Talk:Prince (musician)/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Minneapolis sound

Oddly, Minneapolis sound is mentioned (but not cited) in the lede, but there's not a single mention of it (much less a description/discussion or citation) anywhere else in the article. As far as I can make out, it was the type of music Prince played in the 1980s [1] (and which he pioneered in the late 1970s). As far as I know he continued to evolve his sound and music and style and eclectism beyond the 1980s and beyond Minneapolis sound, so his music should not be defined as that, or as merely that. The first comma in the sentence

He was the pioneer of Minneapolis sound, and his music integrates a wide variety of styles, including funk, rock, R&B, soul, psychedelia, and pop.

has been removed, leaving it as

He was the pioneer of Minneapolis sound and his music integrates a wide variety of styles, including funk, rock, R&B, soul, psychedelia, and pop.

... thus equating the totality of his lifelong music and style(s) with Minneapolis sound, the style he had in the 1980s. I do not think this is accurate. Therefore I would like to request that that first comma be replaced in that sentence. Softlavender (talk) 14:31, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

The comma was incorrectly removed and should be replaced to achieve the correct tense. Further, unless something is in the body of the article describing and addressing the Minneapolis sound, it should not be mentioned in the lede. That's basic Wiki-Stuff 101. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 14:38, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree; personally I'd never heard of Minneapolis sound, so unless it's prominently mentioned in the current wave of media articles on Prince, I think it should be removed from the lede (since it's not in the body text even); particularly as without context it diminishes his accomplishment and total oeuvre (especially without that comma). If we could add something about Minneapolis sound was the sound/style he used in the 1980s, and then refer to his career/sound as a whole or his later work/sound, it might improve it. Softlavender (talk) 14:52, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

The Minneapolis sound is a thing, something he was known for, and it should be in the lede, but there has to be content in the body of the article on it for it to remain. As you already know. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 14:57, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Obviously, it's "a thing". But it should not be in the lede unless it's mentioned in a significant number of post-death reliable sources. If hardly any of the coverage even mentions it, then clearly it's not important enough to be in the lede. For the body, just add a bit of content about it and use the sources from Minneapolis sound. Simple. Dirroli (talk) 15:04, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Why post-death? InedibleHulk (talk) 20:59, April 24, 2016 (UTC)

I agree. The Minneapolis sound should not be in the lede at all. Abductive (reasoning) 15:42, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

If it's OK, I'm just going to remove it for now until we sort out what to do with it and how/where to cite and describe it. The main cite in the Minneapolis sound article isn't even working, unfortunately (I posted a plea about that on its talk page). Softlavender (talk) 15:49, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

No problem from my perspective. It's not essential in the lede but should be mentioned if content in the body of the article exists and is well-referenced. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:55, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm not altogether certain that removing the comma produces a meaning where his musical legacy is equated with the Minneapolis sound; there is ambiguity there, even with the comma. Why not replace the first clause with the dependent "Along with pioneering the Minneapolis sound," and continue with "he integrated a wide variety of styles...into his music", or something of the like? JordanGero (talk) 10:07, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

OMG, after I tagged that messed-up link as dead that lovely Cyberbot fixed and found the link on Wayback! (I swear to God I had tried every trick I knew to find it online via the title and author.) Here is the main source about Minneapolis sound, and it's very helpful and informative: [2]. -- Softlavender (talk) 17:22, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Survey: Section layouts -- where/how to place the "Illness and Death" section vis-a-vis other sections?

Here are some sample layouts, plus people can add more samples from current FAs if they like (please add a number and bullet). Please opine on your preferred layout by number.

