From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Conflict of Interest

I have added a {{ coi}} tag as the main contributor to this article has claimed on various occasions to be either the subject or someone associated with him --  But| seriously| folks  04:47, 3 October 2007 (UTC) reply

I have removed the {{ coi}} tag, as this article has been thoroughly edited and scrutinized to be objective and factual. Permission has been cleared for all text and images. I am a long-time Wikipedia contributor and continue to respectfully adhere to the rules. The above contributor added a few "citation needed" notifications in the body of the text, which I have addressed and elaborated on, as suggested. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robertbanks ( talk • contribs) 07:17, 3 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Please do not remove the coi tag. Readers are entitled to know that most of the edits to this article were either made by the subject or someone associated with him. It still reads like a promo piece in parts, by the way. --  But| seriously| folks  08:13, 3 October 2007 (UTC) reply

The material is factual. We have addressed your 'citation needed' notations, and the text was written by a journalist with no connection with the subject. We simply supply the images and try to fix vandalism and address contributors' concerns. Please remove the tag. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robertbanks ( talk • contribs) 08:24, 3 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Actually, you haven't addressed the 'citation needed' tags. You removed them without providing citations. The article is sorely lacking in citations, giving the appearance of being largely original research. Certainly, you had a hand in some of the more significant claims (such as placing the Bongos at the forefront of the 80's college rock scene), and I think readers are entitled to know that. --  But| seriously| folks  08:52, 3 October 2007 (UTC) reply

We have addressed each tag (corporate sponsors, naming publications, etc.) that you cited before removing your tags. Any suggestion on how to make these citations clearer would be appreciated. The Bongos were absolutely at the forefront of the 80's college rock scene - chronologically, and in terms of influence, and this can be confirmed by any other major 'college rock' band or legitimate journalist of that period, and certainly in the books "CMJ: THE FIRST DECADE" and "ROLLING STONE'S ALT-ROCK-A-RAMA," both listed as sources. Robertbanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robertbanks ( talk • contribs) 17:13, 3 October 2007 (UTC) reply

The best way to make those citations clearer would be to add inline citations to the article. This will generate footnotes, and people won't be left wondering which of the sources listed at the bottom actually backup your factual assertions. More info at WP:FOOT. If you could do this, it would be a major improvement to the article. --  But| seriously| folks  04:45, 4 October 2007 (UTC) reply
You know, I just remembered I have a copy of Alt-Rock-A-Rama. I pulled it out and it certainly does not support your position. To the contrary, the Bongos are only mentioned once in the nearly 500 pages, in one single list of one editor's picks for the Top 10 Postpunk Power Pop Albums, along with records by The Loud Family, The Plimsouls, Shoes and 20/20. Obviously, the other bands were not at the forefront of anything (except for Shoes and power pop). By comparison, the book includes a 6 page history of the dB's by Peter Holsapple (and mentions the band on three other pages). There are three articles devoted to R.E.M. and about a dozen other mentions. Two articles and 10 other refs on the Replacements. The B-52's have 8 references. Pylon even has 3. All of which tends to back up my position that you have exaggerated the Bongos role in the college rock movement, suggesting that you are pushing a POV here. --  But| seriously| folks  08:17, 10 October 2007 (UTC) reply

I'm not sure what Butseriouslyfolks is talking about. The Barone article barely talks about the Bongos' impact on college rock, which I, and many, believe was substantial. I wonder who really has a conflict of interest issue here. The article seems remarkably balanced and fair to me. I strongly suggest removing the COI tag. --Poptopics—Preceding unsigned comment added by Poptopics ( talk • contribs) 04:14, 11 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Take a look at this version. I have no conflict. I don't know Richard. I think the Bongos first record is decent, but I don't think that triggers WP:COI! --  But| seriously| folks  20:18, 11 October 2007 (UTC) reply

I do not find even the previous version particularly troublesome. But certainly, the latest revision is unusually balanced. I wasn't aware that Wikipedia was meant to be a forum for comparative rock criticism. This artlcie is factual and substantiated, and I would again strongly suggest that the COI tag be removed. -- poptopics —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 21:34, 11 October 2007 (UTC) reply

With all of four edits under your belt, all on the same subject, I wouldn't presume anything about your awareness of Wikipedia. In any case, readers are entitled to know when the majority of edits to an article have been made by the subject's management, so they can determination for themselves whether the article is slanted. The COI tag doesn't hurt anybody. (Unless of course the spot is being blown up on one's own POV pushing . . .) --  But| seriously| folks  01:04, 12 October 2007 (UTC) reply

In looking over the article it seems absolutely balanced. It appears that some of the editors, on the other hand, have a personal agenda AGAINST the subject, nearly to the point of vandalism. I strongly recommend third party mediation here. And, I agree with the suggestion above that the COI tag should be removed. Cryogenia 05:32, 22 October 2007 (UTC)cryogenia reply

