This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Is a discussion of his penis size really appropriate material to include in an encyclopedia? Seems like the kind of dumb thing a 14 yearold would consider important information.

Wait, but how big is it??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.4.74.16 (talk) 22:58, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

This article seems strangely short for one of the most important figures in popular music. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.63.86.153 (talk) 04:42, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree. The Stones merit far more text than they have received in Wikipedia.jeanne (talk) 14:42, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I note that there is not much about cricket on Mick Jagger's page, despite him being instrumental in setting up some broadcasts of cricket in the past. Someone should perhaps do some research on this (I will if I have time as primarily a cricket fan and secondarily a stones fan) and this should really almost have its own section in the main article. I came to this thanks to "satisfaction" being the featured article for this day.

Soarhead77 10:45, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

i don't really know how to revert the page, but it was clearly badly vandalised. This is how it begins "Sir Benjamin Bruce "Ben" Jagger, KBE (born December 28, 1988) is an English rock musician, actor, songwriter, record and film producer, and businessman." Can someone please do something about it ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.106.43.93 (talk • contribs) 17:59, December 1, 2006 (UTC)

This has been dealt with. A number of people, myself included, watch this page to fix its frequent vandalism. By the way, pls sign and timestamp your posts by using 4 tildes (~) after your comments. Also why not Create an account instead of being a number? Tks/cheers, Ian Rose 01:19, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Very little information on children and marriage. No mention of any romance after Bianca, nor any of the children by Jerry Hall. Also does not mention illegitimate children. Biography is very incomplete in other areas as well. I suggest a revision of articles and more inclusive information.

http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=%22Marianne+Faithfull%22+%22Mars+Bar%22&btnG=Google+Search&meta=

The Rolling Stones have never been accused by anyone of intelligence or value of being detrimental to development of rock'n'roll or unconcerned with "making audiences dance," etc. This is a frivolous inclusion. I should also note that people seem to go out of their way to include slanderous and often ridiculous rumors and controversies about the Stones on the Jagger page, while offering nothing but praise and admiration on the Richards page. Can someone back me up here. I tried to rennovate the entire section about controversy which was totally moronic and poorly written and biased, but someone just vetoed me, saying I didn't site reasons, even though I spent 20 minutes writing a long and detailed set of reasons (below).

The thing about "Controversy" over Jagger being a "poseur" is totally ridiculous; if that was included in an actual rock encyclopedia, the book would be laughed out of publication. Jagger's image is of a "hard-living tough guy"?? Is this a joke? He's one of the wealthiest celebrities in the world and has been for 40 years. I'm really, really tired of people having a go at Mick Jagger while drooling all over Keith Richards feet because he did a lot of drugs and is more musically conservative. Yes, all of the stuff in this article is presented without POV, but people seem to think that if you don't explicitly reflect your own opinion and just include other people's opinions from over the years, then it's okay to say whatever you like. The inclusion of so many silly, contemptuous rumors about a rock star clearly reflects a bias. Encyclopedia articles shouldn't reflect the vague, esoteric opinions of uninformed, narrow-minded music fans and slavish pop culture junkies; Jagger's contributions to the Stones are at least equal to Richards', and furthermore, his "image", which I think is written here by someone who dislikes both Jagger and homosexuals, is horribly presented, to the point of being amateurishly hilarious. The thing about Bowie, for example, is an obscure and unsubstantiated 40-year old rumor about a man who is quite obviously heterosexual. Anyone who asserts that there is even a strong possibility that Jagger is homosexual has no conception of journalism, sexuality, the media, or reality. Tabloid garbage. The whole thing about Altamont was unnecessarily detailed and totally incongruous; a tiny faction of ignorantly hysterical, forgotten journalists claimed for a tiny period of about one week in 1970 that the Stones had incited the violence at Altamont, but this doesn't merit more than a mention in a section about "controversy." In fact, the whole controversy section itself is total garbage, as it seems to imply that Jagger is an unpopular, publically scorned, and closeted homosexual poseur. The tabloid scandals and his feud with Richards merit some mention, but as it is I get the impression that there are people who really hate Jagger, which is sort of inexplicable to me because as far as millionare rock stars go, he's not particularly hateable and hasn't been involved in any major scandals. I'm in no mood to rennovate the whole article, but I really think it needs to be completely rewritten; I've at least rewritten the totally amateurish introduction and deleted the idiotic controvery section, but I'd urge intelligent, informed readers to contribute more to this article, as it's of exceptionally poor and inconsistent quality, especially when placed next to the glowing, affectionate, and aggressively maintained Keith Richards page.

Playing rock consistently for so many decades strikes me as the opposite of poseur. Not to mention that they are the Rolling Stones. Rigmarole 17:13, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

"Often regarded as the greatest front man in the history of rock and roll" That sounds kind of POV to me. In fact, how the hell is that not POV? THere should be at least a few sources to back that line up, otherwise that first bit just sounds like a fanboy rant. Chewbacca1010 23:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

One only needs to attend a Rolling Stones concert as well as watch videos of their earlier concerts to back that up.There isn't one rock singer who is more charismatic, sardonic, sexually exciting, energetic and symbolic of rock and roll than Mick Jagger.And this comes from an ardent Keith Richards fan!!!jeanne (talk) 14:35, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Errr, and what about the speculated rumours about his homosexual relationships with aspiring male singers of the time such as the likes of David Bowie, Elton John, etc. ? Eric July 1, 2005 21:01 (UTC)

From what I read... David Bowie's then-wife Angela stated that she came home once to find Mr. Bowie and Mick Jagger sleeping in the same bed, both naked, but they vehemently denied any sexual activity ([1]), but I have not heard anything about Elton John being involved with Jagger. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) July 2, 2005 05:46 (UTC)

However, Eric, if you can cite a source for your Elton John rumour, please post it. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 08:00, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

This page definetly needs to be expanded, this is almost a skeleton article with nothing in it.

The page says this, and it's very conofusing: Jones left the band in early 1969 and accidentally drowned in his swimming pool only weeks later (though rumours persist that he was murdered or had committed suicide).

"In May 1971 he married Bianca Perez Morena de Macias, and she gave birth to their daughter, Jade Jagger, later that same year, the same year the band released Sticky Fingers, one of their most popular albums." -- I though that the mention of the album was out of place in the section on "Children and marriages", so moving it to Talk page for now. -- 17 Feb 2006

I would strongly encourage one of the Principal authors to take a look at the Muhammed Ali article. There is a wonderful table which tells which kid belongs to what wife, the years of their relationship, etc. This would be a very easy way to clean up this section that so desperately needs it.

This is a really good idea. Vivek 07:38, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I removed the part of the following sentence after "David Bowie". (original sentence:Also, it is said that such dalliances fight rumors of alleged homosexuality (especially with David Bowie) and claims that he is ugly and, more recently, over-the-hill).

Being ugly clearly is in the eye of the beholder. How would it seem if I added to the Britney Spears page "she is totally unsexual"? POV. Jagger is over the hill, he isn't exactly a youth. The "dalliances with women" part bothers me a bit for two reasons. The Stones aren't the first to use marketing -after all they don't really need it- and Mick had plenty of chances to enjoy female company. He fills arenas for a living after all. Rigmarole 17:13, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone have something better than a photograph of a waxwork (which isn't even a very good likeness)? 217.155.20.163 21:59, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

With you there, looks like someone's idea of a bad joke. If there's no public domain shot of him around, suggest one of his solo album covers would be the way to go. Happy to do that in next few days if no-one has a better suggestion. Cheers, Ian Rose 03:38, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that sounds good here. Cheers. --Doug (talk) 21:02, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I was wondering how to add photos, I have a really good picture of Jagger at the Rock and Roll Circus in 1968 but I dont remember where I downloaded it from, and was wondering if someone could help. Silly Stone August 2007

Someone asked on the Keith richards page to help this article out, so I added pictures, minor edits and some organization but it still is a pretty weak article.--Mikerussell 04:25, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Well done stepping in with the Rolling Stone pic - beats the Wandering Spirit cover, which is where I was going to go out of desperation if no-one came up with anything better. Re. content, yes it does seem a poor relation compared to the Richards page but perhaps that's reflecting public attitudes to the pair, as others have alluded to on this very page - Keef's just got the street cred Mick lacks, apparently. Not sure what I can contribute personally beyond copyedits as I'm a Stones fan who's not overly interested in either bloke solo but if I get inspired, who knows...? Cheers, Ian Rose 04:40, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Mike, just having a quick squiz at your further additions today, the article as a whole looks a good deal better than before. However some References would give it more cred. Are there particular books you can include as sources? Ian Rose 04:54, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Lika a lot Stones fans, I have a hard time warming up to Jagger, and really wouldn't cross the street to meet the chap probably, which is odd because I spent my youth often trying to find the exact room Richards got busted in at the Harbour Castle hotel in Toronto. Despite Richards outlaw image, he seems to have acquired a subtle wisdom about life and Jagger is a perpetual immature teen. But you can't deny how big Jagger has played in the band, so I thought I would try to fix thengs up a bit here. My sources for my edits were these 3:

• BBC news release
• A documentary called Being Mick (not very good) aired on the American based cable network A&E last month (stuff about parents and grandfather being teachers)
• 1995 Rolling Stone interview with Jann Wenner- Stuff about not reading music, and parents disapproval, etc.

