Talk:Diplo

The following section among other things have been recently removed.

The section that has been blanked, first by the IP vandal User talk:76.79.190.139 and now by the newly formed user User:Davidbhutch has been reinserted. Seeing as these events/occurences are covered in multiple reliable sources and is what makes this person notable, I see no reason for the removal.Lifebonzza (talk) 12:02, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

My intention wasn't to remove 'valid information', rather correct an error you make AGAIN in your explanation. What makes Diplo relevant is not his relationship to another artist. I believe his accomplishments in the music industry, while including M.I.A., do not begin and end with her. In an effort to remove bias which clearly sheds the two's relationship in a negative light, I have edited the page to include discussion of his relationship with M.I.A., but as it pertains to their work together, and his career following their relationship. Again, the changes aren't intended to distort anything, rather provide a wealth of information pertaining to Diplo which isn't exclusive to his relationship with M.I.A.

I am more than willing to enter a dispute resolution with someone who disagrees.

Also, I am a 'new user', so there are some things about Wikipedia I have yet to learn. If there is a formatting issue, please let me know and I will do my best to rectify. For instance, I don't know how to sign my name... but this is the user Davidbhutch Davidbhutch (talk) 18:52, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

In an effort to make sure all points of view pertaining to a figure whose notability arises entirely through his claims and work with M.I.A., the article should be structured to reflect this. Right now, it just looks like a puff piece and an advertisement written by a fan/publicist (phrases like "continued to show the limitlessness") etc. and the critical voices have been removed, an error you make yet AGAIN by removing cited info pertaining to whatever deeds he did. Also, it seems like you figured out how to sign off just fine, just like you worked out how to use the edit summary with your second edit, a highly suspicious characteristic and rarity for a new user. Your edit summary here mentions changes due to management request. Wikipedia articles are not written to placate management, your edits are in a conflict of interest with wiki policy and have thus been reverted. Lifebonzza (talk) 19:55, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Don't you see though, how a claim like "a figure whose notability arises entirely through his claims and work with M.I.A." is in itself biased? I mean, as someone who appreciates both Diplo & M.I.A.'s music, this claim seems pretty uneducated. Their careers both have a lengthy independence from one another that is, I think, much more notable than the gossip between them in the press. Although that gossip exists, and is valid for inclusion here, it cannot be the focus if the piece is to remain unbiased. His notability, as many of his followers would agree, is the result of a myriad of projects, which I was attempting to reflect with my edit. If you've ever looked at the mad decent roster, and heard some of the music, you would have to agree to the limitlessness of the genres represented. There is metal music, dubstep, tribal, techno, rap etc... I look at that term as being the only logical fit. Also, the edit summary is just a bar that you fill out right? I mean, that wasn't that hard to figure out. How can we find a common ground here by which we can both have what we want represented in this bio? I think it is unfair to not include many of the notable works Diplo has contributed to, and continues to create.Davidbhutch (talk) 21:33, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I go by the majority of reliable sources on a topic, if there are contentious claims, they are cited. The dependence of Diplo on M.I.A. in different forms is pretty obvious and covered extensively, but the article does not reflect this. For instance, there are alot of people that describe him as having some need for attention and him being a shameless self promoter. Have you read WP:BLP, WP:NPOV and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (words to watch). They are good places to start. Where incidents are important, notable, covered extensively and contribute to the balance of the article (for instance when they aid in understanding critical voices of the subject) there's no harm in mentioning it. Which other works that you say he's been involved in do you feel are not included?Lifebonzza (talk) 23:00, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok, my two cents... I agree that it is not in the interest of WP to have statements regarding his "dependence" on MIA or his "described nature of being shameless" per policy above, as well as wp:peacock to balance criticism and promotion by removing it all together. On the other hand, I wouldn't say Diplo "is best known for dating MIA" either. Is there a source that states that clearly? Considering they basically don't collaborate on big projects anymore and Piracy funds Terrorism was almost 6 years ago, many readers may not associate him as being best known for dating someone rather for having an extensive, successful career as a dj and producer. --Travis Thurston+ 06:33, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

