Talk:Gasolina (Papa A.P. song)

Image copyright problem with Image:Gasolina (Papa A.P. version).jpg

The image Image:Gasolina (Papa A.P. version).jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --00:02, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quotation and date of release

(...) "Grâce à son producteur, la connexion avec le Vieux Continent est établie. Papa AP va prendre une dimension supérieure. ‘Il m’a proposé de reprendre « Gasolina ». Cela faisait un an et demi que le titre était sorti. A part aux States et en Amérique latine, il n’était pas connu. Je ne voulais pas le faire car c’était la chanson de Daddy Yankee, puis j’ai changé d’avis. Mon producteur était persuadé que ça allait marcher. Aujourd’hui, je ne regrette pas ce choix car si ce n’est pas mon titre, tout le monde a très bien accepté ma version, même dans le hood new yorkais.’ Le tube est international, récoltant un joli succès en France.

Papa AP en profite pour couper court aux rumeurs sur le sujet. ‘Tout le monde pensait que nous étions fâchés, ce qui n’est pas vrai. On ne s’est pas encore rencontrés mais on connaît beaucoup de choses l’un de l’autre. Nous ne véhiculons pas la même image, mais nous avons tous les deux beaucoup de choses en commun en matière de passé douloureux.’" (...)

Source : Funradio.fr => "Lire la suite".

"Ca n'a pas été facile à accepter car "Daddy Yankee" est un artiste que je respecte sincèrement, j'ai toujours aimé sa musique, son talent et lui en tant que personne. On vient de la même école tout les deux, on vient de très bas. C'est à cause de ce respect que j'avais pour lui que je ne voulais pas reprendre son titre.

Mais un jour, j'étais dans mon studio d'enregistrement, et mon producteur m'a demandé de reprendre le titre. Il insistait et voulait vraiment que je l'enregistre. Pour lui faire plaisir, on a enregistré la chanson mais sans plus de conviction de ma part. Une semaine après l'enregistrement, il m'a sonné et voulait absolument me voir pour faire le vidéoclip du titre. Je suis tombé des nues et on s'est rencontré pour en parler. En parlant, j'ai appris que "Daddy Yankee" ne pouvait pas rentrer en Europe suite à des soucis personnels. Alors nos producteurs respectifs se sont arrangés, on est parti pour l'Europe, on a enregistré le clip en Tunisie et après ça c'était parti … . Gasolina est devenu le titre le plus écouté en Europe."

Source : Funlux.be

Date of release : "Date de sortie : 25/04/2005".

Source : Disqueenfrance.com (official site of the SNEP).

Kartel King, you say my changes fail WP:OR. Please explain here why you think this, instead of just reverting. Europe22 (talk) 18:02, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from Talk:Arimareiji

Wow, what's up with you man? A minute ago I you were cool and now you're biting my head off. Where's the wikilove man, I'm not here to disrupt the project, I'm here to help. Please assume good faith and don't make unjustified accusations, if I was hellbent on deleting this article I would not have conceded to it's notabillity. Regards, Kartel King (talk) 06:16, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't concede its notability, you asserted that neither it nor the singer "deserve" an article because you believe the singer is a "thief." Since then, you've done your best to throttle the article with ill-concealed wikilawyering and reverting with edit summaries that assert that you've "seen" the requests to discuss/explain, you just don't want to respond. That's hardly a demonstration of wikilove. Your help could be instrumental in keeping the article on track, but only if you're willing to civilly discuss it rather than succumb to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. arimareiji (talk) 15:32, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me Arimareiji, but please don't speak on my behalf and make up quotes. It is true I said that IMO I don't think he is deserving of his own article due to him only attaining notability through plagerism, but I never one said he was a "thief" as you quoted me. Infact you were the one that mentioned theft in your reply, "Even if you accept the argument that Papa AP is only notable because he committed "theft," (in quotes because it doesn't fit the legal definition) he's still notable. And even if you accept the argument that his version of Gasolina constituted "theft," it's still notable because it achieved transient popularity" which if you take the time to re-read my reply to this, you will see that I agreed with you thereby conceding to it's notability. Both of your quotes used against me you made up and I never once used either "deserve" or "thief". Again, please ASG, regards Kartel King (talk) 03:15, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're correct that you never used the word "thief." You've repeatedly called his actions "illegal" in Talk:Gasolina and used terminology that is synonymous with theft (per your earlier cite), but you have not explicitly used the word thief - I apologize.