Thing about "close to 400 songs" is that Jagger said in the press that the Stones can chose to play from 400 songs when the Chinese gov't banned 5 in Shanghai, thus I deduced close to 400 since they play many covers but mostly their own.

Anything else I just picked up over the years.--Mikerussell 17:24, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

"In fact, Jagger said in a 1995 Rolling Stone magazine interview, Jones was one of the worst songwriters he has ever known." Jagger actually said that he had "never known anyone with less talent for writing songs"--which isn't the same thing as saying that Jones was a horrible songwriter--the implication being that Jones was unable to contribute to songwriting efifectively, not that he did write songs and they were bad. I removed the sentence because it has pretty strong implications that weren't totally accurate or necessary.

Did Mick Jagger, living in London, student, frequented clubs such as the Cavern Club, located in Liverpool, which is very far from london? I propose to replace it (in few days) with London clubs, such Marquee, and Korner's Ealing Club. Vegetarien75 81.57.58.133 08:42, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I replace clubs such as the Cavern Club with clubs such as the famous Marquee Club or The Ealing Club

French user:Vegetarien75 81.57.58.133 09:22, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd replace the line they dropped "Sympathy for the Devil" from their tour set lits for several years after the incident with they dropped "Sympathy for the Devil" from their 75's US live set lists.. They played it on the 1970's european tour and the 71's UK tour; they play it again everywhere after the 1975's US tour. You can check it on many RS dedicated web sites.

a french RS fan : Vegetarien75 81.57.58.133 09:09, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

You may also want to change the word "church." Kabbala is taught in a Centre. Kabbala is Jewish mysticism and would never be taught in a church that I know of.

Might want to change the wording on 'joined the Kabbala religion'. Contrary to what tabloid shows like Hollywood Access or ET or even Madonna would have you believe, Kabbala is not a religion but a mystical tradition within a religion - Judaism. Might reword it to: 'started practising...' or 'studying the popularised trend espoused by the Kabbala Centre...', etc. Remember, the Kabbala Centre is about as Jewish as the Hare Krishna's are Hindu. Khirad 02:23, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

This is such an interesting article about someone who is, after all, an important public and cultural figure, that I would love to see more references,citations, sources...which it direly lacks. I am interested in editing it, but the combination of the sheer amount of information it contains and the lack of available sources makes this a daunting task. Hence the template. Veduny 19:22, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Do we have any information about his knighthood such as order or degree? MBE? OBE? CBE? Other? — Ultor_Solis • T 17:19, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

It currently links to Knight bachelor and he is in the cat so I presume this is what he is. He would have to be KB or KBE or GBE to use sir anyway. The absence of any posnominal letters would indicate he is not part of the OBE Nil Einne 01:10, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

The phrase "his anti-establishment stance" must be one of the best instances of unintended irony to be found at Wikipedia, given the fact that the first thing Jagger used to grab on the tour plane happened to be his pocket calculator, at least according to Truman Capote in "Conversations with Capote". Still, I must admit that no-one can sing "Heart of Stone" the way he does. Frank Landsman (talk) 13:53, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Any substantive knighthood, including knight bachelor, entitles the person to use "Sir". The only knights who don't get to be "Sir" are those who get honorary knighthoods. On the other hand, even honorary knights can use whatever postnominals are appropriate. Knight bachelors don't have any postnominals. That's why Mick Jagger is "Sir Mick Jagger" (with no postnominal), but Bob Geldof is "Mr Bob Geldof KBE". -- JackofOz (talk) 14:08, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Somebody could add that he did a song with Peter Tosh as an argument against racism. Tosh was also an opening act for some of his concerts --ቢትወደድ 16:16, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Image:Goddessdoorway.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 04:16, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

RVed ref to being in "All You Need Is Love" global link video - so were a lot of people, sure it'd be mentioned in the relevant article. Cheers, Ian Rose 02:22, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

STOP SPREADING MISINFORMATION ABOUT EVA JAGGER. SHE WAS BORN IN KENT, NOT IN AUSTRALIA. THERE IS A MISTAKE IN THE LINK YOU ARE PUBLISHING. HERE IS LETTER FROM CHRIS JAGGER:  Chris Jagger chris@chrisjaggeronline.com

To me

Oct 19, 2010

Hi there…this story is untrue…my mother was from Kent in England ….as far as we all know…..

Thanks

chris

This article states that Elizabeth Jagger was born in London, whereas her own article states that she was born in New York. Can anyone verify this in either direction? Roche-Kerr 01:44, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Jade was born 21 October 1971 at Belvedere Nursing Home in Paris.Christopher Andersen states this clearly in hid biography of Mick.Anyway,I remember when it was announced on radio that Mick's child was born and the DJ said "Paris".jeanne (talk) 14:24, 26 April 2008 (UTC)::Sorry about the above.I got Elizabeth confused with Jade. Elizabeth was born in New York at Lenox Hill Hospital.Sourced from Christopher Andersen's biography " Mick Jagger" published in 1993.jeanne (talk) 13:51, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

This may not be a totally unnecessary section, but I think phrases like "In the last decade he's grown more likely to prance than run, but even in his sixties, Jagger can't seem to stand still" don't read too well in an encyclopedia. I think it either needs cleaning up or it could be deleted and anything from it thought to be truly indispensable integrated elsewhere, perhaps? Soulsonic Bambaataa 20:11, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Heh, you'd get no argument from me, I was the one who tagged it back in February... Cheers, Ian Rose 13:29, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

How come there is no mention of Jagger using bees to sting his penis in order to make it bigger? [2] LOL @ JAGGER Tapir 01:39, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

An encyclopedia is hardly the place to talk about a person's penis. Perhaps you could find the answer in one of the more lurid tabloids.jeanne (talk) 14:40, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

The article has been vandalized by someone recently--it now reads:

Mick has died a long time ago and the person you see on stage is just his corpse on strings like a puppet. A Mick puppet.

Can someone report this to Wikipedia, and restore the article?--Schroeder74 02:03, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Done - FYI, you don't have 'report' things to Wikipedia as such - editors notice things like this pretty quickly... Cheers, Ian Rose 02:06, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

So now we have nothing in this becuase it offends some obscure Wiki guideline and Sir Mick and his children need to be protected from identity theft. Suggest something needs to be here, at least of a basic factual nature, or delete the heading completely?--Egghead06 (talk) 09:53, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

The whole thing is complete bull. There's nothing wrong with listing his wives and children. The only thing is that it needs to have a reference. So add what needs to be added, just make sure there's a source. Stan weller (talk) 10:01, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I think someone needs to add the fact the Mick does happen to be openly bisexual. I have sources right here:

http://www.amazon.com/Mick-Jagger-Story-Behind-Rolling/dp/1559721928 http://www.teenwire.com/infocus/2002/if-20020724p147.php http://www.nndb.com/people/478/000024406/

99.237.73.149 (talk) 22:40, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I think we'd need better sources than those. The amazon link for one only mentions that the author hints at bisexuality. The other two sources don't mention why they think Mick Jagger's bisexual or cite any sources. We'd need something solid, like a quote from Jagger saying he's been attracted to guys or proof that he slept with guys. 151.203.182.253 (talk) 07:07, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

hey thanks for changing his picture. :D:D:D AND WHAT THE HECK I DOUBT MICK JAGGER IS BISEXUAL

It's astonishing that anyone thinks it's important in 2008. Goodness, is that the time already? --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 01:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

His father is unnotable and there is simply no reason to include dob and dod. Thanks, SqueakBox 15:29, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Right now, there's not too much about his distinctive style of singing. (such as stuttered vocals). Is this kind of information okay to add to this article? because i'm not sure (haven't been on wiki for a while). My user account is Jedi feline, i just forgot to login. 218.186.13.3 (talk) 01:51, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

i just added this banner, and since it indicates that there should be a discussion of these concerns on the talk page, what i mean is: the article is currently *extremely* patchy - the "Rolling Stones" section jumping from 1967 to 2005 with practically nothing in between seems particularly awkward. a text section about Mick's solo ventures and collaborations with other artists also seems needed (not just a "solo discography"); something about the instruments he plays (and his development as a player of them) would be nice too. i'm not that much of a Mick-spotter but surely there are good citeable sources around that would support a more in-depth (and more cohesive) outline of his career, accomplishments, etc. Sssoul (talk) 09:26, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

What's the source of this information? Come on people, do a search on the net: everyone's copied THIS wikipedia article as a source... I think it's wrong. What's the origin of this? What did Mick say about this? I doubt it's true.

