Talk:Kula Shaker
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ] | ||
 |
This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed biographical guide to musicians and musical groups on Wikipedia. | ||
Contents |
[edit] "aligations of racism"
I removed this comment " The band are still dogged by aligations of racism to this day[citation needed]." from the article for several reasons. First of all I firmly believe it is untrue. They are not dogged with allegations of racism. They may be looked upon as something of a figure of fun and occasionally as a stupid band, but they are not commonly regarded as racists. The prevailing view of Crispian's actions in 1997 is VERY MUCH that he was stupid and misguided, but NOT racist. Even if one quality contemporary source was found alleging they were racists (actually I don't believe such a source could be found) it wouldn't be representative of what is written about the band (which is that Crispian was at most, a bumbling fool over the swastika issue - not a racist). As a side issue, as this article is about living people, to throw allegations of racism around is not acceptable without a source in any case so the comment should not be added even with a 'citation needed' tag. Such a comment would have to be sourced before inclusion. As for the swastika issue itself, it's dealt with very well in this article and that section is actually well sourced and balanced. It doesn't seem there's anything to add to that.
[edit] Removal of actual comments from the controversy section
User Jossi removed the quoted comments from the controvesy section. The comments (which are well sourced in the article) are what caused the controvesy, the controvesy which remains to this day for better or worse, one of the things most closely associated with this multi-platinum act. To just say 'he made some comments' which was all that was effectively all that was left after Jossi's edit of the section, just raises the question of what those comments were and explains absolutely nothing. Also, given that this is a biography of a living person, it's only fair to give an accurate indication of the comments, with sources, rather than to gesture at them ambiguously. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.81.3.99 (talk) 08:22, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
I added the actual comments for a very good reason. There are websites which use wikipedia articles as a feed on their websites, the problem with that is that reference links are lost. For example virgin radio's website on the biography of kula shaker is a feed of this wikipedia article, yet all reference links, including the ones to the controversial statements, are lost [1]. By putting the actual conversation in the text then that solves that problem. Otherwise the way the section is worded makes the statement by Crispian sound ominous and supportive of hitler, which the actual comments by him shows that not to be the case. Shiva das 02:32, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't believe that it's wikipedia's policy to tailor its articles in response to the fact that copy-sites lose the references, so I'm not sure that in itself is a justifiable reason for editing an article. That said, personally I have no objection to the fuller comments from the interview being reproduced in this article, but I can see the point that perhaps reproducing so large a section of the actual interview might be disproportionate to this wikipedia article's length, especially given that links are provided in the article so that wiki users can read the full interview sections themselves if they so wish. So in summary - I have no objection to the interview section being kept in this wiki article, but if other wiki editors feel that it's overlong, then BY FAR the best alternative is to have the quoted comments with links, rather than to just change the article to say 'he made some comments' (which it did at one point say, this was what prompted my adding of this section to the talk page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.17.226.51 (talk) 17:04, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Controvesy section
I have now fully sourced this section. The full text of the Independent article of 20 April 1997 is available online. So is the entire fax Mills sent to the Independent. Links are in the references section of the article. In addition the relevant sections from the NME which include the most notorious swastika and Hitler comments, are available scanned for viewing online (again, see the references section). I should add that this section is certainly extremely relevant to the band's career and therefore encyclopaedic - for example, almost every review of the recent third album in the UK press makes reference to the 'nazi incident' or 'swastika incident' or things along these lines. It is perhaps to this day what the band are most associated with in the United Kingdom and so deserves a mention, sourced and in context, on wikipedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.17.226.51 (talk) 23:52, August 21, 2007 (UTC)
[edit] UK press coverage
According to the BBC [2]:
- However, the band's reputation was damaged by savage attacks in the UK music press following comments Mills made about Nazism.
- He told NME he wanted to have "great big burning swastikas onstage" and that "Hitler knew a lot more than he made out. You can see why Hitler got support. It was probably the uniforms that swung it".
According to the Guardian [3]:
- Months of adoring press coverage evaporated when frontman Crispian Mills told the NME: "I love the swastika! It symbolises peace and the sun and illumination." It also transpired that his previous band, the Objects of Desire, used the slogan: "England will rise again." Silly rather than racist, Mills never shook off the controversy, and Kula Shaker's second was a flop.
