User talk:QuestionOfAnarchy

here is your direct quote: "source is biased and the actual claim is redundant"

Your first point is mischaracterized and the second is exagerrated (in my interpretation). You are basically saying that positive notes towards this musician are biased, but when it comes to music, it is always biased. Smartpunk.com (a store that sells many artists' records both indie and major) isn't a biased source, it only makes a biased statement. Even if it completely is, Wikipedia's policy states quote:

"But it is important indeed to note how some artist or some work has been received by the general public or by prominent experts. Providing an overview of the common interpretations of a creative work, preferably with citations or references to notable individuals holding that interpretation, is appropriate. For instance, that Shakespeare is widely considered one of the greatest authors of the English language is a bit of knowledge that one should learn from an encyclopedia." Since that statement and another one similar to it are only written twice in this article, characterizing it as 'redundant' is an exaggeration.

Would u be happier if Smartpunk.com said rather that Jonny Craig has "one of the best voices in the scene" instead of "many people believe he has the best voice in the scene?" It's easier to talk about "bias" when there are two sides to an argument like politics or wars. Music is subjective, therefore biased by default.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NPOV

Characterizing opinions of people's work A special case is the expression of aesthetic opinions. Some Wikipedia articles about art, artists, and other creative topics (e.g. musicians, actors, books, etc.) have tended toward the effusive. This is out of place in an encyclopedia; we might not be able to agree that so-and-so is the greatest guitar player in history. But it is important indeed to note how some artist or some work has been received by the general public or by prominent experts. Providing an overview of the common interpretations of a creative work, preferably with citations or references to notable individuals holding that interpretation, is appropriate. For instance, that Shakespeare is widely considered one of the greatest authors of the English language is a bit of knowledge that one should learn from an encyclopedia. Public and scholarly critique of an artist or work, when well-researched and verifiable, helps to put the work into context and enhances the credibility of the article; idiosyncratic opinions of individual Wikipedia contributors, however, do not.

continued

good try. skimming through the policies didn't cut it for you. if you had read these parts of the WP:RS policies, you would have noticed this:

Statements of opinion

Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements of fact. A prime example of this are Op-ed columns that are published in mainstream newspapers. When discussing what is said in such sources, it is important to directly attribute the material to its author, and to do so in the main text of the Wikipedia article so readers know that we are discussing someone's opinion.

Attributing and substantiating biased statements

Sometimes, a potentially biased statement can be reframed into a neutral statement by attributing or substantiating it.

For instance, "John Doe is the best baseball player" is, by itself, merely an expression of opinion. One way to make it suitable for Wikipedia is to change it into a statement about someone whose opinion it is: "John Doe's baseball skills have been praised by baseball insiders such as Al Kaline and Joe Torre," as long as those statements are correct and can be verified. The goal here is to attribute the opinion to some subject-matter expert, rather than to merely state it as true.

A different approach is to substantiate the statement, by giving factual details that back it up: "John Doe had the highest batting average in the major leagues from 2003 through 2006." Instead of using the vague word "best," this statement spells out a particular way in which Doe excels.

There is a temptation to rephrase biased or opinion statements with weasel words: "Many people think John Doe is the best baseball player." But statements of this form are subject to obvious attacks: "Yes, many people think so, but only ignorant people"; and "Just how many is 'many'? I think it's only 'a few' who think that!" By attributing the claim to a known authority, or substantiating the facts behind it, you can avoid these problems.

just remember that a subjective statement is NOT an argument. one can make an argument for/against this statement, but the statement itself is not an argument.

ESTK songs

Just so you know, you missed the last step of the nomination process, which is to actually add the nominations to the current day's discussion page at WP:AFD. I've done that for you, so you don't need to do it now — but for future reference, when you're finished writing up the deletion nomination, you have to actually go to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, click on the current day's subpage, and add either {{subst:afd3|pg=(Title)}} or {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/(Title)}} to the top of that day's list. Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 15:55, 17 March 2009 (UTC)