Talk:Kevin Coyne

Minor translation

Can we assume that "mei materiaal opnommen yn" is Frisk for "with material recorded in" in this excellent biographical sketch? Is a minor translation into English possible? Martinevans123 22:22, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Painter categories

Acceptable secondary sources need to be provided to validate Coyne's status as a painter and show this had recognition outside being put on his own website, if the painter categories are to be used. Ty 23:20, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. But I can't help feeling a painter is a painter. Secondary sources, here we come. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:24, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Is The Times acceptable? Is that "recognition" or is it just "journalism"? How many "sources" have you decided are required, Ty? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:34, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Excellent ref - can't do much better than that. Nice one. Ty 23:43, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

There are plenty more. Artist Cat re-instate, please? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:47, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

No problem. The Times said he gained recognition as a painter. That's quite enough. Ty 00:01, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, quite. Martinevans123 (talk) 00:06, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

So - why aren't his paintings "distinctive"? And what do you need about "in later years" - the day of the week when Kevin decided to do more painting than singing? Martinevans123 (talk) 00:12, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

"Distinctive" is an editorial interpretation and hence original research. If you find a sound ref that says "distinctive" then you can use the word and reference to the source that says so. "In later years" - too vague. When did he return? If it's not known, then it's better to leave out that comment altogether. Basically, start not from what you know, but from what the available sources say. If there's a reliable source that says "in later years", then by all means use it and reference the statement. And please avoid the sarcasm. All of this will improve the article to wiki policies. Ty 00:30, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh dear, ditorial interpretation and vaugueness. "In later years" is a general English prose expression. Do wiki policies require a date? How would you care to express that general transition in the life of an artist between one medium and another towards the end of a career? And please avoid the patronising tone. All of this petty regulation will make contributors wish they had not bothered, won't it. ffs. Martinevans123 (talk) 00:54, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

The aim is to provide a neutral article, using the content from available and verifiable sources. Where is the source for "later years". What evidence is there that his painting was not continuous? If not, then did he take it up for 20 years or maybe just 3 or 4? This is significant. It's not petty regulation: it's writing an accurate encyclopedic article; otherwise there's no point in doing it. I'm interested in raising its standard, so why not take advantage of some input, not dismiss it. Ty 01:02, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

So, I have not taken advantage of your input and have dismissed it? I'd agree that a high standard of encyclopedia is needed, with neutral articles. Perhaps another aim for administrators should be to provide advice and suggestions for edits on Talk pages before making them? Edits can be either constructive or destructive, it seems. And why single out "later years" - how many of the other statements in this article are not directly and immediately supported by any verifyable source? Or is the aim to provide an article page on view which is peppered with editorial blue pencil? Contributors might begin to think that an admisitrator spent all their time crititisng the efforts of others while adding nothing new themselves? So could you please explain why this article does not have any painter categories?Martinevans123 (talk) 07:21, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality

The entire article reads like a press release, and is very short on detail about his music. KD Tries Again (talk) 17:35, 1 May 2008 (UTC)KD Tries Again

A press release might admit he was a painter. I agree more music detail is required. Go ahead KD. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:18, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Still too much POV. I removed and/or changed some sentences that were too slanted towards Coyne. Please consider removing some external links that are basically the same website with various branches toward one aspect of his life or another. An astute reader can find these things. Also, it isn't correct to provide multiple email addresses for more information, or sites where someone might "obtain" books or recordings of his work.. smacks a bit of commercialism, and an eagerness to get someone to "check out your favorite celebrity" or something. No disrespect intended; just still slanted in some ways, IMHO. --leahtwosaints (talk) 00:15, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Tend to agree. Please remove what you think is inappropriate. But what about the requested "detail about his music"? Martinevans123 (talk) 00:19, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Tags

Re recent tags: I wonder could you possibly tag/ highlight what are considered to be the "weasel words" in this article? How many more than the current 11 references should an article of this length be expected to have? Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:58, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd suggest that, without some explanation, these tags should be removed. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:36, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Guitar technique

Having seen Coyne perform a few times, to my recollection he played in open tuning, fretting with his thumb over the back (top) of the fingerboard, not from below as in normal technique. I feel this deserves a clearer and more accurate description than the 'wrong' of the entry, even if it's in quotes. I don't doubt he adopted the style deliberately, and even in my hands it produces a distinctive sound.

I've no idea which open tuning he used, and more to the point, I know no reference material that addresses his technique, though some of the existing citations might apply. But as an 'anti-technique', IMO it deserves more of a mention Chrismorey (talk) 17:46, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, that's my recollection also. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:32, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Books

Mention of Coyne's books has been supported here by this source for some years. The source has recently been removed three times, by new user Csw99, as "promotional". I do not believe there is any better source for Coyne's writing and I do not believe it is promotional or "unencyclopaedic". If there is any better source available, I'd be very happy to see it. In the mean time, I don't see why it cannot be used here. This might be a more suitable landing page. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:34, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

"A selection of Coyne's writings, including many of his poems, can be found at a legacy website" is blatant advertising of that "legacy website" (whatever the hell that is supposed to mean). Such language does not exist in any other encyclopaedia article that I have looked at. Are you in some way associated with the website? csw99 15:21, 7 April 2024 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Csw99 (talk • contribs)