Talk:Edie Brickell & New Bohemians

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is part of WikiProject Texas, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Texas.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

	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]
	This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed biographical guide to musicians and musical groups on Wikipedia.

	Alternative music Portal This article is part of the Alternative music WikiProject, a group of Wikipedians interested in improving the encyclopaedic coverage of articles relating to Alternative rock. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project's talk page.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the Project's importance scale.

i always thought they were part of the jam-band scene am i wrong?Curefreak

[edit] Carter Albrecht

From the article:

"was taking Chantix in an attempt to stop smoking, and had been hallucinatory"

Implies relationship. I don't think this is proper unless / until medical authorities suggest a connection. WiccaWeb 22:14, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Since there have been no comments about this, I'm going to delete it. Please note that there is no reference to this "issue" in the referenced CNN story. WiccaWeb 17:02, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

If CNN doesn't put it in their story, it must not be true, right?

http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/09/06/seeking-to-explain-final-acts-of-violence/

http://cbs11tv.com/topstories/local_story_249195926.html

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/localnews/stories/DN-musiciandead_05met.ART.State.Edition2.4247864.html

Do I need to post more? I'm "undeleting" the excised portion.K. Scott Bailey 23:04, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

There has been no established medical source such as the coroner or other doctor related to the case to make this connection. It's nothing more than speculation by people without medical credentials. Such speculation not based on any fact has no place here. Certainly the way it was worded did not make it clear it was pure speculation not based on any factual evidence. Indeed there is no connection in medical literature between Chantix and this type of behavior. What is the purpose of adding pure speculation not based on any kind of medical references?

Anyway, if you're going to add this kind of speculation, it would be more appropriate in the article on Carter Albrecht, not the New Bohemians. WiccaWeb 04:44, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Why are you against including the information reported by reliable sources? His friends and family have simply made the FACT that he had NEVER acted this way prior to taking Chantix a matter of public record. Reliable sources reported on this fact. Whether or not YOU think it belongs in this article doesn't matter even a little bit.K. Scott Bailey 10:42, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Because they are not reliable medical sources, and hold as much weight as random wild speculation. It's misleading to suggest otherwise. WiccaWeb 00:34, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Now you're just being ludicrous. The standard of WP:RS does NOT require that a medical journal write an article about Albrecht's particular case in order to be "reliable." Newspaper articles in which those who knew him offer their take on what may have caused a person they knew well--and knew to NOT be violent in any way--to behave in such an erratic manner are CERTAINLY considered "reliable sources", no matter what you happen to think.K. Scott Bailey 17:54, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I have rephrased K. Scott Bailey's recently added text because it focused purely on assertions made by friends and family, rather than the larger, more objective view presented by the cited source. I've tried to distill the information from that news article into a few lines that indicate the overall lack of certainty in this situation, and that it is an ongoing investigation. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 13:38, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I've also done similar work to Carter Albrecht, where there are three sources (including the one cited here) for the info on Albrecht's death. I have to agree with WiccaWeb that this is probably too much to get into in in the New Bohemians article, but I'm sure we'll ultimately get a solid source or two for a terse comment here, once the investigation has been completed in a few weeks. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 13:54, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Both reasonable changes that reflect the actual situation. WiccaWeb 00:32, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Both are MUCH more reasonable than simply removing material wholesale, with no discussion on the talk page.K. Scott Bailey 17:52, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

First of all, note the top part of this section of discussion:

Since there have been no comments about this, I'm going to delete it.

So in fact I brought up the subject in discussion, which you apparently didn't see or chose to ignore. When there where no objections, I deleted the text.

