Talk:Group 1 Crew

Group 1 Crew discography
 Support split -Discography section takes up close to half of the page and should be split to a new article entitled Group 1 Crew discography. --Jax 0677 (talk) 03:08, 19 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose The article is currently 15,817. That's not nearly large enough to constitute a large article. The discography is below all of the prose and does pose a hindrance to reading the article comfortably. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:23, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Group 1 Crew. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080210082954/http://www.doveawards.com:80/categories/ to http://www.doveawards.com/categories/

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 20:15, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Walter, I find it funny that you spend so much time on other subjects and on your talk page nitpicking about valid sources and quoting Wikipedia rules to everyone else when they do something you don't like but then you refuse to follow rules or abide by the citation rules when it comes to anything Christian, Bethel related, or if it just doesn't suite you. I'm going to keep editing things and improving the articles. The articles will never be improved or get better sources if you continue to delete other peoples work. You might not care, but I do. I see you are part of the Christian Wikipedia improvement project page. So am I. How is all this petty reverting doing going to help them be more widely accepted on Wikipedia? know one is going to take anyone's article serious if its a bunch of links to badly sourced self promoting pages or if all the Christian related pages are just add copy, pats on peoples backs, and attempts to up sell things. Its an insult to Christians if you think they see that kind of thing as making an a "quality" article. Why not leave shady crap like that to the Scientologists and allow the articles to be accountable to the quality standards of Wikipedia? I know you know what those quality standards are. I'm sure you also know that the pages you are controlling don't live up to them. So, why not just stop being petty, stop nitpicking, and let me edit the pages? If nothing else, at least stop reverting me so I can improve the pages for the Christian Wikipedia group that we are both a member of.....

Adamant1 (talk) 09:05, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * What I find funny is that you ignore WP:PRIMARY. There is no problem at all in using a primary source to support the name and birth weight of a child. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:19, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

What I find funny is that you think that's why I deleted it when it clearly wasn't my reason. I said I deleted it because it was a social media link, did not add anything to the article, and was self serving. I have no problem with birth certificates or anything that actully gives the information you say the Twitter post does. Did you even read the Post? Here's an exact quote for you since you obviously didn't "Always wanted to park here and now I finally can 😉👶👪 #preggo #bunintheoven http://lockerz.com/s/278532541" Where in that is the baby's name or birth weight given? They aren't. Aside from that, her gloating about being able to park somewhere because she is pregnant has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the article. Gloating about something like that on social media is THE DEFINITION of being self serving. Which was the reason I gave for deleting it. I really don't see how you can refute that. Hmmm, and what about the link to lockerz.com she provides? It wont load. According to Wikipedia though "Lockerz.com was an international social commerce website based in Seattle, Washington." That clearly has nothing to do with her baby's name or birth weight either does it? The ironic thing is, I didn't even delete the citation on in the article that actually gave that information and you still acted like I did. I think this clearly proves that your just reverting things based on bias without checking if the edits are valid or not first, or there's some other reason your doing it like using Wikipedia for up-selling or something. Otherwise, you wouldn't even be trying to argue that an obviously irrelevant, trash citation like that should be on here, let alone reverting someone for removing it. If you have a better explanation, I'd love to hear it. Don't waste my time deflecting by going off about your superior years of experience again either. Adamant1 (talk) 11:01, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * What were the reasons you supplied?
 * The statement being supported: "Blanca announced that she and her husband were expecting their first child" and the sources (not one, but two) that were removed: https://twitter.com/TheRealBlanca/status/293488496394518528 and https://www.ccmmagazine.com/news/blanca-of-group-1-crew-steps-down/ While of course, PRIMARY states:
 * Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources. All analyses and interpretive or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary or tertiary source, and must not be an original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors.
