Talk:Red Hot Chili Peppers/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 → Archive 8

Mediation

Hi, I am Adam and I have taken this case. The details of the request for mediation are at 2006-06-13 Red Hot Chili Peppers.

Before continuing, I need to find out if all sides will cooperate with the mediation. These are ReadyMade, regrhcp, Maxcap, Xinit, and several anonymous editors. Any other parties who wish to participate must also indicate their cooperation below. ReadyMade has been blocked; when he becomes unblocked he can indicate his cooperation and join the discussion.

During this mediation please refrain from editing the article. Since so many of the participants are anonymous I would like some indication from them that they understand what this mediation is about. If there is continued editing or disruption of the mediation by anonymous accounts I will have to refer this case to a higher form of dispute resolution.

Please indicate below if you will cooperate with this mediation. Ideogram 04:41, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Will the user at 88.111.88.195 please refrain from editing this article. Ideogram 09:36, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Statements of positions

All participants please state your positions and give your supporting reasons below. Keep your statements concise and to-the-point and do not engage in personal attacks. Ideogram 10:16, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Please be sure to read WP:EL. Ideogram 10:42, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm onboard with the process, as I'm one of the people attempting to clean up the EL... --Xinit 14:38, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Count me in. --Jason1978 01:35, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Me as well. maxcap 18:32, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I suppose I should have stated my position on the EL that we've seen added again and again here. I stand pretty strongly by the WP:EL as it's currently written, especially in regard to the fan sites. The problem comes in that all the players seem to want to push their own blog, forum or site to the exclusion of all others, so even if we were to try to pick a representative example of a fan site for the RHCP, we'd run into troubles.

As it stands, I've taken the relatively hard-line approach of removing anything that isn't capable of acting as a citeable reference or that isn't an official organ of the band. Anything that is capable of being used as a reference should be linked from withing the body of the article with the <ref> tag where it can be of use.

I've attempted to bring people to the discussion pages to explain why their fan site or forum or other link should be included, but I recieve personal attacks, circular logic, or cries that I'm trying to assert 'ownership' or that I'm being 'unfair' to the fan sites that I'm removing. --Xinit 19:01, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with Xinit's reasoning, and would like to add that I would be in support of a link to a directory of fansites (if such a directory exists) as it is probably the only fair solution. maxcap 19:18, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Frankly, I think there are four solid non-fan links already and that should be sufficient. An article doesn't need a huge amount of external links, simply external links which are relevant and appropriate. RHCP are a large enough band that it is clear they have numerous fans. Linking to fan sites isn't necessary to prove this. IrishGuy talk 19:31, 15 June 2006 (UTC)


Irishguy - You're failing to understand that just because some unofficial rhcp sites are branded 'fansites' doesn’t just make them a showcase for the authors appreciation of the band. Alot of so-called fansites provide a valuable resource for fans worldwide. Some are even favoured over the official site…
As long as they contain a wealth of exclusive and original content relating to the Red hot chili peppers, I don't see any reason for them not to be included. Alot of the RHCP fansites have forums that are thriving communities with a wealth of content.
Just because a fansite relies more heavily on its forum than its static pages, doesn't make it any less credible. They are well moderated and useful to anyone interested in the band.
By providing links to just a few of these fansites will only add to the integrity of this article. They give visitors of this page more options and most importantly more KNOWLEDGE relating to the band. They also enable visitors of this page to integrate in thriving communities all with a keen interest in the articles topic.
I would also like to make it clear that stadium-arcadium.com was NOT trying to promote itself over other fansites. Infact i've emailed the likes of onehotglobe in the past to appeal for their fansite to be included as I have mine.
Thanks for reading, Anthony - stadium-arcadium.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.209.222.166 (talk • contribs)
Actually, I'm not failing to understand anything. You see, I'm not the one attempting to use Wikipedia to pimp my website. People know that RHCP have a large fan base. If they want to visit a fan site, they can use Google. Fan sites in no way add to the integrity of this article. IrishGuy talk 21:08, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Please tone it down, Irishguy. Accusing him of trying to "pimp" his website is uncivil. Ideogram 21:12, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't believe I was being uncivil, merely honest. I came to this discussion because I caught 172.209.222.166 spamming links into RHCP related articles [1], [2]. Not only adding the links, but labeling them Ultimate RHCP Resource. If that isn't pimping his site I would like to know what is. IrishGuy talk 01:01, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm not going to argue with you. If you have a problem with my mediation I'll leave and you can seek other methods of dispute resolution. Ideogram 01:05, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Relax. I wasn't trying to argue with you, nor am I calling your judgement into question. I was simply pointing out my reasons for using that term as I don't know how familiar you are or aren't with his recent edit history. Please continue with the mediation. I apologize. IrishGuy talk 01:14, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, having a bad day. Not your fault. Thanks for the apology anyway. Anyway I gave you my opinion, do what you will with it. The mediation seems dead already anyway. Ideogram 01:19, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Irishguy - Thats your opinion. Its wrong and mis-guided, but i'll let you off. People can use google to find fansites, but what you're failing to grasp is that 99.9% of people reading this article will have some interest in the band in the first place, and will undoubtedly appreciate some alternative sites focused on the band instead of the official site. Thats why they will add to the integrity of this article. It really is quite simple.
Let me remind you to please read WP:EL. Ideogram 21:32, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
How are we possibly supposed to decide what is good fansite content to warrant it's inclusion? We can't. I we were to agree to including one we would have to include all, which is unacceptable. maxcap 21:36, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
I'd be interested in knowing why you, Anthony User:172.209.222.166 (and User:172.203.22.117, and User:Regrhcp and User:ReadyMade) have silently added your site link back in to the article so many times despite requests to discuss the inclusion of fansites. I'm also curious if you're all the same person, frankly, as none of those users have regularly signed their posts with the tildes ~~~~.
Other sites that I've noticed added repeatedly;
[3] KevMan69
One Hot Globe: RHCP Fansite
Red Hot Chili Peppers @ CybersMusic - Current Blog Posts.
unofficial fan dscussion site 172.203.22.117 172.209.222.166 172.209.222.166
Official Website of The Red Hot Stadium Myspace Group 68.89.188.159
RHCP News and Reviews at This Is Fake DIY 88.108.248.252
The Fan site that won't go away 85.102.189.220
OneHotGlobe.org: RHCP Fansite Bagel7
Todos los videos, fleamail y mas... 200.83.188.29
--Xinit 21:40, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Please focus on the content not the contributor. Ideogram 21:44, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Part of the issue here was the contributor who wouldn't bring anything to the discussion despite requests. A number of people have requested discussions around why fansites should be listed at all, but the one submitter would not explain his position, resorting to personal attacks and such. I was just going through the edit history looking for examples of the URLs that were being added when it occurred to me that many of the anonymous posts bore a relation to ones by User:Readymade; mostly an afterthought. --Xinit 22:12, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you're just being super paranoid and have too much time on your hands? Infact there was no attempt for me to have multiple identities. If you took the time to think about it, you'll see i have two ip's because my isp provides dynamic ip's. Also my username on wikipedia is readymade, so there you go. I have no relation to regrhcp.

