Talk:John Roderick (musician)

Operation Desert Shield

Come on... that whole part is a joke, right? Roderick probably added it himself.Youdontsmellbad (talk) 08:32, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm removing all the unsourced parts of this article that are probably jokes. Operation desert shield. The testicle... and whatever else.Youdontsmellbad (talk) 02:03, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Removed the part about the SF show. it's a nice story, but just an anecdote and thus pretty irrelevant for a biographical article. please stop bringing it back!
Roger der Buschmann (talk) 08:37, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on John Roderick (musician). 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150416222153/http://cityofmusic.com/music-commission to http://cityofmusic.com/music-commission
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080804201737/http://blogs.seattleweekly.com/reverb/john_roderick_reverb_residency/ to http://blogs.seattleweekly.com/reverb/john_roderick_reverb_residency/

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) 20:28, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Bean Dad Controversy

With John Roderick's infamous thread on twitter, we've already seen content added to this article about the twitter controversy. I suggest we make a concerted effort to collect and organize the facts and the relevance of the 'Bean Dad' controversy to John Roderick's public image. The goal, as always, should be for someone with no prior knowledge to get a sense of what went on.

As for sources, I found an article that could be useful: https://www.thewrap.com/bean-dad-9-year-old-open-can-6-hours-infuriates-twitter/

Flameoguy (talk) 00:07, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

I have trimmed that section, which was WP:UNDUE. This is a trivial cancel culture flare-up that will be gone and forgotten in a week. This incident is not even comparable in scale to the lasting influence of his music and podcasts; I am tempted to remove it entirely unless it gains coverage in non-clickbait sources, but I have left it for now. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:35, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

"The lasting influence of his music and podcasts," lol. Eat your heart out, Lennon, Dylan, and Bowie. Yes, these treasures must never be lost to humanity! Mpaniello (talk) 02:07, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

the internet never forgets. it will be remembered. its a piece of history and should be documented. Yeial (talk) 11:40, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the Bean Dad incident is now being reported in the UK nationals. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 17:27, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

It's not "trivial cancel culture" to address the controversy on his article. The section marked for undue weight handles the situation very neutrally I think, and basically no sources are defending him. I think this situation's notability is beyond the scope of his music career, as there's more articles covering the 'bean dad' stuff than the rest of his career combined. Major news sources like the BBC are covering it now, whereas he wasn't getting that kind of coverage before. I think this will have a lasting impact where this is primarily how people know him. Waxworker (talk) 00:28, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Considering this event led to resurfacing racist tweets from him,this event will leave a impact of his reputation,this is why I think the event should be documented on Wikipedia,plus preserving history is a top priority.Yeial (talk) 15:26, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

References

Frankly, it's all I can do to not dig up his old "Punk Rock Is Bullshit" article in which he displayed just as aggravating and condescending an attitude toward people who buy his music as he did to his daughter with the can of beans. But it's outside the scope of this article, so I won't. 2601:602:8800:E1F0:E4A2:63C5:56C3:BB2B (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 20:31, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

• This also got covered in the Washington Post, so that's a major mainstream/non clickbait US media source. -LtNOWIS (talk) 17:31, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
  • That's an opinion piece, not news coverage. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:26, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

No longer serves on the Seattle Music Commission

I emailed them yesterday and they said,

“Hello and thank you for bringing this issue to our attention. John Roderick is no longer serving on the Music Commission, as his term ended in August of 2019. As you may know, members of the Music Commission serve in a volunteer capacity, and are not financially compensated for their work in this role.

The City of Seattle, and the Office of Film + Music specifically, do not condone racist, homophobic, ableist, and anti-Semitic views that John Roderick shared via his personal Twitter account. As we work to serve the public and develop programs and policy that support the cultural and economic vibrancy of our city, we reject these type of viewpoints that are harmful to the diverse communities of our city.” Incredincomp (talk) 22:55, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

I can’t upload a photo of the email or anything but feel free to reach out to them on your own to verify, but he is no longer a member of that commission since August of 2019. Incredincomp (talk) 23:53, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

We can't use email to say he left the commission in August 2019, however the sentence saying he was still serving wasn't sourced so I removed it. Schazjmd (talk) 23:57, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Adding Bean Dad to the top of the page

