Talk:Speak (Hungarian rapper)

themes
this whole article almost reads like a joke, but this section in particular is almost entirely fluff. he doesn't touch into "Speak takes us on a philosophical journey through extremist Wahhabism, Marxism, and finally optimistic Post-9/11 philosophy.". this article belongs on uncyclopedia or 4chan. --142.167.227.92 (talk) 21:03, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Homosexuality

 * Are there any citations for Speak's views on homosexuality and abortion? Unless someone can provide some, I'm going to delete it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.72.39.133 (talk) 02:52, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Um, where are all the references? They go up to 14 but there's only 2 of them at the bottom. 154.20.173.218 23:22, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


 * What are the arguments for deleting this page? I would like to improve it so it can stay. What should be done? Any wiki guru around who would tell us?

Thanks.

(copyvio removed)


 * Very funny lyrics, but this does not belong in a Wikipedia article. Rikoozik 05:41, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


 * You don't belong Kent, YOU don't BELONG! * - User Anonymous —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.130.179.96 (talk • contribs).


 * Aren't including the entire lyrics for a song in an article a copyright violation? Rawr 17:18, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Comparisons Speak as a character can be compared to Ali G, because like Ali G, he does not fit within the traditional stereotypical definition of a rap artist. The improper use of rap catch phrases and colloquialisms are defining characteristics of both characters, however, Speak is not meant to be a comedic character, but a legitmate Hungarian rapper that unintentionally comes off as humorous. Ali G on the other hand is intended to be a humorous character and is a role played by the comedian Sacha Baron Cohen, of Borat fame. Rikoozik 05:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the comparisons part is out of place in this article, as it seems to be mostly opinion. Is there any way to integrate this into the article? We can't cite people's posts on message boards for this, so I've reproduced it below for now until we can come up with a way to integrate this without it being hearsay:

Copyright infringement
Unless you can clearly demonstrate that the lyrics have been released under the GNU Free Documentation License or to the public domain by the artist, they are not appropriate to place either in the article or on this talk page. Since I can find no such release or any reason to believe that's happened, I've removed them. Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 02:43, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Come on, could someone please put the lyrics back up on the page!!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 163.1.142.164 (talk • contribs).

Future and Influence
We need sources for the Future and Influence sections. Rikoozik 04:00, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I think this section was based of an personal interview with speak by a fan (not me), anyone know how you site that in wikipedia format? Opetyan 23:04, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Correct title for the song
The song's title is "Stop the war". I own one of the first copies. Please check more sources on the internet for reference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Koratcat (talk • contribs) 07:13, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

genre
Is it really appropriate to include speak in the genre of rap and hip-hop? Opera seems like it would be somewhat better. I'm not sure how to classify him, but the question of what genre to list him as should at least be broached. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens (talk) 19:41, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism
I have removed the 'future' section as it was completely not verifiable and is consistently being used for spamming. It is possible for this article to be deleted by an admin? I feel this article does not meet accuracy standards. ==Speedman79==