If you're not prepared to listen, then so be it. This discussion is over as far as i'm concerned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.209.222.166 (talk • contribs)

The thing is that I am prepared to listen; nearly every deletion I have made included a request for discussion or explanation here on the talk page. My problem was that fan sites are not normally included in an article; it's been established by consensus and is well documented in WP:EL. I'm not 'paranoid' or a 'dick' or a 'fucking asshole' or any of the other insults that have been hurled at me over link removal, and I'm perfectly capable of listening to reason; I just want it explained in the context of WP policies and guidelines. --Xinit 22:17, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
I know it's been frustrating, but to move forward we have to leave the past behind. Readymade has been making an effort to discuss; I did ask him to read WP:EL; we are making progress but patience is required all around. Ideogram 22:21, 15 June 2006 (UTC)


I feel that I should weigh in because I was the one that started the entire fan site debate in the first place.

The fact of the matter is this: I agree with Anthony. The inclusion of fan sites as external links are of course going to give more enhancement to the article; this article should be only providing general knowledge of the band with fan sites being able to provide extended knowledge of it. To say that the only sites that are officially are organs of the band being the only ones that are allowed because the official websites of the Red Hot Chili Peppers are not helpful at all and generally fan sites are more indepth and give a better wealth of information. Plus, fan sites also get their information from credible sources, whether it is press releases or interviews and profiles and whatnot given out by the official members of the band (i.e. Anthony Kiedis' biography Scar Tissue).

In retrospect, the only reason why we are having this mediation in the first place because I for one found it suspect that while all other fan site addresses got deleted, Stadium-Arcadium.com did not. Now I have been in contact with the owner of the site and apologized for my remarks, but I could not help it but to find it unfair in that sense. While it is true that some might be on here to promote their fan website, some, such as the American sites One Hot Globe and The Red Hot Stadium, the British Stadium-Arcadium.com, and the Italian redhotchilipeppers.it, are of good reference with their providing of news, deep band information, amongst other things.

Despite the fact that on the WP:EL, it states that one major fan site is appropriate, that is difficult when there are four major fan websites. I think everyone on all sides of this debate has to keep in mind that a) this is an article about one of the world's biggest bands, and b) as much as we want to be scholarly about this, we cannot, and we should not either. Plus the fans that being introduced to the Red Hot Chili Peppers or trying to find out more about the Red Hot Chili Peppers, should have fan sites that they can access to not only find more information but to interact with more fans. -- Paralleluniverse

Well, to be clear, while it does say aproproate it is under the heading of Occasionally acceptable links. Occasionally, of course, meaning not all the time. I find it odd that you would say we cannot and should not attempt to be scholarly. This is an encyclopedia. IrishGuy talk 01:29, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Albeit this is an encylopedia, I am saying that we shouldn't be scholarly about a band article because there's absolutely no point to it. The thing about band articles in the first place is that they are written by fans of that particular band and with that many are going to have a personal connection to it, therefore any attempt to be scholarly about this article would come up fruitless. -- Paralleluniverse
I'm not so sure about WP being as fan-driven as all that; I'm not a fan of many of Special:Contributions/Xinit the subjects of articles I edit. I can live the rest of my life without hearing another song from Green Day but that doesn't mean that I want their article to have flawed information, unreferenced 'facts' or links to questionable content. --Xinit 01:49, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
I think you have the face the reality of it being that fan driven. It is the reality of having a Usenet encyclopedia. It's not necessarily about flawed information, it's about allowing people that visit and read this article be able to go and FIND more information if they do not deem this article as satisfactory and the fan websites are important in that aspect and I mean QUALITY fan sites, not the typical fanboy shrine junk. -- Paralleluniverse
Part of the reason I work on WP articles, including those where I'm not a huge fan of the subject matter is to attempt to reduce the bias that people have against WP as a reliable source. In visiting stadium-arcadium.com in the process of evaluating it for the EL section, I saw a couple references to things that readers saw on various WP articles. Immediately after those comments followed statements about how unreliable WP is... THAT is the bias that I want to reduce.
WP should be a place that can be trusted for unbiased facts, not lists of fan pages or whatever information a fan might want to input. Be that fan contributed information lists of trivia or links to Slash fiction featuring the bassist and drummer of the band or links to forums with 12 members, where does the line get drawn? It gets drawn where WP consensus says it does. If you would like to see consensus change, then I would suggest heading to WP:EL and convincing them to update the reference to fan sites there.
On articles about topics with many fansites is what it says on WP:EL... is that really the case with RHCP, or are there only the half dozen or so that we've seen linked here? --Xinit 02:16, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


