Talk:Richard Manitoba

Untitled
Should there be a section about the lawsuit with caribou?Wmcleod (talk) 21:08, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Definitely! --77.191.254.221 (talk) 12:25, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Some folks in Canada thought this guy was a jerk for threatening the legal action on Caribou. Caribou is after all a Canadian, while this "Dick" seems to be a has-been from a band that hasn't aged well.192.30.202.15 (talk) 21:33, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I brought back Caribou and added sources. CBC "In late 2004, in the most unexpected turn yet, Caribou was born out of the ashes of lawsuit enacted by ageing punk rocker Handsome ‘Dick' Manitoba. In surely one of the most bizarre trademark lawsuits in recent years Handsome ‘Dick' sued Snaith for unlawfully using the name Manitoba - a name incidentally shared by one of Canada's ten provinces. Finding himself limited by the high-priced realities of trademark law, Snaith opted to take the high road and change his nom de rock to Caribou."  this "Snaith first started making music under the Manitoba moniker in 2000, but was forced to change it in 2004 following legal threats from Richard "Handsome Dick" Manitoba. He subsequently rereleased all the albums he'd put out as Manitoba after renaming himself Caribou in 2005."  this (CBC) "Speaking of copyright, pity Dan Snaith. When the critically vaunted electro-popper from Dundas, Ont., chose the moniker Manitoba, he thought he’d found a name that was just dull and unfashionable enough to escape trademark infringement. This year, Handsome Dick Manitoba of ’70s New York proto-punks the Dictators threatened Snaith with litigation. Although Handsome Dick has never released an album under the name Manitoba, Snaith was sufficiently intimidated to agree to drop his musical sobriquet. Seeking an equally anachronistic Canadian handle, he has opted for Caribou."  and here (CBC) "Though Snaith, who holds a doctorate in mathematics, currently resides in London, England, the soft-spoken sonic savant couldn't be more Canadian. Before naming himself after the regal beast whose head graces the quarter, Snaith was known as Manitoba. He put out several releases under the provincial moniker before American rocker Richard "Handsome Dick" Manitoba sued him for stealing his professional surname. Rather than wasting his time on legal battles, Snaith switched pseudonyms."  192.30.202.11 (talk) 20:41, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * This info has been added and deleted repeatedly for the last four years. The page/section might need moderation/locking if the unexplained deletion continues. 03:36, 17 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.92.190.47 (talk)

I just deleted it. I have no history with this, but this lawsuit didn't even go to court. Check WP:UNDUE WEIGHT. Also, the topic shouldn't be used as leverage to include information about Caribou in this article (there's a WP policy name for that, but I can't even remember it).KD Tries Again (talk) 04:42, 8 April 2010 (UTC)KD Tries Again


 * I reverted. The Caribou part is as relevant to this article as pretty well any other. Dick Manitoba wasn't even a founding member of the Dictators. He was in the Dictators for 30 years? I'm not sure it existed that long, and most of their total activities--to say little of their most relevant activities seemed to be in the 70's. This goof get's an article as big as Rob Tyner, the founding member of MC5, a band that was several times more relevant than the Dictators, and were so earlier. So he has a show on an XM channel. Big F'ing deal! Further, punkers used to make a big deal about freedom of speech; and we have the whole intellectual-property-rights thing going on with the internet and file-sharing. If some aging punker shows himself to possibly being a bigger hippocrite than the hippies they attacked, and use the apparatus of the state to bully young talent, and possibly being an operator of sockpuppets here that do little than delete negative references about him, I think such would be relevant.  Mind you, thanks for the comments. It shows that at least you aren't a sockpuppet.  :-)  70.54.181.70 (talk) 15:31, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * There is no question that Manitoba has been in The Dictators for thirty years, although you are correct that he wasn't a founding member (Dave Gilmour wasn't a founding member of Pink Floyd - so what?). But your comments don't address the policy point I raised. Devoting a section to a fairly brief BLP to a dispute which was settled out of court is an example of WP:UNDUE WEIGHT.  These kinds of disputes happen all the time.  Biographical articles do not typically incorporate any legal dispute of any kind in which the subject was involved.  Check out the policy - for example: "An article's coverage of individual events or opinions involving its subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the topic. This is an important consideration when reporting on recent events that may be in the news. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements."