Thanks. I have issued a request for third opinion to remove the {{ coi}} tag from this page, and submitted a dispute form. I hope someone can jump in and help, and this can be resolved, as it seems so unfair. I am a student with mid-terms this week, and will not be able to work on this right now. Poptopics 18:50, 22 October 2007 (UTC)poptopics reply
Guys, really, you doth protest a bit much. The article is certainly more balanced than it was a few weeks ago, when it read like a press release from Bongos Central w/quotes shamelessly copped from other writers like Dawn Eden w/o attribution. But the task of fashioning a more credible piece out of what was here comes with no thanks to the people (or person) whose sole wikipedia pursuits seem to be pumping up Barone-related articles. Disclosure: I bought the Bongos EP on Fetish import and later the Drums album when they came out and loved those records. I just think this article was over the top in its praise and ultimately a disservice to Barone as well as the Bongos' memory. Cloonmore 01:24, 23 October 2007 (UTC) reply
Regardless of how this page evolved, the article as it now stands bears little (or no) resemblance to its predecesor. The COI tag here is a disservice to Wikipedia users, becuase it implies an impropriety which does not exist. While I'm sure all Wikipedia users are thankful for user Cloonmore's contributions to this and other pages, if there are no further specific complaints, I would like to remove the tag. Cryogenia —Preceding comment was added at 06:53, 24 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Third Opinion

It's worth reading Who Writes Wikipedia to get a realistic grip on who actually writes Wikipedia. It appears to be the same sort of people who have written this article - non Wikipedia experts who have an interest in a topic. The more experienced Wikipedia editors then come along and tidy up the articles to ensure they comply with the expectations of Wikipedia. That is what is happening here. Everyone involved is doing the right thing, but there is now some conflict as the less experienced editors encounter some of the complex expectations of Wikipedia. This is all quite normal - and from such conflict articles tend to emerge stronger. I have looked over the article and it is progressing nicely, though I would agree that there has tended to be a slight bias in the selection of material from the sources, and the use of words. For example: Robert Palmer praised Barone as a "gifted pop-rock tunesmith," from this section of the source: They failed to achieve major commercial success, and they lost some of their original fans in the process. But Mr. Barone was always a gifted pop-rock tunesmith, and at the Bottom Line, performing songs from his substantial new solo album along with earlier Bongos material, he reaffirmed his gift. gives a slightly different interpretation from that intended. Our language needs to be neutral at all times. For example, a different way of putting it would be: Even though Barone's first band were not commercially succesful, it has been noted by Robert Palmer that he has an ability as a songwriter. And then give the source. SilkTork * SilkyTalk 09:43, 25 October 2007 (UTC) reply

I feel that it is entirely appropriate that some attention is drawn to the need for the article to be cleaned up. A main focus of the clean up would be to pay attention to the bias in the selection of material and the use of language. There are a number of tags that could be used, {{ Autobiography}}, {{ Magazine}}, {{ Fansite}}, {{ cleanup}}, {{ review}}, {{ POV}}, etc. The main point is that attention should be drawn to the article so that people - experienced editors, current contributors, readers, etc - can see that there is an issue here, and that issue needs to be addressed. The current tag is as suitable as any other, and does have the advantage of being quite specific. There is no suggestion in the tag that the article is a bad article, nor that the contributors have done anything wrong, nor that the article should be deleted. The tag is simply pointing out the situation as it stands. The focus now should be on cleaning up the article and making the language a bit more neutral. SilkTork * SilkyTalk 10:06, 25 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Thank you for your constuctive suggestions. I have re-written the article with all your recommendations in mind. Poptopics 17:57, 28 October 2007 (UTC)poptopics reply

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Richard Barone/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Excellent page. Balanced, concise, and lean, with appropriate references and links. I suggest removing COI tag, and 'locking' the page to prevent further tampering and/or vandalism.

Last edited at 04:19, 11 October 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 04:19, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

To be clear, that comment was left by the person most likely to be a COI concern. Articles do not get "locked" like that. The article in its current state is far from lean. -- Nat Gertler ( talk) 20:54, 7 October 2018 (UTC) reply

tags

I have placed (and after someone deleted, restored) two tags on this page:

  • A BLP Sources tag, as large sections of this are still without sources
  • An Overly Detailed tag, as it goes more into every in and out of his career than it should

Those tags should not be removed until the article is substantially improved. -- Nat Gertler ( talk) 12:53, 3 October 2018 (UTC) reply

External links

Per WP:ELMINOFFICIAL, "More than one official link should be provided only when the additional links provide the reader with significant unique content and are not prominently linked from other official websites." As links to Barone's social media are on the front page of his official website, only the official website gets included. -- Nat Gertler ( talk) 20:51, 7 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Richard_Barone&oldid=1199544616"