September 2002 – June 2006 – Topics: Welcome · White Rabbit (song) · Calvin and Hobbes · Remainder and Modulo Operation · Other stuff · Up to · Scheerer's phenomenon · PITA · XML · HTML · Klaus Schulze and techno · Character encoding · Your comment? · EBCDIC · Ellipsis comment · Talk:LSD · Han unification · It should be noted that · Wal-Mart · Wal-Mart criticism split · Odd character display · Dear divbox user · IDM · ISO 8859 and Unicode · Unicode related articles · cleaning · Special characters at Latin-1 · Percent encoding · xml links by 81.68.98.163 · Featured article review · Re: Lil Louis · Dayton NPOV edit · Joel Stein Edit · Page name for temperature articles · IDM as "Intellectual Dance Music" · Persian Jews · South Park City · www.asciilist.com on ASCII · Re: Template:Main · Apologies · Your comment at Club Music · Roller Derby · User:Brian G. Wilson · AMBER Alerts · My recent edits
July 2006 – December 2007 – Topics: Apology · Wikipedian Rollergirls · Electronic dance music · Your note · Fairly worthless awards? · IDM · a user conduct RFC · Northern Soul and ABC · Trafford publications · Join us in the "Terminator" Article discussion page...please... · Thanks · Apizza! · Uniform Resource Identifier · XML intro · HTML WG edits · Flashback (band) · John Bedini article · Professional v. Amateur, take 27 · Acid house · Trivia and WP:FIVE. · Category:Roller derby · User talk:64.38.167.66 · Please be nice to the newbies · Harvest Records · Acid house · Minnesota RollerGirls · Character set tables · Roller Derby and Its History · de:User talk:Raymond
January 2008 – January 2010 – Topics: Roller Derby (songs, blog sources) · Afro Cosmic · Techno · List of Roller Derby Leagues · Siouxsie citation · Thanks · Tech(no) stuff · House music · Non-free images · House music again · Hi-NRG · Baffled by XSLT deletion · Orphaned non-free images · Universal Techno · A little Chicago house help · Techno categories · Character entity references in HTML · IFPI · Apology · More apologies · Ectopic House? · Barnstar · Sibel Edmonds · The Long Tail · Articles for deletion nomination of List of roller derby leagues · One problem with newspaper articles... · CfD nomination of Category:IDM musicians · AfD nomination of Post-disco · post-disco era / movement · №
The history of Techno on wiki is plain and simply biased. Techno's real roots are from Germany (and I am not German but born here in the U.S.A.telling everyone this). The term (which is an Undisputed fact!) was coined by the German grop Kraftwerk back in the mid 80s because of their use of modern technological instruments sed by them. The group that forever will be considered the "innovators" of Techno is non other than Talla 2XLC from Frankfurt, Germany. He also founded the first club ever devoted to only Techno music. There were quite a few groups that (by far) predated detroit so-called techno groups such as Tekkno Freaks, Bigod 20 and Robotiko Rejekto. Groups like these laid the real foundations for the music that we know today —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4august (talk • contribs) 02:13, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Everything in the main techno article (not the Detroit techno article) is extensively cited. If there is bias, it reflects the bias of the journalists, documentary filmmakers, and techno musicians who are on record in the cited references, and the fact that we haven't yet found any worthwhile sources beyond those. It's really hard to come by any sources that talk about knowledgably about techno in the UK & Europe other than bloggers and forum posters spewing nationalist, dubious folklore. We need journalistic and academic publications, biographies or documentaries, and quotes from people who matter. I actually have been sitting on an interesting German article about techno from the early '90s, published in an academic music journal, but I have yet to get it properly translated. It deals more with how the music was constructed at the time, not so much its history, though.
Anyway, Kraftwerk's influence is omnipresent in electronic music, but in relation to techno, their role is often overstated. Yes, they had an undeniable and cited influence on the electro side of techno, in the early Cybotron work. And there's the famous quote by Derrick May likening techno to Kraftwerk & George Clinton stuck in an elevator. The article already accounts for these points. It also already accounts for the fact that certain works by Kraftwerk are pointed to by those who like to search beyond the Detroit pantheon for examples of techno-like music and influences on that which became known as techno.
But your sweeping, vague statements about how "many" unnamed people consider Kraftwerk to have been "the first techno group" or whatever is just too much of a reach. It's just as bad as the person who said the Techno Twins, a quirky synth-pop group, were the first techno group because they used the word techno and worked with synthesizers and drum machines.
