Langbahn Team – Weltmeisterschaft

Talk:Immortal Technique: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added
Who-am-i (talk | contribs)
No edit summary
72.153.198.212 (talk)
Line 17: Line 17:


:::Some of these phrases are the same, but it looks like it was put through a POV filter. I wanted to get as many facts as possible and the Viper records site is really the only source on the web. If you are talking about sentence structure, please, change away.
:::Some of these phrases are the same, but it looks like it was put through a POV filter. I wanted to get as many facts as possible and the Viper records site is really the only source on the web. If you are talking about sentence structure, please, change away.

LOOK I don’t know who wrote this but you dumbass what better place to get Immortal Techniques biography than one of his own sites.


::::Still may be a copyvio. [[User:ShadowyCaballero]] above claims to have permission, however. --[[User:Hansnesse|Hansnesse]] 01:07, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
::::Still may be a copyvio. [[User:ShadowyCaballero]] above claims to have permission, however. --[[User:Hansnesse|Hansnesse]] 01:07, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Revision as of 22:06, 5 February 2006

saying the track bin laden features jadakiss and eminem is a bit of a stretch; their vocals were sampled and they didnt actually pen lyrics for the track. mos def did, but they did not.


It appears the basis for this article was plagiarized from The Viper Records Biography of Immortal Technique. Was permission given? This doesn't look like public domain material. Tjdw 02:54, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

biography sucks

this biography looks like it was cut and pasted from the Viper records web site. Furthermore, a military hospital somewhere in South America - that's too vague for an article. Same with the part about him coming from native Peru. Peru is one hell of a big place and it's as general as saying someone came from the United States. If we just cut and paste articles from promo sites it makes wikipedia look worthless.

Vague is better than nothing (and some details are so specific they aren't notable). Learn to live with vagueness unless you have more specific, and sourced, information. If you have, then why not add it? On the other hand, if the wording here is copied from elsewhere, then it may have to be removed for copyright violation. Tim Ivorson 10:43, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Check it out [1]. The bio here on Wiki is a slimmer version but uses a lot of the same phrases and language. Looks like copy vio but I'm not going to add the copy vio tag until someone else verifies. -->Chemical Halo 18:16, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
Some of these phrases are the same, but it looks like it was put through a POV filter. I wanted to get as many facts as possible and the Viper records site is really the only source on the web. If you are talking about sentence structure, please, change away.

LOOK I don’t know who wrote this but you dumbass what better place to get Immortal Techniques biography than one of his own sites.

Still may be a copyvio. User:ShadowyCaballero above claims to have permission, however. --Hansnesse 01:07, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

love letter

This article basically reads like a love letter. Not sure if it was written by a promoter or what, but anyway, it puts him in a remarkably positive light. This guy was the main bully in my high school, that is, he was a huge asshole. So it's weird for me to read this article about how great he is in a supposed encyclopedia. --169.231.18.188 02:01, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Have you even heard any of his songs?--Kennyisinvisible 03:29, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

wanna write a hate letter instead?

well, maybe even george w. bush is a lovely person, but we will never know either. it is not the purpose of this article writing about how immortal technique is in person. if you feel that he is represented in totally wrong way, why not rewrite the bio?

fan website

can some admin please block user Cavell from changing the words of the artist's fan website to official website; he (or she) is obviously mixing up immortaltechnique.com (no dash! official site which right now redirects to viper records website) with immortal-technique.com (fan website, WITH dash) i think it is important that it is displayed as what it is and that, unlike viper records website, it doesnt represent Immortal Technique officially.

who-am-i 22:48, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As a response to the user Who-Am-I, I would like to state that Immortal Technique himself posts commentary on that website. So, in the interest of resolving the issue, the article has been changed to say "on the website Immortal-Technique.com", removing any reference of who owns the website. Cavell 01:12, 24 December 2005 (UTC)Cavell[reply]

artists sometimes post on fan message boards, it doesnt make them official. but since you are demanding sources, please look up both domain names on any whois site, e.g. on http://www.networksolutions.com/whois/index.jhtml there you will see the owners of both domains. dash: some fan. no dash: Felipe Coronel, which is IT's real name. also, you removed the note that the message board in question is currently down (since almost 2 months by the way) and you added the wrong url. http://www.immortal-technique.com/home.html is obviously neither the message board url, nor the home page, but the internal (usually framed) news page. the message board url is http://www.immortal-technique.com/forums/ both changes are rather not helpful to first time readers, therefor they should be reverted once again. if you still disagree, please post here. who-am-i 01:44, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I know the message board link, however, like you said, it is down. The link I provided will direct you to the same place (although not accesable from the main page). This seems to be the disagreement we are having. The message board has not been constanly down for 2 months, as it is where I wrote about his diatribe in the first place. The site seems to be having problems, so I posted a link that directs people directly to the atricle which I spoke about. So, please leave the link as it is, then people can click it and read what I am talking about. Thank YouCavell 02:56, 24 December 2005 (UTC)Cavell[reply]

year (date) date of birth

to get a few more facts, does anyone know when IT was born? i remember reading something about 77 or 78 in some online magazine interview. however, i cannot find it in my bookmarks anymore. who-am-i 01:52, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV tag

I added the tag after reading the article, and may well end up cleaning the thing up myself. It reads far too much like material copied from somewhere, and it's grotesquely clingy; in short, it sounds like it was written by a groupie.

