Talk:Bruce Cockburn

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography: Musicians This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians (assessed as Mid-importance). Canada: Ontario / Ottawa / Music Mid‑importance Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Ontario. This article is supported by WikiProject Ottawa (assessed as Mid-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Canadian music. project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.

	Religion: Interfaith Start‑class
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is within the scope of Interfaith work group, a work group which is currently considered to be inactive.

"The situation was that I'd spent three days in a couple of different Guatemalan refugee camps in Chiapas, in southern Mexico. All the while we were in one of them we could hear one or more helicopters patrollling the border. The week before we were there and the week after we left, this helicopter strafed the camp--as if these people had not suffered enough with the incredible violence they were fleeing in the mountains of Guatemala." from http://www.counterpunch.org/ferner01272004.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gbleem (talk • contribs) 01:48, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I still have a problem with the implication that Gospel of Bondage was in reaction to his music being dropped by Christian music stores. The link provided seemed more to support what I remember of the background for that song, which was that Gospel of Bondage was a reaction to the U.S. religious right, not the CCM music industry. (They are not related.) I never heard Bruce indicate that the song was about being dropped from some Christian music stores, but on many occassions he stated that it was a reaction to the "Moral Majority" and other right-winged Christian movements. He is performing here next week, and I will try to remember to ask him about it.

Unless somebody can come up with a quote that mentions the CCM issue, I recommend that the section be removed, or modified to talk about the perceived contraditions with standard stereotypes. For example, his "I'm a Christian, but not one of those" comments, that he is a gun advocate, collects knives, and is not a pacifist, which doesn't fit the standard "Christian musician". (For example, a recent Christian review assumed that Bruce was a pacifist.[1]) wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 11:57, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I concur. I attended concerts in Toronto in the mid-1980s and recall Cockburn's introductory comments were focussed on the "Sanctuary Movement" (which is/was a left religious group that provided sanctuary to illegal aliens, mostly from Central America, in the USA), and the opposition to it from the religious right. I think I have a recorded radio broadcast of one of these concerts and will check it to see if there is something which can be quoted in that connection. It doesn't seem in character for Cockburn to write songs about the response of others to his music (à la Michael Jackson). -- Slowmover 14:45, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I spoke to Bruce last night after his concert in Philly, and he confirmed what we have been saying about the origin of "Gospel of Bondage". I have replaced the section with a new one "Difficult to Categorize", and plan to discuss the various aspects of his music that attract people. The hope is to describe how complex the body of his work is, along with the various reasons people become fans. Before I get too far along this path, I thought I would show you the first few points and get some feedback. Is this too much detail? Should we delete the entire section, now that the original "controversy" has been resolved? wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 12:18, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to review

WP:NOR, as I am not sure your recent additions conform to the guidelines there, in particular the personal discussion with Cockburn and using Yahoo groups as a source. We really should stick to published sources as described in the referenced guideline. -- Slowmover 21:45, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Most of the additions I have made has been based on personal experience, so I don't consider it "original research." (I am one of the original members of the group, and have been a member the entire time.) IMHO, OR would be if I were to draw conclusions or interpret what happened. If you look at the CockburnProject web site, much of that is also from e-mails from various people, often from the humans group.

A good example is the claim by someone that "Gospel of Bondage" was a reaction to CCM stores dropping his albums. I asked him after the Philly show, and he clearly stated that it had nothing to do with it. That (IMHO) isn't original research, since it came from Bruce himself. I have no documentation of the event (I didn't post it to humans since the question was raised on wikipedia), so the question is "can I be considered an authoritative source?" You can ask Bruce or Bernie (his manager), who will confirm all that I stated, but then we end up believing whoever talked to them.

I guess one option would be for me to speak with Bernie and ask him to read the article (Bruce won't read it, since he doesn't use computers much). Bernie could then state whether the article is accurate or not. I could also ask if he and/or Bruce would designate me as a trusted source, if that helps.

I must admit I'm not 100% sure about this position, which is why I had asked for feedback. I am open to comments and suggestions, and would agree to have the entire section deleted if necessary. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 03:07, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have no reason to doubt what you say, and I agree there's a difference between stating facts known to you and presenting personal opinion. But there is no way to verify what you say. What's to stop some vandal from dropping by tomorrow and making all the claims you just made, but saying something completely false and misleading? Because of that we have the guideline

WP:V, which essentially means that personal unpublished knowledge doesn't belong on Wikipedia, unfortunately. -- Slowmover 15:19, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Okay, but what is the criteria for verification? If I include links to either the humans list or the Cockburn Project (which also quotes humans), does that make it verifiable? What if I create a Cockburn page on my web site and point there? Or if I e-mail Bruce's manager with the text and have him confirm the accuracy? I realize the desire (and benefit) to document all the sources, but there are a lot of things that don't appear in books, articles, etc. Actually, there are a lot of things that appear in print that are wrong, for that matter. For practically every review article posted to humans, somebody can find a mistake in the article. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 16:03, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can't really add anything other than to point you back to

WP:V. -- Slowmover 16:38, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

I have removed this section, since questions have been raised about verification. I moved it to my talk page User talk:Wrp103/Cockburn, and I will move in back in if/when I resolve those issues. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 17:20, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The link to humans was removed by

I realize that it may look like spam, but IMHO it is notable (as one of the oldest fan group, and at one point the only Internet representation of Bruce.) Unless somebody comes up with a strong argument against the link, I suggest that it stays. Thoughts? wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 16:59, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm for keeping the link for the same reasons. Strobilus 17:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm removing it because it's added incorrectly and it's against

WP:ELNO. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:42, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

User:Rambone has added the category ex-atheists/agnostics to this article and others. I reverted it and left a note on their talk page asking for a basis of that edit. They have since added it again. I don't recall Bruce ever mentioning he was agnostic or atheist. He did have a born-again type experience. I seem to recall him mentioning that he wasn't raised in a religious home, but I don't recall him being agnostic or atheist. Any thoughts? wrp103 (Bill Pringle) ^(Talk) 18:56, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since I never got a response, and nobody else has come up with any justification for the category, I have removed it. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) ^(Talk) 20:52, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]