Jump to content

Talk:Capleton

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Xterminator?

[edit]

This article has changed a lot! On the way the original information about Xterminator has got lost. Rich Farmbrough 21:27, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Spelling

[edit]

Something to clean up: what in the heck is a "buss"? And I think no matter what it turns out to mean, "When Capleton first buss on the scene in the late 1980s" is bad grammar. RSpeer 14:33, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

"buss" is Jamaican patois for "burst".

Cite needed: homophobic lyrics

[edit]

Caple lyrics where labelled as homophobic. Well I need to see an example of this

Labelled as homophobic? How about this:

Yuh nuh se a Battyman dem A Sodomite dem A Heathen dem boy True mi lotion di woman dem Dem nuh like me and mi nuh like dem Unu listen me again Yuh nuh see a dead man dem A duppy man dem A demon dem boy That's why wi naaaaaah, Guh ina nutten wid dem Triangle e 10:29, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I bet he's [censored]. I was going to sample his stuff...too bad he's terribly [censored]. Gatesofawesome! 00:16, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gates - you need to gather your information before even making a comment like that - you are the ignorant one! Freecharlesgrace (talk) 01:10, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pronounciation

[edit]

Hello,
Could someone provide the phonetic pronunciation/spelling of his name? I would like to write an article about him in the Bulgarian Wikipedia. Thank you. --Vanka5 07:56, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

in patois, it is pronounced keeapleton (cyapleton).. 84.57.245.92 18:25, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unbalanced

[edit]

How is the "Criticisms" section unbalanced? Hyacinth (talk) 23:48, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because there is Undue Weight on the Homophobia issue given the size of the article. This is a problem on a lot of Jamaican artist websites, who had people on a crusade to write homophobia sections that a disproportionate to the articles' size. See the talk page of Buju Banton's article for a discussion on it. This is not a fair representation of these artists, and the weighting is a key policy of Wikipedia. I am not condoning nor condemning their homophobic lyrics, but this is mainly notable to the LGBT community and Wikipedia is not properly representing the history of these artists, who have dozens of worldwide performances, many albums and the vast majority of songs that do not have homophobic lyrics. IMO, Homophobia is less of a per artist topic than a Jamaican cultural notability, and there's both the LGBT rights in Jamaica article (that has a large section discussing the music) and the Stop Murder Music that aptly cover what people have been injecting paragraphs into these artists. In Capleton's article, the Homophobia section is as long as his Career, which is not a fair reflection. This is why I have added the Unbalanced tag as presently the article is not properly balanced, either by reduction in the Homophobia section or expansion of the rest of the biography, or a combination of the two. This is to provide a reader with a heads up to the issues with these articles. Rasadam (talk) 03:08, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What is missing from his career section? Hyacinth (talk) 03:26, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It could be expanded in numerous ways, one only needs to look at the information in other (good) artist article pages to see things that could be done to improve the career section. Rasadam (talk) 03:41, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Many other artist articles include political opinions, activism, and controversy. Hyacinth (talk) 03:51, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would highly suggest reading WP:WEIGHT. It is important that articles, especially Biographies (WP:BLP covers a lot of this) fairly cover a subject, without emphasizing certain areas unfairly. In this case, and the issue with a lot of Jamaican artists, is their biographies are given undue weight relative to the coverage of their entire careers due to the active editing from persons with interests in LGBT rights. Rasadam (talk) 04:04, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest quoting the specific part of that policy you feel applies or having already explained how you feel this article violates that policy. Hyacinth (talk) 04:12, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Are you being serious or trying to be difficult? I am not alone in this, see the Talk pages of other Jamaican artists if you want more consensus on the imbalance. But since you ask, the key points are
  • 'Keep in mind that in determining proper weight we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors.' - The fact that Wikipedia is edited by more people interested in LGBT rights than people who work on these artist's careers is not a reason for their articles to remain unbalanced.
  • We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view. Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties. This applies not only to article text, but to images, external links, categories, and all other material as well. - Capleton is only notable to the LGBT rights groups because of issues in specific songs. In Capleton's overall notability, the interest in him is for his music and performances. He has a long career spanning well over 20 years, many performances throughout the Caribbean and many locations in the world, especially with strong West Indian diaspora (Miami, New York, Washington, London, Toronto). The writing of the article suggests, based on weighting, that his entire career is equally notable to the criticism from the LGBT groups that have made the press. This is simply a misleading assertion. Rasadam (talk) 04:26, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also see Wikipedia:Content forking. Hyacinth (talk) 01:50, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How could the "Criticisms" section frame the controversy within the context of his career? Hyacinth (talk) 05:03, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What about the artist's point of view? It sounds like he wants his homophobia out there (to promote it), his promoters don't, and LGBT rights groups want it out there (to criticize it). Hyacinth (talk) 05:01, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let me ask you a question. Do you know anything about this artist, other than his mentions in the Stop Murder Music campaign? Rasadam (talk) 05:06, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you didn't want the issue discussed on the talk page you shouldn't have tagged the article with Template:Unbalanced, which invites users to do so. Hyacinth (talk) 05:20, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You shouldn't try to crystal ball what I'm going to say, I ask the question to try to help you understand my point of view. I'm assuming then, since you failed to answer the question, that you know little to nothing about this artist. This highlights the main reason why this article is imbalanced. You're a user that has actively edited LGBT articles on Wikipedia, you clearly have a vested personal interest in ensuring LGBT rights are probably covered on Wikipedia. Take a look at the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Jamaica, there are 3 listed members for that project. Compare it to Wikipedia:WikiProject_LGBT_studies/Members, with 199 listed active members. Jamaica and the Caribbean on the whole have a lower percentage of internet usage versus many other areas of the world, and the quality of internet service also dictates how active persons from the region can be on sites on Wikipedia. This is through no fault of persons interested in LGBT rights, but a key principle noted in WP:WEIGHT is articles must be balanced not just on the weight of interests of the editors. You seem like a reasonable person, but I believe your passion for the issue is clouding your judgement. If you're telling me, by the size of the article that his career has (8 lines on my screen) and 4 lines for the homophobia section, that is a fair representation of his career..... Since you do not know this artist, he has released hundreds of songs, the vast majority which have no homophobic lyrics in them. My interest is not to pretend that there's no homophobia in some of his lyrics, but to ensure that they are fairly representative within the context of his entire career. At present, this is not the case. Other people familiar with these artists have agreed with my viewpoint on talk pages. Unfortunately, we simply do not have enough editors on Wikipedia working on Caribbean articles (and those that edit properly, many additions are reverted because of poor sources/editing) to fix all these issues. But Wikipedia principles dictate that editors need to consider this factors when editing articles, that includes people in the LGBT rights community. Rasadam (talk) 05:47, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Still Unbalanced + Errors

