Talk:Brocket 99

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Brocket 99 article.
Article policies
This article is part of WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America, which collaborates on Native American, First Nations, Inuit, Métis and related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
??? This article has not yet been rated on the assessment scale.
Suggested article edit guidelines:

Please rate this article and leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
Film Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Films. This project is a central gathering of editors working to build comprehensive and detailed articles for film topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Stub
This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the quality scale.
???
This article has not yet received a rating on the priority scale.

Contents

[edit] Cult-Like Status

Can anyone verify the claim that Brocket 99 has a cult-like following across North America? In the last 30+ years, I've lived in three different provinces and three different states. I never heard of the tape until after I moved to Lethbridge. Even then, it wasn't until I was here for five years before I first heard about it. -- Kmsiever 03:35, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

I am a British (not Canadian) citizen currently living in Edmonton, Alberta. I heard about the tape years ago. While I am not convinced it has a cult-like following (it is highly offensive, after all, and 'cult-like' implies love), it is certainly much more widespread than simply Lethbridge. Heck, I've never even been to Lethbridge except to attend a wedding. --Yamla 16:28, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
Apparently a few people have heard of it outside of Lethbridge, but that being said, I know several people across Canada who had never heard of it. There needs to be some mechanism other than anecdotal evidence that we can use to determine the tape's notoriety. I am not sure an obscure documentary counts either. I had not heard of this documentary until someone had mentioned it here. -- Kmsiever 15:57, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
I heard the tape in Scotland in about 1997. Some of my friends used to recite bits of it all the time. So for better or worse, it's known world-wide --scruss 20:15, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
Or at least known to a handful of people in Scotland. -- Kmsiever 15:10, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
I'm curious, how do you define 'known world-wide', Kmsiever? By any reasonable definition, I think it is fair to say it is known by more than just a few people outside of Lethbridge. --Yamla 16:23, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
"Involving or extending throughout the entire world; universal" or "so pervasive and all-inclusive as to exist in or affect the whole world" or "spanning or extending throughout the entire world" or "involving the entire earth; not limited or provincial in scope". -- Kmsiever 18:52, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

As the original author of the "cult-like" phrase, I should mention that the characterization of the tape as "cult-like" was not entirely my doing, rather it was taken from an article in the Globe and Mail from the week I wrote the original version. Outside of what I learned from that article I know very little about the tape, so please take my version with a grain of salt. --PullUpYourSocks 23:00, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

I learned about the tape (and actually listened to part of it) when I lived in Medicine Hat many years ago. I didn't know it originated in Lethbridge and while Medicine Hat isn't too far away my point is that I had heard about it.--Jeff 21:02, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Let's get something straight. All you answers to your questions can be found on Brocket99.net The recording is universal and widespread. It started off as a joke amongst friends(hear interview of Ernie Scar) that was dubbed and dubbed again until it gained a cult like following around English speaking countries in the world. There is even a line of fashion apparrel named after Brocket 99 that people actually buy and wear. Brocket Nichikoko Feb12, 2007 --—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.149.227.119 (talk) 2007-02-17

--> Brocket 99 had been distributed in one way or another in North America, South America, Great Britain, parts of Europe and all over the world wide net. No Brocket 99 isn't a prolific as Britney Spears Sex Life but is is well known in the underground circuit. Brocket 99 has been written about in various Canadian Newspapers from the small one as the Lethbridge Herald to the Vancouver and Edmonton Sun. How about the Times?--Professor fo Brocketology June 25th, 2007

[edit] Mark Campbell Connection

I'm wondering about the fact that I've heard a rumour that local news correspondent Mark Campbell was involved with the tapes production. Has anyone else heard this rumour?--Jeff 21:02, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

The Brocket 99 Fan site has an interview with Mark Campbell in which Mark denies having anything to do with the making of Brocket 99. [1] Is this information worthy of an update to the entry? --Jeff 18:03, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
I doubt it Jeff. Until you had brought it up, I had never heard of Mark Campbell having a connection with the tape. If someone had already claimed on the article page that Campbell had a connection, then I think we could make that edit. --Kmsiever 19:57, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

I have heard from several different people that Mark Campbell had part in making the tapes. Although he has denied it repeatedly, people still believe he had some part in it....--Tinnc 18:10, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

-->Mark Campbell had nothing to do with the recording of the tapes. Listen to his interview available at Brocket99.net as well as Nilesh's Youtueb interview with him.--Professor of Brocketology