-- The Anome 23:13, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Membership
I think this article needs a statement of who the members are, and how they got together, right upfront, rather than just mentioning them down near the bottom, when talking about what other projects they've been in. It might also be nice to have some early history, like how they got together and how they got signed, etc. At the very least, there should me a "Members" section, at the bottom, just above discography. And speaking of discography, why not a subsection on singles? Just trying to offer some suggestions. -Freekee 20:11, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Controversy
"and went on to suggest that the swastika was "a brilliant image" which symbolised "peace and the sun and illumination." In the interview's most notorious quote, he expressed a desire to have a "great big flaming swastika on stage". It should be noted however that the swastika is indeed an ancient mystic symbol, and it did originally have the meaning Mills gave it. Thus, he was correct in his comments about the swastika "
This was added in the last edit. However it is not necessarily correct; it expresses a point of view it says Mills' comments were 'correct' and yet Mills said "the swastika was "a brilliant image" which symbolised "peace and the sun and illumination."" - now the whole point at issue is that the swastika does not, in the West, symbolise those things anymore (Mills even admitted this in his later apology) thus his comments were arguably not 'correct'. I'm going to revert the the change, please comment here if you wish to dispute it. -- 2-J
You are not quite correct. Since there are millions of hindus and buddhists and native americans living in the west who revere the swastika as a sacred religious symbol your claim about people in the "west" is not correct. Regardless, the quote you object to makes clear that the original meaning of the swastika is what Mills refered to. In Asia the swastika is used widely and can be seen everywhere in India used for both religious and secular purposes as a good luck symbol, it is also in Buddhist temples and other places throughout Asia. Regardless of what many people in the "west" think about the swastika in point of fact most people in the world live in Asia where the swastika is seen as Mills describes it. Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia devoted to eurocentric or western views of the world.Shiva das 20:50, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
What were the "ill-advised remarks" about swastikas? Any links?
- From what I remember from the time, basically talking about the other historic symbolism and spirituality of the symbol (which is mentioned elsewhere in wikipedia). All true, but given the press es mentality here in the UK "ill-advised" is a pretty good description. DarkCryst 21:04, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
In the controversy section reference is made to William Cooper and there are two links to articles about him. Unfortunately they link to two different articles. One about William Milton Cooper and one to a disambiguation page for William Cooper. Is William Milton Cooper the correct one or not? --Wikipediatastic 10:01, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
- William Milton Cooper is the correct William Cooper in this instance. I've made the links consistent.
I changed the part where it said that Cooper was an antisemite after doing some research on him. His theories were originally about aliens who had crashed landed in the 1940's and were working with "the new world order" in order to control the destiny of humanity, he was also into the UFO subculture. Later he recanted and claimed that he no longer believed in UFOs or aliens, he claimed that the UFO movement was created and sustained by the "Illuminati" for various nefarious reasons. Although he printed the "protocols of zion" in one of his books he introduced it as being not of jewish origin and wrote that the references to jews in it were inserted into it by non jews. This is a commonplace conspiracy theory today. The idea is that the freemasons, or the illuminati, or even the jesuits, originally wrote the protocols of zion outlining their master plan, but that later references to jews as the authors were added in order to demonize jews. Depending on the conspiracy theory the addition of jews was added either by the russian secret police to rile up anitsemitism in russia (which is mainstream thinking today), the jesuits to rile up anitsemitism everywhere, or the masons or the illuminati in order to rile up antisemitism. After searching through his writings I could find nothing where he demonizes jews and several places where he claims that the "Illuminati" are people from many religious backgrounds who were behind the holocaust and whose purpose it is to destroy the jews along with other religions. Shiva das 20:19, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] What Does 'Kula Shaker' Mean?
If it has a meaning, it should be mentioned...if it's meaningless, then that should be mentioned, too. I'd do it myself except I don't know and the official website doesn't give any clues ;) 63.230.177.22 14:42, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
- well the page explains that Kula Shaker is in reference to Kulasekhara, and also explains the origins of the Kulasekhara name. As I understand it the reasoning for the change from "Kulasekhera" to "Kula Shaker" was simply make it sound a bit snappier for use as a group name, and doesn't have any deeper logic to it than that. But I can't really find a concise way to work that into the article.
