Talk:Buck Owens

Comment

This comment left on the article amused me, so I thought I'd leave it here on talk:

Buck Owens, who was erroneously reported as dead by prankster, J Allen Brown, is alive and well and hopes that everyone who lost a wager will get full revenge. Pranksters need to spell the name Bethesda accurately. It's not Bathesda. Good try and you can let me know when dinner will be served!!

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Everyking (talk • contribs) 13:48, 15 October 2004 (UTC)

Tone

The voice of the entry seemed off to me as I read it. Then I found out why. The entry as it stands just plagiarizes the Salon story! What about "Content must not violate any copyright"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.193.154.230 (talk) 06:14, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Blatant Copyvio

Can someone more familiar with the way this works tag it? Original article here. --Steven Fisher 07:21, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

It had been rewritten somewhat, but probably not enough. I've done a few edits. RadioKirk talk to me 14:08, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I've completely rewritten it from stem to stern now. In so doing, I've thrown out some things that probably could be brought back to the article, but sources are needed before that should be done. wikipediatrix 00:26, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that looks like a big enough change. Thanks. --Steven Fisher 00:46, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I've restored a few items I wrote and sourced myself. :) RadioKirk talk to me 04:57, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

album cover image

I'm restoring the image of the "Buck Owens in Japan" album. Lo-res images of album covers do not violate Fair Use, and its purpose in illustrating an example of his Capitol Records output being side by side with the text describing his signing for Capitol Records is so obvious it shouldn't have to be explained. wikipediatrix 17:27, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Admin assistance requested. Please understand I have Wikipedia's interests in mind as I pursue this. RadioKirk talk to me 17:59, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, but as User:RadioKirk has asked me for my opinion, here it is. The resolution is not the problem. There is also not a problem with the uploading of album cover images. You are right in saying that the guidelines in uploading say that they can be used under the fair use doctrine. The isssue is in how and where the image is used. In the template that was added to the image it says that fair use is dependent upon certain factors, including that it is used "solely to illustrate the album or single in question". It is not being used "solely to illustrate the album ... in question" as the album itself is not discussed. There are some people that interpret that to mean that it can only be used in an article about the album or single itself, but the template does not actually say that. I think that a fair use claim can be made if the album or its artwork are being discussed, but this is only my opinion. The point is, that in the Buck Owens article this is not the case, so under Wikipedia's fair use guidelines and policies, it does not meet the criteria. If it was possible to include extra text in the article that discusses this album, a fair use claim could perhaps be made. Rossrs 13:14, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

The promotional postcard pictured at the top of the page is also not specifically discussed in the article. Both the postcard and the album are printed materials disseminated by Capitol Records in the 1960s. Does this mean this image should go too? Wikipedia's Fair Use guide says images should "specifically illustrate relevant points or sections within the text", and I think anyone can plainly see that a picture of one of Buck's Capitol albums specifically illusrates the text about Buck putting out Capitol albums. If it has to be SO specific that the album must be named in the text, then fully half the images on Wikipedia that are similar "example pics" must be removed. For example, there is a Hawksbill turtle pictured on Turtle, even though Hawksbill turtles are not specifically mentioned in the text. (And yes, I know the turtle pic is from Wikimedia Commons, but that's beside my point.)wikipediatrix 14:23, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Not to substitute as a reply from Rossrs but, when I added the postcard, the Buckaroos were mentioned in the article, which I believe was enough; they've since been edited out. I'll fix that in a moment. RadioKirk talk to me 14:28, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

The postcard image may or may not constitute fair use. That's not for us to determine and as editors we can't prove anything to be fair use, however the requirement is that the image is sourced, correctly tagged and contains a fair use rationale, so that if the fair use of it is ever challenged we have something to work with to enable us to state our case. Promo photos are generally believed to constitute fair use here if these points are addressed and they are relevant to the article. Identifying a personality, particularly "in character" is generally accepted if the image was originally created specifically for the promotion of that person. If the postcard image was put into an article about something indirectly related, say "jackets", the image would not be fair just because Owens and his crew are wearing jackets. A "jacket" could be otherwise illustrated, whereas to illustrate Owens himself, we really need a photo. If there was a public domain photo of Owens it would supersede any fair use image we might have of him. Your quote from the fair use guide is correct but you'd need to go deeper into the various types of images and their uses. The easiest way to see how an album cover is regarded is to read the "album cover" template. As I said earlier, I believe that expanding the text so that this particular album cover becomes relevant, rather than just Capital covers in general, would strengthen the claim for fair use. An example on one of the policy pages - and I'm sorry I can't remember where I saw it - says that if an album cover contains an image of a rose, the album cover can't fairly be used to illustrate the article "rose" because we can find free images of a rose. I believe that an album cover with Buck Owens' image on it, can be used in the Buck Owens article, provided the album is discussed. There is possibly not a lot that could or should be said about the album, but if it is at least named and perhaps described briefly it would suffice. I agree that there are many album cover images being incorrectly used, and I added quite a few myself in my early days here before I was made aware of the fair use policy as it exists here. Many of them should be removed. The hawksbill turtle pic could probably be fair use if it wasn't from Commons, it would depend how it was used, and how it was rationalised on the image description page. Rossrs 15:00, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for weighing in. One question, though: does not the image page itself need a rationale for the claim of fair use (a la the pics at Lindsay Lohan), or is clicking "Album Cover" enough? RadioKirk talk to me 13:55, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I think "Album cover" is enough, at least for now. The main points of the fair use rationale are contained within the template, and I've never seen anyone seriously try to enforce having a set of points added (if anyone did bother, they would be extremely generic, I'm sure). Perhaps because it's being used outside of the context of the album itself, it might be beneficial, but that would only be if the text was expanded to include discussion of the album. It's different with promo pics (and other types of images) as their sources/copyrights/uses are so varied that the rationale serves to clarify. Rossrs 14:01, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Okay, thank you. I figured, when it came to a potential copyright issue, that caution was best. :) RadioKirk talk to me 14:10, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