In early seventies some publications in Yugoslavia published that his mother was born in Poland. I wrote Chris Jagger an email, and he replied: To me

Oct 19, 2010

Hi there…this story is untrue…my mother was from Kent in England ….as far as we all know…..

Thanks

chris

I believe a link to this article about Mick Jagger should be added to his Wiki page: http://daily.chictoday.com/2008/08/16/the-real-mick-jagger/

Publisher is: Spotlight TM, Walking the Walk on Chic Today. Article Author: Adrienne PappCherylebernard (talk) 18:08, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

3/26/09 Cheryle Bernard--Cherylebernard (talk) 18:08, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't see what it would add to the article, since it appears to be nothing more than a minor piece of celebrity gossip with very little substantive content. Unless I've missed something? --Rodhullandemu 18:33, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

i just removed a snippet of contentious and rather outdated gossip from the article, since neither of the sources cited actually support the allegations. please see WP:BLP - thanks Sssoul (talk) 20:13, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I have downgraded this article to C-grade, because a three minute cursory examination found the following unacceptable omissions and biases:

• it inadequately outlines his relationship with Marianne Faithfull
• it does not mention alleged rumours about a bisexual relationship with David Bowie
• it displays, as his only photograph, what is surely the most unflattering photo of him on the internet. --Geronimo20 (talk) 13:35, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

LoFL! i like the photo! grading the article C makes sense, but those aren't very compelling reasons. his relationships don't need to be "accounted for" - outlined, maybe, but not "accounted for"; and unless you have a reliable source to verify that allegation about him and Bowie, then WP:BLP#Non-article_space requires that it be removed even from the talk page. seriously, you really should add "rumours about" and/or "alleged" to that - thanks Sssoul (talk) 13:46, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Oops. I changed the relevant qualifiers to "outlines" and "alleged rumours about". --Geronimo20 (talk) 14:20, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

per WP:LEAD, I've expanded this to 4 paras as an overview of Jagger's life and career, and picked out what I think are the salient points to be dealt with in the main article, which still needs work. It's always difficult to encapsulate nearly fifty years in four paragraphs, so if you think it can be improved, I won't argue with you. Lest anyone should worry that it's unsourced, well, it's all in the article or in The Rolling Stones or can be sourced quite easily. Rodhullandemu 23:46, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Just a comment from the lead, that Mick Taylor was not, in fact a tax exile, one of the reasons he gave for leaving the Stones.. he said he missed his friends in England and was unhappy after the necessity of living in France to be with the others. --Leahtwosaints (talk) 23:39, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Bent currently links to the play and not Bent (film). This should be changed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.65.191.90 (talk) 14:17, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Just a minor point. Charlie Watts: " "Anybody else would be lynched: 18 wives and 20 children and he's knighted, fantastic!" The "fantastic" should be separated from the rest of the statement by either a dash or a colon, even a full stop. A comma is not sufficient to distance the reaction from the statement. Guv2006 (talk) 14:53, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

(a) It's a quote, and (b) the comma does the job nicely, anyway. Rothorpe (talk) 14:59, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

No, the comma does not "do the job nicely". It's very poor grammar, as you would know if you understood how grammar works. If it is a quote, then fine, leave it. Don't try and defend it, though. Guv2006 (talk) 08:27, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

((edit semi-protected)) Fix the birth year!

99.73.70.250 (talk) 03:45, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

• Looks OK to me. Source? Rodhullandemu 03:48, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I changed the information about the song Sympathy for the Devil. It's not a guise of Satan but, as we can learn in the own article Sympathy for the Devil, is a personification of the evil side of human being. NandO ^ta_lk! 03:49, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles are no sources in themselves. In the song Jagger does assume the guise of Satan (As heads is tails just call me Lucifer......If you meet me have some courtesy....) Satan personifies the evil and/or selfish side of man.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:02, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Jeanne, I didn't like this "guise of Satan". To be the Devil is not the same that have a sympathy for him, ya know, hehehe... But, anyway, there are references in the article Sympathy for the Devil in which own Jagger says: "[When people started taking us as devil worshippers], I thought it was a really odd thing, because it was only one song, after all. It wasn't like it was a whole album, with lots of occult signs on the back. People seemed to embrace the image so readily, [and] it has carried all the way over into heavy metal bands today", and Keith Richards: "Before, we were just innocent kids out for a good time, they're saying, 'They're evil, they're evil.' Oh, I'm evil, really? So that makes you start thinking about evil... What is evil? Half of it, I don't know how much people think of Mick as the devil or as just a good rock performer or what? There are black magicians who think we are acting as unknown agents of Lucifer and others who think we are Lucifer. Everybody's Lucifer." I prefer my version. Thanks, NandO ^ta_lk! 16:41, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I'm a retard! Sorry. I'm a learner of English and I didn't know the meaning of "guise". I thought "guise" meant that Jagger was Satanist. NandO ^ta_lk! 16:46, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Mick Jagger is an atheist according to this article, so he wouldn't believe in Satan: http://brainz.org/50-most-brilliant-atheists-all-time/ Aaronwayneodonahue (talk) 21:34, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Who says Jagger believes in Satan? He merely assumed the guise of Satan in Sympathy For the Devil which hardly makes him a black-robed, Enochian-chanting Satanist. Athiest or not, he has baptised most of his children according to the rites of the Church of England.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:33, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

((edit semi-protected))

I suggest to add the following paragraph to this section:

In 2010 a retrospective exhibitions of portraits of Mick Jagger was presented at the festival Rencontres d'Arles, in France. The authors of the 70 pictures are Bryan Adams, Brian Aris, Enrique Badulescu, Cecil Beaton, Simone Cecchetti, William Christie, Anton Corbijn, Kevin Cummins, Sante D’Orazio, Deborah Feingold, Tony Frank, Claude Gassian, Harry Goodwin, Anwar Hussein, Karl Lagerfeld, Annie Leibovitz, Peter Lindbergh, Gered Mankowitz, Jim Marshall, David Montgomery, Terry O’Neill, Guy Peellaert, Jean-Marie Périer, Michael Putland, Ken Regan, Herb Ritts, Ethan Russell, Francesco Scavullo, Norman Seeff, Mark Seliger, Dominique Tarl, Pierre Terrasson, Andy Warhol, Albert Watson, Robert Whitaker, Baron Wolman. The catalogue of the exihibition is the first photo album of Mick Jagger and shows the evolution of the artist in 50 years of career ^[1].

--annao (talk) 06:33, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Done Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:21, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

is the song "swagger Jagger" by Cher Lloyd is about him too?--Haya831 (talk) 18:21, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

	An image used in this article, File:Jagger-and-Richards.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests July 2011 What should I do?
	A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 10:08, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

The lead contains some strange stuff. First:

Frequent conflict with the authorities (including alleged drug use and his romantic involvements) ensured that [. . .]

A pedant might say that this implies that it's the authorities that include(d) drug use etc. But surely this means instead that conflicts have "included" (arisen from?) these. All right, but how do romantic involvements give rise to conflict with the authorities?

Secondly:

[Jagger's] performance style has been said to have "opened up definitions of gendered masculinity and so laid the foundations for self-invention and sexual plasticity which are now an integral part of contemporary youth culture"

quoting some book with the earnest title Sexing the groove: popular music and gender. A bit of googling quickly shows that it's actually within an essay by Whitely within this book edited by her. "It has been said that" is curiously evasive; how about "Sheila Whitely has said that"? Well, one reason is that this too might be misleading; what Whitely actually writes is:

It is thus suggested that Jagger's performance style opened up definitions of gendered masculinity and so laid the foundations for self-invention and sexual plasticity which are now an integral part of contemporary youth culture.

