User talk:Nazamo

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 NPOV 2 Skinhead article 3 B-movie 4 Aestheticization of violence 5 Your changes on Jazz fusion 6 Children of Men 7 Frank and Silver 8 Oneiric (film theory) 9 Art film 10 Noir for all 11 Resident Evil: Apocalypse 12 Spielberg 13 Copyist

[edit] NPOV

I disagree with you. Although it can lead to POV, it is important to say how the public recieved a film for example, because this reception is often different to that of the critics. Anyway, "critics" == "prominent experts" in my opinion. What do you think? Maybe there is a way to rephrase this. Yandman 14:37, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Skinhead article

In your comments by your edit to the skinhead article, you wrote that the text I reverted "...is filled with weasel words, original research..." What specifically are you referring to? I have no issue with the edit you made to the one sentence, but I'm not sure if you have other examples. I didn't write most of that text, but it looks pretty accurate to me, and it's nothing that I haven't read, heard or seen before. I have been careful about not just instantly reverting huge sections just because of a few errors. I always read through the changes and only delete or revert content that is innacurate, unverifiable, point of view or irrelevant. Of course I sometimes make mistakes, but I usually catch those later and remedy the situation. Spylab 12:29, 18 September 2006 (UTC)Spylab

I looked back at the article, and saw a few examples of what you mean. I replaced words like "exploded" and "closely tied" with more academic and verifiable terms. I'll take another look to see any others I have missed. The skinhead article is notorious for editors (often anonymous) trying to promote their point of view (usually US-based) and posting unverified myths that they have read on message boards and other unreliable sources. My goal is to make the article as accurate and relevant as possible. Spylab 13:00, 18 September 2006 (UTC)Spylab

[edit] B-movie

You're quite right. I've restored the quote, clarifying the context. Best, Dan—DCGeist 13:25, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Aestheticization of violence

Hi, Nazamo. I do agree with you that the article still needs a considerable amount of work. I hope you're agreeable to my copying and posting your comment to the article's Talk page, as it raises a couple of important, specific points. I disagree with one and agree with the other (as I state there), but certainly others interested in the article should consider both of them. Best, Dan —DCGeist 18:29, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your changes on Jazz fusion

Your changes are generally a mess, and there was no POV in the article as it existed, and you made no specific references to where you saw a POV. You also butchered the layout, and now I get to spend hours reverting what you've done. Tvccs 23:36, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