• Sample 1: [3]
• Sample 2: [4]
• Sample 3: Philip Seymour Hoffman
• Sample 4: David Bowie

Softlavender (talk) 10:51, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Survey

• Sample 1. I think this reads well for the reader and is logical and chronological. Softlavender (talk) 13:07, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
• Sample 3, because of its clean layout and the fact that all sections are close to equal in length (exempt for important ones, which are divided into subsections). --Proud User (talk) 19:34, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

You really need to stay calm and be patient. We just started a discussion above about this and haven't even received input from any other editors yet. But you're aleady starting a poll? Dirroli (talk) 11:23, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

I did this upon your comment in your thread "Let's see what other editors have to say". Other editors can't opine if they can't see the two options that are being discussed above; plus there are further options as well. Please don't alter the section heading here. Softlavender (talk) 11:37, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

What other's have to say... in the discussion that was already started for that purpose. What's funny is that you didn't even name a singer/musician so we can have an apples to apples comparison. (Then you came back and added Bowie.) But, hey, if you want to play this game, fine; here are some famous musician deaths from the 2010s: Teddy Pendergrass, Rich Cronin, Teena Marie, Clarence Clemons, Amy Winehouse, Etta James, Davy Jones, Donna Summer, Scott Weiland, and Natalie Cole. Dirroli (talk) 11:23, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

To repeat, other editors can't see the two versions that we were discussing (especially considering the rapidly changing state of this article) unless they are posted on this talkpage, so they couldn't say anything informed in what you call "the discussion that was already started for that purpose". David Bowie is a "singer/musician". None of the articles you linked just now are WP:FAs, which I requested in the OP (or even WP:GAs except Amy Winehouse). Softlavender (talk) 12:19, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

"To repeat"? Again, you need to calm down. Anyway, all you had to do was make a comment in the existing discussion and include diffs, not start an entire new section about the same dispute. Simple. Bowie's FA status had nothing to do with having those particular sections being merged. It was the article in its entirety that earned that honor. Per MOS:BODY, there is no set layout for sections You understand that, right? And you didn't add Bowie until about an hour after you used only Hoffman as your example, and after I had already replied to it.[5][6] You know damn well you did that, so why would you mislead others by subsequently saying to me: "David Bowie is a 'singer/musician'" when you know it wasn't there in the first place? Great, you provided one example. Like I said, you provide an example and I'll provide two more. Fun. Interesting how you completely dismissed the 10 great examples I presented since they are completely contrary to your position. Your argument: since they're not FA, they don't count. Right. Dirroli (talk) 12:36, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Per WP:TPO, please stop changing the header to this section; I already asked you once. David Bowie was there ahead of your statement that "What's funny is that you didn't even name a singer/musician so we can have an apples to apples comparison" [7], plus a bio is a bio (especially for creatives); I only added Bowie because he was the last major death I could think of and his article is a FA and has a different choice of layout from the three choices I had already listed. As I mentioned in my OP, people, including me, are welcome to add FA articles as additional samples if they substantially differ from the options so far (but there's no need to clutter the samples with nearly identical choices as that just creates confusion). This is a survey/poll, to gather consensus, and needed a fresh thread, like an RfA, not an overlong and repetitive discussion; thus this separate thread. Softlavender (talk) 13:07, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

You do not create a brand new section (and poll) regarding the exact topic that's already being discussed elsewhere, especially when it just started recently and zero other editors have yet to comment. Patience is definitely something you need to work on. Dirroli (talk) 13:15, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

(moved from Survey section);

How many different threads, subsections, and polls are you going to start before even one other editor chimes in to give their opinion on the overall topic? Dirroli (talk) 13:29, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

We need to get a consensus. The way to do that is through a poll/survey. A poll/survey cannot happen without a structured thread or subthread. You have already edit-warred and violated WP:BRD by changing the existing article layout and reverting to your change four times in one hour. I don't wish to report you for edit-warring now and I'm not going to edit war, so we need a poll/survey to gain consensus. (Technically the layout previous to your changes should have stood per BRD until consensus is reached otherwise, but I have no interest in violating 3RR.) I've now moved all of the discussion to this separate Discussion section to avoid clutter and to avoid needing to collapse that discussion. Softlavender (talk) 13:54, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Exactly, "We need to get a consensus". So calm down and wait for other editors to reply to the original discussion. You don't start creating surveys and polls before even one editor has commented in the original discussion. Dirroli (talk) 13:59, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Editors could not comment without choices in the form of samples/examples or links to what is being discussed. And the way to form consensus on a simple question is via RfC or Survey/poll, not a lengthy discussion. This is the standard form of dispute resolution, although I can make it into an official public WP:RFC by adding an RfC template if desired. Softlavender (talk) 14:06, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

