Talk:Gibson J-200
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is part of WikiProject Guitarists, a group dedicated to improving Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to guitarists. 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. |
| Start | This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale. |
 |
This article is supported by the Guitar equipment task force. |
[edit] Neutral point of view
It appears that the beginning of this article is lacking a neutral point of view. The statement "The Gibson Super Jumbo is the world's most famous acoustic guitar..." seems to be an assertment that violates Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. It should be relatively easy to correct while still leaving in the fact that it is a very famous guitar, but there has been disagreement about why it should be changed at all. Since saying that it is the world's most famous guitar is in essence an opinion (it is not a fact, like were it to be said "X number of Gibson Super Jumbo guitars were sold, making it the highest selling guitar in year Y"), it should be changed to reflect a more neutral point of view. Possibilities would be saying "The Gibson Super Jumbo is one of the world's most famous acoustic guitars..." or "The Gibson Super Jumbo is a very famous acoustic guitar...". All of these options reflect the fact that the guitar is very famous, but are presented neutrally, as all articles on Wikipedia should be. -- Natalya 04:34, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
- "The Gibson Super Jumbo is the world's most famous acoustic guitar", is true. A fact, is a truth. I have informed you that if this breaches policy then you may change it back, but then it ceases to be a fact, because it is the most famous. One could argue that a Guarneri violin is comparable with a Stradivari, but there is no question that the Stradivari is the most famous, even if most players prefer a Guarneri. I prefer my Martin D-42 to my J-200 but the Gibson is beyond doubt the most famous.Lion King 13:55, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
- Lion King, do you have a cite for that claim? Some verifiable external source that says so? That is the root question and one that hasn't yet been addressed. The material you removed from your talk page (which I strongly suggest all be refactored to here because it's really good and comprehensive material) explains at some length why claims about "most" require cites to avoid introducing POV. If you look at Stradivarius you'll see it does not contain a claim that it's the most famous violin type. (and if it did, it would need fixing) Again, to be clear, this is in no way arguing whether this guitar is or isn't the most famous, it's requesting a citation for the claim. That's what Wikipedia is about, since it is not a primary source. NPOV is an important notion to take on board, and one that is not easy, since it does seem to go against how one might commonly write in casual speech or in advocacy. But you must, in the long term, take it on board if you are to be a successful wikipedian, in my view. Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 14:44, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
- Then change it! No wonder the other geezer slung his hook, and left Jimbo to it! Lion King 14:58, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
- I came late, apologies if I am missing some context here. Sometimes when controversial edits are contemplated they are proposed either at a user's talk page or on the talk page of the article before changing, or after they were changed once and reverted. I will go ahead and make changes to move in the NPOV direction then. As to this: "No wonder the other geezer slung his hook, and left Jimbo to it!", could you clarify what you mean by it, it doesn't make sense to me. Thanks! ++Lar: t/c 15:14, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
- Then change it! No wonder the other geezer slung his hook, and left Jimbo to it! Lion King 14:58, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
- Lion King, do you have a cite for that claim? Some verifiable external source that says so? That is the root question and one that hasn't yet been addressed. The material you removed from your talk page (which I strongly suggest all be refactored to here because it's really good and comprehensive material) explains at some length why claims about "most" require cites to avoid introducing POV. If you look at Stradivarius you'll see it does not contain a claim that it's the most famous violin type. (and if it did, it would need fixing) Again, to be clear, this is in no way arguing whether this guitar is or isn't the most famous, it's requesting a citation for the claim. That's what Wikipedia is about, since it is not a primary source. NPOV is an important notion to take on board, and one that is not easy, since it does seem to go against how one might commonly write in casual speech or in advocacy. But you must, in the long term, take it on board if you are to be a successful wikipedian, in my view. Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 14:44, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] copyvio???
OK, in trying to de POV a little bit of this article to show how it's done I did a little searching. This page on the Gibson site seems to be where much of the text of this article came from. I think some serious copyediting is needed here as that material is badged "© 1999 Gibson Musical Instruments" ... clearly a no-no for inclusion in Wikipedia, unless we have explicit permission to use it. We can cite it, and even quote short passages of it with proper credit, but not use it directly. The article needs a major reworking to remove all this copyvio text, unfortunately. This is not my area of interest so if no one steps up soon and rewrites it to remove all this copyvio, I am going to gut the article down to just the first sentence, removing any text that matches text on that site. Unfortunately. ++Lar: t/c 22:47, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Oh shit! there goes my Custom Vine! Lion King 23:08, 25 March 2006 (UTC) I'll contact Gibson and ask them to grant permmison Lion King
- My management hath spoken! Will inform you of the outcome as soon as poss. Lion King 23:50, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Special versions ?
Since I own a J-200JR (smaller body obviously) I'd like to know if it should be mentioned in here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.154.253.150 (talk) 18:38, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
- No. The J-200 Junior is the SJ-200's "Little Brother" and deserves it's own article. Hope this helps. Lion King 00:00, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