"Caution" is the official Wikipedia policy on such matters ;-) Rossrs 14:25, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Hehe thanks. :) RadioKirk talk to me 14:53, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Okay, so...

...I've inserted some text about the Buck Owens in Japan album so that the tail can wag the dog :) There's a considerable gap in the biography, with the years 1961-1967 left unreported on, perhaps someone can fill some of that in. Other relevant matters that probably need coverage include his Buck Owens Ranch Show television program and something about Susan Raye. wikipediatrix 19:01, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Looks good. I'll probably add stuff here and there as time permits; meantime, I (and/or someone else) should work more prose into the existing text—currently, parts of it ("In 1967" ... "In 1968" ... "In 1969") read like bullet points. RadioKirk talk to me 20:04, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Regarding Buck's marriages

My sister, Jana Jae Owens, was married to Buck Owens from May 2, 1977 to the spring of 1979. Divorce proceedings were handled by LA attorney, Marvin Mitchelson. There was never an annulment; the parties were divorced. Jana was Buck's third wife. Jennifer Smith was Buck's fourth wife.

Jana was a fiddle player in Buck's band: the first female member of the Buckaroos, "Buckarette" as Buck said. She signed a contract with him in the summer of 1974, after Don Rich's death. She recorded with Buck, and she also appeared on Hee Haw for many years, both with Buck and as a single performer.

See also janajae.com

Chris Hopper (E-Mail removed for security purposes)

Chris Hopper

can you upload a copy of the divorce or marriage

Janedoeare (talk) 05:48, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Can you provide a verifiable source (particularly for the marriage) here on the talk page? This can be written in to the actual article with a source. RadioKirk talk to me 17:32, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Only read through it once, but the text under the death subheading says Owens had three wives, but then goes on to only mention two (apparently from the above he had four). Perhaps this paragraph should be rewritten to mention all of his former wives. jmdeur 19:38, March 24, 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.148.60.151 (talk) text under the death subheading says Owens had four wives, but then goes on to mention five — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.0.250 (talk) 07:43, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Other discrepancies in this section:

(1) Buck couldn't have married Parnice in 1950 if he and Bonnie weren't separated until 1951.

(2) If he had two sons by Bonnie and one by Parnice, then the son by Phyllis would've been his fourth son, not third. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.198.85.25 (talk) 22:40, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

comma with apposition

The way I learned it is that "his onetime bandmate, Merle Haggard" means Haggard was his only former bandmate, while "his onetime bandmate Merle Haggard" means Haggard was one of his former bandmates. Thus "George Washington's wife, Martha", but "Joseph Smith's wife Lucinda". (He had dozens of others.) That's why I took out the comma. Another possibility, though, is "Merle Haggard, a onetime bandmate". —JerryFriedman 22:18, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Explanation of the way I learned it on your talk page. If your assessment of the apposition is correct, it needs to be rewritten altogether. ;) RadioKirk talk to me 22:24, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Done, using your suggestion. :) RadioKirk talk to me 22:26, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Singles discography

The singles discography section has been modified, correcting some spelling and title inaccuracies and adding songs that were not represented in previous editions. Additionally, the "ALL CAPS" format has been also modified. I can't vouch that it is 100% complete, as I was using Billboard's Book of Top 40 Country Singles (found in total for Buck on Google Books) as a guide, thereby perhaps neglecting anything that peaked at #41 or lower. But if it meets approval, maybe the "please modify" might be lifted from that section?Cvbear (talk) 03:44, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Major edit on this page