. I agree there are too many WP:Peacock terms in the article as it is; it requires a thorough clean up to look less like a fan page. This person has made certain statements because he apparently loves the attention . The majority of sources and the majority of readers may associate him with that more than "for having an extensive, successful career as a dj and producer" and the article should reflect that. Phrases like "It wouldn't be long before" are redundant and unencyclopaedic and should be removedLifebonzza (talk) 07:39, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree about the redundancy of my phrasing, and the unencyclopaedic nature of that style of text. That's more a mark on the limitations of my writing style rather than a true depiction of how I hoped to have the page look. I whole heartedly disagree though that the majority of readers would associate him with only having dated MIA. I don't think you can honestly say "The majority of sources" either, if we're discussing the past 5 years. I sincerely doubt that you've compiled some kind of qualitative data to that fact. I'm not sure how familiar with the artist you are, but it is simply a statement of fact that his work with MIA makes up one mixtape and ten total songs (produced & co-written). Diplo has contributed more substantial amounts of production to the myriad other projects he's worked on even this year alone. As I said, I agree... MIA and Diplo clearly needed each other to obtain the spotlight they have and that deserves a fair shake in this article, however, that work is a minor piece of past in comparison to the frankly gigantic amount of other notable productions and mixtapes and projects on his resume. I do feel like we're getting somewhere here though, I appreciate your willingness to come to an agreement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidbhutch (talk • contribs) 14:29, 8 October 2010 (UTC) Also... that source you cited has someone else saying "I think he just likes the attention" Hardly an assertion of fact that offers any validity to that claim. Davidbhutch (talk) 14:36, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

things like this "M.I.A. is hailed as the "yardstick" by which Diplo and his associates ("Friends of Diplo") are judged." serve only the purpose of having something negative in the wiki. They don't actually contribute to anyone's understanding of Diplo, or his relationship to MIA for that matter. If anything it should be "MIA has been hailed"... since no one, now, would say that with any confidence. Davidbhutch (talk) 18:33, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Here's the changes I made today, with explanations etc... I've changed the language here from saying "He is best known for dating M.I.A., credited with helping expose him in his early career, and later working with Robyn."

It has been changed to say, "He is best known for dating M.I.A., credited with helping expose her in her early career, and later working with many other pop artists like Robyn." This change takes into consideration a timeline of events that is confirmed as 'him discovering her' by articles such as, http://www.timeout.com/london/clubs/features/6665/Diplo-interview.html , http://pitchfork.com/features/interviews/6006-diplo/, http://www.stylusmagazine.com/articles/weekly_article/diplo-the-stylus-interview.htm, http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/14639/81860 Also, the language of this sentence has been changed to reflect the fact that he didn't just go on to work with Robyn, proof of which can be found later in the article.

Next I've made some changes to this section of the text: "Hollertronix has been described as a "disparate genres to be smashed into each other for maximum attention-grabbing impact" aesthetic inferior to the "organic, cohesive, whole" aesthetic of acts such as M.I.A. and Bun B, and, to date, M.I.A. is hailed as the "yardstick" by which Diplo and his associates ("Friends of Diplo") are judged."

To me it seems like the language doesn't really make sense. First of all, someone describe the aesthetic of Hollertronix's work as being inferior to Bun B and M.I.A. That OPINION does not seem valid for inclusion if the piece is to remain unbiased. Also, "To date" does not seem like an accurate way to measure one person's statement from some time ago.

The sentence has been changed to read: "Hollertronix has been described as "disparate genres to be smashed together for maximum attention-grabbing impact" an aesthetic which takes from the "organic, cohesive, whole" aesthetic of acts such as Bun B, Lil Jon, Drama, M.I.A., Bjork, Busta Rhymes and others." With an added citation: http://www.formatmag.com/features/diplo/

While the Yardstick comparison is valid for inclusion, I don't believe it belongs in this portion of the bio. so I've added it further in where it now says: " They worked together after the release and he toured as a DJ on her 2005 Arular Tour. Some have referred to M.I.A. as the "yardstick" by which Diplo and his associates (Friends of Diplo) are judged." ^[1]

Also I've changed a bit of the text around this portion: "Later he stated his distaste for the album stemmed from not "feeling the vibe with some of the new producers."