I was looking at all the links posted above that have been added on here before and only 2 of them are actual RHCP fansites. Most of them are non-fan run bios and fan run blogs and message boards/forums. OHG and Stadium-Arcadium seem to be the only two actual sites that are RHCP fansites. I wouldn't really call a blog or forum a fansite because there are tons of those out there, especially on MySpace. One of the links was (the RHCP Turkey one)was just a forum, not in English which you had to subscribe to to even view. Like I have stated before, I do not run OHG though I am a newswriter and moderator for the site. I'm not here to cry and complain, pick any fights because these are only links to websites. I can understand not wanting alot of links and by judging from certain links posted I can see the reasons behind removing most of them but there are not many actual full RHCP websites out there anymore. Like I have stated, OHG has been in contact with the label in the past as well as other RHCP sources which allowed the site exclusive content only allowed to two other sources: RHCP.com and RHCP MySpace. I'm not against the SA site (I actually post there often) and i'm not here to act as if OHG is better. Like I said, they are just links but like someone already mentioned, people looking at the RHCP article on here might want to get more info that they can't get here so they might want to see some fansites. I know that the official site isn't the greatest source (they actually have the wrong lyrics for some songs there)and some fansites give people more knowledge, news, tourdates and info about the band that the official site lacks. --Jason1978 04:34, 16 June 2006

Compromise

The stated goals I've heard from the pro-fan site camp is that they want to help fans learn more about the band, and that's what the links to the fan communities do. Well, I would suggest that they use google to search, but maybe we should just link 'Search for more' --Xinit 02:21, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

All right, allow me to ask you this: is Wikipedia supposed to be a place where people can get information. I know about the bias issue. I have dealt with the bias issue. Hell, I once rewrote the entire RHCP article and edited other band articles to reduce the bias issue. We all understand why there is such a bias aagainst Wikipedia -- the reason for that bias only centers around the fact that people can come in and edit it at anytime.

And I'm going reinterate what I said earlier, I support fan sites that are QUALITY fan sites, not the typical fanboy shrine junk —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.88.21.7 (talk • contribs)

Xinit, your solution for the fansite debate is flawed. If you look at the search results those google keywords bring up, you'll find that there are barely any rhcp focused sites in the list. Surely it would be easier to add 2 or 3 evaluated links directly onto the article. Anthony - Stadium-arcadium

What if we were to use a google news search like this maxcap 17:47, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Here is a twist, one of the Fansites you want to throw out, is basically a search of Google Blogs with relevancy, just like the suggestions given to solve the problem. Wiki's are supposed to be communnity, not based on what one or 2 people think. I was not a RHCP fan, but I went to this page, and tried every link there was, before they got tossed, and I gathered a lot of information to help me learn about the band and become a fan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.0.109.73 (talk • contribs)

Well thank-you to the guy above. He just proves that alot of the links that were present are infact useful to people with an interest in the band. Ask people who've found the likes of OHG and SA through this wiki page, the majority are now loyal members on both sites forums and are pleased they found the links through here. Anthony.

The removal of the external links to the fan sites is not based on what one or two people think; that's the point. The addition of the fansites has always been based on what one or two people think; the general consensus regarding fansites is outlined at WP:EL. -- Xinit 22:15, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
All right, maybe what would really help is to see what we DEFINE as a fan site. Give me your perceptions as to what a fan site should be. -- Paralleluniverse
Fansite isn't the best article in WP, but it's a start. Include in that definition blogs, user run forums, and chat sites. -- Xinit 23:10, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, but also it said "etc.", those are common features, but not necessarily limited to those features specifically. I mean for me, I see fansites as a viable information source. For example, the Jane's Addiction fan website [4] -- Paralleluniverse 23:24, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
That Janes website is a good example of when a fansite is acceptable, considering they reunite and break up every couple of years. But there's plenty of info on RHCP because they're an active band, see the google news link I posted above above, that's all current news. maxcap 23:38, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
I like the Google News site. Any fan site could easily have themselves turn up in that search if they're providing good information that's unique. I'd say that the Google News link is much more readily useable for finding information than any of the fan sites I've yet seen. -- Xinit 23:44, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


All right, let's be serious here. I don't think a majority of people are going to want to thumb through pages and pages of information that will prove to be nothing more than repetitive information. I thumbed through that. It's pointless! Absolutely pointless! Most people that are looking for information on the Red Hot Chili Peppers are not looking for just stupid news! They want to know about their history. They want to know about their music. Here on Wikipedia you cannot get that indepth about a band with all of that. Wikipedia is to provide basic, unbiased information about the band. If people want to find out more about the band then they can go to websites that are dedicated to the band, not to a Google link where they have to search for more and more mess.

