User talk:Dr.warhol

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. It appears you have not followed this policy at Brisbane Punk Rock. Please always observe our core policies. Thank you.

The article is very well written, demonstrating extensive knowledge of the subject. However please avoid introducing personal viewpoints (mainly about right wing governments and the police force) unless these can be verified by a reliable source. I have also flagged the article to cite further references, and have indicated several places in particular where these are needed. If you have any queries or believe my edits to be in error please don't hesitate to bring them up on my User_talk:Guycalledryan talk page. Guycalledryan 07:05, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


I've read the new page, and it's looking good. But I still think you're placing too much emphasis on the role the government had to play, and this can be seen to violate WP:NPOV. Remember, that the music scene is comprised of many other elements other than just history, music style, influences, the sub culture (eg clothing, methods of speech) that accompany it so on so forth. Perhaps you could try expanding these rather than focusing on the relationship between the government and disadvantaged groups. Nevertheless keep up the good work Guycalledryan 09:30, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Brisbane Punk Rock

User Dr.warhol Hi guycalledryan, Are there any updates or progress on the above subject? Thanks, Dr.warhol 10:56, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi, sorry I didn't reply sooner, I've been pretty busy at study+work and haven't had much time to edit wikipedia. Nonetheless I'll be around for the next couple of days, so I'll see if I can explain myself more wholly.
My main issue with the article is the over emphasis that it gives to the political climate at the time, while it is understood that this is a large influence on the scene, it is not what should be comprising the entire article (this would only be the case if the article was, say, Political Backgrounds to Brisbane Punk Rock). I believe this could be corrected by dividing the article into a number of sections, one with the Background/Influences where you can talk about the political climate, and then other sections such as History, Music Style, Notable Bands, Subculture etc where you only discuss the government in a neutral tone if it directly relates to the section (eg if police closed a concert it would be allowable to mention it, but it would be ill advised to proceed to discuss how this act demonstrated the corrupt nature of the government). If you read over WP:NPOV it discusses giving undue weight to a particular component of an article, and Brisbane Punk Rock incorporates many other elements such as Music Style which should be addressed rather than raving on about how the government imposed upon civil liberties.
My second issue, and possibly a larger one, is the blurring between fact and opinion. Many aspects of the article are simply not fact, quotes such as "people were victimised simply for their looks" are presented as gospel when they simply a matter of opinion. Similarly there is a large problem with the sourcing of the article. For the sakes of clarity, I'm going to list every point.
  • In the first paragraph, the section on people being victimised. Not only is this POV but all bar one of the references go to another wikipedia article which does not support their claims. The simple fact is a governments decision regarding land rights or the control permits regarding protests does not indicate a desire to victimise a certain group of people. The remaining link goes to a personal website which is pretty well unsourced in its information (all coming from a single person who I couldn't find information on) and is hardly a reliable source. Reliable sources which could be used to support this include official reports, established media journals, something which demonstrates that the government was actually victimising people.
  • The quip about the unjust voting system, unless it can be shown that the Queensland government actually exploited a gerrymander (while a band may be well meaning in its lyrics they can be hardly taken as gospel, a commission, independant media report etc is more valid). The use of "unjust" without sourcing is simply POV
  • The quips about undercover police and raids without provocation, while "On the Street" may be a media source it cannot explain the activities of the police unless it in turn has been sourced from the police or a related government/independant commission. As I don't have the article I'm relying on you to decide whether or not it does.
  • The girl being arrested and interrogated for hours is hearsay, and unless confirmed by official sources (arrest report etc, once again the "On the Street" would need to have referenced these to be reliable) it is simply opinion, not fact
  • "backlashed to an oppessed society", even though it is sourced is blatant POV
  • "plagued by many disasters including regular raids by the Police", once again needs to be sourced. The connection between disaster and raids is clearly POV, the raids (if any) may have been justified by wholly legitimate reasons (searching for drugs, searching for weapons etc)
  • "questioned the heavy handedness of the Police at a raid", needs to be sourced, and the source needs to be reliable (all I can find on the program is that it was on radio, raising questions of possible bias in the presenter). The quip about the protester getting bashed against a police van and subsequently being charged is all based from memory, which is anything but reliable, and also remains unsourced at this point.
I was going to suggest you post at Wikipedia:Requests for feedback, however given the recent AfD and the opinions that the article needs a rewrite I think the removal of POV statements is now more urgent and I may chop a few myself. As I've said before, the article is clearly one of the most researched and most detailed articles to be created on wikipedia, but it may be wise to stop trying to criticise the government and add more information on other aspects of the movement, such as musical style and clothing, outside of the history section. Guycalledryan 09:36, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: vandalism of Sicily

I have no idea what you are referring to. Please be more specific. Are you sure that you are not confusing me with someone else? Brianga 15:13, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Signing articles

Hi there,

One thing I'd like to point out: there is no need to sign any changes you make to an article, such as you did in this edit. Doing so only makes the article look less professional. You only need to sign comments you make on talk pages.

Thanks, Blair - Speak to me 09:23, 28 August 2007 (UTC)