Talk:Gypsy jazz

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Music/Music genres task force (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon Gypsy jazz is within the scope of the Music genres task force of the Music project, a user driven attempt to clean up and standardise music genre articles on Wikipedia. Please visit the task force guidelines page for ideas on how to structure a genre article and help us assess and improve genre articles to good and 1.0 standards.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 
WikiProject Jazz (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Jazz, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of jazz on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Romani people (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Romani people, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Romani people on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Commercial links[edit]

@Billinghurst could you explain me why the link I add a bout a gyspy jazz method (http://guitarejazzmanouche.com/en_wiki/index.php/Category:Gypsy_Jazz_Method) is more commercial than truefire.com a online shop for online lessons or even djangopedia which contains more Adsense than mine? Thanks for explanation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.205.253.177 (talk) 13:41, 31 January 2013 (UTC)


Untitled[edit]

Shouldn't Django's name be listed as Jean-Baptiste? It is not like in English where the name is separated, rather it is common French name, like Jean-Pierre, Jean-Jacques, Jean-Luc, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.194.65.196 (talk) 20:21, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Django's name wasn't Jean-Baptiste, that is a persisent false rumour, which

has been discussed extensively on the Django Reinhardt page 1Z (talk) 16:17, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I tried to add some sourcing and tone down a few things.--T. Anthony 03:51, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

As I understand all this article needs now are links? RomanyChaj

Sources for the "Techniques" section[edit]

I see that the user Conical Johnson added the "Original research" tag for the "Techniques" section. Can somebody bring some sources for it, as I know myself that most of the infos are true? Also, something on the special vibrato that they use would be good (with a source of course:) ). Kenshin (talk) 11:51, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree that this section is accurate and not OR. I could add some refs from Romane's book.1Z (talk) 09:58, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I have removed a dubious claim about "gypsybilly" and contacted user:Conical Johnson. 1Z (talk) 08:13, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

As I'm sure you guys all know, the OR tag has nothing to do with the veracity of the material. You aren't allowed to write things just because you know them to be true. You must have an independent source that verifies it. The way this section is written sounds to me like a guitarist discussing techniques with which he is personally familiar, even to the extent that he uses them himself in gypsy jazz music. Therefore he knows it to be true. And yet, it is (in the hypothetical case I mention) original research. As with any unsourced content on WP, add some sources. Conical Johnson (talk) 09:30, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Finding sources for doubtful text is much more importan tthan finding sources for information that is probably correct. Most of WP is unsourced.
I think the books in the "References and further reading" section generally support eveything in "techniques". Are in-line citations required? They would be possible, but time-consuming. 1Z (talk) 10:48, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Whatever else is going on in Wikipedia is irrelevent. You believe this text to be "probably correct", but anyone who didn't write it has no idea. In this way this article is precisely the same to me as pages with "doubtful text" are to you. Whoever wrote that doubtful text believes it to be "probably correct" just as you believe your own writing to be. Conical Johnson (talk) 20:11, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


There is much outright crap on WP, fixing that is much more of a priority than finding chapter and verse for sensible and uncontentious comment. 1Z (talk) 08:22, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Come on man, do you really not understand what I'm saying here? "Outright crap" is in the eye of the beholder. That's why we have sources - to remove judgement calls of what's true or not.
Now, with that said, it's not like I'm deleting material here. I put the OR tag up there months ago, and it still applies. If you want to just leave it like that forever, you can. I don't have these books and I'm not going to do the research. All you have to do is cite the book at the end of the paragraph, most people don't bother to cite pages. You could even make some stuff up and cite it all to the book. Who's gonna know? Add some refs if you want the tag gone. Conical Johnson (talk) 09:28, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
I have cited severeal books at the end of the article. 1Z (talk) 16:24, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I have to say something that is on all too few Wp talk pages: This is an absolutely fantastic article and a marvelous source of information, Wp's cavils about sourcing notwithstanding. -- Craig Goodrich 68.58.132.176 (talk) 08:01, 8 July 2011 (UTC)