Jump to content

Talk:Pinoy hip-hop

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Pinoy hip hop)

New section

[edit]

This new section looks like an advertisement for this group. Can this be worked into one of the other sections?

==Key artists and groups==
Hailing from the streets of Queens, New York it is lively storytelling, animated flows, true to life lyrics, clever punch lines, charasmatic delivery and supreme freestyle capabilities that make the recipe for Knowa Lazarus' success. More than just a rapper, Knowa is also an ambitious and established businessman, and is known for his ability to close big deals for his company Q-York Entertainment, Inc. By independently promoting manufacturing and distributing their music K.L. and the Q-York Senate are revolutionising the industry thru their ingenious and resourceful marketing methods they are the definition of "making something out of nothing". Through their unique sound and style, K.L. and the Q-York Senate are erasing the divisions between underground and mainstream Hip-Hop, answering the cries and begs of the masses for a collective that represents all under Hip-Hop's umbrella.

Badagnani 10:10, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Knowa Lazarus and the Q-York Senate Hailing from the streets of Queens, New York it is lively storytelling, animated flows, true to life lyrics, clever punch lines, charasmatic delivery and supreme freestyle capabilities that make the recipe for Knowa Lazarus' success. More than just a rapper, Knowa is also an ambitious and established businessman, and is known for his ability to close big deals for his company Q-York Entertainment, Inc. By independently promoting manufacturing and distributing their music K.L. and the Q-York Senate are revolutionising the industry thru their ingenious and resourceful marketing methods they are the definition of "making something out of nothing". Through their unique sound and style, K.L. and the Q-York Senate are erasing the divisions between underground and mainstream Hip-Hop, answering the cries and begs of the masses for a collective that represents all under Hip-Hop's umbrella.

The detailed Native Guns and Knowa Lazarus info belongs on separate pages for those individual artists. Badagnani 10:53, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Origins

[edit]
"as early as 1982 local breakdancing crews like The Eclipse, Ground Control and Info-Clash Breakers became mainstays in local parks and malls in the Philippines such as Glorietta Mall, which was an early hotspot for breakers"''

1. just adding info: andrew e and j smooth mc (of bass rhyme posse) were members of ground control

2. you can also add that bass rhyme posse was the first rap group in the philippines. although their album was never really a hit, they are still the first group to release an album and is recognized as the first rap group. their website is http://bassrhymeposse.tk. you can also find some more info on pinoy hip-hop history there

3. you can also add DJ KID. i forgot his name but he used to be andrew e's dj

4. you can also add rapasia as one of the pioneer rap groups in the philippines. one of the members is martin "bronx" magalona who is francis m's brother. also, rapi boys and jaimie baby.

thanks!

Are you saying that you want someone else to add this into the article? If you're sure of the information, why not add it to the article yourself? Thanks for the additional info. Badagnani 22:04, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

oh ok. sorry, i'm a newbie and i wasn't sure how things work...i'll add it then...thanks =)-User Pnoi

New Audio Format

[edit]

I see what you mean, but I just thought that because of the fact that alot of the rap artists (in the Philippines mainly) do not have myspace.com pages readily available (those are majority Filipino-American rap artists), whereas with the current format all the samples (both Filipino and Fil-Am) are available on one page rather than clicking to different sites all over the net. Most Philippine artists tracks are not as openly available as their Fil-Am counterparts as I had to extensively comb the net for those records. But point taken, should we open up a designated section for the myspace.com links? Perhaps re-listing all the myspace.com links under the link section of the page? thx for your input! Wikipedian13 23:38, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I like the "smorgasbord" aspect of having all the links (most of which have audio that starts right up when you go there). How long those pages stay up, who knows, but, then, that's the way of the Internet. Badagnani 23:56, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

I've just gone through the external links section with the guideline open in another tab. There was, in the end, nothing that matched the inclusion requirements. Links to individual artists are almost never appropiate in an article about a style unless they are iconic or define the genre. Even in that instance, they should be incorported into the article as prose. - brenneman {L} 16:35, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

According to the verification policy, we need to be able from what's in the article to verify something. A red link, that is to say just a name in a list, does not provide any citation on its own. In most cases, sufficient references are expected to be found in an extant articles. It's per this policy to remove red links from the quasi-see also section, as well as those external links that didn't meet the guideline linked above.
brenneman {L} 16:58, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that redlink external links should definitely be removed but internal links should also be removed if they are most likely not to get an article. The subgenres of Filipino hip hop will probably get their own articles eventually so they should stay but many of the rest should probably be removed. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 17:23, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Aye, and removing an in article red link isn't hard to reverse when the unlinked article is created so is usually no drama.
brenneman {L} 17:26, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup project

[edit]

This article in some of its forms violates many policies. These include notability requirements, fair use laws, wikipedia manual of style, and others.