 * Whether this is notable as an example of hypocrisy is moot, as none of the four sources given in the article state that. You obviously have a POV, other editors will have a different POV.  That's why we have to refer to the sources.  Please consider the policy point I've raised; if necessary we can take it to the BLP Noticeboard and get input from other editors.  Do you have a Wikipedia account by the way?KD Tries Again (talk) 18:08, 13 April 2010 (UTC)KD Tries Again
 * I have another account, but for now I'm not using it, but rather varying IP's. Sorry, but I can't do much editting today--at least that's worthy of your comments. One thing I'll say though, David Gilmour is arguably more importnat to PF than Dick Manitoba was to the Dictators: at least the PK was far more prominent than the latter. I heard one Dictator's song on the radio ever. Pink Floyd was on Billboard for over 10 years.206.130.173.55 (talk) 19:59, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I am not suggesting equivalence - rather the opposite. I have no idea how a court would have decided this case, and we'll never know, but the starting point is that you don't have more secure rights to your brand or trademark just because you are rich and famous. There is some equality here.  But really, these are side issues.KD Tries Again (talk) 15:36, 14 April 2010 (UTC)KD Tries Again

"but the starting point is that you don't have more secure rights to your brand or trademark just because you are rich and famous." That was Caribou's and my point. :-D Okay, it's me again, likely back to my previous IP. I will give your links a decent read later. True, I have a POV. I'm a bit ticked at RM over the Caribou issue, and I wasn't too impressed with the only Dictator's song I heard on the radio, and an anti-Beatle's reference it had—though I don't hold the same against Johnny Rotten; and again, I have a slight suspicion that RM is behind the sockpuppetry. Otherwise I bear no grudge, and in a way he seems to have a bit of a rough “we’re no angels” kinda charm. If we are going to delete the Caribou references as supposedly unimportant—keeping in mind that they are the only references directly sourced, then we'll have to prune much of this article for similar reasons, and I suppose that I'll list them below; but first another David Gilmour reference. In the infobox of Pink Floyd, they at least have the courtesy to refer to "years active." Lest I'm accused of an anti-punk bias though, I've taken some slack for some edits here. :D Lastly, the Caribou thing happened 6 years ago: so it's hardly current—more historic. Also, the references are the best in the entire article CBC.

External links say little
The 1st and 4th say little of Manitoba, save that he essentially became a member because he was too much a liability as a road. The 2nd is a link to his restaurant. The 3rd has no reference to RM.
 * I removed 3rd external link.70.54.181.70 (talk) 19:05, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Why is Richard Manitoba in the musician categories?
Johnny Rotten isn't; neither is Iggy Pop. Even Ozzy Osbourne is simply categorized as a Category:British harmonica players.
 * I got him out of the musician categories. (Maybe someone can find a video of him playing something.)70.54.181.70 (talk) 19:05, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

JP "Thunderbolt" Patterson
is not only redlined, but isn't even mentioned in The Ramones
 * I removed the red-lines and references to Ramones.70.54.181.70 (talk) 19:05, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Dick Manitoba's bar
“On January 14th 1999 Handsome Dick opened his own bar in the East Village in Manhattan, simply called Manitoba's, where the customers can find ‘no trendy bullshit’, just ‘good beer and a killer juke-box’ and plenty of rare punk gigs posters and rare pictures on the walls.” Perhaps we can get an address and hours. :-D Advertisements masquerading as articles, or presumably parts of articles thereof.

Kiss Loves You
The article makes no references to Dick Manitoba, though Google videos does show him and Dee Snider chatting for a few minutes.
 * I removed the section, but merged it with another.70.54.181.70 (talk) 19:05, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Merging
The first edit of this article was done slightly over 4 years ago, and the content has changed little since then. The account, User:Urbanshocker, that created it seems to be a single purpose account that has been blocked for sockpuppetry. A good chunk of this article is more or less copied from The Dictators article, from which it should be merged with. If there is pruning of this article for reasons stated above, than merging would make even more sense.70.54.181.70 (talk) 16:21, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Trying to organize the discussion
We now have quite a scatter of points on the Talk Page. These seem to be the ones where we need consensus:


 * Merging. I really don't think so.  Wikipedia criteria for notability are very low indeed, and Manitoba's career outside The Dictators easily meets them.
 * That he was in some re-tread called "Animal Kingdom" (No one cares about your garage band),did a few gigs with MC5 in 2005-6 14 years after Rob Tyner died, and 35 or so years after MC5 was relevant, has a bar, and for all I know, vandalizes Wikipedia articles about himself? I'll keep it in mind when I do a few of my articles (Other stuff exists). Galaxy (band) is more worthy of an article than this guy, but I have nothing notable save a few blogs. But if this article is the standard, I won't have to worry about notability. I can do an OR, elaborate, revert edits by others using sockpuppets, and if I keep it up for a few years, it'll be established enough that I can resist merging, much more deletion.70.54.181.70 (talk) 19:05, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The lawsuit. I still don't see a response to the undue weight argument.  The merits of the suit are not the point here: just whether it's good practice at Wikipedia to include sections in biographies dealing with lawsuits which were settled out of court.  Clearly this isn't usually done, and I don't see any grounds to make this a special case.
 * "An article's coverage of individual events or opinions involving its subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the topic." What in the article is more significant? "This is an important consideration when reporting on recent events that may be in the news." Something that happened 6 years ago is hardly a recent event.  "Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements." It takes a fraction of the article.  Besides the section mentions flat Earth and fringe theories and NPOV. What's so POV about the lawsuit?  "The merits of the suit are not the point here: just whether it's good practice at Wikipedia to include sections in biographies dealing with lawsuits which were settled out of court.  Clearly this isn't usually done, and I don't see any grounds to make this a special case." Check this. "Kildall obtained a copy of PC-DOS, examined it, and concluded that it infringed on CP/M. When he asked Gerry Davis what legal options were available, Davis told him that intellectual property law for software was not clear enough to sue. Instead Kildall only threatened IBM with legal action, and IBM responded with a proposal to offer CP/M-86 as an option for the PC in return for a release of liability."  We also have it with Michael Jackson  here: "On January 1, 1994, Jackson's insurance company settled with the Chandlers out of court for $22 million, after which Jordan stopped co-operating regarding criminal proceedings. Jackson was never charged, and the state closed its criminal investigation, citing lack of evidence."70.54.181.70 (talk) 19:05, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I do agree the plug for the bar needs to be removed, especially as there's no cite. I'll do that now.KD Tries Again (talk) 00:29, 16 April 2010 (UTC)KD Tries Again

Thanks for the input. I think we need to get some other editors to look at this.KD Tries Again (talk) 02:09, 17 April 2010 (UTC)KD Tries Again

I tried to edit it towards a more neutral tone.

"From 1999 Manitoba has operated "Manitobas", a New York City bar on the Lower East Side of Manhattan. He appeared in the 2004 documentary Kiss Loves You.[1] Manitoba stepped in as the vocalist for a reformed version of the band MC5 for several performances. (the original singer, Rob Tyner, died of a heart attack in 1991). Manitoba currently hosts the "The Handsome Dick Manitoba Radio Program" on Little Steven Van Zandt's Underground Garage channel, on Sirius XM Radio. ).

Trademark claim of the name "Manitoba"
Manitoba had been part of a project that recorded a rock album under the name "Manitoba's Wild Kingdom" that was released by MCA records in 1990. In 2004 he became aware that Canadian recording artist Daniel Snaith's electronic project had been releasing albums under the name "Manitoba" (also the name a Canadian province) since 2000. Once aware of this, Manitoba had Snaith informed that he considered the situation to be a within the scope of trademark infringement. Snaith disagreed, commenting: "It's like The Smiths suing John Smith or something" but complied by changing the project's name to Caribou_(musician) rather than having the dispute decided in a court of law." 66.108.243.166 (talk) 08:34, 31 October 2010 (UTC)Moi


 * I just removed the above copy from the article as "Unreferenced snark". I am seeing from above that this is a repeated instance of using Wikipedia to score personal points. Definitely unacceptable. Wwwhatsup (talk) 23:41, 11 December 2012 (UTC)


 * this is easy to verify with google just google dan snaith manitoba. im reinstating it. 174.21.232.232 (talk) 08:43, 7 January 2013 (UTC)


 * That ref does clarify things a little. I can see this story is of major concern to Snaith, however as far as Richard Manitoba goes it is trivial and not notable. What's more there does not appear to be any independent confirmation of the details beyond Snaith as interviewed. I have again removed it. Since this story has been repeatedly replaced in the article when others before me have removed it, the three revert rule would appear to be in effect. I shall not hesitate to request the article be protected if needed. Wwwhatsup (talk) 10:51, 7 January 2013 (UTC)


 * After the section was again put in the article, I have requested temporary semi-protection. Wwwhatsup (talk) 06:06, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Protection
The result of my request is this:


 * Pictogram voting support.svg Fully protected&#32;for a period of 4 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Since the unregistered editors in question are citing a source, this is a content dispute. As it involves both unregistered and autoconfirmed users, full protection is required.  Please discuss the issue on the talk page and come to a resolution, or use dispute resolution. &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 07:34, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

What I will say to kick off is that, 1) I would think that semi-protection would be appropriate here as we are seeing a pattern of reinstating the same copy over and over and over again by varying IPs. Semi-protection will force accoubt creation, and then WP:3RR can be invokded if applicable. 2) the ref in question appears to be an interview with an aggrieved person, as do the edits, thus one has to suspect WP:COI, and 3) this story, regardless, is just not worthy of inclusion in what is otherwise a brief article. Wwwhatsup (talk) 12:18, 9 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Oh and, I just had look back through the history of the article, and this content has been instated and removed literally dozens and dozens of times going back several years! Prospects for consensus do not seem strong. Wwwhatsup (talk) 12:50, 9 January 2013 (UTC).