In looking at your contribution history, you have an obvious interest in the bass and bass guitar - in looking at your changes and deletions - it would be a POV to say Jaco Pastorius was innovative, because it's an unsourced "POV", even though we and thousands of others would agree with it. Such criteria is a POV in and of itself, and if POV is that large a concern, your efforts might well have been better spent researching and linking/bookmarking the content that was there. The deletions you made on Soft Machine, for example, are completely inappropriate - Third is their largest selling record by far, was in print for many, many years, and is seen by most familiar with the Canterbury Scene as one of, if not the, leading recording of that era - Hugh Hopper's interviews, which are linked on his page and the Soft Machine page, support that. and I see little or no other contributions from you to anything else to do with Canterbury. The various references cited in the article - most of which predated my contributions, support the prior article, as do other Wikipedia and other sources referenced. It's also not appropriate to move the radio section down to the 1990's and 2000's section you renamed, it's not related. And the majority of other edits, no matter how well-intentioned, create havoc with the prior article, and reflect your own POV. Tvccs 00:01, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of POV, you are the only contributor to that article in the last however many months that feels that fusion was "well-represented in the 1980's - nearly everyone else has concurred otherwise. You also removed the section on virtuosity, which is also your POV - you have to be a virtuoso to play most of that music, and very few musicians can at the highest levels, or play and improvise in those meters, etc. Tvccs 00:15, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi, sorry to plunk this down here, I can't find a "add talk here" place (perhaps I missed it). I saw your site, and I appreciated a lot of your points, about learning about a topic before you edit a page. Here are some friendly responses to your message....
Thanks for your comments.
Your changes are generally a mess--Just trying to do good-faith copyediting to improve flow, and downgrade strong claims to a more defensible position (e.g. I proposed changing Jaco from the "most celebrated bassist" (or similar phrase), which may be hard to prove, because many bassists have been "celebrated" in bass magazines to "innovative")
I think it's a reasonable forward to claim that Jaco Pastorius and Stanley Clarke were likely the two most influential bassists with fusion ties to the 70's. That commentary was here before I arrived, and I believe it's generally accepted within the fusion community from all that I've read over the past 20-30 years. I'm a former record buyer with a major chain and know many of these people personally as well...have 10,000 recordings, have written liner notes, have music blogs, etc etc etc. God forbid we have anything "OR"...In regards to the layout issues, you have to look at the images on a page and adjust those as well if you're going to mess with copy, not just edit copy and leave a page looking like hell with edits - I don't touch pages unless I'm prepared to edit not only the copy, but the layout as well, and I've had to learn various tricks to make that easier. I might prefer a shorter lead as well, but the prior lead, with the Miles Bitches Brew cover, looked like hell from a layout standpoint, and I didn't want to move the Miles cover just because of my own preferences as it belonged there according to others. Another editor took my original section on virtuosity and time signatures and moved it up into the lead, which I thought was a good move (see the page discussion). I thought it was a good thing to add the Tony Williams Lifetime cover art, which helped balance the layout, and it means the lead is longer than usual. It's a matter of balancing layout and content, and I thought it was the best option at the time. Leaving huge gaps in displayed pages looks terrible, and as I've reviewed pages cited by Wikipedia as excellent I've found layout is an important issue, as it should be. I should also add that I'm reluctant to delete or edit the work of others much except for very minor grammatical cleanup and obvious fact errors or omissions, this is supposed to be a collaborative effort. I'm not the god's gospel on this, and I know people, like the guys that run Audiophile Imports, that can run circles around me. I'd rather add and build than chop and diminish.
and there was no POV in the article as it existed, I argue that statements like "In addition to Davis, the most important figures in early fusion were.." could have some POV. I argue that the POV exists in the phrase "the most important". If it was softened to "other important", sure, that's defensible. But to say a list of 6 or 7 are "the most important," I believe you'd need an expert source saying this.
Again, there are plenty of "expert sources" that have agreed on this for years to the point of common knowledge - there are not a lot of definitive fusion bibles out there, actually none. There are articles referenced at the bottom of the page that do generally support those contentions, however.
and you made no specific references to where you saw a POV. Sorry, should have been more specific in edit summary
You also butchered the layout,I didn't believe that the radio airplay para was needed in the Lede...but if you call that "butchering", OK.
See above commentary about balancing layout and copy - One of the things I have consistently found since I was a record buyer in the 1970's, and have seen and heard dozens of times since, is people asking why they never hear this music on the radio, in the U.S., whereas Scott Henderson and other people have talked about a much wider acceptance overseas.
better spent researching and linking/bookmarking...I agree with this point...I have started some articles, and there are some editors who just keep cutting and deleting, and I feel like you...If you feel so strongly that X content is unsourced or whatever, why not improve it, and don't just cut it out. For the record, I don't think I actually ERASED content, I just tried to copyedit and downgrade claims.