Who suggests this, and on what grounds? The context suggests that it's Whitely herself. But why should we worry about her? Her mind seems fogged, or at best she has a strange prose style, at least when in essayistic mode: for example, what is the difference between "gendered masculinity" and plain old "masculinity"? Though actually after a page or two of cultstudies-speak she gets down to a readable account of the Stones in their prime, seemingly basing her occasional comments on sexiness on material written by somebody called Hotchner -- at which point books.google.com thinks I've had enough free stuff and refuses to deal me any more pages.

I realize that this book was published, and that it came from a respected publisher, and that the author is eminent in her field: all combining to qualify it as a "reliable source" by WP's definition. But I think that WP editors should be more critical than are such publishers as Routledge and Duke University Press, which happily disseminate essayistic material that has only a tenuous relationship with evidence. If the gist of this comes from Hotchner, then what is this material by Hotchner, and how is it credible? (A bit of googling suggests that Hotchner is this popular writer, and most likely it's his book Blown away: The Rolling Stones and the Death of the Sixties.) -- Hoary (talk) 01:40, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the form of "Sheila Whiteley has said that..." in the section "Legacy", but about her prose style or her importance and all the other things you wrote, well, it's just personal opinion. NandO ^ta_lk! 03:45, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

But what is that she has said? Actually she says that it is suggested, by person or persons unspecified, that [blah blah]. It may well be that the suggester is herself. If so, then we can simplify this to "Sheila Whitely has suggested that..." But should we worry about what a paper merely suggests? If so, then just what does it suggest? That MJ "opened up definitions of gendered masculinity". I don't know what this means. (I'll wildly guess that it means "let people question what masculinity meant"; can you do better?) As it is, this looks like "Some academic said such-and-such, whose meaning is obscure unclear but has something to do with gender; as Google found it and gave a precise source for it, we chucked it in in the hope that it would make the lead look more impressive. ¶ And what about the "romantic involvements" part? -- Hoary (talk) 05:22, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

The article should be about the actual person, the actual circumstances of his life, and his actual accomplishments, not his media image's putative sociological significance according to some obscure soi-disant "scholar" of putative media-image sociological significance. TheScotch (talk) 09:31, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Can anyone please elaborate on that section that his knighthood has nothing to do with the Order of the British Empire? You might not consider it so "drastic", but foreigners often mix these facts up. He may be addressed a "Sir" because he is a Knight Bachelor. However, this is only possible to determine by looking at the very bottom of the article, where the category has been set. However, this is not enough: at least the Knight Bachelor ought to be mentioned in the article once. -andy 77.190.13.174 (talk) 17:07, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Done. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 08:59, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

What part of his notability is not to do with "popular culture"? Just a thought - perhaps the section needs renaming. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:32, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Why no mention of the Maroon 5 featuring Christina Aguilera "Moves Like Jagger"? 86.46.40.211 (talk) 06:54, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

There used to be the mention about Jagger regarding "Moves Like Jagger", but the info is not accurate and also misplaced. I don't really know how to write the sentences neutrally, though --G(x) (talk) 10:25, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Done. Without any explicit source, but pointing to the article on the song, which I think is good enough for the minor mention here. (No more than a minor mention is needed, as the song has its own article.) -- Hoary (talk) 12:08, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

The image of Mick Jagger which supposedly dates from 1964 is incorrect. It dates from around 1969. I recall seeing it and it was taken during the time he did Performance. Besides, Jagger's hair was much shorter in 1964 and he wore different clothing- he hadn't yet adopted the dandy look.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 20:40, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Croatian writer Giancarlo Kravar: "Mick Jagger", the simple title of the latest biography of the Rolling Stones frontman Mick Jagger, by Christopher Andersen on sale from today. Andersen says that Jagger has only one friend Keith Richards, one of the most famous mistress Jagger, former first lady of France, wife of Nicolas Sarkozy said: "I was just one of 4,000 lucky woman, and it would be my pleasure that I was Mrs. Jagger" . 78.2.64.11 (talk) 17:48, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

There seems to be some POV editing at work here, in which references to Jagger's possible bisexuality and relationship with David Bowie get cut frequently without explanation. If Jagger and/or his friends, family or PR people are cutting these refs to save reputation that is a serious case of bad faith POV editing. The fact is that this isn't an idle rumour. There is a lot of souring on the net about the Bowie relationship and Jagger's sexuality. He even commented on it himself in the 1970s. He also issued a denial relatively recently, in response to Ms Bowie's book. All should be included and sourced fairly and accurately. WP is neither a rumour mill NOR a public relations outlet. I'll wait a few days for an editor to sort this out - if there is no explanation and/or nothing gets done after that I'll put a POV tag on the article to try to get this issue resolved. Thanks, Marlinnspike (talk) 07:42, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

If you're referring to my recent edits: i didn't remove the reference to the alleged relationship with Bowie, i simply moved it to the paragraph about various people he's been "romantically linked" with. if you want more on that subject, go ahead and add it (citing reliable sources of course). Sssoul (talk) 08:57, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Angie Bowie's book I do not think can be regarded as a reliable source; not only does she have an axe to grind, but it's full of inconsistencies and her account of the "bed scene" isn't evidence of anything other that Jagger and Bowie "possibly" shared a bed. Well, so did Laurel and Hardy and Morecambe and Wise. Not good enough, and the fact that there is "a lot of souring on the net" (how appropriate a typo!) leading to denials merely shows that this is, in WP:RS terms, a dead duck, forty years ago, and only used to denigrate both Bowie and Jagger, and that's assuming that anybody cares about that sort of thing any more. Rodhullandemu 00:17, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

CNN reports that Jagger commented on his bisexuality back in the '70s.[3] Perhaps we could start by finding quotes by Sir Mick himself as a reliable source and go from there? Rklawton (talk) 00:18, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Disregard. I misheard the report. CNN did not claim that Mick commented on his bisexuality himself. Rklawton (talk) 00:25, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

If you can find a reliable source with an interview, then it should be added. But The Face isn't viewed as being reliable, so the statement on being bisexual was removed. And the sentence about one relationship with David Bowie is from the tabloids, reporting what a book "claims". This isn't verifiable, and is only speculation. If you read the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons]] page, you will know that this is not allowed on wikipedia. I won't quoted all the reasons here as you just read it, as there is quite a bit. Thanks - Jak Fisher (talk) 01:22, 21 August, 2013 (UTC)

I feel the intro needs work. I am here to help and want to discuss this first before any changes- and I am glad to let someone else make the changes. I only want the subject to get the credit he is due. Jagger and Richards have been one of the two greatest songwriting duos ever (along with Lennon/McCartney). The Stones are one of the top rock bands of all time. Jagger is the lead singer for and lead co-writer for the Stones. He co-wrote 53 of their 59 top 100 hits (worldwide). Surely these things should be mentioned in the intro. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougmac7 (talk • contribs) 04:38, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

thanks for using the talk page. i agree that the WP:lead needs work – and see Talk:Mick_Jagger#Lead, above – but please propose some specific wording, sources, etc. i'm sure you already know that (regardless of anyone's personal opinion of the subject/the Stones) what you've written above is too WP:peacock-ish for an encyclopedia. Sssoul (talk) 07:18, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

If the lede is meant to be a summary of the main article, it shouldn't need sources, and maybe not even links. 109.154.7.5 (talk) 18:42, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

She's a huge part of Mick's life and needs a mention in his personal life section so please stop deleting it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Killerqueenn18 (talk • contribs) 04:32, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

She will get it, and properly sourced (but probably not mentioning the apocryphal Mars Bar incident except in passing); however, her presence at the filming of "Ned Kelly", leading to the song "Wild Horses", will be there. I'm listing this article for some TLC. Rodhullandemu 00:07, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

follow @tobiin for more info — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.3.223.118 (talk) 10:58, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

I just saw Jagger on "Late Night with David Letterman" and he is THIN. I wondered, is this due to extremely good diet and working out all the time, just not eating much (caveman diet), something wrong with him, or still does drugs. I came here to Wikipedia to find out and - amazingly - there is very little mention of any drug use aside from the 1960's. Has he ever come out and said, "Doing drugs was a mistake - I stopped in year such-and-such"??? If he has never denounced drugs, I would assume he still does them. Regarding his hair, I saw on Letterman that he has NO grey hairs in his head. I also find this hard to believe (at his age). I mean, his hair looked like that of a teenager. He must colour his hair or use Grecian Formula. Again, nothing in the Wikipedia entry about any of this. Anybody know anything about this, or can quote something? Surely he must have commented on these two items over the years, or others have (fellow drug users, hair stylists, etc). Thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.183.204.23 (talk) 10:20, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Request for a more experienced editor to fix the bad OBE post-nominals template link to a redirect page. (There are at least two instances of the template in the Jagger article.)--Froglich (talk) 18:27, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