This is not an attack on the people who used their time to help this article. I am merely going to slim it down.

I will split my cleanup into multiple, modular edits.

What I will be doing

  • Removing most of the pictures
  • Removing paragraphs that have little or no value
  • Removing ALL links to Myspace bands
  • Removing ALL Red-link artists

I appreciate the work that has gone into this, but it is just not acceptable for our encyclopedia. Please list your objections or comments to my cleanup below. --mboverload@ 09:29, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly object to massive blanking of article content (including all images but one). If you wish to contribute constructively to this article in the future, however, you will be welcome here. All editors of all knowledge levels about this subject are welcome here, but editors bent on destroying other skilled editors' comments do not help the usefulness of this article to Wikipedia readers around the world. Badagnani 09:32, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Everyone's work will still remain in the article, just in a slimmer version. In fact, I need someone to choose around 8 pictures for the article. I AM being constructive and I have consulted with various people about this. I will stop editing the article for a time period of my choosing as to let other editors comment.
Also, no one "owns" this article. It is everyone's, and many people would like to help make it better. --mboverload@ 09:35, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
More than one image is fine. mboverload, as he says himself, is not an expert on hip-hop, and therefore could not determine which images to keep. However, the number of images in the article before was aesthetically unappealing, to say the least. Upon somewhat closer scrutiny, I think a significant number (perhaps most) would be okay on fair use grounds, since at least most appear to serve valid illustrative purposes; most or all of them add to the article's informativeness by serving to identify the individual in question, which is typically a large part of our copyright rationale.

I really think the reduction in pictures, at least, is way more constructive than adding more would be. The article had way too many pictures before. The rest I'm not so sure about. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 09:51, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aye, and for whatever reason we've all come down like an avalanche, and there's a pretty good reason to feel like it's an attack. So, I at least will move a little but slower, eh? I've rolled back the removal of the images, not because it was the worst thing to do but because we're not in a rush. We'll work on it together, and between the specific knowlegde about the subject and the broader knowledge of policies we'll make a better article. That's what everyone wants, right? - brenneman {L} 09:53, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It does seem quite sensible to have a "reasonable" number of photographs, which depict the most notable representatives and cultural products of this form. This could have been worked out in advance here, on "discussion," and thus I don't see the need to have edited in such a manner as has been done in the past 24 hours. Cooler heads must prevail. The statement that the photographs were of "random" people is incorrect; most of them illustrate individuals, groups, artworks, or albums related to this esoteric musical/cultural form that are described in the text. Badagnani 09:55, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I was incorrect in my statement of "random" people. What I meant to say was "seemingly random assortment of people related to the article" since there were _just_so_many_. I will wait until more users comment.
This is a correct assessment. Two of the regular contributors apparently kept finding "good ones," and adding them one by one over a period of many, many months. This is one drawback of Wikipedia, that the articles do eventually grow quite large as information is added; though splitting into separate sub-articles often solves this. I think the other regular editors will probably agree, once they join the discussion, that some of the photos are more important than others (as for example the ones that depict examples early in the history, which are quite rare). Badagnani 10:11, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And yes, we'll all work together on the article to make it better. We already have all the groundwork laid out for us thanks to the editors who have taken so much time to add in the content we can use. --mboverload@ 10:07, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would just like to say upon further review of my actions, I did "jump in" too fast without consulting the talk page for opinions of people who are more knowledgeable on the subject. I am sorry for any feelings this may have caused, I was still in the stages of "holy crap there's way too many pictures here" =) --mboverload@ 10:14, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's true, I think I have never seen an individual Wikipedia article with as many photos as this one. Badagnani 10:25, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is definitely an over abundance of copyrighted images within this article. I appreciate all of the hard work that everyone has put into the creation of this page, but that does not excuse any of us from complying with U.S. copyright. Much work is still needed to improve this article, please see Wikipedia:Ownership of articles and may we all work peacefully to clean it up together. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 17:41, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BBOY/BGirl Section

