Talk:J Stalin

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]
This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed biographical guide to musicians and musical groups on Wikipedia.
This article is within the scope of the San Francisco Bay Area WikiProject, a collaborative effort to build a more detailed guide on Wikipedia's coverage of San Francisco and the Bay Area. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Stub This article has been rated as stub-class on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.


Articles for deletion
This page was previously nominated for deletion.
Please see prior discussions before considering re-nomination:

Contents

[edit] libel

Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia article. This is policy!!!Boomgaylove (talk) 16:28, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Your BLP objection is not valid, and you are edit warring simulteneously in several places to try to get this artist removed from the encyclopedia. The information and the source are an interview in a magazine conducted with the subject himself where he apparently talks about his own drug dealing, for which he was arrested and convicted. That is relevant to his bio as a rap musician, and hardly violates BLP. You are not defending BLP anyway by blanking the entire article while nominating it for deletion. Please stop now or you will likely be blocked from further editing the encyclopedia. Wikidemo (talk) 16:36, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

its poorly sourced. it's not from a notable magazine.Boomgaylove (talk) 17:10, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, can we please stop edit warring and try to discuss this for a minute. Boomgaylove, please list which specific parts of the article you feel are poorly sourced/unsourced. It's difficult to see which parts you find objectionable when there is constant reverting. I know that BLP states that you can remove these type of things immediately, but we have yet to determine if these sentences are actually libelous or not. Bash Kash (talk) 21:51, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bart and drugs

The source for the potentially libelous claims he sold candy on BART and was a drug dealer and criminal are poor. Album notes from an artist that doesn't have a real label and hasn't sold many albums is really questionable. It should be removed.Boomgaylove (talk) 20:54, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

