Talk:Carl Craig

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

Lawsuit[edit]

I couldn't find a citation for his "partial win" so I changed it to a cite about him filing. - 152.91.9.144 23:58, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Carl Craig. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 07:18, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive reversions[edit]

An anonymous user (most recently operating from the IP 153.206.224.247) continues to remove sourced information from the lead and body of the article, particularly simple and well-supported facts regarding Craig's historical prominence in the lead, which merely reflects an entire section of the article. The user continues to revert without explanation, their only justification being WP:POV, WP:PUFF, and WP:BAND, none of which in fact justify their reversions:

  • WP:POV dictates that sources should be reflected without bias, in a balanced and fair manner; as I am simply quoting prominent publications in their straightforward, factual-historical descriptions of Craig's prominence in the development of a music genre, I see no bias.
  • WP:PUFF advises the removal of vague "peacock" words in favor of direct quotations from prominent sources or accolades; I have provided direct quotes which avoid "peacock" words (i.e. "brilliant" or "inventive") and instead note straightforward historical facts: Craig was a "leading figure" of Detroit techno's second wave, and is a "pioneer" in the the genre. These are not puff claims, but simple historical descriptions of his role in the development of a genre.
  • WP:BAND is used to justify mentioning Craig's Grammy nomination, but the user conveniently ignored section #7 in the guidelines, which lists as one justification of notability that the artist "Has become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene of a city; note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability." As various prominent sources on the page all describe his prominence in the genre, this information should not be reverted in the lead.

If the anonymous user cannot answer these explanations or build alternative consensus, there can be no justification for their continued reversion of sourced material.gentlecollapse6 (talk) 02:26, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just because the content is sourced does not mean you can add it to the article. As for the lead section, having founded Planet E Communications and having been nominated for the Grammy Award are sufficient to state "the noteworthy position(s) the person held, activities they took part in, or roles they played" and "why the person is notable" (MOS:OPENPARABIO). 153.206.224.247 (talk) 02:41, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Unless you can explain why these sources and particular historical claims—which meet Wikipedia guidelines for notability, as shown above—do not belong in the article, then you are reverting sourced information in violation of Wikipedia guidelines. Do it again and I will get an administrator involved. gentlecollapse6 (talk) 02:45, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Also, given that none of the given sources spend more time discussing Craig's Grammy nomination or label than they do his influence and role in the genre's development, your claim that they "are sufficient to state 'the noteworthy position(s) the person held' is not even supported by source consensus. Craig's label or Grammy are not the reason he is well-known, according to various sources. gentlecollapse6 (talk) 02:49, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Carl Craig's aliases such as Designer Music and No Boundaries, which you have repeatedly added to infobox, are not supported by a reliable source, which violates WP:V. Your edits at the lead section does not comply with WP:OPENPARABIO, which states, "avoid overloading the lead paragraph with various and sundry roles; instead, emphasize what made the person notable. Incidental and non-noteworthy roles (i.e. activities that are not integral to the person's notability) should usually not be mentioned in the lead paragraph." You have also repeatedly added puffery such as "pioneering" to the article, which violates WP:PUFFERY. His 1996 compilation album is not titled Psyche/BFC: Elements 1989-1990, but Elements 1989-1990. Anyway, it is not notable enough to add to the career section. 153.206.224.247 (talk) 03:26, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
1) I did not add any of those names to the infobox. If you removed those names in edits which also removed sourced material, and I simply reverted those edits, that is your fault. Next time, dedicate one edit to that change. 2) You invoke a guideline which says "instead, emphasize what made the person notable," but you continue to remove this information from the lead (Craig is notable for his central role in the genre, as several sources say, not for his label or Grammy). You make little sense here. 3) The word "pioneering" as quoted by a source is not "puffery" anymore than saying "Andy Warhol was a pioneer of the pop art movement." This is simply a historical description, not a valuation or judgement of "brilliance." Is English not your native language? Do you understand what "pioneer" means? 4) Given that two sources note the compilation as containing important or pioneering material, it is notable enough to be included in the lead. gentlecollapse6 (talk) 03:35, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you have repeatedly added Designer Music and No Boundaries to infobox here, here, and here. Please familiarize yourself with WP:V. 153.206.224.247 (talk) 03:41, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I already explained this above. I'll be getting in touch with an administrator now, as you refuse to adhere to Wiki guidelines and are now clearly acting in bad faith. gentlecollapse6 (talk) 03:45, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Any source? 153.206.224.247 (talk) 03:48, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, User:Gentlecollapse6 eventually removed the unsourced aliases himself here, and that's okay.
Although I still think the second sentence (Associated with the second wave ... as a "techno pioneer.") is redundant for the lead section, I'll leave it and wait for someone to agree with me on this issue. 153.175.240.150 (talk) 07:48, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Still don't understand how the second sentence is "redundant" when it describes the main reason Craig is famous/notable. Can you actually explain this? gentlecollapse6 (talk) 14:34, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Warring[edit]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Carl_Craig&oldid=1206817170"