I don't believe his having initially stated his reason for working in a studio outside of her home has any relation to him later stating his distaste for the album, at least not relation that can be inferred with logical validity. I've removed the word initially and changed the sentence to begin: "He stated" and then , "Later he mentioned", just for the sake of not saying "He stated" twice in a row. Davidbhutch (talk) 17:00, 10 October 2010 (UTC) Davidbhutch (talk) 17:05, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid the sources you list dont state that, they are interviews of him and are self promotional but even then, he admits she found him in a club. That's the timeline of events. Already a contentious point, and based on sources, and one of which you cite, "him discovering her" is silly when you then state M.I.A. approached him in a club after hearing one of his songs while he happened to be playing one of her songs in a club.... so it has been changed back. This takes into consideration the fact she first approached this guy from Philly whose single she liked (he liked hers too, he was playing songs of hers) and through his work with her and his claims, he has gained the kinda attention/exposure people who work with them both confirm he really loves. Lifebonzza (talk) 18:12, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

IMHO, I don't think this article is a reliable source (appears to be a blog and opinion piece) per wp:rs and propose that the associated passage ("Some have referred to M.I.A. as the "yardstick" by which Diplo and his associates (Friends of Diplo) are judged" and "Legendary artists including Bun B, DJ Marlboro and DJ Technics have been described as having "benefitted from the Hollertronix aesthetic but who haven't ever been influenced by it") are thrown out. They're not notable or fact and do not improve the article. If you guys want to improve the article, I'd propose that we focus on the facts, leave most of the associated artists out unless widely referenced/notable, and spend more time on his accomplishments instead of referencing blogs and opinion pieces. --Travis Thurston+ 21:00, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm in agreement here, although I think associated artists make sense for inclusion when it is someone he has in fact worked with. Comparisons though, I agree, not really valid.Davidbhutch (talk) 17:39, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

So who gets the final word here? Are we supposed to make the edit to solicit a response from he/she in opposition? Davidbhutch (talk) 15:05, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Yo, so I'ma go ahead with these changes then. Also, for some reason people keep changing Diplo's birthday. It is in fact November 10th 1987. The reference cited doesn't even mention it, so I'm not sure why it continues to be changed.Davidbhutch (talk) 21:17, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Also, I thought it should be mentioned... for full disclosure's sake, user Lifebonzza has worked diligently to maintain the aspects of Diplo's career that refer to negative statements associated with M.I.A. I appreciate the effort if in fact your goal is to make this a factual representation of Diplo's carreer (dispite the fact that we are in 'dispute'). It should be noted, however, that this same user is working to remove negative statements made in regards to M.I.A., and also to remove mentions of Diplo's significance pertaining to her. It would be nice to get this all resolved, and you seem to be the only one in dispute, so if you could continue to respond in this discussion, your attention would be appreciated.Davidbhutch (talk) 21:30, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I think it should be mentioned that these two particular users work diligently to remove reliably cited critical voices of this DJ and that this is not the way forward. This is shown most obviously when they leave information cited from the same publication that does not appear critical of this DJ but attack the source when it prints something critical. I suggest you read the policy on reliable sources before blanking said info. The information has been rightly returned.Lifebonzza (talk) 15:20, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

On the contrary, none of what I have added requires that source, so if your argument depends on some described hypocrisy, I'm all for removing it entirely (which I just did). Also, I just read the Wiki article on reliable sources which says this "Where a news organization publishes an opinion piece, the writer should be attributed (e.g. "Jane Smith has suggested...")." I think this, being an opinion piece, requires a similar note to make that much apparent if it is to be valid for inclusion. Of course, this just allows for the page to be littered with all kinds of "Jane Smith suggests" which I'm sure we could battle back and forth about forever. You've included this particular portion back into the piece quite randomly... illustrating a lack of concern as to the actual quality of this page, and that rather, you simply insist on including that mention, wherever, just so long as it is in here. Not sure what causes this diligence, but i digress. I propose this: Since diplo (relationship with MIA included) is not without it's controversy why don't we add another section called 'controversies' or 'criticisms' or something like that. I think that particularly the first paragraph should be concerned with him. His works, his associations etc. Like any good article it would then go into specifics of these projects, and then following this, a section devoted to his critics. What do you think? What is it you hope to see accomplished on this page? We're here to work together no? So lets communicate what we're hoping for in a broader sense, and then work together to accomplish that. Cool? Davidbhutch (talk) 15:43, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

