Talk:Timbaland/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Plagiarism controversy

A video comparing original composer Janne Suni's track to Timbaland and Furtado's is available on YouTube.

- This link is now invalid, as the user has retracted the video. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.9.140.105 (talk) 12:33, August 26, 2007 (UTC)


Its not entirely false. Timbaland is planning to do something with the WWE Divas in his next video. and he is also going to sign some kind of deal with the WWE.

http://www.wwe.com/inside/news/timbaland

Edward Edward609va 21:45, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

--Darkbright 22:07, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I have the URL for the other party in the plagarism issue, thought this should be added for fairness to both sides. Acidjazzed evening plagarism

General Discussion

Isn't timbaland the guy in cry me a river from cry me a river, the guy in the car?--60.226.31.60 05:55, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes. --FuriousFreddy 08:01, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Is this the same Timbaland did a remix of Nelly Furtado's single "Turn Off the Light" from the "Whoa Nelly" album. He's credited on the CD single, so had worked with Nelly before. This isn't mentioned either on this page, or on Nelly's page.

--~~Mister_Greywolf~~

{{editprotected}} uhm- can someone please change "Paris Hilton's click" to "Paris Hilton's clique"? Things like that make baby jebus cry.

Y Done Cbrown1023 talk 17:02, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

timbaland african?

Isn't timbaland half indian, that's why he has a lot of India-style bhangra influenced beats, i think he said in one of his songs, "I'm black with Indian..."

Magoo said that, not Timbaland...and he meant Native American. --FuriousFreddy 02:45, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Timbaland is a legend!!!! <3#


Timbachick latest edits

As you can see in the history, user Timbachick seems dead set to remove the Plagiarism controversy paragraph. What are the circumstances for an user/ip ban? On a sidenote, if her claims are true and she IS an intern for Timbaland, would that mean that THIS is an official action by Timbaland? Could it be that Timbaland is actively removing information about all this? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.122.59.104 (talk) 01:54, 21 January 2007 (UTC).

Timbachick has done nothing yet that I see as bannable. It is definitely a single-purpose account, but that is allowed as long as it it not being used for vote stacking. We should simply treat this user as we would any other fan. If she violates WP:3RR or persists in ignoring talk page warnings etc, then there may be justification to escalate this to WP:ANI or WP:AIV. —Dgiest c 03:15, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

new beef section needs to be added

a new scott storch vs timbaland beef has arisen. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by LightSpeed1 (talk • contribs) 02:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC).

Admitted the Sample-Theft of Janne Sunnis song

I heard he recently admitted in a public radio interview that he used the sample from Janne Sunnis Song in Nelly Furtados "Do It" Song - does anyone got a reliable source for this?

The radio interview was made in a show called Eliot in the Morning and is available for download at their homepage, the interview was made February 02, 2007, the part about the rip off controversy is from about 6:00 http://www.eitmonline.com/eitmonline2/media/eitmlive/timbaland2.mp3 http://www.eitmonline.com/live.html , a transcript of that part of the interview is available at http://www.zxdemo.org/extra/timbaland_radio_transcript.txt . My interpretation of what Timbaland says is that he didn't steal the song, but he sampled it, and that he didn't have time to clear the sample due to a deadline for Nelly Furtado's record (although that isn't exactly true as he used the same 15 second sample for a ringtone the year earlier, so he had plenty of time to clear the sample prior to Nelly Furtados record Loose).
He doesn't mention which song he sampled (other than it's from a game), but it is obvious that it is Glenn R. Gallefoss' c64 cover of Janne Suni's Acidjazzed Evening that is the song that has been sampled (audio comparison http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W2JjPFd7Jr8 ) , check http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Timbaland_plagiarism_controversy for attributable sources about the obviousness. 81.227.1.131 20:10, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Other Producers

<a href="http://imageshack.us"><img src="http://img403.imageshack.us/img403/818/timbaland3rz1.jpg" border="0" alt="Image Hosted by ImageShack.us"/></a>

“Timbaland is similar to producers such as Phil Spector, Brian Eno, or Norman Whitfield in that he helped to redefine the sound of an entire genre of music with an immediately recognizable production style.” --- I removed this ridiculous comparison from the opening of the article as it has no basis in reality. It was clearly written as a stretch to cram a flavor of the month producer into the pantheon of the greats; and is hardly neutral. Sorry, but comparing the inventor of the “Wall of Sound” technique that created some of the most memorable pop symphonies of the ‘60s, the pioneer of the legendary Motown sound, and the reigning king of sonic soundscapes to a guy who fucks around in ProTools until he comes up with “beats” is nothing short of offensive. Unless somebody can cite a credible source to somehow draw this insane comparison, I will continue to delete it anytime some idiot posts it.

