Talk:Stuart Davis (musician)

This article was nominated for deletion on 12 July 2008. The result of the discussion was keep.

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
	This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians.

Alternative views Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative viewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative viewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative viewsAlternative views
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Genre choice

I reverted Cburnett's change of "contemporary American musician" to "folk American musician" for a few reasons. First, contemporary means "still alive" in addition to a type of music. Second, Stuart's music is no longer anything like folk. Go listen to "Doppelganger Body Donor" and tell me he's folk. His music now contains elements of folk, punk, rock, pop, haiku, prog rock, etc. Calling him a folk musician is simply untrue. --goethean 14:47, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I changed it back to folk music (you're summary didn't explain why this part was changed) before reading this. Perhaps the best choice here is instead of pigeon holing him into a genre, leave off the genre and say his music "contains elements of folk, punk, rock, pop, haiku, prog rock, etc". How bout that? Cburnett 17:34, May 4, 2005 (UTC)

great idea. --goethean 17:41, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mmmmm, much better. Cburnett 17:45, May 4, 2005 (UTC)

grammar

Which is better:

"He has been performing throughout the United States and Europe for over a decade."

Or:

"He has performed throughout the United States and Europe for over a decade."

--goethean 18:28, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The latter makes it sound like he's dead. Like he *has* performed and won't do it anymore. Whereas "been performing" sounds more like it's contual, still happening, and still plans on doing it. Cburnett 18:48, May 4, 2005 (UTC)

"Wizards"

I pulled wizards from the list of "cool good things Stuart's lyrics contain" because including wizards on the list displays a profound lack of understanding of any of the songs in which he mentions wizards. "She said some ugly wizard/stumbled into her room/dropped his gown/waved his wand around/and brought some bruises into bloom" is hardly the sort of Gandalf-like figure that including "wizards" on that list implies.

Photograph

I am not familiar enough with wiki to replace the photograph of Stuart Davis, but I'd love to see a better portrait if anyone has one. Or perhaps wiki would allow one of the official promo photos from the artist's website (since those pics are made available for exactly this sort of function)?

Discography

Should the "Notable Works" section be reformatted in the typical "Discography" layout that other musician's entries use? The descriptions are valuable and should be preserved, but, the format of the section seems to be unusual.

Short Film Starring Stuart

I don't have a solid understanding of what would qualify to add under Stuart's TV, Video, and Other Media, but perhaps a short film he recently starred in might. I also didn't want to post it because it was a film I directed and wrote. However, it was for a film festival in Boulder and the film won an award, placed in the top ten, and was screened at Boulder Theater. The film is titled, "Love's Invitation", in which Stuart plays the lead role. Currently it is listed on the festivals home page The Shoot Out 24 Hour Filmmaking Festival Boulder and the video can be seen here "Love's Invitation". Anyways, just wanted to through this in the discussion in case it was relevant. If not, no worries. --Ryanoelke (talk) 03:50, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Needs additional citations for verification

I removed the reams of completely unsourced ecstatic promotional material here about the wonders and genius of Stuart Davis. This is not the place for that stuff, folks. Find sources, and the page can be expanded. Until then, leave it to sourced material.Tao2911 (talk) 16:41, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You blanked 80% of the article. That's not editing, that's vandalism. Please don't do that. — goethean ॐ 18:27, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP guidelines state that if we find un-sourced, biased promotional material we are to actively and aggressively act to remove it. I worked on this page for hours, and reduced it to what could be verified and sourced, even adding links and sources, in keeping with figure's stature and available material. Of which there isn't much beyond subjects own websites. I didn't "blank" content. I removed all your gushing unsourced fan boy prose, which was all simply original research and personal opinion without one single citation. It all is clearly meant to lend legitimacy to this guy, who has according to the unsourced figure cited in the article itself (causing me to think the estimate generous) sold 40,000 records in 15 years. Goethean - are YOU actually Stuart Davis? You do stalk the Ken Wilber page...Tao2911 (talk) 22:34, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, and I'm Adi Da too, to answer your next stupid question. Please stop blanking the page. — goethean ॐ 00:31, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Restored selected factual information, sourced this time from legitimate news articles and actual credit rolls of linked programs. Any deletion of this now-referenced material will support the opinion (one I agree with) that someone has disdain for this artist which caused the trimming of it to well-below that presented for many other music & television artists.(Willbueche (talk) 21:07, 21 May 2012 (UTC))[reply]

R3t2om, you've likely gone too far with the 2012-07-12 expansion. Without references on every sentence, Tao2911 is just going to wipe out the page again. Willbueche (talk) 20:06, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

R3t2om, I've made a light pass through the article, made a few minor alterations, but it still needs to sound less like original research.Willbueche (talk) 21:11, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would have to agree; parts of this read more like an informal biography with some "original research" than an encyclopedia article. For example, at one point it states (about the tracks on the Stuart Davis album Kid Mystic), "...instead of playing as simply a collection of songs, it is more a unitive work". The wording of this sentence aside (which could use serious improvement, I think), it seems to be a mere opinion of whoever wrote it. I'm not saying I disagree (I do agree, actually), but it should be removed unless there is a source (e.g., Davis himself, or a reviewer). There are several other tidbits like this as well. I believe the Folk Beginnings and Spiritual Directions sections (which may need to be renamed and put into one section) need to be pared down quite a bit, or else someone like Tao2911 will (justifiably) remove much of the content. Adammanifold (talk) 05:19, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re: I believe the Folk Beginnings and Spiritual Directions sections (which may need to be renamed and put into one section) need to be pared down quite a bit.

Agreed; I've merged them into Musical career which is what most artist pages call this section. I pared down some of the unsourced opinion in the initial paragraphs of the Musical career section too, but it still needs more references. 206.124.30.34 (talk) 20:45, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stuart Davis entry currently has 37 references. John Tesh, as a point of comparison, has 8 references. Why then has Tao2911 marked this article as needing "additional citations for verification"? That question is disconcerting considering Tao2911 also falsely marked this article with the concern that "A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject". In short, is there a way to have Tao2911's work reviewed by a mediator? I feel the presence of the false claim at the top of the page detracts from the entry. 206.124.30.34 (talk) 20:40, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject.

This claim is false. 206.124.30.34 (talk) 20:52, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

it's not a true false claim. It appears to be true to me. You can only speak for yourself. Make a case to have the tag removed if that's what you want.Tao2911 (talk) 02:29, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad to see that the Wikipedia lords have removed the tag from the header of the page, without request to "prove a negative" being fulfilled. For the record, I'm not Stuart Davis either.206.124.30.34 (talk) 21:20, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Stuart Davis (musician). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:39, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]