The Rolling Stones star Mick Jagger is to become a great-grandfather next year. The musician's 21-year-old granddaughter Assisi is expecting a baby with her chef boyfriend, and the new addition to the family will make the 70-year-old star a first-time great-grandfather, according to Britain's Daily Mirror. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.92.131.107 (talk) 17:09, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

The "according to whom?" link is definitely warranted since it isn't cited. I would also argue, unless there are others making the same case in books out there, that the phrase "often cited" would be better replaced by "Although his voice has been referred to as 'thin and unexceptional'." I'm too lazy to do all the legwork on this because I don't necessarily concur with Mr. Michael Hicks of the Australasian Journal of American Studies but anyone who wanted to add a proper citation to that could get there by looking at the book referenced on the following page: http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/41053856?uid=3739840&uid=2134&uid=2&uid=70&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=21103682427377 GBrady (talk) 17:45, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

When attempting to edit the "Mick Jagger" page, I was faced with the warning "". I thought I would point out that both these sources - http://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/british/founder-member and http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/founder-member - refer to "founder member" as being the chiefly British term, and the latter denotes "founding member" as the US-preferred term. So, something in that warning is wrong - no? Please correct me if I'm wrong. I'd suggest that either way, as Sir Jagger is a British citizen the term "founder member" be used.

Breadified (talk) 16:31, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I'm incorrectly using the edit function here to respond, but this is precisely the issue I came to the Talk page to talk about and know of no better way to address the issue without adding a redundant new section.

While I agree with the logic of Breadifield regarding Jagger's national origin and use of what appears to be a singularly British term, I also feel that if it's necessary to place a hidden "warning" in the edit coding (to the effect of "do not change this") sufficient numbers of people have edited this to warrant either changing it outright or actually including explanatory wording in the body of the text itself.

To a significant percentage of readers, the current text ("founder member") reads wrong or at best awkwardly. It would appear to possibly require a hyphen or slash since "founder" and "member" are both nouns. That fact makes it seem as though there was a typo wherein someone couldn't decide whether to use "founder" or "member" to describe Jagger's affiliation with the group.

Since it's pretty clear that Jagger was/is a "member" of the Stones, I'd suggest simply removing that word "member" entirely. This would eliminate the natural inclination to correct something which may be perfectly acceptable in UK English but sounds wrong to virtually all other English speakers in the world. The change I propose would refer to Jagger as simply a "founder" of the Stones. Period. Mikerrr (talk) 23:12, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

To a significant percentage of readers, colour, ageing,disorientated and aluminium read wrong or at best awkwardly. Those spellings, amongst others, are constantly being "corrected" by editors from other English speaking countries (mostly America, it seems). MOS:TIES acknowledges and respects the differences in English around the world, and by rights, "founder member" should remain.

Do a Wikipedia seach for "founder member" and see how many articles about football (soccer) clubs and lesser-known British musicians use the term - and since fewer people from other countries have much of an interest in those articles, the term "founder member" is left unmolested, without any debate. Radiopathy •talk• 00:03, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

As indicated above, the fact that someone (perhaps you?) felt it necessary to insert a statement warning others not to change this particular term indicates strongly that a sufficient number of people felt it should be changed to make it worth changing. I'm not even sure it's on to insert such a hidden "private property" message in the text of a Wiki article. Nonetheless, my edit eliminates the entire issue, replacing a widely questioned term with a universally accepted one. I would further assert that the "many articles about soccer clubs and lesser known British musicians" which use the term "founder member" are of interest to and read by almost exclusively British readers - thus the grammatical propriety of the term is not questioned. Mick Jagger, on the other hand, is the subject of much broader interest outside of the U.K. by readers who consider "founder member" to be either incorrect or vaguely redundant. Mikerrr (talk) 07:22, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but Mick doesn't get a pass just because he's more popular than Jet Black! MOS:TIES and WP:ENGVAR apply equally. Radiopathy •talk• 10:14, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

One month has passed and there has been no further discussion. I will restore the term "founder member". Radiopathy •talk• 22:57, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

That was one of the most interesting points in the whole article, and now it's gone. Who removed it, and why? I am most displeased. Vranak (talk) 12:15, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

The quote in this section is orphaned, and needs attribution. Who is saying it, etc? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.179.22.245 (talk) 10:42, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Archived discussions are here

How tall is mick Jagger? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.227.187.189 (talk) 15:07, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

There are several Anderson short references but which of the longer references do they refer to? As it stands it is unclear and needs to be addressed, possibly by harv linking. Keith D (talk) 23:23, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

I'd like to add harmonica as an instrument in Jagger's info box. He's not a virtuoso, but he's played enough to get credit. Any opposition?Stuthehistoryguy (talk) 01:04, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

He's not well known for playing the harmonica, this can be added to the article body. Mlpearc (open channel) 01:29, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Keith Richards is listed as having "vocals" under his instruments and I would probably argue that his vocals are less known than Mick's harmonica playing. Fiffy032 (talk) 21:57, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm just curious. I've never been aware that Mick was known for playing guitar and piano, and especially enough for those to be listed in his "Instruments" box. PatrioticHippie (talk) 03:23, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Mick Jagger. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add ((cbignore)) after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add ((nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot)) to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131112111534/http://breakingnews.iol.ie/entertainment/?jp=cwkfojojeyid to http://breakingnews.iol.ie/entertainment/?jp=cwkfojojeyid

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:44, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

re: this edit (Copied from User talk:Willondon#Slaughter at Altamont:)
1. Hunter was not merely stabbed to death, but was also severely beaten up before and after the stabbing which is why he brandished the gun in the first place; 2. not one shot was fired on Dec 6. AlterBerg (talk) 06:13, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
(end copy)

"Murder" is a matter of opinion, an opinion not shared by the jury that found Alan Passaro not guilty on the grounds of self defense. I was not present during their deliberations, but I suspect the fact that not a shot was fired was immaterial. Evaluations of self defense scenarios involving a brandished gun surely take into account whether the killer knew if the gun was loaded, and in most cases, I'm guessing the person facing the gun has no idea whether it's loaded or not. In any case, to make such a WP:POV change to the article should require consensus from all interested editors. Willondon (talk) 13:20, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/gossip/new-book-takes-mick-jagger-affair-david-bowie-article-1.1109887

Should there be a mention of the sexual affair with Jagger and Bowie? --— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:8b83:4860:c55f:a32b:8bf:7e9e (talk • contribs) 04:43, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

@2602:306:8b83:4860:c55f:a32b:8bf:7e9e: I would disagree, NYDailyNews is a tabloid and the site alone states in URL that it is 'gossip'. Please also see this, it has previously been brought up and dismissed. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 06:19, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Mick Jagger's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "nydailynews.com":

• From L'Wren Scott: "L'Wren Scott's childhood friends from Utah share memories". Daily News. New York. March 22, 2014.
• From Keith Richards: http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/music/keith-richards-plenty-plenty-article-1.2346653

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 23:37, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

He plays guitar; why does the instruments section in his musical career infobox not have "guitar"? --123.2.142.50 (talk) 09:19, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Seems mentionworthy his use of the harmonica (on Sweet Virginia, for example). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trappem (talk • contribs) 23:09, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Will change now, but Mlpearc will probably change it back. 49.196.15.13 (talk) 10:16, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

There are pictures of Mick Jagger and Bianca from Leni Riefenstahl.

http://www.leni-riefenstahl.de/deu/bio.html

Maybe worth a link ?

It is just TEN lines long, this for Mick Jagger? Is someone having a laugh? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr gobrien (talk • contribs) 18:37, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Mick Jagger/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ritchie333 (talk · contribs) 14:29, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

As promised, I will give this a go. I've had a quick spin through the article and can't see any showstoppers. One quick comment, which I'll come to in more depth later, is the relationships and family lists would probably sit better as prose.

