Talk:Robert Fripp/Archive 1

Archive 1

Affiliations

At the moment it is just Crim and David Sylvian - that seems odd. Should we include everyone he's worked with ? Or just his group memberships ? Or what ? -- Beardo 02:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Tone deaf?

Really? I find it hard to believe... Anyway - Any source for that? 89.1.182.59

I found it hard to believe as well, so I originally tagged it as needing a citation for verification. Quite honestly, even with the rewording that someone did recently ("was at first" wasn't in the original statement), it seems spurious at best and disingenuous at worst. I think I'm going to go ahead and remove it actually since it seems unfounded. Charles M. Reed 20:04, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Fripp has repeatedly said he was tone-deaf with no sense of rhythm when he started playing the guitar. As it's actually pretty interesting, I re-added it to the article, with links to the interviews. J. M. 05:28, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, what do you know? There's hope for us all! Thanks for the sources. Charles M. Reed 19:40, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Robert Fripp-Exposure (album cover).jpg

Image:Robert Fripp-Exposure (album cover).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 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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Accuracy

'Fripp toured with Gabriel to support the album, but remained in the wings and was introduced to audiences as "Dusty Rhodes".'

Can this comment be verified? If not, isn't it possible that may not have been a reference to Fripp at all, but to DAVID Rhodes, another guitarist who has toured extensively as a member of Peter Gabriel's band? Furry Canary 06:45, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

No, its a Fripp reference given that the tour in question predates David Rhodes involvement with Peter Gabriel. Its been mentioned in numerous sources over the years, such as p.208 of Sid Smith's In The Court of King Crimson. Gabriel introduced "Rhodes" to the audience on the '77 tour even though he played offstage.

Tim gueguen 05:59, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I have a bootleg of a Peter Gabriel show where he introduces "Dusty Rhodes", which I first assumed was a reference to David Rhodes, but it's very obviously Fripp playing-- just my two cents.

Yesyouam 00:43, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Pershore

In his diary Fripp affirms he resides in Bredonborough, a fake name. In the photos he posts in the same diary you can recognize Pershore. I could give you the address but it's better not to encourage stalkers ;) Marco bisello 09:54, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Nevertheless, Wikipedia requires that everything in the articles must be attributable to a reputable published source. So I'm going to remove Pershore from the article, since it's not backed up by a reputable source. When you or anyone else find a reputable published source that says he lives in Pershore, feel free to add it again. Yes, I know you posted the links to the Google photos, but that violates yet another Wikipedia rule – no original research. That is, you cannot do your private investigation and publish your own findings in Wikipedia articles, you can only quote what someone else has said, in a reputable source (serious magazine, book, trustworthy website). —J. M. 14:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm - does Wikipedia count as "reputable" then, since Toyah's page also says they live in Pershore? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.138.235.243 (talk) 17:51, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles are (or should be) just summaries of information that's available elsewhere. So when you want a reliable proof for something that's written in a Wikipedia article, you should ask if the fact is verifiable or not, that's the only thing that matters. You don't verify something by pointing to a sentence in (some other) Wikipedia article, because every sentence in a Wikipedia article should just be a "link" to an external source. So in the end, you have to see the external source. So, if the authors of the Toyah page can back it up by citing a reliable source, then it's reputable and trustworthy (but the citation should point to the original source, not to the Toyah page). If they cannot, then the claim can be challenged (by requesting a citation) and eventually removed. That's the standard process in Wikipedia. After all, that's also what makes Wikipedia a fairly good source of information – even though you cannot trust it blindly, errors happen in Wikipedia articles, too. That's why citations are needed, so that everyone can verify the facts for themselves. —J. M. (talk) 18:30, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

(hearty applause) Next time, you could just say something like this : "No." Get out much? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.138.235.243 (talk) 10:12, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

