Talk:Question Mark & the Mysterians
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-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. | ||
 |
It is requested that a picture or pictures of this person be included in this article to improve its quality. |
Weirdness--I just made a brand-new article for two kinda obscure 60s bands. First, I did the 13th Floor Elevators and everything worked fine except for interminable slowness. Then, I did ? & the Mysterians and once again, everything worked fine except for slowness. Then, since I knew I had seen a few references to the Mysterians that didn't show up on "what links here", I did a search and found two alternate methods of writing the band's name, and I redirected them. Going to recent changes, I saw the two redirects but not ? & the Mysterians. 13th Floor Elevators was listed, and then the redirects a few minutes later but not the article itself (which does exist; the redirects work perfectly). Did anybody see the actual article appear on recent changes?
Contents |
[edit] First "Punk band" ?
An anonymous contributor just wrote in this article that ? and the Mysterians were written up by Dave Marsh in the May 1971 Creem Magazine as being "the first punk band". It is not totally clear that this is the case. The anonymous addition was "? & the Mysterians was also the first band to be described as punk rock." It has apparently been in the Punk rock article for some time. I don't have access to the original Creem magazine article, unfortunately, to check Marsh's words. I am just assuming the folks over at the Punk rock article checked this out. It would not nescessarily be out of the question for it to be the case. -- (Bob) Wikiklrsc 01:31, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Wrong links!
This article wrongly links rocker Robert Martinez to Bob Martinez, first latin governor of Florida.
The link to Frank Rodriguez is circular and leads back to this page!
togrim, user of the Norwegian Wikipedia, 2007-01-30
[edit] Hit count
The article describes "96 Tears" as the band's "first and only hit" – and then goes on to say that their next two singles "were also hits, but nowhere near as popular as "96 Tears"". Either "96 Tears" needs to be described as their "first and only major hit" or the other two singles shouldn't be called hits. I'll leave it to someone who knows more about the band than I do to decide which. Russ London 06:28, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Fact verification
I have just edited this page with the direct assistance of Question Mark today June 25 07. I have tried to keep as much of the original copy as I can but there is a lot of misinformation going about this group which has made it on to this page and a lot of missing information. I hope this will clear up some of this. Question Mark has a sour relationship with Jon Weiss but to be fair historically one must include his contributions and his place in the history of the band. It certainly doesnt seem fair to exclude him. I myself(Gary Fury) am part of it's history in a different way since I am not a "Mysterian" but I have performed with Question Mark in versions of the group over the last 7 years in some major shows in NYC and elsewhere and so I am including myself as well. When I have time I will be communicationg further with Q and The Mysterians to give an even more detailed history of the original group nad the details behind 96 Tears. If there is anyone out there who can do a better job of editing than myself and has some proofreading skills and good grammer please dive in and clean this thing up. Anyway Ciao for now Wikipeople.
- And the proof of this is where? You didn't cite any kind of sources. Anthony Rupert 13:01, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
(gary fury)Young Mister Rupert please follow proper etiquette and create your own talk segment instead of inserting your comment into mine in front of my signature. This is a somewhat rude and antagonistic approach to challenging the article. To respond to your comment, the information here cannot for the most part be cited as being pulled from literary sources since there simply isn't very much in the way of reliable published literary sources the key word being reliable, however we do have the living artist(s) to supply information directly which is the case here. A basic problem with wikipedia is that the policy for verification operates under the assumption that if material is published elsewhere it can be relied upon to be valid and this has led to misinformation being published. The original version of this article being a prime example. In fact this situation in which we have questionable information being presented on wikipedia inspired a parody article in the lampoon newspaper known as "The Onion". To bolster my assertion I cite the story that the song "96 Tears"was originally entilted "Too Many Teardrops" and Then "69 Tears" which was included in the first version of this article. It was published in a major literary work and therefore is considered to be a reliable source. The artist who wrote the song refutes the story so which version of the facts is to be considered valid? If one recognizes the fact that simply because information has been published does not make it accurate how far can one go to provide verification on subject matter like this which is not the kind of information found widely in history books? I think we need to have a recorded interview with ? posted online to have a direct reference to draw upon and I'll be working on that later this year. Also ?'s copy of the Creem magazine article was destroyed in the January fire and a copy of it needs to be obtained to substantiate the section of this installment which refers to it and makes the claim that ? is the artist for whom the term Punk Rock was coined. A potential benefit of wikipedia is that original content can potentially be created directly from the subjects of the article rather than culled from literary sources which can be inaccurate and subject to the interpretation of misinformed persons such as the aforementioned "69 Tears" story. In fact in the music section of wikipedia a vast majority of insertions regarding living artists contain newly created content provided by the artists and bands and or their publicists/labels themselves. I recognize the point you are trying to make based on the policies of wikipedia but I find in this case strict adherance to those policies will result in an inaccurate article. I recognize there is additional work to be done on this insertion but again when compared to many of the insertions regarding musical artists I consider this to be as substantial if not more substantial than many of those articles.
Gary Fury(user:rocknrollfury)7/5/2007
Gary, I hope you'll find that most people here are reasonable about the policies. (Although Anthony asked about your sources, he didn't undo your changes, either.) For example, I doubt anyone will object if you remove incorrect information from the article, even if that information comes from (incorrect) published sources. (If you do that, it would be a good idea to explain here on the talk page that the published source is wrong, and how you know.) Your suggest of doing a new interview with ? and posting it online is an excellent one, by the way. I hope you'll stick around and keep contributing to the article. SethTisue 14:55, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
