Talk:Voltaire (musician)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good article Voltaire (musician) was one of the Arts good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Voltaire (musician) article.
Article policies
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as B-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.
Archive
Archives
/Real Name /BRAINS!


Contents

[edit] Copyright

Some of this bio seems to be copied directly from his Projekt Records bio -- is this a copyright violation? 69.9.16.28 18:00, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

It has been edited so much now, it can't be. J Milburn 21:36, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

There's a huge block of text here that's a straight copy-paste from his bio on his web site at voltaire.net... thinking it needs to be deleted and re-written completely. Xinit 21:33, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Which part are you talking about specifically? J Milburn 21:36, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Nearly the whole article suffers from apparent plaigarism. One of the least changed examples; WP: "By piecing together snippets of information from fanzines, he eventually was able to teach himself how to make foam rubber animation models and animate them." Voltaire.net: "Eventually, piecing together snippets of information from fanzines, he was able to teach himself how to make foam rubber animation models and animate them with fluidity and realism." While this and other pieces have been edited, with wording changed and organization redone. There's also a whole lot of "press release speak" left in here, and poor writing... I'm a bit surprised about the GA rating. I'll be copy-editing pretty heavily here in the near future I think. Xinit 00:39, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
I personally didn't think it was ready myself, but it was reviewed, and it was said it should be nominated. It was then awarded the status, and so at least two people think it deserves it. I admit there are a lot of things wrong with it, but I can't bring myself to clean it up as much as it needs. J Milburn 15:12, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Albums

I have written what I deem to be good articles for the albums I know about, but I know nothing of what is apparently the most recent one, Strange as Angels-Cure Tribute. Could someone please sort that article out? J Milburn 18:15, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, and I have put it in a more appropriate place within this article. J Milburn 17:04, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image

When I tried to move the image into the info-box, it was stretched horribly. Why is that? It is fine as it is, I suppose, but it would look a little neater in the box... J Milburn 18:16, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I was able to kludge together a work around to by-pass the forced 200px width of the Infobox. It works, but it should not be a permanent solution. If anyone can track down another image we can use that has a 200px — or bigger — width to replace the existing one, we'll be in better shape. 170.35.224.63 14:15, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Lack of Judaic Reference

I was thought to believe that Voltaire was Jewish. One of the reasons is well, he's covered so many traditional Jewish songs that you can't really dispute that even if he was born Jewish and no longer subscribes to the belief system that it is worth noting. Not one piece in the article mentions anything of the sort. Am I incorrect in my belief, and if so, should there not be a section with a reference clearing this up? If noone can dispute this, i'll hunt down a reference discussing his background and properly add a section about this. --OMG LAZERS 14:29, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I have never heard this, if you can find a reference, add it and link to it on here. J Milburn 16:30, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


He was not born Jewish and considers himself atheist/agnostic. I believe there are Jewish members in his band though and the band members certainly contributed to the Jewish-folk sound of The Devil's Bris and the cover of Haveinu Shalom Aleichem.Kevin143 04:34, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Where did you get that? I was just listening to his Live! CD today and he did talk about religion a little bit. He said, and I quote, "...I'm pro-God and pro-religion..." Last time I checked an atheist doesn't believe in God and an agnostic (which I actually had to look up because I didn't know) isn't sure whether a god(s) exists as they don't believe there is sufficient evidence to support it. So considering that he said he is pro-God, as in, he believes there is a God, he couldn't possibly be an atheist or agnostic. So of course, I would be interested in the source of that information. darkfaelin 3:05, 12 Dec 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Billy and Mandy

"Cartoon Network asked Voltaire to write another song for The Grim Adventures of Billy and Mandy, and it is expected that this new episode will be aired in the near future."

More info, link? -- Kwinston 22:31, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I thought the same, but I still included it in the BRAINS! article. Anyone know anything about this?J Milburn 07:22, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
It's true. Voltaire talked about it in his blog. The new song is called "Land of the Dead," and is already played on the concerts. The B&M episode featuring it will air in the future. -- Henk65 23:04, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Live Album

Blogs are not allowed to be used as sources, and so I have removed the mention of the Live CD. If anyone finds another source, re- add and mention the source here. J Milburn 17:49, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sources

I noticed the article hadn't been touched for a while, so I trawled through it, sourcing everything that is said, and writing up a comprehensive list of all albums Voltaire has ever featured on. I don't reckon it would take much more to get this up to good article standard- is anyone with me, or will I have to try, and fail, myself? J Milburn 03:57, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Some sources referenced are pretty bad... Where's the information that he worked at Parker Brothers on the source #3? Source #4 with the "refusal" to answer what his name is would appear to be an answer "in character" and not a serious refusal. I'm pretty much against linking to a FLASH format source for use as a reference simply as it can make the reference difficult to verify. Source #8 is a poorly done interview that doesn't really go much beyond parroting items on the web site. Actually, with the name properly sourced now, I'm tempted to remove the entire "Name" section with the Bernie Weinstein mention and all the references linked there Xinit 01:02, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Religion

I think the matter of Voltaire's religion is an important one- does anyone have a source? As far as I can see, he may well be atheist, agnostic, Jewish or even deist. However, I am not going to add anything to the article until we have a source. Anyone have one? J Milburn 17:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Good article?

