User talk:Alexandria2031
Welcome to Wikipedia!!!
[edit]
|
Setting a Suitable Standard...
[edit]Wikipedia’s biographical pages were not created as a platform to disseminate disputed lyrics, advocacy groups and/or promulgate views of those individuals who are currently in dispute with the artist. Nor should it be fashioned to.That is due to the fact that Wikipedia’s objective is to simulate an encyclopedia- simply online and cost-free. It does not participate in publicizing viewpoints that would ultimately cause physical, financial, or social detriment to the party discussed. If a party or persons exposed to the artists’ lyrics interpret them as unsuitable and/or offensive then it is appropriate to then form, join or participate in an advocacy and/or interest group which adhere to a certain code of conduct. That conduct may include (but is not limited to) writing letters, making phone calls, rallying, or holding demonstrations to publicize a certain viewpoint towards the proper channels. One of the more modern and convenient forms of protesting is “blogging” so it is important to note that Wikipedia is not a venue in which persons may advertise, “blog” or compose libelous material.
An artist lyrics and viewpoints are open to interpretation, which could lead to campaigns for or against the song, the genre, and an artist themselves, their families, or other associates within that sphere. Using a biographical page to promote subjective viewpoints and interpretations-despite popularity or those who believe it is “just” or “moral” is not acceptable behavior. Publicizing any successful demonstrations by persons or groups currently in dispute with the artist’s lyrics/viewpoint/preferences is also out of order. The publicizing of subjective lyrical meanings may have positive or negative affects, but once again an online encyclopedia is not the venue to effect change in an orderly manner. The amount of “information/links/quotes” present concerning those opposed to the “artist lyrics preferences” is disproportionate to the amount of lyrics/quotes/phrases that actually exist. They are also disproportionate to the amount of those that promote certain the artists lyrics/quotes/phrases. Neutrality excludes bias, so an editor must include a comprehensive list off all performances promoted and canceled due to their respective reasoning’s. It is inappropriate to cite materials within a biography from a disputing advocacy group webpage which contains their articles relaying demonstrations with favorable outcomes. An encyclopedia is not an appropriate channel to do so.
Example: If there is an advocacy group “R” who is in dispute or dissatisfied with the relations between a female “m” and the president “P.” Then persons who are aware of or involved with group “R” should be able to go to unbiased reliable sources and general sources for biographical information.
Information could be found in the following ways:
1. If the president “P” himself has a website known as “MS” for “my-site” then that is a source of information.
2. If supporters of and/or voters for the president “P” have a website known as “MC” for “my-choice” then that is a source of information.
3. If the political party or campaign manager has a site for the president “P” designated as “TC” for “the-choice” then that is a source of information.
4. An encyclopedia “E” will include biographical information and topics related to the scope of the presidency itself. A few examples would be political environment, economy, the physical environment, international community/issues etc. A few examples of the term would include birth date, ancestry, his numerical order in the presidency etc. Note that it will include his passions and only challenges faced within the scope of the office itself such as the economy (and other historically topics directly relevant to the scope). An encyclopedia must hold up to a certain standard of lacking overt bias -unlike the first three.
It is important to note that “P” comments or policies that were disputed by advocacy group “R” may be relevant in one scope or another. But they are relevant to the scope of the office of the presidency and would not be included in the Encyclopedia. Nor would each dispute no matter how popular, amongst each segment of a population or advocacy group be relevant within the president “P” page in the encyclopedia “E”.
So let me put it in context for you... If there is an advocacy group “X” who is in dispute or dissatisfied with the lyrics/“l” of artist “A.” Then persons who are aware of or involved with group “X” should be able to go to an unbiased reliable source for biographical information. It is not up to disputing group "X" to wantonly post their own agenda,accomplishments,missions, or examples of demonstrations on every Artist page who has ever created lyrics during the span of their entire career that could be interpreted as something against the agenda of group "X".
Information could be found in the following ways: 1. If the artist “A” himself has a website known as “MS” for my-site then that is a source of information.
2. If supporters and/or fans of the artist “A” have a website known as “F” for fan-site then that is a source of information.
3. If the record label or managerial affiliates of artist “A” have a designated site known as “OS” for official-site then that is a source of information.
4. An encyclopedia if they met the requirements and it is up to date. That is the unique aspect of Wikipedia-it is online, up to date and configured for open-access. It is not however a place for blogs or a place where dissatisfied groups or obsessed fans can sporadically edit, or promulgate their personal agendas.
