Talk:David L. Cook/Archives 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Disputes

Someone removed the NPOV dispute notice and I just put it back up. This page still reads as if it was written by Mr.Cook's own press publicist. wikipediatrix 19:39, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

This article was not written by Mr. Cook's publicist. I have kept my writing very neutral. If you have a better way to write it, please advise. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.134.2.43 (talk • contribs) .

    • Well, for starters, you can't say glowing, opinionated things like "This character took the Christian music scene by storm. With hilarious stage costuming and side splitting humor, Mortermer was just what the sagging Christian music scene needed." This reads like advertising copy. Especially since a Google search shows only FIVE returns for "Mortermer Crabbottom", and three of them are from Mr.Cook's own page! wikipediatrix 20:19, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm going to have to agree with 69.134.2.43. Wikipediatrix: alter or remove the POV as you see fit, or at least point out the sections you object to, don't just tag the article and expect someone else to do it for you. ˉˉanetode╞┬╡ 20:14, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

    • Why do we even have that tag, then, if we're expected to rewrite articles instead of tagging them? I already pointed out what was wrong: the entire thing reads like ad copy in NNPOV terms. It would be far easier for 69.134.2.43 to read the rules than for me to tell him in detail every sentence he should change. (Or maybe it wouldn't.) wikipediatrix 20:19, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
      • Well, ideally the expectation is that you do both. There are many articles on Wikipedia that have tags and few editors, if you have the time to monitor and discuss an article, why not improve it? I don't mean to come off as an ass here, and the quote you offered certainly exemplifies your point. Hopefully 69.134.2.43 now understands what the problem is, and hopefully he/she is inclined to correct it. ˉˉanetode╞┬╡ 20:38, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

I have read several of the articles on this site. It seems to me that if you are going to pull one that I wrote you need to look at various others. I did not write the article to be bias or even to show favoritism. I wrote the article using others as a guide. Now if you have suggestions, I will be glad to ammend what I have written. If you think you are a better writer, then by all means, will you please help.

Please qualify and cite the critical opinions offered. Wikipedia cannot simply say that someone has a "hilarious" costuming or is a master of "side-splitting" humor. It would be more appropriate to say that "Cook's show was described by X as [whatever]" ˉˉanetode╞┬╡ 20:32, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

ok I have edited this article once again. I have taken out what you have suggested. Although I think the suggestion was a bit on the petty side. Now I would appreciate you removing your flag. If you have any further suggestions I will be glad to listen, but please do not take it upon yourself to put me in violation and not explain why you are doing so.

Thank you for the edits, but the tag is going to stay on a little longer. I'm going to give the article a once-over tommorow and try to correct all potentially POV language. Please don't take this as a discouragement to edit Wikipedia, your contributions are very much appreciated. As this is a collaborative effort, however, all articles have to be tempered by criticism and standards of neutrality. ˉˉanetode╞┬╡ 20:46, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
Sources would be useful for claims of having won various awards, performing for President Reagan, being on Hee Haw, etc. I can't find any online independent verification of his having two different Mortermer Crabbottom weekly TV series, "Crabbottom USA" and "Say Goodnight Mortermer" (except, of course, on Cook's own website).... If these were obscure local cable-access programs, that should be duly noted. wikipediatrix 20:53, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

I can certainly appreciate that. However, what I cannot appreciate is someone telling me that I have done something wrong and does not outline what it is or how I can fix it. I am just a Pastor who happens to follow this young mans career. I am also the president of his fan club. So I guess I would know what I am talking about when I put something to pen. I just think that if people are going to take it upon themselves to make these comments, they will be kind enough to help. I am not computer savy so I do not know how to put the links and stuff of that nature in. I tried to figure out how to put a picture in and its still elluding me. Please advise or help. I would appreciate it. Thank you for your kind words. Maybe everyone is not so fast to put others down.

Wikipedia, you have turned this into a personal issue. I do not think you need to be editing anything if you are going to be so opinionated. How does one cite Hee Haw when they are no longer in existence? As far as his awards go, I did reference CGMA. Maybe you did not see that. As far as Mortermer goes, that show is a privately owned production and is used throughout churches and other venues and was shown on a television station out of Nashville, TN. It just seems to me that you are attacking the artist and not the article itself.