They don't need choices; they need you to calm down and give people a chance to come here and give their opinions. It wouldn't be a lengthy discussion if you would stop talking. Look at this talk page. You're all over it! Take a breath. Arguing your point endlessly will not help your cause. Dirroli (talk) 14:23, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Please discuss how to improve the article and edits, rather than editors. Lord knows Softlavender and I don't see eye-to-eye on much, but on this I agree with her. Further, she's trying to achieve consensus, which is the Wikipedia way. Can't understand why you would object to that. Comment on the topic, please, and leave out the other personal commentary, please. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 14:35, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Hypocrite much? Take your own advice, Winkelvi. Stick to the topic and eliminate the lectures. Your editing history shows you're extremely infamous for fighting with an endless number of editors, spending a lot of your time at various noticeboards reporting people, and getting blocked. Dirroli (talk) 15:10, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

If the "Illness and death" section doesn't belong in chronological order of events, then what is the rationale for the "Early life" section? Mitchumch (talk) 15:16, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree; I personally think you can go ahead and replace it like it was (especially since the editor was not following WP:BRD); your edit and opinion push the current consensus to the chronological order it used to be. The other editor has been blocked for edit warring. Softlavender (talk) 15:46, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Repeated removal of cited info without consensus

John, please stop removing cited information without gaining consensus beforehand. I've replaced your removals several times, as the information was pertinent cited, valuable, and accurate. It's up to you to follow WP:BRD and gain consensus on this talk page before removing cited information. Thank you. Softlavender (talk) 08:04, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Sigh. Actually, it is up to you to justify here why this poorly written fancruft is important to you. Go for it.--John (talk) 08:05, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

That's not how BRD works, especially if you are repeatedly removing pertient cited information, or removing pertinent cited information with little or no rationale. Softlavender (talk) 08:13, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Not everything citable needs to be included. Less is more. This article was a disgusting mish-mash of fancruft before I started trimming it. Again, the WP:ONUS is on you to justify this material, every character of it. Again, this is your opportunity to do so before I remove it again. --John (talk) 08:17, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

John, you know exactly how BRD works. If your BOLD edits are reverted/contested, the status quo ante remains until you establish consensus, especially if removed information is cited and accurate. Softlavender (talk) 08:27, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Well, it's interesting to have your opinion. WP:BRD is an essay, and WP:ONUS is part of a policy, so I am standing by my position that it is you who need to justify your poorly-written and verbose fancruft. If there is no consensus to keep it then it goes. --John (talk) 09:42, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

I haven't written any of the cited material that you have deleted and I have replaced. I only started copyediting the article on April 22. WP:ONUS says that "Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article, and that it should be omitted or presented instead in a different article." If you can demonstrate via consensus that cited material you wish to repeatedly delete does not improve the article, then you are welcome to do so; however one editor's simply not liking something is simply not sufficient rationale for repeated deletion of informative pre-existing cited material. Softlavender (talk) 10:01, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Mmm. What does the next sentence say? --John (talk) 10:18, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Softlavender, what content did John remove that you object to? How are other editors supposed to comment without knowing exactly what you're talking about? For the record, just because content is cited doesn't automatically mean it's worthy of inclusion in an encylopedia. Most facts in reliable sources are actually not encyclopedic. So please provide diffs so we know what you're talking about. By the way, the missing sentence in WP:ONUS you forgot to include says, "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." Why did you leave out that vital part? Dirroli (talk) 10:49, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