 * I agree with Wwwhatsup. Whilst I do not wish to engage in IP bashing, this is not the first time I have seen Wikipedia being used as a conduit by IPs trying to 'prove a point'.  As Wwwwhtasup states, the whole matter is virtually irrelevant - but to protect Wikipedia's reputation and neutral stance, I do feel semi-protection may go a long way towards curbing potential edit wars.


 * Derek R Bullamore (talk) 14:30, 9 January 2013 (UTC)


 * The Trademark claim of the name "Manitoba" section and its content can not be considered encyclopaedic. Also, adding an entire new section to a fairly brief article like this, is an exaggeration of an exaggeration. If there are reliable sources then a half-line about Caribou's using and changing of the name, as per the Caribou article (the opening line of the "Career" section), could be more than enough, but we can easily live (and have happy dreams) without!

Moreover, 209.196.192.7 (which appears to be part of the Sirius Satellite Radio of NY)  removed  a very interesting part from the article:



I think it is better to have this page semi-protected. –p joe f (talk • contribs) 19:24, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Both URLs within the ref TAGs are gone, but here are the Wayback Machine pages from the Internet Archive:
 * Board
 * The Manifesto
 * I think the explanation of that removal would be that that was Manitoba himself, perhaps out of respect, as Davis was deceased and the organization no longer current. Wwwhatsup (talk) 22:12, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I sort of imagined it was something like that, and I can understand, but it seems to me to be a commendable and noteworthy initiative. No problem and thanks for the explanation. –p joe f (talk • contribs) 18:07, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi there, I'm the admin who protected the page. Just a reminder that if you want to ask for more explanation or want to ask an admin to reconsider a decision, you can always ask them directly, since they don't always watch the page after the request is handled. (For example, I didn't -- I was advised of this discussion by another user.)


 * As far as the reason why I used full protection, it's explained by the protection policy. These additions are not vandalism, so therefore it's a dispute about the content the IP addresses are adding.  Specifically, the second bullet point in that section of the protection policy says that semi-protection can be used in a content dispute only if all of the involved editors are unregistered and/or new accounts.  If at least one person involved in the dispute over this content is an autoconfirmed user, using semi-protection "privileges" those registered users over the IP editors, which is not treating the dispute fairly.  Therefore, either full protection or pending-changes protection are the only applicable types allowed.


 * To put it another way, semi-protecting the page gives the autoconfirmed users an "upper hand" in the dispute, and that's not permitted under policy. &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 23:04, 9 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the clarification. Full protection is not a problem at all. What I would like to see is some consensus by experienced editors of whether this content should be included - either in the often reinstated or in an abridged form - in the article, so that it can be settled once and for all. Regardless of fact it is my sense that while the trademark dispute is important with respect to Caribou, it is trivial with respect to Richard Manitoba, and the only reason it appears in the article is a determined personal agenda to portray, as in the source, Manitoba negatively as an "ass" and a "hater". I did a personal RFC to a few good editors I know. Perhaps it should go through the formal RFC process. Wwwhatsup (talk) 03:35, 10 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Not a lot of response from the other side. If, after the protection comes off tomorrow, the IP reinserts the section, what then? Wwwhatsup (talk) 22:16, 12 January 2013 (UTC)


 * As someone previously involved here, I agree that the repeated insertion of extensive references to the dispute between Snaith and Manitoba has been disproportionate and non-encyclopedic. Readers visiting this article want to know about Manitoba's solo career, not about an eight year-old, and long-resolved, legal dispute.KD Tries Again (talk) 20:27, 15 January 2013 (UTC)KD Tries Again

Removal of BLP sources tag
I have done some general clean up on the article. Since practically everything is now reffed I have removed the BLP sources tag. Wwwhatsup (talk) 21:25, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

reversions of story of arrest
I have noticed on two occasions there have been reversions regarding the story of Dick's arrest, even though it was sourced (albeit user did not format the link 100% correctly).

On one occasion, the comment was merely "delete", the other time was "BLP vio", which is amusing considering there was a sentence that appeared to have been written by Mr Manitoba himself.

This feels a lot like friends/fans/the man himself removing news details that aren't flattering to him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TravellerInStygian (talk • contribs) 16:10, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek your reasoning is full of shit. BLP rules only state you can't post stories of an arrest of non-public figures. Have a hard time believing you could argue Manitoba isn't a public figure.

"This section (WP:BLPCRIME) applies to individuals who are not public figures; that is, individuals not covered by WP:WELLKNOWN. For relatively unknown people, editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured. A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Accusations, investigations and arrests do not amount to a conviction."