Listen, people are going to be biased when it comes to their favorite band. You cannot avoid that, you cannot police this page enough to avoid that, and if you're policing this page to reach a unrealistic goal, then I am sorry, that is the most idiotic and pointless effort I ever heard. I'm not calling you two, Xinit and Maxcap, idiots, but the unrealistic effort. The WP:EL doesn't even define what an appropriate fan site is, and to refer to an article about it is stupid. If it's a fan site that is going to provide indepth information about the Red Hot Chili Peppers, it's going to provide an opportunity for fans to interact and to get know more about the Chili Peppers, they're not going to do it here. I think the idea of a refernece and external links is to allow fans or other people who are interested in getting a deeper and greater knowledge of the Red Hot Chili Peppers. That's why I support the fan sites. And I'm talking about fan sites that are appropriate -- deep, indepth, informative, somewhere you actually learn something instead of redudnant, fanboy, shrine mess. Paralleluniverse 04:13, 17 June 2006 (UTC)


Here on Wikipedia you cannot get that indepth about a band with all of that. Wikipedia is to provide basic, unbiased information about the band.
That is correct. I went over to SA and OneHot and went looking for information on them that I would classify as notable or unique, or otherwise citeable for WP. Most of the information on SA that I found that was to be had was in the Forums, and that involves a TON of searching around and time for the reader. It's worse than an unsorted list of items from Google. Show me where the unique, in-depth information is on those sites, specifically that meets all the other WP requirements; it's not original research, and it's verifiable... that's next to impossible to guarantee with a forum, a group blog, or similar.
I'm going through SA's "Band Related" section; I'm not picking on that site specifically, but it serves well as an example because it was bookmarked in my browser.
  • News is less useful and timely than the Google News link posted above
  • Biography says less than the WP one does...
  • Discography says less than WP does...
  • Videos appears to contain copyright material
  • Pictures is a link into the forum with unknown copyright as well
  • Knowledge Base contains nothing revolutionary (three entries)
  • I also found a number of dead links in the sidebar from those pages.
So, I can't imagine that the appeal is anything in the Band Related section, so what does that leave? The Community Section with its arcade, guestbook, and chatroom? Perhaps the forum? Forums are the biggest part of why fansites are frowned upon.
So, please, tell me exactly what part of SA adds to the information about the band. Is it perhaps the discussions about what your favourite song is, or who the best guitarist is? Really, I'm getting more confused the closer I look. There's the advertising and the plentiful donation buttons as well... -- Xinit 04:55, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Please sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~)

Please do sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~) this will add a timestamp. Ideogram 23:12, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

well with the discography your actually missing a compilation album called "Plasma Shaft" i would add it, but im not certain on how Klyv 07:43, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

stadium arcadium link added

This is not good. But don't start an edit war over it. Anthony, are you responsible for this? Ideogram 08:49, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

No. I'm not responsible for this. In answer to xinits comments about my site, yes I understand most of the pages are lacking at the moment. The site only began in february of this year, it will continue to develop for as long as I live. The advertising and donations are to support the further development of the site, every penny is put back into it and a dedicated server is lined up for it already. 172.209.222.166 10:43, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
If the people adding the links aren't participating in the mediation the mediation will fail. We can keep trying but if this keeps happening, say three times, you will need to try other methods. Ideogram 11:12, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
When your site is at the point that it would provide additional information that would be useful to this article, that's the point at which I could conceivably agree with using it as a reference. As it stands now, it doesn't meet any standard for adding it, even if it wasn't a fan site. I'm not exactly pleased by being called a dictator (or any of the other names you have used). Name calling doesn't help anything. -- Xinit 16:42, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

There are about four or five people against the fansite links being posted. I can promise you the majority of article readers will disagree with that miniroity of people. The difference is, they're not going to debate it or argue it. So you'll never know how many exist. Anthony.

172.209.222.166 11:47, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Anthony, Wikipedia has policies, and maxcap and xinit are trying to argue within those policies. The people who edit without discussing are violating Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia can respond by semi-protecting the page so that anonymous and new users cannnot edit it, but that is a last resort. Ideogram 11:55, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
How do you know the feelings of all the readers? You don't. -- Xinit 16:42, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Anthony, I don't know what to say to you. We'd rather have you as part of the Wikipedia community, but if you feel this disagreement is not worth your time, that's your choice. Ideogram 13:19, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

That's two. At three I'd advise you to pursue other solutions. I personally have a preference for semi-protection but that is very controversial. Ideogram 16:02, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