It's his own interview. What are you talking about? Stop all this disruptive editing, please. I've left another warning on your talk page.Wikidemo (talk) 23:47, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
While I agree that this information is very interesting, keep in mind what WP:NPF says: Wikipedia also contains biographies of people who, while notable enough for an entry, are not generally well known. In such cases, editors should exercise restraint and include only material relevant to their notability, while omitting information that is irrelevant to the subject's notability. Material from third-party primary sources should not be used unless it has first been published by a reliable secondary source. Material published by the subject must be used with caution. Therefore, the information about his childhood (candy bars and BART) should be kept, but I'm not so sure about his opinions from STASH Magazine.
Also, Boomgaylove, here are the scanned pages from the interview: [1], [2], [3], [4]. Bash Kash (talk) 23:58, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I deleted the bit about selling drugs.
It seems to me that the quality of the reference for selling drugs is not very good. Is it a reliable published source? I don't get the impression that it's exactly published. For something like that, perhaps we would need more than one reliable source. Also, as a user pointed out above, whether he sold drugs or not is not really relevant to the reasons why Wikipedia has an article on this person, so it probably shouldn't be mentioned even if there are multiple reliable sources. WP:BLP says "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles,...". --Coppertwig (talk) 04:29, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I agree fully. Thanks, SqueakBox 04:33, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I Third that.Icamepica (talk) 05:31, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Material is restored. Please stop edit warring on this subject. It is properly sourced to the article subject himself and therefore not a BLP issue. Attempts to delete it along with the entire article and various other sources and material have been a combination of sockpuppetry, canvassing, forum shopping, etc. Please examine the whole issue before you get involved. Best to wait until we get a handle on the sockpuppetry before jumping in on content issues. Wikidemo (talk) 11:08, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't mind very much about the candy bars, (although I agree that it should be deleted too per Icamepica) but drugs is illegal and would need high-quality sources (probably more than one source) to establish the fact very firmly before we could mention it. "The article subject himself" is a human being, presumably, not a reliable published source. Please don't add material in contravention of WP:BLP and WP:CONSENSUS. I was not canvassed; I came here in response to a help desk thread. On that thread, Wikidemo: you claim this material was "published". Please give the bibliographic information: date of publication, title, etc. Was it published by a major national newspaper? By a university press? I think it's not a good reliable source. --Coppertwig (talk) 13:36, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
The material is fine per BLP, CONSENSUS, and RS, and I don't care to get into that right now. The posting on the help desk and some of the follow-ups are canvassing. Much of the issue is arising due to sockpuppetry, which you should be able to find by following a few links. If you would, kindly wait for us to sort that out before we get into content questions on this article rather than backing the disruptive efforts of sockpuppets to remove content. Wikidemo (talk) 15:28, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
While it's possible that I arrived here as a result of someone else's sockpuppetry, nevertheless I'm now here and expressing my own opinion. The album notes don't even have a date of publication given, and I don't see any Wikipedia article on "Demolition Man Records", suggesting possible non-notability. The San Francisco Bay Guardian is a free alternative newspaper, one of several such in the region; while it's possible that some such newspapers are very accurate, I generally don't assume they're reliable. I think the statements about selling drugs and being on parole should go unless there's confirmation from a more reliable source. Probably the statement about selling candy should go too if it's only on the album notes and if the album notes can't be more firmly established as a reliable source. Even if it can be proven that the subject stated in album notes that the subject sold drugs etc., that doesn't necessarily mean it's true: the subject could be exaggeratedly bragging, joking or fictionalizing. If more reliable sources along those lines can be found, the article can perhaps state that the subject said that he sold drugs, etc., but not necessarily that he actually did. I don't follow your arguments re BLP, CONSENSUS and RS. The statement about drugs is "poorly sourced contentious material" and is to be deleted per WP:BLP. WP:CONSENSUS calls for discussion and for giving reasons, not for simply stating that one doesn't care to get into it right now. WP:RS says "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Sources should be appropriate to the claims made." The statements about drugs and candy are also irrelevant to the article. It's not Wikipedia's purpose to collect detailed derogatory information about everyone, or even about all notable people. BLP says "Wikipedia also contains biographies of people who, while notable enough for an entry, are not generally well known. In such cases, editors should exercise restraint and include only material relevant to their notability, while omitting information that is irrelevant to the subject's notability." and "Material that may adversely affect a person's reputation should be treated with special care." --Coppertwig (talk) 11:32, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I strongly oppose this edit by Wikidemo, which re-inserted the selling-drugs claim, as a violation of BLP. I stated clearly above that I'm not editing in support of sockpuppets but expressing my own opinion. Wikidemo has not provided any arguments in reply to my two last messages above but has simply stated "I don't care to get into that right now". --Coppertwig (talk) 11:49, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
(ec) Are you deliberately misrepresenting me or have you simply not looked this fully? I have never refused to discuss. I have been dealing with this incessantly for a few days.Wikidemo (talk) 11:57, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
The information is reliably sourced and notable to the subject's notability, as I've explained. I don't see any way one can claim the San Francisco Bay Guardian is not a reliable source under the circumstances. The album qualifies as a matter of WP:SELFPUB. To say that a rapper who talks openly about his arrest and history of drug dealing has his reputation hurt by having those facts repeated here (when it's already repeated in the paper) is unreasonable. So is saying that the drug use is unproven if he has a conviction for it. As most of the sources say, his upbringing in the projects, drug dealing, and toughness are part of the reputation he wants. But we can talk about that in due course. For now there is no consensus to remove the material. Disruptive editors and sockpuppets don't count. I do not say I don't want to discuss it. You are twisting words. I have discussed this six or ten times at a number of different forked locations created by the sockpuppets. You are not helping things by edit warring on the sockpuppets' side in the middle of a sock attack. There is no reasonable way this can be properly discussed as long as they are here. Can you please wait a little bit until the administrators come and sort things out? Thanks, Wikidemo (talk) 11:57, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I may have missed your earlier explanations. Would you please tell me exactly where to find them, e.g. the date and time of your post(s) on this talk page containing those explanations.
You say that "[t]he information is reliably sourced and notable to the subject's notability," but I don't see any arguments in support of these statements and I don't agree with them. I'm not convinced that the subject is sufficiently notable for a Wikipedia article. You say, "I don't see any way one can claim the San Francisco Bay Guardian is not a reliable source under the circumstances." I don't know what circumstances you mean. I haven't seen any reasons stated here why one would consider that publication reliable. Personally, I tend to assume that free publications and alternative publications are less likely to be reliable, if I don't know anything else about them. I'm not convinced that the album qualifies as selfpub. Was it published? What was the date (or at least the year) of publication? If we somehow firmly establish its reliability, we might possibly be able to use it to say that the subject stated certain things about himself, but we can't necessarily use it to claim that those statements are true. I don't even think we can use the album notes to state that he stated certain things about himself. I see no particular reason to think that material on album notes can't possibly be fictional. I don't think it's unreasonable at all to state that someone's reputation could be hurt under such circumstances. You never know. It could be something he stated when he was younger (or on an impulse) and later regretted, or something his publisher wrote that he didn't really agree to, or that he agreed to only in order to get his album published.
I haven't seen firm evidence that he was convicted of anything -- have you?
No, you are the one twisting words. I didn't say that you said you didn't want to discuss it. I'm happy to discuss at any time. You're free to choose to discuss now or not.
I'm not willing to "wait" with the contentious material in the article, because WP:BLP says to removing certain things "immediately" and I believe that applies here. I don't see why the presence of sockpuppets or suspected sockpuppets has to prevent others from discussing things. There might not be any administrators arriving to sort things out. I, for example, have arrived here to help sort out the issue on this page; hopefully there won't be any special need for administrators.
If your arguments are spread over many pages, you can collect them together or provide links to them. You might want to consider keeping your arguments in one central place and if you feel a need to argue somewhere else, to just provide links to that central place, updating the arguments there as needed.
I did some web searches but didn't find any good sources to add to the article. The subject is mentioned on a lot of web pages, though. --Coppertwig (talk) 01:36, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
You're basically saying you're ignorant of what's going on and you can't be bothered to figure it out. No, I'm not going to spoon feed it to you, and whether you will wait or not for the sockpuppets to leave you should not be edit warring over content. While you've been digging in your feet and opposing things I've been dealing with a serious problem here. Your policy arguments are wacky wrong to the point of farce, and you rode in here on the coat tails of a troll to begin edit warring over content. To say the least that's unproductive.Wikidemo (talk) 02:04, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Coppertwig here, socks don't justify BLP violations and wikidemo appears not to be acting in good faith either. Thanks, SqueakBox 02:59, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Just what we need, a frequently blocked disruptive editor to jump in. I'm giving you another warning for that.Wikidemo (talk) 03:04, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
You are not going to get your way merely by insulting anyone who opposes you sop please desist from ac ting in the way you are, everyone is getting tired of it and your actions are clearly a result of not getting your way. But warning users for daring to disagree with you and your other uncivil actions are simply unacceptable, now please stop. Thanks, SqueakBox 03:14, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Okay, fifth warning. Are you going to keep this up until you get blocked again? Wikidemo (talk) 03:16, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Please stop harrassing me, you are in danger of being blocked yourself if you persist in being uncivil. I suggest you start acting in a good faith way with me and other users. Thanks, SqueakBox 03:19, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
You have no business accusing me of bad faith for dealing with sockpuppets and trolls on this article. I am not "harassing" you by giving you a behavioral warning. I am not about to be blocked but you might be if you keep it up. I've given you five civility / AGF / NPA warnings and you keep going. That's the kind of thing that keeps getting you blocked for misbehavior. Wikidemo (talk) 03:36, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] his real name

