Talk:Alan Vega

Image

I've added Image:540-02-04suicide07.jpg. If you want to crop it. Be my guest. Wwwhatsup (talk) 02:19, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I have corrected the birthdate. I don´t think Vega was born in 1938. Is there any evidence for this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sorareader (talk • contribs) 17:46, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, it seems that we have some confussion surrounding the birth date. Some sources cite 1938, while anothers 1948. I think that the best approach is to reference both. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sorareader (talk • contribs) 10:46, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

After seeing this I have to admit that I was wrong... Sorry, I really didn´t think Vega was that old. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sorareader (talk • contribs) 13:08, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Birthdate

As noted above there is some confusion over the birthdate. You can see some discussion here. Essentially, Jetblack500 asserts that the Blast First press release celebrating AV's 70th is reliable as a source for 1938. I note that Tony Fletcher asks AV in the Brooklyn Public Library if it's 1948, and he responds "something like that", and record label hype is notoriously unreliable. I wrote to Fletcher asking him his source for the 1948 date. This is his response:

This is a fun one, isn't it? I went by the book No Compromise, p. 16, "Alan Vega was born in 1948 at Bronx Hospital." It's their official book and would have the date that Alan would want to have out there.

I had thought it all made sense. Alan talked to me about going to Greenwich Village as a teenager from Bensonhurst and it was like a different world: in, say, 62 through 64, perhaps it was. He says that he started working for the Parks Department aged 18-19, which would not have prevented him from starting up with the Art Workers Coalition in the very late 60s. One might also think that if seeing Iggy and the Stooges in NYC in (I think it was) 1969 was a life-changing experience, it would make more sense for that to happen at the age of 21 than 31; few of us are quite so changed by a live concert at that later age. I also tend to think that someone of Alan's artistic abilities and eccentricities would have made himself better known during his 20s (i.e. the 1960s) and yet he did not. Similarly with Marty Rev; though he shies from giving his birth-date in No Compromise, he talks of growing up in the 50s and 60s, and says that the first record he bought was "At The Hop" and "Get a Job," both of which were 1958 records - which would put him at much the same age as his musical partner.

The other side of the coin goes like this: Greenwich Village would have been much more of a different place that Bensonhurst in '52-'54 than in the 60s. He talks in No Compromise about the effect of Rebel Without a Cause and Blackboard Jungle, both of which came out in 1955 - and you have to wonder if he'd have understood the meaning of those films properly at age 7, as opposed to 17. In No Compromise, Marty Rev, while not listing his birthdate, makes no great bones about being into modern jazz and boogie woogie, Finally, and this is more than anecdotal, someone came to my event at the Brooklyn Public Library who played with Alan in the early 70s, and believed that ALan was much older than 61 (as of time of writing.) Anecdotally, perhaps, I was shocked to discover that Ian Hunter of Mott the Hoople, is now 70, which means he did not "make" anything substantial of himself until his 30s. But then he's never denied his age.

All things considered, it's entirely possible that the date is neither '38 or '48 but somewhere in-between. The way to figure it out is relatively simple: someone should go to where records are kept and check for the June 23rd date at Bronx Hospital in both years. I did this for my Keith Moon book and discovered that Keith was in fact a year older than he'd claimed, and that even his band-mates thought he was. But Moon was the primary subject of that book, and Vega is not the prime subject of All Hopped Up. My work is done. I pushed Alan a little at our BPL event, but he was my guest and it wasn't meant to be an inquisition.

You're welcome to quote any and all of this...

Cheers

So we do have a "reliable" source for 1948 [1]. Not only does it plainly state 1948 but, in the paragraph below it refers (from the 1998 Edwin Pouncey interview) to his mother watching Elvis on Ed Sullivan when he was "a little kid". As to Fletcher's points above, it's quite possible that the 50s culture had an effect on him in the early 60s as a teenager. We know that rock'n'roll had turned to pap before the British Invasion. Can we get consensus to change the date? Or at least note that it is uncertain? Wwwhatsup (talk) 18:12, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Change it back to 1948 or note that it is uncertain ~ In an interview Alan Vega said:

“When I was a kid, I used to come home and turn on Dick Clark’s show. It used to be on between 3 and 4. All that horrible pop shit. I don’t know why, but I’d come home, and before I’d start my homework, I used to watch this program to just see what the fuck was going on. It was total garbage. But one day, these four guys, all in black leather and chains, come on. They hit this song with the Farfisa. I’ve always loved the Farfisa organ. That sound! And then, “Cry, cry, cry.” I think I’d heard it on the radio and thought, “Wow, this is cool,” but I never expected them to be what they were. On Dick Clark! Such a Wonder Bread show. And here’s these guys.”^{THE S/T INTERVIEW: Alan Vega of Suicide (Part I)}

I think that the Dick Clark's show he is referring to is American Bandstand, which was hosted from 1957 to 1989 by Dick Clark. Also, he is referring to the ? & The Mysterians' version of "96 Tears", and that show was hired in October 1966 or February 1967 (or both dates). If we assume that Alan Vega was born in 1938 then he was 28 years old or so in 1966-67. I really think that the correct year is 1948. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 08:54, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I know this is all confusing as all kind of sources give different dates but the front page of Alan Vega official website itself present a press clip stating ".. a 71-year-old Jew born Boruch Bermowitz and better known as Alan Vega, the singer for iconic New York noise vandals Suicide." Given the conflicting informations at hand it seems like it would be appropriate to mention that the date is "uncertain".. - Wikigi | talk to me | 09:30, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Tricky one. May well be worth noting, but I'd stick the contention in a footnote/reference for now, since he officially claims 71 and others accept it. (I'm not clear on why a punk rocker would claim to be 71 instead of 61 ...) - David Gerard (talk) 09:47, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