The Wikipedia entry for Pershore also includes a reference to Fripp & Willcox living there :-) R. sparts (talk) 21:10, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, but again, the same old problem (so I hope to receive another hearty applause): it is unsourced. Unsourced claims in Wikipedia can be challenged and eventually removed. It does not matter how many Wikipedia articles say Fripp lives in Pershore, if they don't provide the source – it could all be added by the same person, or someone might see the unsourced claim in the Toyah article (that she and Robert live in Pershore) and therefore add it to the Pershore article, too (without having any other proof)... A single person can cause a lot of confusion and misinformation in Wikipedia. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying Fripp doesn't live in Pershore, in fact I believe it's true, but Wikipedia does not care what we believe in. To quote the official Wikipedia policy: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth". —J. M. (talk) 21:51, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

So I added a citation request for the Pershore claim on the Toyah page and a reference was immediately added. So it is now safe, as far as Wikipedia requirements are concerned. :-) —J. M. (talk) 22:41, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I just noticed this discussion about Fripp & Pershore after I added a note to the article. Perhaps I should have done this before the change. With those comments in mind, I'll just add that, for some years already, there are sources for the residency of Fripp in Pershore that stand up entirely on their own merit; one I decided to not use is inescapably in the public domain and provides his complete address. It does seem strange that there has been so much difficulty providing a verifiable source. For future reference, the source I gave (192.com) has a broad appeal for several reasons: it gives enough information without being too invasive to the subject, and with a slight modification can be altered to work, not only for Toyah but also for almost anybody else who has a form of residency in Gt Britain.Twistlethrop (talk) 20:55, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Chronology

The article says he worked with Bowie on "Heroes" and then went on to work on Peter Gabriel 2 and Sacred Songs. According to this interview it was the other way around. http://www.elephant-talk.com/wiki/Interview_with_Robert_Fripp_in_Melody_Maker_%281979%29 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.145.0.194 (talk) 10:41, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Elephant Talk displays no permission for its republication of the Melody Maker interview. If their republication infringes on copyright, this link should not be posted.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 14:07, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Guitar Craft: References

Hi Side!

I expanded the references for Guitar Craft, using Tamm's book. These may be useful here.

Elephant Talk contains texts of old interviews---e.g. for Mulhorn (which is cited here)---but lacks statements of permission from the copyright holder. Please clarify why Elephant Talk may be linked here?

Thanks,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:55, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

It's perfectly acceptable for us to link to sites when they contain information that could not otherwise be added to the article, per WP:EL. It is not a our prerogative to investigate the copyright legitimacy of that website; that is their issue. There's absolutely no reason it can't be linked here. Its an online version of what I assume would otherwise be an offline reference (or one that has since been taken down), or else you would link to the original interview. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 14:59, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

On the contrary, please review WP:External links, which states

"For policy or technical reasons, editors are restricted from linking to the following, without exception:

1. Material that violates the copyrights of others per contributors' rights and obligations should not be linked. Linking to websites that display copyrighted works is acceptable as long as the website has licensed the work, or uses the work in a way compliant with fair use. Knowingly directing others to material that violates copyright may be considered contributory copyright infringement. If you know that an external website is carrying a work in violation of the work's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work. Linking to a page that illegally distributes someone else's work casts a bad light on Wikipedia and its editors. This is particularly relevant when linking to sites such as YouTube, where due care should be taken to avoid linking to material that violates copyright."

"NEVER" and "without exception" are strong prohibitions against such linking, imho.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:20, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

The problem was worse at New Standard Tuning, which linked directly to two individual interviews that lack copyright information. Even here, the link to all the interviews at Elephant Talk seemed to violate policy, so I replaced the interview-board link with a reference to Tamm.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:53, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

April Fool Spoof

On 1st April 2011 there was a spoof item on the Today programme on BBC Radio 4 about the development of 3D radio. Robert Fripp was named as one of the inventors of this alleged system and a person purporting to be him was interviewed about it. EricPolymath (talk) 08:38, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Tell us more! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk • contribs) 12:26, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Discipline Global Mobile DYK nomination

I nominated the following hook for DYK.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:46, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Did you know

• ... that music was called "an industry founded on exploitation, oiled by deceit, riven with theft and fueled by greed" by Robert Fripp (pictured), King Crimson guitarist and founder of Discipline Global Mobile?

Not really a good hook. Just an interesting quote. Buffs (talk) 21:30, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Buffs!