DJ Talla 2XLC has come up before, but his dubbing his early and mid-'80s record collection 'techno' does not constitute the invention of a genre, and his claims to that effect were roundly dismissed by his contemporaries in one of the documentaries mentioned in the article.
Re: Bigod 20 etc., if you can find credible, journalistic citations for EBM/industrial and New Beat groups' influence on techno and techno's influence on them, that'd be great, and we can probably work them into the article. —mjb (talk) 06:26, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Instead of fighting back and forth on who did what, maybe you should check something out first. Yes the Techno cd that was released from Detroit in 1988 points out to the new style of music but a whole year prior ZYX records and Techno Drome international were releasing singles that promoted this new style of music. Robotiko Rejekto was one of the first groups to be labeled as a Techno group. Here is a link of the very first company to produce purely Techno releases. And it without doubt pre-dates the Detroit release http://www.discogs.com/label/Techno+Drome+International , why wold you deliberately want to keep this fact from the public's eyes? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4august (talk • contribs) 12:23, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
And Actually I did name a source that said that Talla 2xlc cloned the Term "Techno " first, the German "Frontpage" , you should look into that and even contact ZYX music to verify it.[reply]
At the Chicago house article, I think the current state of house music in its birthplace, Chicago, should be added. What do you think? B-Machine (talk) 19:26, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Some other questions that need to be answered: What became of the original Chicago house artists? Do they still make Chicago house? If they're based in Chicago, is everything they make considered Chicago house, or does it have to have a certain sound? Are people making Chicago house in other cities? What kinds of house music are popular in Chicago clubs now? What has been written about the popularity of house in Chicago? What has been written about the evolution of Chicago house in the 1990s – 'hard' house, 'booty' house, and the rise of Roy Davis Jr., Derrick Carter, Felix da Housecat, Cajmere, etc.? The problem will be finding sources for such info. Are there any books, mainstream news articles, or features in Chicago nightlife magazines that we can use? It's a lot easier to find things written about the 1980s than it is to find the later material, although I admit I haven't looked very hard. —mjb (talk) 03:18, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In a nutshell, we have numerous reliable sources for techno's Detroit origins and the mid-1988 declaration of the Detroit artists' music as being techno. We have very little, aside from hyperbolic editorials, regarding how before that date, the techno was being used in an electronic dance music context by a certain DJ in Frankfurt.
I don't dispute the following: 1. that he was a DJ who for many years organized events he called Technoclub, at which he spun the fashionable electronic-oriented music of the day; 2. that during this era and earlier, he was using the word techno as an umbrella term for his selections of synth-pop, new wave, EBM, and other electronic dance music (this is in the We Call It Techno! documentary); 3. that in 1987 and early 1988, he was releasing EBM music on the new Techno Drome International imprint of ZYX; and 4. that the first releases on Techno Drome International, although still primarily EBM, incorporated elements of other dance styles, e.g. acid house and New Beat, so they naturally bear a slight resemblance to the post-New Beat techno tracks coming out of Belgium in the early '90s.
But accepting those things doesn't equate to "Techno Drome International was the first techno label" or "Talla 2XLC invented techno".
If you can find anything in print about his original music productions or the wide variety of music he called techno being widely or even locally accepted as being early examples of what is now the well-established techno genre, then I'm all ears. But I've looked and just can't find anything that we can use. That said, User:Semitransgenic and I recently chatted about it in private email, and we do both agree that there's more that needs to be said about non-Detroit-centric influences on techno, and there may be more we can use about Talla 2XLC in the We Call It Techno! film; I have to watch it again and see. —mjb (talk) 03:05, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Because there's nothing stopping anyone from adding unsourced folklore to Wikipedia, and none of us who have higher standards have gotten around to pruning that article yet. Only the first statement in the article, about him being a DJ & producer and his work spanning industrial to trance, is attributed to a reasonably reliable source. The rest of the article lacks references or is attributed to websites of marginal value. That should be addressed, either by removing or tagging any content that's dubious or that ought to be backed up with references. All references to random DJ listing sites should be removed. Care to take that on? :) —mjb (talk) 22:13, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That removal was fine. Note the next paragraph talks about the 'first ever Techno label', but that's misleading. It was actually begun as an industrial/EBM label that used the word/prefix Techno in its name. Also be aware that you may have to make these edits again and again as people who don't care about WP:RS and WP:V will restore the deleted material. Policy is on your side, though.—mjb (talk) 00:01, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(Comment moved from User:Mjb to here. Please edit this discussion page, not my user page.)