i don't see any source for his name being Jovan Smith.Boomgaylove (talk) 21:52, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I've added an article from the San Francisco Bay Guardian. Bash Kash (talk) 22:26, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
It was already sourced, along with everything else this editor has been challenging. I've consolidated the citations. Wikidemo (talk) 23:46, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] dictator

  • Wikipedia:Words to avoid#Fundamentally, at heart, essentially, basically states that the word dictator should not be used. Stop reinserting this point of view and stick to WP:NPOV.Boomgaylove (talk) 01:25, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
    You've misread the style guideline you're trying to cite. It says nothing about avoiding the word "dictator." It is absurd not to call Joseph Stalin a dictator by way of reference. Should I refer to him as the "Russian Leader?" Please stop wikigaming. Incidentally, in case you miss all the other warnings and notices, I have reported your disruptive behavior to WP:AN/I. Wikidemo (talk) 01:58, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
    I don't really care either way, but I changed it to "Soviet leader" as opposed to "General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union." Bash Kash (talk) 05:23, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
    dictator is the best way to put it so I've restored. The only opposition was ongoing bad faith edits by a now-banned user. The quote demonstrates J Stalin is getting kicks because the guy is a dictator, not because he happened to be a foreign head of state. Wikidemo (talk) 07:51, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Such debate needs to be for the Joseph Stalin article. Thanks, SqueakBox 00:47, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Your recent edit is a great idea (changing he shares the same initials as xxxxx Joseph Stalin to they share the same initials), so we can avoid the question, which is a much better stylistic approach too. Thanks. Wikidemo (talk) 06:44, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I also agree wikidemo.Icamepica (talk) 07:21, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] wow