Specific comments will follow. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:29, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: Thanks! I was actually just thinking about the nomination of this article yesterday afternoon. Just for your FYI, Tumbling Dice is also under review at this time, so may require more time to chase both reviews down at the same time, but will try my best and will be in a timely manner regardless, okay? --TheSandDoctor (talk) 16:47, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

P.S., love the edit summary "you can't always GA what you want". --TheSandDoctor (talk) 16:49, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Struck out part of my response above as the other review appears to be wrapping up quicker than I expected. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 02:44, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Lead

• "one of the most popular and influential frontmen in the history of rock & roll" - this quotation should be in the body, with a source

 Done It already was in the legacy section? Anyhow, added more sources and an additional sentence directly after it in legacy section. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 15:18, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Must have just missed it. Sorry this is going at a bit of a glacial pace :-/ Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:48, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks for doing the review. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 17:40, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Early life

• The Wargs.com source identifying Jagger's parents birth and death dates is a dead link

I went to go fix this, but noticed that the site link is archived (therefore making it still easily acceptable)? --TheSandDoctor (talk) 03:16, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

You can use an archive link, but I'm wondering what makes it a reliable source? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:08, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

 Done Removed the source and added sources to The Telegraph instead as, simply put, I am not sure what made Wargs.com a reliable source. Because of this I removed it and replaced with The Telegraph. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 21:23, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

• A brief sentence explaining how Jagger became part of the Stones would be useful - the narrative jumps from Richards and Jones wanting to start a band, straight into the Stones' early days

I have added a brief paragraph, what do you think of it? --TheSandDoctor (talk) 03:16, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

That should do. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:08, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

 Done --TheSandDoctor (talk) 21:23, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

1960s

• "This was before Andrew Loog Oldham became their manager." - Why is this sentence relevant here?

 Done No, not really. Removed. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 17:53, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

• The paragraph about Mick Avory is off-topic; it could be moved to a footnote in the main Stones article

@Ritchie333: Where where you suggest adding it in the Stones main article? Will happily move it. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 17:53, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Just after the first sentence in "1962–1964: Building a following", where it talks about the first Marquee gig. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:23, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

 Done --TheSandDoctor (talk) 16:35, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

• The Vanity Fair reference needs more information - page number, publication date, ISSN number etc

 Done While I could not find the original article details, I was able to find a couple of references containing the quote from Vanity Fair citing the publication and year. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 04:04, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

• Can we say a bit more about Jagger wanting to get rid of Jones towards the end of the 60s? This source isn't great but there was certainly animosity between the two, with Jagger and Richards thinking that Jones wasn't pulling his weight by the time they were recording Beggars Banquet. I think this needs exploration.

What do you think of it now Ritchie333? --TheSandDoctor (talk) 19:39, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

That's better Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:13, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for your input! . --TheSandDoctor (talk) 21:28, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

• As you talk later about the second Hyde Park gig in 2013, we should really bring up the 1969 one here - I know this is "Stones" generally but the most memorable parts of the gig (IMHO) are Jagger's. A sentence or two about him coming onstage first, delivering a eulogy to Jones, quoting from Shelley, and releasing the doves, should do it.

 Done Good catch, added. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 17:53, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

1970s

• "The Rolling Stones and several other bands recorded there [Stargroves]" - do we know which ones? "Won't Get Fooled Again" was recorded there

 Done Yes, there is a ton of info on it and a Canadian news show did a 5 minute documentary about it listing everything ([4]), so I have now added that and more of what was listed in the Rocks off 50 tracks book. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 17:55, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

• "Jagger, along with the rest of the band, changed his look and style as the 1970s progressed" - can we expand on this? I can't really see that much different stylistically between the '69 and late '70s tours, except maybe a lot more lights and bigger sound system

 Done Added this. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 05:27, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

• This source : "Gibson Lifestyle, Deepest Cut: The Rolling Stones Let It Loose from 1972's Exile on Main St., by Russell Hall 20 February 2008" isn't specific enough - what is this?

What do you mean? Here is the link to the source on Gibson.com [5] --TheSandDoctor (talk) 18:16, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

That's it - without the web link I couldn't work out what I would look for when attempting to verify the facts. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:28, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

So this point is dealt with? --TheSandDoctor (talk) 16:39, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that'll meet GA standards now Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:13, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

 Done --TheSandDoctor (talk) 21:27, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

• Can we get one other source re: the Hells Angels attempted murder? This doesn't sound particularly significant and if another independent source doesn't cover it, I think per WP:BLP it should go

I have added a reference to Rolling Stone and The Telegraph - can look for more but don't want to be overkilling it. Do you still want it to be removed? I think it is worth mention. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 18:16, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

No, just another source will suffice. Ritchie333^{(talk) (cont)} 11:28, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

So the two I added are good? --TheSandDoctor (talk) 05:27, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

I think so Ritchie333 ^(talk)(cont) 20:13, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

 Done Okay, in that case, marked as done. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 21:25, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

• Any mention of Jamming with Edward?

 Done Added. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 05:50, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

1980s

• Quite a bit of prose here isn't in the sources given, I have tagged this with "fact" tags

 Done Sources added. I did have problems with one citation needed tag from the 1990s section (last tag in article), I cannot seem to find a source for it at this time. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 04:16, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

• Jagger's solo career is glossed over. Do we know why he wanted to record solo? Was he just trying to diversify, or was he trying to get out of continual feuding with Richards?

@Ritchie333: Added a sentence that I think joins it together (and is, of course, sourced), what do you think? --TheSandDoctor (talk) 04:31, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

2000s

• "spawning the hit single "Visions of Paradise" - what chart position?

Found this, but I'm not sure what WoC means? --TheSandDoctor (talk) 05:21, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

"weeks on chart" Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:14, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

 Done Thanks! I have reworked the sentence and added the source I previously linked (see my response immediately above your last one). --TheSandDoctor (talk) 21:36, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

2010

• SuperHeavy seems to be glossed over - another sentence or two explaining their formation would be useful

 Done Added. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 21:50, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Relationship with Keith Richards

• "World War III" needs to go into more detail here. You could also bring up the anecdote around that time where Jagger phoned up Charlie Watts in the middle of the night, causing him to come downstairs and smack Jagger in the face (not forgetting to put on a smart suit and shave properly first, of course), saying "Don't you ever call me your f***ing drummer - you're my f***ing singer" (or something like that)

I have added more content regarding the "World War III" bit, what do you think? Also, I am wondering how the thing with Watts (which is quite famous among fans) is relevant to the Jagger/Richards feud? --TheSandDoctor (talk) 07:50, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

• In relation to the above, a "Relationship with Brian Jones" section may also be useful

Acting and film production

• The prose in this section is really choppy; lots of "He did this. He also did that. He also did the other". See if you can break up the flow a bit; possibly explain why Jagger got the part

I have changed it up a bit, what do you think now? And what part are you referring to? --TheSandDoctor (talk) 07:32, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

• "Jagger has also had an intermittent acting career, most notably" - instead of "most notably", give some more concrete reason such as "most commercially successful" or "most critically acclaimed" (not sure which is correct here)

 Done Reworded it. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 07:32, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

• The source "Jodorowsky's Dune (2013), Frank Pavich, Documentary" is too vague, needs more information
• We don't need that lengthy quote from Vanity Fair about "Shine a Light" - it should be trimmed down

What do you think of it now? Have trimmed it down. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 18:54, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that looks better. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:30, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

 Done --TheSandDoctor (talk) 05:14, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Personal Life

• As stated above, this list should be converted to prose

How would you suggest doing that structure/flow wise? I was the one who put it all in a table from a list of dates . Do you prefer this version? --TheSandDoctor (talk) 18:44, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure - but I think the best place to start is to take the text in the table and just copy into a paragraph or two. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:14, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

I converted it all to prose, what do you think Ritchie333? --TheSandDoctor (talk) 07:23, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Interests and philanthropy

• Can we talk about politics here a bit? It's not too big a secret that Jagger supports the Conservative Party; here's a source where he expresses his admiration for Margaret Thatcher while this source shows he supported David Cameron as PM and was mildly in favour of Brexit.

Thanks for the sources, will add this. Then he went 180 degrees on Brexit as listed here. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 18:46, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

I wouldn't use the Daily Express as a reliable source for anything on Brexit (here's why), but you can use Jagger's own Twitter feed to cite his personal opinion per WP:BLPPRIMARY. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:41, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Hmm...yeah...good point - what do you think of what I have added now Ritchie333? --TheSandDoctor (talk) 05:02, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

In popular culture

• This section could probably be merged with "Legacy"

What do you think should come first in a merger? The existing In popular culture section (just move section header around)? --TheSandDoctor (talk) 18:47, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

I think after you've done a trim (see below point), I would probably put "Legacy" first. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:31, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

• There are too many quotations here, with everyone putting their 2c in to what they think about Jagger. We don't need that many; keep the important stuff like Phillip Norman's assessment, but I'd look at all the others and get rid of anything that doesn't give the reader a much better insight into what makes him tick.