However, please note that you contradict yourself above - you correctly say that you said he (and this song) isn't deserving of his own article (and earlier used the synonymous verb merit), but then conclude by asserting that you never said "deserve" - i.e. he doesn't "deserve" his own article. You'll probably want to strikethrough one or the other. arimareiji (talk) 16:02, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arimareiji, what's the deal man? Did I hit a nerve with one of my replies or something? You seem caught up on trying to discredit me or make some type of point. Why are you persisting, I think my reply to you was pretty clear so I don't think I will be wanting to strikethrough anything. Please stay on point and don't sidetrack. Kartel King (talk) 19:56, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would appreciate it if you would stop personally addressing me as though you know anything about me. And since you insist, I'll make it crystal clear how you're contradicting yourself at 03:15, 29 October 2008 (UTC):

"It is true I said that IMO I don't think he is deserving of his own article"
"you made up and I never once used either "deserve" or "thief"." (2 sentences later)

arimareiji (talk) 04:51, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kartel King responds

Edel is his label and no source states that EMI is, I also took the liberty to do a search on both the main website and latin subsidary and he has no history on either. If you are to use his interview in this article with that promotional sentence which states people accept his version in the "hood" of new york it needs to be the full sentence and you can't use (...) to excluse inconvenient parts. Also translations are up for interpratation, and there is no evidence to prove the statement "had success in America". Kartel King (talk) 06:59, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

EMI Music is his label. See: Lescharts.com (first line). About the quotations from Papa A.P. interviews, the point of view is properly attributed to the singer and if you disagree you can add the full sentence, including what you consider as inconvienient parts (btw, I don't know what can be considered as "inconvenient" in these interviews). So, my changes doesn't fall under WP:OR. Now, feel free to add other quotations from other sources giving another point of view on the subject. PS: You're right on this : the phrase "he had success in America" is incorrect as sources say simply it was known in America before his success in Europe. I didn't restore this phrase. Europe22 (talk) 09:58, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS:I didn't revert the word "plagiarised" that you had added again in the article, because I don't know if it is the good word. You should find a solution with Arimareiji in order to avoid a edit war. Europe22 (talk) 10:10, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Europe22, note that I do not need your permission to edit this page. You say you don't know what can be considered as "inconvenient" in these interviews, well you should because you are the one that removed the "inconvenient" words that do not adhere to your POV and replaced them with (...). You know, the same inconveniences that lead to your OR "Although he had success in America" addition. Kartel King (talk) 03:19, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added the full sentence, as you think the words replaced with (...) are "inconvenient". I hope this edit war is now ended. Europe22 (talk) 09:39, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From plagiarism.org:

In other words, plagiarism is an act of fraud. It involves both stealing someone else's work and lying about it afterward.

But can words and ideas really be stolen?

According to U.S. law, the answer is yes.

arimareiji (talk) 15:50, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From the Law Encyclopedia:

Plagiarism is not a legal term; however, it is often used in lawsuits.

Kartel King (talk) 03:27, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I have seen plagiarism.org and it is a site aimed at students and educators. Kartel King (talk) 03:29, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind including an actual URL to check, instead of the putative title "the Law Encyclopedia"? arimareiji (talk) 05:40, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I already included the URL in the edit summary. Here it is again for you Plagiarism. Kartel King (talk) 07:31, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Plagiarism is theft of another person's writings or ideas. Generally, it occurs when someone steals expressions from another author's composition and makes them appear to be his own work. Plagiarism is not a legal term; however, it is often used in lawsuits. Courts recognize acts of plagiarism as violations of copyright law, specifically as the theft of another creator's intellectual property.