sorry angry/ign'ant kid, Tim's a lot more than a "flavor of the month" producer, whether ya like him or not. that bit was not making a judgment on his accomplishments compared to those guys, just saying that he's had a similar huge influence on his respective genre, which he has. 134.69.166.175 02:58, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Heh. I didn't know "flavors of the month" remained relevant for a decade; Timbaland's been a major influence on first R&B, then hip-hop, and now pop since 1996 and his first hits for Aaliyah (how can anyone not have heard of Timbaland before now). Don't remove it again. And, for the record, Whitfield is a pioneer of the Motown sound, not the pioneer. --FuriousFreddy 05:32, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Wow, you must be new to life. Timbaland has been producing for over a decade and has been well known for common productions with Aaliyah Ishmael Rufus (talk) 22:36, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

At least cite a credible source, or make a reasonable argument as to how this is any more than mere opinion. Also, someone please explain to me how my reasonable argument for the removal of the phrase shouldn't be given precedence (or at least equal consideration) over a guy who just spelled "ignorant" as "ign'ant" on a website that supposedly prides itself on accuracy. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.103.91.207 (talk) 05:30, 30 April 2007(UTC).

For the record, if you look at the two sources cited, one compares him to Brian Eno and the other to Norman Whitfield and Phil Spector. It's not speculation, it's referenced in reliable sources. You might disagree with something in Wikipedia, it happens. But it is important to know that Wikipedia is not about truth; it's about verifiability. Also, don't forget to sign your comments by putting ~~~~ at the end of your comment. Thanks! Rockstar (T/C) 05:40, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

This part of the article is far from neutral - most of the article is not neutral - but this is making a comparison with two undoubted geniuses based on two single reviews. Two reviews do not make the equivalent of a genius. I have edited this out. Robojam 05:43, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Reverted. Wikipedia reports on already reported items. Anything else would be original research. Rockstar (T/C) 15:38, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

And now you know why Wikipedia isn't taken seriously: people with axes to grind who substitute their opinions for verifiable facts, but still claim - falsely - that they're not engaging in 'original research.' What a joke. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.9.8.150 (talk) 06:10, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

PITCHFORK MEDIA?! There goes Wikipedia's credibility. If this page had any.

Bjork?

I don't know much about either Bjork or Timbaland, but someone recently told me that Timbaland is producing or has produced Bjork's latest album. I thought that this was VERY strange considering that they make vastly different kinds of music...has anyone else heard or read about this? If true, perhaps this warrants a mention in the article? --WassermannNYC 12:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

it's true, read this http://www.pitchforkmedia.com/article/news/41776/Bjork_Announces_Tour_Dates_Talks_Timbaland_Collab ;)--NeptunianDroid 04:38, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Failed GA

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
  5. It is stable.
  6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
    a (tagged and captioned): b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
  7. Overall:
    a Pass/Fail:

I've failed this article for GA status. The biggest problem is that the article needs references and citations for its content. There are problems with original research in analyzing his style, and I don't see any citations for the quotations. The Plagiarism controversy section is not in chronological order; it also needs to be expanded because two sentences simply is not enough to summarize the 2007 Timbaland plagiarism controversy article. Lone years should not be linked. The After Swing Mob: 1995 - 1996 is too short. Also, the song titles in the Rivalry with Scott Storch section shouldn't be bolded. ShadowHalo 04:31, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Rivalry with Scott Storch

This section needs some massive clean-up and referencing. Take a look at Scott Storch's page for a better example of what this should look like. I went ahead and found a couple references about both Timbaland Presents Shock Value (the latter) and the beef (both):

Check them out and let's clean this section up. Then let's get it promoted! Rockstar915 04:39, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

"Singles" sections?

is there a reason for there being two sections on Timbaland's singles? The sections are almost identical, although there is one additional track named in the second. Also the chart position of the track 'Give It To Me' is different in the two lists. Does anybody know which is correct? thanks Zero187 16:56, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

The right wing vs. Timbaland (with Hillary Clinton)

The right wing is attacking Timbaland and Hillary Clinton after she attended a fundraiser for the rap producer. Not to mention that Timbaland has not responded to the accusations of the Focus On Family, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, Fox News, and Rush Limbaugh right wing machine. I'm sorry, I support decisions but for the right wing to attack on a person who had nothing to do in the political field is totally ludicrous...not Ludacris. LILVOKA 20:38, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

If there are reliable sources that state this fact, add this info to the controversies section of the article! Good find. Rockstar (T/C) 00:09, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Article locked

The article's locked for editing - please could someone correct the capitalisation of the "Production Discography" section to "Production discography"? Thanks, 86.152.203.212 10:00, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Please? Or if not, unlock it so I can do it? 86.152.203.212 17:44, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Hello?? Is this article protected and nobody's monitoring the talk page? Please could someone make this change - it's a very simple request... 86.152.203.212 12:23, 18 May 2007 (UTC) {{editprotected}}
  • I have made the requested change. Note that the article is only semi-protected, which means that you could edit it 4 days after you register an account. --After Midnight 0001 15:24, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Page of "big boss" is protected. Requested by record company and caused by this plagiarism case?