-Kulashekhara or properly: Kulaśekhara, is prounounced Kula-shake-are or arah. Crispian told the story that a friend of his named Kulaśekhara Das[4]] knew George Harrison of the Beatles and he used to tell Crispian stories of his time with George and the Beatles, and that's where Crispian got the inspiration for the name Kula Shaker. Kulaśekhara Das was named by his guru when he was initiated into a Hindu sect after the King Kulashekhara who wrote the famous Mukunda Mala Stotras[5] King Kulashekara was one of the Alvars. Kula Shaker's music company is called Alvar Music.Shiva das 23:06, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Complete list of recordings
Apologies to the person who supplied this, but I don't think it's appropriate for the band's main page. As far as I'm concerned the first page should just list the band's albums - to list every album track, B-side and obscure live track (some of which may have only been played a handful of times) is a useful reference, but only for people seeking further detail. Plus, it was cluttering up the front page due to the fact that each letter from A to Z appeared as a separate entry in the contents at the top of the main page, forcing people to scroll down just to start reading about the band themselves.
Anyway, rather than lose it completely, I've saved the list to my webspace and added it as a link here instead. If anyone wants the list updating then just let me know via the discussion page and I'll get it done.
Would make more sense in my view to have it as a separate page in wiki. Nige 08:44, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree that makes sense - I didn't do it myself because I don't know about creating new pages or about the rules / etiquette for doing so. If someone else wants to do it then that's great. Drykid 20:54, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] How can I get tickets?....
I´m a great Kula Shaker fan and I need some help.I´m from Serbia and here is very difficult to hear a word about them,there are are almost no fans and informations.I wanted to know how can I buy a ticket for their concert(I´ve heard that they are always sold out long before the concert)and if they are playing somewhere else,except in England.Please let me know...it would make my life wish come true!And if there´s at least one Kula Shaker fan who would like to help me getting tickets and maybe being my company on the concert,please contact me.My e-mail adress is ds.Liliana@yahoo.com.Thanks!LilianaDS 00:08, 9 December 2006 (UTC)Liliana
[edit] TRIVIA
The trivia section is without any references. Also it includes several defamatory statements without reference, rhyme or reason. So I am removing it. If the person who posted the trivia wants to keep it there he or she must provide references, also various peoples personal opinions about the band is not what a wikipedia article is for. e.g the opinion of Mary Lutyens, etc. Shiva das 00:03, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Much of the trivia had citations and references. Are you an idiot?
I may be an idiot but you do not understand what a citation or reference is for trivia. There were no references or citations in the triva section for the trivia mentioned. All the links were to wikipedia articles on the people and companies mentioned but not to the trivia being mentioned. For example from this part:
At the peak of their Britpop fame Mills was said to have been considering a Britpop mega-band with members of Northern Uproar, Menswe@r and These Animal Men
The links were not to a reference of the trivia mentioned, they were links to wikipedia articles on those groups. How do we know that the claim is true? You need reference, a citation of that trivia from a reputable source. All of the links in the triva section were like that, not a single reference to the trivia being mentioned was in the triva section. Shiva das 01:22, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
If something is mentioned in an old newsspaper or whatever and you remember it how can you be expected to source it? Except from from mind? Lots of wikipedia articles are this way. Furthermore, the Kula Shaker cocktail did exist and SHOULD be mentioned.
The problem is that anyone can say anything and how can we know it is true without a reference? This is wikipedia's policy on trivia:
"Keep in mind, however, that "trivia" content is not exempt from our rules and style guidelines. Wikipedia is not supposed to be a dumping ground for speculation, rumor, invented "facts", or libel — continue to follow Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Cite your sources, and Wikipedia:Biographies of living people. If you have doubts about whether your fact is suitable for inclusion, place it on the talk page instead where other interested contributors can help consider its inclusion and locate suitable references."
Especially read the article on citing sources.
Also from the policy on citing sources:
"Biographies of living persons should be sourced with particular care, for legal and ethical reasons. All negative material about living persons must cite a reliable source. Do not wait for another editor to request a source. If you find unsourced or poorly sourced negative material about a living person — whether in an article or on a talk page — remove it immediately! Do not leave it in the article and ask for a source. Do not move it to the talk page. This applies whether the material is in a biography or any other article." Shiva das 23:35, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
