 | Hip hop was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | | | | | This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects: |  | This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hip hop, a collaborative effort to build a useful resource for and improve the coverage of hip hop on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. | |  B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. | | Top | This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. | | | This article has been marked as needing immediate attention. | | | | edit · history · watch · refresh  To-do list for Hip hop: | | 
| Here are some tasks you can do: - Copyedit: In its current state this does not seem to meet the comprehensive or well referenced requirements. article is not comprehensiveness-for example, the history ends with the 1980s. It refers to the History of hip hop music article, but does not summarize it per WP:Summary style. The lead should summarize the whole article. Also, make sure to avoid or explain jargon, see WP:JARGON
- Wikify: This article is overlinked. Be consistent-is it "Planet Rock" or just Planet Rock? the Bronx or The Bronx (another overlinked term)?
- Verify: In its current state this does not seem to meet the well referenced requirement.Several whole paragraphs have no references - for example, cite claims like "Rapping is derived from the griots (folk poets) of West Africa, and Caribbean-style toasting."
- Cleanup: references/endnotes:The refs that are there need to be more detailed and consistent - internet refs should have url, title, publisher, author if known, and date accessed (using {{cite web}} and the other cite templates may be useful).
- Expand: The lead is very short and should probably be three or four full paragraphs instead of two short paragraphs made of three sentences.
- Other: Many thanks to Ruhrfisch ><>°° for the above suggestions.
| |
[edit] Duplications The following paragraph has repeated twice in the article: Though born in the United States, the reach of hip hop is global. Youth culture and opinion is meted out in both Israeli hip hop and Palestinian hip hop, while France, Germany, the U.K., Africa and the Caribbean have long-established hip hop followings. According to the U.S. Department of State, hip hop is "now the center of a mega music and fashion industry around the world", that crosses social barriers and cuts across racial lines.[35] National Geographic recognizes hip hop as "the world's favorite youth culture" in which "just about every country on the planet seems to have developed its own local rap scene."[36] 79.74.128.62 (talk) 21:11, 5 October 2009 (UTC) [edit] Moved from article (to the editors)- i saw that you have erased my addition to this article. i am a Bboy from Jerusalem and to me hiphop is my whole life and i made it as such because i believe that through hiphop i will be able to bring positive change to the world. you cannot have an article about the hip hop culture without one word on it's values, it's goals, the mindset of those who practice the hiphop arts, and especially you cannot have a whole article about hiphop without one word about the CYPHERS. without cyphers there is no hiphop. so if my addition was not acedemic enough for this website, than please ask a more well known B-boy (Crumbs, Remind, Ken Swift, Crazy Legs, Born, Machine, ATA, anyone who you deem to be famous enough so that they can enter a quote here) because the B-boys nowadays are the ones who continue to live real hiphop and all that is written here has been written by people who are not a part of the culture. this is clear because there doesn't appear even one word as to what hip hop REALLY is and what it STANDS FOR. Peace Bboy Rethink, TRuClaN, Jerusalem {Originally posted by 213.8.6.227 in article, moved by Apparition11|Complaints/Mistakes 20:07, 23 December 2008 (UTC)) [edit] Merger I highly recommend that the article at Hip hop music be used as the basis for the new article, not the one currently located here. Since Hip Hop is mainly about the music, the music article should be the base. Zazaban (talk) 01:36, 8 January 2009 (UTC) - I highly recommend the opposite; the hip hop music article has only 20 references while the hip hop article has 3 times as many. Hip hop music should be simply redirected.Cosprings (talk) 00:23, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, but the setup for the other article is much better. This article is basically not about a musical genre, but the subculture that surrounds a musical genre. If we keep this version will will have no article about the musical genre, but one about the subculture that surrounds it. That's extremely odd. Zazaban (talk) 05:47, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
