for him. I know for sure he does pop music. But I think that we should put genres in the genre boxes if we only have a source for that particular genre. We should find sources listing what genres he does; instead of just putting down what we think he plays. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sprecher ( talk • contribs) 07:25, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Should there be any mention that his son, Ian, who has already been established as a musician in other sections of this article, is the bassist for the band Hot Chella Rae? Their song "Tonight Tonight" peaked at #7 on the Billboard Hot 100. There are plenty of other musicians, actors, and athletes who have successful children mentioned in "personal life" sections. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bpjoyce10 ( talk • contribs) 05:51, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
WP:MOSLQ indicates that "On Wikipedia, place all punctuation marks inside the quotation marks if they are part of the quoted material and outside if they are not. This practice is sometimes referred to as logical quotation. It is used here because it is deemed by Wikipedia consensus to be more in keeping with the principle of minimal change. This punctuation system does not require placing final periods and commas outside the quotation marks all the time, but rather maintaining their original positions in (or absence from) the quoted material." So albums and songs that don't have punctuation as part of their names need to have the punctuation moved outside of the quotes and formatting. I made a few changes but don't have time to check the whole article. Could someone spend some time to improve? -- Walter Görlitz ( talk) 03:41, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
I read the part of the article about the "brief hiatus" in Keaggy's recording career and the Ted Nugent quote about "Whatever happened to that Phil Keaggy guy...." and I took quick notice that a painful and difficult time in Keaggy's life had been clipped out of the story. Keaggy had become a member of the Bob Mumford "Shepherding" cult, a.k.a. "The Ft. Lauderdale Movement," via the Love Inn community in Freeville, NY, where he and his wife resided. He was not exactly being held prisoner, but as is most often the case with cults, he was probably under some form of heavy psychological pressures and inducements to be highly conforming and obedient to the leadership's directives and plans for his life. (I was in the same cult, but in Massachusetts, and I got out of it earlier than he did.) It was my understanding that during this time, he was mostly assigned to make dupe tapes for distribution of the syndicated Scott Ross Show. (We can probably tell Ted Nugent that that is what happened to that Phil Keaggy guy--he went from being a genius to being a Borg drone.) I was also told by a Christian concert producer that Phil Keaggy was never seen on the road except in the presence of other Love Inn people traveling with him, most notably Teddy Sandquist who was allegedly his shepherd. They appeared to have Keaggy on a somewhat short leash.
The item that makes it seem like the '73-'76 episode is severely edited is that the article doesn't even mention where he lived during this time period. The fact that he picked up everything and moved into a Christian community in rural New York is a fairly significant life event. It should at least be mentioned.
It might be that he has never spoken of these things and there is nothing in print that could be used as documentation. In this case, it can't go in a wiki article. But, he did go through a strange and difficult time that lasted several years, and he came out on top. It seems this part of his life should be documented. It was definitely more than a brief hiatus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jkshrews ( talk • contribs) 21:11, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 3 external links on
Phil Keaggy. 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.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 06:13, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Phil Keaggy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.guitarjamdaily.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=324&Itemid=46When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 18:48, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Is there any ref or documentation for the claim: "The effect requires picking the string, raising and then lowering the guitar volume knob for each note in a melody"? I have always assumed Keaggy was just switching in a gating effect. I've seen him play live, and have never seen anything like this, nor have I seen any concert footage of him manipulating the volume knob "for each note in a melody". I think someone just put this sentence in here without knowing how he really got the effect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.27.168.23 ( talk) 19:27, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Phil Keaggy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 13:24, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
The inclusion of the "Rumored comments" section doesn't make sense to me. Rumors aren't facts, they're just hearsay. In this case, they're actually known to be false--it's even stated in the article that they're false--so then why are they included at all? I don't agree with the guy above who says it's an "urban legend" and therefore merits inclusion. Maybe if the rumors weren't known to be bogus, this reasoning might make sense; but since they are known to be B.S., I just don't understand why they're in the article at all. I feel this entire section should be stricken, but if anyone can point me to a Wikipedia rule that says it should remain, I will listen. Chillowack ( talk) 07:46, 3 February 2020 (UTC)