See article for first attempt. "Official" is 1938, but the birth date footnote is as good a place as any for now for 1948 references, IMO - David Gerard (talk) 09:53, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

What's plain is that press cutting on the site, and in fact every mention on the 1938 date, is sourced from that one Blast First press release which was widely circulated. Being an old man is Vega's schtick these days. How was he 'just a kid' watching Elvis on Ed Sullivan if he was born in 1938? Where he does he officially claim anything? The book is as official as it gets, according to Fletcher. Wwwhatsup (talk) 09:58, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I have written to Sarah Lowe, who appears to be the nearest thing to an official spokesman[2], asking for clarification. Wwwhatsup (talk) 10:34, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

response:

Alan 72 now we are all 100% certain of that.

Thanks

Sarah

Wwwhatsup (talk) 16:48, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

She's wrong. He'll be 72 in June. Jetblack500 (talk) 03:48, 1 May 2010 (UTC) Jetblack500 (talk)

I've attempted to investigate how one might search birth records but, AFAICT, in NYC post 1902 all that's possible is to order a birth certificate, and that only if one can legitimately assert that one is a relation. Wwwhatsup (talk) 19:39, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Even Allmusic can't be consistent, even on the same page. Rodhullandemu 19:42, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I'll add my pennyworth by plumping for the 'official' 1948 date. Alan just does not look in his 70's! Plus it ties in with the "watching Elvis" details etc.

Davidkt 16:59, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I think we've just about exhausted this subject. Alan Vega's official website says he's 71. I can't think of a more reliable source than an artist's own website. His record company not only says he's 71, but released a record to commemorate his 70th birthday in 2008. They didn't just say he was 70 in the press release, but in all of the advertising for the record. It was no typographical error, and all accounts of his age do NOT derive from that press release. He refused to confirm the birth year from the book when interviewed on video by Tony Fletcher and makes a joke of it, because he knew the 70th birthday release was coming out. In Tony Fletcher's letter, he first says "I had thought it all made sense", then goes on to explain why it DOESN'T make sense, and politely concludes that it's "entirely possible" that he was actually born in '38. "Suicide: No Compromise" would be official if Alan hadn't admitted via his website and record company that he's 71. There are also other things to consider. For instance, if he was born in '48, he still would have been attending Brooklyn College when he was working at the Project For Living Artists. It would also mean that he met Martin Rev before even getting a bachelors degree. In fact, he had already been showing in galleries for years before that. I've seen him quoted as saying that he showed at many smaller, less prestigious galleries before OK Harris. The simple fact is that many people lie about their ages, and Alan Vega is, or was, one of them. Now that he's admitted it, via his website and record company, it's time to move on. Jetblack500 (talk)

The preponderance of evidence does point to 1948. I think the reference could be slightly better worded to indicate why "No Compromise" has indeed been compromised. I am still checking whether the birth record can be researched. What can also be noted is that Vega still considered himself a 'kid' at 28 years of age. Wwwhatsup (talk) 02:27, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

It's hard for me to imagine why anyone would think so, considering all that's been said. The preponderance of evidence, according to Wiki standards, is clear. His website and record company both say he's 71. End of story. Your inability to believe it is another matter. You've even gone so far as to accuse Alan Vega of pretending to be 10 years older than he is, which is ludicrous. This is turning into a waste of time. I hope you do get a copy of his birth certificate, if it will put your mind at ease. Please bear in mind that videos, emails and unpublished birth records are not acceptable as references on Wikipedia. Jetblack500 (talk) 03:48, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Martin C. Strong's The Great Indie Discography lists Vega's birthdate as 1948, as do Dave Thompson's Alternative Rock and Colin Larkin's The Virgin Encyclopedia of Indie & New Wave. Let me know if you want full citations.--Michig (talk) 07:07, 1 May 2010 (UTC) See also The Book of Rock by Philip Dodd and The Rough Guide to Rock by Peter Buckley. I could find no reliable source for 1938.--Michig (talk) 07:22, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

The most reliable sources possible, Vega's website and record company (as well as the labels on the records themselves) say he's 71. They supersede previous, outdated references due to their unquestionable origin. Alan Vega no longer claims to have been born in 1948. There is no higher authority on the subject. Jetblack500 (talk) 03:33, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. I think we have 1 for 1948, 1 for 1938, and 3 for uncertain. So do we have consensus for uncertain? Wwwhatsup (talk) 17:24, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

You're willfully and selectively ignoring the strongest evidence, based on a personal bias. Every piece of evidence you've gathered has served to undermine your assertion, not bolster it. How many more emails from his record company categorically stating that he's in his 70's do you need before accepting it? However, this hasn't been posted for long enough to get a real consensus. Jetblack500 (talk) 03:33, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Artists and their record labels are often the least reliable sources when it comes to birthdates.--Michig (talk) 06:21, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I've only known that to be the case when an artist is pretending to be younger than he or she is. How many artists or artist's websites do you know of that claim that the artist is ten years older than he or she is? Let me know if you find one. Jetblack500 (talk) 14:43, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Consensus?