Piecemeal deletion
This page was proposed for deletion, but that proposal was contested. Since that time the user who proposed the page for deletion has removed significant portions of the page, including those that are properly sourced and relevant to the subject. This is not a generally accepted way to deal with disagreements over page content. Unsourced, controversial suggestions should be removed, but information that is properly supported by reliable sources should not. If there are reasons to remove the page in its entirety, the page may be discussed at WP:Articles for deletion. Cnilep (talk) 00:29, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Feel free to revert. I am generally suspicious of editors who call for a deletion and then spend time 'improving' it. Law type!  snype? 03:47, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I've been reverting many of these changes, but don't wish either the deleting editor or myself to run technically afoul of the WP:Three revert rule, so I would be happy to have others monitoring the page as well. Cnilep (talk) 15:04, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I understand your concerns, but I have simply removed all of the joke, spoof content which mocks the 'artist'. If the article is to remain it must be accurate, and not used as a place to extend the joke. Only the very basics need remain on this article (the previous editor has restored an incorrect "fact" about the Youtube video. What relevance does the number of views the Youtube video has have to the article? If people want to know that they should search the video. [User:Speedman79|Speedman79]] (talk) 16.54, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I do not believe that all of what you have deleted is trivial, and I'm not convinced that it is inaccurate. Deák is primarily famous because people have mocked his video. That makes factual assertions about the video relevant to this article. Can we not come to some consensus about that? Cnilep (talk) 16:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * This is becoming an edit war, just as I feared. See this edit and my subsequent reversion. I am calling for other editors and/or admins to intervene to ensure that neither Speakman79 or I have undue effect from our own point of view. Cnilep (talk) 14:53, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Neutral Opinion
I saw your request for a third opinion on WP:3O. I am glad to see two editors who are very enthusiastic about improving the project. I would appreciate it if one or both of the involved editors could briefly summarize the discussion in a way that would be clear to someone not highly familiar with the subject. That way I can make sure I understand both points of view. Also, it might be helpful if the editors all refrain from editing the article until we find a concensus on proposed changes. Thanks again, -- Matheuler 17:19, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * If I may (Speedman79, please feel free to correct any of my comments you find to be erroneous): Speak is an actor/model and rapper primarily famous for the anti-war video "Stop the War." This video came to popularity when commenters at YouTube and elsewhere made fun of it; Digg called it "Unintentional Mind-Blowing Hilarity".


 * User Speedman79 proposed this page for deletion and I contested that PROD, as detailed above. Since then, Speedman79 has removed much of the content of this page, often stating in edit summaries that the removed content served only to mock the artist. I re-wrote the section "Stop the War" citing two primary and two secondary sources, to give fuller context to the page. Speedman79 has deleted large portions of that section, and I have either restored or re-written them approximately seven times. Cnilep (talk) 17:56, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your helpful explanation. We will wait to hear from Speedman79 and see what his rationale is.  The article has never been listed on AfD then, right?  Thanks again. -- Matheuler  23:02, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The link to the AFD can be found at the top of the article discussion page. Law type!  snype? 10:46, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

We have not heard back from Speedman79 yet. However Cnilep has indicated that there are editors who have been making controversial edits. I strongly encourage editors to clearly list the reasonings for any edits they make here on the talk page. Also, it would be beneficial to thereby attain a concensus before actually enacting any edits that are certain to be controversial. Cnilep's argument above is convincing, and as the AfD several months ago did not find concensus to delete, it seems that the best course is to constructively work to improve this article. I am confident that the hard work of all involved editors will allow this page to move forward in a positive direction. Matheuler 19:57, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * To be specific, I think that the revision of unreferenced additions on 14 August was entirely proper. But, I think that the removal of the entire 'Stop The War' section, including sources, on 20 August was inappropriate in light of this on-going discussion. (Note also the 13 August edits that immediately preceded this discussion.) I have repeatedly expressed my opposition to such changes, and hope we can come to a consensus here before making any such changes. Cnilep (talk) 20:57, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I am hesitant to make further statements before hearing Speedman79's point of view. Nonetheless, I must comment that I agree with Cnilep that it is not usually best to continue editing in a controversial manner while we are trying to find a concensus.  The wholesale deletion of a section of the article without appropriate discussion on this article talk page seems to be questionable.  I will notify Speedman79 that we would appreciate hearing from him.  Matheuler  21:13, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I see that Cnilep has already notified Speedman79, and he has not yet responded. We will wait a little while longer...  Matheuler  21:15, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello Speedman79 here. I have tried to ensure the article is factual and have removed info which either is inaccurate, irrelevant, or written as spoof information. I feel the article is now accurate and appropriate and no longer contains joke information and spam.Speedman79 (talk)02.30 23 August 2009
 * While I believe that it is your intention to remove inaccurate, irrelevant, or mocking information, I disagree that the information you've removed meets any of these criteria. For example, "In September of 2006 a video for 'Stop The War' was posted on Youtube," is not only straight-forwardly factual, it is verified by media sources. Likewise, pointing out that Deák was mocked is not the same thing as mocking him. Cnilep (talk) 13:07, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I apologize for having taken several days to respond. I can definitely see both sides of the situation here.  Perhaps Cnilep would agree to state an example of a sentance or two that he would like to add (putting it here on the talk page).  Then he can also indicate what independent secondary sources support this text (i.e. not fansites, ect.).  Finally, Speedman79 will be able to review these additions and note any concerns  he may have.  If the proposed text (by Cnilep) appears to meet notability guidelines and sourcing guidelines, then we will encourage its addition.  I have looked at the page history, but I think this proposed text system will enable the most contructive way forward.  Matheuler  23:20, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Speedman here. The article appears fine to me now, merely containing basic and accurate info. The spammers appear to have given up now which is nice. Speedman79 (talk) 16:31 10 September 2009
 * Glad to hear we are all satisfied! — Matheuler   18:13, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Proposed additions
Per the discussion above, the following additions are proposed to the page Speak (artist). The sources are included in an ad-hoc way here for ease of reading, but will be enclosed in tags if added to the page. Please add objections, critiques, or suggestions for improvement below the proposed addition. Cnilep (talk) 16:13, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Stop The War (New section heading) Speak's principal claim to fame is his 2003 single "Stop The War". A video for the rap song, featuring Deák with backing vocalists including actor/singer Miklós Varga, and Tamás Takáts of the Hungarian rock band Karthago, appeared on YouTube in 2006.(REF1, 2, 3) The video was the object of some ridicule, with various commentators labeling the song as unintentional humor(REF4) or comparing Speak to the fictional character Borat.(REF1, REF5) Nonetheless, Deák has gone on to some success touring in Europe.(REF6, REF1, REF7)