 * I don't see gloating. I see an announcement. So how is announcing that they are expecting a child "unduly self-serving"? That was my question and you still have not answered it. The fact that it was supported with a press release that was published by a reliable source seems to have been lost on you as well. There is no analyses. There is no interpretation. There is no syntheticisation of claims. None. What is being sourced at https://twitter.com/blancareyes/status/293488496394518528, on January 21, 2013, that Blanca was expecting a child. It's not referencing the birth weight or the name of the child. First, the birth weight isn't even listed in the prose, is it? The name is in the following sentence. I don't know where you got the idea that it was designed to reference the content of the sentence following it. As for relevance, at the time it was added, there was no article for Blanca and it was in a personal life section. These sections are very common on BLPs. Now there is and it should be moved to the subject's article, not kept here. I don't know why you're trying to click through to a location in a tweet. It's not even germain to the discussion.
 * At least here, you did not remove the second source, http://www.ccmmagazine.com/article/blanca-of-group-1-crew-steps-down/, but I noticed a WP:BLP issue: we have the child's given name and birth month, but nothing else. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:22, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Had the the supplied edit summary stated that the content was moved to the subject's article and was not relevant here, that would have made sense and would have been a valid reason for removal. However, neither removal of the tweet stated that. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:16, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I get that. You deleted two edits I did, one where I deleted both and a later one where I just deleted the Twitter link. So..Also, I could have just moved the Twitter citation to another section as you say, but that still would not have solved the main issue with the whole thing. From your thing above, "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources." Notice the part "to a lesser extant" there. So in essence, you use a reliable published secondary source, and then use the primary source to support that right? I would agree with under normal context that the way it is cited would be adequate. Except there are two things in this instance that make it not that way 1. As per the bottom of the article "Notice: The information in the post above may have been formatted to suit this website, but is not necessarily material originally created by, or is exclusive to CCM Magazine." Therefore, it is not a secondary source. The "article" is actually a press release written by her in the first person talking about her pregnancy. Therefore, that particular article is not a reliably secondary source. Its a primary source written on a secondary website, not by an expert. Those are two different things. The publisher of its page even goes out of its way to state as much. As far as the Twitter things goes, its not an announcement of a birth, as you say it is. It's a comment that mention the fact that she pregnant, which seems secondary to the second part about the parking, which sounds like the main point of the tweet. For all we know, she could have posted a tweet long before that about how she was pregnant. We really don't know. Therefore, we have two citations, one to a primary source on a second website where the owner of the website goes out of their way to say its not their original work and obviously primarily sourced do to the language in the article, and a primary source to back that up which mentions her being pregnant as a side to another point about where she can park that you say is an "announcement." We don't know if it is or not though. Its your opinion that it is. It is not anywhere clear that it is though. Hence one of the reasons why I removed it. I don't think we would source things based on "Well, it is talking about something else, but it could be, maybe, close to that in mention. So why not." So it might have been relevant at the time it was added? That insinuates its not anymore. So, all the more reason to get rid of it right?. And maybe I am not suppose to click on a tweet, but maybe other people will because they will want more information. Isn't it a little miss leading to leave a link up because you think people wont click it anymore anyway, even if it does not provide useful information? It at least gets her more Twitter followers right? Maybe that's what its going for? I know for sure the first citation is misleading. Normally I would agree with you that an announcement of a pregnancy in a Tweet is not self serving. That's clearly not what it is though. Its a link on Wikipedia to draw people to a twitter account that vaguely mentions being pregnant so they will either click the affiliate link or subscribe to her Twitter feed. The affiliate link thing is pretty obvious and indisputable. You can disagree with that, but I don't see how can say that the content of citation is not relevant to the discussion like you did.
