Talk:Dave Carter

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
Oregon Portal
This page is part of WikiProject Oregon, a WikiProject dedicated to articles related to the U.S. state of Oregon.
To participate: join (or just read up) at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.
PSU stuff & Applegate Trail are the current Collaborations of the week.
Start This page is rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Low This article is rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] Were he and Tracy Grammer married?

Were he and Tracy Grammer married to each other or just musical partners?

To the best of my knowledge, they were not married to each other, though their relationship has been described as a "marriage of music" and "musical love at first sight." Confusing, I know ^_^. Weien 21:17, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
They always seemed to be pretty coy about this, but then again what does it matter? I found the following on their web site[1] -MrFizyx 22:13, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
THE DAVE CARTER & TRACY GRAMMER STORY - Thursday, December 12, 2002
Tracy Grammer first saw Dave Carter perform at a songwriter's showcase shortly after she moved to Portland, Oregon. "As far as I was concerned, the rest of the room disappeared at that point. I knew instantly that I was in the presence of greatness." They met on their way out the door and by early 1998 had entered into a mutual "marriage in music."

They were not married to each other, as made clear by the fact that Grammer got the rights to the Dave Carter catalogue from his widow. Phil Sandifer 22:20, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Widow? If the Tracy Grammer article is to be believed: Tracy Grammer Music, made arrangements with Elise Fischer, David's sister and copyright owner... In any case, you're probably right that there was not a legal marriage. Ah well, this probably isn't a good place for us to be speculating about these things. -MrFizyx 23:06, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Hm. Lemme check into that - it may have been sister. But in any case, if they were married, such arrangements would not have happened. Phil Sandifer 23:17, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Dave & Tracy relationship / Estate management / Song ownership

In answer to previous discussions:

Tracy Grammer met Dave Carter in 1996. By the end of that year, they had begun playing music together. In 1997, a romantic relationship was in bloom. David and Tracy lived together from 1999 to 2002 and referred to themselves in interviews as "partners in all things." They preferred to keep the focus on their music, rather than their romantic relationship.

In May 2002, David moved to an apartment in NW Portland while Tracy stayed in Tigard, Ore. Their romantic relationship was in transition as David began to pursue a gender change. Still, in their last interview with John Platt of WFUV just days before David's death, the two referred to themselves once again as "partners in all things."

David's Estate was administered by his ex-wife, Brenda Howard, from a will dated 1991. Brenda and David remained close friends throughout David's life. However, Brenda had not been involved in David's career and there was considerable acrimony in the settling of this Estate and the dissolution of the Dave & Tracy partnership. Tracy's offer to purchase David's song catalog was rejected and the songs were sold instead to David's sister, Elise Fischer. Elise and Tracy later agreed that Tracy would administer the catalog while Elise maintained ownership. Grammer

You have any citations for any of that? Phil Sandifer 16:21, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
I, Tracy Grammer, submitted the above. What citations would you like? - Tracy Grammer
I say this with the greatest respect, to someone I respect and admire even unto the point of awe: Anyone can claim they're you. (It's against Wikipedia policy to impersonate a public figure: see WP:USERNAME.)
Look at it from the point of view of this somewhat established Wikipedian--lots of deeply personal stuff, stuff not traceable to any known interviews or public information, including revelations that could potentially be perceived as defamatory (wrongly, let me hasten to add, but there is still a lot of prejudice against LGBT people), is posted from a person whose account was created that same day. It raises some red flags, is all. One explanation is that you are who you claim to be. The other explanation is... less savory. And, since I care about Dave and his oeuvre and want to keep his page accurate, I asked. (I cannot speak for Phil Sandifer, of course, but I do know that 1) he is an admin, and 2) he's been editing Dave's page since waaaaaay before me, so I presume that his motivations for requesting cites were similar to mine.)
Proceeding from the good-faith assumption that you're really Tracy, welcome aboard! Please consider adding your name to the Wikipedians with articles page, as well as asserting your identity on your own talk page. There is also an extant policy on biographies of living people which you may find of interest.
Nightsky 23:25, 10 September 2006 (UTC) (and updated 04:27, 11 September 2006 (UTC))