 * REF1:"Speak, a magyar rapper szombaton adja első koncertjét." Index, 30 August 2007. (Hungarian)
 * REF2:"Szponzort keres világzenéjéhez Speak, a 'Hungarian rapper'". Videók. HVG Online. 13 June 2007. (Hungarian)
 * REF3:"Speak the Hungarian Rapper". (video) YouTube. 28 September 2006.
 * REF4:"Serious Hungarian Rap Song -- Unintentional Mind-Blowing Hilarity!!!". Digg. 16 February 2007.
 * REF5:Dalton, Stephen (25 April 2007) "Speak up for peace; Web video of the day." The Times.
 * REF6:"Rapper Speak naar Nederland." Geen Commentaar. 12 September 2008. (Dutch)
 * REF7:"Bad Rapper, Cello Headbangers Headline Yet Another Sziget". Pesticide. 11 August 2008. The All Hungary Media Group.
 * A note on the nature of these source: The Times is a major London daily; I hope that its reliability is beyond question. YouTube and Digg have no claim to reliability or verification, but are offered as primary sources. Pesticide is pop-culture oriented magazine, Index and HVG Online are news magazines, and Geen Commentaar is a news aggregator; they are less respectable than The Times, but all are independent commercial news sources, not blogs, wikis, or fan sites. Cnilep (talk) 16:32, 2 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for taking the time to compile this information. After reviewing the sources, I am inclined to agree that, while not extremely famous, this individual does meet the Wikipedia Biography Notability guidelines.  If Speedman79 is still interested in this subject, perhaps he could give us his thoughts on the above paragraph, giving specific reasons why he has opposed its inclusion.  While I might prefer a slightly different wording, the general ideas seem to be appropriate, as it indicates the reasons for the individual's fame.  I may offer some slight copyediting changes in the coming days, if that's ok with Cnilep.  Finally, I suggest we refrain from adding this to the article for say, three days, while we check to see if Speedman79's concerns have been addressed.  Thanks again! —  Matheuler   23:00, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Copy editing is, of course, most welcome. Upon re-reading it, it suddenly feels poorly written to me, too. Funny how it didn't while I was writing it. Cnilep (talk) 14:17, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't mean to imply that it was poor writing. I just mean that I thought a slight rewording might be good.  But let me know what you think of this:

Stop The War (New section heading)

Speak is known primarily for his culturally-important 2003 rap single Stop The War (REF 1). A video for this single appeared on the popular site YouTube, and featured other semi-famous musicians. (REF 2) Some critics lampooned the video, with various commentators labeling the song as unintentional humor (REF4) and comparing Speak to the fictional character Borat (REF5). Nonetheless, Speak has gone on to some success touring in Europe(REF6 & REF7).