The quotation seems to have been found notable and quotable by many RSes. Would you explain why it is "not really a good hook", please?  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:35, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not saying that reliable sources find it notable, I just don't think it is that good of a hook (nothing personal). Perhaps something a little more obscure to tantalize the masses? Perhaps something about the fact that he's #42 on Rolling Stone's Top 100 and provided music for Microsoft Windows? I have no problem with submitting it, I just think it could be better. I sincerely hope it makes it in (no matter what you choose to submit)! Buffs (talk) 04:42, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Buffs!

I agree with your comments that many more interesting hooks could be written about Fripp. However, the DYK must focus on Discipline Global Mobile (the five-fold expanded article) rather than Fripp. Please feel free to suggest a more interesting hook for DGM, if the muse speaks to you. Regards,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:42, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Copyright concerns regarding Discipline Global Mobile (DGM)

The following discussion 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.

---

Hi WP (team?),

Unless Discipline Global Mobile (DGM) has granted permission to link to specific pages, Wikipedia is violating the Terms of Service of DGM Live!:

"

1.2. Copyright.

The Site Content and Site Code are owned by DGM and/or the associated music publishers and are protected by applicable domestic and international copyright laws. Copyright © 1983-2012 DGM. All Rights Reserved. Unless expressly permitted elsewhere in the Site by DGM, you shall not copy, distribute, publish, perform, modify, download, transmit, transfer, sell, license, reproduce, create derivative works from or based upon, distribute, post, publicly display, frame, link, or in any other way exploit any of the Site Content or Code, in whole or in part.

Links to the Site, other than to the Home Page, are only permitted upon express permission from and arrangement with DGM. Any rights not expressly granted to you herein are reserved. Any violation of copyright laws may result in severe civil and criminal penalties. Violators will be prosecuted to the maximum extent possible." (Emboldening and italics added)

Would somebody (for example with good relations with DGM Live!) please ask for permission to link to specific DGM pages, for example for the WP articles currently listed on the King Crimson footer template?

In the interim, we should begin removing the DGM page references.

Thanks!

 Kiefer.Wolfowitz 13:32, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I removed ToS violations from this article and Guitar Craft, for legality and respect of the ToS at DGM. (I suppose that having links only to DGM's frontpage provides newbies with more information about Robert and perhaps increases sales of DGM merchandise and music, so DGM's rules are understandable.) Sincerely,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:11, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I am not a lawyer, but I doubt DGM has any legal (or moral) right to prohibit linking to its web pages or copying parts of them. In my opinion, it falls under fair use. The "Any rights not expressly granted to you herein are reserved" sentence sounds particularly misleading to me, as there are implicit rights granted to us by the law, and no licensing agreement can override the law.—J. M. (talk) 19:27, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi J. M.!

I would bet that Fripp or DGM's lawyer reviewed the terms of service, given the frequency with which legal headaches and legal meetings are recounted in Fripp's diary. You may wish to read Bill Bruford's autobiography recounting the ease with which he obtained rights to some music by writing a letter with the keywords "Robert Fripp" and "King Crimson"!

I am not a lawyer either.

Seriously, we may link the DGM main page and have our link include the full title of the page, as I have done when I have removed links to DGM subpages---this which should ease the reader's search, indeed making it trivial; such informative linking to the DGM main page also respects a reasonable request.

Sincerely,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:53, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

P.S. I asked for guidance at the copyright page of WP. 20:38, 21 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk • contribs)

Hi, Kiefer. Thanks for initiating the discussion, but shouldn't it be taken to the copyright problems talk page instead of the copyrights talk page (which, as I see it, is a discussion about the policy itself and its wording)?

Anyway, I think the requirement by DGM can be ignored on English Wikipedia, as I don't think it is enforceable in the US. As the Hyperlink article says: "Several courts have found that merely linking to someone else's website is not copyright or trademark infringement, regardless of how much someone else might object." You may take Google as an example: I won't provide the direct link (although I believe I could), but when you enter "Robert Fripp diary" in the Google search box, the first link it gives you is a direct link to his diary. If Robert is indeed such a tough guy when it comes to defending his copyrights as Bruford said, how come Google has not suffered, to quote the DGM ToS, "severe civil and criminal penalties", for providing this "illegal" link? :-)

P.S. If it turns out that linking to any DGM page falls under fair use, then it might as well be an opportunity for Robert et al. to update the DGM ToS and their threatening language, which to me sounds slightly excessive and out of touch with reality in places.—J. M. (talk) 21:01, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi J. M.