The actual context of your quote contradicts you, though it differs on the fine point of whether the term is explicitly legal - a fine point, because the context shows that it carries heavy legal weight. "Theft," "violations of copyright law," and "theft of another creator's intellectual property" do not indicate that the term only pertains in academic settings as your reply insinuated. Nor do the terms in plagiarism.org, i.e. "fraud," "stealing," and "lying." Careless use of the term could be considered a basis for an accusation of slander if unproven. (Disclaimer: I am not Papa AP, or anyone with any form of standing to represent Papa AP. My wording, that it could be considered a basis for an accusation of slander, carries no legal weight. It is solely an expression of my concern that the term is treading on very thin ice with respect to WP:BLP.)

If you have an airtight source which specifically uses the word plagiarism or plagiarised, please feel free to include the term. Otherwise, per WP:BLP it's highly inappropriate - "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons — whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable — should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." arimareiji (talk) 15:31, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm seriously starting to doubt your intentions now and wether infact you are editing to improve the article or to make a point and "defeat" me. The context of my quote does not contradict me at all, and it clearly shows you were wrong in saying "legal term" as plagiarism is not a legal term. And please do not feign incomprehension, you know very well what I was insinuating with my P.S. sentence and it is quite clear to anyone who visits that site. I completely disagree with your conclusion that it could be considered slander and as this is a song not a biography I am inserting the NON-legal term plagiarism. Kartel King (talk) 19:59, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I really was not getting involved in this, but I reverted your changes. The words plagiarism and legitimate version are not there in the sources provided. So far, the biggest problem I have seen with wp:npov are when I look at your edits when you want this article (and related articles) to adhere to your own point of view. Garion96 (talk) 21:05, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You say I'm "feign[ing] incomprehension" by asserting you insinuated plagiarism only pertains in academic settings. You further say that "you [meaning me, arimareiji] know very well what I was insinuating with my P.S. sentence" - which to quote is "P.S. I have seen plagiarism.org and it is a site aimed at students and educators."

I'm afraid my mind-reading skills aren't nearly that good, could you please explain what you actually meant to insinuate if not that plagiarism only pertains in academic settings? As far as the rest, I stand by the arguments I made in my last reply and don't think they've been refuted.

I will add this, however - it's interesting that you say I'm trying to "make a point and "defeat" me [meaning you, Kartel King]." Your own words to date have been that you don't think Papa AP or his "illegal" version of Gasolina deserves an article because he only became famous due to plagiarism. When this topic was on "your" article of Gasolina, you repeatedly demonstrated heavy personal animus toward Papa AP and his version. Even though Europe22 has moved off "your" article to this one, you continue to obstruct him in writing this article, rather than becoming a useful devil's advocate. arimareiji (talk) 05:09/05:23, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect

The information on this article should be placed on the original version of "Gasolina" since it IS a cover version. Note that Raymond Ayala (a.k.a. Daddy Yankee) and Eddie Avila are noted as the writers. It should be under its own section in the article. El cangri386 ^{Sign! or Talk} 02:50, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits

Kartel King: You reverted my edit with an edit summary of "Removed redlinks and pov". Except that's not what you did; you reverted all of my edits, including formatting corrections. Additionally, the only redlinks I added were valid per WP:RED—I linked the album title in 2 places, an album with 2 hit singles on it when only 1 hit single is needed to pass WP:NALBUMS (which I alluded to in my edit summary). Also, I'm not sure what part of my edit you think is POV, if anything, I made the article more neutral. Please discuss any issues you have with my edit here first, rather than reverting again. I'm not interested in an edit war. TheJazzDalek (talk) 11:59, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]