''I think this might work out well. I do think we should eliminate the direct reference to Youtube (Ref 3), or else include it as an external link, not a reference. But altogether I am now in agreement with you that this subject deserves an article, and this section should be good for the article.'' — Matheuler   23:48, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The only issue I have with this version is with the wording "culturally-important" single. I think that implies that Speak is influential or important within rap, and I do not think that is the case. I'd suggest just "rap single" or "rap song". Cnilep (talk) 15:03, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, you are correct, it does give the impression of undue importance. I have went ahead and put the proposed text in the article to see what it looks like.  See what you think.  Obviously, feel free to copyedit or make corrections.  If another user feels something about the proposed text is inaccurate, they should let us know on this talk page.  Thanks again for taking the time to compile all that information. —  Matheuler   21:18, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Speakmusic as a reference
The website www.speakmusic.hu is, I gather, Deák's own site. As such it is a primary source and should be supplemented by secondary sources. Be careful not to draw any analysis or interpretive claims from primary sources. Cnilep (talk) 13:12, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but I think it can be source for statements like "Speak posted four songs on his website". I listened to the songs and laughed my a** off :D before adding One of them is the 2007 version of "Stop the War", does that count as original research? – Alensha   talk  20:46, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Primary sources are generally accepted for verification of non-controversial, non-interpretive information (like the existence of something), but not for more complex, analytic information. I think the source is probably acceptable if the assertion is only that the songs exist and are available on the web page. Cnilep (talk) 20:51, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Is this a 'minor tidy'?
Although this edit was marked as minor and called "minor tidy" in the edit summary, it removed a small piece of substantive information, including a source. That bit of information had been added pursuant to a long-sought consensus (see Proposed additions, just above). I asked Speedman79 to justify the deletion, but he appears to be on a Wikibreak. Since Speedman79 and I have disagreed about the content of this page in the past, I am reluctant to revert his edit, but wish to bring it up so other editors may revert (or not) as they see fit. Cnilep (talk) 18:19, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedman79 is again removing bits of this page. I have reverted his recent edits that removed properly cited material which had been added after a long discussion, above. Please refrain from removing information for which there are references. Cnilep (talk) 21:56, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. We've been through the entire argument not long ago and agreed to the article's content. Speedman79 is again trying to impose his view of relevance over that decided by multiple editors. I find this unacceptable. Cnilep (talk) 17:48, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Stop Inappropriate Deletions
I was alerted to the situation by User:Cnilep. I am very concerned that the consensus version of this article is continuing to be subjected to inappropriate reversions. I believe that all editors are editing in good faith. However, concerns should be discussed here before any substantial deletions! This is especially important for User:Speedman79, whose deletions appear to be inappropriate. I thank everyone for their vigilant promotion of a pleansant and open editing environment. —Finn Casey * * * 21:53, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Eagle attack?
Is this intended sincerely? I'm inclined to revert it, except that Speedman79 has often edited this page in good faith and so deserves the benefit of the doubt. Cnilep (talk) 03:06, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I have reverted the edit, since it appears to have been a joke. If such an attack actually occurred, please cite a reliable source when re-adding. Cnilep (talk) 18:31, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Although Speedman79 says that this addition is not a joke, I cannot find any media reports suggesting such an attack took place. Questionable claims that are unsourced should be removed promptly from biographies of living persons. Cnilep (talk) 04:26, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Fake ref
Ref 6 ought to be deleted, it not only does not cite a direct source(original article here: http://www.speld.nl/2008/09/05/rapper-speak-ook-naar-nederland) it also refrences an obvious satirical newspaper, this is not just unreliable, it's reliable to be the opposite of true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.97.206.188 (talk) 08:02, 10 July 2013‎