Most people have no awareness of Roderick besides the Bean Dad incident so that should be mentioned in the introduction. I also suggest adding "better known as Bean Dad." 2600:1012:B1A7:A06A:D951:27B:9DD9:5C85 (talk) 02:19, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Per MOS:BADNICK, Highlighting uncommon or disputed appellations in the lead section gives them undue weight, and may also be a more general neutrality problem if the phrase is laudatory or critical. So no. KidAd talk 02:22, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

No. He is much more notable for his music and his podcasts. The Twitter blowup is a minor kerfuffle that will not have lasting impact. I see almost no coverage in reliable sources since his public apology on January 5. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:37, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

do you see reliable sources covering him for anything else since either? No, so its a big part of his fame now. CaptainPrimo (talk) 19:43, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

"Undue weight"

I suggest removing the "undue weight" template from the "Twitter controversy" section. The section is neutral, and seems like any concerns have been addressed. --Tslawrk (talk) 13:50, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, the section is written in a neutral style (as required by WP:NPOV), but it's the longest section in the article, although it's only about one short event in Roderick's life. (Maybe the controversy will have long-term effects, maybe it won't – nobody knows.) That's why it's tagged as WP:UNDUE. In this case, the sub-section WP:PROPORTION applies. Quote: "discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news." In the last few weeks, a general audience learned about Roderick mostly because of this Twitter spat; it's likely that a couple of years from now, hardly anyone will remember it. I think the tag should stay, and we should aim to adhere to WP:PROPORTION by removing overly detailed stuff that is a case of WP:RECENTISM. — Chrisahn (talk) 15:11, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Chrisahn explains the rationale very well. I had attempted to make the section more concise, but people kept adding and re-adding excessive details to the section, so I tagged it. Roderick has made a public apology for the tweets, I haven't seen substantial RS news coverage in about three weeks, and Roderick has returned to podcasting without any apparent blowback. My plan was to wait for this to settle a bit and then to pare the section down to two or three sentences at the most. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:43, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

this is by far the most significant thing that has happened in his career. Reliable sources have covered it more than anything else he has done so no you are not going to pare it down to a few sentences to minimize the incident. CaptainPrimo (talk) 19:45, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

joco Cruise

I added in his personal section about being banned from JoCo Cruise events and it was removed with the comment “not relevant.” Could I get a clarification as to why? It seems fairly notable he got banned from an event he was involved in for 10 years.

Is there coverage of this claim in reliable sources? – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:54, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

I don’t believe there was anything written about it at the time (all articles about him from then are about the Twitter controversy). There was an announcement from JoCo Cruise itself.

See WP:PRIMARY. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:26, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

a statement from the company saying he’s barred from future events would fulfill what’s outlined here. What am I missing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.74.127.224 (talk) 23:31, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Undue weight regarding a single sentence in the '‎Personal life' section?

@Jonesey95: I don't see how this conent that you removed from the article lends any undue weight to the subject. It's ten words and a quote that expands on the article and subtopic with high relevance. The content you removed is objective information directly about the topic of the article. I suggest further discussion in order to reach a consensus. —FORMALDUDE^(talk) 03:00, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

I've reverted this edit as similar discussions on this talk page that @Jonesey95 had under Bean Dad Controversy and "Undue weight" resulted in a consensus from eight other editors to include additional relevant content, and only @Jonesey95 opposing it.—FORMALDUDE^(talk) 03:05, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Pinging @Waxworker, @LtNOWIS, @Dom Kaos, and @Chrisahn who were all involved in the prior discussions of the matter. —FORMALDUDE^(talk) 03:42, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

I still think it's UNDUE in comparison to the size of the prose describing his 20-plus-year music career and his ten years of podcasting. I will not continue to fight it, but I did fix one sentence in which tweets were ascribed a sort of sentience that they do not have (at least yet). – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:27, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

These are pretty trivial objections from a rather experienced editor. The definition of "resurface" from the Cambridge Academic dictionary is "to appear again after not being seen or heard." E.g The tax issue is likely to resurface next year.

