Talk:Riddim (genre)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 9 January 2020 and 18 April 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): StevenTsoukas.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:07, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Source for Riddim Dubstep Creation

https://edmc.nu/music/riddim-sub-section-done-27638/?page=3 Reprogram0871 (talk) 18:27, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

This page is not available to anyone who is not signed into the site. Plus it looks to be a message board where anyone can post, so it's not considered a reliable source. ... discospinster _talk 20:57, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

@Discospinster How is it not a reliable source? This is literally where it originated. It started on a forum. I can show you the rendered html to read for yourself. Are you also saying that EDM.com and Infekt are not a reliable source either? Because they both also reference clubland. Reprogram0871 (talk) 21:08, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

It's a message board and it is not a reliable source because anyone can post anything they want on a message board. ... discospinster _talk 21:10, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Yet all of these sources stating origin on Clubland:

https://edm.com/interviews/subtronics-interview

https://infektdubstep.com/trench/

https://twitter.com/SweetToothAudio/status/1592597940790767616?s=20

Sources are stating Clubland and I am literally providing the Clubland URLs of the original forum posts starting genre.

If this all started on a music forum, yet you are not excepting a music forum as a source, then how am I supposed to give you a source that doesn't exist prior to this? Reprogram0871 (talk) 21:26, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

https://edm.com/interviews/subtronics-interview:

"There has been so much controversy since the word riddim popped up because loads of people were like “hey, uh yeah that's already the name for another genre.” It's only called riddim in our world because a website where kids used to leak dubplates, Clubland, used “riddim” as a hashtag to find us. "

https://infektdubstep.com/trench/:

"As the sound was gaining more fans, a website called ClublandLV (which was popular among Dubstep fans, but was infamous for piracy), published a new category for this sound and called it "Riddim”. Many fans and producers of the sound were extremely reluctant to use this term. Nobody really knew who came up with it, why it was named after Jamaican "riddims", and they especially didn't want to validate a piracy platform that was generally looked down upon. Overall, “Riddim” just didn't seem like it was a good fit for the sound. For the first few years, you would always see people use it as a joke. Then suddenly, bigger artists started to use it (often ironically), and it ended up getting so much attention that the name was now inextricably linked to the genre, much to the dislike of many of its own producers. And then because the term was so widely used-often simply because it got a lot of attention, even if it wasn't fitting at all—the definition of the genre got lost almost completely."

https://twitter.com/SweetToothAudio/status/1592597940790767616?s=20

"Who remembers the great “this isn’t riddim” debate of 2013 where that fateful clubland interview branded the genre forever. I personally preferred the terms “swamp, wonk, and Hench” but ultimately everyone just gave up cause “riddim” stuck." Reprogram0871 (talk) 21:38, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

When WP:Reliable sources are not available to expand a topic, the topic should NOT be expanded with unreliable sources. I think the ideas expressed on the online forum need to be digested by a reliable WP:SECONDARY source who can pick out the relevant parts and interpret the topic. Binksternet (talk) 21:45, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

How should I proceed with providing this? This information is an integral part of how this sub-genre started, and should not be excluded from public record. Reprogram0871 (talk) 21:51, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Wait for a music journalist to write about it. Binksternet (talk) 22:19, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

That has already been provided, please re-read my links. Reprogram0871 (talk) 22:21, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Furthermore, your definitions you provided of reliable source was already covered in what I provided. My source is "The piece of work itself", "The creator of the work" [FrostByte], and "The publisher of the work" [ClublandLV]. My link also covers "Definition of published": "any source that was made available to the public in some form". Clubland is free to the public to signup, plus I have the rendered HTML page, which is public archive.

Definition of a source

A source is where the material comes from. For example, a source could be a book or a webpage. A source can be reliable or unreliable for the material it is meant to support. Some sources, such as unpublished texts and an editor's own personal experience, are prohibited.

When editors talk about sources that are being cited on Wikipedia, they might be referring to any one of these three concepts:

The piece of work itself (the article, book)

The creator of the work (the writer, journalist)

The publisher of the work (for example, Random House or Cambridge University Press)

Any of the three can affect reliability. Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both. These qualifications should be demonstrable to other people.

Definition of published

Published means, for Wikipedia's purposes, any source that was made available to the public in some form. The term is most commonly associated with text materials, either in traditional printed format or online; however, audio, video, and multimedia materials that have been recorded then broadcast, distributed, or archived by a reputable party may also meet the necessary criteria to be considered reliable sources. Like text, media must be produced by a reliable source and be properly cited. Additionally, an archived copy of the media must exist. It is convenient, but by no means necessary, for the archived copy to be accessible via the Internet. Reprogram0871 (talk) 22:26, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

https://edm.com/interviews/subtronics-interview

https://infektdubstep.com/trench/ Reprogram0871 (talk) 22:27, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

That has already been provided, please re-read my links. Reprogram0871 (talk) 22:21, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

So far no one has contested my additional links. I would would like further analysis please. These are two experts in the field backing my claims. Reprogram0871 (talk) 22:47, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

The infektdubstep is someone's Wordpress site, and certainly doesn't qualify as a source. The EDM is questionable as an WP:RS, but even at that it's a single interview, which is a bit thin for claims you are making. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:40, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

What is is you are looking for then? I feel we are being really vague around what is qualified and what is not. Reprogram0871 (talk) 23:45, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

I feel anything short of an academic paper isn't going to suffice given this dispute. Where are the sources/citations disproving what I am saying? So far, I haven't seen any evidence. Seems a bit unreasonable if I may speak plainly. Reprogram0871 (talk) 23:49, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

It would be great to see the topic treated by AllMusic, Pitchfork, NME, Red Bull, Billboard, Spin, Sound on Sound, MusicRadar, The Verge, Genius.com, Complex magazine, Vice.com or any uninvolved party that is an expert on the topic of music, something like this Museum of Youth Culture writing about dubstep but for riddim/trench/whatever they call this topic. Binksternet (talk) 23:58, 19 May 2023 (UTC)