Why is everything protected?

Why is this page entirely protected? A. the information on it is incorrect and B. It's highly outdated. I'm confused?—Preceding unsigned comment added by J Boogie33 (talk • contribs)

It is not entirely protected, but rather semi-protected, meaning that unregistered users and users with accounts less than four days old cannot edit the page. This was done to prevent excess vandalism. If you want to edit this page, wait a couple more days and you'll be golden. In the meantime, there are a bunch of pages that need cleanup, so happy editing! Hope that helps! :) Rockstar (T/C) 20:12, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I wanted to fix something on this page but it's protected so f that. Wikipedia wtf is up with randomly protecting pages forever. --61.51.187.54 06:00, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

register a account if you want to edit the problem is libellous vandalisms thank you yuckfoo 06:02, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Timbaland at Live Earth?

Was Timbaland really a preformer at Live Earth? In the Live Earth article, I don't see him listed as a preformer under any of the legs. -XxKibaxX Talk 23:05, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Britney Spears

MTV news interviewed Timbaland and he said he would work on her new album with Justin Timberlake.look at Britney's new album article for the reference.--Jak3m 16:48, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Apologize (song)

Does Timbaland actually sing in that song? I listened to it and did not hear him. It may be worth mentioning in its article. –thedemonhog talk • edits • box 02:51, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

No, he doesn't. Nor does he play any instruments. He samples some pre-recorded material from a Nelly Furtado track, and adds some reverb to the existing vocal track, and a little, thin, casio-style drumline. That's it. Given these facts, Timbaland's decision to give himself top-billing on the track is actually annoying any number of folks. —The preceding unsigned comment was

added by 71.9.8.150 (talk) at 6:07 on November 14, 2007 (UTC).

He uses the samples HE created from a Nelly Furtado song and produced the track. Ishmael Rufus (talk) 22:41, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Er, yes. I believe that's what was mentioned. The fact remains, he does not actually perform on the track, did not sing it, does not play any instrument, did not write a note of it, and, contrary to myth, did not produce the song. To "produce" the song would have meant he had a hand in the recording of the master tracks. He didn't. He remixed EXISTING tracks. This is made quite clear in the liner notes to the song's release, on both the single and LP. So no, Timbaland really can't justify any credit for that song. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.9.8.150 (talk) 19:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Get over yourself. He is the executive producer of the album. He knew of OneRepublic years ago. He signed them to his label. Who cares if he remixed existing tracks? It is the result of that remixing that the song is so popular. Get with reality. Nouse4aname (talk) 11:43, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
1.) He is the executive producer of the album on which the remix appears, yes. He is creditted as such. That does not make the song "by" him any more than it would make Yellow Submarine be "by" George Martin, even though Martin had much more to do, musically, with the Beatles' sound than Timbaland has to do with OneRepublic's. 2.) Please mind your manners. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.9.8.150 (talk) 19:20, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Have you actually compared the original and remixed versions. The differences are due to Timbaland and no one else. These days "playing an instrument" or singing is not the be all and end all. He has used samples to create a new version of the song, which he subsequently released as a single. In this way he has contributed to the overall sound of the work, and as such becomes an author, not of the lyrics, but of the music, and thus can be credited. In any case, your apparent attitude that you must be right, and only your opinion is correct stinks. It is not how things are done around here. Your inability to agree to compromise or suggest an alternative compromise shows you are in need of growing up. In addition, there is nothing wrong with my manners, thank you very much. I am simply giving some advice. Nouse4aname (talk) 19:48, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
I am sorry, but Wikipedia's own articles on "authorship" and "producing (music)" make the distinction between the two clear. Compromise is not the golden road to truth: sometimes one side actually is more correct than another. As for your manners, if you believe calling people "moron," demanding that they "grow up," referring to other editors as "an idiot kid with no brain," constitute acceptable manners, I doubt I'll be the one to convince you otherwise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.9.8.150 (talk) 19:58, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Isn't he the one uttering the annoying "eh" sounds throughout the song? Funkynusayri (talk) 14:12, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

personal life

Apparently as of earlier today Timbaland is a father . A baby girl was born to his girl friend, since this article is protected can someone add this bit of info. 216.26.203.146 (talk) 20:28, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Spurious comparison to Brian Eno etc.