There was nothing controversial/disputed about the material he deleted, therefore the onus is actually on him as far as removal; his only rationale (stated in various ways) was that he didn't like it. He is welcome to post the material here and get consensus on whether to remove it. If he had given detailed, cogent, and policy-based rationales for deletion, that would be one thing, but personal dislike of informative cited information is insufficient rationale to repeatedly delete the material without other reasoning and without consensus. Softlavender (talk) 11:05, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Your continued misunderstanding of our basic norms and policies is noted. If you get a chance to read the sentence after the one you quoted, this may help you. If there is no argument to keep this excessive material other than "it's cited", we can safely remove it. John (talk) 11:28, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Softlavender, your behavior is on the verge of becoming disruptive. You misstate clearly written guidelines or policies, or present them out of context, and also ignore direct questions. I asked you to provide diffs so that editors will know what the hell you're objecting to in terms of John's deletions. And I also asked you why you did not include that last sentence of WP:ONUS ("The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content") when you were quoting that section. If you don't want to show us specifically what deletions you object to (with diffs), then this thread should be closed. By the way, my observation of John's edits in general show very good judgment. If I'm not mistaken, I believe he/she has even changed a few things I've done, and I had no problem with them. And John is right, using only "it's cited" as an argument for inclusion carries no weight. Content must be cited and worthy of inclusion in an enyclopedia. Dirroli (talk) 13:01, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

All right, I'm reading the above as consensus to reinstate these copyedits. Remember, we are not being paid by the word, and not everything that appears in a reliable source needs to be in the article. --John (talk) 17:53, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Duly done, for now. The article is still in a dreadful state, badly written with poor structure and way too much fannish stuff, but I believe it is a little better for this modest copyedit. It would be great if anyone wishing to reverse these edits would discuss it here first, as our policy suggests. --John (talk) 21:58, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Good article

After sufficient stability resumes after his death (maybe 2-3 months?), this article is good article material. TeacherA (talk) 18:13, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Worth a shot. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:54, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

I also agree that this has the potential to be a Good Article after it stabilizes. However, I'd like to see a better 1st photo. A few additional photos of him would be nice to see. - SeaBeeDee 23:34, 24 April 2016 (UTC) SeaBeeDee 23:34, 24 April 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SeaBeeDee (talk • contribs)

• This would be premature at the moment I think. With a lot of work (basically a complete rewrite) and after the fuss around the subject's death has died down, this might be possible. For now I say leave it. It wouldn't be too early though to start trimming out all the insignificant garbage about individual concerts and TV appearances though. --John (talk) 22:00, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

photo?

Photo to migrate:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/nico7martin/8794917623/in/photolist-epbfAK-mJTwmF-fdPuRe-5bhTHn-fdPr5K-fe4HW3-mmLCH5-6v6JDb-5ANR6s-fdPoTP-fdPpjX-6PUaCn-fe4QU7-4psdrX-83oihy-fdPqCx-fe4EC7-2HsbUd-95aJ6N-dVPD6e-fHo6F-fdPrVM-hwSpNX-q2zspa-7PucGo-fdPu6M-fHo6g-fe4Lrd-fe4RMh-fe4Mh9-e5Z8U2-2HnUYB-fe4KU9-6imnFf-qbnKzz-fe4Np7-6jXi6W-DmKwHV-2HspZh-fdPspg-fdPwN2-djq87Q-fe4Ems-eVhS9M-bDNaE9-qquQCR-83okTU-5AJAhc-8vtF4S-7kmeU1

https://www.flickr.com/photos/wolfgrams/5474199008/

https://www.flickr.com/photos/nickfarnhill/166505426/

https://www.flickr.com/photos/wolfgrams/5474198530/

https://www.flickr.com/photos/penner/2449973469/in/photolist-4JuKKT-8PHsdV-qLKbk3-a9hhBF-nFe4ca-7e9KcA-8ihRQh-2DXYbu-bDJA8c-bs4Yig-8Bf8YM-bSGTgT-5bncNd-di6jBN-r8b7UK-jCTzZK-fe4JNQ-46cVW-2HnZg8-C826p-e5Z9ya-7ynFzk-GdZ7h-6Kqy8K-qoDdPQ-bWuhR1-2DM1cq-5ANR43-5bhVFP-4pwgny-ehjQiA-3a97Hg-fe4NZu-cGcfUN-fe4Q9w-8HnpYj-aKxThF-epbfAK-mJTwmF-fdPuRe-5bhTHn-fdPr5K-fe4HW3-mmLCH5-6v6JDb-5ANR6s-fdPoTP-fdPpjX-6PUaCn-fe4QU7