Your original text implied a non-existent connection for which there is no evidence anywhere, and suggested by people with no medical background. You might have well as said that the possibility exists between his mental state and the fact that there was an incandescent light bulb in the room. WiccaWeb 23:08, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Now you're just being a jackass. Comparing the educated (they knew him VERY well) speculation of Carter's friends and family to someone making a claim that he was acting the way he was because "there was an incandescent light bulb in the room" is completely beyond the pale of decency. What the hell do you expect to get as a source? Some kind of frickin' medical study?!? People who knew him said the only thing in his life that was different--and, thus, that could have potentially caused such abnormal, erratic behavior--was his Chantix prescription. Their thoughts were reported in reputable sources. This satisfies Wikipedia's standards. Deal with it.K. Scott Bailey 23:09, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Bailey, all I'm saying is that your original text implied strong evidence of a connection without making it clear that it was speculation from non-medical professionals. Jeff Q did a great job of including the same speculation put in the correct context. You're taking this way to personal, which indeed was the way your original text was written. And, interestingly, you have no complaints that the article completely ignores mentioning police reports that state Mr. Albrect had slammed a drinking glass on a table, cutting his hand and then struck his girlfriend in the face several times with his fist, knocking her to the floor. Not relevant, perhaps? Of course. WiccaWeb 06:43, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Not relevant, except in the context that he had never--not once--acted this way prior to taking Chantix. If that context were added, then insertion of those facts would be fine. Carter was a kind and gentle person, not a violent man at all. The event is tragic in the extreme, and your trivialization of it is disgusting.K. Scott Bailey 03:05, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not trivializing it at all (and I'm not making personal attacks either). But Wikipedia is not your blog. Your comments both in the article and here in this discussion have been highly emotional and not objective. Such comments may be acceptable in discussion, but not in an article. WiccaWeb 15:45, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

You ARE trivializing it, whether you realize it or not. And the points I have raised--as "emotional" as they may be--are now at least represented in the article. Do I have a bit of a personal stake in this? Yes. Carter was a dear friend (and bandmate) of a guy I know, Danny Bayliss. Does that meant that the points I raised were invalid, or deserving of the trivialization you subjected them to? (Remember the "light bulb" comment?) Certainly not.K. Scott Bailey 23:21, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Of course his death is tragic. But a encyclopedia article should deal in facts and speculation should be identified as such. It's inappropriate to try to make a Wikipedia article into a memorial. WiccaWeb 05:09, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Now you're just making crap up. I never tried to "make a Wikipedia article into a memorial." I simply pushed for inclusion of all relevant information. You on the other hand, keep trying to add a completely irrelevant "current event" tag to the article. What is your deal? Why are you being so antagonistic about this information. Facts are facts, and Carter was who he was. The story is not quickly changing, and there aren't many editors changing it daily. The facts are what they are. Stop trying to tag this like it was something really controversial we put in there. The only controversial thing is how a man shoots through a half-glass door, hits another man in the head, and then claims he was firing a "warning shot." The information in the article isn't quickly changing or controversial in any way.K. Scott Bailey 03:52, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Sir, you're missing the point. ALL I did was point out and object to speculation being misrepresented or implied as fact, really more or less a simple matter of wording. And, is this story not a current event? In the Carter Albrecht article it was listed as a "current event", and it seemed to make sense to list it as such here as well. There's certainly nothing malicious about the label. You're not really making any rational sense about this, you seem to have taken some strange personal insult over what is in fact a fairly minor (yet pretty clear) technical point. WiccaWeb 06:14, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Folks, this endless argument about an unfolding event (given the ongoing investigation) on a subject peripheral to this article is getting absurd. I have posted a request to K. Scott Bailey's talk page to stop making edits that draw conclusions from the sources that appear to be based more on his own involvement with this subject (see "Danny Bayliss" info above), violating WP:COI and WP:NPOV. Now, let's please wait for further developments on all fronts to be reported. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 18:42, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Your right, there's no point to this. I'm happy with the way the article is worded, and really, I would encourage Mr. Bailey to work on the Carter Albrecht article, which could use the touch of someone who has knowledge of this musician's background, it seems lite on biographical information. WiccaWeb 02:33, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This does NOT qualify for the tag you keep adding

Either explain how two or three people editing the article periodically equals hundreds editing regularly, or stop adding the tag. Do not revert the deletion before discussing it here.K. Scott Bailey 10:33, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Let's see... "Current Event"... It recently happened, the complete facts are not yet known, and is still under investigation? Yes indeed, it's a "Current Event". Why don't YOU explaine why it's not a "Current Event"? WiccaWeb 18:13, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, K. Scott is correct in this, and my original addition was in error. The policy Yellowdesk cited in his/her edit summary, Template:Current#Guidelines, when first removing it says:

This template was created for those occasions that many editors (perhaps a hundred or more) edit an article on the same day, as an advisory to editors. It is not intended to be used to mark an article that merely has recent news articles about the topic; if it were, hundreds of thousands of articles would have this template.

That's what K. Scott meant in his edit summary and above. With only 3-4 editors working on this, and sporadically at that, we don't seem to meet the expectations for this tag. I have removed it myself this time, and I apologize for the confusion. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 22:41, 28 September 2007 (UTC)