Talk:Red Hot Chili Peppers

Headline text

Archives
June 27 2004 – 12 June 2006 April 1 2006 – June 15 2006

Mediation

Hi, I am Adam and I have taken this case. The details of the request for mediation are at 2006-06-13 Red Hot Chili Peppers.

Before continuing, I need to find out if all sides will cooperate with the mediation. These are ReadyMade, regrhcp, Maxcap, Xinit, and several anonymous editors. Any other parties who wish to participate must also indicate their cooperation below. ReadyMade has been blocked; when he becomes unblocked he can indicate his cooperation and join the discussion.

During this mediation please refrain from editing the article. Since so many of the participants are anonymous I would like some indication from them that they understand what this mediation is about. If there is continued editing or disruption of the mediation by anonymous accounts I will have to refer this case to a higher form of dispute resolution.

Please indicate below if you will cooperate with this mediation. Ideogram 04:41, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Will the user at 88.111.88.195 please refrain from editing this article. Ideogram 09:36, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Statements of positions

All participants please state your positions and give your supporting reasons below. Keep your statements concise and to-the-point and do not engage in personal attacks. Ideogram 10:16, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Please be sure to read WP:EL. Ideogram 10:42, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm onboard with the process, as I'm one of the people attempting to clean up the EL... --Xinit 14:38, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Count me in. --Jason1978 01:35, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Me as well. maxcap 18:32, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I suppose I should have stated my position on the EL that we've seen added again and again here. I stand pretty strongly by the WP:EL as it's currently written, especially in regard to the fan sites. The problem comes in that all the players seem to want to push their own blog, forum or site to the exclusion of all others, so even if we were to try to pick a representative example of a fan site for the RHCP, we'd run into troubles.

As it stands, I've taken the relatively hard-line approach of removing anything that isn't capable of acting as a citeable reference or that isn't an official organ of the band. Anything that is capable of being used as a reference should be linked from withing the body of the article with the <ref> tag where it can be of use.

I've attempted to bring people to the discussion pages to explain why their fan site or forum or other link should be included, but I recieve personal attacks, circular logic, or cries that I'm trying to assert 'ownership' or that I'm being 'unfair' to the fan sites that I'm removing. --Xinit 19:01, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with Xinit's reasoning, and would like to add that I would be in support of a link to a directory of fansites (if such a directory exists) as it is probably the only fair solution. maxcap 19:18, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Frankly, I think there are four solid non-fan links already and that should be sufficient. An article doesn't need a huge amount of external links, simply external links which are relevant and appropriate. RHCP are a large enough band that it is clear they have numerous fans. Linking to fan sites isn't necessary to prove this. IrishGuy talk 19:31, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Irishguy - You're failing to understand that just because some unofficial rhcp sites are branded 'fansites' doesn’t just make them a showcase for the authors appreciation of the band. Alot of so-called fansites provide a valuable resource for fans worldwide. Some are even favoured over the official site…

As long as they contain a wealth of exclusive and original content relating to the Red hot chili peppers, I don't see any reason for them not to be included. Alot of the RHCP fansites have forums that are thriving communities with a wealth of content.

Just because a fansite relies more heavily on its forum than its static pages, doesn't make it any less credible. They are well moderated and useful to anyone interested in the band.

By providing links to just a few of these fansites will only add to the integrity of this article. They give visitors of this page more options and most importantly more KNOWLEDGE relating to the band. They also enable visitors of this page to integrate in thriving communities all with a keen interest in the articles topic.

I would also like to make it clear that stadium-arcadium.com was NOT trying to promote itself over other fansites. Infact i've emailed the likes of onehotglobe in the past to appeal for their fansite to be included as I have mine.

Thanks for reading, Anthony - stadium-arcadium.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.209.222.166 (talk • contribs)