Therefore if you are researching and/or “google” the artist name “A” there will be many sites in which one could draw information and read anything posted from a number of sources, in many cases there is even a site for lyrics. So if one is willingly exposed to the lyrics and personally feels that the artist is promoting issue “Z” and he or she is opposed to issue “Z” then one should research or google the issue “Z” itself. Upon doing so, one could join or organize anti “A” or “Z” groups, create blogs, sites, hold demonstrations and compile letters as previously detailed above. It is inappropriate and against the objective of maintaining an online encyclopedia to attach the mission statements, viewpoints and accomplishments of disputing organizations and their affiliates to biographical pages. Issue “Z” may or may not have valid arguments among certain segments or percentages of populations, but an artist “A” web page intended to be biographical in nature within the scope of an encyclopedia is not the proper venue to express those viewpoints. Nor should it be the intent of editors to establish the validity or invalidity of issue “Z” by publicizing by any means necessary disregarding civility while promoting inequity in the most unprofessional manner. An issue may or may not be valid but there are ways, venues and means available to promote or defile an issues merits-this is not that venue. Contact other agencies, or groups concerning issue “Z” in order to organize a valid form of interaction with artist “A” and their affiliates whether it is by peaceable talks or demonstrations. Subjugating researchers, however, to content that includes every dispute, dissected lyrics, interpretations, and subjective viewpoints creates a cesspool of filth similar to smear-campaigns during political elections. Alexandria2031 01:54, 1 April 2007 (UTC) --Alexandria2031 01:54, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Presuming
[edit]Presuming that the above was meant for me, I respond. Taking all X's and Y's into consideration (pun intended), I'd first like to mention that I'm neither a fan nor a detractor of any of the artistes in question. I just like to read up on stuff that I randomly come across. and when I do that, I normally expect to hear both sides of the story. of course, the official websites, fansites and record label statements would exist, and would definitely be a source for a lot of information. but on the other hand, if the person concerned has been part of a controversial topic, you'd hardly expect that to be on the person's official site. for instance, Snoop Dogg's site doesn't have any news about him being arrested, but it's out there in the news, and mentioning it in his biography wouldn't make it libel or slander.
- Yes, bloggers write things, critics write things. not everything mentioned is a lie, though. If I mentioned in my blog that Britney Spears was seen sans-undies, I can't be sued, but if I said that she was seen sans-undies at my house, I'm asking for trouble. as far as I saw... yes, the articles needed cleaning up. yes... some of that stuff was un-referenced. edit the article, by all means... the way you started out. don't delete entire sections. and definitely not from the talk sections.
- I admit, I didn't quite follow all of what you'd mentioned above, but I hope I made myself clear enough. thanks, joseph 22:05, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Libel
[edit]I noticed your edits, [1], [2], [3] and [4]... to be fair, and as has been covered in Talk:Beenie_Man, the issue of ----phobic lyrics and statements by reggae artists has been discussed, and have been retained after reaching a consensus. The fact that the people in question are alive doesn't make it libel, as long as it's verifiable, and the quote is "never speak ill of the dead", the living, well... they can defend themselves. joseph 19:18, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
User talk page and user page info
[edit]Regarding user talk pages, it is best to not delete notices, but instead, to archive them. You will find how to do this here, under "When pages get too long." Your talk page is intended to serve as a place to discuss your contributions. It ends up being a sort of a history of the work you've done and the conflicts you've been in, or the praise you've received. It's alright to archive comments or warnings, but blanking your talk page is not considered appropriate, as it is not actually yours but instead belongs to us all. Please read WP:USERPAGE and WP:TALK. Actively erasing non-harassing personal messages can often be interpreted as hostile. In the past, this kind of behavior has been viewed as uncivil. For this reason, eventually when you desire to keep the "clutter" down on your user talk page, I suggest that you create archives for these messages. I would be happy to assist you in doing just that if you ask me to. You can see a sample of archives (mine) here. As for your user page, most users seem to use it as a place to describe themselves as people and/or editing entities. Many collect links to pages they are working on and/or have been working on. You user page is more "yours," in a way, than anywhere else on wikipedia, but is not intended to serve as a personal webpage either. Once again, read here to learn more about this. -- Kukini hablame aqui 20:34, 31 March 2007 (UTC)