[edit]

The last discussion regarding the unbalanced nature of this article is from July 2008. The article is still unbalanced; the section devoted to anti-gay lyrics is larger than both the "Early Life" and "Religious Views" sections, making the section devoted to his anti-gay lyrics the second-largest topic in the article. As mentioned in the earlier discussion, Wikipedia policy dictates for biographies that the length of the section be in proportion to the rest of the article. A section regarding the anti-gay lyrics of this musician of the current size is clearly disproportionate.

Additionally, there are factual errors within this section. It states, "burning ("bun out") of gay men," when to 'bun' something in Jamaican patois is not necessarily to literally set it on fire. This interpretation is sourced to a LGBT website with a very clear argument against Capleton's music, not an authority on Jamaican patois. Additionally, this statement is factually wrong: "The latent negative attitude against homosexuality in Jamaican society changed into active violence against lesbian women and gay men, after people from the DJ-scene like Beenieman, Capleton, Buju Banton, TOK, Bountykiller and others, started their agitating performances." One issue with this is that it is sourced to a website in German (the claim that Capleton "encouraged his audience to burn, kill gay men" is also sourced to a non-English site); this is an English Wikipedia entry. The other issue is that, as mentioned, it is factually wrong. Anti-homosexual attitudes in Jamaica, including violence against homosexuals, has existed in Jamaica long before the advent of Capleton, dancehall, or the Rastafarian religious movement.--ARoyal (talk) 13:19, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It has been 10 days and no one has endeavored to modify the unbalanced section. Perhaps no one cares about this article, or the people who do care would rather leave it, or perhaps this discussion wasn't helpful. In the latter case, I suggest using the controversy section for Sizzla as a model. If no one has any objections or a better idea, I'm going to change it in a few days based on the parallel controversy section for this similar artist from the same genre. --ARoyal (talk) 13:35, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


This singer is one of a small group of performers who are being protested for writing and performing lyrics urging that all gay people be murdered. That is, unfortunately, the most salient aspect of their biographies. It is appropriate that the lyrics and the protest be prominent in their biographies, despite their promoters' understandable desire to hide this aspect of their lives. Restored to previous version. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.111.63.127 (talk) 16:39, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ya you clearly are bias. I completely disagree. Capleton's message is much larger, he protests against injustices and inequalities against black people worldwide. he does not support the LGBT community, but so what. It is mentioned in the article and that is sufficient. The focal point of his message and music is not a LGBT one, and neither is this article. smooth0707 (talk) 21:34, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy over lyrics

[edit]