Following your suggestion, I asked for help at the right WP page. Thanks again.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:17, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I too have to concur that this is not a reasonable request. DMG cannot copyright something and then refuse all associated uses. The courts have consistently supported hyperlinks as a legal use of a website. DMG cannot copyright something (and acquiring all the benefits) and then refuse to honor legitimate uses of the website. Buffs (talk) 21:30, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Buffs,

Microsoft settled and stopped deep linking. I doubt that WMF has deeper pockets to pay lawyers' fees than MicroSoft.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:34, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Money has little to do with this. Just because Microsoft quit linking and settled does not mean it is the law of the land. Microsoft may have simply decided it wasn't the hassle/money to defend against that action and decided to settle out of court to make it go away. Hyperlink#Legal_issues really summarizes the situation well. On a related topic, some sites use linking almost exclusively, but no lawsuit has ever been successful. Yes, he may not like it, but he has no legal standing to make a complaint. Moreover, the FBI has attempted to sue WP...and failed. If we can stand up to the FBI, I'm sure we'd be fine on this issue. Buffs (talk) 02:18, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I read the link provided, and I am still concerned about legality and liability.

WP's article about the legality of deep linking, copyright aspects of hyperlinking and framing, mentions that Microsoft settled on confidential terms and has stopped deep-linking to TicketMaster's pages. Also, Scotland has ruled in favor of ToS-copyright claims of website owners. I suggest that we make efforts to stop deep-linking, unless the experts tell us otherwise.

Sincerely,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:32, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the deep linking article seems to suggest that URLs, indeed, are not subject to copyright. The 1997 Microsoft vs. Ticketmaster case is the only "successful" case in the US that is mentioned there. But the (commercial) Internet was in its infancy back then. When Ticketmaster tried it again later, the conclusion was: "A URL is simply an address, open to the public... There is nothing sufficiently original to make the URL a copyrightable item". The other US rulings are irrelevant, as they are about deep linking (i.e. directly including) multimedia content, i.e. images and video. For example, the 2006 Texas ruling was about directly linked video content, which is of course something different from a web page link. We're not talking about directly including the King Crimson albums or video recordings from the DGM server on this page. So I still remain unconvinced that the request in the DGM ToS is applicable to the English Wikipedia.—J. M. (talk) 22:14, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Literally, the "request" does apply, in that we should comply with a good-willed and reasonable request. It may be that such compliance with a request need not be legally forced by penalty of probable legal liability or criminal prosecution.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:31, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, I know this may be outside the scope of this discussion, but I would disagree with the words "should" and "reasonable", and I find the word "good-willed" debatable, too. In my opinion, when a request is unreasonable (in addition to being legally unenforceable), I can't see anything wrong with ignoring it, especially when it's ignored for good purpose, for the benefit of people, in this case, for building an online encyclopedia (I would bet encyclopedic use falls under the fair use category, both legally and morally). I don't see anything reasonable about setting up a public page, and then insisting that people do not link to it. This completely defies the nature of the Internet and the act of putting it online. What if you show a screenshot of your desktop to your friend, and the screenshot shows a web browser with a DGM URL shown in its address bar? Should you be "prosecuted to the maximum extent possible", as the ToS demand? Is there anything humanly acceptable about this requirement in the ToS? What about Google, Microsoft Bing and other search engines that readily show you the direct links for the DGM subpages, blatantly ignoring the DGM ToS? Should Google and Microsoft be sued? Is there anything wrong with them providing you the links?

When you do not want a web page to be publicly accessible, then do not put it online. Simple as that. This is why various countries have the so called "fair use" laws. There is nothing unfair about including a link to a web page in an encyclopedia. By the way, the DGM ToS ignore the fair use right not only in the linking part, but also in the copying part: the fair use right explicitly says that you may copy limited parts of published works without acquiring permission from the rights holder. Which is forbidden in the DGM ToS. Even the UK has the fair dealing law which "allows for the use of copyrighted works without licensing in certain circumstances" (such as research and study, which I think can be applied to Wikipedia, too).