Yeah... cites? I knew Dave, a little, and I have enormous difficulty believing that he had gender dysphoria. Or that anyone but his parents and sister ever called him "David".  :) Nightsky 22:44, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Why the difficulty believing Dave had gender issues, if you only knew him a little?
As for "David" vs. "Dave," the change to the casual came about just before we started working together in the late 1990's. Before that, he was known as "David" professionally and academically. - Tracy Grammer
See above on 'red flags'.  :) Certainly I didn't know him well (much as I liked him)--he just struck me as a man who was happy and confident within his own skin, that's all. Pre-transition trans people that I have known have tended to be palpably, desperately unhappy. (The "Dave/David" thing was a joke, intended to soften the "feel" of my 9 September post. Sorry if it came across wrong. That wasn't the intent.)
Nightsky 23:25, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Confirmed

I've confirmed via e-mail that User:Grammer is Tracy, and have added the information provided to both this article and Dave Carter and Tracy Grammer after consulting with User:Amgine. Phil Sandifer 18:36, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Query re: the above on noticeboard at WP:BLPN

I have some concerns about our rapid inclusion of the above into articles. Despite being told that there's nothing to worry about, I've posted a querry at WP:BLPN#Dave Carter. My hope is to hear the opinions of editors that deal regularly with Biographies of Living Persons, but editors here may wish to comment as well. -MrFizyx 23:08, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Response WP:BLP isn't in play here. Short answer: The subject of the article is dead. Long Answer: The spirit behind BLP is to protect living people from defamation in wikipedia articles. These kind of actions require m:immediatism as opposed to m:eventualism philosophy. Since the subject is dead, the risk of of defamation moves from an uphill battle to full WP:SNOW. :) Electrawn
Wikipedia can not currently be a reliable source for wikipedia WP:RS. It also can't be used for Original Research WP:OR, however, facts are facts. To include the information on the talk page, move it to a Verifiable, Reliable Source for inclusion on wikipedia. A page the widow creates at say a davecarter.com would suffice. Electrawn 12:48, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
This is a foolish and hair-splitting use of OR - as well as a foolish and hair-splitting use of BLP. The concern about defamation is not a legal concern but an ethical one, and I would hope, for instance, that BLP did not simply walk away from Steve Irwin two weeks ago. As for the use of OR, what practical, as opposed to semantic difference is there between posting to her website and to the talk page. Both are self-published, both are primary sources, both are just as verifiable and reputable. Given that her identity is confirmed - which it is - there is no practical difference here. Application of rules without pausing to think is destructive. Phil Sandifer 13:53, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't see factual backups to explain why interpretations are "Foolish and hair-splitting"? The primary reason BLP exists is legal, not ethical. Ethical reasons are important (Neutral point of view, Reliable Sourcing, Verifiability...etc) but are left sorted out in articles with editors. Persons involved with BLP, WP:BLPP and the noticeboard are looking for four specific defaming things in articles that need to be thrown out NOW, not eventually. Electrawn
The reason we have Verifiability, Reliable sourcing is to prevent "He said, she said" things in wikipedia. Just because two admins say it is so does not mean it is so. There is no way to reliable determine source and accuracy statements made on wikipedia talk pages and accounts by nature of the medium. Wikipedia can not be used as a reliable source for wikipedia. Electrawn
BLP walks away significantly from Steve Irwin upon death, but not completely, as defamation against Steve may be defaming to his wife and family as well. As for Dave Carter, I see no defamation against Tracy Grammer.

http://www.marcus-bonsib.com/article.jsp?practArea=20&articleIndex=1

Can You Defame a Dead Person?

In most states, you cannot defame a dead person, because a lawsuit for defamation does not survive the death of the person allegedly defamed. In essence, the reputation of a dead person is left to history. Note, however, that a statement made about a dead person may defame a living person. For example, if someone claims that your deceased mother was not married to your father when you were born, when in fact your mother was married to your father when you were born, it has been falsely claimed that you are a bastard.

So lets conclude. Wikipedia talk pages are unreliable, dubious sourcing for an article. No defaming statements are in the article, BLP is not needed. I will archive this at BLP/N. Electrawn 01:09, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Results of my query (so far...)

