Talk:Kula Shaker

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"aligations of racism"[edit]

I removed this comment " The band are still dogged by aligations of racism to this day[citation needed]." from the article for several reasons. First of all I firmly believe it is untrue. They are not dogged with allegations of racism. They may be looked upon as something of a figure of fun and occasionally as a stupid band, but they are not commonly regarded as racists. The prevailing view of Crispian's actions in 1997 is VERY MUCH that he was stupid and misguided, but NOT racist. Even if one quality contemporary source was found alleging they were racists (actually I don't believe such a source could be found) it wouldn't be representative of what is written about the band (which is that Crispian was at most, a bumbling fool over the swastika issue - not a racist). As a side issue, as this article is about living people, to throw allegations of racism around is not acceptable without a source in any case so the comment should not be added even with a 'citation needed' tag. Such a comment would have to be sourced before inclusion. As for the swastika issue itself, it's dealt with very well in this article and that section is actually well sourced and balanced. It doesn't seem there's anything to add to that.

I'm happy with that (I added the {{Fact}} tag, whilst liking the band I haven't the depth of knowledge you have on the band, and yet I nearly removed it for the same reasons you gave,but settled for the tag, but your edits get my vote. --C Hawke (talk) 19:55, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of actual comments from the controversy section[edit]

User Jossi removed the quoted comments from the controvesy section. The comments (which are well sourced in the article) are what caused the controvesy, the controvesy which remains to this day for better or worse, one of the things most closely associated with this multi-platinum act. To just say 'he made some comments' which was all that was effectively all that was left after Jossi's edit of the section, just raises the question of what those comments were and explains absolutely nothing. Also, given that this is a biography of a living person, it's only fair to give an accurate indication of the comments, with sources, rather than to gesture at them ambiguously. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.81.3.99 (talk) 08:22, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added the actual comments for a very good reason. There are websites which use wikipedia articles as a feed on their websites, the problem with that is that reference links are lost. For example virgin radio's website on the biography of kula shaker is a feed of this wikipedia article, yet all reference links, including the ones to the controversial statements, are lost [1]. By putting the actual conversation in the text then that solves that problem. Otherwise the way the section is worded makes the statement by Crispian sound ominous and supportive of hitler, which the actual comments by him shows that not to be the case. Shiva das 02:32, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe that it's wikipedia's policy to tailor its articles in response to the fact that copy-sites lose the references, so I'm not sure that in itself is a justifiable reason for editing an article. That said, personally I have no objection to the fuller comments from the interview being reproduced in this article, but I can see the point that perhaps reproducing so large a section of the actual interview might be disproportionate to this wikipedia article's length, especially given that links are provided in the article so that wiki users can read the full interview sections themselves if they so wish. So in summary - I have no objection to the interview section being kept in this wiki article, but if other wiki editors feel that it's overlong, then BY FAR the best alternative is to have the quoted comments with links, rather than to just change the article to say 'he made some comments' (which it did at one point say, this was what prompted my adding of this section to the talk page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.17.226.51 (talk) 17:04, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Controvesy section[edit]

I have now fully sourced this section. The full text of the Independent article of 20 April 1997 is available online. So is the entire fax Mills sent to the Independent. Links are in the references section of the article. In addition the relevant sections from the NME which include the most notorious swastika and Hitler comments, are available scanned for viewing online (again, see the references section). I should add that this section is certainly extremely relevant to the band's career and therefore encyclopaedic - for example, almost every review of the recent third album in the UK press makes reference to the 'nazi incident' or 'swastika incident' or things along these lines. It is perhaps to this day what the band are most associated with in the United Kingdom and so deserves a mention, sourced and in context, on wikipedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.17.226.51 (talk) 23:52, August 21, 2007 (UTC)



UK press coverage[edit]

According to the BBC [2]:

However, the band's reputation was damaged by savage attacks in the UK music press following comments Mills made about Nazism.
He told NME he wanted to have "great big burning swastikas onstage" and that "Hitler knew a lot more than he made out. You can see why Hitler got support. It was probably the uniforms that swung it".