This was recently rated as 'ready for a GA nom'. I think there are a couple of things that need to be done first- I think, most importantly, someone needs to deal with the horrible formatting I used on the references, and make use of Template:Cite web. I am too busy to do it tonight, but I will do it soon. Even once that is done, I don't think it is quite ready for a nomination, but does anyone have any other points to mention? J Milburn 16:39, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I have nominated it now that I have sorted out those hideous citations I put in before I knew about the templates. Even if it fails, I will appreciate the input. J Milburn 20:35, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA passing

I passed this articles GA, based on these review findings:

  1. It is generally well-written and detailed.
  2. It is verifiable through extensive inline citations.
  3. It contains all major aspect of this musician.
  4. I find no problem in NPOV.
  5. The article is fairly stable.
  6. It has an image.

However, although not affecting GA quality, I suggest that some wording of this article might improve in future. Wooyi 23:02, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stage name

The top of the article claims he is indeed named after the philosopher, but the name section says it's of unknown origin. Which is is? 199.126.137.209 23:59, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

He is named after the philosopher, he just refuses to reveal why. I will rephrase to make it clearer. J Milburn 00:03, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

BMI lists him simply as VOLTAIRE. Xinit 22:04, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

BMI? Sorry, I appear to have missed something. J Milburn 22:28, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Atheism

He is categorized as "American Atheist" but nothing in the article mentions that he believes in atheism. If no one is going to provide sourced statement on the article stating he's indeed atheist, the category should be removed from this article. WooyiTalk, Editor review 19:18, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

He couldn't possibly be an atheist so the category should be removed from this article and his name should be removed from the American Atheists article. There are no online sources that I have found but he says specifically in his Live CD that he is pro God and pro religion. I think people have him confused as an atheist because of his song "God Thinks." Darkwriter 14:05, 10 May 2007 (UTC)Darkwriter
I agree. He isn't Jewish, (said so in an interview, here) and his songs would suggest he is not Christian. One user tells me that he emailed Voltaire, and Voltaire described himself as Atheist/Agnostic. In any case, we have no source, so any mention of religion should go. J Milburn 15:38, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] real name

I have not been to this article in months, and i am surprised to see his real name in here! I remember putting in his real name long ago in talk but lacked the sources to cite it. I am all for showing his real name and I applaud the person who found this source! - Lenin

I noticed someone changed his real name but the source cited is his biography? I do not think he would keep it there I thought the previous source was better. - Lenin
No, his real name is cited to this, not his biography. That (and the forum post, which wasn't a good source) are the only places I have come across that mention his real name. J Milburn 15:45, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm not surprised, I suspected someone was going to find the SVA source sooner or later although they had Roy as his name for some reason when I saw it three months ago. Darkwriter 13:31, 10 May 2007 (UTC)Darkwriter
I don't feel comfortable enough fiddling with the citing and such, but in the back of Deady: Big in Japan he implies heavily that his name is simply Aurelio Hernández, and the Voltaire is indeed made up, as he says he considered going by "Aurelio Hernández" then thought he didn't want to destroy years of name building around "Voltaire" so he made it Aurelio Voltaire Hernández. I don't have enough experience with citing to run around changing existing citations, and don't want to just ruin the work of someone who knew, code-wise, what they were doing, so, take from this what you will...if someone wants specifics (ISBN etc) I can provide that. I could go from a template, but it's a massive change for an inexperienced person like myself, I feel. 71.111.229.51 07:29, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unto Ashes?

I don't see any reason why Voltaire should be associated with Unto Ashes. Someone should either explain the connection (if any) or remove Unto Ashes from the page.