You'll find some fans who feel strongly about sa and ohg adding back the links. I can assure you they won't give up. Therefore I advise you to get this page semi-protected because it won't stop any other way. Anthony - stadium-arcadium 172.209.222.166 16:27, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for coming back Anthony. I appreciate your good faith efforts and your candor. You know, however this dispute gets resolved, I think you would be able to contribute a great deal to Wikipedia. Ideogram 16:38, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Mediator... please see WP:NPA - I'm sick of this user's abuse. Nothing can happen with name calling. -- Xinit 17:02, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Stop it, both of you. Right now. Anthony, No Personal Attacks. This is very serious Wikipedia Policy. But Xinit, also see WP:Bite. Ideogram 17:13, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't believe that WP:BITE applies... I attempted to enter into civil dialog many times, asking for reasons, explaining what I was doing, and everything. --Xinit 17:18, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm telling you it does apply. If you are at the end of your patience take a break. The debate will still be here tomorrow. Ideogram 17:26, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect Ideogram (And I do hold a bit for you) I don't care about the consequences of my actions. It's quite clear what xinit and maxcaps true intentions are. If i'm banned for speaking the truth, then so be it. 172.209.222.166 17:16, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Anthony, the unique thing about Wikipedia is that you can't force anyone to leave unless they egregiously and repeatedly violate the rules by, for instance, personally attacking literally dozens of people or by obviously vandalizing literally dozens of pages. That is why community and establishing consensus between opposing views is so important here. If you give up on the process you don't get to have your point of view represented on Wikipedia, it's as simple as that. But any time you are engaged in a dispute there are literally thousands of objective observers who will be able to help. That is why I am here.
From my perspective xinit and maxcap were at least willing to talk to you; don't let the fact that you disagree prevent you from assuming good faith. Part of the problem is that you are new and just don't understand Wikipedia's policies, or even more importantly the culture. What is required above all is patience and the willingness to continue discussions even when they don't seem productive. Sometimes it can help to take a break, sleep on it, when you are feeling frustrated.
Wikipedia culture takes some getting used to, but I believe it's worth it. I personally was moved to start editing because I was so impressed by the kylie minogue article -- check it out.
I'm in the process of mediating about a dozen cases and believe me the disputes get much worse than this. I feel all the participants here are good people with good intentions; they just don't understand each other. There are some really bad people who try to abuse Wikipedia (even when they think they are doing the right thing) and I'm about to waste a lot of my time assembling the evidence to get one of them banned.
Don't let one bad experience turn you off to Wikipedia. There are over a million articles here, almost a thousand considered of exceptional quality, and thousands of editors. I personally respect you and am always willing to talk to you about just about anything. Ideogram 17:17, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

The kylie minogue page is an excellent example of how bad the red hot chili peppers page is. Take a look at the external links on the kylie page. There are THREE fansites on it. It's obvious there are too many people supressing this article. Anthony 172.209.222.166 17:23, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

You see Anthony, if you are patient you can gather evidence to support your position. If you try to find the people responsible for editing the kylie minogue page you might even get them to help your cause. Of course that's not my job. Ideogram 17:28, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't see how gathering any such evidence supports his position. maxcap 19:07, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
The evidence he might be able to gather is the reasoning by editors experienced with Wikipedia policy behind including such links. Ideogram 19:22, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Or, conversely, as disinterested third parties they might be able to explain to him why including those links here are not a good idea, if that is their opinion. Ideogram 19:23, 17 June 2006 (UTC)


Why Is Stadium-Arcadium.com and One Hot Globe the only two that are in debate?

Nothing against either website, but why are those two have to be the center of the debate? What about, Red Hot Stadium, Red Hot Chili Peppers Italy, RHCP France three good resource sites if we're wanting to have resourceful information to be external links for this article. Paralleluniverse 19:31, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I did a point by point on SA because it was convenient.... Here's the point by point on the others as I visit the sites.
Red Hot Stadium: copyright issues with unsourced pictures, videos, audio. Band page contains no new information to add to WP article. Same goes for Discography. Frusciante’s solo work is beyond the scope of the RHCP article, so that page doesn't add anything. The Music page links to influences and related information, but much of that is already in the article as it exists. -- Xinit 19:42, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
RHCP World (Italy): The English language page appears more thorough than SA by far. On a purely geeky front, I like the use of RSS, and the integration of the lyrics and tabs are very well done. Nice site, but tabs and lyrics don't add facts. I believe that all of the Discography information is already on the RHCP Discography site. There's still the issue of copyright with regard to multimedia content. -- Xinit 19:51, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
RHCP France: It's in French, and English WP links to English language resources. Might be appropriate for fr.wikipedia.org. The same copyright issues, as well. -- Xinit 19:54, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

<Personal attack removed> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.209.222.166 (talk • contribs)

Anthony, this is your final warning: No Personal Attacks. I've given you the benefit of the doubt enough times. Don't make me regret it. Ideogram 20:28, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Since when did you become the master? Seriously, what gives you leverage over everyone else to assume yourself as dictator.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.209.222.166 (talk • contribs)

This mediation is a failure. Xinit I'll be happy to assist you in seeking other solutions. Ideogram 20:38, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Why does the mediation even get parts edited out as people please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.209.222.166 (talk • contribs)

Because it isn't up to you to declare mediation to be over. IrishGuy talk 21:44, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Anyone is free to edit this page and remove comments that are not constructive. If you're going to go away, then go away. Ideogram 21:46, 17 June 2006 (UTC)


Second Compromise

All right, I'm sick of this mediation. We aren't going anywhere; Xinit is declaring himself the persnoal saviour of this article and I've had it. Until the WP:EL has a better definition on what a fan site that is appropriate for being listed under extended links is, we won't allow any until that point and time until it is better defined. This mediation has proven fruitless; nobody on either side will get anywhere. I'm just going to allow Xinit to have his way for now until there's better language in the WP:EL because I have become sick and tired of debating with him. Paralleluniverse 22:46, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

The thing is that there hasn't been any debate. I've listed the points that I object to including those sites on, and nobody has addressed them. That's not a debate. Address the reasons I listed, or go change the WP:EL Style Guide. I'm afraid I'm just not following what the problem is... I'm not sending sockpuppets to alter the page, I'm not calling people names; I'm simply requesting a logical discussion of the guide. -- Xinit 23:40, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I forgot there was another participant. The mediation can certainly continue as long as Paralleluniverse wants it to. Ideogram 23:49, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I would concede to allowing redhotchilipeppers.it because their news archives go back to 2002, though the sources aren't exacly evident maxcap 00:29, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I didn't notice the age of the archives; that's a point in the Italy site's favour as well. Perhaps a link to [5] labelled as a fan-run news archive? I'd like to see the sources quoted in the news stories, but it's pretty good on the random sampling of stories I've hit. -- Xinit 00:45, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
That works for me. maxcap 00:49, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Third Compromise