[edit] References

Please do not remove the call for references, until citations are used where claims are made. --Kmsiever 20:01, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
As Peter Yellowhorn once said to Iris Larrett, "Boo #uckin' Hoo" How can something be referenced if the referecne is then used as copyright infringement. This is a circular nonsensical notion. We have cited sources and references, but you call them copyrigth infringement. Maybe you should listen to the Ernie Scar Interview, The Cowboy SmithX Interview, the Lenny Red-Nuts Interview, and the Charles Kang interview available on Brocket99.net. Also read the various articles that have answered a lot of the questions people have about Brocket 99. The answers are there, you just have to look.
You are approaching this as a research academic paprp, wheras we need to not the interview name, date, at what point in the recording the quote was made and so on. Most of us don't have time to do this, and it is not neccessary at all. Creating a link to the interview, recording, letter, or article should be enough. And no it should not be called copyright infringement.
Let's live in 2007, and not in the ignorant 1990's where people thought Brocket 99 was made by some college or university kids. The Brocketologists of the U of A February 18, 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.149.227.119 (talk • contribs) 18 February 2007
Adding the name of a website in the "edit summary" field does not count as a citation. Please read through WP:CITE to see why we cite on Wikipedia and how to properly cite sources. Please also read WP:NOR regarding why we cite our research, and WP:V to see why verifiability is more important than truth. Wikipedia is about creating well-written, objective articles composed of verifiable information from third-party sources. Information that is biased, copied from other sources without citations or consist of original research is not welcome. Please read through the articles I listed above before editing again. It is imperative editors understand practice and policy on Wikipedia. --Kmsiever 03:15, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

We are asked to cite spources. When we gives cite sources, we are accused of copyright infringement. If we don't cite sources, then we are accused of making things up. Brocket 99.net is a plethora is real information on Brocket 99, and thus must be cited as it contains interviews, articles, and so on which are all part of the Brocket 99 universe.

Brocket 99 is simply not a radio parody from 20 years ago, but is in fact a living entity which has inspired various spinoffs, interviews, articles and so on. Kmsiever wants Brocket 99 to be the original tape and Nilesh Patel's film. Fortunately, the world of Brocket 99 is much larger now and must include the various spinoffs, interviews, websites, characters(both real and fictional) as part of what Brocket 99 is. We have mentioned and cited various sources but now are accused of copyrigtht infringement. How are we supposed to cite information without mentioning site, books, interviews, spinoffs or anything. All of these contributions are relivant to Brocket 99. Mentioning Nilesh Patel's film is copyright infringement so why is that OK but referencing a site or an interview on CD considered a NO NO.

And about citing sources: How can you prove anything? Prove to me Brocket 99 was recorded where you say it was. I don't see and citations for previous Brocket 99 information.

Let's live in 2007 with the information that we have, not the ignorant year of 1992 where people thought Brocket 99 was made by a bunch of bored University students out of Lethbridge or Edmonton. Let's get real and build upon the information of Brocket 99, instead of burying our heads in the sand listening to 40th generation copies of Brocket while giving kudos to Nilesh Patel sipping Branvin in the Bridge Inn. [The Brocketologists of the U of A] Feb 20, 2007

I have no opinion about battles among the fans of Brocket 99, and I doubt that Kmsiever does either. When we ask for citations, it's fine to mention websites, films, books, CDs and so forth: just don't copy information verbatim from them. The article probably needed citations even before the recent additions — the call for citations is coming now because the article has been drawn to the attention of experienced Wikipedians.
That said, it is important that the citations added are from reliable sources. Perhaps brocket99.net is a well-known and reliable source within the world of Brocket 99 fans. We have no way of knowing that, unless you can provide sources independent of brocket99.net which indicate that it's considered reliable. (Has the site been mentioned in newspaper articles about Brocket 99, for example?)
To cite the documentary, you might want to create a footnote section and use the {{cite video}} template. You can also use {{cite web}} to cite brocket99.net or other websites, if their reliablility has been established. If you have questions about how to fulfill Wikipedia's citations requirements, you can ask here, or I can try to help answer questions on my user talk page. Good luck! —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:09, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

-->References. This is not William Shakespear and this is not Cambridge Hall Great Britain lead by PHD. William in a Wheelchair. If you want your sources, talk to Michale Anthony who owns the Copyright and interviewed many of the main players in the Brocket 99 Universe. MAACP.COM Talk to him there while he upgrades his Brocket99.net site. If this was university, Michael would be the head of the Brocketology Department.--Professor of Brocketology June 25, 2007