@Ritchie333: I am happy to trim this down, I am just not sure what ones to cut out as, after reviewing them, I feel that they add to a greater understanding/paint the picture. Name a few you wish removed and I will happily do it, I am just not sure what should stay. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 01:10, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

P.S., I did shrink one or two of the quotes and restructure a couple of sentences in this section while doing the review I mentioned above. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 01:10, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Autobiography

• This doesn't need to be a separate section

 Done --TheSandDoctor (talk) 18:42, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

External links

• Do we need to include http://www.godgammeldags.nu/rolling/stones/solo/mick_jagger/ ?

 Done Not really, is also a 404 link. Anyhow,  Removed --TheSandDoctor (talk) 01:14, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Summary

There is a lot of work to do here to make this meet the GA standards - principal problems are that quite a bit of content is unreferenced, or the references are not sufficient for the level of verification we expect. Some sections are overlong, others are lacking in content. However, I know you managed to pull The Rolling Stones out of the bag, so I will put this "on hold" for now, and see where things are in a couple of days. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:01, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

I believe that I have addressed the majority of the concerns raised so far and now pending answers to a few questions (see above) before I can continue much further to wrap up the remaining points. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 01:11, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

The major thing that needs resolving are the four outstanding ((page needed)) tags. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:05, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: In regards to the page needed tag by this reference (David Pattie, Rock music in performance, Palgrave Macmillan, 2007. ISBN 1-4039-4746-5), I think that the person who added it is referencing the entire book (was able to find it on google books and search for "Mick Jagger")? Aside from that, I have no problems with removing that sentence as I have yet to find concrete evidence of it written anywhere --TheSandDoctor (talk) 16:45, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

I've found the source and identified the page number. I've also cleaned up most of the references; however in doing so I noticed some are incomplete. Also, The Sun is a completely unacceptable source for a BLP, so I have removed it and replaced it with a ((fact)) tag. As it stands, there are still five tags to be resolved. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:36, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

I've fixed up the remainder of the tags and done another tidy-up. I think we're close enough to meet the GA criteria now, so I'll pass the review. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:49, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Ritchie333! Could you please answer the questions I have above though so that I can improve the article further? Any suggestions on improvements before thinking of taking this to FA? --TheSandDoctor (talk) 17:12, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

As far as I know, the only questions left were "what do you think of this", which the obvious answer is "fine, barring a few minor bits I'll do now". As for FA, do one at a time! Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:14, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: True, except for Relationship with Keith Richards section (was also asking point of including a statement). As for the FA, I am doing one thing at a time (just finished this nom, didn't I? (jk)). I am just fielding my options, do you think that it would be a worthy contender? I have a feeling that The Rolling Stones is one as well. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 19:13, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

I am starting this discussion as it appears that there is an edit war of sorts going on and no one has yet started a talk page discussion about this. Let's try to gather some consensus. Should the fact that Jagger is in a relationship with a ballerina who is 29 (emphasis on age, not fact he is in a relationship with her) be included in the article? Please discuss this here (and reach consensus) before making any future edits re-adding the emphasis on the age difference of 44 years. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 23:35, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

@Freshacconci:, IP will be notified once this edit is saved. Pinging Oshwah as they were the last protecting admin. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 23:35, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

This uses the abbreviation "esp" in the "Partner(s)" section, apparently short for "espoused". But the dictionary says "espoused" means married, and is "archaic" to boot. In modern usage it means "support a cause". And it looks really weird. He was never espoused to any of these women. If this was changed to just the dates (i.e., Chrissie Shrimpton, 1963-1966) the meaning would be perfectly clear and this frankly terrible word wouldn't be there. Note that a casual user is likely to entirely miss the popup on the abbreviation "esp" and be totally lost, since this is not an abbreviation that normally occurs anywhere. I would make this change myself, but I'm afraid I would annoy someone. 216.243.16.98 (talk) 20:14, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

I made this change, after looking around Wikipedia to see if this usage was widely featured in pages of gents with lots of girlfriends, and seeing that it is not. However, my edit failed, for reasons unknown; although I did not alter any of the information at the top of the Infobox, only the one section of it, it was no longer an infobox when I saved it. So I reverted it. Maybe someone who knows how to do it can make this correction. I notice that it was added back in April, on the sly -- the user made a another change at the same time, and only mentioned the other change in his description, which seems dishonest. Anyways, have a look at this revision: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mick_Jagger&diff=prev&oldid=773587594 and you will see that I am right. 216.243.16.98 (talk) 20:44, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

I note also that this "esp|espoused" notation is not supported in Template:Infobox person, which says, regarding unmarried partners, "Use the format Name (1950–present) for current partner and Name (1970–1999) for former partner(s)." The page previously, before the edit indicated above, used the parameter ((small| for the dates, which looks OK but isn't mentioned in the Infobox template. 216.243.16.98 (talk) 20:57, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Boeing720 (talk) 05:19, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Did you have a question, or did you just feel like posting an image on this page? General Ization ^Talk 05:20, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

There is a question - in the headline. A rather long time ago now, I was told to use the "normal" (most commonly used) name in biographical articles. And here I see not "Mick Jagger" (in bold) but "Sir Mick Jagger". To be polite and say "yes sir" is different. But this stone-age knight thing is nothing Wikipedia ought to use or promote. Certainly Mick Jagger must feel offended by this awkward presentation of his name. He's no knight. No one is - or has been since the Crusades ? Boeing720 (talk) 02:28, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

@Boeing720: To the contrary, he was knighted by the Prince of Wales (on behalf of the Queen) for his contributions to music in 2003. Its usage is correct. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 02:42, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Oh, and ah...cc General Ization --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 02:43, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

But even if Mick Jagger really likes the "Sir" title - it's still not a part of his name. Have you ever watched Monty Pythons Monty Python and the Holy Grail, just by the way ? (It includes quite a few Knights). Boeing720 (talk) 21:55, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't know if this is just meant as humour or you have a serious opposition to the use of "Sir". Fortunately, Wikipedia has decided it for us here. Those who have been knighted (not as an honorary knighthood) can be mentioned as Sir in the first instance and in the infobox. The article titles, however, remain under common name. Just as in Sir Ringo, Sir Paul and Sir Tom, Sir Mick's full name is mentioned in the first sentence, including prenominal, the article title is his stage name, and in the article it's Mick Jagger/Jagger. freshacconci (✉) 22:17, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

There is a humorous (silly-humorous, Monty Python inspired) side of this, that was my intention with the image above. When it comes to inherited titles like "King" or "Queen" the affected can't help it. But to appoint new Knights is just silly. And it shouldn't it be just "Sir Mick" ? How Bob Geldof is presented, is a far better, I think. Ultimately, from our global perspective, I believe all such appointed titles just should be mentioned in the biographical part. Briefly and preferably in chronological order. Not in bold style in the very first sentence of an article.

How many Knights have been appointed in India, Pakistan, South Africa, Ireland, Australia or or any former part of the UK ? Or outside ? It's not a global perspective.

Or how about Sir Albert (Einstein), Sir Mahatma (Gandhi), Sir Evita (Peron), Sir Franklin (Roosevelt) and Sir Diego (Maradona)? Boeing720 (talk) 04:18, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

I believe we are now in WP:NOTFORUM territory. Your question has been answered about Wikipedia policy relative to the inclusion of "Sir" in the infobox and lede of this article to refer to Jagger. If you have concerns about that policy, perhaps WP:BLPN would be the place. General Ization ^Talk 13:12, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

"How many Knights have been appointed in India, Pakistan, South Africa, Ireland, Australia or or any former part of the UK?" The answer is: hundreds! And Bob Geldof, not being a citizen of a Commonwealth Realm, is not entitled to the title. Which is why his article doesn't give it to him. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:49, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes I read that. This was an attempt to seek reason, and our global perspective. But I fully accept NOTFORUM. Thanks. Boeing720 (talk) 23:56, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

This was his first TV appearance - so should it be included? Clips still exist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr gobrien (talk • contribs) 22:27, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

@Mr gobrien: Clips aren't really suitable to be included in the article. However, if you know of reliable sources which make note of this appearance, please feel free to share them here on this talk page. Thanks, TheSandDoctor ^Talk 03:57, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

According to category Mick is Buddhist. Can someone give some source pls! --DiHri (talk) 10:23, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

I couldn't find a reliable source offhand stating this, so I have removed the category per WP:BLPRS. Thank you for pointing this out, @DiHri:! --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 03:30, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

The offical web site link is marked permanently dead, but it is a live URL; that is not dead. Please check it out if you have the authority to edit this page.Pinterma1000szer (talk) 20:32, 4 April 2020

@Pinterma1000szer:  Fixed. Thanks for pointing that out! --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 03:18, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Can someone insert the pronunciation of the name of this singer? I had always wondered about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.51.186.145 (talk) 04:13, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

"JA-gur". Nuttyskin (talk) 20:31, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Please introduce a correction: Mick Jagger studied Accounting and Finance at LSE, NOT Business. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.189.137.234 (talk) 15:09, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

 Fixed It is surprising how many sources talk about the fact that he attended but never once cover what he studied...anyhow, I found the LSE official website blog which backs up your correction. This has been implemented. Thank you for suggesting it, 185.189! --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 03:53, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

In the '1960s' part in the text about the Rolling Stones on the page about Mick Jagger, it says that the Rolling Stones performed 'Give me a little drink' during the Hyde Park Concert of 5 july 1969. The correct title of this song is 'Loving cup'. The text also says 'During the concert, they included two songs never before heard by the audience from two forthcoming albums, ...' It has to be 'three songs' in stead of 'two songs'.