According to the Guardian [3]:

Months of adoring press coverage evaporated when frontman Crispian Mills told the NME: "I love the swastika! It symbolises peace and the sun and illumination." It also transpired that his previous band, the Objects of Desire, used the slogan: "England will rise again." Silly rather than racist, Mills never shook off the controversy, and Kula Shaker's second was a flop.

-- The Anome 23:13, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Membership[edit]

I think this article needs a statement of who the members are, and how they got together, right upfront, rather than just mentioning them down near the bottom, when talking about what other projects they've been in. It might also be nice to have some early history, like how they got together and how they got signed, etc. At the very least, there should me a "Members" section, at the bottom, just above discography. And speaking of discography, why not a subsection on singles? Just trying to offer some suggestions. -Freekee 20:11, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy[edit]

"and went on to suggest that the swastika was "a brilliant image" which symbolised "peace and the sun and illumination." In the interview's most notorious quote, he expressed a desire to have a "great big flaming swastika on stage". It should be noted however that the swastika is indeed an ancient mystic symbol, and it did originally have the meaning Mills gave it. Thus, he was correct in his comments about the swastika "

This was added in the last edit. However it is not necessarily correct; it expresses a point of view it says Mills' comments were 'correct' and yet Mills said "the swastika was "a brilliant image" which symbolised "peace and the sun and illumination."" - now the whole point at issue is that the swastika does not, in the West, symbolise those things anymore (Mills even admitted this in his later apology) thus his comments were arguably not 'correct'. I'm going to revert the the change, please comment here if you wish to dispute it. -- 2-J

You are not quite correct. Since there are millions of hindus and buddhists and native americans living in the west who revere the swastika as a sacred religious symbol your claim about people in the "west" is not correct. Regardless, the quote you object to makes clear that the original meaning of the swastika is what Mills refered to. In Asia the swastika is used widely and can be seen everywhere in India used for both religious and secular purposes as a good luck symbol, it is also in Buddhist temples and other places throughout Asia. Regardless of what many people in the "west" think about the swastika in point of fact most people in the world live in Asia where the swastika is seen as Mills describes it. Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia devoted to eurocentric or western views of the world.Shiva das 20:50, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


What were the "ill-advised remarks" about swastikas? Any links?

  • From what I remember from the time, basically talking about the other historic symbolism and spirituality of the symbol (which is mentioned elsewhere in wikipedia). All true, but given the press es mentality here in the UK "ill-advised" is a pretty good description. DarkCryst 21:04, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the controversy section reference is made to William Cooper and there are two links to articles about him. Unfortunately they link to two different articles. One about William Milton Cooper and one to a disambiguation page for William Cooper. Is William Milton Cooper the correct one or not? --Wikipediatastic 10:01, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- William Milton Cooper is the correct William Cooper in this instance. I've made the links consistent.

I changed the part where it said that Cooper was an antisemite after doing some research on him. His theories were originally about aliens who had crashed landed in the 1940's and were working with "the new world order" in order to control the destiny of humanity, he was also into the UFO subculture. Later he recanted and claimed that he no longer believed in UFOs or aliens, he claimed that the UFO movement was created and sustained by the "Illuminati" for various nefarious reasons. Although he printed the "protocols of zion" in one of his books he introduced it as being not of jewish origin and wrote that the references to jews in it were inserted into it by non jews. This is a commonplace conspiracy theory today. The idea is that the freemasons, or the illuminati, or even the jesuits, originally wrote the protocols of zion outlining their master plan, but that later references to jews as the authors were added in order to demonize jews. Depending on the conspiracy theory the addition of jews was added either by the russian secret police to rile up anitsemitism in russia (which is mainstream thinking today), the jesuits to rile up anitsemitism everywhere, or the masons or the illuminati in order to rile up antisemitism. After searching through his writings I could find nothing where he demonizes jews and several places where he claims that the "Illuminati" are people from many religious backgrounds who were behind the holocaust and whose purpose it is to destroy the jews along with other religions. Shiva das 20:19, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What Does 'Kula Shaker' Mean?[edit]

If it has a meaning, it should be mentioned...if it's meaningless, then that should be mentioned, too. I'd do it myself except I don't know and the official website doesn't give any clues ;) 63.230.177.22 14:42, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- well the page explains that Kula Shaker is in reference to Kulasekhara, and also explains the origins of the Kulasekhara name. As I understand it the reasoning for the change from "Kulasekhera" to "Kula Shaker" was simply make it sound a bit snappier for use as a group name, and doesn't have any deeper logic to it than that. But I can't really find a concise way to work that into the article.