I'm glad you sense the same, and I try to stay away from deleting "unsourced" material I know is reasonable when there are no traditional sources, which is most of the time in what I write about. And yes, there was siginificant content that was deleted in the form of edits. deletions you made on Soft Machine...references to bands being leaders of scenes are commonly made in music pages...However, I believe these claims, since they are subjective, need to be backed up by a quote from an expert (music critic/music historian). Your point that Soft Machine are the leaders may be fine...but many Wiki editors claim that XXX singer is the leader of YYY scene, or ZZZ band is the leader of the QQQQ scene, without references. Read the Canterbury scene Wiki page, the Soft Machine page, there are books on Canterbury, many other references, it's generally, not universally (there are a few Caravan and National Health junkies for example), accepted that Soft Machine was the lead band from the Canterbury scene, and that has been the case for 30-plus years, and they have the record sales to support it, having outsold anyone else Canterbury-related with the exception of Pink Floyd by a wide margin. I already referenced the Hugh Hopper interview in my prior comments. In this case we aren't talking about today's bands, per se, this is established and discussed ad nauseum history.
It's also not appropriate to move the radio section down to the 1990's and 2000's section you renamed, it's not related. Sorry, probably not a good place, but I didn't believe the lede was a good place.
See above.
And the majority of other edits, no matter how well-intentioned, create havoc with the prior article, and reflect your own POV.Just trying to improve the article.
Again, your improvements need to be balanced against the contributions of dozens of others, especially when you start chopping up copy. I try and respect the time and effort of others, regardless of whether I totally agree with what they've said, or exactly how they said it.
you are the only contributor to that article in the last however many months that feels that fusion was "well-represented in the 1980's - nearly everyone else has concurred otherwise.Maybe it is a problem of definition of fusion, but the facts indicate that there are Grammy Awards for Jazz Fusion throughout the 1980s....Grammy Awards of 1989: Yellowjackets for Politics Grammy Awards of 1988: Pat Metheny Group for Still Life (Talking) Grammy Awards of 1987: Bob James & David Sanborn for Double Vision Grammy Awards of 1986: David Sanborn for Straight To The Heart Grammy Awards of 1985: Pat Metheny Group for First Circle Grammy Awards of 1984: Pat Metheny Group for Travels Grammy Awards of 1983: Pat Metheny for Offramp Grammy Awards of 1980: Weather Report for 8:30...plus other albums from the 1980s, such as Weather Report (self-titled album) summer of 1981, Yellowjackets Yellowjackets 1981. Yellowjackets Mirage A Trois 1983, Yellowjackets Samurai Samba 1985, Yellowjackets Shades 1986, Yellowjackets Four Corners 1987, Yellowjackets Politics 1988. Yellowjackets The Spin 1989, plus Chick Corea Elektric Band...
The above list generally speaks to the exact issue of the submergence of fusion into the smooth jazz genre and the resulting confusion about fusion (ha-ha). I actually added something to the smooth jazz page on this. By this time Weather Report was a Birdland-driven whatever that was a shell of its original improvisational monster, the Metheny albums cited are from his smoothest phase (and from which many commercial themes were taken - I heard one for Publix Supermakets to the point of near insanity), David Sanborn and Bob James are well-known as smoothers, as is Yellowjackets. The music the Grammys awarded has little or none of the experimentation/improvisation fusion was best known for and is far more littered with the safe and catchy hooks, etc. of smooth jazz, which is why the section on confusion, etc. is appropriately included in the article. If you looked at the smooth jazz station playlists of the time such as the pioneering WLOQ-FM in Winter Park, Florida, the albums you cited above would be all over their air, whereas they wouldn't have touched Allan Holdsworth with a ten foot pole.
You also removed the section on virtuosity, which is also your POV - you have to be a virtuoso to play most of that music, and very few musicians can at the highest levels, or play and improvise in those meters, etc. I would argue that all top professional instrumental musicians with solo careers in genres ranging from bebop, classical, or bluegrass are probably virtuosos on their instruments. If you claim that fusion musicians have an exceptional level of virtuosity, beyond say a top bebop player or classical soloist, then please add in an expert source (musicologist/music critic) to support this.Nazamo 14:44, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Classical musicians have a high level of technical virtuosity, but rarely improvise at anything near the level of the best fusion players, or play in odd meters with rare exceptions, and the improvisation that does exist, no matter how beautiful, is generally limited by the form with some rare exceptions. Be-Bop players and especially some avant-garde players obviously improvise, but again, you rarely hear the complexity of odd meters and changes combined with that improvisation (I'd point to maybe the Art Ensemble of Chicago as the best exception), as opposed to a band like Planet X, for example, that may make dozens of meter changes in a single song, or something like Don Ellis playing in a 19/8 that almost no one can play period. Bluegrass players rarely mess much with meters as well with some exceptions, and I wish like mad bands like Union Station would use their gifts of improvisation more as the virtuosity and ability is obviously there - but again, I don't hear bluegrass recordings where you hear the aspects of fusion where you have extended track lengths and soloing combined with mutiple meter changes, odd meters and virtuosity. If you know of any, please point them my way - I was, for example, disappointed in the recent Union Station live DVD which featured great playing all over, but almost nothing that varied much from what had been recorded and released in the studio, even when the songs seemed to scream out for improvisation live. I should also add/clarify that much of my thoughts on virtuosity is aimed at the rock genre, where people like Bruce Hornsby have made a point of talking about how rare a real concentration on virtuosity is in the latest generation of musicians. I have made an adjustment to the virtuosity section, and will edit it further in order to clarify/improve it. Again, thanks for your comments, and I hope you find mine useful as well. Tvccs 22:49, 18 October 2006 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Tvccs"

