Jump to content

Talk:Greenbelt Festival

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

[Untitled]

[edit]

Some things to consider for this page:

  • Do we need a list of headliners for each year? If so, it needs to be comprehensive - just the odd year here and there isn't really enough.
  • External links - the ones that were there before have previously gained approval from other editors, please don't delete them again without discussing them here first.
  • Photos - anyone got one they could release under Creative Commons?
  • Some more about the history of Greenbelt would be good.
  • A section on current management and organisation would probably be worth including, too.

MarkSG 12:17, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mainstage Headliners

[edit]

I've done a lot of work filling out the mainstage headliners. In some cases this has meant correction previous edits. My criteria has been to list the last act on the largest stage - usually "Mainstage", but known as "Stage 1" in early Cheltenham days. This section could also do with a paragraph or two mentioning significant bands that aren't listed, e.g. U2, Bruce Cockburn, The Polyphonic Spree etc. Having done that, some of the early introductory text could be removed.

217.43.105.254 10:35, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I think this is the wrong approach. Quite apart from the fact that there are too many gaps in the table at the moment, I think that focusing on "headline" acts is missing the point - Greenbelt is, and always has been, about more than just music headliners, and there are often key artists playing at times and venues other than last act of the day on mainstage. And, as you say, listing mainstage headliners excludes artists (such as U2 and Bruce Cockburn) that have played a really important role in the history of Greenbelt, or artists who, by the nature of their music, are unlikely to appear on mainstage (such as John Tavener). It also excludes non-music contributors, some of whom (such as the Archbishop of Canterbury or Norman Kember) are distinctive in their own right and should be mentioned. Also, we now have two separate tables, one for headliners and one for themes, which is a bit redundant.
I'd suggest combining the two tables into one table with four columns:
  • Year
  • Location
  • Theme (where applicable)
  • Key artists/speakers
That allows all the relevant information to be presented in one section, and avoids having ugly gaps where we don't have a source for actual headliners at any particular year.
Anyone got any thoughts on this? Now would be a good time to get the article update, as this year's festival has just finished. 86.155.29.165 19:16, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, the above was me, I'd forgotten to log in before typing it. MarkSG 19:17, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Since no-one else has commented, I've gone ahead with my proposed changes. MarkSG 09:37, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The trouble I have with this approach is that it's arbitrary. Who's to say what makes for a "key artists/speaker"? Someone's just added "Living Stones" to the 1974 line-up. What makes them notable - or not? I think we're in danger of reproducing the entire programme this way. If we continue with this, I think we should lay down specific criteria. Mine would be "headlined the main stage". Would anyone else care to come up with a 'better' criteria?
86.135.144.71 18:38, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One year later, in the absence of any better suggestions I've removed this messy, unencyclopedic section.
86.135.146.154 (talk) 19:12, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strangely it seems only you (an anomymous user) are intent in removing this table of information. Yes it could be tidied up a bit, but wholsale deletion seems a little over the top. It is often easier for some people to comprehend info in a tabular form rather than just as a series of paragraphs. I would hope there is room for both as can be seen in other wikipedia articles. A lot of the info can be referenced from a published history now available online as a pdf: http://www.greenbelt.org.uk/system/downloads/Thirty-book-composite.pdf Page94 (talk) 22:58, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. Thanks for joining the discussion. Please see my comment above from 21 October 2007. Do you have any other ideas for how to tidy up this list of trivia? The article as it stood was of varying quality, and decreasing as arbitrary additions were made to the table. I suggest that either some criteria for inclusion are needed, or the table as a whole should go. 86.135.89.147 (talk) 18:12, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please show a wiki article which has this kind of table. Please demonstrate how to verify the accouracy of the table. Please explain how compiling this list isnt original research, as banned by wikipedia. i maintain that this table is meaningless and needs to be removed. So far no one has come up with a sensible argument against that other than forecefully stating that anonymous editors opinions are invalid. 86.135.23.109 (talk) 22:28, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"a wiki article" - far too many to mention - or are you being specific without specifying. It is not OR as argued by another editor. Leave well alone if all you are doing is removing whoesale of information. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 23:12, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It absolutely is OR. OK, try this: cite a reference for this information. Can't? Then clearly it's being selectively compiled. The information is complete and inconsistent. There were maybe 200 artists at GB09. Do we list them all? When do we stop? Who says which bands are non-notable in this context? I have offered an idea for rectifying that (see my original comment at head of this section). No-one has backed up an alternative. 81.159.148.187 (talk) 15:53, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Founders sentence