The Oxford dictionary defines it as "arise or become evident again." E.g. Serious concerns about the welfare of animals eventually resurfaced. There's no inherent sentience in those definitions. —FORMALDUDE^(talk) 08:19, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

• This is ridiculous. Well over a year later and Jonesey95 is still removing fully sourced and relevant content. ––FormalDude (talk) 04:28, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

  UNDUE still applies. There is no need to mention the racist etc. tweets more than once. We should not be giving undue weight to a two-week incident in the multi-decade career of this musician and podcaster. If you want to expand the single mention to give it more context, be my guest, but having the same phrasing appear twice in the article is sloppy. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:36, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Link to Roderick's page

KidAd, you removed the link to Roderick's (the page's subject's) apology, saying it "fails WP:NOBLOGS". WP:NOBLOGS mentions an exception: Except for a link to an official page of the article's subject. This exemption applies here. --Distelfinck (talk) 21:39, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Per WP:ELPOINTS, With rare exceptions, external links should not be used in the body of an article. Instead, include appropriate external links in an "External links" section at the end of the article, and in the appropriate location within an infobox, if applicable. His personal website is already linked in the infobox. KidAd • SPEAK 21:46, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

@KidAd: I think this is one of those "rare exceptions" (as you quoted) where we should place an external link in the body of the article. I don't understand why you mention that his personal website is already linked in the infobox. What do you conclude from that? --Distelfinck (talk) 21:51, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

This is not a rare exception. Including that external link in the body adds nothing to the article, as the content of the blog post is covered in reliable sources. KidAd • SPEAK 21:53, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

With the link, a reader can access his apology with one click. Without the link, they have to go to the footnotes, open one of the sources, and hope that it contains his apology in full or a link to it. The link saves readers time. --Distelfinck (talk) 21:56, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Agree that this is not an exception. As the external link is already listed in the infobox, it is, in my view, redundant and unnecessary to list it again in the body. ––FormalDude talk 21:57, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

The external link we are talking about (to his apology page) is not listed in the infobox. The link listed in the infobox is to his official webpage ("http://www.johnroderick.com/"). --Distelfinck (talk) 22:00, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

The apology is a subpage of his official website. It's redundant to list it in the body when the main site is already listed in the infobox. ––FormalDude talk 22:11, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

With the apology linked in the body where we mention the apology, a reader can access it with one click. Without that link, a reader has to be aware that the infobox links to his webpage, then scroll to the infobox, click on the link to his webpage, then search his webpage for the apology subpage. Linking to the apology in the body at the appropriate place saves readers time. --Distelfinck (talk) 22:16, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

I added the apology as a citation to the sentence. That should satisfy your issues with inconvenience for the reader, as well as maintain compliance with Wikipedia's standards for external links. ––FormalDude talk 22:19, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Most readers don't look at the footnotes. You might be different, but most readers aren't that academic. Linking to the apology in-text instead of in a footnote reaches more readers. It would also be in line with Wikipedia's standards. --Distelfinck (talk) 22:22, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

References are an integral part of Wikipedia that are easily accessible and interpretable. I don't think you have to have any academic knowledge to know how to hover your mouse over a footnote on a website in order to see the source. It's fundamentally basic stuff. ––FormalDude talk 22:33, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

I'd accept this compromise if I were you. I don't think anyone else will share your view of an inline external link meeting Wikipedia standards in this instance. ––FormalDude talk 22:35, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Show this Wikipedia page to 100 people (who own a computer or a tablet, and regularly use it), and more than 0 will fail at the task you just described (suspecting, but not knowing yet, that the apology will be linked in the footnotes, and subsequently hovering over the footnotes, and clicking the link). Putting a link in-text has zero downsides, is in line with Wikipedia policy, and makes the page more accessible. Grandmas bad at knowing what footnotes might contain and at moving their mouse around will rejoice when they read this article. --Distelfinck (talk) 22:46, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Show this Wikipedia page to 100 people who know what Wikipedia is and have used a computer or tablet before, regardless of their experience with technology or even if they've ever visited Wikipedia before, and I guarantee 90/100 will be able to find any source in the article. It's so unbelievably easy to read a sentence and then click the little footnote right next to it; it doesn't get easier. Moving the citation to an inline link may possibly save one or two seconds max. The downsides are that it is too close to promotional advertising to mention a subject's personal website in the body text, especially when it is already listed in the infobox. There is a reason Wikipedia has guidelines against external links in the body, and the changes you're proposing violate those guidelines. ––FormalDude talk 22:53, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

There is a reason Wikipedia has guidelines against external links in the body, and the changes you're proposing violate those guidelines. I doubt that. Care to share what specific guideline would be violated? --Distelfinck (talk) 22:58, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

That has already been explained. With rare exceptions, external links should not be used in the body of an article. This instance is not a rare exception. ––FormalDude talk 23:12, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

We do not put external links in article prose. It's that simple. Putting the link in a reference is a reasonable way to provide readers with a direct link to the content referred to in the prose, just as we do with every web page that supports claims made in prose. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:01, 2 September 2021 (UTC)