He has collaborated with them on certain songs. See the extended discography of his songs on compilation albums. J Milburn 20:43, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A good article review is needed here

Uhhh... Sorry. I was passing through doing Good Article review and inventory and... well... um.... started looking at stuff. I've developed the distinct impression that the GA award was a bit premature here. I'm blowing the delist whistle for three reasons: possible copy violations from other web sites, a need for some basic copyediting, and referencing issues. Details follow, along with possible courses of action:

  • It has been about three months and change since Xinit raised some copy violation concerns. I've just taken a spin through the Biography section at Voltaire's flash animation, and the text at Projekt Records, and the similarity in prose is still too close for my comfort. I do see some text rearrangement that moves the Wikipedia prose away from the marketing hyperbole of the source web sites, but distinct passages in the Wikipedia article still echo those from the web sources and engender the feel of a copy violation. (Xinit's example is still pertinent, for example).
Perhaps if this was a Start or a B article, with editors using such borrowed prose blocks as placeholders in preparation for a fresh re-write, then I would not be so uncomfortable. But this article is wearing the Good Article marque; its quality should be moving to the 'A' level, where the article might directly quote sources in places, citing references, but otherwise the prose is distinct, if not distinctive writing. Here, for the somewhat lifted material, I would either revert back to direct quotes, citing the source in references, or undertake a fresh rewrite so that the wording of the Wikipedia article clearly stands apart from its supporting sources and is not something of an echo of them.
  • 'To better satify criteria 1a, "the prose is clear and the grammar is correct..." I feel a copyedit is in order; I've drawn a few examples from version 147715414, as edited by 68.36.223.4 (Talk) 15:59, 28 July 2007; the list is not exhaustive, but illustrates some cases where my head parsed words in funny ways, along with some pointers that I think will help:
    • 'Voltaire chose his pseudonym as he claims his namesake "...' As is what Tony calls a backward causal link, 'backward' because the second thing in the link gives rise to the first. There are two: As implies the second thing simultaneously gives rise to the first: Voltaire is renaming himself even as he claims that his namesake is making a pronouncement. Simultaneous causuality is not what we want: The French satirist spoke many decades ago. Years later, a New York artist took on the pseudonym 'Voltaire.' We want the second backward causal link, because. It conveys that the second thing gives rise to the first after a passage of time: 'Ice formed because the water was freezing.' 'Voltaire chose his pseudonym because his namesake: "saw through the hypocrisies of humanity and commented on them through satire..."'
    • 'It wasn't until he was an adult that he moved to New York...' Does the pronoun 'It' represent another noun in this sentence? I believe this pronoun represents the moment in time he became an adult and moved to New York. But why use the pronoun at all? 'As an adult he moved to New York,' conveys the same information without demarking a transition moment with an excess pronoun. There are a few other 'It was...' constructs throughout the prose; I believe in each case the excess pronoun can be purged, giving way to simpler, more direct sentences.
    • '...a word often used to mean many things by the label themselves' Agreement (number): 'label' is singular, 'themselves' is plural pronoun that is a proxy for 'label.' This proxy should also be singular, 'itself,' because there is only one 'label'.
    • 'As an adult, Voltaire formed a band which included a violin, a cello, drums, and himself as the vocalist and the acoustic guitar player.' These three instruments played themselves? Yes, these are accepted spoken figures of speech among musicians, but an encyclopedia is constrained from vernacular prose. His band included a violinist, a cellist, and a drummer.
    • 'His band rarely features in live acts...' The verb 'features' is a bit of vernacular from the entertainment industry, but in standard usage it is not an apt verb: 'his band rarely performs in live acts...' is closer to standard usage.
I would recommend Tony's How to satisfy Criterion 1a for general pointers on improving prose. If you are patient, you can request copy editing help at League of Copyeditors GAC-GA/R queues. This request should go in after you perform any rewrite that I've suggested, as a polishing step.
  • There are criteria 2 issues, concerning adequate referencing. There seem to be a few cases where the underlying references aren't really backing up assertions made in the article:
    • 'Although it has a sound reminiscent of European folk music,[3] many people claim it to be darkwave; perhaps as this is a label often given to many other artists from Projekt Records, and a word often used to mean many things by the label themselves.[9]' Well, who are these people? Perhaps reference '9' will expand on who these people are, who catalog Voltaire's music as being in the 'darkwave' genre. No... the link only gives a compendium of releases; there is no further qualification concerning Voltaire and the darkwave genre; there are no insights on who these people might be.
    • Reference 12 has browned out: [12]. Dracon Con no longer has a resource '1328' which has left three passages in the article without support. Web sites are primarily self-published sources; their content is not verified and one cannot rely on the resource always being available for use by the encyclopedia.
    • There are many references to the www.projekt.com domain, also a self-published source. Should Voltaire choose to end his business relationship with his record label, can we expect that these resources will remain available to Wikipedia?

With copy violation problems, a need for copyediting, and some disappearing and unsupportive references it saddens me to report that, I think, we are at step two and three of the review and delisting process, where I'm the grumpy curmudgeon who thinks the article should be delisted.