[edit]

The edit made by User:Abdul_Muhib reads rather clumsily. I think it's also wrong. Jim Palosaari was present at the first festival, and certainly an encouraging figure, but I don't think he could be described as having "started" Greenbelt. If the article *is* to name him, perhaps it should name the "British national" too. I've reverted the change until better wording can be found.

Here is the sentence:

The Greenbelt Festival was started by the American Jim Palosaari and a British national, and was first held on a pig farm just outside the village of Charsfield near Woodbridge, Suffolk ...

86.135.23.25 21:18, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't wrong information, but I'll edit it to add in the others and make the sentence better. I was there at the time, and this was actually the original information up when this entry first began- but I haven't visited the entry for awhile. Information is therefore grandfathered in before Wikipedia's changes on documenting everything, but if you still want something, go to http://www.greenbelt.org.uk/index.php?p=796 and download the PDF there or pay the quid to get the hardcopy.

-Abd Muhib

This is quoted from the Greenbelt 30 year book published by Greenbelt themselves.
"Greenbelt was born out of a meeting brokered by Steve Shaw between James Holloway, singer with Christian band All Things New and music student at the University of Essex, and American Jim Palaasori, a Jesus Festival man and producer of the hippy musical 'Lonesome Stone'. The multimedia show had been touring the UK since its arrival ate London's Rainbow Theatre in the summer of 1973.
After seeing it for himself James talked to Jim about his dream of a celebration of Christian music in the UK. Inspired, Jim persuaded his brother to offer the use of his farm. Famously Jim said 'Hehe, you got yourelf a field; you got yourself a festival' And the rest, as they say, is history."

Dagworth 22:21, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

I removed the link to greenbeltstewards.co.uk after reviewing the WP:NOT and WP:EL policies. In particular, the linked site runs against WP:EL because it is "a blog ... not written by a recognised authority". The linked site also have very little content - two posts, the first being a welcome and the second being an advertisement. Finally, the link was introduced by the site's owner - contrary to the Conflict of Interest section of WP:EL.

That's three reasons why the link shouldn't be present. Does anyone have reasons for keeping it? I'll remove the link again in a week if not.

86.135.89.13 20:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As pointed out below we find it a disturbing that you continue to operate from an anonymous account instead of registering with Wikipedia and using a named account. Anonymous users may often have much to contribute when adding material to articles, but using an anonymous account to delete material which has previously gained acceptance is, widely regarded as unacceptable.
You have never offered a reason for the continued use of an Anonymous user account, please could you tell us why you have this policy? or please tell us why you feel unable to tell us why you have no account name?
SkippyUK 16:08, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a Wikipedia account. I prefer not to.
Whether I edit as a registered user or not has no bearing on edits made. Were they vandalism? Were they malicious? Did the edits improve the quality of the article by trimming it to conform with Wikipedia policies and converting dull lists into interesting narrative?
I still haven't seen any good reasons for keeping the link. Nor have I seen any counter to my three reasons for deleting it.
86.135.89.13 12:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No-one has spoken to keep the link, so I will delete it for the reasons outlined above.
86.139.174.214 18:11, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Why remove the links to the CrossRhythms reviews? Because they're in violation of Wikipedia's WP:EL policy:

"You should avoid linking to a website that you own, maintain or represent, even if the guidelines otherwise imply that it should be linked. If the link is to a relevant and informative site that should otherwise be included, please consider mentioning it on the talk page and let neutral and independent Wikipedia editors decide whether to add it."

MarkSG is the webmaster of that site, and contributed to those reviews. If any other Wikipedia editor feels the links are relevant, feel free to put them back in.