As for the "good-willed" attribute... Yes, I know Robert Fripp is an extremely wise and good-willed gentleman. But even a wise, good-willed and good-hearted man can make silly mistakes. I don't see anything good-willed about the highly offensive, threatening tone of the ToS. The ToS text demands unreasonable things that in parts fail to meet the criteria of humanity, and then threatens with the most severe punishments if the unreasonable, inhuman (and probably unlawful) demands are not met. Again, I do not believe that this was made in bad faith, with malicious intentions. I would guess this is simply ignorance on the DGM side, an honest mistake made by good-willed people who simply overlooked certain aspects (and possible repercussions) of their demands. But even a good-willed person can write horribly bad-willed text, unintentionally, unconsciously.—J. M. (talk) 00:25, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Fripp and DGM have asked that we not deep-link directly, and I don't see a reason to disrespect this request on Wikipedia. The title of the specific page can be shown and that allows readers to find the page.

Discussing DGM and Fripp's policy and evaluating it can be done on other fora.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 01:34, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I concur that with JM. I too disagree with the words "should" and "reasonable", and I find the word "good-willed" debatable, too. Moreover, for someone interested in protecting his copyrighted items, I find it odd that you would cut and paste a whole legal paragraph from his page. Buffs (talk) 02:24, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I could perhaps add one more point. We don't know who actually wrote the DGM ToS. It may have been written by Fripp, or it may have been written by someone else, using the standard legalese that seems OK to someone (like Fripp) who may not fully understand all possible aspects and details. Fripp is not a lawyer (even though he seems to have gathered substantial experience in dealing with various legal matters). The DGM ToS may not convey Fripp's wishes perfectly, in every detail. Fripp is an elderly man. From my reading of his diary entries in the past, he does not seem to understand the technology aspects of the internet and computers very well (if my memory serves me well, he was once referring to "MP3s" as a group of people, he was then corrected by a reader). I feel that his misunderstanding of the details of modern technology may have misled his thinking about things like this. I don't believe he fully understands the possible repercussions of the draconian demands of his ToS. For example, you may synchronize your browser settings online, which is a normal thing in this day and age, and there you have it: an online link to some DGM subpage (which you may not even be aware of), violating the DGM ToS, which means that, according to the DGM ToS, you will be "prosecuted to the maximum extent possible". I don't believe that's what Fripp wants, I don't believe that's the message the ToS is trying to convey, I don't believe that's the reason the ToS was written, the cases the ToS is trying to avoid. That's when we have to apply common sense. Fripp was recently asked about his opinion on PIPA/SOPA, and his reply was that his view is very close to Lewis Hyde in Common As Air, quoting Jefferson: "The field of knowledge is the common property of mankind". This view does not appear to be compatible with a desire to prevent Wikipedia from linking to a DGM subpage for encyclopedic purposes. And even if it is, Wikipedia is still free to ignore it if it's not legally binding. Sure, as a private person, one could still respect the DGM ToS even if one disagrees with them, as a courtesy to DGM and Robert, but as Wikipedia editors, our responsibility is what's the right thing for Wikipedia. And the right thing for Wikipedia is providing encyclopedic material for millions of people (which is a noble, useful effort that I feel is more important than respecting Robert's wishes, which may not even be his wishes) supported by reliable sources that do not violate the law. And that's the only thing that seems to be relevant to me in this case, and that's the only thing we should be discussing here.—J. M. (talk) 05:33, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi J. M.!

Thanks again for another thoughtful and informative response. (I quoted from the ToS trusting DGM & Fripp's fairness, of course.)

Do you think that a significant number of our readers would have trouble successfully searching DGM Live!'s site by (1) remembering keywords from the citation, or (2) copying keywords (control-f)?

Per WP:RS and WP:Secondary, articles citing DGM should reference DGM as a primary source sparingly, e.g. to provide additional documentation or "colour" for an assertion in a secondary RS. The supplementary role of DGM references has (so far) meant that I am willing to sacrifice the last extensions of the url address.

