Jump to content

Talk:Daniel Lavoie

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Issues

[edit]

This article has a number of issues, in addition to the already-flagged need for RS references.

It is also replete with overly laudatory language. That, coupled with the fact that it has been edited till now almost entirely by two editors, raises the spectre of it perhaps being used to present an image of the subject that is not arm's-length and NPOV.

Among the phrases now in the article that fall into this category are:

"With his powerful "velvet" voice combined with a rare charisma and stage presence, Daniel Lavoie is one of Canada's most highly respected francophone singer-songwriters[1] and one of the best-known singers of the Francophone world today."

"He also enjoys popularity in Eastern and Central Europe (Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, Poland) and has fans in the Middle East, Latin America and South-East Asia."

"One of the songs from this albums, "J'ai quitté mon île" became especially popular in France and also in Portugal and Brazil.[4] This song would become one of Lavoie's iconic pieces."

"His popularity as a live performer was growing. In 1980 he received his first Félix Award for the best male singer of the year. Many more were to follow."

"The year 1984 was remarkable in Daniel Lavoie's career as it brought him unprecedented success with the release of his album Tension Attention ... One of the songs from this album, "Ils s'aiment" became wildly popular

"The musical became a sensation."

"The rare stage performances of Douze homme rapaillés thrilled the audiences and the critics alike."

"These concerts delighted crowds in Kiev, Moscow, Saint-Petersburg, Paris[23] and Beirut."