 * I think you need to consider the unique context of the articles here and what they are being used for. Although I agree that the rules should be followed, one mans Twitter or Itunes link is not another. I don't know if you noticed, but I posted on Kudda88's talk page I thought it was unwise of him to link so much to Itunes on the articles he created. Then an administrator did the same and he got chastised more then once for using copyrighted album images, which he said he had permission form Bethel Music to use. He did not even try to explain himself. He just disappeared and then his account was deleted. There was clearly a conflict of interest there that he failed to disclose. MissSG, who is probably Steffany Gretzinger of Bethel Music, has also ran into the same issues to. She did not disclose the conflict of interest and has ignored people who have asked her about it on her page. She is still editing things though. So she should disclose it or at least say there is not one if that is the case. I have done training in marketing in the past, and Bethel Music is clearly using their articles as a marketing tool. Its obvious from the language used, the choice of links, and the way the articles are constructed. Non of them are neutral. The links are not used in a neutral way either. Like have said about Brian Johnson's article, there are 88 citations on it, half of which are to Itunes. I have gone through many other album articles. None of them are that way. So why else would Kudda88 have done it that why? It's either that or the articles are just notable and all the links are just a smoke screen. I think its a combination of both. Maybe there is no rule that I can cite that the articles are breaking, but if they have a conflict of interest and Kodda88 got his account deleted because of it, the conflict of interest has to be reflected in how he wrote his articles somewhere. I think its the things I stated, as backed up the moderators that chided him for the same thing. You can deny it and its fine if you want to support them using the platform that way, but I'm not going to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adamant1 (talk • contribs) 06:20, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Please read all of PRIMARY, not just what I quoted. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:24, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah ok. I did that. It still seems to be mostly up to descression and context. For instance, It says "Any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by a reliable source. Material for which no reliable source can be found is considered original research. Self-published material, whether on paper or online, is generally not regarded as reliable, but see self-published sources for exceptions. It is important that references be cited in context and on topic. Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources." Which I had read before and was part of what I was basing my editing on. It also says "Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia. Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them." Which I think summs up most of the articles related to Bethel Music people. In particular it goes out of its way to say people should be carefull about basing whole passages on primary sources. "If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it."
 * "self-published media, such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs (as distinguished from newsblogs, above), content farms, Internet forum postings, and "social media postings, are largely not acceptable as sources." "Exercise caution when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else will probably have published it in independent reliable sources.[9]"
 * "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the self-published source requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as: the article is not based primarily on such sources. This policy also applies to material published by the subject on social networking websites such as Twitter, Tumblr, Reddit, and Facebook."
 * "Questionable sources are those that have a poor reputation for checking the facts, lack meaningful editorial oversight, or have an apparent conflict of interest.[8] Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely considered by other sources to be extremist or promotional, or that rely heavily on unsubstantiated gossip, rumor or personal opinion. Questionable sources should only be used as sources for material on themselves, such as in articles about themselves; see below. They are not suitable sources for contentious claims about others."
 * So yeah, I don't know what that adds. I had actually read all that before. It seems like the gist of it is that reliable secondary sources should be used first and primary sources should only be used as compliments, when the primary source is talking about themselves, but nothing should be based purely on primary sources. Otherwise the article is not notable. I assume that goes for individual paragraphs in the article as much as the article as a whole to. I also don't that means that an article can be called legitimate if it is made up of of 90% primary sources and 10% secondary sources, which should also go for pargraphs. It has to be weighted toward more secondary than primary sources. I also still think social networking sites are questionable. I agree that it says can be used for primary sources, but that does not negate their questionability. So on that one it really comes down to your ethics as an editor and kind of quality standards you want the pages you edit to live up to. I prefer the articles I edit to not contain questionable sources that could easily be misread or have wrong information, but that just could be me. Its fine if your more concered than me that people know she had a baby from multiple websites, instead of making pages better.
