Talk:Juha

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class.

[edit] Tags

I placed {{wikify}} and {{NPOV}} tags here, but I'm not sure how much it's worth fixing the article. It may just be a vanity page that's a deletion canidate. From the NPOV angle, the article definitely needs to be fixed, almost every sentence is glorifying Juha. I don't want to do anything before I get someone else's ideas, though.--ikiroid | (talk) 23:06, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

• As the dude who wrote most of this article, I'm trying to figure out where it "glorifies" Juha... I'd say that the information is very complete and thorough, a pretty solid history of Juha. But there ain't no adjectives like "brilliant" and "stunning" and "amazing" - it's all pretty much facts about performances done and grants received and albums released. I've been as thorough with folks like Gwen Guthrie and the Mole and one-hit wonders like Stacey Q, and wonder why this one gets a complaint.

Well, maybe the NPOV tag was a bit rash, but I just didn't know what I could place-tagwise. The only references are a MySpace account, and none of the article has been divided into seperate sections (i.e. ==Early Life==, ==Career Beginnings==, etc.) so I recieved the impression that it was more of a--I don't want to sound insulting--junior high essay than an encyclopedia article. But I'll try dividing the article up into sections, but you'll have to add references.--ikiroid | (talk) 16:31, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

BTW...we need sources!!!--The ikiroid (talk/parler/hablar/paroli/说/話) 02:53, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

as someone who has both published and produced shows for Juha, what sort of sources do you require? I tried to edit the info but my changes were blocked for some reason.Fanorama 04:51, 31 March 2006 (UTC)Fanorama

as someone who has no particular connection to or foreknowledge of Juha, the page reads like a preening record-company bio, not an encyclopedia article. I was surprised to see that someone who wasn't him claimed to have written it. As it is right now, "vanity page" is a fairly charitable description of the article, I think. Fordmadoxfraud 11:35, 11 July 2006

Like most glorified young hip hoppers, he is, of course, solidly middle class. Upper class. That's how he got all that time to make records! Marginalized is his own choice.

Well, that definitely sounds more like a personal opinion or issue rather than a NPOV. Personal opinions or issues with an artist are supposedly not part of the wikipedia way. If something is stated as a fact, back it up, and leaving names is usual good as it makes personal comments seem less suspect. Lost my password but the name is down below. - Glamarchy

Hi – I'm the dude who wrote this. I go by the name Atomic, and I co-host a web radio show in Portland called Glamarchy Now (through Portland Indymedia). We've played Juha a lot. I stand by what I said a couple paragraphs above: having avoided any adjectives like "brilliant" and "amazing," this seems like a really thorough history of Juha, and the question of "vanity" is still baffling to me. Really confusing, as I don't see how this is written any different than the Wikipedia entry for that of any other performer, mainstream or underground. It's just the facts, and as far as this sounding like a "record company bio" – I'm not sure that most Wikipedia biographies don't… facts are pretty much part of a biography no matter who's writing it. The closest thing to a neutrality question I can find would be when I described the zine *QuART* as a "hit," which I did because I found it anthologized in the final *Outpunk*, which almost all people in the scene consider to be the definitive queerzine history. I confess that I discovered a bunch of the Juha information from his official one-sheet (which I'm sure a lot of Wikipedia fanatics do when writing about their favorite performers), but I also pulled lots of it from sources like:

• Good Times* and *The Sentinel* in Santa Cruz; *Huriyah*; *Out In Maui*; *XY

  the zines *Fanorama*, *Factsheet Five*, and *Queer Zine Expolsion*, which

predate his entry into music; and other magazines. I pursued these sources after finding smaller press quote excepts from the "Reviews" section of his old web site and current myspace page; the larger articles revealed a lot. I typed into search engines "Juha Polari" (which pointed to articles as well as some of the college stations that play "Polari"), "Juha Faggoty Ann & Andy," etc. You can research the information on your own if you wanna verify grant stuff with the Rhode Island State Council on the Arts, Horizons Foundation, etc. And yeah, eventually I met Juha and interviewed him several times, which is a pretty common practice when you interview musicians and activists weekly on a radio show. I cleared a lot of the information with him, including those that have been removed for lack of citation – I didn't want to cite myself, but am in the position of having an alternative media historian's knowledge of Juha and interest in writing Wikipedia entries. I became interested in Juha because – when Juha was a duo - they were among the first queer hip hop crews to have any kind of visibility. Honestly, I don't understand why people would choose to spend their time trying to berate a freakin' Wikipedia entry on this. I think you should probably have some immersion in and knowledge of queer culture and "queercore" music and in particular the history of the "Homohop" subculture before questioning validity. I think you should be familiar with the depth of the importance of recording these subcultures that a historically marginalized people created. I'm assuming no one here really does have good queer history credentials. I admit that I'm a huge Juha fan, but I think most folks who write about performers on Wikipedia are fans of those performers. I'd like to archive this discussion as a "Neutral Point Of View Debate."