Alan Vega signed the 'No Compromise' book, which was official, drew from his personal archives [3]. The book says 1948. There is nothing written by him, or in any interview that has been referenced thus far that contradicts it. As to the personal bias comment - on the contrary, I questioned the assumption the 1948 date is indisputably correct, as JetBlack repeatedly asserts. I have tried to definitively establish an accurate birthdate, and am having to conclude that there are conflicting opinions. In fact to a degree that could be considered notable itself - "Alan Vega"+1938 gives 2000 Google hits, while "Alan Vega" + 1948 gives 2060. I am suggesting the article should reflect that. It possibly merits a paragraph. If there is a good early ref for 1938 it might be this [4] original presumably available from the Copyright Office. I will try and get in touch with David Nobakht and see if he stands by his date. Wwwhatsup (talk) 08:31, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

• Uncertain. Per argument above. Wwwhatsup (talk) 17:20, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
• Uncertain. We have reliable sources stating 1948 and other sources that would not normally be considered more reliable stating 1938, but there has to be some doubt as to which is correct. Note that a good few of the 1938 Google hits are this WP article or derivatives of it. I think the article should be worded to reflect that fact that several sources state 1948, but his record company recently stated it was 1938. Stating one of these dates as fact and ignoring the other sources would be unsafe; The article should reflect what we know from the sources we have, and these offer conflicting evidence.--Michig (talk) 18:14, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

• Uncertain. Until proof positive emerges (ie. a birth certificate) then the article should definately state uncertain. Davidkt 18:51, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm moving these comments from my talk page to this one, where they belong:

• Do you have a definitive reference to the 1938 date? It seems all references are sourced from the Blast First press release which just doesn't seem reliable. See User talk:38.112.14.214. If you don't I may take it out as disputed. Wwwhatsup (talk) 09:57, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I watched the video, but it hardly confirms your assertion about his age; quite the opposite, in fact. At 18:38 Tony Fletcher asks Alan "you were born in '48"? Alan, smiling, says "uhh, something like that", smirks, laughs and then says "timeless teenager". What do you think that meant? He didn't confirm it at all. He was avoiding answering the question, with humor.

My reference is as definitive as most on Wiki. It links to his record company's press release about the set released in celebration of his 70th birthday. What more could you want? His own official website links to it. Don't you think that Vega would object to a collection of his work being released to celebrate his 70th birthday if it was incorrect? I can link to other sites too, but why be redundant?

I'm sorry that you "don't accept it" as you said on the edit history page, but wiki is not about what any individual thinks about a particular subject. It's a matter of what can be stated and confirmed with references. You're not the final arbiter of what will or will not be in the article. To assume that role would be an abuse and completely contrary to the Wiki spirit. To claim that the video that you posted, which doesn't even make your point, is a better reference than mine is ridiculous. Videos aren't even used by wiki as references.

I've corrected his birth year and referenced it. Until you have evidence to the contrary that you can reference within the article, please leave it as is. Thank you. Jetblack500 (talk)

What made me suspicious in the first place is that when that 70th birthday PR came out there was a lot of to and fro on the topic on the Revega Yahoo group, and there was no consensus there. That PR document is the only thing that ever suggested the 1938 date, it could well have been based on a typo and Vega chose not to contradict it, just to wind people up. Record label hype is notoriously unreliable. Nevertheless I accept your points. I'm going to get in touch with Fletcher and ask him where he got the 1948 date. Wwwhatsup (talk) 07:49, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

• It's simply not logical to think that his official website, his wife, his record company and all of the people who contributed to the 70th birthday release are wrong.

• Google hits, unpublished birth certificates and emails are irrelevant in this forum.

• I can't help but notice that three people in a row have formatted their comments in EXACTLY the same way. Two of them were made less than an hour apart and all were made at approximately the same time of day. Fascinating.

• I strongly recommend leaving the age that's listed, which is well-referenced, according to Wikipedia standards, until you're able to prove with up-to-date references that it's incorrect. Jetblack500 (talk) 23:26, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

You're entitled to your opinion, but leave out the assumption of bad faith please.--Michig (talk) 04:51, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

• It's not an assumption. I strongly suspect that this page is being manipulated by someone with more than one username. I sincerely hope that I'm wrong. Jetblack500 (talk) 12:15, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
  • So who are you accusing of sockpuppetry exactly?--Michig (talk) 18:37, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm also moving these comments from my talk page to the Alan Vega Editing Talk page, where they belong. Please do not discuss Alan Vega on my page, or move my comments from this page to my talk page, at any time.

• With WP:AGF in mind. I'd like to make a couple of points here. Both Michig and I are experienced Wikipedia editors. We are mildly amused when a 97-edit newbie starts telling us what are Wikipedia standards, what is relevant, that we are suffering from "personal bias", or whatever. In fact we hear a lot worse from people when occasionally challenging WP:OR. But we assume good faith. And so should you. We merely know a disputed fact when we see one.