These examples, and other similar language in the article, often wholly unreferenced, reeks of an effort to promote the subject of the article that is not appropriate on wikipedia. I would urge that this and the presence of material that is not referenced by RS refs be addressed, or I expect I will address it. Epeefleche (talk) 00:58, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the detailed review, this was certainly very helpful and I tried my best to improve the article. Please feel free to give more critique if you feel something else needs to be addressed.Paroles2000 (talk) 17:36, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you again for your collaboration, Epeefleche, I am happy to finally see someone else taking as much interest in the article about Lavoie as I do. Together we will bring it to perfection! I wonder if you would consider putting inline tags for material that seems uncited rather than deleting it. I would be happy to follow up and supply citations right away (it's easy for me to do, because luckily there is an abundance of published materials on this personality, and the article - at least the May 2013 version, for which I consider myself responsible - is built on them, so it's not a problem at all). However this is just a suggestion, if you'd rather delete, please continue to do so, your clean-up efforts and experience are much appreciated. Thank you! Paroles2000 (talk) 16:40, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also, another thought: it would be themendously helpful for me and time-saving for you if you go over the whole article and tag all the statements that seem controversial to you, at once rather than doing one a day. This way I will clean them up in one sitting and we'll be done. Thanks! Paroles2000 (talk) 18:06, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Good work. Inline tags would be completely redundant. We already have an article tag. My suggestion is this -- treat all unreferenced material, that is not referenced to a reliable source, as needing an inline rs cite. Supply them. Then the article tag can go. That way it can be cleaned up at one sweep, and the tag removed as well. Epeefleche (talk) 18:52, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The temporary inline tags are not as redundant as permanent references at the end of every sentence. Besides, it seems to me that inline taggging is a lot more constructive way to help with editing than deleting parts of text and takes as much time.
I do not see every unreferenced sentence as "unreferenced material" (see Wikipedia:You don't need to cite that the sky is blue). To me 51 references here are enough, I don't see the problems you see in this article, but perhaps I am wrong, so as a goodwill gesture you will need to help me out and point out the doubtful statements for me and I'll fix them. Thank you. Paroles2000 (talk) 15:11, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Epeefleche. I wonder if you have any new suggestions as to how to improve the article. If not, perhaps the article tags can go. Thank you. Paroles2000 (talk) 20:42, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Statements like the sky is blue need not be referenced (except, perhaps, in London). I don't see any of that in unreferenced text here. It's not a question of "we have x material cited, so the rest is fine uncited." If you like, I will delete all the sentences that are unreferenced that I am referring to, and the tag as well. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:12, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Epeefleche, yes, as I already asked you before, please indicate in some way the statements you consider unreferenced (as I pointed out before, I cannot guess them, it's your tag, not mine). If deletion is your method of editing, don't let me stop you.
By the way, we've been devoting all our time to the unreferenced issue, but how about the neutrality and fan't point of view tags? Can you please explain these? please give me specific examples for each. Thank you in advance, Paroles2000 (talk) 18:44, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Shall do. As to those tags, I haven't re-reviewed the article for their applicability. But text that prompted them included text such as you removed or revised here. Epeefleche (talk) 18:47, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I see, so these tags should have been removed over a month ago. Good to know. Paroles2000 (talk) 18:54, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps -- as I said, I haven't re-reviewed the article for their applicability. BTW, one item I was going to consider deleting per the above, but it would make more sense for it to be supported by RSs first if possible, is every line item that is uncited in Filmography, including Awards (note: a ref at the top of the list won't work, as people can always add new items in below it that don't comply). Best. Epeefleche (talk) 20:21, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Epeefleche. Correct me if I am mistaken, but filmographies (as other lists of works) do not need sources, unless they are obscure or difficult to confirm. Please give examples of filmographies with references.
As for Awards, since many of them are referenced in the text of the article (and I find it unreasonable to reference the same statement twice) please indicate the ones that are causing concern. But please remember that all the inline citations for awards will be identical, i. e. coming from the same source. Paroles2000 (talk) 16:12, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As to filmographies, if there is an exception to the guideline wp:v, I don't recall seeing it. Can you point me to it? Tx. And as to to refs twice for the same proposition, I don't see a need for that. As to any uncited awards, I would be concerned. Tx. Epeefleche (talk) 20:41, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Epeefleche, I am talking about this: ACTOR#Filmography_tables. Can you point me to the guideline that prescribes referencing filmographies? Also, it would help me to see an example of such filmography (the one with the in-line referencing). Best, Paroles2000 (talk) 19:53, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure that is the correct inline? It redirects to The Hero Initiative. Epeefleche (talk) 17:49, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is weird indeed, but here is the full link, just in case: [1] Paroles2000 (talk) 14:51, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Epeefleche. If you have no more corrections to suggest, please remove your tags. Thank you. Paroles2000 (talk) 17:33, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Epeefleche. If you have no further corrections and you do not remove the tags, with your permission I will seek mediation. Best, Paroles2000 (talk) 18:30, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • I addressed some more of the issues. More remain, but few compared to what existed when the tags were applied. I'm ok with the "needs more references general tag being deleted, on the understanding (per this talkpage -- you could reference it in the deletion) that there are still uncited mentions (e.g., the "genres", the awards, etc.) that needs RS support. Will look further when I have a chance. But this is much better. There still seems to be some laudatory language, remnants of the fanpage-like-adulatory language that plagued this article, and that language should be excised or attributed to an RS. Epeefleche (talk) 18:49, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Epeefleche. Please give examples of laudatory language and lack of neutrality. Otherwise the "neutrality disputed" tag needs to go.
Question: I wonder on what principle you have deleted some items from the list of songs, but not the others? Paroles2000 (talk) 17:21, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As to laudatory language, up above I gave examples. They showed the article at the time was rife with improper laudatory language -- usually a sign that the person or his manager or a fan has injected COI edits into the article. I haven't gone back to see if you were the one who had added them. Some has been addressed. Other remains. Look at the first para, for example. Where is the ref (in the lede or in the article) supporting the "known for" statement? Also, look at "He also enjoys popularity in France". It is supported by an article to a non-RS (the ref itself looks like something he or his manager wrote). As to the rest of the article, just look through it for similar laudatory material not cited to an RS, or an opinion of x which is stated as a "fact" without attribution. As to the songs, give me a diff, but in general each song (award, etc.) should be referenced, to avoid vandals etc. tossing in non-accurate info. Epeefleche (talk) 17:53, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Every biographical article on Wikipedia contains a "best-known for" statement, usually without references, since this information is expanded in the body of the article. "Enjoys popularity in France" is not an opinion or a laudatory statement, it's a simple statement of a fact, supported by regular tours and album releases in France, covered in detail in the article. I can change the wording to this effect if this sounds more convincing.
And once again : every song doesn't need a reference, production information found inside item doesn't need proof. Paroles2000 (talk) 19:25, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Warning. Despite prior discussion, and me pointing to wp:v and specifically wp:burden, you have restored challenged uncited material without the required inline RS cites. Please take this as a warning, and do not do it again. Epeefleche (talk) 19:55, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What is wp:v (you never provided a link) and wp:burden (never mentioned before)?
And why exactly are the lists of works and awards challenged? Could you please answer this question? I asked it before, but never received an answer. Please elaborate. Please give examples of articles with referenced lists of works and awards. Please. If you cannot provide examples, I will seek a third opinion or mediation. Thank you in advance. Paroles2000 (talk) 20:04, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, we discussed the Awards section before: "As for Awards, since many of them are referenced in the text of the article (and I find it unreasonable to reference the same statement twice) please indicate the ones that are causing concern. But please remember that all the inline citations for awards will be identical, i. e. coming from the same source. Paroles2000 (talk) 16:12, 11 June 2014 (UTC)". You never responded to me on this, but instead today, month and a half later you simply deleted the awards section... Please explain the reasons. Thank you. Paroles2000 (talk) 20:14, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • See the tag you removed from this article, see the links in your Welcome, see our prior conversations, see my prior edit summaries, see wp:v, see wp:burden. I've challenged whether the material is accurate, per wp:v. My edit summary stated: "d uncited per wp:v". I thus stated a concern that it violated wp:v, and by turning to wp:v we understand that to be a concern that "there may not be a published reliable source for the content, and therefore it may not be verifiable." (it is fine to link to the language; we don't have to repeat it in the edit summary if there is an appropriate link to it). The material was wholly uncited. And see our prior conversations about COI, as background. Epeefleche (talk) 20:15, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Copying from User talk:Epeefleche (a discussion started there on request by Epeefleche): Hello User:Epeefleche. Could you please explain why you removed the "Awards" section from article Daniel Lavoie as unreferenced when the awards are referenced in the text of the article? Thank you in advance for your response.Paroles2000 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 20:36, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:3O request