Both Pitchfork Media and MyLyricsCentral, the cited sources for this comparison, fit squarely within the definition of a self-published article and the corresponding comparison should be removed from this article

Wujubird (talk) 19:23, 21 December 2007 (UTC)David


Concur. 71.9.8.150 (talk) 21:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

For the record, 71.9.8.150, you cannot make the change you did using "per talk page" as the reason, as that change hardly enjoyed consensus. Now, I don't have an opinion on either side of this discussion, but Pitchfork is considered a reliable source. MyLyricsCentral most likely isn't, and that particular reference should be removed. That said, if I remember correctly, the disputed text was originally lifted from this article in one form or another. I'll take a look at it tomorrow and see what I can glean. Rockstar (T/C) 07:19, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Since not one person has chimed in to the contrary in two weeks, I assumed there was no actual defence of the material. But even if there were, the paragraph clearly violates NPOV. It's pure puffery. It could be dropped into a later section on criticism and reception of Timbaland's work, perhaps, but not in the lead, which is supposed to be purely factual. Besides which, the Eno comparison which is at the heart of the paraphrase does not appear in that NYT article. It appears only in personal blogs and reposted blogs, in both places.71.9.8.150 (talk) 14:13, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, part of the section should be reworded to be slightly less fanboy. As for the Eno reference, it's from the Pitchfork review, which is a perfectly valid source. Rockstar (T/C) 20:48, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Okay, then I've moved that section down to the part of the article detailing his influence on the genre, and credited it to a reviewer, rather than leaving it in the lead as though it were some statement of fact. The puffery which came from the unsigned blog has been nuked. Suits? 71.9.8.150 (talk) 22:25, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Suits me. In time, we should try to incorporate that NY Times hit, too. Rockstar (T/C) 23:46, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Now this is supposed to be the consensus decision that caused the Eno/Whitfield comparison to be removed? Are you serious? This comparision has to be in the lead, but it characterizes the influence Timbaland has on today's R&B/Pop rap music. You just have to take a look at the Charts to know how influencal he is. ––Bender235 (talk) 22:25, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Look at the sources claiming the comparison. Pitchfork is a reliable source, so the Eno comparison can stay (and is already included in the body of the article). MyLyricsCentral, on the other hand, is not a reliable source. Don't forget, this article is about a living person, so the quality of sources must be high. Before you make a change in the article again, please discuss here first. Rockstar (T/C) 22:46, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
How about Straight.com? They're saying ”not since Phil Spector has a songwriter/producer so profoundly shaped pop music as has Tim Mosley“. ––Bender235 (talk) 22:54, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Even if true, that's one reviewer's opinion, not established fact, so it goes into the section on criticism and reception, not the lead. 71.9.8.150 (talk) 22:59, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
How can you "establish" this as a "fact"? Is there any pop music scientist that judges on this case? I'll re-add this comment, adding "Some consider Timbaland …". ——Bender235 (talk) 00:41, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Please see WP:LEAD - "Write clinically, and let the facts speak for themselves." In addition, "Leads are usually written at a greater level of generality than the body." Listing every single artist T. has ever worked with wouldn't seem to qualify. 71.9.8.150 (talk) 14:19, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Okay. But the Phil-Spector-line remains there. ––Bender235 (talk) 14:46, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
No, per the WP:LEAD policy, it goes down below. In the first place, it violates NPOV. In the second, it is redundant, since the same comment and reference appear later in the article. 71.9.8.150 (talk) 21:14, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Nonsense. First of all, it does not violate NPOV, because it does not say "Timbaland is …" but "Some critics consider Timbaland to be …". And further, it is not redudant. Otherwise the mentioning of Magoo in the lead it redundant, too, as well as everything in the infobox.
It is crucial to clarify Timbaland's importance in the lead, so the reader clearly knows that he is more important than say Toni Cottura. ––Bender235 (talk) 21:51, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
It is an evaluative remark by a single critic...not any kind of consensual statement about the significance of his work. Mentioning that he has had however-many-top-ten-hits would be a measure of his significance. Mentioning a single critic's view is not "Clinical" as the WP:LEAD guideline demands. Its appearance in the lead gives the imprimatur of 'fact' to the statement, however it is couched. 71.9.8.150 (talk) 23:01, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
How long are you willing to do this? This is ridiculous.
Yes, it is a single critic, not a consensus public opinion nor a irrefutable fact explored by some pop music scientist. For that reason, the line is "Some critics consider …", and neither “Scientists acknowledge …" nor "Jesus said …". Got it?
This line is neither subjective nor redundant, but important for the reader (who knows close to nothing about Timbaland) to understand how important Timbaland is to today's pop music. ––Bender235 (talk) 00:32, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
I suppose I'm willing to correct misinformation as long as is necessary to get closer to objectivity. You? As for "subjectivity": any review is, by definition, subjective. It is an evaluative judgment, a statement of taste, and thus not the "clinical" and objective material demanded by the WP:LEAD guideline. Again, there is certainly room in the article for statements about the reception and criticism of T's music. But not, I think, in the opening, where it is likely to be treated by casual readers as gospel. If you would please read the guideline, you'll see that this, specifically, is the reason that Leads are supposed to avoid such loaded rhetoric. I think the compromise I've proposed notes Timbaland's significance without the need to rely on subjective claims. 71.9.8.150 (talk) 00:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, that review quote is subjective. As is the John Wooden article by saying (in the lead!) that Wooden "is widely regarded as the greatest college coach in history", as is the Michael Jordan article by saying (in the lead!) that Jordan is "the greatest basketball player of all time" and "one of the most effectively marketed athletes of his generation", as is the Babe Ruth article by saying (in the lead!) that Ruth is "widely regarded as one of the greatest baseball players in history". The list goes on and on. And these lines aren't there for nothing. As I said, it should give the reader a perspective about how important the person was; that for example John Wooden was more important to college basketball than Matt Doherty. ––Bender235 (talk) 02:20, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Hint: I'm getting the sense that it is only the two of us that are talking about this. How about a Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration? ––Bender235 (talk) 02:33, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
The Arbitration Committee does not accept content disputes, so I wouldn't waste your time (not to mention other dispute resolution avenues have not been taken). I would suggest something along the lines of a third opinion, request for mediation or request for comment. Rockstar (T/C) 03:06, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for directing me to more instances of violation of the policy, I suppose. I can point to instances of poor grammar in many articles as well. That doesn't change the fact that poor grammar is against policy and should be changed when encountered. You might have also noted in the example you brought up that that very section of the Michael Jordan lead has been a major source of contention, and the consensus seems to have been that the material did not belong in the lead. I'd change it myself, but the page has been protected. I'm happy to hear from other opinions (though you're incorrect that only two people have chimed in on this topic. I make it four, three in favor of removing the comment, and you.) 71.9.8.150 (talk) 03:47, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Tim has a son named Frankie