Thank you for your most recent comments - please use the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Tvccs, or discussion page, am I am using here, for future comments/discussion with users. Tvccs 17:33, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Once again...let's leave the comments here from both and I will check back - Although your extensive changes on jazz fusion again are well-intended, I'm sure, they are again filled with deletions that didn't need to be made, and in many cases the copy again makes no sense - Genuine fusion carries on is not a POV - it's a direct statement redressing this issue of smooth jazz and confusion as a result, and the copy edits you made once again butcher that very needed perspective. I haven't had time yet to read all that you did - have you ever heard "Lotus" from Santana? Your rewrite of that section does him an injustice, and the section on Lotus not being released in the U.S. for twenty years was very relevant. I will add more later. Tvccs 22:43, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

On a limited further review...I see many more problems...much like the first time. I've looked at your user contributions - can you plase point me to something you've largely created rather than edited? I see a lot of editing, and I see others have complained about your hacking up articles as well. Tvccs 22:57, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I read your comments quickly...thought we'd leave them all here...but...as in the first go-round, you again deleted content i.e. Santana, which you discovered on further review the first time. Please link here, if you would be so kind, articles you've generally created. Thank you. Tvccs 04:34, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

• Let me also add, for the record, that I write for a NY Times newspaper, including material about music, and have for many years. I've also written and produced dozens of television interviews and musical performances for more than ten years, and served as an editor and Executive Producer for many more. I work directly with the artists themselves on numerous occasions, including Wikipedia. Tvccs 10:55, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Children of Men

I don't like the edits you have made to the article on Children of Men. Your edits are unnecessary and somewhat random; they have disrupted the flow of the synopsis, you've made a few errors, and have generally chopped out a great deal of information. And you haven't even given an explanation as to why you've done this. If you aren't happy with the way the article appears, it would be polite to say so on the talk page and inform other users of your opinions, before you just start tearing articles apart. Rusty2005 22:15, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Frank and Silver