That said, I wonder if Davidkt is in fact the author of the No Compromise book, and if that should affect our weight to his opinion? If he's uncertain, could that make a difference? Wwwhatsup (talk) 00:24, 6 May 2010 (UTC)  Done I checked with him by email. He's not. Wwwhatsup (talk) 07:30, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

The point is the arguments have been made. And we are at the point of reaching consensus via votes. One normally uses one para for a vote. Plus accusations of bad faith are uncalled for. As the person that called the vote I was trying to keep it tidy, by moving the extra lines and personal stuff over here. The vote is currently 3 for uncertain, and one for 1938. Wwwhatsup (talk) 03:33, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm. You thought my points had been made already, so you thought you'd alter the discussion by tucking them away on another page? Are you afraid that if others see my comment about the page being manipulated, they'll come to the same conclusion? Stop hiding behind "good faith". I assumed good faith until I realized that there's more going on here than meets the eye. The fact that you tried to delete my comments from this page only strengthens my suspicion.

Frankly, I'm not impressed with your editing skills or your smug attitude. If you're such good editors and so obsessed with this page, why was it riddled with factual, grammatical, syntactical and punctuational errors when I found it, not long ago? I'm not a "newbie". I've edited hundreds of articles on Wikipedia and the vast majority of my contributions remain.

3 to 2 is no consensus.

Once again, I would suggest that you leave the article as is until you can come up with a sane, logical explanation as to why you think that Alan's own website, record company, publisher (Les presses du Reel), gallery (http://www.lespressesdureel.com/EN/ouvrage.php?id=17560) and the US Patent office are all wrong, but you're right, and be able to prove it, according to Wiki protocol.

Whatever you do, don't ever delete my contributions to a discussion page. There's simply no excuse for it. Jetblack500 (talk) 06:25, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Good grief. There are many, many people with WP articles whose birth years are contested. When alive, the solution is to go in the lede and infobox with what they (or their reprersentatives) say, with a footnote if there is strongly conflicting evidence for a different date. When dead, the answer is to go with what is most likely to be true, based on the most reliable sources, again with a footnote (or, if the dispute itself is notable, with a brief para, as at Sonny Boy Williamson II) explaining any conflicting evidence. What's the problem? Ghmyrtle (talk) 06:56, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Well the point is, if it's uncertain then we should do perhaps at least a para - unusual in a BLP - because the 1948 date appears widespread. As you can see above Vega's rep when contacted in fact assured the fact he's 72 which would indicate 1937! I'm sorry if I caused any offence JetBlack500 but I could hardly imagine that someone who was accusing others of changing Wikipedia identity would be guilty of it themself. I do agree that I should not have moved your comment, that my tone was unacceptably smug, and apologise to you, and to Michig, for venturing to speak in his name. It was an ill-thought hasty move, but borne of good intentions. I will set myself to composing a para. Wwwhatsup (talk) 10:47, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the most recent sources quoted above [5] comes up blank? and here's another Copyright Office reference, probably filed by Rev, that has him born in 1947 [6] Wwwhatsup (talk) 11:02, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

 Done I've added the para. As per JetBlack500 and Ghmyrtle, I accept that the more recent info is accurate while noting earlier references to 1948. Wwwhatsup (talk) 12:29, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Looks fine to me.--Michig (talk) 12:43, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

What you wrote didn't "accept" the more recent information. It simply noted it. You then go on to quote a 1983 article, the interview that was done with Tony Fletcher four years before his book was published, and refer to Alan watching Elvis Presley on television. This does not suggest that you, or more importantly, Wikipedia, accepts the more recent information as accurate. There's also nothing there about his website, which is central to this discussion. The paragraph should be expanded to give a more balanced view Jetblack500 (talk) 14:11, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Behavior & Quotations

Now to the quotations section. References? Reconcile / move to wikiquote?

Love this one! [7]Wwwhatsup (talk) 11:51, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

From a 1972 review of a gig at the Mercer Arts Ventre in NY in Melody Maker, the performance was described: "It was fascinating . How two people could create such a thick wall of sound and atmosphere was an unbelievable achievement. It roared and groaned and the singer smacked himself on the head with a mic a couple of times and then fell in a heap in a corner and whimpered. What has rock created?".--Michig (talk) 12:32, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps worth noting that the same article states that the 1972 gig was billed by the band as "Punk, Funk and Sewer Music by Suicide". Not sure if this predates the "punk music mass" description he used. --Michig (talk) 12:48, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes we knew about the punk, but the funk is certainly a new development! What are you referencing? Your own tattered MM copy? What date? Wwwhatsup (talk) 19:16, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

This is from George Gimarc's Punk Diary, which quotes from MM with date October 19, 1972 (could either be the publication date or the date of the review). This confirms they were using 'punk' to describe themselves as far back as 1970! See also this. Looks like the 1971 'active since' date in the Suicide article needs revising.--Michig (talk) 14:30, 8 May 2010 (UTC) Looks like this is the actual advert from Village Voice.--Michig (talk) 14:36, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Ah "Junk" - makes a lot more sense! A double-entendre no doubt. Wwwhatsup (talk) 20:22, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

The further wonderful truth is that google now has the entire back issues of the VV digitized so we even have a review [8] - and also a definitive ref to to the actual ad [9] (slight scroll reqd). SO did the MM get it wrong or GG one wonders? There are definite gaps in that "From The Archives" chronology - I distinctly recall seeing the band at The Roundhouse in London - I can't say if it was opening for Elvis or an earlier one-off visit. Wwwhatsup (talk) 20:48, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