Actually, I'm not failing to understand anything. You see, I'm not the one attempting to use Wikipedia to pimp my website. People know that RHCP have a large fan base. If they want to visit a fan site, they can use Google. Fan sites in no way add to the integrity of this article. IrishGuy talk 21:08, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Please tone it down, Irishguy. Accusing him of trying to "pimp" his website is uncivil. Ideogram 21:12, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe I was being uncivil, merely honest. I came to this discussion because I caught 172.209.222.166 spamming links into RHCP related articles [1], [2]. Not only adding the links, but labeling them Ultimate RHCP Resource. If that isn't pimping his site I would like to know what is. IrishGuy talk 01:01, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to argue with you. If you have a problem with my mediation I'll leave and you can seek other methods of dispute resolution. Ideogram 01:05, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Relax. I wasn't trying to argue with you, nor am I calling your judgement into question. I was simply pointing out my reasons for using that term as I don't know how familiar you are or aren't with his recent edit history. Please continue with the mediation. I apologize. IrishGuy talk 01:14, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, having a bad day. Not your fault. Thanks for the apology anyway. Anyway I gave you my opinion, do what you will with it. The mediation seems dead already anyway. Ideogram 01:19, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Irishguy - Thats your opinion. Its wrong and mis-guided, but i'll let you off. People can use google to find fansites, but what you're failing to grasp is that 99.9% of people reading this article will have some interest in the band in the first place, and will undoubtedly appreciate some alternative sites focused on the band instead of the official site. Thats why they will add to the integrity of this article. It really is quite simple.

Let me remind you to please read WP:EL. Ideogram 21:32, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

How are we possibly supposed to decide what is good fansite content to warrant it's inclusion? We can't. I we were to agree to including one we would have to include all, which is unacceptable. maxcap 21:36, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd be interested in knowing why you, Anthony User:172.209.222.166 (and User:172.203.22.117, and User:Regrhcp and User:ReadyMade) have silently added your site link back in to the article so many times despite requests to discuss the inclusion of fansites. I'm also curious if you're all the same person, frankly, as none of those users have regularly signed their posts with the tildes ~~~~.

Other sites that I've noticed added repeatedly;

[3] KevMan69

One Hot Globe: RHCP Fansite

Red Hot Chili Peppers @ CybersMusic - Current Blog Posts.

unofficial fan dscussion site 172.203.22.117 172.209.222.166 172.209.222.166

Official Website of The Red Hot Stadium Myspace Group 68.89.188.159

RHCP News and Reviews at This Is Fake DIY 88.108.248.252

The Fan site that won't go away 85.102.189.220

OneHotGlobe.org: RHCP Fansite Bagel7

Todos los videos, fleamail y mas... 200.83.188.29

--Xinit 21:40, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Please focus on the content not the contributor. Ideogram 21:44, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Part of the issue here was the contributor who wouldn't bring anything to the discussion despite requests. A number of people have requested discussions around why fansites should be listed at all, but the one submitter would not explain his position, resorting to personal attacks and such. I was just going through the edit history looking for examples of the URLs that were being added when it occurred to me that many of the anonymous posts bore a relation to ones by User:Readymade; mostly an afterthought. --Xinit 22:12, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you're just being super paranoid and have too much time on your hands? Infact there was no attempt for me to have multiple identities. If you took the time to think about it, you'll see i have two ip's because my isp provides dynamic ip's. Also my username on wikipedia is readymade, so there you go. I have no relation to regrhcp.

If you're not prepared to listen, then so be it. This discussion is over as far as i'm concerned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.209.222.166 (talk • contribs)

The thing is that I am prepared to listen; nearly every deletion I have made included a request for discussion or explanation here on the talk page. My problem was that fan sites are not normally included in an article; it's been established by consensus and is well documented in WP:EL. I'm not 'paranoid' or a 'dick' or a 'fucking asshole' or any of the other insults that have been hurled at me over link removal, and I'm perfectly capable of listening to reason; I just want it explained in the context of WP policies and guidelines. --Xinit 22:17, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I know it's been frustrating, but to move forward we have to leave the past behind. Readymade has been making an effort to discuss; I did ask him to read WP:EL; we are making progress but patience is required all around. Ideogram 22:21, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I feel that I should weigh in because I was the one that started the entire fan site debate in the first place.

The fact of the matter is this: I agree with Anthony. The inclusion of fan sites as external links are of course going to give more enhancement to the article; this article should be only providing general knowledge of the band with fan sites being able to provide extended knowledge of it. To say that the only sites that are officially are organs of the band being the only ones that are allowed because the official websites of the Red Hot Chili Peppers are not helpful at all and generally fan sites are more indepth and give a better wealth of information. Plus, fan sites also get their information from credible sources, whether it is press releases or interviews and profiles and whatnot given out by the official members of the band (i.e. Anthony Kiedis' biography Scar Tissue).