A lot has changed on this page since I first slapped the stub together. Looks like some strange user is on a personal vendetta to remove J Stalin from wikipedia?! Why? DigitizerSF (talk) 18:41, 22 February 2008 (UTC)DigitzerSF

[edit] ipa

why were the pronunciations removed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.180.37.2 (talk) 02:40, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Concerning the dictator, and the dictatoriat

Excuse me for starting in off the topic, but I checked this out because my friend SqueakBox was involved.

Isn't everyone sort of dancing around the gorilla in the room which is that this guy named himself J Stalin? Not a question of was there a dictator or not, but that particular dictator is accused of tens of millions of murders. Where's the humor in flaunting a name like that in the media (and I do mean media)?

Now to the nitty gritty-- all the stuff you've heard or said about "rap" (alias wrap, see below)-- the picking on women, glorification of violence etc.-- has something to do with the Big Tobackgo agenda. The more helpless and afraid everyone is in our society, the easier it is to sell more cigarets (alias security).

Did you notice some other stars had obvious names, like "Cool" and "Tupac"? "Rap" itself might refer to the "wrap" of cannabis inside an addictive nicotine cigar skin to get kids hooked on tobacco. For that matter, what did you think "Rock and Roll" (Rauchen und Rollen-- look it up) means?

As for the earlier Stalin, the Josef one, a poem by Mandelshtam mentions him pointing at a map with the stem of his tobacco pipe, and on that location 17,000 Uzbeks or whatever are killed or forcibly relocated, etc.

Hitler (the nonsmoker they keep waving in our faces) told Goebbels (the 2-pack-a-day addict-- did you know that?) to erase all the cigarets from newsreel footage of Stalin at the August 23, 1939 signing ceremony (where they made the deal to carve up Poland. Boy it's a good thing they never carved up Turkey). (See John Toland, Adolf Hitler, 1974.)

The Albanian Enver Hoxha reminisced about seeing Stalin break up cigarets and put the tobacco in his pipe. Amusing, eh? The point is, "Stalin" is synonymous with tobacco, tobacco agenda, and tobacco politics.

Now something for researchers: what about the stories of the big tobacco companies slipping money to rap (wrap) stars to include references to "blunts" in their lyrics, so kids would experiment with the mixture of cannabis and tobacco and get hooked on tobacco? Possibly the first thousands have already died from that early 90's recruitment period.

Let's return to the glorious days of yesteryear-- 1943. Sinatra steps out, lights a cigaret, starts crooning "Light up a Lucky-- it's light-up time!"-- and pubescent girls scream. (They were preprogrammed to scream just then.) Boys listening to the radio at home think, if you smoke cigarets, girls will go for you big time!

(A softer 1943 approach: color magazine page with a handsome jock movie star, looking so sincere with a cigaret in his hand, a statement, signed: "Chesterfields are my Cigarette. -- Ronald Reagan." Oh, yes, Reagan himself was a non-smoker. Well, he needed the money for his political ambitions.)

Sorry after all that rant I personally can't decide whether a wrapper named Stalin belongs in the wikipedia. I'll leave it to smart administrators to decide if any of this ever gets in the article. Can wikipedia "change the world" (slogan for fundgivers, Feb. 2008) without adopting a Point of View on some subjects?Tokerdesigner (talk) 22:26, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

p.s. Poor old Hitler! All those newsreels only brought about what he feared most-- New Israel.

None of this will make it into the article, I can assure you. You might want to check out WP:V, WP:OR and WP:NPOV all of which this seriously breaches. You might also like to read a personal favorite of mine WP:BOLLOCKS which seems to spring to mind when reading your thoughts above. Thanks, Gwernol 22:31, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, the bollocks essay was particularly amusing, thanks. Does it bother you that the American media generate pop stars who name themselves after the likes of Stalin (Solzhenitzyn estimates 66,000,000 killings)? What should the poor old wiki do about it?Tokerdesigner (talk) 19:52, 12 March 2008 (UTC)