JetBlack500

Once again, I'm copying comments that were inappropriately left on my talk page to this one, where they belong:

May 2010

You have already very unwisely insinuated that other editors have been operating sockpuppets. Can I suggest that you be very careful to avoid edit warring as well. Please see WP:BRD - if you continue to revert rather than discussing, you are likely to get blocked. --Michig (talk) 17:09, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

What are you talking about? My citations were deleted and replaced by one that links not to a footnote, but to a newly inserted, biased paragraph, within the article. Since when does a citation link to a paragraph within the article? I haven't engaged in edit warring; quite the opposite. I've DEFENDED myself against edit warring, as well as the persistent manipulations of the article and its discussion page, over the past week. The removal of my citations was never even discussed and even if they had been, by two or three people, it still wouldn't be just cause for removing them. In the meantime, stop vandalizing my citations and deleting my comments from the discussion page. Jetblack500 (talk) 17:49, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

You are edit-warring, and you have made several false accusations against me - that's what I'm talking about. If it continues I will raise it at WP:ANI.--Michig (talk) 20:18, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

The ref that is being repeatedly inserted appears spurious. It says alanvega.com but links to the Blast First Petite homepage. It certainly doesn't have any relation to his birthdate, beyond a mention of the 70th box set. The note being replaced refers to the section which references the more detailed Blast First Press Release. I've been forced to invoke WP:3RR. I think next we have to get admin help if it's reverted again. Wwwhatsup (talk) 19:09, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

It does NOT link the the FBP website, so stop repeating the same LIE. That was an error and was quickly remedied. What's spurious is the repeated removal of the corrected link, in favor of your poorly written, poorly sourced paragraph.

Please stop removing my citation from the Alan Vega page. It conforms to the highest Wiki standards and should not have been removed. Citations are NOT supposed to be removed without full discussion and consensus. Citations are also NOT supposed to link to a paragraph within the article. Furthermore, the paragraph deliberately slants and distorts the information, selectively leaving out important facts (like the fact that his website says he's 71). If this can't be settled amicably I would suggest that we move on to some form of conflict resolution. I'm confident that once I bring their attention to your behavior they'll rule in my favor. Jetblack500 (talk) 19:57, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Selectively copying comments here isn't really on. My comment was put on your talk page rather than here because it was about your behaviour rather than about this article.--Michig (talk) 20:18, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

The ref that JetBlack500 so insistent on adding to the birthdate is "cite web |url=http://www.blastfirstpetite.com/%7Ctitle=Video Interview with Alan Vega |author= |date= |work= |publisher=Alanvega.com |accessdate=4 May 2010" - 1) There is no video on the link. 2) The publisher isn't AlanVega.com. 3) It links to the generic front page of Blast First Petite.

It's beyond 3RR. I guess we'll have to ask for help.Wwwhatsup (talk) 20:44, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I've restored my ref to Vega's Official website several times today. If, at some point, I accidentally pasted the wrong citation in, it would be understandable, considering that fact that you and your "friends" have continually harassed me throughout the day about this. Had you not removed my citation so many times in the first place, which you're not supposed to do, I wouldn't have had to. Jetblack500 (talk) 21:57, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Well again I must apologize if we are responsible for your mistakes. But I would point out that the reference is still unsatisfactory: 1) There is no video transcript on the link provided[10] 2) In the video that is there - the ATP Interview on Vice TV - the only reference to his age is around 14:45 "My youth... nine centuries ago".

My greater point is that all the birthdate needs is a note which will lead a reader to further information, in this case the fact that there are conflicting sources. I am sure most readers will conclude that the recent information is more reliable. Can you elucidate on your objections to that beyond saying it's against Wikipedia rules, or can you quote the rule?

The Rolling Stone clip that is included in the Vega site is in fact hosted in the UK on graphic designer Slim Smith's site. As the only graphic press clip available one cannot entirely discount the possibility that it's there on the site because it was easy to paste in, regardless of veracity. It's also complimentary. Vega made his reputation being provocative, one cannot entirely discount the possibility that he's provoking us to believe he's more ancient than he is. It's also likely that he will never actually provide hard evidence that he prevaricated earlier in life. The bio on the site distinctly doesn't touch the subject. But it doesn't really matter, what matters is that we provide a well-sourced Wikipedia article that presents and clarifies what is known - which is that, at some point in the latter part of the last decade, he suddenly aged 10 years. Notably so. That is what should be referred to in the link that goes next to the birthdate. The point of the earlier discussion above was that there is enough conflicting information out there to make the fact notable enough to require a paragraph. If someone comes across some article that has, as Rodhullandemu notes, both dates, they might well come to Wikipedia for information - read the introduction and, without the link to the section below (I expect more material to fill the intervening space in time)- still wonder how that came to be.