Where did all the information of Filipino B-boys and B-girls go? -gm4

Myspace bands`

[edit]

Before we do anything, I think we should start on the least controversial part. I think that is cleaning of the list of "notable" people. I propose we delete all the links to Myspace bands first. I also think we need someone who knows a lot about the subject to severely reduce the number of notable bands/mcs/people. All the red links maybe? --mboverload@ 19:30, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That would be totally withing policy, and a sensible move. - brenneman {L} 22:55, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Veryfying the artist lists

[edit]

As anyone can see, most of the groups on those lists are red linked - We don't even know if they exist at all. Can I get a volunteer to clean all of them out except the really, really important ones? --mboverload@ 01:54, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If the red-linked list gets moved to the talk apge here, it will serve as a good "needed articles" list. There's the guidelines for the inclusion of bands to consider when doing so, of course.
However, if there are (for example) seven groups/performers/crews from a certain region or city that individually don't meet the guideline it may be possible to combine them into a signle article.
brenneman {L} 03:10, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lists - MCs

[edit]

Lists - MC groups

[edit]

Lists - DJs

[edit]

Removal of mention of film

[edit]

What really is going on here? The initial two editors bent on blanking huge areas of content admitted within hours of their first massive edits that they had acted too soon, without first discussing here with the regular editors in this article. Now this -- an editor repeatedly removes mention of a documentary film on this subject? This has gone too far. This sort of thing does not create a feeling of community here and definitely does not help users wishing to learn more about this subject and be steered in the right direction. I've experienced the same antipathy toward this art form in the past and wish I could understand this mode of "editing." Let's please respect others' contributions, would that be all right? Badagnani 09:24, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We aren't here to respect other users edits, I'm afraid that's the nicest way I can put it. We are here to build an encyclopedia. I'm not sure what you are referring to, though. --mboverload@ 08:41, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please cease reverting me. I assure you, anything with only 17 google hits, which seems almost impossible since a video I posted on youtube got more than that, is not notable. I won't revert again until you respond. --mboverload@ 09:00, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Badagnani, can we discuss this? Please explain why you find the documentary to be notable and relevant to the article. AmiDaniel (talk) 09:04, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My feeling is that editors who choose to remove mention of this documentary film, which may be the only documentary film so far to document this generally little known hip hop subculture, are not doing so in the interests of the users of this encyclopedia. If there were multiple films documenting this subject and this was the least important of them, it would be a different story. One purpose of our articles is to steer readers in the right direction as to where to find more good information on a subject. The repeated deletions seem to be done for purely mean-spirited purposes, and not in the interests of the subject nor our readers. Badagnani 09:09, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well then, would you care to expand upon that in the article? Simply sticking the name of a little-known film isn't doing anyone much good. Detail what the film is about and why it's relevant, and then it can be of some help to the readers. Otherwise, I don't see having this random reference particularly beneficial. AmiDaniel (talk) 09:16, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Until you can show a reason for this film being included, I will be removing it soon. --mboverload@ 09:20, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, for Christ's sake, don't revert war over this. I think there may well be a place for the film in the article; however, someone with knowledge of the film (i.e., Badagnani) needs to turn it into prose rather than list. If it remains just an obscure and unrelated reference after a couple of days, then I think it should be removed. If the point can be elaborated upon in the article, then it may well merit inclusion. Awaiting response from Badagnani, AmiDaniel (talk) 09:25, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
? I said soon, not now, to allow for more discussion. I have given up/been convinced that we might as well leave it there so I won't be reverting. --mboverload@ 18:56, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you've been with Wikipedia for any length of time you'll know that one of the notability criteria is being "the most prominent exponent of a style." In this case, this film is the most prominent exponent of this genre as it appears to be the only documentary film about the subject, and thus notable. It could be worked into the text or left "as is" in the films section, as is normal for other musical genres which have documentary films about them. It all goes toward steering our readers in the right direction to find good further information about a subject. Badagnani 10:41, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's a compelling argument. I came a little bit late and am looking through diffs now, but the chain of "cite saying foo is prominant" to "documentary about foo linked." I'd normally say "put that link in a parent article" but since we already know that third party sources are going to be hard, it can live here. That first citation about being "most prominent exponent" is the vital one. - brenneman {L} 05:38, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't find it compelling at all. What, are we going to add the next student film about YTMND into the article? --mboverload@ 03:13, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Meow! No, think about it like this: If the Sydney Morning Herald did an article on stencil graff and named ZeBom3000 as an originator in the field, and if there was a section about ZeBom in the Stencil graffiti article, and there was a very minor documentary that was the best source of information about ZeBom, we might put that link in the article. Even if the documentary was a bit wobbly on it's own. - brenneman {L} 02:26, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pinoy Hip-Hop article, rewritten!