I had wished that some editor would have known DGM or Fripp well enough to make a familiar request on behalf of Wikipedia, which (like you) I suppose DGM would grant.

Sincerely,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:59, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

A related point on the subject, I went to the library to pay for a book I lost. The librarian said I couldn't pay by cash, only by check. I told her, no, that's illegal. I indeed CAN pay by cash and am doing so since I didn't have any checks available (I pointed out there's even a notice on very bill which states "this note is legal tender for all debts, public and private"). In order to simplify the problem and come to a solution that we both could rapidly agree to, I purchased the replacement book on Amazon and paid by credit card. That doesn't mean I agree with their policy or that it is legal, merely that I chose the simplest path. Buffs (talk) 02:50, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Request future discussion to continue at Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems. Buffs (talk) 10:10, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

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.

Request for Wikipedia made to DGM

I created a DGM account and asked DGM for Wikipedia to have permission to link to DGM pages (only for illustrating a point made in articles related to DGM or Fripp).  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:41, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Navbox needed

A navbox for Robert Fripp should be created.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 13:38, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I'll take care of it. — Quibus (talk) 18:31, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Is there a reason Giles-Giles-Fripp, The League of Gentlemen, Sunday All Over The World, FFWD and Jakszyk-Fripp-Collins are mentioned separately? I kept the discog order to create the navbox, but mentioning these artists separately seems arbitrary, it makes more sense to list them under collaborations. — Quibus (talk) 19:05, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

All discog info has been moved to Robert Fripp discography, where above bands are now listed under collaborative albums; in Template:Robert Fripp I've listed most artists separately, hope this gives a clear view. — Quibus (talk) 21:18, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Dear Djinni Quibus,

Congratulations on a fine navbox. I used it on some of the bottom pages, and I made a few edits. In particular, I added links to the names of collaborators: I would then delete the collaborators also appearing at the bottom, now, but I think that you should decide. You should of course revert me if my edits were mistaken.

Thanks again for granting my wish!

Do I have two more wishes remaining?

Best regards,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:57, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Dear Kiefer.Wolfowitz,

You are very welcome, I'm glad I could help out with your wish. I'm not sure about two more though... Are they of similar nature, than maybe we could come to an agreement. About your edits, I coudn't agree more, so I removed the links from 'related articles'. Could this be considered the second wish, or is this more like a fine tuning of the first one? I'm not sure if Belew belongs in the related articles (more or less covered by the King Crimson link), but his name popped up immediately when working on it. Your faithful Djinni, — Quibus (talk) 17:16, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Alfie Fripp (RIP): DYK nomination

Please join us in ensuring that Wikipedia presents a quality article on Robert Fripp's uncle, Alfie Fripp, who just "flew from this world", in RF's phrasing.

Mr. Alfie Fripp helped in The Great Escape of POWs from Stalag III in Poland, and his service deserves our efforts, regardless of his relation with Robert Fripp.

His Did You Know? nomination is currently running, and it should appear on the main page in a week or so.

Sincerely, Kiefer.Wolfowitz 00:49, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Technique: stool, sitting/perching

I'd like to point out that the fact the Fripp prefers to sit when playing is notable only in the rock world (and even then, there are other other such as Ben Harper, who often sit). In the classical world, sitting is the norm; in the jazz world, many guitarists sit to play. So while Fripp's practice may deserve some sort of mention, it is not worthy of undue weight. -- DaveSeidel (talk) 15:25, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

It fine to mention his sitting, with standard written English and citing a reliable source. Making up a quote is improper, particularly with an improper "the", because there are many guitarists who sit. Tam probably discusses sitting. The sitting seems to be the major interest of many male commentators on the internet, alas. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:23, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