-Kulashekhara or properly: Kulaśekhara, is prounounced Kula-shake-are or arah. Crispian told the story that a friend of his named Kulaśekhara Das[4]] knew George Harrison of the Beatles and he used to tell Crispian stories of his time with George and the Beatles, and that's where Crispian got the inspiration for the name Kula Shaker. Kulaśekhara Das was named by his guru when he was initiated into a Hindu sect after the King Kulashekhara who wrote the famous Mukunda Mala Stotras[5] King Kulashekara was one of the Alvars. Kula Shaker's music company is called Alvar Music.Shiva das 23:06, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

koola in gujarati community means bum, must be some african influence - kula shaker makes it funny — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrkks (talk • contribs) 19:20, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Complete list of recordings[edit]

Apologies to the person who supplied this, but I don't think it's appropriate for the band's main page. As far as I'm concerned the first page should just list the band's albums - to list every album track, B-side and obscure live track (some of which may have only been played a handful of times) is a useful reference, but only for people seeking further detail. Plus, it was cluttering up the front page due to the fact that each letter from A to Z appeared as a separate entry in the contents at the top of the main page, forcing people to scroll down just to start reading about the band themselves.

Anyway, rather than lose it completely, I've saved the list to my webspace and added it as a link here instead. If anyone wants the list updating then just let me know via the discussion page and I'll get it done.

Would make more sense in my view to have it as a separate page in wiki. Nige 08:44, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that makes sense - I didn't do it myself because I don't know about creating new pages or about the rules / etiquette for doing so. If someone else wants to do it then that's great. Drykid 20:54, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How can I get tickets?....[edit]

I´m a great Kula Shaker fan and I need some help.I´m from Serbia and here is very difficult to hear a word about them,there are are almost no fans and informations.I wanted to know how can I buy a ticket for their concert(I´ve heard that they are always sold out long before the concert)and if they are playing somewhere else,except in England.Please let me know...it would make my life wish come true!And if there´s at least one Kula Shaker fan who would like to help me getting tickets and maybe being my company on the concert,please contact me.My e-mail adress is ds.Liliana@yahoo.com.Thanks!LilianaDS 00:08, 9 December 2006 (UTC)Liliana[reply]


TRIVIA[edit]

The trivia section is without any references. Also it includes several defamatory statements without reference, rhyme or reason. So I am removing it. If the person who posted the trivia wants to keep it there he or she must provide references, also various peoples personal opinions about the band is not what a wikipedia article is for. e.g the opinion of Mary Lutyens, etc. Shiva das 00:03, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Much of the trivia had citations and references. Are you an idiot?


I may be an idiot but you do not understand what a citation or reference is for trivia. There were no references or citations in the triva section for the trivia mentioned. All the links were to wikipedia articles on the people and companies mentioned but not to the trivia being mentioned. For example from this part:

At the peak of their Britpop fame Mills was said to have been considering a Britpop mega-band with members of Northern Uproar, Menswe@r and These Animal Men

The links were not to a reference of the trivia mentioned, they were links to wikipedia articles on those groups. How do we know that the claim is true? You need reference, a citation of that trivia from a reputable source. All of the links in the triva section were like that, not a single reference to the trivia being mentioned was in the triva section. Shiva das 01:22, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If something is mentioned in an old newsspaper or whatever and you remember it how can you be expected to source it? Except from from mind? Lots of wikipedia articles are this way. Furthermore, the Kula Shaker cocktail did exist and SHOULD be mentioned.


