Talk:Gene Krupa

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Chicago Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chicago, which aims to improve all articles related to Chicago.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating 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.
Maintenance An appropriate infobox may need to be added to this article, or the current infobox may need to be updated. Please refer to the list of biography infoboxes for further information.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Jazz, set up to organize and expand entries on jazz and related subgenres, as well as other related subjects. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page (see Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ for more information).

Contents

[edit] Gene Krupa

The article suggests that Eddie Condon did not play on the four tracks by the McKenzie-Condon Chicagoans. He did, indeed, play banjo, as can be well heard on the records.69.125.239.73 16:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I've read that drummer Ginger Baker of the 60's rock group Cream played a Krupa drum solo on one of the Cream albums. Get back to you when I find out what song. Gene appears as himself in film "The Benny Goodman Story"(1955) . And if you want novelty, catch Mr Krupa playing a chorus of "Drum Boogie" in film "Ball of Fire" (1941) using matchsticks on a matchbox! Matthew B-G 203.171.196.145 (talk) 06:40, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] marijuana use

Ignoring Krupa's marijuana use is like ignoring the elephant in the room. If someone's up for the challenge (I can't write about it NPOV), there must be some way to incorporate the subject into the article in a NPOV way. -206.188.169.18 20:26, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "served 84 days"

  • ...served 84 days of a 90 day sentence[1]

Why was this info deleted? It appears to be neutral and properly sourced. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:52, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Please do not revert again til the short sentence/3-month sentence issue is resolved at the Yarrow RfC. In the meantime, please read WP:POINT. It's the basis for my reversion here. I left the link, but reverted to the status quo ante "brief sentence". David in DC (talk) 02:04, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't see any connection between Peter Yarrow and this subject, and I don't see any reason to tie this article to a decision made about Yarrow. What is your objection to this edit on this apge? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:11, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
He's going to every page JkP cited with and indeterminite description of a jail sentence and replacing it with the exact duration. That's WP:POINT. David in DC (talk) 22:21, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I think what he is doing is a good idea because it creates a bit of uniformity. Uniformity in cases like thiese is not necessarily bad. : 04:19, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

If you want uniformity then make a change to the basic policies which govern biographies and other articles. A straw poll among a handful of editors on the talk page of an article about a minor singer is not the right way to establish policy. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:35, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
As for WP:POINT, its title is "Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point". What is the disruption? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:07, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
The disruption is that the editor has used these edits to try and make a point for the Yarrow article. All of these have involved the time and energy of a variety of editors, many of whom have become frustrated with the situation. That's disruptive. Additionally, the Celona edits made to illustrate his point seem out of place on the articles in terms of level of detail. --Jkp212 (talk) 05:18, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
On the contrary - it appears that folks here are disrupting this article to make a point about Yarrow. How does it disrupt this article if we add facts about his incarceration. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:35, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

The Celona edits made to illustrate his point seem out of place on the articles in terms of level of detail. The disruption is further magnified by excessively reverting other editors. --Jkp212 (talk) 00:24, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that adding what is, at most, a slight bit of extra detail is disruptive. I don't understand why the edits were reverted to begin with. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:01, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
That's your opinion, and certainly a fair one. Others disagree. However, this is a BLP, and several editors had requested that the changes not be made. Instead of discussing on the talk page, he continued to revert several editors. Further, it was done to make a point on the Yarrow talk page. That's disruptive. --Jkp212 (talk) 01:07, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
A) Do you believe that Krupa is a living person?
B) Editors reverted the material without giving any explanation relevant to this article.[2][3][4][5]
C) You reverted without discussion.[6]
D) Why were the reverts made if not to make a point about Peter Yarrow? It wasn't until today that someone (you) offered a reason relevant to this article.
The decision we make about the material in this article has nothing to do with the decision that editors make at talk:Peter Yarrow. Let's keep separate issues separate. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:18, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Would Jkp212 address why the BLP should be used on a DEAD person?John celona (talk) 16:16, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Link is NOT added to make "point

I am restoring the link to Krupa's jail sentence. It is verifiable. I did not add this link to prove any "point". The Peter Yarrow dispute is based on the BLP. Krupa is not living. Therefore, there is no "point" for me to make as the BLP is inapplicable to this page.John celona (talk) 01:08, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

John celona stated that "The final solution is a hoax" in this edit concerning articles Holocaust and Holocaust denial. He has not backed down from that statement. Holocaust denial is uncivil and offensive.[7]   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 18:39, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
That was a sardonic comment in response to another users threats, as the context of that discussion would reveal. Why are you posting this inflammatory and misleading sentence "everywhere"-6 places by my count?John celona (talk) 01:53, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Why are you mentioning that here? If you have a general compaint about an editor then an article talk page is not the place to bring it. Post on his user talk page, or file an RfC. Let's stick to discussung Gene Krupa on this page. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:29, 11 January 2008 (UTC)