[edit]

This is Jayo Santiago, webmasta and creator of Pinoy Hip-Hop. I also write Flip-Hop online back in 1997 and PINOYRAP.COM in 2004 where some of the sources here came from.

Anyway, I have decided to rewrite the Philippine section of Pinoy Hip-Hop and make it more accurate. I also decided to leave the FIlipino-American section.

Pinoyhiphopph (talk) 13:03, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Pinoy hip hop. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:17, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Pinoy hip hop. 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:40, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Pinoy hip hop. 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) 09:45, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Pinoy hip hop. 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) 23:35, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dates regarding Bass Rhyme Posse

[edit]

In an earlier version of the article it is written that they started their rap group in 1972. Which is impossible as hip hop started in the USA around that time and didn't release anything until the late 1970s were it was imported in the Philippines, they may have had other musical endeavors but not Hip Hop. A website that copies and paste everything from Wikipedia says they started in in 1989 "http://enacademic.com/dic.nsf/enwiki/304726". So I choose to write in the 1980s. Any publications outside of blogspot covers this?Filmman3000 (talk) 17:46, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Article revision necessary

[edit]

This is Jayo Santiago also known by my graffiti name, Flip-1. I also created pinoyrap.com back in the early 2000 and is predecessor, Flip-Hop Online back in 1997. This article has been experiencing alot of issues and I decided to fix some of it.

In addition of redoing the paragraphs.

As of now, some of those I've fixed are,

- replacing "barrio" with "barangay". While barrio is also a term used to describe a neighborhood, more Filipinos use the word barangay.

- omitted the sentence, "Hip hop music found its way to the Philippines back when the country was under American rule." The Philippines gain independence back in 1946 and hip-hop developed back in the 1970s.

- omitted Vincent Dafallong's Okay Sa-Rap album in the Birth of a Movement section as that album was released in 1991.

- respelled to George Javier instead of Dyords Javier as this was the title printed in the album.

Themanilaxperience (talk) 12:31, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article has too many self-published references such as pinoyrap.com and Facebook. You have been capitalizing far too much in your additions. A lot of what you added has no reference at all. For all of these reasons, your recent work has been removed twice. Also, Discogs and whosampledwho.com are not acceptable references per WP:ALBUMAVOID, so I removed those, too. Binksternet (talk) 16:37, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That is because many of these artists do not even have a website and if they do, it is in social media. So what are other reliable sources then?

To be honest many of the content that is currently written in that article are either incomplete or have the wrong information. Here are some of them,

- Filo Rap is not a widely used term.

- Barrio is not a common term used to describe neighborhoods in cities and towns around The Philippines.

- Vincent Daffalong's album, "Okay Sa-rap" was released in 1991, not the early 1980s. But his tracks, "Ispraken Delight" and "Nunal" were recorded in the early 1980s but were released as singles.

- Andrew E was not based in LA. Also sections concerning him are flip-flopping when instead should have a more organized paragraph.

- Vivian Velez is an actress, not an actor.

- There is a long paragraph given to Pamilia Dimagiba, while their parent group, Urban Flow receives little or no mention in that section.


Themanilaxperience (talk) 01:26, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

HE IS NOT MARRIED

[edit]

Francis Magalona is not Married with Pia here in the Philippines because Pia Arroy is still married with her husband. 136.158.16.8 (talk) 06:23, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Hip-hop which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 10:08, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pinoy_hip-hop&oldid=1262057894"