This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Anthony Fantano article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives:
1Auto-archiving period: 365 days
![]() |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it (including people) may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
![]() | Reference ideas for Anthony Fantano The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:
|
That Anthony Fantano is not considered a reliable source because he is self published, but this brings me a lot of concerns, first is how wikipedia mantains its encyclopedia style even though it is something that has grown beside (and beyond) it (it is an online knowledge encyclopedia, damn) and there is more to the kind of ideological side which I can't even touch because of how long that would be even to put the basis, but even admitting its policies as truth isn't kind of strange that there is a mention here by Robert Christgau, just because he is Robert Christgau, if you read the article referenced you could note that he hasn't watched a single Needledrop video and is just giving his opinion as it is, a personal opinion of someone which its content he doesn't really know, but that is given as something worth adding to an article which feels kind of strange because the opinion of Robert isn't that different of what you can see in some random comment of Fantano's video, but is given the editorial importance because of the person it is coming from, what I'm saying is this article seems lackluster for the kind of person it is giving encyclopedic information about, this isn't the first time wikipedia has added something that is factually wrong/irrelevant as a source, but I feel concerned of how normal this is because of internal policies, if wikipedia purpose is to keep an archive of knowledge and truth, doesn't this kind of things kind of self.defeat it's purpose on the first place?
Taking Fantano's article as an example but I feel this is something bigger and sorry, I don't have the energy or patience to tackle it big scale, but is something I have seen a lot in this place Whatsupwiththis ( talk) 14:02, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
@ Alyo: Could you specify how the paragraph implies that the complaint's statements are neutral facts? I thought I was being clear in the sentence about Fantano's (alleged) threat because of the "According to Activision" at the start. The sentence you removed did mention that the argument was simply being stated by lawyers (without any confirmation of their claims), though I admit I could've specified ("Activision's laywers stated..."). If the attribution wasn't clear enough, I could try rewriting the sentences. ObserveOwl ( talk) 07:11, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
Hello, my name is Inspectorative and I am a new editor on Wikipedia. Recently I had made some changes to this article, adding Lil B's album I'm Gay (I'm Happy), or IGIH, and Planningtorock's album All Love's Legal to his list of 0s. At the time, I did not know that the review of Planningtorock's album was an April Fools joke and that he released another review giving it a 10.
However, IGIH is slightly different. Fantano has directly stated that the 0 that he gave "isn't even how I feel completely. it's just a lesson in controversy." This is a Youtube comment he left underneath the original video (which I'm not too sure how to cite). Similarly, his review of IGIH addresses how Lil B commonly parodies and satirizes hip-hop, rap, the music industry, and music fans. Would it be more appropriate to give greater context into the review itself, saying something along the lines of "This review is not reflective of Fantano's true feelings, but instead a commentary and example of the very controversial attitude that Lil B takes with his music."?
Therefore, my question is Should his review of IGIH remain on this page? If so, would it be proper to give greater contextual information via a side note, or side note adjacent technique, or is it not necessary? I feel this is important since Fantano's opinion is highly respected. I will gladly remove the text myself, I would just like some additional input. Inspectorative ( talk) 10:34, 6 July 2024 (UTC)