In retrospect, the only reason why we are having this mediation in the first place because I for one found it suspect that while all other fan site addresses got deleted, Stadium-Arcadium.com did not. Now I have been in contact with the owner of the site and apologized for my remarks, but I could not help it but to find it unfair in that sense. While it is true that some might be on here to promote their fan website, some, such as the American sites One Hot Globe and The Red Hot Stadium, the British Stadium-Arcadium.com, and the Italian redhotchilipeppers.it, are of good reference with their providing of news, deep band information, amongst other things.

Despite the fact that on the WP:EL, it states that one major fan site is appropriate, that is difficult when there are four major fan websites. I think everyone on all sides of this debate has to keep in mind that a) this is an article about one of the world's biggest bands, and b) as much as we want to be scholarly about this, we cannot, and we should not either. Plus the fans that being introduced to the Red Hot Chili Peppers or trying to find out more about the Red Hot Chili Peppers, should have fan sites that they can access to not only find more information but to interact with more fans. -- Paralleluniverse

Well, to be clear, while it does say aproproate it is under the heading of Occasionally acceptable links. Occasionally, of course, meaning not all the time. I find it odd that you would say we cannot and should not attempt to be scholarly. This is an encyclopedia. IrishGuy talk 01:29, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Albeit this is an encylopedia, I am saying that we shouldn't be scholarly about a band article because there's absolutely no point to it. The thing about band articles in the first place is that they are written by fans of that particular band and with that many are going to have a personal connection to it, therefore any attempt to be scholarly about this article would come up fruitless. -- Paralleluniverse

I'm not so sure about WP being as fan-driven as all that; I'm not a fan of many of Special:Contributions/Xinit the subjects of articles I edit. I can live the rest of my life without hearing another song from Green Day but that doesn't mean that I want their article to have flawed information, unreferenced 'facts' or links to questionable content. --Xinit 01:49, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I think you have the face the reality of it being that fan driven. It is the reality of having a Usenet encyclopedia. It's not necessarily about flawed information, it's about allowing people that visit and read this article be able to go and FIND more information if they do not deem this article as satisfactory and the fan websites are important in that aspect and I mean QUALITY fan sites, not the typical fanboy shrine junk. -- Paralleluniverse

Part of the reason I work on WP articles, including those where I'm not a huge fan of the subject matter is to attempt to reduce the bias that people have against WP as a reliable source. In visiting stadium-arcadium.com in the process of evaluating it for the EL section, I saw a couple references to things that readers saw on various WP articles. Immediately after those comments followed statements about how unreliable WP is... THAT is the bias that I want to reduce.

WP should be a place that can be trusted for unbiased facts, not lists of fan pages or whatever information a fan might want to input. Be that fan contributed information lists of trivia or links to Slash fiction featuring the bassist and drummer of the band or links to forums with 12 members, where does the line get drawn? It gets drawn where WP consensus says it does. If you would like to see consensus change, then I would suggest heading to WP:EL and convincing them to update the reference to fan sites there.

On articles about topics with many fansites is what it says on WP:EL... is that really the case with RHCP, or are there only the half dozen or so that we've seen linked here? --Xinit 02:16, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I was looking at all the links posted above that have been added on here before and only 2 of them are actual RHCP fansites. Most of them are non-fan run bios and fan run blogs and message boards/forums. OHG and Stadium-Arcadium seem to be the only two actual sites that are RHCP fansites. I wouldn't really call a blog or forum a fansite because there are tons of those out there, especially on MySpace. One of the links was (the RHCP Turkey one)was just a forum, not in English which you had to subscribe to to even view. Like I have stated before, I do not run OHG though I am a newswriter and moderator for the site. I'm not here to cry and complain, pick any fights because these are only links to websites. I can understand not wanting alot of links and by judging from certain links posted I can see the reasons behind removing most of them but there are not many actual full RHCP websites out there anymore. Like I have stated, OHG has been in contact with the label in the past as well as other RHCP sources which allowed the site exclusive content only allowed to two other sources: RHCP.com and RHCP MySpace. I'm not against the SA site (I actually post there often) and i'm not here to act as if OHG is better. Like I said, they are just links but like someone already mentioned, people looking at the RHCP article on here might want to get more info that they can't get here so they might want to see some fansites. I know that the official site isn't the greatest source (they actually have the wrong lyrics for some songs there)and some fansites give people more knowledge, news, tourdates and info about the band that the official site lacks. --Jason1978 04:34, 16 June 2006

Compromise

The stated goals I've heard from the pro-fan site camp is that they want to help fans learn more about the band, and that's what the links to the fan communities do. Well, I would suggest that they use google to search, but maybe we should just link 'Search for more' --Xinit 02:21, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

All right, allow me to ask you this: is Wikipedia supposed to be a place where people can get information. I know about the bias issue. I have dealt with the bias issue. Hell, I once rewrote the entire RHCP article and edited other band articles to reduce the bias issue. We all understand why there is such a bias aagainst Wikipedia -- the reason for that bias only centers around the fact that people can come in and edit it at anytime.