Hi, Nazamo. So...there aren't articles on either of them. I have a strong allergy to red links, but I'm resisting it here. If you start the articles, as you said, I'll help out as I can. I know nothing of Frank other than his seminal article (and maybe that's all there is to know); I have in my library most of what Silver has written, so I can certainly contribute there. Best, Dan —DCGeist 22:14, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Great. I'll see if there's anything on Frank in my library. As for oneiric/oneirism, that's an interesting cite you give for "oneirism." On the other hand, the very same source--i.e., Princeton--give for "oneiric": "of or relating to or suggestive of dreams" (see here). Similarly, MedicineNet.com gives for "oneiric": "Relating to dreams; dream-like." (see here). Not to mention the latest edition of the standard Merrian-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary: "of or relating to dreams : dreamy." The translation, by the way, is direct; Borde and Chaumeton's original French is "onirique." They use the word often, as they do the standard French noun for "dream": rêve. In their discussion of noir, they never use the standard French noun for "daydream": rêverie.—DCGeist 03:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I think developing an article on dreams/oneirism in the critical context you describe is an excellent idea. My immediate feeling is that it's too complex a notion to deal with in a footnote, but if you find a good article online on the topic, I think it's fine to link to it until Wikipedia has its own article. A very interesting book directly on this topic came out about a year ago: The Power of Movies: How Screen and Mind Interact, by Colin McGinn, a profesor of philosophy. He investigates "how heightened reality characterizes both film narrative and dreams" and explores the variety of ways in which movies are dreamlike (and dreams are movielike). It's something you might want to take a look at it, or, if you initiate an article from other sources, I can bring some of McGinn's observations in.

Yes, that is interesting about Silver. I had vaguely heard that he was involved in film production, but had no sense to what extent until you raised it and I looked him up at IMDb. A somwhat comparable case is that of James Schamus--the very successful producer of Ang Lee's movies (Brokeback, Crouching Tiger), he's also a professor of highbrow film theory and philosophy at Columbia University (I briefly attended a class of his there). Of course, Silver is the leading presence in the noir critical field; I don't believe Schamus has written nearly as much in terms of film theory/history. Best, Dan—DCGeist 22:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Just had a chance to look at the Frank article--terrific job!—DCGeist 05:41, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Oneiric (film theory)

Just had a look. Excellent work.—DCGeist 21:44, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Art film

Good addition to Art film--the disclaimer works well and helps with some of the contradictions of having mainstream films listed with arthouse, something that's bothered me but I had no idea how it could be resolved short of editorializing mainstream vs. arthouse. Freshacconci 15:36, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

re: Art film I don't like the what is taking place on the Art Film page. I think in Your attempts to edit you went out and copied some list of a web page about Indi films, becasue many of the films I am finding are out of place, not indi films or unnecessary and somewhat random; I do not know for shre if you did this but I hope you are cheaking your facts, this page now needs a lot of work. I would like to know how you feel about this. . .Grosscha 20:03, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I like your Idea about putting the movies at the bottom in the decade time line. I think until we get this page better sorted out keeping it simple would be best, but after that I think adding more info would be a great Idea, and some pic's would do some good. Grosscha 21:29, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

You are right, simple, and inform, this way people do not become confused, and if people do want more information all they need do is click the link. let me know if you have any other ideas for this page , I am ready to help, just point me in the right detection Grosscha 21:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Noir for all

I finally got a chance to look at the Simple English film noir article. The only thing I feel called upon to say is that I think it's absolutely wonderful that you've done this. Best, Dan—DCGeist 06:20, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Resident Evil: Apocalypse

Oh, well thank you. :] Funny thing is I actually had to do a bit of research to figure out what you were talking about. I remember now about deleting the triva section, but I still think the article has a lot more work that needs to be done. There's a section of Miscellaneous Information thats essentially a trivia section in disguise. I haven't gotten to narrowing it down and adding the important stuff into the article quite yet. Good job with the plot edits anyways. I think now all it really needs is a little more tweaking here and there, and perhaps edited to flow a bit more. I'm not entirely sure. -Lindsey8417 07:59, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spielberg

In my view disreputing a popular film magazine for being populist or whatever is quite POV. If a major establishment says something like that then it is notable. Still, thanks for doing some clean-up on the article: it's become so long I've found it impenetrable. Wiki-newbie 17:30, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

In my view, all major published magazines have a valuable voice on Wikipedia. Still, good work you've doing on Munich. Wiki-newbie 18:32, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Copyist

--Mel Etitis (Talk) 08:51, 2 April 2007 (UTC)