I am not going to edit war with you. I trust that higher powers and a cooler head will prevail. Wwwhatsup (talk) 00:17, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Ah. I am just seeing the the Rolling Stone press clip[11] has the words "video interview" at the bottom. I was confused by the fact that the text self-evidently is not an interview transcript, although it could be an introduction. See my remarks above on this as a lede reference, or placing any reference except one that leads to the Birthdate Section. In addition, since it mentions Boruch Bermowitz, which Blast First doesn't, it's quite possibly Wikipedia sourced. Wwwhatsup (talk) 01:22, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Repeating my question above. Can we now have the note on the lede (and infobox) birthdates direct to the section? Can you elucidate on your objections to that beyond saying it's against Wikipedia rules, or can you quote the rule? Wwwhatsup (talk) 07:12, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Birthdate section, continued

On Jetblack500's current rewrite of the section which I know better than to mess with: respectfully I don't see it as an improvement. I had it in this structure: 1) In 2008 70th birthday celebration announced, before which sources beginning with NYT in 1983 say 1948, including 2005 'official' book. Michig added two more as they are standard references for music writers. Conclude with independent source Le Monde confirming 1938. I can't see how re-ordering the 1983 LA Times and 2005 book helps comprehension. As to the embellishing of the box set info - that should be taken into a separate "70th Birthday" para in the main body, which will enable a simpler allusion in this one. No more refs are needed in this section. He was born in 1948 until 2008 and then he was born in 1938, according to available sources. That's it. The 2 newspaper stories nicely bracket the reference books. Wwwhatsup (talk) 07:12, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

This was your first sentence:

"While Blast First put out a box set and a singles set to celebrate Vega's 70th birthday in 2008, he had previously been thought to be ten years younger."

In all due respect, it was not very well written.

This is mine:

"Prior to Blast First Petite's 2008 release of a limited edition Suicide 6-CD box set and monthly tribute series of 10" Vinyl EP's, to mark the occasion of Alan Vega's 70th birthday, he was thought to have been ten years younger."

I've retained all of your information and completed the info on the release. I moved the third sentence up because it makes the paragraph more cogent. It places two of the most important, opposing sources of information together, followed by secondary sources. It was a good edit.

Unfortunately, the paragraph gives an oblique, incomplete view of the matter and needs to be expanded to include information on some of the other sources that confirm the 1938 birth year, not just one. To leave them out would be misleading.

It's obvious to me that this conflict isn't based on facts, but your own inability to accept Vega's age. I understand your somewhat visceral reaction, but the facts are the facts. As I said in a previous post, you're not the final arbiter of what will or will not be in this article. You can't win a dispute on Wikipedia by distorting facts. You also can't win a dispute by bullying, manipulating, deleting opposing arguments from a discussion page or any other form of abuse.

I'm sorry that you've chosen to continue in your role of adversary. I edited the first couple of sentences of what you wrote as an act of good will. It was my way of saying that even though you've behaved so badly and I don't even think this paragraph should exist, I'll help you out anyway. It was a call for a return to civility and cooperation.

As stubbornly as you cling to the 1948 birth year, it's wrong, and I think you must know that by now. You're fighting what is, ultimately, an unwinnable battle. Alan Vega is 71 years old. He lied about his age. Big deal. I'm sure he's relieved, now that the truth is known. The problem with lying about one's age is that it forces you lie about myriad other things, to be consistent. Very few people are able to do this, long-term, which is why there have been so many inconsistencies in his interviews over the years.

Finally, I think one of Alan's most telling comments is when, in explaining why he lied for decades about his ethnicity, he said "I made that up to fuel the myth, because really, my whole life has been a myth." http://bustill.blogspot.com/2009/11/suicide-alan-vega-is-going-to-kick-your.html. Draw your own conclusion.

I bid you peace. Jetblack500 (talk) 19:39, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I disagree that your wording is more cogent. To me splitting "prior" and "he thought" so far apart, plus adding embellishing detail, makes it harder to read. I'll let others decide. I do believe that adding more refs in an effort "prove" that he is 71 isn't required. We have good sources on both dates. The para doesn't suggest he lied as there's no evidence of that but just says that he was reported as younger. Wwwhatsup (talk) 20:17, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Moving the anniversary info into the article seems to have resolved that. I do believe it would be fair to list the at least some of the bands that contributed to the singles box set. Wwwhatsup (talk) 06:09, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I've just found incontrovertible evidence that Alan Vega graduated from Brooklyn College in 1960. The Spring 2009 edition of the Brooklyn College Magazine lists him as having graduated in 1960. It effectively puts an end to any controversy regarding his age. http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:YjZPxLU14fMJ:www.hunter.cuny.edu/chest/Images/spr09%2520BkC%2520Mag.pdf+BC+MAGAZINE+SPRING+2009&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEEShxo_EzxxL90zrzusxSllbAJ17sMJ9-E5gOIGcDyZ267z9KIos0QWv9Q0j8Cq61Bq596WtpJ7ZVrCpZsCOWo6IZuOxa9wUaMblTuNzwgl3YF7cLklACOWIDH3iIP2SVp2s6g1nh&sig=AHIEtbSeEfY1OIRmhUfvrRJ1NldHAIImyA Jetblack500 (talk) 03:25, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Good find. In fact I have accepted the 1938 date since discovering the Le Monde article - evidently based on Lyon associated publicity - just needed something else apart from Paul Smith - who I know and consider quite capable of cooking up anything. I also know Slim Smith, he's a former employee of mine. He wrote me this week that the website etc was all ordered up by Paul. Slim himself had doubts, but similarly used the French info to corroborate. What's more interesting is, again, to mark the earliest eatablishment of the mythical 1948 date, currently set at the 1983 LA Times. I did try contacting David Nobakht through SAF - no joy.. Most if not all of the birthdate discussion could be archived. Wwwhatsup (talk) 07:26, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