-->Obviously Canuckian or Canuck or whatever his name is, is a minion or is in fact Nilesh Patel self advancing his goals for domination over the Brocket 99 universe. Let's live in 2007 and not 1991 where PATEL wishes to keep us--southern alberta

[edit] defining status

Okay, let's try to define cult-like status. If I've never heard of the band Phish before, but am told they have a cult-like following, first thing I'd do is google "Phish." Well, if you google Brocket 99, on page 1 alone I find two fan-based websites, one of which sells official "gear." I see a film website. I see that the film has been featured at an International Film Festival. I see a film review by a national literary and arts magazine. I see a Wikipedia entry, for heaven's sake. Seems to me there's a culture surrounding the phonomenon. Just because I've never heard of it while in Montreal does that make it any less popular to its devotees & detractors? Just because I've never heard of Phish, do they not exist?Mydinque 14:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


-->Exactly. I havenn't heard of Kim Siever, so does he not exist. Read the "Is There a Lenny Red-Nuts Article."--Professor of Brocketology, June 26, 2007

No. It means, I am not notable. Or rather, not notable enough. --Kmsiever 22:10, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Most important question

I think the most important question on anyone's mind that's followed this discussion for a while - beyond that of who did it, and who cares? - is who is Kim Siever, and why does he take Brocket 99 so seriously? Moreover, why has he set himself up as some kind of omniscient Traffic Cop over this particular page, controlling, limiting and deleting any comments or content not posted by himself? (64.180.9.176 00:42, 26 June 2007 (UTC))

Wikipedia has several policies for the content posted on it. See WP:COPY, WP:CITE, WP:V, WP:RS as a few examples. This article is already poorly written; it needs a clean up, not copying and pasting copy from other websites. The issue isn't who I am. The issue is whether and how this article can be improved (fanboy contributions notwithstanding). --Kmsiever 00:50, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Then rewrite the damn article instead is reinstaing the very limited definition--Professor of Brocketology, June 26, 2007
I did. Four months ago. Then you came along and removed all those edits. Hopefully, the current version is more appropriate for a Wikipedia article. Statements are objective, many of them are cited, and the bulk of the content is original wording. --Kmsiever 17:37, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Judging from the speed of your reply, I'd say who you are IS part of the issue, but we'll leave that for another time. The article can be improved by factual information being permitted to stay posted once it appears. What constitutes "factual" information about Brocket 99 according to your yardstick of measurement? What or who are your sources? I'm far from being a 'fanboy' of this program, but I think it's important to consider other points of view than your own if you want to get to the bottom of the matter ... or at least as close as anyone's likely to get. (64.180.9.176 01:00, 26 June 2007 (UTC))

Kim Siever seems to want proof and more proof. Why doesn't he listen to the interviews and make it up his own mind from that. He seems to want to be the spokesman for Brocket 99, yet he knows very little about the program. If anyone is a fanboy, it is Siever being a fanboy for Nilesh Patel's film.-Professor of Brocketology June 26, 2007.

There's nothing wrong with facts, 64.180.9.176. We just need to make sure the facts are in our own words, those facts come verifiable sources, and the sources are properly cited. Professor of Brocketology, it's not me who wants proof; it's Wikipedia. Any claims made in an article need to be cited. Read the links to the policies I provided in my previous comment. For the record I haven't seen Patel's film. --Kmsiever 04:28, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

It seems that Nilesh Patel's fan section have come aboard and this has tuned into let's promote Nielsh's film and how great it is. Again, you want proof, talk to Michale Anthony who is Head of the Brocketology Department at Brocket University. He owns the copyright and is the most knowledgebale expert of Brocket 99, aside from the Creators of Brocket 99(wherever they are, god bless them!). Leave up the info and give me a chance to reference actual recorded interviews and documented sources.--Professor of Brocketology