Tim has a son Frankie. He brought Frankie onstage @ Z100 Jingle concert. Read and watch here. Add this to the personal section. Also , I think the personal section should be moved up to his bio, not thrown under the 2006 section. From "after swing mob" on needs to be under 'career' section.70.108.56.92 (talk)05:52, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

RfC: Is the line “Some critics consider …” allowed in the lead

Is the line “Some critics consider Timbaland the most influential pop music producer since Phil Spector,” allowed in the lead? Source is [1].

For what it's worth, I'll lend my opinion to this. Now, just to emphasise my lack of bias in this case, if you check out the discussion page of Apologize (song), you will see that User:71.9.8.150 and I were engaged in a heated arguement for quite some time. In this instance, the suggestions he puts forward seem to comply with policy. Furthermore, the sentence "Some critics consider..." is only verified by a single source, thus indicating actually only one critic has made this comment. I would argue that to use the phrase "some critics..." and to further put this in the lead, you would need several critics (not just two). These would preferably be more notable critics to lend even more weight to the claim. The compromise of placing such content outside of the lead in a separate section seems fitting at this time. Nouse4aname (talk) 13:57, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Contrary to Bender235's claim in his edit summary, there are ways to measure influence. A reference to number of top-ten singles would be one. A link to sales figures might be another. A single critic's personal take on an artist is not one of them. 138.23.246.11 (talk) 01:52, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
That's bull–. Where's the number that measures Timbaland influence on the sound of productions by other producers? Is there any number that indicates exactly how much Timbaland's albums influenced other artists?
I'll give you another example: Paid in Full, the debut album by Eric B. & Rakim, and Illmatic, the debut album by Nas, are both considered the most influentual hip-hop albums of all-time (which both articles clearly indicate in the lead, btw). Now that is neither based on "sales figures" nor on "top-ten singles", because neither album went particually well in stores. It is based on their influence on hip-hop music of the 90's. Now tell me which official number measures this influence. ––Bender235 (talk) 14:14, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
I hope this doesn't come across as condescending, but you seem to be having some sincere misunderstanding about what the demands of the WP:LEAD policy are -- "Objective" statements are those which are true for any observer, such as "this room is 92 degrees Farenheit," or "Timbaland has produced twelve number-one singles." "Subjective" statements are those which rely on personal perspective, such as "This room is warm," or "Timbaland is the most influential producer since Brian Eno." 138.23.246.11 (talk) 15:28, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
You're absolutely right. Wikipedia should neither write "Timbaland is the most influential producer since …" nor "Bill Clinton is the first black president". But Wikipedia definitely should write "Toni Morrison considers Clinton the first black president.[source]" just as it definitely should write "Some critics/Critic XY considers Timbaland the most influential producer since Phil Spector.[source]". See the difference? These statements are "true for any observer", because Morrison said what she said, whether you agree with her or not, just like these music critics said what they said regardless of what you think of Timbaland. ––Bender235 (talk) 15:59, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, Morrison's claim has a place in the Clinton article - in the section on 'criticism and legacy'. Not in the lead which is supposed to remain scrupulously neutral, even "clinical" (their word). 138.23.77.43 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 17:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Okay, bad example, since the Morrison-quote itself is controversial. But how about the Walt Whitman article saying “Whitman is among the most influential poets in the American canon” to seperate him from less influential writers of his time, or the F. W. Murnau article saying “was one of the most influential directors of the silent film era,” or even the Phil Spector article saying that Spector is “one of the most distinctive producers in the history of popular music”. All in the lead. How about that? ––Bender235 (talk) 19:26, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
In the case of hiastoric figures, influence can be objecively measured (resources such as citation indices are one way to do so). In the case of living people, there is much greater risk of ascribing an insupportably biassed view by citing just one particular critic-o'-the-moment. But even in the cases you note, you should probably look at this [2]. And Murnau is cited for the influence of his movies, not himself. As for Spector, once again, thank you for pointing out one more case in which the policy is violated. That still doesn't change the policy, though. 138.23.246.11 (talk) 22:41, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
“Murnau is cited for the influence of his movies, not himself.” Yeah, right. So it's not the influence of Whitman's writings, Spector's and Timbaland's music that we're talking about right now, no? Come on.
I hate to burst your bubble, but you can not measure Whitman's influence on later writers by couting citations, because you won't find any footnote in fictional literature. Just the same way, you can't measure the influence of Murnau's movies on later filmmakers by counting scenes with monsters or whatever. And further, you can't measure Spector's, Timbaland's, or anybody elses influence on pop music by counting some numbers. You have to rely on critics, that say “Whitman/Murnau/Spector influenced …” and those comments are always subjective. ––Bender235 (talk) 22:59, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