If it is material copied from elsewhere, then the offending revisions need to be erased for reasons of copyright. 86.133.53.111 04:33, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you are reffering to the paragraph about "The Intellectual", I wrote that. If you have any disputes about it, please contact me before changing anything, Cavell 04:37, 25 December 2005 (UTC)Cavell[reply]

I have removed the NPOV tag and rewritten the article to clean up any references I could find that would violate the NPOV. As such, I would welcome anyone who has any concerns about this to post and discuss further.Cavell 22:48, 31 December 2005 (UTC)Cavell[reply]

  • Well done! Much more NPOV. I would propose the following changes, however:
(i) change "rhymes deal with the wrongdoings of the government" to "rhymes deal with alledged wrongdoings of the government", since (although I think there are wrongdoings as well), this reads as an endorsement of his politics.
(ii) Remove the "Immortal Technique brings realism and consciousness back to rap music" since it is an opinion.
(iii) Replace "Despite his humble beginnings as an immigrant from Peru, to living in Harlem, New York, Immortal Technique displays amazing intellectual and political insight into sociology, world politics, and American Foreign Policy." with something more neutral or remove it entirely.
(iv) Remove "On the message board of Immortal-Technique.com [1], an excellent commentary on current political events, including Hurricane Katrina, the War in Iraq, and American Foreign Policy, may be read." Already in External links, no need to put it in twice.
I would have made the edits WP:BOLD, but since the material seems to have already be the subject of a few reverts, I thought we might try concensus here. Thoughts? --Hansnesse 01:07, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi, Thank you for your comments regarding my rewite. I have gone through the article once more to correct the issues you have mentioned. I take your points into great consideration and have dealt (I believe) with all of them, with just one exception, which is most likely due to a misunderstanding. In referance to your last point, technically the link is at the bottom, however, the message board link inside that link is - for some reason - down. So readers will not be able to access his diatribe via the link at the bottom, but they can access it through this link. I therefore propose to leave the link there, to further assist readers of his article. Your thoughs (or anyones else's) are welcomed. Thank you Cavell 02:24, 4 January 2006 (UTC)Cavell[reply]
  • I have both links (in text and at the bottom) as working and going to the same page. Is it time to remove one (whoever removed it earlier today may have been thinking the same thing)? Maybe I am not seeing what material can not be acessed via both links. --Hansnesse 05:22, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The links appear to go to the same page, but the message forum of his fan site cannot be accesed through the link at the bottom. It is therefore added in the article's body above, where mentioned.Cavell 21:50, 24 January 2006 (UTC)Cavell[reply]
  • Hmm... I have the link at the bottom of the article going to a framed version of the link in the article. The section in the center of the page from the link at the bottom is the same as the link in the page. Try scrolling down the center section (how to do this is specific to your browser/platform, on most PCs, hold the mouse over the section and roll down the roller on your mouse). I don't see what is different between the pages. Thanks, --Hansnesse 21:58, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know if we're talking about the same link. The link I am talking about is at the end of the article, talking about his commentary on the war in Iraq, Hurricane Katrina, etc. This page cannot be accessede from the link at the bottom of the page, even though they go to the same main site, so I left the link where people can use it. I think it help add a lot of depth to the article and request that it be left in for the benifit of many people.

I just reverted a removal of the first link. I think that removal is appropriate, but since this discussion is here, I thought I would request comments before going ahead and removing it myself, since it seems to be a contentious issue. --Hansnesse 23:33, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hey Hansnesse, thanks for the support. I feel that the link should be left in because it contains a fantastic commentary on some current (well, july 05) events taking place with american politics. The link as it is presented here cannot be accessed through the main menu of the site, so it has been placed in - where I thought - the most appropriate place. I feel the link should be left in and - frankly - can't understand why someone would want to remove this pertainant information. Since transferring the entrie text to the article is not feasible, why not leave it here? Thoughts anyone? Cavell 00:06, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • i dont know which browser user Cavell is using (maybe lynx?) but as far as i know, all current browsers (Opera, Mozilla derivates and even IE) support iframes, so the home page (/) on immortal-technique.com should work for anyone. who-am-i 01:50, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I too was thinking it was a technical issue (although I had not gotten around to checking it on other browsers, etc.). If this is the case, the solution seems obvious: put both links together, Like one of the following
Fan Site and Forumswithout frames
Fan Site and Forums (without frames)
What do ya'll think? --Hansnesse 02:19, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]