Clearly, anyone that's posted to this topic so far has done so approaching it from his own perspective, with his own attitudes about the subject matter firmly in place. I would take issue with Professor of Brocketology's approach, or at least with some of his 'facts'. By the same token, Siever's use of the term 'fanboy' may have some merit, although is somewhat misplaced when his version of how he'd prefer the page to look has developed currently into nothing more than a promo page for Patel's film - which he admits to never having seen anyway. The devil's in the details - For Professor of Brocketology, it is a matter of getting it ALL out, unsubstantiated or not. For Kim Siever, it is merely a game of technicalities - crossing the T's and dotting the I's, and taking everything much too personally. For Nilesh Patel, it is nothing more than simply trying to make a name for himself with films about this contentious issue or that, whatever it may be, and whether he actually has half as much concern for the implications of Brocket 99 one way or the other is a point that I think is debatable. And here we debate the merits of those technicalities, with no one actually having the facts - although maintaining that veneer of supposedly being in search of them. This page tells us absolutely zero about Brocket 99, while at the same time taking great pains to avoid sources of information that will. Nilesh Patel, the Lethbridge Herald, the Globe and Mail and 'Sounds Like Canada' cannot be considered sources of information about this radio show. As far as Patel's film is concerned (people that have actually seen the film they promote with such irascibility seem to be in short supply) we have the testimony of a letter-writer to the Lethbridge Herald (Gordon McFarlane, "Letters to the Editor", Oct. 7, 2006) who says that Patel's film is " ... shallow, pointless, and no less offensive than the 20-year-old audio tapes of the mock radio program which it is allegedly about ... (it) promotes those negative stereotypes which the original Brocket 99 tapes played upon by selective editing of interviews with First Nations peoples, some of whom were intoxicated during the interviews ... It does not, as Mr. Patel claims, represent much of a "diversity of perspectives." This is from someone who has seen the film that is promoted on this page as so valuable a representation of what Brocket 99 is all about. Although the officially self-appointed hall monitor for this page refuses to access the website 'Brocket99.net' as a source of usable information, the reference to "AIDS Radio" being a source of inspiration for the originators of the Brocket 99 program is a factoid that is found nowhere else previously but that website and the 'Ernie Scar Interview'. Perhaps it takes a leap of faith to believe it, but the answers to the burning questions everyone seeks (or thinks they already know) are all there in interviews and statements by the creators of the program that have appeared over the last four years or so - and no, I am not connected to that website in any way; I've simply spent the time it takes to go through all the material that is on there. It is in some ways quite bizarre that Wikipedia thinks an underground comedy tape from a generation ago warrants their coverage - and by that same token further promotion - on their website. But if it has to exist, it can be made more accurate, or at least more well-rounded by allowing access to different points of view and sources of information beyond what are currently being allowed by this page's current watchdogs. (64.180.9.176 18:34, 27 June 2007 (UTC))

This isn't about what I went. It's about presenting an objective article. Read the policies to which I linked earlier to understand that it's not just me who asks for this. --Kmsiever 19:44, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

---> The information I presented is accurate and factual. Again see the copyright holder Michael Anthony of Brocket99.net and MAACP who has done extensive interviews with Ernie Scar, Charles Kang, Lenny Red-Nuts, Dick Twang, Mark Campbell, Cowboy SmithX, and others who worked on Brocket 99 or one of it's many spinoffs.etc. I have cited sources for what I have written but no one seems to want to listen to the damn interviews. I am hoping Michael will finally show up on this site and clear somethings up. Unfortunately we have Kim Siever on one hand being the totalitarian expert of Brocket 99, wanting sources cited, crying copyright infringement when the whoel wikipedia site is copyright infringement. Then on the other hand, we have the Crazy Canuck who is the spokesperson for "WE LOVE NILESH PATEL and his BROCKET 99 FILM" which really doesn't look at what Brocket 99 is and isn't. Let's cut the bull$hit, keep the usefull information, cite some more sources, accept brocket99.net as the CANON of Brocket 99 and related material, and move into 2007 where Brocket 99 was created by RADIO DISC JOCKEY'S and not the old arcaic notion that Brocket 99 was created by some college kids from the U of A.--Professor of Brocketology.

Read the policies I linked to earlier. It is not I who wants citations, it's Wikipedia. The problem is not only do you not include citations, you erase all the citations I added this week. Here I am trying to provide verifiable support for several of the pre-existing statements on this article, and you go deleting them. --Kmsiever 03:13, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

--->To Kim and the Canuck. You need to actaully listen to the Brocket 99 Party Pack which includes the Interview with Ernie Scar, the full version of Brocket 99, and the spinoffs mentioned here. We understand that you want citations, but what is the differene between a citation that is right by the statement and a citation that is at the bottom of the page in footnote form. Seriosuly, listen to the topic material in the Brocket 99 Canon, and then you'll will understand where the Brocketologist and others are coming from. Michale Anthony, American Shock Jock owns the legal Copyright to Brocket 99 so ask him. I'm sure someone can furnish you with hsi email address. If you want to be the Torch Holder for Brocket 99 Wikipedia, then you need to do more reseacrh to what is actually out there. Seriously, the info you have is limited to what the rest of us Albertans knew in the early 1990's. Let's get this Brocket 99 definition up to the date and knowledge we have in 2007. Contact Michael, and listen to all the CDs including the Ernie Scar Interview. You'll learn alot.