The policy discussion has carried over from one notice board to another (WP:BLPN#Dave Carter [2] to WP:ANI#Phil Sandifer [3]) and as one can see below continues here on this talk page. The topic has evolved into a Wikinews story and has in general become a much larger debate than I had intended. Still I'm thankful to have had the input of many editors, some who are among the most active folks on Wikipedia. I also thank those who have come here to help edit the page. Here is a summary of positions taken by various editors so far with links to one of their statements. Wikipedia is not a democracy and we don't vote per se, but it is clear that I was not alone in having concerns about including these statements into articles. I think opinions (including my own) will change significantly when and if a more formal statement about this is made by Tracy Grammer in some medium external to wikipedia. Please let me know if I have mis-categorized any of these editors:

-MrFizyx 21:23, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Dare I ask the point of this latest exercise? I mean, was there a particularly burning need to try to start the discussion up again? Phil Sandifer 00:50, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't see it either. The article hasn't even been edited in two days. --Sam Blanning(talk) 01:11, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
I felt some need to document this before notice boards were cleared--which I suppose can happen any time--who takes care of that? Frankly, I wasn't certain the discussion had ended. Phil's latest comment below was only hours earlier, and it wasn't clear that he was ready to concede. I'm pleased to hear that the discussion has ended. -MrFizyx 04:20, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
"small mob of process droids who were disinclined to expend any time actually thinking" [34] WAS 4.250 12:08, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry, is it news to you that I think uncritically following WP:RS is an idiotic position? I thought I'd made it clear before. In any case, I think uncritically following WP:RS is an idiotic position. Phil Sandifer 14:05, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
I believe that most if not all the people who oppose you in this specific matter thought far more clearly on this matter than you did and that "thinking uncritically" is a strawman position that does not accurately describe the responses to you that I have read in this matter. WAS 4.250 14:36, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
As has been often said, if your only argument is "it's against process," you have no argument. Phil Sandifer 14:44, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Often said? Do you have a reliable source for that? : ) I think you have validated my reasons for creating the summary above. Now any reader can go back to that list, link to their statements and decide for themselves if these editors lack critical thinking or are making arguments based on process alone. Anyone wanna talk about the Dave Carter article? -MrFizyx 16:00, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Phil's response was a knee jerk unthinking repeat of yet another straw man. Contrast Phil's lack of thought with Slim Virgin's actual thoughtfulness on this page on this issue. Enough wasting time with someone who refuses to use his mind. WAS 4.250 17:53, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
I was also trying to respectfully frame the discussion and provide links for other readers of this page that may not be addicted to wikipedia like the rest of us. Notice that not much later a correction was made here. -MrFizyx 14:09, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
It's a wiki. People edit things. Not all of them are me. Phil Sandifer 14:13, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
I was speculating that it was Grammer who had found your article. -MrFizyx 14:19, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sources

This is an encyclopedia. Finding good references is important. Here are a few good reputable, external sources for Dave and Tracy related articles that other editors might like to pursue. Beware that Wikipedia itself is generally not considered a vaild primary source. Original research should not be added to articles. Feel free to suggest others for this list:

  • FOLKDJ-L http://www.folkradio.org/ Dave and Tracy songs regularly have and continue to top the lists for folk airplay, someone could do an analysis, statistics date back to 1998. Maybe a look at the year-end stats would do.
  • Sing Out! Articles, songs, reviews:
    • v45#1,Sing Out! Spotlights: Dave Carter and Tracy Grammer an article by Matt Watroba
    • Last Courus, v46#3 -- Dave Carter Obituary by Matt Watroba [35]
    • Song's with notes
      • "When I Go" v43? quote here
      • "Tilman County" v44#3
      • "The Mountian" v45#1
      • "Hey Ho" v49#3
    • Album reviews
      • When I Go -SO! v44#2 see bottom of pg 19 in this pdf
      • Jim Henry, One Horse Town v50#2?, Collaboration with Grammer, includes a D. Carter song.[36]
      • More reviews if one looks...
  • Paste (magazine)
    • Bio of D&T from 2001 [37]
    • Note about Tracy's first solo, actually uses the phrase "partner in all things." [38]
    • Review of Verdant mile (sometime in 2005)
  • No Depression #57 May/June 2005, Tracy Grammer feature by Russel Hall contents