Upon closer inpection Red Hot Chili Peppers Chili Peppers Italy seems like it might be a useful link since it's news archives go back to 2002, what do the fansite supporters think? maxcap 14:47, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

A proposal of listing the pros and cons of each link

Just tossing in my two cents. I haven't extensively looked over the source of the dispute, but per WP:IAR, if the external link, fansite or not, add to or improve the article (and thus the encyclopedia), then it should probably be kept. It seems the argument may have died down already, but perhaps a quick outline of what the each link provides to the article may be in order if anyone is willing to do that. Also, the use of the term 'biggest' when referring to the website does not appear very professional. If the link is kept, perhaps instead of biggest, it should simply state that it is a fansite in the interest of not making it appear more notable than the other links to retain WP:NPOV. Cowman109Talk 14:43, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I think that's a good idea.maxcap 14:51, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
You make the best point yet. I've argued this since the start. Most of the fansites will only improve or add to the integrity of the article. They can only bring benefits to the article and not the opposite.
Ok, so my site (stadium-arcadium.com) doesnt have the greatest content on the main part of the site, but i'm working on it. The fact is, its forum contains a great deal of information realting to the band. Not just discussions on what guitarist is the best. It should be kept on this article solely for its forum. Anthony. 172.209.222.166 14:56, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Is there information offered that is not present in the other external links? Cowman109Talk 14:59, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes. With currently 96402 articles on the forum, theres exclusive information and media that cannot be found from any of the current external links, including the official forum. 172.209.222.166 15:01, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

The links

Please add what each website brings to the article below. Cowman109Talk 15:05, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

  1. The official site, I don't think there will be any argument about including that as it brings information from the source. Cowman109Talk 15:05, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
  2. Cannot really be argued against because its official, but for a site focusing on the red hot chili peppers, its certainly lacking in nearly every aspect besides the news updates. 172.209.222.166 15:15, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Agreed with abovemaxcap 15:29, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
  1. A myspace link.. appears to be a list of upcoming shows. In my opinion that doesn't add to the article - Wikipedia is not a source of finding when the RHCP's shows are. Cowman109Talk 15:05, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
  2. This is apparantly the official myspace maxcap 15:29, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
  1. The biography seems a bit biased, portraying the RHCP in a very positive light, but nonetheless it does offer a deal of information that the article could link to. Does appear useful in several ways because of its content. Cowman109Talk 15:10, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
  1. Another list of showings (does appear to be tidier than the above one), but still does not seem to add to the article. Cowman109Talk 15:08, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Agreed maxcap 15:37, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
  1. The largest unofficial RHCP forum on the net. Provides an alternative to the official forum, as well as exclusive information and media. 172.209.222.166 15:08, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
  2. A fansite that certainly does have a very large forum that could be used if people are looking for information. Also provides a discography and another biography of the group. Likely biased like the link above, but does provide information nonetheless. Cowman109Talk 15:16, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Agreed with the above, though I don't like that you have to go into the forum for news (I'd like to see it on the front page), and any information presented there would have to be confirmed. Some forums are blocked if you are not a member maxcap 15:29, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
It is on the front page. To comment on the news you need to go into the forum. Most information posted in the forum is credible as its always been well moderated by the more than capable members of the moderating team. The forum is open for guests to view. Alot of information presented on wikipedia is wrong. 172.209.222.166
This is a quote from the site 05-05-06 - RHCP And Stadium Arcadium News Updates-- All RHCP & SA related news updates will be done via the news and announcements section of the forum for the next few weeks. If you have some related news, please post it in the general RHCP forum and begin the post title with [NEWS]. A member of the moderating team will review it and add it into the main news thread if its relevant.. In fairness it does mention "tell me baby", but nothing is mentioned about this whole Tom Petty thing (which I think is trivial) but it's news, and has been reported by actual news sources. While alot of info on wikipedia is wrong, if people followed policy it would be correct.(or closer to correct) maxcap 15:48, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
The news was being run like you quoted above, but since the tell me baby video update, news updates will continue to be updated as normal on the front page. 172.209.222.166 15:52, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
That's a good improvement, but I would still prefer Red Hot Chili Peppers Italy because of the age of the news archives; this is in my opinion a far better resource. maxcap 16:08, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Well more than one fansite can be added, surely? rhcp.it grabs most of its rss feeds from the official site. While it has great content relating to the band, its forum does not compare to the one of stadium-arcadium. (Plus its in italian.) Alot of people are grateful they found the stadium-arcadium community via wikipedia. I can give you examples of over 50 people who will be more than happy to come here and express their feelings on this matter if you like. 172.209.222.166 16:14, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
I suppose so. Don't take this the wrong way, but it doesn't really matter to me if someone is happy that they found your site via wikipedia, the forums can be useful to some extent. But anything that would be posted there off-hand that's useful to wikipedia would need to be confirmed. Plus wading through any forum for info is a pain in the ass. There's an english version of the .it site BTW maxcap 16:25, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
As I've said, the majority of topics on stadium-arcadium are useful to any rhcp fan. Thats why the forum has been so popular, discussions of great interest to rhcp fans take place all the time. The forum is divided into a number of categories, coupled with the search function that makes for more than sufficient location of information. I know theres an english version of the .it site. The forum only comes in one language though - italian. Therefore its community aspect is useless for this english rhcp page. Thats why both .it and sa will be both beneficial to this article. .it provides the news and static information, while sa provides the largest unofficial english speaking forum. ReadyMade 16:31, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
It's not a question of the information being useful to a fan, it's a question of information being useful to wikipedia.maxcap 16:37, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

