Talk:David Rovics/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about David Rovics. 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.

Archive 1

WikiProject class rating

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 11:10, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Untitled

Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

This article has been created by one person, a fan. Although I have been as subjective as possible, I welcome the peer review of this article and request revisions and corrections as appropriate. I suggest the addition of further appropriate links to the text, the creating of a contents box and 'discography' section. I am not certain whether Rovics is a vegetarian or not (it seems likely). Could someone please verify this and add a statement in the article somewhere(its an interesting and relevant point)? Other useful expansions are welcome. - ChrisJMoor

You rock man. - Kenny Dixon

Thanks, but the man himself rocks more! Why dont you add to the article?--ChrisJMoor 02:38, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I corrected the spelling of Ever Reviled Records, so it would link to the corresponding entry and linked AK Press -Darren Kramer

I had dinner with him in 2004. He ate meat. Ergo, probably not vegetarian.--Margareta 17:33, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Confirming Margareta's surmise, I also had dinner with him in 2004, and he ate meat at that meal as well. Alaken 01:39, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey, guess what...I was at a dinner party with him last night, and I can confirm he is still eating meat (turkey, this time)Bintelshalabiya (talk) 16:15, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

His songs are not downloadable from his web site, he only offers links to other web sites where you can download them, one of those being iTunes!

Advertisement? Is This Article Warranted? Wiki-itis?

Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

This article reads like an advertisement for a musician of no real consequence. Why does this person even require an article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.209.46.240 (talk • contribs)

His albums get reviews in Dirty Linen and Sing Out!, the later has published some of his songs. He has also recorded for Amy Ray's Daemon Records. What's the fuss? You could always waste some folks time and send it to WP:AfD. -MrFizyx (talk) 21:19, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Please explain in more detail about why you say that David Rovics is "a musician of no real consequence." Its all relatives (talk) 07:18, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

The notion is absurd. David Rovics is a prolific song writer and singer in the Woody Guthrie mold, but Rovics is far more versatile in his social range. His music is pure social commentary, and many of his songs have great social significance.

The anonymous critic might be measuring musical "consequence" by the number of CDs recorded by some commercial entity. Fine, by that measure Rovics may be low on the scale. But if one inquires as to why, it may be because Rovics has resisted commercialization, he allows free downloads of all of his music. Among listeners who have thereby become acquainted with, and appreciate his music, that means the singer/songwriter is more consequential than any of those musicians seeking riches at the public's expense. Richard Myers (talk) 14:28, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Tag

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Can somebody explain what are the "multiple issues" with the article? Or is it just that you don't like the guy??--Phagopsych (talk) 21:19, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

The multiple issues, as noted in the tag, were BLP sourcing, need for third party sourcing, and a concern that the article was unbalanced. I have no problem with removing the tags, since they all are a bit old, and the sourcing seems pretty decent. SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:13, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

In the news

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This article was linked and quoted in a blog today. Bearian (talk) 17:31, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on David Rovics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131018141550/http://www.tlaxcala.es/pp.asp?lg=en&reference=6916 to http://www.tlaxcala.es/pp.asp?lg=en&reference=6916

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:08, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on David Rovics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:27, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Some editors are displaying a clear bias

Latest comment: 2 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

Many revisions that include sourced, and important, information have been reverted by a collection of editors who seem solely interested in maintaining a positive image of David Rovics. I believe we should have a conversation, before making rash and incorrect rollbacks. Especially if the people doing rollbacks have a history of making bad ones. --Rougetimelord (talk) 03:43, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Roland R has once again overstepped their role as a contributor. Not only is the information that they have rolled back not subject to WP:BLPRS as they claim. Which is evident since none of the other stances in the sentence are sourced. My addition can also be directly sourced to statements[1] made by Rovics. Cancel culture has recently become a thing that Rovics talks about frequently, even more frequently than he has talked about any political party, candidate, or former president. I believe Rovics' position on cancel culture is important to the context of the article and leaving it out does not improve the quality of the article. --Rougetimelord (talk) 21:04, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

WP:BLPRS is unequivocal: "all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation; material not meeting this standard may be removed. This policy extends that principle, adding that contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion". The unsourced claim that Rovics is "an outspoken critic of cancel culture" has been challenged, and therefore must not be reinstated in the article unless a reliable source is cited to confirm this. The comments above about "clear bias", about editors perceived views, about a history of bad edits, and about "overstepping" are borderline personal attacks. Comments and discussion here should be entirely about the merits and demerits of the proposed edit, not about the views ascribed (possibly inaccurately) to the editors themselves. RolandR (talk) 22:12, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

I can cite an article written by Rovics himself which is a critique of cancel culture[2], a podcast featuring Rovics critiquing cancel culture[3], an article not written by Rovics that mentions his distaste of cancel culture[4], an interview with Kevin Barrett in which Rovics critiques cancel culture[5], another article written by Rovics which critiques cancel culture [6], and a written interview of Rovics which critiques cancel culture[7]. In addition to many tweets and blogspot posts made by Rovics. There is ample evidence to back up my claim. -- Rougetimelord (talk) 23:11, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

But you didn't cite any of these, or anything else. You can't expect other editors to know what is in your mind. In any case, I am not convinced that any of these qualifies as a reliable source. In particular, I doubt that other editors would accept a interview by Gilad Atzmon and on his website as reliable. RolandR (talk) 23:37, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Rovics' early Maoist period

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

If I'm not mistaken Rovics has mentioned that he used to be a Maoist before he became an anarchist. This might be interesting to add if there's a secondary source or interview to back that up. KetchupSalt (talk) 22:35, 24 November 2022 (UTC)