That you are acting hypocritically is one in a long list of reasons why the information you are blanking has been reinserted. Neither should you remove information because you can't be bothered to attribute information to authors. "Of course, this just allows for the page to be littered with all kinds of "Jane Smith suggests" which I'm sure we could battle back and forth about forever." is not a valid excuse. Yes, perhaps every news piece could be considered an opinion piece, but that does not negate this piece's inclusion. Do NOT remove reliably cited info. You simply insist on removing this criticism of the DJ, coupled with your admission that you are acting on the subject's manager's behalf and your single purpose of editing on wikipedia and it comes off very strange. It has been reinserted per policy, WP:NEWSBLOG which states " Some newspapers host interactive columns that they call blogs; these are acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control." This page should read less like a manager endorsed stan page and be more balanced, that is what's needed here.Lifebonzza (talk) 13:55, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Just in glancing over this... way to entirely avoid any semblance of 'resolution' I was attempting. I'll be deleting it again in a little while, with a very similar justification. 173.15.122.38 (talk) 17:54, 20 October 2010 (UTC) My bad I'm on a new computer... DAVIDBHUTCH Singing... Davidbhutch (talk)

The "yard stick" mention is just stupid... Definitely not encyclopedic and it makes me wonder why you insist it be included. Please explain why this contributes to the article. --Travis Thurston+ 18:33, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

yes, and please not why negative statements about him are valid IN GENERAL, please discuss this specific mention. DAVIDBHUTCH 173.15.122.38 (talk) 19:19, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Removed specific reference to Robyn (since she could be interchanged with any number of names). Added a mention to Major Lazer, since that has been the focus of his efforts in the last few years, I felt it deserved a mention in the opening statements.

• Added the word Sound to the phrase describing hollertronix having to do with disparate genres etc.
• Changed “It wouldn’t be long” to “It wasn’t long”
• Moved the mention of Baile Funk to be directly after his work on the album Florida, as it doesn’t really make sense to have it in another section of the wiki. Also removed the sentence “as with most of his work, Diplo would become known…
• Broke Major Lazer off of the section about Producer and Mad Decent, as this project was on Downtown Records, and was more about collaboration with Switch than his own production. Also it has been his main focus in the last few years, so seemingly deserving of it’s own section. Added a quote from The Fader cover-story where he describes the sound. Also put his current.tv project and Heaps Decent under a section called 'Additional Projects'.
• Also, moved the additional information about ‘The Mosoleum’ back up to the paragraph that discusses ‘The Mosoleum’. Rephrased the opening words.
• On top of that, I’ve changed the low-res/blurry photo of Diplo in 2005 to a clearer, more recent photo that is similar in positioning. Davidbhutch (talk) 13:16, 23 October 2010 (UTC) Also, broke the M.I.A. Section into 3 paragraphs instead of one giant one. Davidbhutch (talk) 13:33, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion, this article need much much NPOV-ization. For example: "At this time it is rumored the two became romantically involved and continued to worked together". It is *widely* known they were a romantic couple, it has widely mentioned on several reliable sources. E.g., :

"When they broke up, M.I.A. posted on her blog something to the effect of how much it sucks for your boyfriend to leave you to make songs for Brazilian strippers (someone needs to start keeping her away from the internet when she’s mad), and in the Hirschberg piece it’s revealed that he’s not even allowed in her house anymore, even though they are still making some music together."

Also, like most of Wikipedia articles about a musician, I think it should include 'a neutral personal life section', separated from the career section, mentioning at least the MIA dating and the subsequent break-up. I don't have the time to make these edits but my two cents on this neverending discussion is that Davidbhutch is too much of a fan of Diplo, and one with lots of time, perseverance, and diligence in turning this article into promotional materials for the DJ. xDCDx (talk) 23:10, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I say Be Bold and make those changes... more neutrality and accuracy would be welcomed. --Travis Thurston+ 23:25, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I just removed a "Controversies" section that has been added as part of the backlash against him due to recent actions. While I understand "the internet" doesn't like Diplo today, he's been a controversial figure in the music scene for years. If somebody wants to create a well cited controversies section that covers the entirety of his career (MIA and Taylor Swift spring to mind) then please include it. However dedicating an entire section of an extremely notable artist's article on an event that will be mostly forgotten in three days is inappropriate. Brandon (talk) 10:07, 13 February 2015 (UTC) 2-11 never 4get — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.114.142.211 (talk) 02:50, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

"an event that will be mostly forgotten in three days" is the author's unfounded personal opinion. If a user wants to ad those other controversies, he can do it himself, not eliminate the category all together, especially for a public figure that he acknowledges that has been in many thorough his entire public career.

Hi, I'm missing a note about Major Lazer (TV series) which seems to be created by Diplo. (Maybe in Additional Work?) — Tauriel-1 (☎) 12:01, 29 December 2015 (UTC)