 * After reading the rules again, I still think my edits were ultimately correct. I did not get anything out of rereading them that majorly changes my perspective. Most of the reverts that you did of my edits still fall into the area of valid edits from the PRIMARY guidelines. Mostly, primary sources should not be the only sources cited, they should only complement secondary sources, if they are used it is up to the persons judgment if they are good to use or not, although social media sites are generally not good to use. So, I don't even so why you reverted me or are even disputing it with me. Its seems pretty clear that I am in the right. I took the time read what you wanted me to and to justify my actions. So, what actual justifiction from your perspective do you have for the reverts and all this back and forth? besides just telling me to read rules that confirm what I already knew and told you were my reasons for doing the edits, what else is there? Just admit your in the wrong already. I rather be left alone and get back to improving the articles instead of doing this obviously pointless back and forth indefinitely. I was clearly using my discretion within the rules, like the rules say I have a right to do. You might agree with me, but I'm correct. Just give it up already and stop reverting me Adamant1 (talk) 09:24, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * and you know what, if your not willing to just let it go and admit your wrong, then where are the sources and qoutes that you are in the right? You haven't backed your assertions up with anything. Everything I have checked out just makes it look like I am in the right. I'm sitting here taking the time to read up on things to make sure I'm correct like you want and I'm giving you a clear argument for what I am doing, but yet your still reverting me over nonesense and calling my attempts to stop you from doing it ranting. Your the one that intiated this whole thing in the first place. You don't see me going to your edits, reverting them and then expecting you to spend all day justifying your actions. Seriously man, thank about it. I'm jumping through all these hoops and taking time out of my life explaining crap to you repeatedly and its getting knowhere. I have a right to edit the pages. You can't just revert everything I do, especially since your arguements for all the revertions you did do were clearly wrong. Its pretty easy to just sit there, push a revert button, and then expect everyone else to explain themselves. I don't see you adding content to the articles though or even attempting to clean them up. At least I'm trying. Maybe my edits might not live up to your "high" standards, but they are still valid. I proved I know what I am doing. So just stop reverting me already so I can improve the articles. Or if you don't like what I am doing, why not at least do some actual work and improve the articles yourself? Because your whole arguement about me doing things that don't follow the rules has pretty much fallen through at this point.
 * Also, read Be bold, "Be bold can be explained in three words: "Go for it". The Wikipedia community encourages users to be bold when updating the encyclopedia. Wikis like ours develop faster when everybody helps to fix problems, correct grammar, add facts, make sure wording is accurate, etc." Also, I really think you need to consider "Assuming good faith (AGF) is a fundamental principle on Wikipedia. It is the assumption that editors' edits and comments are made in good faith." Otherwise, your just a page camper. There's also the whole thing about reaching consensus, which seems to be a bedrock of Wikipedia. I asked you repeatedly what you thought would improve the article and also suggested changes that you ignored and never gave me feedback, but yet you continued to revert things. So, how are you respecting the consensus clause by doing that? One thing having to do with consensus is BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, "Revert an edit if it is not an improvement, and it cannot be immediately fixed by refinement. Consider reverting only when necessary. BRD does not encourage reverting, but recognizes that reversions happen. When reverting, be specific about your reasons in the edit summary and use links if needed. Look at the article's history and its talk page to see if a discussion has begun. If not, you may begin one." In no way, shape, or form did I see you doing any of that during this whole thing despite your years of experince. I was the one that initiate the disscusion and am the one trying to reach a concensus here about how the articles should improved, despite being a "newbie." Whereas, your just finger pointing and crying foul endlessly. I especially like the part about "Consider reverting only when necessary." Your policy seems to be "revert at every opertunity." or another one you didn't follow "When reverting, be specific about your reasons in the edit summary and use links if needed." One of your revertion summaries was like "It's self serving?." So yeah, that whole thing about following rules and using guidelines properly applies to you as much as it does me. I've given you examples of where I think you ran aground. Maybe your just a reverter because there is a lot less there someone could cite when saying your breaking the rules. So its a lot easier to lord over things and control pages. I still don't think it adds any value to anything though, unless its being done for ligitmate reasons, which it clearly isn't in this case.
 * It also says "To avoid bogging down in discussion, when you have a better understanding of the reverter's concerns, you may attempt a new edit that reasonably addresses some aspect of those concerns." which I think clearly states why this whole conversation with you has gone knowhere and validates what I said above. You have not stated any concerns, except a general "don't break rules" that has proven to be meaningless. So this whole thing has gone absolutely knowhere and there is no clear specific path foward on pages we have issuses with each other on because you aren't specific and I can't edit them because you haven't said what you would like see done and you revert everything I do. I really don't see us reaching a consensous ever. You clearly don't want to reach one. Ultimately, you either need to figure out what is acceptable for you and accept that the edits are probably going to be a little under that, or you need to step aside.
