Talk:Leon Thomas

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Leon Thomas article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Biography: Musicians

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
	This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians.
	An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.

Jazz Mid‑importance

	Jazz portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Jazz, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of jazz on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JazzWikipedia:WikiProject JazzTemplate:WikiProject JazzJazz
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Roots music Low‑importance

	Music portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Roots music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to roots, folk and traditional folk music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Roots musicWikipedia:WikiProject Roots musicTemplate:WikiProject Roots musicRoots music
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

I'm sorry but Leon Thomas' involvement with Santana was peripheral and having this huge thing about Santana that rivals the size of the whole article is not appropriate. He was principally a jazz singer and this article should not be a Santana tribute page.. There is plenty of room for that elsewhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.12.211.21 (talk) 02:56, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Leon Thomas. 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/20070808001955/http://www.jazzsupreme.com/leon.thomas/santana.html to http://www.jazzsupreme.com/leon.thomas/santana.html

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) 21:30, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Appraisal" section

It's not an appraisal section. It never is. In most cases these sections are nothing more than praise by critics. I'll leave the matter of cherry-picking aside for now. We are supposed to strive for neutrality. Neutral analysis of any subject (a person, a product, a place) rarely finds no flaws. Why? Because people, places, and things usually have flaws. I disagree with titling these sections "Appraisal" because the appraisal always ends up being positive. The term is misleading if not dishonest, though probably well-intentioned. A more honest, accurate term is "Praise for ..." because that's what it is. We can debate whether Wikipedia documentation allows Praise sections, but I do know praise when I see it. It's easy. I hope I can stop here without having to do a word by word analysis of language which is obviously complimentary and nothing more. I find such sections non-encyclopedic (opinionated, superficial, crass, boring, predictable, uninformative) but I'm willing to compromise. Instead of deleting the section, I can call them "Praise for" which has worked in the past.
–Vmavanti (talk) 20:47, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a discussion; you are just lecturing me, phrasing your opinions as fact ("language which is obviously complimentary and nothing more"), claiming to have interest in my reasoning (yet outright dismissing my position here that it's an appraisal section, without inquiry into my reasoning), and trying to prove through verbosity. WP:TLDR: "Internal policy discussions on talk pages can often become long-winded … The cure for this problem is to make a clear, policy-related statement to begin with"; WP:TALK#OBJECTIVE: "Talk pages are not a place for editors to argue their personal point of view … The best way to present a case is to find properly referenced material. Dan56 (talk) 21:38, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are arguing for change, yet you want to make vague generalizations about "most cases" and "neutral analysis of any subject" and "people, places and things", rather than stay on the topic of the specific language in this article's section? Merriam defines praise as an expression of approval. What part of Plantenga's analysis in the first paragraph expresses approval? Dan56 (talk) 21:38, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dan, you make it impossible. Really. I don't know what else to say to you. I don't know how to talk to you. You make it impossible. I was honest and direct and brief. I just spent a lot of time writing my reasons for my changes. Your response is "This is isn't a discussion". And you accuse me of bad faith? Well, on my end, Dan, yes I am starting a discussion. But you want no part of it. You want specifics? Here's one. Calling my post verbose is absurd. Why? Because I posted 178 words. If you consider that verbose, you haven't read some of the discussions I've read on Wikipedia which go on and on and on. In no context is 178 words considered verbose. Not only have you accused me of being verbose (which is not a crime), you have accused me of trying to intimidate you by being verbose. What?! That doesn't even make sense. Why in the world would I try to intimidate you? That's just dumb and I wouldn't do it. If you want to discuss why my reasoning is flawed, go ahead, but I'm not going to get dragged into another one of your tantrums where you insult me and threaten to block me while simultaneously playing the victim. I won't do that again, Dan. There's nothing in it for me. There's nothing in the rules that says I have to tolerate this kind of thing. Maybe you have all the time in the world. I sure don't.
–Vmavanti (talk) 22:31, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Dan56 (talk) 22:47, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]