They are:

86.135.88.74 18:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not "the webmaster" of that site. I did contribute to one of the reviews, but Christian music in the UK is a fairly small world and most of us who are involved in it have multiple connections within it. Having said that, I have nothing to do with the stewards site which you also previously removed the link to, so you don't even have that excuse there.
I also find it a little disturbing that you prefer to operate from an anonymous account instead of registering with Wikipedia and using a named account. Anonymous users may often have much to contribute when adding material to articles, but using an anonymous account to delete material which has previously gained acceptance is, IMO, unacceptable. One of the benefits of anonymity is that it makes you less accountable; one of its drawbacks is that it lessens your authority. If you want to help build the Greenbelt festival page into a better resource, then doing so from a named account is more likely to generate goodwill. MarkSG 22:45, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mark, I didn't attribute the Stewards link to you. In fact, you'll notice it's still there (though I don't think it should be - it doesn't add to the article in any way). My apologies for misrepresenting you as CrossRyhthms webmaster; I must have misread [1]. Would "former webmaster" or "member of the website team" be more accurate? 86.135.90.204 19:05, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Member of the team" is accurate. But, again, I have to ask why you prefer to remain anonymous. You know my connections with Cross Rhythms (and, for that matter, with Greenbelt). I'm not trying to hide anything here. But I don't know what possible conflicts of interest there may be in your contributions, which leads me to regard them with less authority than would otherwise be the case. MarkSG 09:12, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Photographs

[edit]

I have some I can sort out at somepoint and would be happy to release for use here. They would be from the Deene Park period when I had a photography pass. At the moment our house is a building site so you may need to remind me of this in a couple of months time. Chenab 14:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pooh

[edit]

Is it worth mentioning the Pooh Readings? I think i can find out one of the two readers names and I am sure we can find the years they were read over out SkippyUK 07:16, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Table removal !!

[edit]

What discussion? you just keep removing long standing information. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 09:44, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Something odd just happened - I went to the article, noticed that the table was missing, reverted it, and then ClueBot reverted my revert and the table was there when I went back to the article! Checking the history, I see that you reverted the table deletion earlier, so I have no idea why I didn't see it when I went to the page. Sorry about that - my comment in the edit history is misleading as it implies that you were responsible for removing the table, which isn't the case according to the article history. MarkSG (talk) 23:10, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article reads like a press release!

[edit]

While the article is quite informative, it portrays the festival in a way that is more complementary than purely factual. Perhaps someone with more knowledge about the festival than me could rewrite it in order to get rid of the sunshine-and-bunny-rabbits tone? For instance, this: Greenbelt festival is a festival of arts, faith and justice held annually in England since 1974. Greenbelt has grown from a music event with an audience of 1,500 to its current more broad festival attended by around 21,000. Could be rewritten like so: Greenbelt festival is an annual Christian arts festival, centred around the themes of faith and justice, held in England since 1974. Greenbelt has expanded from a small music event with an audience of 1,500 to its current more broad festival attended by around 21,000. In particular, "a festival of arts, faith and justice" is particularly nonsensical; by itself it is rather meaningless and leaves out the fact that it is a Christian festival. I'm sure the organisers don't want it to be known as such for fear of discouraging agnostics and non-Christians from coming, but compared to other summer festivals it is overwhelmingly Christian in nature. Randomwellwisher (talk) 13:01, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with this. Nowhere here is any mention of the political bias of the festival, which *appears* to be decidedly liberal and ecumenical to the point of being interfaith. FurryAminal (talk) 10:15, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Very very thin on sources

[edit]

As of April 2016, there are 2,700 words and 1 (count it - one) reference. There were three, but two of them claimed to be to the Greenbelt blog, but are in fact now 404s so I removed them.

This article falls well short of the standards needed for a Wikipedia article. Refimporve tag added - I suggest drastic pruning if citations for verification do not turn up.

Jinlye (talk) 14:13, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

made some improvements in this regard - does badly need some help though. The information is good - but it needs to be more than that. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 15:04, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Greenbelt Festival. 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) 01:20, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Greenbelt_Festival&oldid=1207432171"