1969 -1971

The article currently says that he started the PoLA in 1971 but I am seeing ads in the Village Voice from 1969 [12], also that he met Rev there in 71 - which is doubtful because, according to the Chronology page, Rev was in the first OK Harris line-up in Nov 1970. Source for both is the Jewish Chronicle which has to be doubted on dates I think, but we can take it as reliable on faith. Reynolds says there was one show at PoLA first. Reynolds also gives 69 as ArtWorkers Coalition involvementout of which PoLA emerged. I will try to rewrite. Wwwhatsup (talk) 04:15, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm going with From The Archive, since they have the flyers. 2 shows at PoTA then OKH. Wwwhatsup (talk) 06:07, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Alan Suicide/Vega/Nasty Cut

Alan Vega has alternately used the name "Alan Suicide" since the beginning of, and throughout, his career. He didn't use the name Vega on a regular basis, if at all, until the late seventies. He only used the name "Nasty Cut" for a brief period, in 1970. I remember him referring to it as being "for a few gigs" though I haven't found it on the web yet. I believe it's from No Compromise. However, there are many other references available on the web:

The archive refers to him as Alan Vega retrospectively, though even it refers to him as Alan Suicide/Vega for a '78 show at Max's. http://www.fromthearchives.com/av_mr/chronology.html.

He used the name Alan Suicide for his "Constant Seige" show in 1975, with a photo identifying him as such: http://www.98bowery.com/punkyears/punk-art-catalogue-section-four.php.

He used the name Alan Suicide for his work on Art-Rite, in 1977. The cover of the edition says "Special Edition 13, by Alan Suicide". Julian Schnabel refers to him as "Alan Suicide alias Alan Vega" on the same page: http://www.limbos.org/suicide/suicideva2.htm. He's also referred to as Alan Suicide in this description of the edition: http://www.arcanabooks.com/INVENTORY_interface/periodicals_page.asp as well as here: http://www.specificobject.com/objects/index.cfm?search_type=advanced&Partists=Alan%20Suicide

Here's a page advertising his work in a "Punk Art Exhibition", from 1978: http://www.98bowery.com/punkyears/punk-art-catalogue.php

He used the name Alan Suicide for the 8mm film of "Frankie Teardrop", in 1979.

He's referred to as "Alan Vega aka Alan Suicide" in "Please Kill Me". (Legs McNeil)

In "The Heebie-jeebies at CBGB's, on page 45, it clearly refers to him as Alan Suicide, specifying that " he had already ditched his INITIAL stage name, "Nasty Cut".... http://books.google.com/books?id=Loulao8hWM8C&pg=PA45&lpg=PA45&dq=alan+suicide+nasty+cut&source=bl&ots=X47zLMwnvE&sig=sIZCLKZuHzhTekJZsbi-DjRA8oo&hl=en&ei=Is7qS93oF8K78ga8z4WVDg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CCAQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=alan%20suicide%20nasty%20cut&f=false.

This page, from the Johnny Thunders Cyber Lounge contains a reference to him by Cliff Hausman, which says "Another frequenter of Max's was Alan Suicide (as I knew him then) or Alan Vega" http://www.thunders.ca/print/ch_1.htm

Linda Yablonsky refers to him as Alan Suicide in her article for Art in America, in a section about Max's in the 70s. http://www.artinamericamagazine.com/features/photo-play/print/

He continues to use both names, to this day. There are many sources for this. Here are a few:

He used Alan Suicide for his "Collision Drive" show, in 2002: http://www.deitch.com/projects/sub.php?projId=6, http://www.slimsmith.com/alanvega/vega2002review.html

He used the name Alan Suicide in 2006, for his "American Supreme" show, in 2006: http://www.artnet.com/Artists/LotDetailPage.aspx?lot_id=BCA371B4634C036545A8A28F40DD83E2.

Les Presses Du Reel refers to him as Alan Suicide: http://www.lespressesdureel.com/extrait.php?id=1756&menu=3

The assertion that he continued using the name "Nasty Cut", while playing with Suicide, is incorrect. The Nasty Cut reference should be modified, to make clear that the name was only used briefly.

Jetblack500 (talk) 16:19, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd say this should be summarized as briefly as possible and added to the 'Myth' section. It would appear that 'Alan Suicide' was his chosen nom d'art, and that he felt in both the initial and then later stages of Suicide that he should have an alternative nom de musique, with Vega eventually becoming so well-known that it eclipsed everything. Wwwhatsup (talk) 17:37, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Alan Suicide is the name he used throughout the seventies, as a member of Suicide. The fact that the name Vega has become well-known now that he's been using it for 30 years isn't really relevant to what name he used in the 70's. Martin Rev also went by the name "Marty Suicide". This sort of thing was very common at the time. Deborah Harry was called "Debbie Blondie", David Johansen was called "David Doll", the Ramones all used the band name as their surnames, etc. Jetblack500 (talk) 21:27, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Understood. It would be good to mark the earliest well-sourced use of the name Alan Vega. Wwwhatsup (talk) 22:21, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh and, what name did he go under at PoLA prior to the forming of Suicide? His name doesn't appear on the list in the Art Workers' Coalition article.. PoLA probably deserves its own article. Wwwhatsup (talk) 22:44, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