The problem is that anyone can say anything and how can we know it is true without a reference? This is wikipedia's policy on trivia:

"Keep in mind, however, that "trivia" content is not exempt from our rules and style guidelines. Wikipedia is not supposed to be a dumping ground for speculation, rumor, invented "facts", or libel — continue to follow Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Cite your sources, and Wikipedia:Biographies of living people. If you have doubts about whether your fact is suitable for inclusion, place it on the talk page instead where other interested contributors can help consider its inclusion and locate suitable references."

Especially read the article on citing sources.

Also from the policy on citing sources:

"Biographies of living persons should be sourced with particular care, for legal and ethical reasons. All negative material about living persons must cite a reliable source. Do not wait for another editor to request a source. If you find unsourced or poorly sourced negative material about a living person — whether in an article or on a talk page — remove it immediately! Do not leave it in the article and ask for a source. Do not move it to the talk page. This applies whether the material is in a biography or any other article." Shiva das 23:35, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:KulaShaker K.jpg[edit]

The image Image:KulaShaker K.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --05:51, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hush[edit]

In the Abbey Road remaster of Deep Purple - Shades of Deep Purple libretto, the editor writes: "Hush" even reared in psychedelia-tinged head again in the late '90s when Kula Shaker unashamedly reproduced Deep Purple's cover of a Joe South original almost note for note, (etc...) Anyone can get some more info on this? └ VodkaJazz / talk ┐ 13:58, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Complete re-write[edit]

This article is a mass of text with only three citations to support (one of which is a fan site, and the other two do not at all appear to fully support what they're being used for). I searched for citations to support some of the unreferenced material, but my lack of success illuminated the fact that we simply have an obvious OR-, weasel word- and NPOV vio-riddled article, written in an over-zealous fanzine tone. A complete re-write would seem the only option. Otherwise, the article should be reduced to a supported stub. Jplarkin (talk) 10:52, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Best reduced to stub. Cite one (from BPI) is bogus and does not support the band's sales, as claimed. Cite three is a fansite, leaving only one reliable cite (which simply covers a controversial statement by Mills - nothing about the band or its history) to support this oversized, OR-laden article. It's just not enough. Superfluous images also removed. If expanding, please ensure that the article is fully cited. Jplarkin (talk) 16:50, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.bpi.co.uk/certifiedawards/search.aspx and search 'Kula Shaker' and you will see their debut album went double (i.e. multi) platinum. ~ Mr.K

Integrate it into the stub if you want. Not in the opening sentence, however, as this is no longer policy. Jplarkin (talk) 18:43, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have reverted much of the removal of text and "section blanking" undertaken by Jplarkin and IP user 86.15.169.200, who I suspect are the same person. I agree that this article needs more inline citations, is not written in a wholly encyclopedic way, and may contain original research. However, to abitrailly delete vast sections of the article without consensus—including information which is factually accurate for the most part—is not desirable as laid out by the guide lines found at Wikipedia:Editing_policy#Talking_and_editing and could even be misconstrude as vandalism, although I don't believe that's the case here. In addition, it also seems like a lazy deletionist alternative to rewriting the article or actually getting online and finding some reliable refs for this article.
Unreferenced text, especially unreferenced text which isn't harmful, should not be automatically deleted, as specified at WP:NOCITE (otherwise 90% of Wikipedia would end up being deleted!). Yes, ideally almost every sentence should be supported by an inline reference but that's what we have tags & banners like Template:Unreferenced and [citation needed] for, and these should be used first to encourage editors to add refs, as per WP:NOCITE and WP:V. Deleting large portions of text in an article without editor consensus is frowned upon on wikipedia, as per WP:EDIT. Consensus has in NO WAY been reached here—this talk page section basically consists of Jplarkin talking to himself, and that's NOT a consensus!
Some of the section blanking, like removing the TV appearances section for example, is fair enough because it wasn't encyclopedic and was woefully incomplete. Likewise, I agree that the sales info would be better placed in the Kula Shaker discography article but it would've been good if this info had actually been relocated to the discography article—rather than just deleted. In closing, I understand the rational behind this wholesale removal of text but I disagree that its appropriate or beneficial to the article.
Having reverted much of the section blanking, I will attempt to go through the article over the coming weeks, copy editing, re-writing in a more NPOV style and adding inline refs. Oh, and as an aside, saying that the band are a multi-platinum selling band is not in contravention of NPOV - it's an indication of their commercial success and as such, should be disclosed in the lead. It's no different to saying the Amazon River is the biggest in the world, that's not peacockery or non-NPOV—it's an important fact that readers should be made aware of. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 18:55, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have reverted the last edit by Jplarkin for the reasons I have already outlined above and as supported by WP:EDIT. To be clear, I am not accusing anyone of Sockpuppetry, I merely surmised that Jplarkin had edited under the IP address 86.15.169.200 before creating an account...perhaps I'm wrong on that score though. Regardless, large deletions of content shouldn't be undertaken without editor consensus as per Wikipedia:Editing_policy#Talking_and_editing. The "discussion" that has taken place on this talk page is not consensus—it consists of two posts by Jplarkin alone, four days apart...and that's not an adequate amount of time to wait before blanking whole sections of an article. As I have already stated, despite its unencyclopedic tone, this article contains much factually accurate information and is still of use to readers for that very reason. I aim to go through the entire article myself with a fine tooth comb over the coming weeks, rewriting and adding inline references to improve it. Please do not revert this page again, an edit war over this is unnecessary and should be avoided at all costs. Instead, please let’s discuss this matter here on the talk page. At the end of the day, we both want to improve this article; I just think that this can be achieved without deleting a large proportion of it. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 10:02, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Date of taking name 'Kula Shaker'[edit]