Alwart 8101985 (talk) 23:37, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

@Alwart 8101985:  Fixed. I took a look at the album sleeve and the sources and confirmed no mention of the lyric (e.g. that the song wasn't renamed in later releases). Thank you for pointing this out! --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 03:25, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

The article currently states this happened in July 1960 but the citations near that do not seem to reference it. Dartford Borough Council, after some research one presumes, erected a plaque at the station, in 2015, that gives the date as being 17th October 1961.

https://www.kentonline.co.uk/dartford/news/blue-plaque-honours-birthplace-of-31457/

I wonder if there is more research that can be done on settling the date on this?

[update] I've contacted the Dartford Borough Council heritage team to ask them - awaiting a reply.

Tedmarynicz (talk) 10:26, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

A very prompt reply from Dartford Borough Council. The reference they used was Christopher Sandford's 1993 book "Mick Jagger : Primitive Cool" (and referred to by Theodore Gracyk, in his book ‘I Wanna be me: Rock Music and the Politics of Identity’ (2001)) in which he writes:

"As Jagger stood at the train station in his home town on the morning of Oct. 17, 1961, that option seemed singularly improbable. A minute later it became inevitable. Coming down the bleak curve of Platform Two was (his childhood friend) Keith Richards, ..."

Tedmarynicz (talk) 16:40, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Is there some reason why his sexual relationship with David Bowie is not mentioned in the article? I mean, even one of David Bowie's said it occurred. Thanks in advance to anybody who knows.

"One of David Bowie's" WHAT? Wives? You mean Angie? She wrote in her book that she once discovered Bowie and Jagger together in bed. Two points here: 1) She wrote that, true or false, to sell copies. 2) It so happens that Igor Stravinsky and Maurice Ravel once shared a bed. They had no sexual "relationship"; they just happened to find themselves in a hotel room with one bed. I have myself in my youth, on tour in rock groups, slept in the same bed with various young women with whom I never had or intended to have a sexual or romantic relation. Angie means to imply something else, but assuming she didn't just fabricate the incident entirely, as I suspect she did, what did she actually witness? Who knows? I don't know any reliable evidence to suggest that Jagger is bisexual. Bowie had said that Bowie himself was bisexual, and it seems reasonable to take him at his word, but he certainly and obviously leaned strongly toward heterosexuality. In any case, the question is less whether there is "some reason" not to mention your allegation in the article and more whether there is any particular reason TO mention it. I see none. 04:08, 30 March 2022 (UTC)~

Add to instruments: guitar, keyboards, harmonica 73.25.173.17 (talk) 06:29, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: Secondary instruments are not listed in the infobox, they're meant to be brought up in the article body per Infobox musical artist. - FlightTime (open channel) 06:33, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Why is this section so light, especially compared to the 2010s section? For example, where's the mention that Jagger was the reason for the Stones' direction on Some Girls? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zmbro (talk • contribs) 02:35, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

@Zmbro: Good point, added the one that you mentioned re Some Girls. Definitely open to suggestions; this is a ways off from FAC but it is an article I'd like to get there, same with Keith Richards and The Rolling Stones; I'll take any help I can get, I just want to be on the ticket haha. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 06:02, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Did I seriously not sign that? Wow that's embarrassing lol. Overall multiple sections need expansion, especially the 70s. For example, where's his relationships with Mick Taylor and Ronnie Wood? Plus, Goats Head Soup, It's Only R'R, Black and Blue, and Emotional Rescue aren't even mentioned once. The section should also be in chronological order. Also, where's Jagger famous quote on Brian Jones' death (something indifferent right)? Just some suggestions. – zmbro _(talk) 16:37, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Parts of the discography section is unsourced. You might be able to get away with moving that to its own article. Also the entire filmography section is unsourced too. – zmbro _(talk) 16:53, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Going along with this, the filmography section should 100% distinguish between feature films and concert films, and maybe mention his role in each. – zmbro _(talk) 16:59, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

TheSandDoctor Make sure to distinguish between what were feature films and concert films in a separate notes column. – zmbro _(talk) 19:29, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

@Zmbro: Finished. How does that look? --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 05:16, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Much better. – zmbro _(talk) 12:44, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, JollyRancherWest74 for reverting Special:Diff/1096118257. Sometimes Visual Editor has a fit and randomly throws a reference at the top of the page. I haven't seen it do it in a while and it is hard to catch. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 15:53, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Should some of the statements in the lede be quoted? I don't know, the tone just seems a little unencyclopedic to me. — VORTEX³⁴²⁷ (Talk!) 05:54, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Which are you concerned about specifically, Vortex3427? TheSandDoctor ^Talk 06:33, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Well, statements like [h]is ongoing songwriting partnership with Keith Richards is one of the most successful in history and but Jagger has always found more success with the band than with his solo and side projects seem like opinions, and is often attributed or/and elaborated on in efns in other FAs I've seen. And there's also the last sentence, ...bringing style and sexiness to rock and roll and with being a trailblazer, which could be quoted and/or referenced. I have limited experience with writing quality articles and might be completely off-base about this, or there's an essay out there or smth that I'm not aware of, but I'm just raising a few concerns I have. — VORTEX³⁴²⁷ (Talk!) 07:42, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

For my first point, the third sentence in Tom Holland is supported by an efn. — VORTEX³⁴²⁷ (Talk!) 07:47, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

@Vortex3427: These are all supported in the body of the article. Typically, per MOS:CITELEAD, inline citations aren't required in the lede if the text is supported in the description; this is also evidenced by Template:Leadcite comment. However, I will defer to Ian Rose, an FAC coordinator, here. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 18:10, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree that most of the examples given are confirmed in the text, and are fairly unchallenged, but I will say the writing "...bringing style and sexiness to rock and roll..." could be a little clearer, given that between Little Richard and Elvis Presley I don't think anyone thinks Jagger innovated this. Maybe it's just the way I'm reading it. YouCanDoBetter (talk) 09:00, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

@YouCanDoBetter Yeah... I'm just used to reading "considered to be" a lot. — VORTEX³⁴²⁷ (Talk!) 09:58, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

@YouCanDoBetter and Vortex3427: When I added that I made a mistake of not replicating in the body. It was the same retrospective by Billboard mentioned in legacy, but the mention is now explicitly also in the legacy section with that source. I also added the word "a" to the lead mention to more closely match said source. How does that look now? TheSandDoctor ^Talk 02:46, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Looking good to me, thank you SandDoctor. YouCanDoBetter (talk) 06:34, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

In the lede box it just has 'vocals'. Jagger has become a very competent harmonica (aka 'harp') player. Cross Reference (talk) 20:21, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

According to The Rolling Stones page he also plays guitar and percussion. We need to change it to make it consistent. Thetreehuggingjersey (talk) 22:53, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

See Template:Infobox musical artist#instrument. "Instruments listed in the infobox should be limited to only those that the artist is primarily known for using. The instruments infobox parameter is not intended as a WP:COATRACK for every instrument the subject has ever used." TheSandDoctor ^Talk 23:43, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Mick Jagger plays guitar and harmonica too. 88.104.216.186 (talk) 09:25, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Micks partner from 1966-1970 was Marianne Faithfull someone add that please? 108.24.128.7 (talk) 22:05, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

From 1966 to 1970, he had a relationship with Marianne Faithfull, the English singer-songwriter/actress with whom he wrote "Sister Morphine", a song on Sticky Fingers. The partners parameter is intended for life partners, not just people who the subject of a biographical article may have dated. General Ization ^Talk 22:09, 30 April 2023 (UTC)