Talk:Marcus Turner

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Response to Redfarmer, who "dislikes narrow-minded behaviour".

Marcus Turner has huge stature in the New Zealand folk music scene, and is known internationally. Folk singers of the stature of Andy Irvine have performed his stuff—Google "When the boys are on parade".

I have started doing short articles on New Zealand folk musicians. The nature of the world of contemporary music is such, that a good deal of source material must come from the Internet, and needs to be picked up piecemeal. I started with a single sentence to anchor the article so to speak. If I don't save it, I'm in danger of inadvertently losing it. I was checking through New Zealand folk music websites when you put your spoke in. Putting a delete call on an article within minutes of its creation (6 minutes according to the history) is officious. If it's deleted, I will recreate it in fuller form, so why waste your time? I just find it easier to build up piece by piece.

New Zealand folk music is not well represented on the Wikipedia, and it doesn't help if Wikipedia administrators swagger about excercising their little authority like school prefects. Although I've done a number of edits on articles, and more contributions on Talk pages, I am new to the art of creating new articles. We all have our different approaches to these things. It may take me an hour, or it may take me days to get it up to an acceptable level. As I say, I'm new to it. Give people a little space, okay?

I'd also be interested to know what qualifies you to arbitrate on the notability of articles in this subject area. An American arbitrating on anything non-American doesn't inspire me with confidence, although I have found that Americans doing their university education in other countries are nearly always very open to other people and cultures.

Is it all right if I go the toilet now? Koro Neil (talk) 09:39, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand why it's necessary to be uncivil about a speedy deletion note. I never anywhere said I dislike narrow minded behavior, although it is true. I'm not an administrator, and I tagged the article because it did not seem to make an assertion of importance. Redfarmer (talk) 11:54, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Redfarmer

We've now discussed this issue reasonably fully on our Talk pages, but I'll just respond briefly here in public as it were, point by point. My annoyance was at having my article nominated for deletion while I was still in the first stages of writing it. The following tag appears on your User page: [userbox stating "this user dislikes narrow-minded behavior" removed from here by Redfarmer for mutually acceptable reasons. Koro Neil (talk)]

You mean I could mark articles for deletion too? (No I'm not going to start a campaign!). The phrase one of New Zealand's top folk musicians and songwriters fails to be an assertion of importance only on the assumption that New Zealand things are unimportant by definition. This puts you in danger of fulfilling the stereotype that many people have about Americans, in regard to your attitude not only to New Zealand, but to other non-oil-producing countries outside the States as well. ;). You're a bit like Aucklanders in that respect. Of course to assert something and to establish it are two different things. But I had definitely asserted it.

It's 3.15 in the morning here. I'm going to bed. Koro Neil (talk) 14:07, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

If the assertion of importance was missed (it's probably the reason an admin did not delete it before I got back to it), it was a mistake and it's not assuming good faith to throw ad hominem arguments implying that I'm "fulfilling stereotypes" and that I'm doing it because I have a negative attitude towards New Zealand; your comments seem extremely hyper-paranoid and offensive to me as someone who tries to accommodate all cultures. You claim you did assume good faith on your talk page, but your continued uncivil comments above indicate you are not doing so. I've tried to be patient; you could try to understand someone's motives instead of stereotyping a nation of 300 million people as being narrow minded towards your home country. P.S. and yes anyone can mark a page for deletion. Only admins can delete a page though. Redfarmer (talk) 16:46, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, Redfarmer. Perhaps I should have bolded the smiley (does so now). I'd mark it in red if I knew how. If I'd been speaking, I think you'd have found me civil enough, but you can't convey tones of voice in print. And it was well after midnight, and I was probably less alert to nuances than I should have been. New Zealanders often do insult without rancour, and other New Zealanders (and Australians) understand this.

Clues to non-hostile intent on my part were: Lack of swearwords (although kiwis do also swear without rancour), the greeting (Hi), pompous tone (fails to be an assertion of importance only on the assumption...), the phrase puts you in danger of (not actually accusing you), the application on my own part of the word stereotype to the attitude I was describing, the facetious reference to non-oil-producing countries (I don't think I can explain why this is humorous if you don't see it for yourself, just as I doubt an American could explain to me the less comprehensible parts of Dave Letterman's humour), and the reference to a purely provincial prejudice that other New Zealanders have against Aucklanders. I took your use of the informal Nah in one of your responses as an indication that we had moved on to a friendlier footing. Perhaps I relaxed too much as a result.

I think a lot of Americans do fulfil the stereotype. I'm sure the majority of those who travel outside their own country do not. As far as openness towards other cultures goes, American students at the University of Otago here in Dunedin far outstrip their New Zealand Pākehā (white) counterparts. First year Māori studies classes are heavily attended by Americans, many of whom are majoring in completely unrelated scientific subjects. In the main first year Māori culture paper, I would estimate more than 75% of those attending when I was doing it were American.

One of my main concerns here, Redfarmer, is that I have been on your Talk page. Obviously I was there to discuss our disagreement, and a partially contentious tone was inevitable, but I would hate to think you had found me uncivil there. It would be like walking into your house and insulting you in your own living room. Looking at it briefly now, my tone seems (to me) appropriate.

At some future point, assuming the article survives, and with your consent, I'll delete all or most of the above exchange. In the meantime I can assure you that, although my opinion of your action in tagging my article remains as it was, I am not hostile, and I hope that the length I've gone to in explaining this will reassure you.

One small postscript—I've just noticed you've removed the "hates narrow-minded behaviour" user box as "irrelevant". It wasn't irrelevant: I found it on your user page, and quoted it in my first sentence on this page. You replied, I never anywhere said I dislike narrow minded behavior, although it is true. The user box was there in answer to this statement, and I think my explanation is less clear without it. Is it okay if I restore it? Koro Neil (talk) 23:46, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

If I've misinterpreted you, I do apologize. I've been on edge on Wiki the past few days because of the actions of some people completely unrelated to you and, I'm the first to admit, I could have misinterpreted you. As for the userbox, probably shouldn't link to it from here. I don't have so much of an objection to it but I'm sure it probably violates some rule somewhere. I take your point for what you were trying to say. Redfarmer (talk) 01:43, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that. There's obviously something about the nature of userboxes that I'm ignorant of. I'll amend that bit accordingly. Koro Neil (talk) 02:35, 23 February 2008 (UTC)