I almost never revert any contribution. However, others seem to do it without any thought to whatever else might be removed. I know nothing about this subject, however: I have noted that the anti-gay sentiment from Capleton has been referenced. This is an encyclopedia. I've edited other articles with far more controversy; please act responsibly here. USE the sources that people just toss into the External links section as if it's someone else's job! This is not an article that I plan to edit, I only came to add a clearer photo, however, I think it should be monitored and semi-protected after what little I've seen. (Trust me, these are strong sentiments coming from myself-- I hate head-butting.) --Leahtwosaints (talk) 19:38, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Who are you talking to? The article is appropriately monitored, particularly by myself. As you said, his controversy is noted in the article, and that is sufficient. The encylopedic content remains. smooth0707 (talk) 21:35, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, 707, it is not sufficient to note a controversy over lyrics without including the lyrics that are controversial. In the case of Capleton, the lyrics are urging the killing and hanging of a group of people. To exclude the lyrics is to delegitimize the controversy.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.111.63.127 (talk)
Your quote seems to have been sourced to a personal website. That is not a WP:RS, most especially for negative information in a WP:BLP. LadyofShalott 03:01, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The lyrics are not in dispute, and are the most relevant thing about Capleton to a current day audience. I've restored them, with citations from reggae sites, though the original citation was also completely legitimate. Sad that you are unwilling to let the world know what Capleton is apparently proud to say. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.111.63.127 (talk) 18:35, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yea, anon, not exactly. Capleton has over 1,000 songs, i'm not downplaying anything. It's called an encyclopedia for a reason. Everything here is adequately covered in my opinion and WELL BALANCED. What is missing is his deeper message, Rastafari, black consciousness, helping the ghetto communities, ETC smooth0707 (talk) 19:23, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I know I'm a little late to this game, but I found the above comment confusing. Why would missing content be an argument for removing other content? Wouldn't the proper remedy be to add information about his deeper message, rastafari, black consciousness, helping the ghetto communities, etc? If the article would still be unbalanced even with that information, that seems a good reason to scale it down. But the lack of information in the biography seems a very strange justification for cutting down the controversy section. It looks like the article has been well balanced since these comments were written, but I thought I'd seek clarification on what I found to be a strange bit of logic. -Lciaccio (talk) 19:32, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to help with this dispute if I can. First, I would like to say that if this individual really does advocate violence in his music, then I am just as interested in getting that documented in this article as anybody else. Now, let me explain that this is such a damaging charge to make against someone, the charge must have a reliable source. The music web site is nowhere close to being a reliable source, and even if it were, the lyrics are written in a dialect that I do not understand. You need to find a reliable source for the charge before it can be put into this article. This requirement has absolutely nothing to do with the charge or the individual that this article is about--it applies to all biographies of living people equally.--Jarhed (talk) 09:04, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Jarhed. I've added a citation to Amnesty International, and have offered a youtube video of one of the songs in question. You'll notice that no one, even here, has claimed that the lyrics are not accurately quoted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.111.63.127 (talk) 16:11, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The reason that nobody has disputed the accuracy of the lyrics is that accuracy is not the criterion for inclusion, verifiability is. I am relieved to find this individual named in the Amnesty document, but some of the other references are not reliable, including the youtube video, and they are going to have to go.Jarhed (talk) 23:54, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Are you that foolish that you do not understand anything about culture or religion? Sure, not everyone likes or agrees with Capleton. And his statements remain in the article. I am arguing for Wikipedia PROSE. The topic is covered in the controversy section, not the header. That is the point that our bias anon IP user fails to grasp. smooth0707 (talk) 15:35, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please calm down a little. Go ahead and remove the unreliable references and I will try to give you a hand with any edit warring. In my opinion, the Amnesty reference needs to stay.Jarhed (talk) 21:28, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stop Murder Music (2010)

[edit]

This artist is one of only ten worldwide who are being protested for calling in their lyrics for the murder and torture of people. Whether you agree with the protest or not, it is this fact that makes these ten artists stand out, and it should be referenced at the top of the artistes entry (along with a lyric clarifying the reason for the protest). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.111.63.127 (talk) 22:49, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Who is organizing the protest? Generally speaking, it is easier to defend controversial edits if you get an account and sign in.Jarhed (talk) 02:50, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You have been edit-warring to advertise this current campaign extensively on top of several biographies of living people (and are currently blocked for that reason). Please be aware that Wikipedia is not a forum for campaigns against certain people (however objectionable their actions might be), see also WP:NOTSCANDAL.
"it is this fact that makes these ten artists stand out" - the fact British activist Peter Tatchell has criticized these musicians does merit mention in the article, but Tatchell's "Stop Murder Music" campaign is not what made them noteworthy for Wikipedia in the first place. They are included here because of their status in a certain musical genre, not because of this criticism (see also WP:BLP1E). If Capleton wasn't known for his musical achievements, Tatchell's criticism of him probably wouldn't merit mention on Wikipedia at all.
Regards, HaeB (talk) 14:19, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article, in its current version, does not cite the lyrics in question. It is an error to describe them as homophobic -- they encourage murder and torture of a group of people. Many artists may well be homophobic, I challenge you to show me a Wikipedia article on any artist who calls for people's murder where that is not covered as the most significant aspect of the artist's career. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.111.63.127 (talk) 19:38, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Its opinion that these songs advocate murder & torture, to claim this is the most significant part of Capleton is just wrong and we cover this perfectly adequately in the criticism section, no need for anything about this in the opening. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 16:45, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Biography & Early Career sections

[edit]

Most of it is unreferenced and appears to be copied information from the dancehallreggae.com bio page, which itself is unreferenced. I'm going to eliminate all unreferenced material and piece together what I can using better referenced material and interviews.--Chimino (talk) 11:13, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also adding a "Later career" section, which should include his career from ~2000 to present, and tagged it for expansion. Please feel free to add to it with verifiable sources.--Chimino (talk) 17:45, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Capleton. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 18:41, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Capleton. 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) 11:13, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Capleton&oldid=1231386787"