-MrFizyx 18:03, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

It is misleading to say that Wikipedia is a primary source here. A comment on a talk page is the primary source. Phil Sandifer 18:10, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Was it a wikipedian on wikipedia talk page? -MrFizyx 20:33, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm genuinely baffled as to why you're so insistent on this point. Do you actualyl have any doubts, or is this process for process's sake? Phil Sandifer 20:38, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Its not just about process, we need to get this right. I'll explain more on your talk page. -MrFizyx 21:19, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Do you sincerely think we didn't get this right? Phil Sandifer 21:20, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Mostly right, you are just relying on a source (wikipedia talk) that noone will ever claim as reliable. Electrawn 01:12, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
"Right" counts for nothing. We need verifiability, not truth. --Sam Blanning(talk) 02:31, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
The bulk of WP:V was written as an attempt to block specific sources from specific, pathologically bad articles. It was not created with any thought to the general case - the article that is not the target of crazed POV pushers and other nutjobs. It does not and cannot apply as a general case, which is why the vast majority of articles on Wikipedia look at it, and then proceed to try to figure out what sorts of sources are reliable for this topic - a practice that extends from the featured articles on down. Please - explain to me what is unreliable or unverifiable. Do you doubt that the post was made to the talk page? That it was made by Tracy Grammer? That she is a reputable source? Which part is problematic, exactly. Explain in terms of the case in front of us - because if policy is blocking a case that there is no reasonable way to doubt, policy is in error, and ought be ignored. Phil Sandifer 02:39, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Unreliable: Nature of the medium. Anyone can put/alter anything on a wikipedia talk page. I can change it to "I,Tracy Grammer, declare Dave Carter was demon possessed."
  • Unverifiable: Methods used to verify User:Grammer. Two admins saying so on a talk page is not enough. Your average editor has no way to verify the verification. Electrawn 16:34, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More sources

Possible external links:

-MrFizyx 20:33, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Who is Brenda Howard?

New York Times obituary says "Besides Ms. Grammer, he is survived by his father, Robert Carter, of Tulsa, Okla., and a sister, Elise Fischer, of Lawrence, Kan." [39] No mention of "ex-wife, Brenda Howard" there or here. But we do have an article Brenda Howard. And this says "Tracy Grammer thanks Elise Fischer and Brenda Howard for co-chairing the memorial fund committee". WAS 4.250 11:03, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't know anything about her. But, I would assume that the wikipedia article Brenda Howard, is not about Carter's ex-wife/estate mgr. There doesn't seem to be much information about Carter's Howard, I gather that she is not a public figure. -MrFizyx 14:54, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm having trouble with your link to his NYT obit. Does that require a subscription? -MrFizyx 22:11, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes. Further data at your talk page. WAS 4.250 12:59, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Got it--thanks! -MrFizyx 18:39, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re-added content