I added a new version of the line-in-question to the article, that essentially is no different than the “Nobel Laureate Seamus Heaney has praised Mathers for his "verbal energy" and for arousing popular interest in poetry and lyrics” line in the Eminem article or the “Frank Sinatra called him "the only true genius in the business"" line in the Ray Charles article. ––Bender235 (talk) 23:15, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Again, the number of violations you can find of the essential principle of the policy is completely immaterial. you can find numerous instances of bad spelling in Wikipedia also. That does not make bad spelling admirable practice which should be emulated. It presents, instead, opportunities to improve the material and bring it closer into line with the principles, which is what I and other editors are attempting to do here. 138.23.246.11 (talk) 00:48, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
So, you're saying that a couple of dozens of Wikipedia articles (among them articles that are already voted "Featured articles", like Illmatic) are violating the rules, or at least your interpretation of the rules? Did you realize that Wikipedia's first rule to consider is “Ignore all rules”? ––Bender235 (talk) 02:07, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm saying that even feature articles can have grammatical mistakes, poor spelling, and violations of established policy. Moreover, this is not particularly my interpretation of the policy here. Five other editors have chimed in and seem to agree that in general, Leads should avoid biased, subjective, or evaluative commentary, and should instead summarize the objective facts of the article. Even in the few 'counter' examples you've brought up - certainly not "couple of dozens" - we've seen, on closer examination, that the editors there have agreed to remove or limit such material when it is noted at all. Finally, my understanding is that the 'ignore all rules' function is there to cover exceptional circumstances wherein the policy itself seems flawed in its application. That doesn't seem to be the case here. 138.23.246.11 (talk) 06:20, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
See below. There's a lot of cleaning for you to do now, if you're consequently thinking that all of those articles a violating the rules. And yes, I could name a "couple of dozen" very easily. --Bender235 (talk) 11:43, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Absolutely not. The lead is a summary of an article. Each sentence should only deal with matters of extreme significance, awards, date of birth, major life incidents. Opinions should only be included if they are near universal, abundantly referenced (ie-multiple sources), extremely notable, and mandatory to the understanding of that individual (eg. Michael Jackson is considered the King of Pop, Elvis is considered the King of Rock, Aretha Franklin is commonly called the Queen of Soul). If the opinion alone is not significant enough to merit about a paragraph worth of info, then it shouldn't be in the lead. Otherwise, it could have a POV effect on one's reading of the article.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 13:26, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Just like you wrote, the lead is the summary of an article. The lead tells you that Michael Jackson was more important to pop music than Lou Bega, that Michael Jordan was more important to basketball than Jamal Crawford, that Benjamin Graham was more important to economics than Ivan Boesky. And just like that, Timbaland is more important to this decade's pop music than most other producers. That is no absolute fact, because there is no single number that indicates that (and there never will be one), but all music critics most music critics are very clear on that. Thus, it should be in the lead. ––Bender235 (talk) 14:14, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
But *all* music critics are *not* very clear on that. The very fact that we're having this discussion indicates the subjectivity of the statement. 138.23.246.11 (talk) 15:28, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Okay, that statement might have been a reach. Anyway, the line in question says "Some critics…", not "All critics…" and not even "The majority of critics…". ––Bender235 (talk) 15:59, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
But it's not even some critics. The source you provide names only one critic, and not exactly a highly notable one, for example, the lead writer for Rolling Stone or some large publication. No one is denying you the opportunity to discuss this critic's views in the article. What they are saying is that it simply does not merit a mention in the lead. There is clearly no point in arguing this anymore. Your request for comment has yielded a number of opinions that agree with the initial compromise proposed. I am afraid that that should be an end to the matter. The content can be discussed in its own section of the article, but cannot be included in the lead. An opinion of a single, unknown journalist is simply not notable enough to influence reader's opinions by appearing in the lead. Nouse4aname (talk) 08:53, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Then go on, remove those kind of quotations from Michael Jordan, Benjamin Graham, John Wooden, Greg Oden, Babe Ruth, Mike Tyson, Muhammad Ali, Eddy Merckx, Albert Einstein, Jean-Paul Sartre, Pablo Picasso, Steven Spielberg, Warren Buffett, … basically any article on any person that excelled in his field, which is - in all of these article - noted in the lead by citing some sports/business/art/whatever journalist or critic. All of these articles are breaking the rules. Remove all the quotes!