I don't know where else to respond to your comments. Gee, but I thought Wikipedia presented itself as—guess what—a supposedly reputable, neutral, third-party source. And I was unaware that factual statements about magnetic circuits and Maxwell's equations were "opinions." What is it about you twentysomething (or is it teen?) Wikipedians and self-styled "autodidacts" (whoa, you impress me most deeply with your misuse of the term) that all you can do is flex your tiny little muscles against those who would express themselves while yet holding up as fact many, many things indefensible? No wonder the quality of your offering has degenerated so steeply of late! (B. D. Wilner, 6 June 2010)
I thought Wikipedia presented itself as—guess what—a supposedly reputable, neutral, third-party source. Well, Wikipedia is a summary of information in such external sources, and a pointer to them. It is not and cannot be the first place that information is published, ideas synthesized, and conclusions drawn, which is what you were trying to do in your edits to the John Bedini article. The verifiability policy is the law of the land here, as are related guidelines, such as those relating to notability of information and maintaining neutral point-of-view in part by only discussing what's relevant. The details of Bedini's theories aren't ever going to be covered in Wikipedia unless they get some traction in mainstream academic publications. Likewise, point-by-point criticisms and dismissals of his theories have no place here either. His notoriety demands a mention that he has these theories & patents, and we've made it clear that they're in the realm of fringe/pseudoscience. Until the day he or his critics get some real press rather than self-published screeds and writeups in pseudoscience rags, that's all the article needs to ever have in it. As for holding up as fact many, many things indefensible, I don't know what you're talking about. Perhaps you misread the article, because the only facts it presents are quite clearly cited. —mjb (talk) 23:50, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(Comment moved from User:Mjb to here. Please edit this discussion page, not my user page.)
I apologize for putting these comments here, Mike. I know not where else to put them in a manner whereby they will be noticed.
The reason I don't cite "standard references" for Bedini are twain: (a) the material is of a sufficiently foolish nature that reputable journals decline to write about it; (b) straightforward engineering analyses that are within the capabilities of your everyday sophomore (well, junior, nowadays, I suppose) do not require standard references (which are lacking pursuant to [a] supra).
The details of Bedini's material being unworthy of taking up space in reputable journals, even if only for the purpose of pointing out their flaws, is exactly why those same details shouldn't be brought up on Wikipedia. It also would be providing a platform to advance his theories, no matter how much effort we put into tearing them down. That, and too much detail in this kind of article would invite unwelcome, incoherent rebuttals from Bedini and his supporters.
The mere existence of the material is a marginally notable point, itself, but it does occasionally attract some attention (e.g. a failed attempt to build a Bedini 'school girl' motor on the TV show Mythbusters), so we have to write something about it. But going into any kind of depth just isn't warranted, even if it could be cited. We've said the material exists, and we've sufficiently pointed out that it's in a subject area generally regarded as poppycock. I'd like to have some more references to point to, but just to back up those points already made, nothing more. —mjb (talk) 11:56, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
House music article
I think the article needs work. For example, I think "U.S. late 1980s - 1990s" should after "Detroit sound." "UK 1990s" should after "U.S. late 1980s - 1990s." What do you think? B-Machine (talk) 14:19, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's probably fine to go ahead and make those cosmetic changes. I won't have time to do any major edits anytime soon. I'm mainly just patrolling for spammy links for now. The article eventually needs to be completely rewritten, using cited sources. I look at it like right now it's in the phase where we're still figuring out what subtopics are important to touch on. —mjb (talk) 19:35, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The MultimediaWiki is not a reliable source?
Hello, you removed a reference to wiki.multimedia.cx on the Red Book (audio Compact Disc standard) article. You wrote: "the multimedia wiki is not a reliable source".
Please, could you explain, why is it not a reliable source? MultimediaWiki is not open for any contributions. Any contributor must be approved. Mike Melason is the chief maintainer of MultimediaWiki. He monitors contributions/changes on that wiki. As far as I know, he is also the primary contributor to MultimediaWiki.--188.167.27.153 (talk) 06:47, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A discussion has begun about whether the article Intelligent dance music, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.
A discussion has begun about whether the article Intelligent dance music, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.
A discussion has begun about whether the article Intelligent dance music, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.