I have added the content back in, now citing WikiNews, as per Jimbo's suggestion when I contacted him on the matter. I hope this is an acceptable solution to everyone, remembering that part of the purpose of WikiNews was to create a free news source for citation in Wikipedia regarding current events. Phil Sandifer 04:52, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Not really, but if Jimbo says it I'll put up with it. This whole thing strikes me as involving just too much zeal about trying to bootstrap material into existence. I'm also surprised at the level of incivility you have shown in the process of debating people who disagree with you. As an admin you are not exempt from our standards of civility. In fact, you are supposed to be setting a good example to others. Metamagician3000 06:03, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
I should imagine that trying to bootstrap material one knows to be true into a state where it can be included would, you know, be the point... Also, may I suggest that it might have been more appropriate to WP:AGF instead of basically deciding I must be lying, and if you doubt it going and asking Jimbo? The assumption that I must not have gone and checked with people is far more discourteous than anything I've said in this discussion. Phil Sandifer 13:38, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
I've re-removed the material, and left a note on Jimbo's talk page. I'm sure Phil won't mind waiting until Jimbo confirms that he thinks this sort of hearsay has a place in the encyclopedia. Thanks, Phil! Nandesuka 14:03, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Phil, there are a number of problems with this, as follows: (1) There appears to be no mention of the gender reassignment issue in newspaper articles; why has the source not passed the information to a news organization? She needs to be asked. Or perhaps she has, and they won't publish it. We need to find out. (2) There appears to be no mention of it on the source's own website; again, she needs to be asked why not. (3) Why is the source making this information available to us? What's her motivation? (4) We would need at least a second credible source for this, a source that is to some degree independent of the first source; for example, we would need corroboration from the clinic, either confirmation from them or some kind of documentation that the source may have access to (a letter showing an appointment time or similar). (5) We would have to contact the family to see whether they could shed any light on the claims; there may be some important background that we're not aware of.
Once that's done on behalf of Wikinews, then we'd be in a better position to regard their story as a good enough source. Does that make sense? SlimVirgin (talk) 14:11, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
  1. From talking to her, my understanding is her lack of desire to have Carter's gender issues become a focus of spectacle, as releasing the information to a news source would all but necessitate.
  2. See above.
  3. Stated desire is to correct the record, and address some misconceptions, most notably the ones about whether she and Carter were in a relationship.
  4. I should think, in this case, Grammer is a sufficiently reliable source to make the assertion - both the WikiNews story and this article could be revised with some "Grammer has stated" if it would help.
  5. Again, see above. Phil Sandifer 14:40, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Re: 1. Then why is she mentioning it at all, and why not on her own website?
Re: 3. My understanding is that there is no record that needs correcting regarding the gender reassignment thing, and that's why there's no other source to rely on. Grammer needs to be asked in some detail why she is talking about this now, why the lack of detail, why Wikipedia/Wikinews.
Re: 4. Most news organizations would require more than one source before running with something like that, and might even require a signed affidavit from Grammer, and at the very least a recorded interview.
Phil, if you want to write this up for Wikinews, my suggestion is you telephone her; record the interview (tell her you're doing it); ask her who else knows about this; whether you can speak to those people; whether she has any corroborating documentation; whether she has already spoken to a news organization; and what the name of the clinic or doctor was. She also needs to be asked how far into the treatment he was, and what else she knows about it. There's a lack of three-dimensionality to the story so far. That could all be done by e-mail too, but the advantage of a phone call is you have a clearer idea who you're speaking to, it's faster, and tone of voice is often very informative. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:49, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
The point is not that Grammer isn't a reliable source for her own opinions on Dave Carter, but that Phil Sandifer isn't a reliable source for Tracy Grammer's words. I encourage you to write an article for a major newspaper (for example), at which point I will be happy to cite it in the article. Glad to help. Nandesuka 14:45, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm not the source for Tracy Grammer's words - the talk page is. Phil Sandifer 14:48, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Ah. So you're saying that the source for a fact in a Wikipedia article is Wikipedia? That's a neat trick. Let me rephrase this in simpler terms, without getting mired in details. I absolutely believe that this statement might be true. I just as firmly believe that it does not meet our standards, currently, for inclusion in the encyclopedia. That opinion is shared by a large number of other editors. In summary, Phil, we understand exactly what you're selling, and we don't want to buy it. The fact that the encyclopedia only uses verifiable and reliable sources is viewed, by the vast majority of experienced editors (and, let me be blunt, most of us who are experienced writers outside of the encyclopedia) as a good thing, not as the inconvenience that you view it as. We understand your point, and we think you're wrong. Nandesuka 14:52, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
This makes no sense. First, you seem to be saying that you think it "might be true" that a post was made to the talk page. If you are unable to discern to your satisfaction whether the post was, in fact, made, you have no place editing Wikipedia. I mean, are you sincerely saying that it is not sufficiently certain that the post was made? Are you really introducing doubt there? Or are you following process reflexively. Phil Sandifer 15:00, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Huh? Who cares about the post to the talk page? Certainly not me. I'm saying that we're not willing to lower our standards to the level you wish. That's it. Nandesuka 15:46, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Unless you can actually provide some reason why we cannot verify that User:Grammer made the post in question, you don't have a leg to stand on. You cannot simply declare sources unreliable without a reason, and as of yet, nobody has actually provided a reason why we cannot verify the existence of the post. Seeing as it is trivial to verify the existence of the post, I am forced to suspect this failure is because there is no reason here. What about [40] does not verify the existence of that post? Phil Sandifer 16:02, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the broad-based community reaction decrying your edits as inappropriate speaks for itself, and I see no need to get lost arguing about trees with you when you're in the entirely wrong forest. Nandesuka 16:27, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Volume does not substitute for having an actual point in the generation of consensus. Phil Sandifer 17:15, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
It's easy to verify that the post was made. But how would a reader verify that User:Grammer and Tracy Grammer are the same person? Ehheh 16:33, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Hi Phil, I'm Leif. I found your article while reading wikinews, and wanted to verify it. As a wikipedian, I happen to know how to confirm that the post in question was infact made by User:Grammer, and how to confirm that the person claiming to have verified User:Grammer's identity is infact a wikipedia admin, which I expect most casual readers attempting to verify the new information in this article would be unable to do. Having verified these basics, I can now hypothesize three remaining possible scenarios here, which I will list in order from what I view as least to most likely:
  1. (least likely) Longtime wikipedia admin Phil Sandifer is knowingly involved in the impersonation of Tracy Grammer using the User:Grammer wikipedia account. Very unlikely, I think, but an undeniably real possibility nonetheless.
  2. Phil Sandifer has been honestly duped by someone who is impersonating Tracy Grammer, by way of some trivial everyday computer security breach that has allowed the impersonator to read and delete email sent to the address published on her website. Also unlikely, but entirely possible.
  3. Tracy Grammer genuinely is User:Grammer and actually chose, in what I would say was poor judgement, to use this Wikipedia talk page as a forum for releasing what is apparently new information to the public about Dave Carter.
I think scenario #3 is by far the most likely, but I have no way to easily disprove #1 or #2. When in doubt, Wikipedia needs to cite external sources. If wikinews is to be accepted as a valid external source for a disputed fact in a wikipedia article, the wikinews article should not just refer back to a wikipedia talk page as it's only source. Even if your email confirmation of the identity of User:Grammer does technically meet wikinews' present policy for verification requirements, and I don't know if it does, in the spirit of WP:IAR I think it is not adequate verification in this instance. Assuming User:Grammer is Tracy Grammer, she should publish this information somewhere other than wikipedia or wikinews so that wikipedia can reference it with at least a little more semblance of verifiablility than we have right now. ~leif ☺ (talk) 01:57, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I just ran across this, which for some reason makes me think of this page. Maybe its that the talk page clues me in to the nature of the person even more than the article itself, yet the talk page is still not used as a source. WAS 4.250 09:23, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