 * No. Primary sources may be used :: Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source. analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so.  base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them.  add unsourced material from your personal experience, because that would make Wikipedia a primary source of that material. Use extra caution when handling primary sources about living people; see, which is policy.
 * Is iTunes a reliable source? For basic information like release dates, it is. It's all over WP:RSN. If you doubt that, ask at RSN.
 * Is Amazon a reliable source? For basic information like release dates, it is. RSN again.
 * Is this information being used with care? Yes it is.
 * Is the information being misused? Not in any way I can conceive.
 * Is this entire article based on primary sources? There are fifteen references. Eight are from JesusFreakHideout.com. We also have Weekend22.com, NewReleaseTuesday.com and the GMA website. Only Anjelah.com and the tweet are clearly primary. The republished press release in CCM Magazine may also be considered a primary source. So 20% of the references article are primary and the content is, was two lines of content. So no.
 * It's time for you to drop the WP:STICK. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:48, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Is this entire article based on primary sources? There are fifteen references. Eight are from JesusFreakHideout.com. We also have Weekend22.com, NewReleaseTuesday.com and the GMA website. Only Anjelah.com and the tweet are clearly primary. The republished press release in CCM Magazine may also be considered a primary source. So 20% of the references article are primary and the content is, was two lines of content. So no.
 * It's time for you to drop the WP:STICK. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:48, 19 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I don't need to ask RSN because I never said it wasn't a reliable source for those things. The issue is that it is not being used for that. Like I have said multiple times. I never said the ITunes links in this article where a problem either. I said they where in the other article, which is the main article that the ITunes disscusion was being had on. Your clearly using it as a distraction from the Twitter thing, which was my actual gripe here. You seem to like ignoring the actual issue. As far as ITunes being used wrongly on the other pages, I told you why I feel they are being used wrongly. At least I presented evidence for it instead of basing it on a perception like your doing. Again, what actual evidence do you have that its not being missused? I also proved that there was a guideline against Itunes use, that you asked me for and then ignored. If you have a problem with the rule on albums/sources, take it up with them. Its not my fault I'm doing what the rules say I should be. That aside though, Remember consensus and using your own discression? Me and like 2 other people, 1 who is an admin, all used our discression and decided Itunes was being used wrongly on other Bethel Music wikipedia articles that were created by Koda88. Knowone except you is reverting those edits either. That seems like a clear consensus, that they are being missused IN THOSE SITUTATIONS. Once again, it seems to be you against everyone else, ON THE SPECIFIC PAGES WHERE THE PROBLEM IS. The crazy thing to is that there are other better sources to the information that are already there. So if its just about providing the information, why do you even care if ITunes citations are deleted since information is already being provided other ways? As far as the ratio of links goes, I never stated I had a problem with the ratio of links on this page. I said it was an issue on other pages releated to Bethel Music that you reverted. Good deflection though. It still doesn't negate the fact that the Twitter link does not even provide the information you claim it does or any of the other things you refuse to address, because you know your full of crap on most of it. Finally, I'm not holding the stick. So I don't need to drop it. I don't care if people revert my edits, even you. As long as its being done in the correct way. I don't care if people edit this page or any other one. I'm willing to admit when I'm wrong. Your the one controlling everything here and denying your at fault. Not me. So you can keep the stick for now. Nice try though. ;) Adamant1 (talk) 06:42, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not ignoring the issue, I'm discussing whatever you raise. The tweet that states "Always wanted to park here and now I finally can 😉👶👪 #preggo #bunintheoven http://lockerz.com/s/278532541

2:41 PM - 21 Jan 2013" is fine for supporting what it was supporting, "On January 21, 2013, Blanca announced that she and her husband were expecting their first child." No interpretation is required by a reasonable human being. By stating that the subject is "#preggo #bunintheoven" and wanted to occupy a pregnant-only parking spot for the first time it's simply supported. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:20, 21 September 2017 (UTC)