In that case, why not include both of the fansites as they both provide information concerning the subject of the article? (the english version of the italian one, that is. This IS after all the English Wikipedia) They can both be labeled as an unofficial fansite, as WP:EL does say that in extreme cases links to more than one fansite are acceptable. However, this is only if both add insight or information that is not present in the article in some way (which it certainly does appear to be). Do both of the websites offer knowledge or information about the RHCP that is not available on the article? Cowman109Talk 16:43, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

To put it simply - yes they both offer additional information beyond this article. ReadyMade 16:46, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
I still find that the forums aren't quality information. There's a pretty bad signal:noise ratio. I've read through a number of the threads and much of what I'm reading is gossip, speculation, and opinion. While I think that there is information in there, I question the quality of the information. -- Xinit 16:50, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
So not ALL the information is going to be gospel. Out of 95,000 plus topics, there is still ALOT of very useful and relevant information and media.
That's the thing though, for it to be useful to wikipedia it's got to confirmable,and you would still need to cite the source. It's usefulness to wikipedia is the key point to me maxcap 16:56, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Its useful to wikipedia because people reading this article will benefit from having additional sources to gain knowledge and participate in a community of RHCP fans. ReadyMade 16:58, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Participation in a fan community doesn't exactly benefit wikipedia. Again the sources of knowledge have to be reliable and citable. Even if the information was discovered from the forum, that information still has to be verifiable, and you would have to cite the source which in 99.9% of cases is not going to be a fan forum.maxcap 17:13, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Of course it benefits wikipedia, people will have more choices, more avenues of knowledge. Wikipedia is about the people that use it. Why does the information have to be verifiable? Its the individuals choice as to how they want to take the information from a site linked from wikipedia. ReadyMade 17:27, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Are you joking? Why does the information have to be verifiable? Because it is an encyclopedia! This isn't a fan driven website. If you want that sort of thing, build one or go visit one. They are easy to find. Use google. Wikipedia is neither a fan site, nor a link farm and shouldn't be treated as such. IrishGuy talk 17:34, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
He did build one; stadium-arcadium dot com - and I believe that's why he wants it linked. -- Xinit 17:37, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
You've missed the point completely. No, wikipedia is not a fan driven website. The simple fact of the matter is - will the inclusion of stadium-arcadium as an external link make this article any worse? NO, of course it won't. Its only going to BENEFIT readers of this article, as it already has done. ReadyMade 17:40, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Actually, it can make the article worse. It makes it unencyclopedic and unprofessional. IrishGuy talk 18:23, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
It benefited me as i found the site, which i visit every day. The website gives a place of discussion for people who wish to do so. The forums there are even better than the official site's; it has media and show reviews, in constrast to the official one which has almost no media at all. Its useful to be included in wikipedia for this reason, providing an outside link to discuss the band and everything else further. MyLovelyMan 18:15, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
How do first time users know how to get to this discussion as a first edit? IrishGuy talk 18:23, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Please don't bite the newcomers. We should welcome their input and opinions even if we disagree. Ideogram 03:57, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Exactly. Irishguy is so offensive —Preceding unsigned comment added by ReadyMade (talk • contribs)
So asking a legitimate question is offensive? I'm not sure you really understand what the word offensive means. IrishGuy talk 18:52, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Cowman, note that I was unable to convince ReadyMade to stop making personal attacks. I hope you can. Ideogram 19:10, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Note that making notes can be perceived as offensive should the individuals perception perceive it to be the case. ReadyMade 20:13, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

One Hot Globe

So anyways, I just went through the pain of registering for One Hot Globe: RHCP Fansite's forums to check it out. It's a shame that you have to join to view topics, because their posts go back to 2004, and if we're discussing the how resourceful a forum is, age would make it more viable as a source don't you think?maxcap 18:35, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I disagree completely. Why should age be a deciding factor? ReadyMade 18:39, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Let me make an analogy, say you're reseaching the Iraq war in newspapers. Wouldn't it be more useful to have newspapers dating back to 2003 as opposed to just the past 6 months?maxcap 18:47, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

WP:EL states that an external link must be accessible. If one must register to utilize the content, then it isn't accessible. IrishGuy talk 18:52, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

The way I see it stadium-arcadium already has loads more topics and coverage of subjects relating to the band. The majority of RHCP fans are going to be interested in more recent discussions than discussions which have taken place over a year ago. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ReadyMade (talk • contribs)