[edit]

@Paroles2000:@Epeefleche: I'm a regular volunteer at WP:3O and am responding to the request filed there. Checking both the article history and the above really lengthy discussion, I not quite sure what the dispute is really still about and whether some issues are solved/stale. Would both of you kindly summarise the latest issue (in a really short way) with edit links or policy & guidelines for me so that I may respond? Sincerely, Ugog Nizdast (talk) 17:37, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Ugog Nizdast, thank you for responding to the request for third opinion. I think you put your finger right on the problem: communication has been a challenge here, perhaps it's the result of different personal styles - I feel that my very specific questions either don't get an answer or they get very general answers when a specific answer would be so helpful to someone who tries to do a very specific work of cleaning up an article.
Here is the summary of the discussion: Epeefleche has been questioning neutrality of the article (diff: 607100026) and also challenging varioius parts of the article over the course of months and requesting references by way of deleting (see diffs: 619463993, 619450609, 613587457, etc.). I have been very accomodating, I made many style edits and supplied references (there are now over 80 references to 70 sources), however the situation doesn't seem to be getting better, the requests for references are getting bigger and my willingless to compromise has only led to suspiscions of my personal involvement (see my user talk page). My questions are:
  • 1. I wonder if anything is fundamentally wrong with this article. Since I am now too used to it and Epeefleche is not really explaining, I wanted to have someone else look at it and see if it looks OK.
  • 2. If references are needed, would it be possible to request them all at one time, instead of choosing random pieces of article at random times? I realize that there are different styles of editing, but by simple logic it seems that if there is a problem with the article, one must be able to pinpoint it all at once.
  • 3. Is the neutrality tag still valid? Are there still parts in this article that show lack of neutrality? I agree, the article did have some peacock language before I started editing it, but I think I've gotten rid of all of it.
I realize that on Wikipedia the editing process never ends, and Epeefleche is welcome to continue challenging the article, but I would love for someone from outside to provide a fresh view and if possible some specific advice. I always welcome constructive criticism.
P.S.By the way, by specific questions I mean questions like these:
"...why exactly are the lists of works and awards challenged? Could you please answer this question? I asked it before, but never received an answer. Please elaborate. Please give examples of articles with referenced lists of works and awards."
"By the way, we discussed the Awards section before: "As for Awards, since many of them are referenced in the text of the article (and I find it unreasonable to reference the same statement twice) please indicate the ones that are causing concern. But please remember that all the inline citations for awards will be identical, i. e. coming from the same source."Paroles2000 (talk) 20:22, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Parole, on wp there is no deadline. Editors in the normal course will review different parts of the article at different times. And different editors will do so, as well. Though it may be your personal preference, other editors need not indicate at one point in time all parts of an article that raise problems. They are free to do it in iterative fashion. Often, actually, that is better for the article, as it allows other editors to be aware of problematic text, before it is addressed, and potentially save it (for example, if it lacks RS support, and has been challenged, but RS support exists and another editor finds it).
Furthermore, as to concerns about the COI in this article, some of it is amply reflected on this talk page. Some has been cleaned up, in response to concerns. But clearly this is an article that was subjected to inappropriate COI editing. By a single-purpose editor. It is sensible to be on guard against that, within this article.
As to the need for references in uncited challenged text, that has been discussed amply above, and other diffs have been provided to you on your talk page. As much of the challenged text has been removed, I consented to the removal of the article-wide tag. But indicated that such text remained an issue. Most has been addressed now. But, for example, most of the section entitled "Songs written/produced and albums produced for other artists" lacks RS refs, and has been challenged/tagged for such deficit, and therefore is subject to deletion at any time with the burden on the editor wishing to restore it to provide inline RS refs, per wp:BURDEN. That's an example of what remains.
As to concerns about your editing, that attends the editing of editors of COI-ridden articles who are single-purpose editors. My question still remains, as posed on your talkpage, re your connection to the subject of this article. Though I do laud you for working to fix the problems, and hope you will continue to do so.
Awards, etc., that have not been supported by an RS ref within the article need not attract a second ref ... but they do require an inline RS ref per wp:BURDEN if one has never been supplied. As to challenging text that lacks RS refs, the burden is not on other editors to say why the text is challenged beyond indicating "per wp:v," which reflects that they challenge whether the text is RS-verifiable. The burden then is on the person who wishes to restore non-RS-cited text to supply the RS support, in inline form. Epeefleche (talk) 20:44, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You're very welcome Paroles2000 and thanks both of you for summarising this edit dispute. I shall formally provide a 3O within some time after I've fully reviewed this discussion. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 17:15, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Response to third opinion request:
  • An article needs lot of work to be perfect, see Writing Better Articles. I don't see why together you both cannot improve it. Watch out for unattributed statements like "he is the best musician <according to whom?> (avoid stating such sentences in the Encyclopaedia's voice, it needs inline cites too) and Words to Watch.
  • You have done good work so far with Epeefleche's assistance and I don't see why it should be hard for you to continue. If the article is well referenced as you said, anything what user:EPF tags for citation needed can be supported by an inline cite.
  • The tag can be removed since EPF placed it there and is content that the issue is resolved.
  • I have to agree about the providing references part, see WP:Verifiability. An article needs to contain no original research and needs to be fully referenced to reliable sources. CHALLENGEable statements which usually consist of controversial content, opinions, simple facts etc *need* an inline citation to immediately back it up. Personally, for me, challenging is asking oneself "Will a general reader question this?". Besides, since you yourself said that the reference is already present all you need to do is make an inline citation. Besides this, any content challenged by anybody will need an inline, this shouldn't be much of a problem for you. Afterall, isn't the article getting better by being strongly sourced? This is why WP:BURDEN was cited.
  • A Conflict of Interest is a serious issue. Editors are expected to assume good faith, but when a COI is suspected, politely asking whether one has any connection is acceptable. So again, I too ask you in good faith whether you have any affiliation with the subject or not? If yes, please state it. We even have the COI noticeboard for issues like these. COI users who usually are single purpose accounts need to refrain from editing directly and other editors are free to review their edits because if it being potentially biased per WP:COI.

