Talk:Rising Appalachia

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 August 2021 and 10 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Chloek103.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 03:08, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because it is substantially different than the previous page that was flagged for deletion. In this new version I have added more external information to show the importance of this musical band. I have also been given permission by the band to use their images but the permission is via Facebook. I've just asked them for an email with permission. Please give me a few days to correct this. --Martiniano (talk) 22:37, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for giving me time. The band will begin making updates directly soon. Martiniano (talk) 19:05, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Source

appalachianjamwich.com is a blog and does not meet the criteria of a Wikipedia reliable source. The album is self published as well.

Edit in question:

• Wider Circles (2015, independent self-release)

104.173.225.10 (talk) 17:40, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Please stop your harassment. That's all I'm going to say. Skyerise (talk) 17:46, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Sorry if you feel that way seriously, I'm only curious about the source of the edit from a different user on Rising Appalachia (above). It's not personal. I discovered this band from the edits over at Game of Thrones. It looks very interesting. I hope we can keep Wikipedia from anything that's not professional or civil-minded. It should be fun. In all sincerity, thank you for listening. 104.173.225.10 (talk) 18:00, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

You misunderstand the restriction against blogs. Only personal, self-published blogs are unreliable. A topical blog with multiple contributors and an editorial policy is allowed. Your harassment has been reported. Bugger off. Skyerise (talk) 18:09, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

I had an opportunity to visit the music blog you want to use as a reference. See http://www.appalachianjamwich.com/2015/02/13/rising-appalachia-launches-the-wider-circles-rail-tour-in-advance-of-new-album/

Here's the Wikipedia policy about the proper use of blogs: "Some news outlets host interactive columns they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field on which they write and the blog is subject to the news outlet's full editorial control.

"Self-published material may sometimes be acceptable when its author is an established expert whose work in the relevant field has been published by reliable third-party publications.

Here's how the blog describes itself: "A magazine by the fans for the fans, Appalachian Jamwich has taken the region by storm and we have dedicated ourselves to bringing the scene we love and care about to the general public. GET JAMWICHED!"

It doesn't appear that the blog meets the Wikiepdia requirements of (1) established news outlet, (2) writers are professional journalists (3) or the writers are "established experts in the field".

Can you find another source por favor? Also, I want to thank you for bringing this up as I needed a refresher in reliable sources. Cheers!104.173.225.10 (talk) 21:49, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

The criteria you quote are for exceptions to the personal blog rule, not a general rule for blogs. For example, we can use the personal blog when the owner is an otherwise recognized published expert. For news-type blogs, the rule is that it can't be open contributions, there has to be an editorial staff that selects writers. That's the case for "Appalachia Jamband" see: [1]. It also has a print edition with multiple distribution locations throughout eight states (WV, DC, VA, NC, MD, PA, OH & NY): [2]. This is a real music news source.

You are welcome to find an additional supporting citation yourself if you feel it is inadequate. Or you can take it to the reliable sources noticeboard for a third opinion. Thanks! Skyerise (talk) 21:58, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

It still doesn't meet the three requirements of (1) established news outlet, (2) writers are professional journalists (3) or the writers are "established experts in the field". As you know we are required to remove OR immediately. Please support the goals of the site and don't ask me to go out and do your research for you.104.173.225.10 (talk) 22:05, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it does. I refer you to the reply given in Arkell v Pressdram (1971). Skyerise (talk) 22:06, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

a law case isn't relevant here, Wikipedia policy is. I think it's best to take this to the reliable sources noticeboard. 104.173.225.10 (talk) 22:11, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, actually, it is: look it up. But go ahead, take it to the noticeboard. I used to be a regular there and have no doubt the source is adequate. Skyerise (talk) 22:14, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Oh, and they may be a bit peeved at you if there is an additional source that meets your exaggerated criteria which they find right away. If you are here to improve Wikipedia rather than to harass me, you won't fail to make that search first, will you? Skyerise (talk) 22:18, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

We've established that you mistook me and this IP for somebody else today. It's important to keep up the integrity of the sources on the site. It's a matter of principle that I won't do your research for you.104.173.225.10 (talk) 22:22, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't agree that we've established that. I still think you are the original harasser. You might want to remember that we use the duck test for such matters: "If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck". If your behavior is the same as the previous harasser, our sockpuppet policy says that for all intents and purposes you are the original harasser. And if that determination is made, you have already been banned from editing Wikipedia. I'd take care not to give the appearance of being the same editor by doing the same kinds of things. Cheers! Skyerise (talk) 22:41, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

I welcome a Sock Puppetry test if that will make you happy. But I think that it will just waste everybody's time. And I think you'll agree that none of us need that! I'm going to sign-off here for now until further notice to make you feel more comfortable. Best wishes. 104.173.225.10 (talk) 22:51, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Don't worry, I have experience in that area as well. When I've gathered sufficient similarity data, I'll submit the necessary reports. Skyerise (talk) 22:47, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

References

Ceased to exist. 74.96.157.104 (talk) 15:38, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Article updated with Archive.org URL. Skyerise (talk) 17:05, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Copyright violations

It should be noted that a couple different users seem to be intent on replacing the article with text from the band's website. This is not permitted for two reasons: the band's website is protected by copyright, and Wikipedia requires citation of sources independent from the subject. Wikipedia is not to be used for marketing. In particular, the recent edits by Internsotadtla (talk · contribs) should be revdel'ed. Skyerise (talk) 03:03, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: https://www.risingappalachia.com/about. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Skyerise (talk) 03:03, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Cultural Appropriation

I would like there to be a criticism section to discuss the potential conflict with their influences vs their presentation and how it may be in contrast to their feelings on activism. 70.185.108.23 (talk) 16:28, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

We can only add published criticism and I've seen no articles asserting or addressing this. If you know of sources for such criticism, please let us know. As an encyclopedia, we can only report on criticism which has been leveled - or reported on - by reliable third-party sources. We do not, as individual editors or as an encyclopedia, critique subjects ourselves. Skyerise (talk) 18:04, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

I've just done a web search and nobody has accused them of cultural appropriation. Therefore no such criticism section can be written. It seems they are both opposed to cultural appropriation and it is one of their areas of activism. No negative reports whatsoever. Skyerise (talk) 18:23, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Style and tone

The article is written like a fawning PR piece rather than an objective article. References to "seamlessly blending" and the like need to be cleaned up. 2A02:A210:A402:3280:1582:1CC9:99D4:592B (talk) 05:48, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Strongly agreed. This reads like an AI generated press release 2A02:8109:B69D:5B00:D93C:A6E0:DEB0:297B (talk) 01:42, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Members section

Should we consider adding a timeline and years (i.e. 2005–present for Leah and Chloe) to the members section? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:00, 1 August 2024 (UTC)