Some time ago, I rewrote the introduction paragraph to this article because it was completely wrong. It originally contained statements about the "gritty" Bakersfield sound, which in my opinion is complete nonsense. There is nothing gritty about the Buckaroo sound: it is characterized by extremely precise, stacatto lyrics, and carefully concise string work. In any case, someone made a major edit to my entry, and please forgive me, I find the writing to be extremely poor:

Buck Owens and the Buckaroos pioneered what has come to be called the Bakersfield sound — a reference to Bakersfield, California, the city Owens called home and from which he drew inspiration for what he preferred to call "American Music".[1]

...for what he preferred to call "American Music?" I'm sorry, but while this edit provides new and useful information, I don't consider it to be an improvement over mine. I have been tempted for months to merely revert this edit, mainly for stylistic reasons, but I don't want to be rash. I would appreciate it if someone would rewrite this paragraph to be more grammatical and stylistically correct. Once again, I would do it myself, but I don't want to get into a revert war.

Have a great day!Jarhed (talk) 04:18, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Sperril

• Note. This section was redacted to remove certain posts, ostensibly for privacy reasons. Therefore, the flow of the section may not make sense.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:43, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

I have reverted your changes once again. I don't have a copy of the book you are citing as a source, but I've looked at a number of obituaries and none of them mention daughters or the extra wife. You are showing Bonnie Owens as his second wife. He married her when he was 17. Is it possible he was married before? Sure. But not a single obit mentions a wife previous to her. All of the obits give his birth name. You are saying he was born without a name. All of the obits mention his sons. None mention any daughters. You are making large scale changes to this article. Changes of this scope, especially when they contradict sources already used in the article, need to be discussed first. I suggest we proceed step by step through the major changes you want to make. Sperril (talk) 22:23, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Oops. Meant to post the above earlier and never saved my edits. Sperril (talk) 22:23, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

You having a picture of him with his daughter doesn't constitute a WP:RS. I have a lot of pictures of myself with youngsters who are not my children. Also, an amendment to his birth certificate doesn't mean he wasn't named until 1965. It means his birth certificate wasn't corrected until 1965. You will also note that his father's name on the birth certificate was also amended. You need a source that literally says he had no name at birth. I have multiple sources that say what his birth name was. Either way, your edits are contested by myself and another editor. You need to stop adding your changes back in or you could be blocked for edit warring. You are already in violation of the three revert rule. I am not pressing the issue because I believe you are trying to make good changes to the article and are not experienced with our policies. Please revert the article back to the way it was and lets start discussing the changes you want to make. I'm quite open to working with you to correct the deficiencies in this article. Sperril (talk) 05:08, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Claiming that he didn't get a name until 1965 is absurd. The name was not recorded on his birth certificate until 1965, but that's a different thing. I'll remove that whoel sentence, it's really not of any interest (and the grammar is terrible). --OpenFuture (talk) 05:46, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Unless a reasonable objection is raised here, I am going to revert the article to it's form before the Msc_44 edits in a few hours. I think the best way to proceed is going to be to discuss these edits one at a time. I think some of these edits are good and Buck Owens' history certainly seems to be muddier than I would have thought. But some of these edits, (number of children, number of wives, etc...) are major departures from his "official" biography. Since some of these people are alive today, it is more important to get it right than to get it done quickly. Sperril (talk) 17:13, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Msc_44 beat me to the punch. The only changes I've made are to clean up the section on his personal life, and to fix the book descriptions. An IP editor had added a bunch of opinion to that section. Would Msc like to open any discussion about changes at this point? Sperril (talk) 00:49, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Ronald Jackson

ref: OTRS 2009081110070444

The Foundation has been contacted about this article, questioning why Ronald Jackson, who has done much work with Buck Owens, was not mentioned. Interested volunteers could perhaps write a biography about Mr Jackson? David.Monniaux (talk) 12:24, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Ronald Jackson

who was Ronald Jackson and what work did he do for buck owens Janedoeare (talk) 05:53, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Janedoeare

His name was Ronnie Jackson and he was part of the Buckaroos Msc 44 (talk) 22:23, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Buckaroo Banzai

What about the Science Fiction movie "Buckaroo Banzai"? Any connection to Buck Owens and the Buckaroos? 93.219.161.166 (talk) 07:09, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

The Buckaroos

The Wikipedia article on The Buckaroos would benefit from more information, possibly a timeline, about the various line-ups of the band. ——Design (talk) 00:45, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Choppy beginning

I think the beginning of the following paragraph is choppy. I suggest the first sentence should be removed and placed elsewhere in the biography.

"In 1945 Owens co-hosted a radio show called Buck and Britt. However, in the late 1940s he became a truck driver which took him through the San Joaquin Valley of California, where he first experienced and was impressed by the town of Bakersfield." Milhistor8 (talk) 06:43, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Oral cancer - did he smoke?

It says he had oral cancer. Did he smoke? Betathetapi454 (talk) 08:36, 16 September 2022 (UTC)