I realise the official biography on the band's website says that they took the name in November 1995, but that is false. For example, winning that competition which resulted in the record deal (September 1995) they were already called Kula Shaker on the bill and signed under that name. Here is the compilation CD for that 1995 competition:- http://eil.com/shop/moreinfo.asp?catalogid=112063 also there is a Japanese fansite with Kula Shaker tour dates in the discography from around Spring 1995... May 1995 is correct, November 1995 demonstrably false. It could be the site meant to list November 1994 as when that conversation between Crispian and the Indian mystic guy took place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.15.169.200 (talk) 20:46, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, OK...I was the editor who changed the date from May 1995 to November 1995 as a result of seeing it on the KS website but I must admit, I thought that November sounded late. My understanding had always been that it was around spring time 1995. The current ref to the official KS site following that particular sentence can remain because it supports the origin of the band's name but I'll have to try and have a scout around for an alternate third party source to corroberate a May 1995 date. Thanks for the input! --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 20:55, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Members timeline[edit]

Is a member's timeline really necessary? The band has only ever had a single lineup change for one member in its history, it just seems like an unnecessary presentation of a simple fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pechark (talk • contribs) 13:42, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hyperbole[edit]

This whole article has the feel of being created by an over-enthusiastic groupie, or perhaps even someone associated with the band itself. It is dangerously close to being a piece of active promotion/advertising. It overstates and inflates things at every opportunity and (I'm sorry if this offends any Kula Shaker fans) but it gives the impression that they are a much bigger and more important band than they actually are. Indeed there are many artists of greater significance with smaller Wikipedia articles than this. While most of the page is referenced, a Wikipedia article should not read like a feature from some 1996 edition of NME magazine.

Please keep hyperbole to a minimum and remember that a casual Encyclopedia article should not refer to everything including the colour of a band's tour bus just because it happens to be true. --Tomsega (talk) 09:33, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling of the drummer's name[edit]

The name of the drummer is rendered as either Paul Winter-Hart or Paul Winterheart at various places in the article. On the band's official website, he's called Paul Winterhart. [1] I will make edits to reflect that version throughout the article, but am noting it here in case there's some objection or question about whether it's appropriate. VAMark (talk) 15:25, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://www.kulashaker.co.uk/category/paul/

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kula Shaker. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:43, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kula Shaker. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:58, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Makeover[edit]

I would greatly recommend that this article gets a major makeover, such as removing unnecessary images and sources and making the top of the article more organized and neater like other good-to-decent quality articles on music artists. Dean12065 (talk) 12:51, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kula_Shaker&oldid=1203239944"