I always thought it would improve a Wikipedia article if the reader understood the subject after reading the lead only (btw, WP:LEAD says so, but obviously no one cares). Someone who doesn't know nothing about boxing realizes the greatness of Ali and Tyson much easier if there is a quote saying "Boxing expert XY considers him the best boxer of his generation". It's the same thing with Ruth, Spielberg, Buffett, Graham, Merckx, and all those other guys I've mentioned. And with Timbaland it's the same as well. I think the lead of this article should tell the reader that Timbaland is more influential than most other current pop music producers. Just as the Dr. Dre article says that "he is widely regarded as one of the most popular and powerful rap-music figures of all time." Or just as the Ahmet Ertegün article says that he is "described as one of the most significant figures in the modern recording industry". Those kind of quotes help to improve the Wikipedia. In my mind, at least. Really sad, that now you have to remove them all. ––Bender235 (talk) 11:38, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
You seem to have missed the fact that in many of the very examples you are forwarding here, editors *have* questioned the practice of placing a subjective quote - even from an eminent source - in the Lead of an article, since it compromises NPOV. See: [3] and [4] and [5] and [6] and [7] and [8], just to name a few of the pleas for neutrality in the Lead of the articles you're mentioning here. In some cases, the quote is considered acceptable inasmuch as it represents some institutional evaluation of merit (like the NBA voting Jordan best player ever, or, for instance, some mention of Timbaland's large number of grammy nominations, both much more solid measures of impact than a single critic's opinion). In other cases, I've begun cleaning them myself. Once more: just because you can find a violation of a policy doesn't negate the policy. 71.9.8.150 (talk) 21:32, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I surrender. I could name thousands of articles, you would just consider them exceptions to the rule. It will probably take a while until you realize that Wikipedia rules change almost every month.
However, since you said you'd allow a statement on Timbaland's importance based on facts (as in Awards, Sold Records, ...) I'll add something like that. ––Bender235 (talk) 11:52, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, include it but also add another source to evidence it's not just one critic's opinion. The statement hardly prevent other bios from having the exact same statement and my opinion would change somewhat if this was a list of top music producers, but it's not. We write bios in relation and considerate of the subject, not to spare the dented egos of everyone else who this wasn't said in relation to. Benjiboi 20:10, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, sources, wait, I've got: Timbaland long ago established himself as the most exciting producer in pop music, a composer who has changed the way rappers and singers — and their fans — think about rhythm., Timbaland is himself one of the most influential producers in the music industry., Not since Phil Spector has a songwriter/producer so profoundly shaped pop music as has Tim Mosley, Timbaland (…) has become one of the most important and influential producers in the music industry today. Enough? --Bender235 (talk) 01:37, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Works for me and speaks to his notability, I would also use the NPR quote later in the article. Benjiboi 07:45, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Only if you also include, from those very same sources: "Inevitably...there are times when Timbaland goes overboard," and "[Timbaland's latest work] reveals a producer who's just plain run out of ideas...Timbaland's voice only sounds good when he's interjecting it rhythmically at the end of other people's lines, so it's no surprise that his vocal turns here are anemic at best." And your last "source" is a teenager posting on a chatboard naming himself after a video-game character. 71.9.8.150 (talk) 14:30, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Disagree. Although we should avoid cherry-picking using one does not mean we have to include the other and this is an encyclopedic bio not a tabloid smear. Lean on the the best reliable sources and use due diligence to present what they state. I, as the anon suggests, they are critical then find ways to incorporate the material but we are not obligated to add negative material. Do agree that sourcing is better in the long run if from reliable sources. Benjiboi 07:12, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
That was leaning on the "bestreliable sources." What you're calling "tabloid smear[s]" above came from precisely the same sources as those offered by Bender235. I think the point here is that any reliance on a single quote - or three, or five - can only be representative of what the editor wants it to represent, and thus violates NPOV. Better to Let The Facts Speak For Themselves, There is a "way to incorporate the material":in the body of the article, not in the lead. 138.23.246.0 (talk) 13:22, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
I stand by my statement. The lede should cover notability and overview the article and be able to stand alone. Detractor and criticism can be acknowledged or existing but unless exceptionally notable should remain in the body text. After the lead the article should accurately and dispassionately convey notable criticisms keeping in mind WP:UNDUE, WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. Benjiboi 18:14, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Ignore all rules