- And that is the reason why the best solution is to have "Hip Hop" as a disambiguation page pointing to the various related articles, and one article title "Hip Hop (music)" and one titled "Hip Hop (culture)." Let's be clear--Hip Hop is a mess--an opinion-pushing one at that--number of citations notwithstanding (don't blame the messenger). One of many reasons that it is a mess, respectfully, is because when editors who believe (in good faith) that "there should only be one hip hop article" choose to delete or redirect hip hop-related articles, they find that there is a need to merge the relevant info from the page that they deleted. This balloons the article in size, and shows only one of the reasons that the article should be broken up, per WP:SPLIT. This is no more unusual than featured article Punk rock having split into Punk subculture and Punk ideologies, among others. -RoBoTamice 16:01, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
- No, you've said all this before and I disagreed strongly with you then as I do now. First of all, don't do it just because that's the way punk did it. Second, No one wants to put "hip hop" into wikipedia and get directed to a disambiguation page, most newbies won't even understand what that is. They want to instantly be directed to an all-encompassing summary of the genre/culture. There should only be one article on hip hop, and not even a hip hop music article, because there already roots of hip hop, old school, new school and golden age articles. That's not one article, that's 4 historical periods plus the main article. The main article as it is is very well sourced, though a refimprove tag would definitely improve things. I am sure most people would agree with what I've just said.Cosprings (talk) 16:06, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
My friend, the problem is that they didn't/don't agree with everything you just said. The "no ones" that you speak ofhave reached consensus several times on exactly the opposite tack. Your opinion on disambiguation pages is respected, but may reflect a misunderstanding of wikipolicy at Wikipedia:Disambiguation. There is no argument that the word "Hip Hop" reflects both a style of music and a subculture. However, the ongoing argument, of which your opinion is a part, centers on whether the music or culture is the primary topic (as you and Zazaban have engaged in above). Luckily for us, Wikipolicy addresses this situation at WP:PRIMARYTOPIC: "If there is extended discussion about which article truly is the primary topic, that may be a sign that there is in fact no primary topic, and that the disambiguation page should be located at the plain title with no "(disambiguation)". Thoughts? -RoBoTamice 16:32, 9 January 2009 (UTC) -
- The discussion is not about which is primary, but whether or not hip hop music should exist at all. So that excerpt is not relevant. You want a disamg for only two articles? Just merge them and all efforts will be centralized, not defracted as would happen with two articles that basically cover the same things.Cosprings (talk) 16:44, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
- You certainly have a right to your opinion concerning relevance, as well as your opinion of what "no one" wants to read. Like some, you may feel that hip hop music and culture are "basically" the same thing, but others have a different take, and there is a logical argument to back that premise up. While you, among others, argue that they "cover the same things," the relevant material that is cut and pasted when the articles are joined balloon the article to the point that Wikipedia:SPLIT becomes relevant. Since you were "present" at the prior discussion, you already know that the purpose of a disambig page would be to centralize, not defract the the hip hop topics, to include music, culture, fashion, etc. Regarding your comments about the Punk Rock page...well, while I certainly appreciate the sentiment of "don't do it just because that's the way punk did it," Punk Rock is a Featured Article, while Hip Hop was a Featured Article, so maybe there is something that can be gleaned from that article after all. -RoBoTamice 20:16, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
- Hip hop music was a featured article in January 2005 when it featured ZERO citations, only a list of a references. As it is now, hip hop is much better.Cosprings (talk) 23:26, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
- As stated before, your opinion is respected. -RoBoTamice 02:32, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Why are we even arguing? Hip hop is the term used for a genre of music. It is also the word for the culture consisting of four elements (djing, mcing, bboying, and graffitti). Just make a disambiguation page. It is illogical to have one article for two seperate things.76.105.7.183 (talk) 06:09, 5 February 2009 (UTC) - I agree. -RoBoTamice 13:51, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
- Yea, I don't trust IP addresses. This anonymous user should not be considered for voting. In any event, "hip hop genre" and the "rest" of hip hop are not the two different things, they are exactly the same thing. Cosprings (talk) 15:19, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
