Talk:Underground hip hop

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Rewrite or delete it 2 Useful 3 Pharcyde 4 Replacing the article with a quotation 5 Rewrite

[edit] Rewrite or delete it

This is non usefull information, is there really nobody who can write a good underground rap page?

[edit] Useful

This article clearly provides useful information regarding the relationship between underground, alternative and indie hip hop. Only one person seems to have a problem with it. Please difer to the majority and stop erasing this info. Thanks. House of Scandal 14:13, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Reverted. It's original research, and I don't need to justify the removal of original research.--Urthogie 14:42, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll continue to revert until you explain why it's not original research.--Urthogie 15:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

You've broken the 3 Revert rule. Please revert yourself before I report you for this. I'll give you an hour.--Urthogie 15:14, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Count the reverts. Who has broken it? House of Scandal 15:54, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

You, for bringing a single version back 3 times within 24 hours.[1][2][3].--Urthogie 16:17, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

No reply..should I just report you for it? I'll give you another 30 minutes.--Urthogie 17:09, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pharcyde

Pharcyde are signed to Delicious Vinyl Records, which is an independent record label, not a major one as a user has stated. --72.199.158.117 05:46, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

If tone loc was signed to it how could it not be major?--Urthogie 19:07, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

well Dilated Peoples are signed to Capitol, that doesn't make them any less underground.--72.199.158.117 15:13, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes it does, I'm removing them. Neither is underground. By the way, please move this discussion to List of underground hip hop musicians.--Urthogie 16:02, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Replacing the article with a quotation

This needs to stop. Aside from the fact that an article in Wikipedia style is being replaced by one that isn't, it's not acceptable to have an article that consists almost solely of one quotation from another Website. If your claim is that nothing can be said here, then ask for the article to be deleted. If your claim is that the present article is inaccurate, then improve it (with citations); you might use the site from which you're quoting. Don't, though, just take the lazy way out, and do no more than cop-y what they say. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 09:33, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Replacing original research (0 sources) with 1 source, is what you're supposed to do at Wikipedia. The citation needed tag is for verifiable statements, not statements that are unverifiable, because they make broad claims about a murky genre.--Urthogie 19:24, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

You didn't provide one source; you replaced everything with one quotation. Giving sources for material does not mean replacing the material with quotations. You seem not to understand the notion of verifiability; it doesn't matter how broad the claims, or how murky the genre — what counts is that "any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source". --Mel Etitis (Talk) 20:58, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to add such a source, as I am yet to find one. The current text contradicts allmusic, and on top of that it is blatantly false in what it says. Jedi Mind Tricks talks about killing gay people-- how does that represent the intellectual element of underground hip hop? Allmusic is spot on in pointing out that it includes both the more intellectual as well as the too hardcore. The text you replaced the quote with blatantly contradicts this with falsehoods. Also, the very existence of Alternative hip hop is a tricky question, let alone whether it has subgenres. All of this requires sources, and I'm going to remove the most blatantly false and unverifiable parts of it.-Urthogie 21:13, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you edit it according to the material at Allmusic? Why is it either the quotation or nothing? --Mel Etitis (Talk) 21:51, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I already provided them, scroll up.--Urthogie 00:08, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll make a lead.--Urthogie 01:55, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Although better than what you've been doing, it's still little more than a quotation pretending to be an article. I've rewritten it, as you seem unprepared to do so. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 14:05, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Cool.--Urthogie 14:14, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

The "inventive" type written in that sentence is not "hardcore" at all. Do you even know what hardcore hip hop is?--Urthogie 15:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

No idea, don't care; I prefer music. The point here, though, is that I took the information from the paragraph that you kept replacing the article with. Why do you now find it unacceptable? --Mel Etitis (Talk) 22:25, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah, my mistake. Can we remove the hardcore claim, because I think that leads to another vague genre being introduced here.--Urthogie 22:35, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

But if the genres are vague, then shouldn't the article reflect that (in accordance with the source)? The article shouldn't impose an artificial specificity (either positively by claiming it, or negatively by omitting mention to vagueness). --Mel Etitis (Talk) 08:33, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Well it's original research to just out and say that "hardcore hip hop" is itself a vague classification, which is why I suggest we skirt the issue by simply removing the claim about the "hardcore" style.--Urthogie 11:24, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

It's in the source; it's original research to omit it on the basis that (you say that) it's vague. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 21:07, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Original research is a prerequisite for inclusion, not a requirement to include anything that's not original research.--Urthogie 21:28, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, either something went wrong with that sense, or you're deeply mistaken; original research is certainly not a prerequisite for inclusion.

In any case, the point here is that you insisted for a long time on replacing the entire article with a quotation; now that I've added the information from the quotation, you're insisting that some of it must be removed because you disagree with the quotation. Forgive me if this looks puzzling to me. If you have a source that backs up your disagreement with the quotation, then something can be done; otherwise, it's just your opinion against the source, and in Wikipedia the source always wins. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 08:12, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why it's confusing. There's a difference between citing a source and claiming what it says as verified fact. When part of what it says is controversial to editors of the page, the policy is usually to cite them saying it rather than just say it as fact.--Urthogie 13:19, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

"Verified" just means "having a verifiable source"; it's therefore impossible for something to have a verifiable source and not to be verified. I suspect that you're confusing "verified" with "true". We can't guarantee truth; our criterion is only verifiablity. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 21:41, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm not confusing the two. I agree that the thing we're discussing is verified. My point was that verification and NOR are requirements of something, but not a requirement to have it.--Urthogie 13:15, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

But you need a reason to remove information; if the source includes it, what are the grounds for picking and choosing? --Mel Etitis (Talk) 23:34, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Consensus among editors, of course. And I must ask, do you have any reason to keep it? The policies dno't require that we do, although they allow it it's up to you and me if we choose to include a certain part of the source.--Urthogie 18:51, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I know of no grounds for omitting part of it. If there are grounds, can you not supply sources? --Mel Etitis (Talk) 19:18, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rewrite

I've started a total rewrite of this article; wikipedia has a ton of information about underground hip hop, but its unorganized and not consistently referenced or centralized. Feel free to edit or delete what I've posted, so long as something more relevant goes up in it's place. Also, more articles need to link to this one, a huge amount of articles use the term "independent hip hop" or "underground hip hop" with separate links to the "independent record label" page and the "hip hop music" page. If we could get this article up to standards it would be great. Henrythefool 19:22, 31 October 2007 (UTC)