By the way I am looking forward to the article once the additional material hinted at in the research above is fleshed out. Wwwhatsup (talk) 17:46, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Me too. It certainly took long enough time to compile it. I hope we can back to a more constructive approach to getting this thing written. It's starting to come into shape more now, but it could be greatly expanded. Jetblack500 (talk) 21:27, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to give you a free hand. I may rewrite occasionally, but take it as suggestive rather than prescriptive. Wwwhatsup (talk) 22:44, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

"Myth" section

I strongly recommend that we delete the section entirely. It's no longer needed, now that his age has been firmly established. The unsourced reference to his having claimed to have been "half-Catholic" (there's no such thing as half-Jewish, btw) is oddly placed in the same section. The section itself is poorly conceived, vague and does nothing to educate the reader. In fact, it's confusing. Jetblack500 (talk) 03:36, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I entirely disagree. For decades these facts were promoted as truth, and the paragraph was derived by consensus. The para is necessary for two reasons, 1) to establish that Vega played with the truth to further his public persona, and 2) to clarify the truth to those who might be confused having read some of the mything sources. Wwwhatsup (talk) 06:00, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

The paragraph was not reached by consensus. The consensus was that the birthdate remain "uncertain". However, that was before I inserted the citation for Brooklyn College, which effectively ended the debate. It's not Wikipedia's role to punish Alan Vega for lying about his age. There's no need for clarification. Furthermore, you can't just speculate that he lied about being Catholic "to justify his cross sculptures". You have no evidence of that. Jetblack500 13:33, 22 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jetblack500 (talk • contribs)

There's no consensus for removing it.--Michig (talk) 06:04, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

There was no consensus for putting it in. Jetblack500 (talk) 05:04, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

The point of the 'Myth' section is that, in myriad places, including official looking books, and news articles, people are going to read conflicting information. They are going to turn to wikipedia to find out the truth. Now, if all they find is an unexplained assertion of something else, however well sourced, they will still be confused - as we were ourselves, as the conversation above attests. The myth section - as succinctly as we could do it, after compromise - explains exactly how the conflicting information arose, including Vega's admission that he liked to play with people's perceptions. JetBlack500 is the only person, for what appears to be personal reasons, who has a problem with that, and has already once been blocked for edit warring on just this matter. However, the assertion "perhaps to justify his cross sculptures" is indeed speculation, and I have removed it. Wwwhatsup (talk) 00:17, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

There was no consensus for inserting a ridiculous section called "Myth". The only consensus, at that time, was to leave it "uncertain", and it was barely a consensus. At least some of it was driven by age bias, as revealed in some of the comments. Not being "able to believe it" or speculating that Vega "doesn't look like an old man" are not valid arguments. The "Myth" section is extremely ambiguous and does nothing to clarify the matter. It's not Wiki's role to explain these discrepancies anyway. Being accurate is what's important. This insistence on belaboring the fact that Vega has lied about his age is certainly punitive. It was written by someone who had already revealed his own bias in the comments and did everything he could to preserve the "myth" that he'd now like to make such an issue of. You can't believe that Vega is as old as he is and that he lied about it so now you want to punish him. This "Myth" section wouldn't be good under any circumstances, because it's stupid and vague, and fails to do what it's purported to. Even if a true consensus for the paragraph were reached, it certainly shouldn't be so nebulous. Why not just say it straight - explain that there's been some confusion over his age, and cite the specific reasons for it? Finally, what's with all the notes? I've never seen an article that has notes that first refer one to unsourced material at bottom of the page, only to be referred again to the yet another section. As far as I know, this sort of linking isn't allowed. It's made a mess of what could be a very good article. Why not just source them, as we would anything else? Jetblack500 (talk) 05:04, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the para can be made any more succinct than it is now, given your insistence on the extra emphasis on the 1938 sources. It doesn't belabor, it is not punitive, it merely explains that some information out there is not accurate, and the "fuel the myth" amply illustrates the reason. Rather than worry about this why don't you get on with the expansion you promised back in May? Wwwhatsup (talk) 07:33, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Picture

okay im sorry for getting off topic but i just have to say, this page seriously needs a new picture. the one in the article is pretty bad... Jpmcruiser (talk) 00:35, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Reclassified as a B class article

This article has been assessed as a B class article according to Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Assessment. Capitalistroadster (talk) 04:45, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

BLP status change

Due to the death of this person, the BLP status of this article has changed. "This does not mean that unsourced material that would contravene the Biography of Living Persons rules can be added to this article. Capitalistroadster (talk) 04:46, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Alan Vega. 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:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://mvremix.com/rock_blogs/2008/06/24/alan-vega-turns-60-years-old-suicide-box-set-and-single-series-set-for-release-major-artists-pay-tribute-to-suicidevega-in-year-long-monthly-series-of-limited-edition-of-10-vinyl-eps-and-dow/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110714011800/http://www.mac-lyon.com/mac/sections/fr/publics/rendez-vous/archives/2009/autour_de_lexpositi/ to http://www.mac-lyon.com/mac/sections/fr/publics/rendez-vous/archives/2009/autour_de_lexpositi/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:47, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Alan Vega. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130117062553/http://www.slimsmith.com/alanvega/ to http://www.slimsmith.com/alanvega/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:08, 27 November 2017 (UTC)