Talk:Alex Lifeson

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Alex Lifeson article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] (If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
	This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed biographical guide to musicians and musical groups on Wikipedia.

	This article is part of WikiProject Guitarists, a group dedicated to improving Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to guitarists. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.

Contents 1 Trial 2 Questionable Revision 3 Does this really make sense? 4 Outstanding! 5 Family? 6 Concerned about The Omega Concern (Really) 7 The Naples/Ritz-Carlton Incident - Expunge?

[edit] Trial

Hi,
any news about Alex´ trial. January 5th is over ;-) ... response:date for the trial has now been set for May 16th 2005, not known if a plea bargain has been entered...

[edit] Questionable Revision

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alex%5fLifeson?curid=2893&diff=0

I don't know the facts, just wondering, which is more accurate? 24.76.141.237 02:22, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Alex Lifeson is Serbian, but Serbia was part of Yugoslavia at the time his parents emigrated, if I recall correctly. But I don't even want to touch the issue of the Balkans. That said, Lerxst's parents are referred to as Serbian immigrants everywhere I've seen it. — Phil Welch 22:55, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Does this really make sense?

He is commonly regarded as one of the most underrated rock guitarists of all time.

If it's common that he's considered underrated, doesn't that make him really not underrated?

Hmm not really. He is generally well known, it's just that he is underrated amongst the people that know him. Those people don't rate him as good as he really is. It doesn't really matter how many people underrate him. I hope you understand what I mean :) ( Davehard 15:57, 10 December 2005 (UTC) )

[edit] Outstanding!

Alex is right up there with all the guitar greats in my estimation. He is a very accomplished musician as all the members of RUSH are. Outstanding!--Bumpusmills1 09:35, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Alex Lifeson is regarded within rock musician circles, but if you want a really underrated guitarist, try Lerxst's fellow Canadian, Ian Crichton of Saga.

[edit] Family?

It has long been known that Alex's wife is/was named Charlene (dating back to the thanks-to's on the [[A Farewell To Kings]] album), but on this page http://www.nndb.com/people/548/000025473/ it says his wife is named Michelle. Has he been divorced and remarried, or is his wife's name Charlene Michelle or Michelle Charlene, or some such combination?--MarshallStack 13:34, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Concerned about The Omega Concern (Really)

First post here.... I love the Lifeson article. Wouldn't change a thing. OK, one thing bothers me: Aren't we taking the Omega Concern a little seriously? It's always been my impression that it's just a running in-joke that Alex and the band use to ascribe his pet inventions to. He made a special guitar stand, he made a couple of minor gadgets for his bandmates... I don't see any proof here that he's got a major operation going. Someone cite me something to prove me wrong, otherwise, I respectfully request that we tone down the Omega stuff -- give it a single line or so -- So we don't look silly for taking what is essentially an in-joke for Alex and turning it into a major Internet chin-rubbing head-scratching thing.

I want NPOV, and I also kind of have the image in my mind that I would like it if Alex would approve of his Bio here. (And this is of course purely hypothetical, but...) If he were to look at this article, would he think we've done a good job? I think he would... But I think we may be missing the point of "The Omega Concern"... I believe it's a running in-joke that's not really worth mentioning in the abstract, the lead paragraph. It might make for a good one-line note somewhere down the page. Again, I welcome anyone to cite me if I'm wrong, but I think "The Omega Concern" should be reduced to a one-line mention, for example: "Alex has built X, Y, and Z for his use, Geddy's, Neils... Alex has, perhaps jokingly, referred to his enterprise as The Omega Concern." (Sorry, best I can do. I'm tired...) Absent proof that he's done anything more substantial than this, I say we eliminate over-informing everybody on the subject of THE OMEGA CONCERN. Really.

Thanks!

--

ManfrenjenStJohn 09:28, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Based on that, I've completed the redirect from Omega Concern. CovenantD 09:59, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks for jumping in. I appreciate the help. I think what I'm asking about, which I'm too timid to do myself at the moment, is to *remove* "he owns and operates a small consumer-products design, engineering, and manufacturing firm The Omega Concern;" from the abstract... is that what it's properly called? Do I mean the "lead"? I know I should "be bold" and just go do it, but I'm a little overwhelmed at the moment. I don't feel at the moment like editing something that I'm not sure what it's even called. I'm a little new here. (as an editor, anyway)  : ) -- ManfrenjenStJohn 10:12, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

PS - I promise I'll "be more bold" in the future, but I've burned my hand on the stove to many times today... damned newbie biters. (Not you, of course!)

The Omega Concern article was questionable to begin with, having no sources at all, so that was an easy decision. I'll leave it to the fans to figure out what to do with this article. As for being a newbie, just remember to cite EVERYTHING (even if you don't think it needs it) and write from a Neutral Point of View (NPOV) and you should be fine. CovenantD 10:25, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. As a newbie, I was surprised to see no References section in the Alex article. Clearly, consensuswise, the editorial standard for the main Rush article is being held a lot more stringently than for the Alex a article. I say this because I've had major, almost immediate scrutiny for every edit I've made to the Rush article (which I've come to learn is a Good Thing), whilst Alex's article didn't even have any sources, nor even a Refs section. So I'm glad I'm familiar enough with wikipolicy that I've done Good Things for Alex's article so far. It breaks my heart to go deleting information that I know is true (from the Alex article) if I can't find sources (and it's a big article with no sources except the ones I've put in so far). But now I know that I'll be doing right if I hold the Alex article (and the unsourced statements therein) to Wikipolicy more stringently.

So, to CovenantD, Thank You. And to anyone else: Please understand that I may make some major changes to the Article, especially deletions for statements that cannot be sourced. But I'll be doing it in a way that I feel is in the best interest of WikiPolicy, including (but not limited to) Attribution and Biographies of Living Persons. Thanks. -- ManfrenjenStJohn 16:59, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Naples/Ritz-Carlton Incident - Expunge?

According to the information in the section itself (although there is no source cited), the criminal charges have been expunged.

Therefore, I think we should consider removing this entire section as well, because

• It's old
• It's potentially negative
• The authorities involved have expunged (wiped clean) his criminal record; We should do the same unless there is a good reason not to.

I'm leaving it in for now, because there is SOME information that may still be current, specifically:

• Alex (may be) still engaged in civil litigation (although if this is not of significant public importance, I think it should be removed)
• Neil's book "Roadshow" is a current topic, and it's mentioned here as a reference. Again, I still consider removing the entire section as being no longer significant, but I'm writing this in advance of doing so.

Suggestions welcome. -- ManfrenjenStJohn 19:09, 10 March 2007 (UTC)