- If you have reason to believe they are a sock, I suppose you could spark an investigation, although you should probably assume good faith, especially since they have a clear history of editing hip hop articles with no complaints or warnings (This isn't a vote, by the way). Again, your opinion is respected, even if it is disagreed with (or not in the majority, for that matter. -RoBoTamice 19:00, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
- Robotam, if you respect my opinion, how can you disagree so steadfastly? And how can you facetiously assert that my opinion is "not in the majority"? How can you believe that anyone who types in "hip hop" into wk wants to a see a disambiguation page? How can you believe that hip hop music and hip hop culture are separate things? Do you ever hear about people who are hip hop music fans but not hip hop culture fans? It is absolutely absurd. They are exactly the same thing.Cosprings (talk) 19:25, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
- (1) Because, talk radio culture notwithstanding, editors can actually disagree, yet have the decency to respect the opinion of those on the other side of a discussion. (2) Not facetious at all. I would direct you to previous discussions you were involved in on the topic of a disambig page, where you were in the minority. Hey, it happens. (3) not trying to be "facetious" but...because, as above, they said so? (4) In the same way that I believe that New York City and New York State are seperate things. One being an element of the other does not make them the same. (3) All the time. Just like there were/are B-Boy dancers that don't like rap. The culture is based around the music, but is not solely comprised of the music, and that is why, in my opinion, your point of view is found wanting. -RoBoTamice 21:04, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Capital H I thought I'd bring it up before someone created an edit War. It seems to be disputable weather the second word "hop" should be capitalized. I start the discussion here. -- Matthew Glennon (T/C\D) 15:14, 23 February 2009 (UTC) What's with the lack of information regarding the millions of inner-city deaths that were the result of gang violence encouraged by this awful music? - Because there are no reliable sources backing up your claims? --Whip it! Now whip it good! 06:07, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Two articles This and hip hop music need to be merged at some point. Most of the other article could be incorporated in the history section this one, maybe leading to a new History of hip hop article.Zazaban (talk) 00:04, 25 August 2009 (UTC) - Seeing as the hip hop music article (as it stands right now) is basically already a History of hip hop article, then I agree with this. The history parts of hip hop music and hip hop could be made into History of hip hop and the few remaining bits of hip hop music could be merged into here. Ideally, eventually, there should be separate hip hop and hip hop music articles, but it's a big mess at the moment, so merging would be the best way to start sorting it out. Crateescape101 (talk) 22:50, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
- The best move right now would probably be just move hip hop music to History of hip hop, since that's basically what it is, and add non-history stuff (which, as far as I can tell, is nothing) to this article, and other such stuff, afterwards. Some of he stuff here could go there, for example.Zazaban (talk) 23:16, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
- Sounds good. Crateescape101 (talk) 00:02, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Latino Americans The involvement of Latino Americans in creating hip-hop is stated very clearly in the 2009 book "Foundation: B-boys, B-girls, And Hip-Hop Culture In New York" by Schloss, Joseph on Oxford University Press. It talks about the b-boy element of hip-hop and says - "the early development of the dance took place among small groups of working class black and Latino teenagers... the dance developed in the context of an urban Latino environment... there were three basic stages to the development of the dance: the early rock dance of the '60s, which was Latino and citywide; Brooklyn rocking or uprocking, which was Latino and Brooklyn-based, and b-boying which is black and Latino and Bronx-based". Crateescape101 (talk) 23:06, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
In the documentary " The freshest Kids", The first latino b boy group called " The latin kings" state that hip hop, and breakdancing started out as an African American style then as it became less underground more people took to it. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AQAK0wbcwZc&feature=channel) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darkman1984 (talk • contribs) 03:46, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
An interview with "Crazy Legs" states himself how the latinos started breaking AFTER African Americans did. No one is denying their influence, but even one of the greatest bboys states this himself. "Davey D:I had a conversation with Kool Herc and he said there were some very distinct ways in which African Americans and Puerto Ricans approached b-boying. Could you shed some light on that?
