Talk:Groupie/Archive 1

minor edit[edit]

Hello, i changed the Houston Rocket bit at the start to something more generic - yeah i know, boring... but i'm still not sure what sport has to do with groupyism? anyway, just stumbling Boomshanka (talk) 14:52, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed rewrite[edit]

I would like to change this article and propose a rewrite with better reference and citations. The conclusions regarding groupies in graf #2 of Types of Groupies and in graf #2 of Motives of Groupies have no citations or references to back them up. However there is ample book, newspaper, and magazine examples of the opposite.

There was also an excellent academic book published 2 years ago that offers some of the only hard analyses of groupies available. Numerous current memoirs exist or are imminent and these too provide clearer understanding of a complex subculture. The old Rolling Stone articles on groupies plus the book Groupies and Other Girls are good examples of early documentation - none is used or cited in the current article.

I'm interested in discussion on the topic.

Fairblonde 23:27, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

how do i make this show up correctly?[edit]

= = See also = =

[ [ Category : Groupies | List of Groupies ] ]

---i would like it to show up under the article itself, not very far below with the other "categories"

thanks! :)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.12.116.9 (talk • contribs)

OK, it's easy. You can add the text [[:Category:Groupies|List of Groupies]] and it will produce "List of Groupies". The trick you are asking for is in the leading colon - it converts the categorization into ordinary link.

BTW, same applies to inter-wikies: [[:de:Groupie]] will give you de:Groupie in the text instead of the lower left pane. You could have used the "nowiki"-tags instead of spaces in you question above as in my examples. -- Goldie (tell me) 22:13, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Songs about groupies[edit]

I would add "Boys in the Band" by The Libertines, I don't know what you think about that.

I would add Zappa with Joe s Garage as probably the ultimate groupie album. Quote: Home is where the heart is. The boys like leather, they like rubber too. She is the girl that would do anyting, I said anything, for fifty bucks. etc.

 Why were the list of "groupie names" deleted? Those were a crack up!

"Imaginary world"[edit]

Me either! In fact, there's a lot of pompous statements that I just can't get to right now but will soon. "Imaginary world" is one but the one that is so gawdawfully off base is the statement about "regardless of the fact that the objects of their obsession may already be married, have children, or otherwise already in a committed relationship." Fairblonde 01:31, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see what is imaginary about the situation depicted. I'd improve the wording if I knew how to do so in a way that would be generally acceptable.

Cleanup tag added[edit]

Article reads more as a list of examples rather than an actual encyclopedic article.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 17:47, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After a week, why did you remove the following from the first paragraph of the article. Robert Lewis, at Arts & Opinion, argues that the groupie phenomenon dates back to . . . . . . then I left this link: http://www.artsandopinion.com/2003_v2_n4/lewis-5.htm Artsandopinion (talk) 16:45, 15 January 2008 (UTC)Robert Lewis[reply]

This rather prominent link to a non-notable author's basically uninformative opinion piece is not justifiable per either common sense or Wikipedia's external link policy. Such linkage does not help build an encyclopedia; it just wastes readers' time. / edg ☺ ☭ 18:22, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I notice, Edgarde, that you are copy/pasting the same negative comments on all of my article links. What makes you an authority on the subject of envy, or groupies, or Martin Heidegger? For your information, Pamela des Barres, mentioned in your main text as well as REFERENCE section, one of the world's most famous groupies, quotes me at length, pages 8 & 9 in the introduction of her latest book Let's Spend the Night Together. She regards me as an authority, but you don't. She's got it wrong; you've got it right. I don't think you're being fair or objective. Is there a mechanism that will allow me to have all of your negative decisions reviewed? Thanking you in advance for this small consideration. 19:08, 15 January 2008 (UTC)Robert Lewis

I don't need to be an authority on groupies to determine this link is not suitable. The mechanism you want is called dispute resolution. If you are in a hurry to prove something, Wikipedia:Third opinion would be your best bet. / edg ☺ ☭ 19:14, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll thank you for the above information but you haven't answered my questions. Who edits this page? Why are you, a user, allowed to edit it? And why does the anthropological explanation (the only one offered, I might add) of the groupie phenomenon make the article usuitable, but quotable for P. des Barres? Artsandopinion (talk) 20:20, 15 January 2008 (UTC)Robert Lewis[reply]

I edit this page. So do you. We are allowed to edit this page because the Wikipedia community encourages us to do so.

Your opinion that Groupies are demonstrating a primitive behavior that makes women submit to dominant men needs a reliable source, at the very least to demonstrate this idea is notable.

/ edg ☺ ☭ 20:34, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pamerla des Barres, author of Let's Spend the Night Together, referenced on several occasions in your article, is the reliable source. Contact her, as she contacted me, requesting permission to quote her in her book. An original thought, if it sets a precedent, or rather opens up a realm, can't be both original and notable. It's only notable in the sense that des Barres took note of it and used in her book. Artsandopinion (talk) 02:57, 16 January 2008 (UTC)RL[reply]