"If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it."

First of all, please don't try to hide your edit war behind this. As has been explained to you before, this is to be used in exceptional circumstances, of which this is most certainly not one. It can only be used where a rule prevents you from improving wikipedia; what you are trying to do is not an imporvement, and as such, WP:IAR does not apply. Furthermore, if you really want to play such games, your edits can subsequently be reverted, also under IAR, this time by ignoring the IAR policy. Perhaps before you go justifying everything using IAR, you should understand what it means, particularly the section on what it does not mean. Perhaps you could justify how your edits will "improve the encyclopedia". Nouse4aname (talk) 09:17, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

See above. I do think those kind of quotes improve the Wikipedia. As they do in many articles right now. ––Bender235 (talk) 11:45, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


huh?

"He also hit it big with the remix of OneRepublic's "Apologize" near the end of 2007. Timbaland's part in the song can be spotted by listening out for a sound not to disimilar to a wookie. As a matter of fact, some sources state that 'Timbaland' (Surely 'Timberland' is more gramatically correct), owns an AT-AT walker..."

Wtf...Kokiri kid (talk) 05:28, 26 March 2008 (UTC)


an image

http://www.artistdirect.com/nad/music/artist/card/0,,586269,00.html check this one /\


beef?

Why the word choice? Beef? I don't think many encyclopedia's use slang terms. The section is interesting, though.

slated to work with muse !?

does anybody know the source of this citation ?

Assist me with Project, please!

I am seeking the most greatest feat all DJs have never attempted before! The ULTIMATE TIMBALAND RE-MIX. I hope this article can assist me with finding all of the songs I need to complete my quest. This is why I would like to see all the songs Timbaland has ever produced! Please help me! --Sakamura

Kaiser Sensei?

Does anyone know what Timbaland is referring to when he calls himself Kaiser Sensei in the intro to "Pony"?

answer: "kaiser sosoe" is popular figure popularized by the mid-90's movie "the usual suspects" used as an alias for timbalands behind the scenes production. [cisco at cysk001@mac.com/] send me a message to start and join the timbaland group!!

Timbaland's Style

The interesting thing about Timbaland is his style of music and rythm. You can always recognize a Timbaland heavy beat in any song. Not too diverse but still very catchy and unique....

Timbal ?

Timbal is ancient african instrument. The brazilian group Timbalada uses heavily it.

how many songs??

how many songs has timbaland produced? should this be referenced?

I believe so. There's quite a bit of Songs missing from the list: Wonder'bout and Let Me give you my love are a few. --Sakamura

Dear editor

Good morning, I suggest this, for the article. The information need to be commplied with an Celebrity Infobox, and another things. Wherever, needs to be reorganized for be a complete wiki-article. Thank you. Good Bye

New Compilation Album?

I've heard that a movie about Missy Elliott's life is being made. I wonder if this new compilation album Timbaland is working on could be the soundtrack for the movie? something similar to Tim's Bio: From the Motion Picture: Life From Da Bassment?


Justin Timberlake said that he is writting hooks for Timbaland's upcoming album in a recent interview on Jimmy Kimmel Live.

question

can any 1 tell me how much is timb worth

More plagiarism

This article needs something on his plagiarism of SID or chiptunes. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.189.5.232 (talk) 20:41, 14 May 2007 (UTC).

I second that! Muad 03:18, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Where did the plagiarism section go? Funkynusayri (talk) 18:02, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

The "Z."

Excuse me, but what does the "Z." from his middle name stand for? --- Efil4tselaer: Resurrected 17:03, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Zane, I think. Rockstar (T/C) 15:41, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Why does it matter? MeMutu (talk) 02:02, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
S/He has a right to be curious, that question is fitting for a biography. Arthurian Legend (talk) 19:11, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

and the band with Nelly Furtado -

And the band with Nelly Furtado?

New Official Timbaland Site

The official blog/news site is: http://thethomascrownchronicles.com/ Can it be added to the list of websites at the bottom of Timbaland's wiki page? Thank you!

his new "sound"

hey has anyone also noticed that he's starting to use simpler more syncopated drum beats. like the more dance drum beat in most of his songs? just thought you should add that he's used this 4-4 drum beat in almost all of his songs now,like sexyback, way i are, release,number one fan, and almost his entire shock value album —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.96.240.174 (talk) 14:53:46, August 19, 2007 (UTC)

Plagiarism section

To the IP editor User:71.9.8.150 who've reinstated the plagiarism section.

I see that the section was integrated in the 2006-07 section of the article by User:Andrewlp1991. I guess this is to improve the prose in the event of an evantual GA-nomination in which very short paragraphs are discouraged if it wants to be rated as a GA article. I will be removing the section as being duplication. Please do not replace the section --JForget 15:56, 19 April 2008 (UTC)