Crazy Legs: I think the difference is when the brothas first started doing and it was at its infancy they weren't doing acrobatic moves. That didn't come into play until more Puerto Ricans got involved in the mid 70s. We then took the dance, evolved it and kept it alive. In '79 I was getting dissed. I would go into a dance and I would get dissed by a lot of brothas who would ask 'Why y'all still doing that dance? ThatÕs played out'. By 79, there were very few African American brothas that was doing thisÉ I one say one other thing. We always maintained the flava. It was like a changing of the guard and all we did was add more flava to something that already existed. We use to refer to it as Moreno style or Cocola style. That was just the slang back then. There were certain Top Rocks called Latin Rock"(http://www.daveyd.com/crazylegsinterview.html) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darkman1984 (talk • contribs) 04:20, 30 August 2009 (UTC) - The book Foundation interviews many of the original b-boys, and it also includes quotes and info from "The Freshest Kids" documentary - using all the information, the author comes to the conclusion that Latinos were instrumental in creating breaking and hip-hop. Crateescape101 (talk) 13:41, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
That is only 1 book. No one is denying their influences, but the people who started it first were black Americans. Even the first Latino break dancers say this. If this wiki is supposed to put things in order than put the original founders seperate from everyone else. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darkman1984 (talk • contribs) 16:50, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
- This 1 book quotes and references the people and documentaries you are talking about. The Freshest Kids is just 1 documentary, and Crazy Legs is only 1 b-boy. The book looks at all the evidence out there currently and has a section on the history. It is also the most current and most complete research into it. Crateescape101 (talk) 16:57, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
So this book overlooks the first black Djs who created the craft, and over looks the first b boys who created the craft first? Because of the first people who started , and created it were black, and its obvious the latinos joined after the culture wasn't underground anymore, why are they being put as creators of the culture? They participated, and evolved breakdancing YES, but started the culture? No. And if you watch that documentary, ALL of the original Latino crew state this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darkman1984 (talk • contribs) 17:06, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
The first founding people of the Music, and the art of b boying were black people. Latino contribution came later, and no one is belittling or denying it. But to say they are the creators of the music, b boying is an insult to myself, and black people. The first latino b boys called it " That moreno style" for a reason. If you look at all past documentaries, all of them clearly stated it was created, and started by black people. I'm not sure if this article needs to be reworded or have someone else organize, and write it, but the founding creators "black people" needs to be stated first. Darkman1984 (talk) 17:24, 30 August 2009 (UTC) - I've seen the documentaries, and so has the author of that book - as I previously mentioned it quotes from numerous sources, including the Freshest Kids documentary.
- You have cherry picked a couple of quotes from a small number of b-boys, but the book takes into account all the interviews and all the information. The rest of your argument is in your own words - wikipedia goes off verifiable citations.
- I have given the citation that I used, which clearly contradicts what you are saying, and it takes into account the things you are quoting. Crateescape101 (talk) 19:03, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
- Darkman, you can't just put anything you want into the article, especially when it contradicts the citations. It's called original research. Zazaban (talk) 20:32, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Beatboxing? Now however important beatboxing is to hip hop, why is it one of the "pillars?" There are only 4 pillars, djing, mcing, breakdancing and graffiti. Its ridiculous that beatboxing is included in the list, especially with no citations, i think it should be deleted. Killanator (talk) [edit] Removed lines flagged with "citation needed" I've removed the following lines, that have "citation needed" flag for 6 or more month and look like untrue: - The term "hip hop" also followed logically the previous African-American music culture of "Bebop".[citation needed]
--Appletangerine un (talk) 12:14, 10 October 2009 (UTC) |