As I see it, the purpose of the 'verifiability' policy is to ensure that if someone goes looking for 'backup' to a particular fact in a Wikipedia article they will be able to find it. If the article said 'User Grammer said XYZ' then that would be completely verifiable... just include a link and I can definitely see that the user did indeed say that... though by itself that wouldn't be relevant enough to warrant inclusion. If the article said, 'Tracy Grammer said XYZ' with a link to User Grammer saying XYZ... I can't actually verify that User:Grammer IS Tracy Grammer. If this were firmly established then I wouldn't have a problem with that either. It is exactly the same thing we already do. For instance, the Jimmy Wales article contains several references to edits made by User:Jimbo Wales... and why wouldn't it? It's difficult to imagine any 'verifiability' better than that... click the link and you are witness to direct proof of the accuracy of the info. The only question is what sort of standards are required for officially accepting that a user account really is a particular notable person. We've accepted that with the accounts of Jimbo, Daniel Brandt, and others... but apparently not Grammer. So what are the requirements for such 'official recognition'? --CBD 16:33, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
And, more curiously, why are they different from the standards we use for whether to ban a user as impersonation. We eliminated User:Hilary Duff with no real fanfare when she refused to help confirm her identity. But we've not banned User:Grammer for obvious reasons. I'm puzzled why our standards for policing celebrity impersonation (Which is certainly a legal concern as well) are seemingly lower than our standards for inclusion. Phil Sandifer 17:09, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Guys, do you think you could either please (a) drop it or (b) do this on your own talk pages. Thanks. -MrFizyx 20:26, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