Please follow the Wikipedia policies as listed at the top of the page:
  • Be polite
  • Assume good faith
  • No personal attacks
  • Be welcoming
  • Article policies
  • No original research
  • Neutral point of view
  • Verifiability

Canuckle 13:31, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


--))Please follow good guidelines regarding the full canon of Brocket 99. Honestly it should be up to Ernie Scar to decidew ho and what is in the Canon of Brocket 99. Hopefully he'll make an appearance here. Here are some good guidelines:

  • Realize that Michael Anthony of brocket99.net owns the copyright of Brocket 99.
  • Understand that there is more than one viewpoint other than the Patellian viewpoint.
  • Understand 2 corn on the cobs for 99cents is not a good deal anymore.
  • Realize that Brocket, Alberta has the cheapest gas anywhere.
  • Quit deleting other works.
  • Listen to the full copy of Brocket 99, all interviews(Ernie Scar, Mark Campbell, Cowboy SmithX, Charles, Kang, Lenny Red-Nuts, Dick Twang Band, etc.) before you can qualify yourself as a well read person of Brocket 99 lore.
  • The audio interviews speak for themselves and clear up a lot of false info.

Southern Alberta

[edit] Infobox

Now that there are two documentaries (even though one is still in production), I wonder if we still need the infobox. Does the infobox allow for more than one film? --Kmsiever 16:29, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

  • I don't know but think that is a question that can be asked once and if the 2nd production is completed and/or becomes notable. Canuckle 13:10, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


--)) The 2nd Production should be noted whether it is completed or not. Canuckle or should I say Nilesh Patel, needs to be able to accept more than one viewpoint.--Southern Alberta July 18, 2007

  • It is noted and I added the link to the production company as a source as evidence that it did not violate guidelines on speculation. If you can find reliable sources for information, please discuss it in civil fashion on this Talk page. Continued pushing of a single point-of-view is disruptive. Canuckle 15:35, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

-->>Of course, you added the whole "Rockin' the Country" bit to promote your er I mean Nilesh's film. Your point of view is narrow and misinformed and is what we knew about Brocket 99 back in the early 90's.--Southern Alberta

[edit] external links

I reviewed WP guidelines on external links, (see: WP:EL), to assess www.brocket99.net.

What to link "There are several things that should be considered when adding an external link.

  • Is it accessible to the reader?
  • Is it proper in the context of the article (useful, tasteful, informative, factual, etc.)?
  • Is it a functional link, and likely to continue being a functional link?

...When in doubt about the appropriateness of adding new links, make a suggestion on the article's talkpage and discuss with other editors."

Some of the points against as per Links normally to be avoided:

  1. Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research. See Reliable sources for explanations of the terms "factually inaccurate material" or "unverifiable research".
  2. Links mainly intended to promote a website.
  3. Links to sites that primarily exist to sell products or services. For example, instead of linking to a commercial bookstore site, use the "ISBN" linking format, giving readers an opportunity to search a wide variety of free and non-free book sources.

Canuckle 13:23, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

WHAT TO LINK:

Again, you need to listen to the interviews on CD and do much more research. I'd like to see B99 info be expanded upon instead of making the whole wikipedia definition of Brocket 99 just about Nilesh Patel's film and info outdated even back in the mid 90's.--))Southern Alberta

--->>The links whether they be selling products or not, is the copyright holder holder, has all the interviews and the complete Brocket 99 recording, th spinoffs and so on. His site has to be taken as Canon. How is it unverifiable reseacrh when he has the full interview with Ernie Scar. What do you want, blood samples, voice analysis, etc? There is no other definitive source of Brocketology, so Brocket99.net is the one and only CANON of Brocket 99. Again, listen to the interview with Ernie Scar and the other material. Let's not live in 1990 with that limited information. I want to expand what we know about the Brocket 99 universe. So should you, if you have any interest in the Brocket 99 Radio Parody.

  • While a site can be a source about itself to a certain extent, Wikipedia requires independent, third-party, reliable sources. If the canon is only recognized by itself and not by other reliable sources, than I'm afraid it isn't appropriate for Wikipedia. Canuckle 17:14, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of "needs infobox" tag

This article has had its infobox tag removed by a cleanup using AWB. Any concerns please leave me a message at my talk page. RWardy 19:29, 10 September 2007 (UTC)