And I'm going reinterate what I said earlier, I support fan sites that are QUALITY fan sites, not the typical fanboy shrine junk — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.88.21.7 (talk • contribs)

Xinit, your solution for the fansite debate is flawed. If you look at the search results those google keywords bring up, you'll find that there are barely any rhcp focused sites in the list. Surely it would be easier to add 2 or 3 evaluated links directly onto the article. Anthony - Stadium-arcadium

What if we were to use a google news search like this maxcap 17:47, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Here is a twist, one of the Fansites you want to throw out, is basically a search of Google Blogs with relevancy, just like the suggestions given to solve the problem. Wiki's are supposed to be communnity, not based on what one or 2 people think. I was not a RHCP fan, but I went to this page, and tried every link there was, before they got tossed, and I gathered a lot of information to help me learn about the band and become a fan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.0.109.73 (talk • contribs)

Well thank-you to the guy above. He just proves that alot of the links that were present are infact useful to people with an interest in the band. Ask people who've found the likes of OHG and SA through this wiki page, the majority are now loyal members on both sites forums and are pleased they found the links through here. Anthony.

The removal of the external links to the fan sites is not based on what one or two people think; that's the point. The addition of the fansites has always been based on what one or two people think; the general consensus regarding fansites is outlined at WP:EL. -- Xinit 22:15, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

All right, maybe what would really help is to see what we DEFINE as a fan site. Give me your perceptions as to what a fan site should be. -- Paralleluniverse

Fansite isn't the best article in WP, but it's a start. Include in that definition blogs, user run forums, and chat sites. -- Xinit 23:10, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, but also it said "etc.", those are common features, but not necessarily limited to those features specifically. I mean for me, I see fansites as a viable information source. For example, the Jane's Addiction fan website [4] -- Paralleluniverse 23:24, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

That Janes website is a good example of when a fansite is acceptable, considering they reunite and break up every couple of years. But there's plenty of info on RHCP because they're an active band, see the google news link I posted above above, that's all current news. maxcap 23:38, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I like the Google News site. Any fan site could easily have themselves turn up in that search if they're providing good information that's unique. I'd say that the Google News link is much more readily useable for finding information than any of the fan sites I've yet seen. -- Xinit 23:44, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

All right, let's be serious here. I don't think a majority of people are going to want to thumb through pages and pages of information that will prove to be nothing more than repetitive information. I thumbed through that. It's pointless! Absolutely pointless! Most people that are looking for information on the Red Hot Chili Peppers are not looking for just stupid news! They want to know about their history. They want to know about their music. Here on Wikipedia you cannot get that indepth about a band with all of that. Wikipedia is to provide basic, unbiased information about the band. If people want to find out more about the band then they can go to websites that are dedicated to the band, not to a Google link where they have to search for more and more mess.

Listen, people are going to be biased when it comes to their favorite band. You cannot avoid that, you cannot police this page enough to avoid that, and if you're policing this page to reach a unrealistic goal, then I am sorry, that is the most idiotic and pointless effort I ever heard. I'm not calling you two, Xinit and Maxcap, idiots, but the unrealistic effort. The WP:EL doesn't even define what an appropriate fan site is, and to refer to an article about it is stupid. If it's a fan site that is going to provide indepth information about the Red Hot Chili Peppers, it's going to provide an opportunity for fans to interact and to get know more about the Chili Peppers, they're not going to do it here. I think the idea of a refernece and external links is to allow fans or other people who are interested in getting a deeper and greater knowledge of the Red Hot Chili Peppers. That's why I support the fan sites. And I'm talking about fan sites that are appropriate -- deep, indepth, informative, somewhere you actually learn something instead of redudnant, fanboy, shrine mess. Paralleluniverse 04:13, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Here on Wikipedia you cannot get that indepth about a band with all of that. Wikipedia is to provide basic, unbiased information about the band.

