Talk:Roots Manuva

Image

I've been informed that the image on this article is likely to be removed as "it illustrates a subject for which a free image could reasonably be found or created". If anyone has (or can source) a free image of Roots Manuva, please can you upload it for use as a replacement? Alternatively, feel free to dispute the removal of the image. To do this, edit the image (Image:RootsManuva PromoPhoto.jpg), add the {{Replaceable fair use disputed}} template and provide rationale as to why we should be allowed to use this as a fair use image. Cheers, Gram 15:10, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Trivia

Hi, one more thing about the trivia. "Witness the fitness" might be associated with a classic song by Guru's jazzmatazz called "Loungin'" ...it says that "You should witness the slickness". It might be a pure coincidence, but just to let you know. By the way wikipedia in English is crazy. We're still working on ours... Cheers from Poland, Adam

Philosopher?

--58.164.23.246 (talk) 08:41, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Cool, and all.

But this is an encyclopaedia, not a biography.

It sounds like it's written by a 15 year old.

Someone revert it?

Yes.

EDIT:

Yeah, don't worry about it then.

HINT HINT —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.217.211.192 (talk) 11:00, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Birth date

Curious here, why is his birthday simultaneously Sep. 8 (infobox) and Sep. 9 (first paragraph).--Dorwytch (talk) 11:45, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Influence

From the first paragraph:

> He has been described as "one of the most influential artists in British music history."

Preface: I don't want to shy away from this sentence merely because it is subjective. Wikipedia has good guidelines for dealing with subject with material such as this. Here on Wikipedia, we don't get to decide who is "most" influential. But we can talk more about the language and criteria that make sense.

In my view, this particular claim (quoted above) is not accurate.

Is it useful to republish inaccurate assessments? Not here in this article, at least.

This above sentence is cited, yes, but given its scope (all British music artists over history), it does not pass muster as a reasonable characterization. Also, it is not a good choice for the first paragraph.

The citation seems both cherry picked and imbalanced. How many other citations will agree with the above characterization? Probably few or none. There are simply too many other British musicians recognized as influential.

At the very least, such claims should be qualified or qualified. Influential to whom? Listeners? Other musicians? By what metric? Over what period of time? For what styles of music?

It is useful to use background context to form something like a basic litmus test. If we ask, "What are the influential British musicians of all time?", what range of opinions are useful? What kinds of criteria matter?

in terms of shaping the evolution of music, the Beatles come to mind. It is not hard to find mini high-quality citations to this effect.

Yes, I'm implying the existence of background knowledge and some vague kinds of consensus, at least with regards to what criteria are important.

More specifically, an artist like Tricky (credited for popularizing trip hop), is recognized as being influential in the hip hop genre. Such a sentence is useful in an introductory paragraph. It is specific and falsifiable. DavidCJames (talk) 22:59, 12 January 2023 (UTC)