My apologies. I've scrubbed the useless portion of the conversation. Phil Sandifer 20:43, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Covers

I've created a fairly extensive list of Dave Carter covers. I'm only adding artist for whom there is a recording and for those who are likely to meet criteria in WP:MUSIC. There are a number of other covers reported (mostly from concerts), but not included. Here are a few of these that I decided do not belong.

Unrecorded covers:

  • "Cowboy Singer" Mark Erelli
  • "Crocodile Man", Annie and Rod Capps
  • "I Go Like the Raven", Greta (Mae) and Janelle
  • "Tanglewood Tree" and "Farewell to Bitteroot", Adam Sweeney
  • "Texas Underground", Randy and Gaye Auxier
  • "Workin for Jesus" and "Preston Miller", Beth DeSombre
  • Jaded Mandolin (various songs)

If someone finds these on an album, consider adding them. -MrFizyx 19:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] a new external source: Democrat and Chronicle

This should probably be included in the article, re: the controversy in September. ~leif ☺ (talk) 01:52, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

  • I agree, it is time. Feel free to add it. I'm thinking it might go best under "Partnership with Tracy Grammer"--although that section in general could use some expansion to avoid giving undue weight to the gender change. You may also want to add something to the page on the duo. Nice work finding a source. I've been keeping an eye out for months, but kept coming up with nothing. -MrFizyx 15:53, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm hesitant to put the gender change entirely in terms of Grammer, as it implies that it's only of importance insofar as it affected his relationship. Phil Sandifer 16:53, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
True. That was just a suggestion and I'm not adamant about it. Do you think it deserves its own section?--I didn't, and thought that the "Partnership" section was the most sensible place in the current article. Also, I think we still need to present this as Carter's planned gender change as reported by Tracy Grammer years after his death. In that sense it has as much to do with their partnership as it does with anything else. We don't have evidence of the change affecting anything else. -MrFizyx 17:07, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure we do - the RD&C story makes the claims not attributed to her, suggesting that they've done their homework. If they're a reliable source, which they seem to be, I think we can simply state that he was pursuing a gender change at the end of his life as fact, with the appropriate citation. Phil Sandifer 21:46, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
OK, I've reread it and agree. Fair enough. -MrFizyx 22:50, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I never did enter this issue into the article. The Democrat and Chronicle no longer shows the article, nor is it available in the internet archive. One can still read a copy here. I'm not sure why I haven't added anything about this. I'm not opposed to it any longer I just don't know how to do it or what weight to give it. I'm surprised how little coverage this ultimately got. A few notes from shocked fans within Grammer's yahoo group was it then it quickly was dropped. Does anyone still feel the gender change should be part of the article? If so, how should it be added? -MrFizyx 01:47, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
    • I tend to think it should be added. Then again, I remain largely partial to the version of the page I wrote months ago that had it. Phil Sandifer 02:54, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
      • Well, I think it would be reasonable for you to add some comment about the gender change. I think it would be reasonable to cite the (somewhat unavailable) Democrat and Chronicle article and your wikinews story together now that it is corroborated. I'd leave out that bit about his widow and all though since I don't know of that being covered in any other media. I'll leave it to you. -MrFizyx 03:01, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Personal Epiphany

It talks about a personal epiphany, then leaves it. What does that mean?

A spacial anomaly brought me here. 23:35, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I may not get all of the details correct without digging up the magazine. The Sing Out! article relates a story in which Carter was daydreaming in a graduate-level math class. The professor was writing ones and zeros on the board while some sort of (African?) drum music floated into the room through an open window. Carter was drifting off into some sort of mystic experience when another student got up and slammed the window shut. The rest of the class applauded while he wondered why anyone would want to shut that out. He decided he was in the wrong place.
I wasn't certian that relating the whole story added much to the article. What do you think? -MrFizyx 03:00, 27 April 2007 (UTC)