  • Step two is directed at me: in a nutshell: fix it yourself To a certain extent I can, but I'm not much of an expert in Voltaire's world or life, so I would not be much use in finding new references or furnishing original prose to avoid the appearance of copyright violations. I can certainly help in copyediting, and, as is often advised, copyeditors should not be the original writers of prose. They are the ones who come with fresh, critical eyes and who notice things that have become invisible to the article writers through familiarity. If you can't stand my copyediting approach, there is the WikiProject League of Copyeditors, as noted above.
  • Step three is directed at you: You review the message I leave concerning delisting reasons and decide whether it is worth your time to go through steps four and five, or just ask for a complete review and get maybe a second, third, fourth or fifth independent opinions.

Step four is where a period of time passes. How much time? I don't know for sure, but I would propose that the typical 'On Hold' period of the original review process is about right: a week or ten days perhaps. All of you (and perhaps me, as copy editor) work on redressing issues.

Step five is the decision point: the issues I've raised are dealt with to our mutual satisfaction, and the pretty green trinket remains, or we're not mutually satisfied; I remain a curmudgeon, and the trinket goes away in a delisting.

There is, of course, the Good Article Review, the alternate course of action. You may find my objections too harsh and unreasonable, that I'm confusing the 'decent,' 'satisfactory' goals of a 'Good Article' marque with the near perfection of a 'Featured Article,' that I'm picky beyond reasonable belief, that I've got something out for the lot of you, that I'm unfair, that I can't be trusted; that I'm a beast. That's alright. To protect you from my unreasonableness, there is the good article review process, the process to the right of the delisting one, where we can post this article, the issues I've raised, along with the counter-issues you've raised about my delisting review, and a whole 'nother set of eyes looks at this article. They may agree with you, agree with me, split their decision, or go out and find a whole new can of worms. That review takes, I guess, about a week to go through.

A closing remark; in my humble opinion, I think we Good Article reviewers owe you an apology. I think your first reviewer Wooyi didn't look at the article as closely as some other reviewers might. In times past, he's worked pretty hard on Wikipedia and has gained the respect of a number of editors. However, the Good Article review process was not a major area of his activity; he only did one other review besides this article, On the other hand, Wooyi may very well be of the philosophy of not letting the best stand in the way of the good, and that good article reviewers shouldn't be as picky, picky, picky as feature article reviewers. I do come from another camp, however, where I think that a critical review is the most important product that a Good Article reviewer returns to a community of article editors. If we just say, 'great job guys, here's a pretty green cross' you don't get a sense of where your article is, in terms of quality, and can't be sure if the green cross means anything: it becomes a trinket. I think, in this case, a little more critical review would have been more useful to you and it is what we as Good Article reviewers should have delivered. Mea culpa. Sorry we didn't deliver.

That's it for now; drop any bon mots or other points of view on my talk page, or drop notes here. If I don't hear from you, I'll assume you folks are busy at step four and will check in about a week or ten days from now to take stock with regard to step five. Alternatively, we can list this at the Review board. Take care. Gosgood 00:09, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Right, I have read through what you have said (twice), and looked at the article, and this article needs, in terms of the prose, a fullscale rewrite, as well as referencing some more third party sources. Right now, I am not willing to do that rewrite, and I agree that it should be taken down to a B class (I think it is too well sourced and too long for a start class though). I will no doubt come back to this article at a later date, and perform the needed rewrite, but now is not that time. Should anyone else want to fix the article, I am happy to help out, but I don't want to be the driving force. J Milburn 11:11, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA delisted

The article has been delisted as it doesn't currently fulfil the GA criteria. The lead doesn't provide an adequate summary of the article, the citation formatting is inconsistent and there are too many one line paragraphs. Epbr123 21:12, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Where is the discussion? No one can unilaterally delist an article without consensus. Doing so without consultation of others would be vandalism. WooyiTalk to me? 21:15, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Comments have sat above for ages without anyone doing anything about the article. Epbr123 is effectively delisting in place of Gosgood. I think it should be delisted, Gosgood did/does, and evidently Epbr123 does. Do you think this constitutes a good article? J Milburn 21:17, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Frankly, I don't know. I was the one who reviewed it and let it passed GA. But it was so long ago and I cannot remember circumstances pertaining to this article back then, and what has been changed since then. I may look into it later. WooyiTalk to me? 21:19, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
I think you were a little lenient with it. Of course, it was my mistake for nominating before it was ready. I guess this was the first article I really worked on- no one can expect to get it right first time. I will eventually go back and fix it up, just... not yet. J Milburn 21:27, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Confusion with ThouShatNot

Should reference be made to how he is credited as the artist behind the ThouShaltNot song "If I only Were a goth" on many P2P sites? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.213.8.103 (talk) 12:32, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Only if a reliable source has ever mentioned it, which I doubt. J Milburn (talk) 16:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)