And you wouldn't have any personal affiliation with that site, would you? IrishGuy talk 19:00, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Who me? None, whatsoever. maxcap 19:05, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Oops. I should have indented that comment. Actually, I was asking ReadyMade in regards to stadium-arcadium, but it is probably good that you clarified your independence from either site. For the record, I too have no affiliation with any fan site. IrishGuy talk 19:38, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
How can you prove to us you are not affiliated with any fan site? ReadyMade 20:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
I can't really. You'll just have to take my word for it. Don't take my post above too seriously I was just kind of thinking out loud. Maybe I should remove it?maxcap 20:37, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I think we'll all survive without the need for the edit. Thanks ReadyMade 20:44, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Are you going to answer my question? IrishGuy talk 20:47, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Theres no need to be arrogant when we're trying to hold a discussion here. The answer is No, I'm not affiliated. How can you (Irishguy) prove to all of us you are not affiliated with any fan sites? ReadyMade 21:00, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Whoops. Caught in a lie [6]. If you are going to claim you aren't somebody, you shouldn't admit it earlier in the conversation. IrishGuy talk 00:10, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Or provide any real information to your domain name registrar... whois stadium-arcadium.com... "Administrative Contact: lala, Anthony amotechnologies at gmail.com" Xinit 06:19, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't need to. As I am not in any way arguing for the inclusion of any fan sites. I have made it quite clear that I don't feel that fan sites belong in this, or any, article. Were I affiliated with any fan sites, I would be acting against my best interest to remove fan sites. IrishGuy talk 22:37, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
For the record I agree. maxcap 22:43, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
So ReadyMade, you claim you are not Anthony? Ideogram 21:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I have claimed no such thing. Ideogram, can you prove to us that you are not affiliated with any RHCP fan sites? ReadyMade 21:30, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Random accusations aside, the point is if for some reason someone is affiliated with the fansites, per WP:AUTO, it would probably be best to refrain from posting links to them in the interest of WP:NPOV. Accusing people of being affiliated won't get things anywhere, though. The fact is we now appear to have 3 fansites, each with their own additions. Arguing about which one we should include probably won't get anywhere, so a possible compromise would be to either include none of them or all of them, as we are probably not going to come to consensus otherwise. Any comments on this? Cowman109Talk 23:24, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
I say none. maxcap 23:26, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
I'd say all, but i'm kind of biased. Honestly, however, i think it will benefit the page at least in terms of giving people a place to go for discussions, which is an important part of most popular band's fanbases. MyLovelyMan 23:31, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
I say none. I haven't yet seen a valid argument for the inclusion of fan sites. Wikipedia isn't a link farm, nor is it google. If people want a discussion forum, they can search for one. Thus far pro-fan site votes have said the official site is lacking in information. Well...I think that is what this article is for. Put the information here but you don't need a host of links to fan sites. IrishGuy talk 23:34, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
To include some sort of compromise, if there is further information given by a fan site, perhaps the fansite could be listed as a citation, but not as an external link? That way it is still included, but only for the information it offers (which is really what links should give - specific extra information). Cowman109Talk 23:57, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
But it would be unencyclopedic. If a fan site has a news item...obviously it got that item from somewhere. The primary source should be utilized and not the secondary fan site. IrishGuy talk 00:01, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
I do seem to recall that the verifiability policy specifically excludes fan sites and blogs. Ideogram 00:06, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
I at least agree that fansites should not be used to verify and cite news sources, especially since it is against wikipedia policy. So, it would have to be all fansites or none of them, as there is no way to be fair without putting all of them in the links section. MyLovelyMan 00:18, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Fantastic! We agreed on something. That's a start. :) Cowman109Talk 00:22, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

That is the point. When it becomes and all-or-none proposition, you are forced to go with none. Otherwise everyone who creates any level of RHCP shrine on geocities or angelfire will be able to put a spamlink in this article. We couldn't say no because there are already other fansites. IrishGuy talk 01:38, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. maxcap 01:39, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to point out that geocities and angelfire sites are totally different than normal, established fan sites. Geocities sites do not (usually) have up to date news like stadium-arcadium.com and One Hot Globe. Most of the RHCP pages i have seen are more like "shrines", as Irishguy said and not really things that could be put into a wikipedia article, in the first place. If we did have it with fan sites in the links section, we would eventually have to draw the line somewhere anyway. I know some of you are going to argue with me but thats my two cents. MyLovelyMan 01:54, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
While you may feel that free hosting sites are different, those who have fan sites on free hosts would argue otherwise. How can one rationally draw a line including some and excluding others? Wouldn't the rational (and fair) thing to do be to not have any fansites? IrishGuy talk 02:10, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
If I were linking to a news archive, I'd still be up for the English version of the Italian site discussed above. Xinit 06:21, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Like I have previously pointed out, OHG has been around since 2000(though the site has been changed around a few times and the board/site was lost for a while due to server problems). OHG again is the ONLY fansite that I know of that has been given exclusive content directly from the band's label (OHG was given free copies of the Dani California single to give away through site contests), AOL gave the site exclusive content only avaiable through the RHCP.com site including the full private AOL sessions show (you can look through the news archives for proof of this) and OHG has had the honor of being voted as a top site by MTV (which you can see at the top of the page). While the site has gone under some extensive work in the past few months there is work being done on it to get it back to how it once was. Just thought i'd throw in my opinion again. Like I said, I don't run the page though I do have access to updating the page, moderating the forum etc.. I have no problem with any other RHCP site. All of them are great though I will point out that sites like SA or rhcp.it have been slacking on the news on their pages. Not that I care but I know the thing was brought up about news archives (which OHG currently has going back to 2004 though earlier archives were lost-read about us section for info). There are some good fansites, there are some ok fansites. I have personally noticed news I posted from the OHG using my name on a few (and for the record, we don't copy and paste the full articles to our news section due to any copyright problems we could face plus we also are strongly against hosting files deemed illegal by the label-a few fansites do not follow that rule). I don't think every fansite should be on there. If you have rules about the sites being in English that should eliminate a few. Less than a handful are up to date and have an extensive history though. As for a response to signing up to our forum. You have to also register with the Stadium-Arcadium site as well to view the forum. We do however provide news on the main site where fans can comment on news WITHOUT even signing up to the forum or registering. Xinit: I would also like to point out that if you look on the right hand side of the OHG page, there is a new archive dating back to 2004. Jason1978 07:05, 20 June 2006

(You don't have to register to access the stadium-arcadium forums.) ReadyMade 17:47, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Red_Hot_Chili_Peppers/Archive_3&oldid=1136236939"