I think that's about it then. If I missed anything or any of you have any questions, feel free to ask here. Good day, Ugog Nizdast (talk) 17:58, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, User:Ugog Nizdast. I truly appreciate the work you've done, it's good to have a fresh look on the matter. I agree with the overall message in your review. Here are just a few comments:
  • "anything what user:EPF tags for citation needed can be supported by an inline cite" Just a little clarification: user:EPF doesn't tag, (s)he deletes information.
  • "The tag can be removed since EPF placed it there and is content that the issue is resolved." Per this statement I will remove the tag.
  • "I too ask you in good faith whether you have any affiliation with the subject or not? " A very easy question for me to answer: of course, not. I am just a fan and my activity is consistent with any fan's activity. The article that was there before I came here was so tiny ([[2]] - funny, it had only 3 paragraphs, 1 reference and was brimming with laudatory language), it did require a lot of work, which I was happy to do, because I truly admire the artist. This is just a hobby for me and that's exactly why I don't do much more on Wikipedia. By the way, you might've noticed my other very significant (far from casual) contributions in other neglected articles on Canadian francophony, such as Gilles Vigneault or André Paiement, since this is the area of my general interest. I would love to do more work on articles like that. And I definitely plan to continue contributing to Daniel Lavoie article for as long as I have interest in his work. It would be very sad and not in Wikipedia's best interest if in order to avoid suspiscions I had to abandon the article...
Again, thank you very much for your time and efforts, I really and truly appreciate it. Paroles2000 (talk) 16:17, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Most welcome. Both of you have given a positive feedback to my response and by everything above, I feel work on this article can continue smoothly.
I know it's unfortunate that we had to suspect you as a COI editor, but Wikipedia has faced a lot of problems with them. Now that you've cleared it, everything is fine and by all means, continue your work. You will learn a lot about improving an article to WP standards by practice, reading this essay "Writing better articles" and by collaboration like this. I hope you get encouraged to work on more on those articles you have in mind. Usually, when someone suspects, it's best to clear it at first.
Tagging content is better than outright removing. I'm sure in this case you both can collaborate by the reviewer tagging and the contributor addressing them. Thanks both of you for your cooperation and good day, Ugog Nizdast (talk) 20:48, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Daniel Lavoie. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:36, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Daniel Lavoie. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:46, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Daniel Lavoie. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:40, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Daniel_Lavoie&oldid=1203511614"