Talk:50th Grammy Awards

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 50th Grammy Awards article.
Article policies
Archive
Archives


Contents

[edit] Protest - mediation and discussion

First of all, when using a talk page, please add your comments or sections to the end of the page, not to the beginning, as it works in sequence from oldest to newest from the top to the bottom. This is annoying having things all out of sequence.

As a non-inhabitant of this page, I'm happy to mediate any discussion of the protest that is alleged to be held prior to the Grammy event. Before we begin discussing this, I want to set some ground rules:

  • Read the talk banner above and do what it says.
  • No personal attacks (I'm emphatic about this one:. Read WP:CIVILITY and WP:PA if you don't know what I mean by this.
  • This is not a vote, it's a discussion. I want to hear clear and defining reasons for why it should be in the page, and for why it should not (note that in its present state, it should not remain as it is unencyclopedic and unsourced, however written correctly, it may warrant keeping, should the discussion steer in that direction).
  • I will make the edits relating to this, as I'm impartial (the Grammys don't affect me, though I enjoy watching them on TV) and anybody else should raise the matter for editing with me and I'll make the appropriate adjustments if consensus can be reached. (For now, I'm commenting out the section).
  • I will ignore you if you don't adhere these rules, playing in favour of the view opposing your own as their side will be heard.

That said, as I mentioned earlier, the protest needs to be adequately referenced not only by the primary source, as is used at the moment, but also from a secondary source. I'm talking about a newspaper, magazine, e-zine. Something that is known as a reliable source (i.e. not a blog, unless there are about half a dozen, but if there are that many, there's going to be reliable media anyway). Has this been mentioned on the Today show? Entertainment Tonight, E News, USA Today, NY Times? Have any of these sources brought it up? If so, find the source, its writer, pulisher and publication date and it can be listed as a reference, if it's suitable to keep it. The current use of the primary source (i.e. the protesting organisation's website) is acceptable as an additional reference to note the particulars, but its inclusion needs to be in accordance with wikipolicies for referencing, not just simply dumping in an external link. See Wikipedia:References and WP:EL. Discuss! --lincalinca 04:10, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

secondary source? give me a break. everyone knows that the majority of information on wikipedia is unsourced at best. and i've already provided a primary source. whatever happened to "the encycolpedia that anyone can edit"? and how are we expected to provide additional coverage on something that has not taken place? this is unfair and hypocritical on wikipedia's part. your actions are discouraging what wikipedia is all about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.25.227.247 (talk) 13:40, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I asked you kindly to try to remain civil. Calling me a hypocrite violates this request. Now, despite this, I will answer and state that for something to go into an article about an upcoming event that is highly libelous (such as this) which will inevitably gain thousands of viewer hits in the time leading up to the event, it's very important that the section, if included, is given a secondary source and is written in such a way that is worthy of being in an encyclopedia. I wouldn't write my blog in the fashion in which the text is currently shown, let alone an except into an encyclopedia. But the prose aside, as that's easily remedied, the format for the reference needs to be that of an inline citation (which is simple to implement) and should draw from a neutral source that doesn't just support the cause of the event. I'm aware that many pages in Wikipedia are unsourced or undersourced. We try to curb that, but this is a highly contentious matter, made obvious by those who've requested mediation. No page on Wikipedia is a "finished product" and so everything is constantly changing and liable to change at any time, however libelous issues need to be dealt with very carefully. Because of this, we need to reach a consensus as to (a) Whether it should be shown (b) How it should be shown and (c) How much should be shown (i.e. how much coverage does an event or matter of this nature garner). Again, I ask that you try to remain civil, especially towards me as I'm impartial to the matter, and respond with a reason supporting your position. Obviously you want it kept, since you put it there in the first place, but what merit does it grant the page it's on? What importance or social impact does it have? Is it likely to have any press coverage written about it? Will anybody take notice at all. Now, I may be wrong, but I believe this same protest happened last year, from skimming over their website, but I failed to find any secondary sources stating it. To me, it looked like it was completely ignored by all applicable affected parties. Now, if this is a guide as to whether this will happen again, it's unlikely this section is substantial enough to sit in the article. If, however, it garners mroe of a response from the tabloids, Grammy themselves or anybody, then it's fine to stay, but is that the case? I'm asking that as a question, I have no intention to patronise you or to belittle you, I'm honestly asking the question: its it really going to have enough impact to be notable enough to be stated in this article? --lincalinca 10:55, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Most nominees

I think it was interesting to see this piece of information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniel77o (talk • contribs) 19:45, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Frank Sinatra

Can somebody provide some info on the opening duet? MMetro (talk) 01:05, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

  • They used what I call reverse overhead. Behind The black screen behind the piano was an overhead showing Sinatra singing, the video was reversed so when it showed when we saw him, he looked normal
I know how it was done, who sang live? MMetro (talk) 09:09, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Performers who have already performed

Could someone please bold the performers that have already performed so far? I'll continue bolding from when I began watching, but I'd like to know who has performed already. --Gary King (talk) 01:59, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

It's unnecessary to do live-updating on that sort of thing, This is not a blog. -- bmitchelf•T•F 03:06, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fake

There are people who are bolding fake things. Best country album is Vince Gill and not Brad Paisley! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.219.110.235 (talk) 03:23, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Performances

Could someone please list what each person/group performed at the show? For those of us who could not watch the show. Crzygrk31 (talk) 05:23, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Best New Artist

How could Amy Winehouse win "Best New Artist" if this is her second album? Weedbag (talk) 08:56, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Because the "Best New Artist" award is for artists who gain their first nationwide recognition in the Award year, for instance, Feist was nominated despite the fact that The Reminder is her third album and Paramore's first record came out in 2005. Also, Back to Black was actually the first album by Winehouse released in America, as Frank wasn't released there until November 2007. Doc Strange (talk) 15:49, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] EST bias for events NOT originating in that timezone

Why do easterners have to use the eastern time zone in articles that reflect events that took place in the west? The event was held in the Pacific time zone and thus should be the one used. RedWolf (talk) 06:57, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] No more CBS

The grammy's are obviously seeing a fall in viewers. Maybe they should try to move to a more prominent (sp?) broadcasting channel, like NBC or ABC. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crzygrk31 (talk • contribs) 13:32, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cows

I think we should discuss cows more often. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Birdy541 (talk • contribs) 00:14, 23 February 2008 (UTC)