  • No one has put you down. It's not a personal issue - if it was, I would have edited your page myself. I'm sure Anetode will fix the page to suit Wikipedia's guidelines of style. Meanwhile, I suggest you read WP:VANITY, WP:RULES, WP:CITE, and WP:MOS. Welcome to Wikipedia, and I hope you continue contributing! wikipediatrix 21:27, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Anetode, could you please help check this article over and tell me what I would need to change if anything now? This thing has become so confusing to me. There are two more artists I would like to put on but I do not want to have to go through this again. I would like to add a picture to this article and I do not know how to do that. I have read the articles that wikpedia sent me and they still feel foreign to me. I explained earlier, I am not the most computer savy person in the world. If you could help me I would certainly appreciate it.

false sources

71.75.12.240 has filled in the "citation needed" notices with false sources that do not reflect the information. The statement "Bob Hope once said that "David was one of the best child stars he had ever met" gives only the index page of bobhope.com, which says nothing about David L. Cook. The statement "In 1986, he was personally invited by President Ronald Reagan to perform at the White House" gives only generic links to whitehouse.gov and to a Ronald Reagan Library site, neither of which say anything about David L. Cook. References have to specifically say the exact same thing that the Wikipedia article is saying, otherwise they aren't references at all. wikipediatrix 15:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


Hi, just a quick comment: we could always paraphrase instead of saying the exact same thing. By disctinction between citing, quoting and paraphrasing a reference can "'mean'" the exact same thing but not necessarily say the same thing. Would I be correct to assume that is what you meant? Okay to my fabulous introduction.... (drum role) (cut drum role)
Hello, my attention has been brough to this article by IAMAS Corporation. Thank you. I would also like to thank Wikipediatrix for the links you provided on my uer page. I will do my best to represent the views of both parties, however I am technically IAMAS advocate. I will be respecting and demonstrating the rules of wikipedia and should they conflict with "our" view on the dabate I will need to politely inform you/(my client) or you/(Wikipediatrix) of the situation.
To summarized what has happened to date my understanding is that there is an escallation being mean, a little rude and defencive editing. I am not aware of who started what, but I am aware that both parties are escallating the situation. This needs to stop. I want both of you to appologize for any rudness that may have happened in the past. If you remove this stress I think you shall all feel better in properly editing this article. Wikipedia is not a race, it will be here tomorow and probably for many more years. Take your time and add what you want to say in the best wikipedia way you can!
Secondly, I will assume that some of the information is "conflicting" or even "contradictory." (I can help you that or you could even post the links here so everyone can look at whatever information). Remember, we simply need to state that "so and so believes this... yet so and so believes that." Unfortunatelly we can't put every opinion that everyone believes. (I learn this the hard way) Nevertheless we will need to discuss what the main concerns are for this article. I believe I have a good idea. That is one person has sourced information but the other can't find the information or doesn't believe the information. (An inclusion exclusion problem). The best way I found to get around this was to list here on the discussion page any of those links and concerns and then to go through them. --CyclePat 13:31, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Amazon link

Contrary to User:Iamascorp's rude contentions on my talk page, this link: [1] does not provide a valid source for the article's claim that "David has also written several religious and spiritual books that have been used within churches and various denominations as inspirational help guides." It only provides a source that this one book exists. Period. It doesn't say other books exist, and it doesn't say his book(s) "have been used within churches and various denominations as inspirational help guides". wikipediatrix 20:38, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Now all of a sudden Wikipediatrix decides to explain herself! If she would have done that a long time ag we would not be sitting here reading such entries. Amazing how that works. Thank you Wikipediatrix! IAMAS Corporation 17:21, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I assumed you could have figured out on your own that the Amazon link didn't address the claims you were making. wikipediatrix 21:42, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

If Wikipediatrix would have taken time to look at the link provided by Amazon she would have seen a blue link that led the reader to other books by this same author. Again, she moves towards her own POV and tags things without checking with the writers or making edits herself. She surely did not make any mention of why she was tagging these items until we started raising issue with her over doing it. Now it seems she is trying to save face by saying what she should have said to start with. I am done with this editor. Wikipediatrix, thank you for your contribution and I hope you all the best but please let another editor deal with anything that needs to be changed on this article or any other articles we have contributed to. At this point any further involvement from you would just be frustrating for us and yourself. Thank you for your understanding. IAMAS Corporation 17:52, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

As usual, you're talking about me more than the edits. Just stick to talking about the article. The blue link you speak of, when I clicked it, went to books about golf and sports, not "religious self-help books" as your article text claimed. wikipediatrix 22:08, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Helping others

Just a reminder here of WP:BITE. Wikipedia is a very complex place for new users, so, if you know the ropes, please help those who don't to negotiate their way through. Thanks. Tyrenius 04:48, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Why would you mention this on a page where almost the entire discussion has been between the article's creator and myself? I certainly don't think I bit a newbie at all. Under the circumstances, I was quite patient. Avoiding biting newbies doesn't mean we have to tolerate insults and incivility from them. And since the user in question has been blocked, why bring it up now anyway? wikipediatrix 04:57, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

ICGMA Hall of Fame

Dalbury, thank you for your edit. The information that was there before your edit was correct. It is the ICGMA Hall of Fame not the CGMA. However, they have not updated their Hall of Fame inductees for 2006 yet. I will not revert your edit until they do in fact update it and show the 2006 inductees. Again, thank you. Junebug52 21:25, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

"International Country Music charts"?