King Crimson 1970-1980

There is no mention at all of the different King Crimson lineups between 1970-1980. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.180.147.183 (talk) 23:47, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I agree here. Some work needs to be done. Where is the mention of "Starless...", "Lark's Tongue..", "Red" etc. done in the middle 1970's [the 'third' incarnation of the band]: a time of great output by Mr. Fripp? Additionally, the earlier follow-ups to the 1st album, "In the Court of the Crimson King", with the group now being led by the lone surviving original members Robert Fripp and Peter Sinfield, with various accompanying musicians, in the early 1970's (?) Albums here would be three, "In the Wake...", "Lizard", and "Islands" [mark II]. Beyond the titling of the King Crimson era's (incarnations, or marks, etc.), which is indeed of some question how it is to be so properly categorized, mention nonetheless should be made - whichever classification scheme one is using - of these remarkable albums, and Robert's great output, during this time. (John G. Lewis (talk) 16:53, 5 June 2014 (UTC))

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Robert Fripp. 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/20130927135039/http://www.dgmlive.com/diaries.htm?entry=18729 to http://www.dgmlive.com/diaries.htm?entry=18729
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140328224034/http://www.dgmlive.com/diaries.htm?entry=24091 to http://www.dgmlive.com/diaries.htm?entry=24091
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.dgmlive.com/diaries.htm?artist=&show=&member=3&entry=22739
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111026180438/http://www.progressiveears.com/frippbook/ch10.htm to http://www.progressiveears.com/frippbook/ch10.htm

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) 02:07, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Recent deletion/ revert

Trying to avoid an edit war, but what was the reason for this edit and this edit? I reverted both, but also forgot to add an edit summary, which should have said "unexplained". Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:47, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

"especially in churches around the West Midlands in England," this is incorrect because according to Fripp's diary https://dgmlive.com/diaries/Robert%20Fripp/dgm-hq-a-grey-day-12-210916 https://www.dgmlive.com/diaries/Robert%20Fripp/rf-diary-june3-2006, he performed in 5 churches in Estonia and 9 in England: 4 in the South West - Broad Chalke, Bishop's Cleeve, Exeter, Salisbury; 2 in the West Midlands - Pershore, Worcester; 1 in the East - Sutton-in-the-Isle;1 in London; 1 in Norwich. this edit removed, replaced Shallow references and dead links.Ghjkgk (talk) 10:06, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Chronology

The section headed 1974-1981 begins in 1970 and ends in 1985. Not sure how to edit - could change heading or move content. Ideas? I will add more about Frippertronics at some point - it needs expanding. And I'll try to find some citations for the rest. Good article tho'. Thelisteninghand (talk) 15:52, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Personal beliefs

How about a section on Fripp's personal beliefs? I know he is or was into John G. Bennett who is best known for his books on psychology and spirituality, particularly on the teachings of G. I. Gurdjieff. M.mk (talk) 17:47, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

From the entry to his Exposure album: 'J.G. Bennett – voice on "Exposure", "Hååden Two", "First Inaugural Address" and "Water Music I."' M.mk (talk) 01:36, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

As I recall, Bruford, in his autobio said Fripp gave him several books along these "occult" lines when he joined Crimson. M.mk (talk) 04:33, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Midge Ure?

The lead mentions that Fripp collaborated with Midge Ure. As a fan of both, that came as a surprise, yet there is no subsequent mention of Ure in the rest of the article. A trip to the old Google did reveal that Fripp contributed Soundscapes to Ure's 1986 album Breathe (and this is mentioned briefly in the album's Wiki article), should this be added to the Collaboration section since it was mentioned in the lead?2600:4040:7B78:1000:4112:F5E2:7C8D:ABE (talk) 00:49, 17 November 2023 (UTC)TF

Actually, on further reflections, perhaps remove Midge Ure from the lead? The sentence in question is meant to include examples of notable collaborations, I don't think small snippets of Soundscapes on two songs on a 1986 album exactly qualifies. (I don't even know if he recorded them for this purpose, or if he actually worked WITH Ure, or if these were preexisiting?). I can think of other artists who would make much more sense in this paragraph, the Roches for one. Any objections on changing that up a bit? If not I will make it so! 2600:4040:7B78:1000:5539:AA9:CF8A:FF4E (talk) 22:02, 17 November 2023 (UTC)TF

I agree, a good improvement. The Roches certainly deserve a mention. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:15, 18 November 2023 (UTC)