Talk:Gypsy jazz

Music/Music genres task force Start‑class

	Music portal Gypsy jazz is within the scope of the Music genres task force of the Music project, a user driven attempt to clean up and standardize music genre articles on Wikipedia. Please visit the task force guidelines page for ideas on how to structure a genre article and help us assess and improve genre articles to good article status.Music/Music genres task forceWikipedia:WikiProject Music/Music genres task forceTemplate:WikiProject Music/Music genres task forcemusic genre
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Jazz Start‑class Mid‑importance

	Jazz portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Jazz, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of jazz on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JazzWikipedia:WikiProject JazzTemplate:WikiProject JazzJazz
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Romani people Start‑class

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Romani people, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Romani people on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Romani peopleWikipedia:WikiProject Romani peopleTemplate:WikiProject Romani peopleRomani people
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

I tried to add some sourcing and tone down a few things.--T. Anthony 03:51, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand all this article needs now are links? RomanyChaj

Sources for the "Techniques" section

I see that the user Conical Johnson added the "Original research" tag for the "Techniques" section. Can somebody bring some sources for it, as I know myself that most of the infos are true? Also, something on the special vibrato that they use would be good (with a source of course:) ). Kenshin (talk) 11:51, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this section is accurate and not OR. I could add some refs from Romane's book.1Z (talk) 09:58, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed a dubious claim about "gypsybilly" and contacted user:Conical Johnson. 1Z (talk) 08:13, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I'm sure you guys all know, the OR tag has nothing to do with the veracity of the material. You aren't allowed to write things just because you know them to be true. You must have an independent source that verifies it. The way this section is written sounds to me like a guitarist discussing techniques with which he is personally familiar, even to the extent that he uses them himself in gypsy jazz music. Therefore he knows it to be true. And yet, it is (in the hypothetical case I mention) original research. As with any unsourced content on WP, add some sources. Conical Johnson (talk) 09:30, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Finding sources for doubtful text is much more importan tthan finding sources for information that is probably correct. Most of WP is unsourced.

I think the books in the "References and further reading" section generally support eveything in "techniques". Are in-line citations required? They would be possible, but time-consuming. 1Z (talk) 10:48, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever else is going on in Wikipedia is irrelevent. You believe this text to be "probably correct", but anyone who didn't write it has no idea. In this way this article is precisely the same to me as pages with "doubtful text" are to you. Whoever wrote that doubtful text believes it to be "probably correct" just as you believe your own writing to be. Conical Johnson (talk) 20:11, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is much outright crap on WP, fixing that is much more of a priority than finding chapter and verse for sensible and uncontentious comment. 1Z (talk) 08:22, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Come on man, do you really not understand what I'm saying here? "Outright crap" is in the eye of the beholder. That's why we have sources - to remove judgement calls of what's true or not.

Now, with that said, it's not like I'm deleting material here. I put the OR tag up there months ago, and it still applies. If you want to just leave it like that forever, you can. I don't have these books and I'm not going to do the research. All you have to do is cite the book at the end of the paragraph, most people don't bother to cite pages. You could even make some stuff up and cite it all to the book. Who's gonna know? Add some refs if you want the tag gone. Conical Johnson (talk) 09:28, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have cited severeal books at the end of the article. 1Z (talk) 16:24, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]