I removed this claim, posted today by 71.75.10.245:

"On 2006-09-13 the song, "Why Can't I go Back" from the same album went number one on the International Country Music charts[2]."

This site, "countrygospelconnection.com", claims that the site owners compile these "Top 100" charts themselves, seemingly based only on airplay reports, and it's not clear if they're true official industry "charts" as we generally understand the term. The amateurish nature of the site would suggest otherwise.

  • A Google search for "International country music charts" plus Cook's name brought up exactly nothing.
  • A Google search for "Why can't I go back", "David Cook", "Top 100" brought no relevant hits.
  • Removing the "top 100" phrase from the search brings us [only 16 hits], none of which verify the #1 chart position info or the veracity of countrygospelconnection.com's charts.

Under the circumstances, countrygospelconnection.com appears to not be a valid secondary source as per WP:V and WP:RS. wikipediatrix 23:13, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I do not agree with your edit Wikipediatrix. The charts are industry standard charts and are used by radio in the Christian Country Industry for valid airplay. The fact that you have googled this issues does not discount the charts validity, nor should it discount it's usability for it's industry. I am going to replace the original edit. If you would like to discuss this please come to the talk page and we can discuss this issue instead of removing the edit.

"The reliability of the person giving you the facts is as important as the facts themselves. Keep in mind that facts are seldom facts, but what people think are facts, heavily tinged with assumptions." Hard facts are really rare. What we most commonly encounter are opinions from people (POV's). Inherently, because of this, most articles at wikipedia are full of POV's. An article which clearly, accurately, and fairly describes all the major points of view will, by definition, be in accordance with Wikipedia's official "Neutral Point of View" policy."

These charts again are used as a standard for this industry so that would make them a reliable source. The fact that you feel their web page is amaturish or they are not on a wide range google search would be more of a personal opinion and not based on fact. I am sure you would agree. Thank you. Junebug52 22:01, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Can you provide further sources for the claim? And your claim that this site's charts are "used as a standard for this industry"? The lack of corroborative sources make it hard to assess. wikipediatrix 03:43, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipediatrix, if you look at each genre of Christian music such as Inspirational, Blue Grass, Southern Gospel or Contemporary, you will find that unlike mainstream music which utilizes one chart known as "Billboard" All of these genres have their own industry charts. Same rule applies to the mainstream awards for these genres. They qualify for industry awards but you do not find them on the center stage area. It is the same with their industry charts. The charts you referred to are in fact legitimate industry charts used and compiled by Christian Country radio stations across the world. These charts indicate and reflect how popular a song is as well as how many times it is being played by radio. The Country Gospel Connection's owners are not the owners of the charts but simply the compilers of the data and the displayers. They also have a top 40 count down show which showcases the songs that radio is reporting to them. This is the same thing that mainstream music has and it has always been known as "Dick Clarks Weekly Top 40." The charts are derived by radio airplay and compiled in the same way the "Billboard" charts are. Thank you for allowing me to explain this to you. Junebug52 8:21, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

My previous questions still stand: can you provide further sources for the claim? And your claim that this site's charts are "used as a standard for this industry"? The lack of corroborative sources make it hard to assess. wikipediatrix 14:32, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Again Wikipediatrix, I am not trying to be uncooperative about this issue, however can you find any source that says this is not an industry standard chart? If you look at their site you can see that they are a syndicated radio broadcasting company played in millions of homes across the country and worldwide. Radio stations from across the world send their playlists into the ICGC=Country Gospel Connection in order to directly report what songs are being played for that genre. This information is then tabullated and the songs are moved to their rightful positions on the charts. If they did not have this chart there would be no way for artists to know their placement or the rotation of their music. The Country Gospel Connection is a reliable and authentic reporter of the charts for this genre. Again, if you can find something that disproves these charts are valid or should not be considered usable by the Country Gospel radio and media, then I will be glad to remove the cite for those charts. Otherwise, I feel and believe this is a reliable source and it falls within the Wikipedia rules for cites. Thank you and thank you for your concern with this article. I am glad we are speaking on better terms. Lets keep up the good work! Junebug52 12:06, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

  • I'm glad to see that the tone of things is really starting to shape up on this page. I also think the edits made here by Junebug52 are a fairly decent compromise on this specific issue. Instead of "International Country Music charts", it now says "Country Gospel Connection charts". Certainly a more accurate description, and seems to be supported by the citation. Actually, I think most of Junebug52's recent edits are a great step in the right direction for finally getting this article up to verification standards. Thanks to everyone here who has actually contributed to making this a better article (as opposed to just complaining about entirely proper standards enforcement). --Satori Son 17:55, 14 September 2006 (UTC)