Talk:Mădălin Voicu

message: The term "well-known" should always be specified, as to where he is "well-known" or to specify in what field he is "well-known." Personally, I discourage using this term because it is somehow culturally biased and should be applied only to identify people that are "well-known" in their field of work. Is he well-known in Denmark? Is he well-known in India? I have never heard of him. Most people living in industrial countries have probably never heard of him. In fact, are violinist "well-known" at all? Here are a few examples of famous people: Bill Gates, Julius Caesar, Marilyn Monroe, Marilyn Manson. Those people are bigger celebreties that the guy whose last name I just happened to forget because he is not "well-known," but should we use that term to define all of those celebrities? I think not. I think we should explain what "well-known" stands for because nothing in this world is so "well-known." You cay say that one is well-known for being a dick; or well-known in his field of science; or well-known for discovering X; or well-known in location X for doing activity Y; but without specification, the "well-known" becomes an absolute, and not even prophets enjoy such fame. --Thus Spake Anittas 19:32, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Generally, I tend to agree with you. However, in this case it is not at all controversial to say that he was famous etc., and, in full, the sentence says that he was a "well-known musician" - and he was, as opposed to other musicians, and taking in view the limited public appeal of his genre (incidentally, he was probably well-known in Denmark, though I cannot vouch for him being well-known in India). See for instance here, here, here, here. These and other links refer to him as "great", "renowned", and other things. Dahn 20:15, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You could write that he was well-known in his native country and that he enjoyed a great amount of success abroad, but I don't think you can make any exception to what I said above, to anyone; and I don't think you can find any article written by professionals that refer to someone for simply being "well known" without identifying their achievements or explaining the term. See for example a list of well-known Canadians. If you find me a single such article, I will force myself to contribute to the article on Bucharest by adding positive things, no matter how difficult they are to be found. --Thus Spake Anittas 20:41, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Anittas, the links I provided are both non-Romanian and contributed by professionals (neither of the links you cite are professional, and they don't appear to add anything to your point). Also, the text does say that he was a well-known musician, and I do believe the extra info belongs in the article on him rather than here. Dahn 20:45, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wasn't debating the credibility of your sources or that he doesn't deserve to be identified as a celebrity. It is a matter of semantics and I believe the formulation is incorrect. I'm quite indifferent to this, but let's agree to disagree. --Thus Spake Anittas 20:53, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Addentum: I also think that "well-known" should stand for a certain amount of pularity presently enjoyed among the general public. It should not stand for definitions such as being respectful, critical acclaimed, or merely being successful. That is how I define the term, unless anything else is provided and yes, a "well-known" musician should be a musician known for the vast consumers of music. Unfortunatelly, I don't see how any such Romanian musician can be given that credit: not even Enescu or Porumbescu. If "well-known" stands for their past status, then that, too, should be explained. --Thus Spake Anittas 21:11, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Well-known