https://www.flickr.com/photos/penner/2449968395/in/photolist-4JuJfp-eitYUv-dzvN67-dx31KK-4FrWn8-7e9JBd-DLMo-oR8134-dAfoKt-dTxypY-4JyYam-4Fw97y-4kn3Qn-btwoGg-f4H1u7-9CaaxZ-75Gbum-9Cdc9Y-5z3KRp-mQWYs-8kcSDA-sfN2Dq-91uia3-acCCNW-6k19xr-6KeN-C2Ewso-9kQi68-fHogd-717HUV-CsuHtB-71bHcs-9kJGvh-4KyjU5-3Y7Zt-9Y1Xd5-dVKpxH-4Fw9dy-ekABHf-9pBWCG-csDMtf-4uFQ9L-gFwhRg-edShq-5ANRcj-evfVsa-7Mzzhk-j8Qp4-G94rR-4Ku4DD

https://www.flickr.com/photos/penner/2450795646/in/photolist-4JyYam-4Fw97y-4kn3Qn-btwoGg-f4H1u7-9CaaxZ-75Gbum-9Cdc9Y-5z3KRp-mQWYs-8kcSDA-sfN2Dq-91uia3-acCCNW-6k19xr-6KeN-C2Ewso-9kQi68-fHogd-717HUV-CsuHtB-71bHcs-9kJGvh-4KyjU5-3Y7Zt-9Y1Xd5-dVKpxH-4Fw9dy-ekABHf-9pBWCG-csDMtf-4uFQ9L-gFwhRg-edShq-5ANRcj-evfVsa-7Mzzhk-j8Qp4-G94rR-4Ku4DD-9kJGrN-aczPZD-4DNQZS-bSGSG4-9XPL3a-5zWZMD-iDABxF-4KyiJb-52SYVM-nfQrYu

Victor Grigas (talk) 23:57, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Quotations from music critics

The following statements by music critics have been removed from the article.

1. From this:

In 1980, Prince released the album Dirty Mind, retrospectively described by Stephen Thomas Erlewine as a "stunning, audacious amalgam of funk, new wave, R&B, and pop, fueled by grinningly salacious sex and the desire to shock"; Erlewine concluded "It's a breathtaking, visionary album, and its fusion of synthesizers, rock rhythms, and funk set the style for much of the urban soul and funk of the early '80s."

... this has been removed:

Erlewine concluded "It's a breathtaking, visionary album, and its fusion of synthesizers, rock rhythms, and funk set the style for much of the urban soul and funk of the early '80s."

2. From this:

Critic Simon Reynolds called him a "pop polymath, flitting between funkadelia, acid rock, deep soul, schmaltz—often within the same song", adding that "Prince doesn't so much build bridges between categories as create music that exceeds each category simultaneously".

... this has been removed:

adding that "Prince doesn't so much build bridges between categories as create music that exceeds each category simultaneously"

Should either of them be replaced? -- Softlavender (talk) 11:41, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

IMHO those edits are fine. Karst (talk) 06:56, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Contradiction

We have:

On February 12, 2011, Prince presented Barbra Streisand with an award and donated $1.5 million to charities.

then later

As a Jehovah's Witness, Prince did not speak publicly about his charitable endeavors.

References

They can't both be true, can they? --John (talk) 20:28, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, Someone else connected to the Streisand incident released the information. I mean to say, Prince might of not talked about the donation, save what ever he had to say on stage. Mlpearc (open channel) 20:57, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

You're right, thank you. The article needs a total rewrite to get away from the nit-pickingly chronological record. --John (talk) 21:04, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Mlpearc (open channel) 21:12, 27 April 2016 (UTC)