That is correct. I went over to SA and OneHot and went looking for information on them that I would classify as notable or unique, or otherwise citeable for WP. Most of the information on SA that I found that was to be had was in the Forums, and that involves a TON of searching around and time for the reader. It's worse than an unsorted list of items from Google. Show me where the unique, in-depth information is on those sites, specifically that meets all the other WP requirements; it's not original research, and it's verifiable... that's next to impossible to guarantee with a forum, a group blog, or similar.

I'm going through SA's "Band Related" section; I'm not picking on that site specifically, but it serves well as an example because it was bookmarked in my browser.

• News is less useful and timely than the Google News link posted above
• Biography says less than the WP one does...
• Discography says less than WP does...
• Videos appears to contain copyright material
• Pictures is a link into the forum with unknown copyright as well
• Knowledge Base contains nothing revolutionary (three entries)
• I also found a number of dead links in the sidebar from those pages.

So, I can't imagine that the appeal is anything in the Band Related section, so what does that leave? The Community Section with its arcade, guestbook, and chatroom? Perhaps the forum? Forums are the biggest part of why fansites are frowned upon.

So, please, tell me exactly what part of SA adds to the information about the band. Is it perhaps the discussions about what your favourite song is, or who the best guitarist is? Really, I'm getting more confused the closer I look. There's the advertising and the plentiful donation buttons as well... -- Xinit 04:55, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Please sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~)

Please do sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~) this will add a timestamp. Ideogram 23:12, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

stadium arcadium link added

This is not good. But don't start an edit war over it. Anthony, are you responsible for this? Ideogram 08:49, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

No. I'm not responsible for this. In answer to xinits comments about my site, yes I understand most of the pages are lacking at the moment. The site only began in february of this year, it will continue to develop for as long as I live. The advertising and donations are to support the further development of the site, every penny is put back into it and a dedicated server is lined up for it already. 172.209.222.166 10:43, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

If the people adding the links aren't participating in the mediation the mediation will fail. We can keep trying but if this keeps happening, say three times, you will need to try other methods. Ideogram 11:12, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

When your site is at the point that it would provide additional information that would be useful to this article, that's the point at which I could conceivably agree with using it as a reference. As it stands now, it doesn't meet any standard for adding it, even if it wasn't a fan site. I'm not exactly pleased by being called a dictator (or any of the other names you have used). Name calling doesn't help anything. -- Xinit 16:42, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

There are about four or five people against the fansite links being posted. I can promise you the majority of article readers will disagree with that miniroity of people. The difference is, they're not going to debate it or argue it. So you'll never know how many exist. Anthony.

172.209.222.166 11:47, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Anthony, Wikipedia has policies, and maxcap and xinit are trying to argue within those policies. The people who edit without discussing are violating Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia can respond by semi-protecting the page so that anonymous and new users cannnot edit it, but that is a last resort. Ideogram 11:55, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

How do you know the feelings of all the readers? You don't. -- Xinit 16:42, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Anthony, I don't know what to say to you. We'd rather have you as part of the Wikipedia community, but if you feel this disagreement is not worth your time, that's your choice. Ideogram 13:19, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

That's two. At three I'd advise you to pursue other solutions. I personally have a preference for semi-protection but that is very controversial. Ideogram 16:02, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

You'll find some fans who feel strongly about sa and ohg adding back the links. I can assure you they won't give up. Therefore I advise you to get this page semi-protected because it won't stop any other way. Anthony - stadium-arcadium 172.209.222.166 16:27, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for coming back Anthony. I appreciate your good faith efforts and your candor. You know, however this dispute gets resolved, I think you would be able to contribute a great deal to Wikipedia. Ideogram 16:38, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Mediator... please see WP:NPA - I'm sick of this user's abuse. Nothing can happen with name calling. -- Xinit 17:02, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Stop it, both of you. Right now. Anthony, No Personal Attacks. This is very serious Wikipedia Policy. But Xinit, also see WP:Bite. Ideogram 17:13, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect Ideogram (And I do hold a bit for you) I don't care about the consequences of my actions. It's quite clear what xinit and maxcaps true intentions are. If i'm banned for speaking the truth, then so be it. 172.209.222.166 17:16, 17 June 2006 (UTC)