This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Juju (Siouxsie and the Banshees album) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | Juju (Siouxsie and the Banshees album) received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
|
![]() | The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:
|
This brand new user, 2601:A:4100:5A:642E:1EB6:B88:2B18 with a brand new ip has been vandalising this page for two months for genre warring. BEATWEAKer edited the same thing at this article on 01:10, 9 September 2012 as 2601:A:4100:5A:642E:1EB6:B88:2B18, what a coincidence. This was quickly corrected 15 minutes later by IllaZilla at 01:44, 9 September 2012 . Plus now he tries to add a source that is a blog. Carliertwo ( talk) 15:59, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
The page is probably benefiting from a reworking and extra material going in, but can I just query the splitting of the "Critical reception" and "Legacy" sections in this edit? Allmusic AFAIK is a retrospective/reference site, ie their album features are not a contemporaneous review that fits properly under a "Reception" header. I'd merged them a while back precisely for that reason, so that the Allmusic and Guardian etc stuff was altogether. N-HH talk/ edits 00:11, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
Carliertwo and Lachlan Foley: TOTALLY aside from your disagreement here, the BOTH of you keep reverting each other, and in the process, you have been undoing edits I have made that correct misspellings, typos, and other factual errors unrelated to your argument. I would please ask you to be more careful. This will be the THIRD time I have corrected the spelling of the word "unconventional."
Greg Fasolino (
talk) 16:54, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Sounds (magazine) 's review were reverted three times by Lachlan Foley on 4 May, here, and once again on 5 May, here and finally on 2 June, here. This is wp:vandalism. Is this user lazy?, is it too much to ask that he reads other people's contributions before to click on the button "undo", seriously! Carliertwo ( talk) 15:24, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Discogs was not approved by a very large majority of several WP users in a discussion here. Carliertwo ( talk) 16:10, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
The WP manual of style is clear. It doesn't encourage half-baked propositions like naming a section: genre connection. The manual of style only offers this solution: Musical style, writing, composition. User Lachlan Foley doesn't respect a wp:neutral point of view in his edit here. Indeed, the professionnal Juju reviews written by Allmusic here, Sounds (magazine) here and The Guardian here don't mention once the genre that he's desesperate to connect this LP with. Allmusic qualified this Lp as "a post-punk classic" and only with this term, they didn't write a gothic classic. The WP users always have to wp:STICKTOSOURCE, if they are synthesing several published materials to advance a position, it is wp:original research. If you give a big weight to a position that doesn't represent the opinions of the majority of the reviews, it is wp:undue weight. Regarding the parts Lochhan Foley added from Paytress's biography, it's far too long and there are not from professionnal critics. Chainsaw is not a writer. Who cares of what he's saying. He's not a critic. Same remark for Phil Oakey. Chainsaw and Phil Oakey opinions should not be worked into an article about Juju- they haven't made any dent into their career or critical credibility, their opinions mean nothing. As compared to the other opinions out there that say "this lp is post-punk". A marginal opinion is definitely notable for inclusion, if the source is reliable - and if the article is avoiding any issues with wp:undue weight, which is my issue here. The article should establish post-punk as the main genre. Carliertwo ( talk) 15:24, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
there is edit warring over the genre the band are specified as being in the lead sentence. I would like to have some sort of vote in order to establish which it will be. if this is not actually a valid way of going about things and there is a rule against having votes, let me know.
what do you think the genre in the lead sentence should be?
Post-punk, for two main reasons: 1. They weren't just a post-punk band, they were (along with a few others) the founders of post-punk and literally defined the genre. 2. The bulk of their career, including their most influential work, was post-punk. The merit of their last work aside, objectively speaking, you could erase the last few Banshees albums entirely and their 1990s career in total without changing the band's impact on music history and culture at all. Greg Fasolino ( talk) 13:12, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
I object to the use of a poll as a substitute for discussion; it smacks of gaming the system by Lachlan Foley because he isn't getting his way. The logic would be to keep "English rock band" as it is put on the Siouxsie and the Banshees article. "English rock band" only, because they constantly evolved: punk in early 77, then from July 1977 til 1984 post-punk, and then alternative rock without mentionning some of their singles that can only be categorised as pop. Carliertwo ( talk) 18:16, 12 June 2013 (UTC) McGeoch was Scottish, not English
Woovee and Carliertwo, any thoughts on how to deal with the recent genre warring? This editor seems hell-bent on inserting their own dislike for the sources into articles. Greg Fasolino ( talk) 05:28, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
As written, the article has a release date of 19 June 1981 but several other sources report 6 June 1981 and it didn't chart until 27 June 1981. Is there an authoritative source for this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.121.143.6 ( talk) 11:07, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Juju (Siouxsie and the Banshees album) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | Juju (Siouxsie and the Banshees album) received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
|
![]() | The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:
|
This brand new user, 2601:A:4100:5A:642E:1EB6:B88:2B18 with a brand new ip has been vandalising this page for two months for genre warring. BEATWEAKer edited the same thing at this article on 01:10, 9 September 2012 as 2601:A:4100:5A:642E:1EB6:B88:2B18, what a coincidence. This was quickly corrected 15 minutes later by IllaZilla at 01:44, 9 September 2012 . Plus now he tries to add a source that is a blog. Carliertwo ( talk) 15:59, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
The page is probably benefiting from a reworking and extra material going in, but can I just query the splitting of the "Critical reception" and "Legacy" sections in this edit? Allmusic AFAIK is a retrospective/reference site, ie their album features are not a contemporaneous review that fits properly under a "Reception" header. I'd merged them a while back precisely for that reason, so that the Allmusic and Guardian etc stuff was altogether. N-HH talk/ edits 00:11, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
Carliertwo and Lachlan Foley: TOTALLY aside from your disagreement here, the BOTH of you keep reverting each other, and in the process, you have been undoing edits I have made that correct misspellings, typos, and other factual errors unrelated to your argument. I would please ask you to be more careful. This will be the THIRD time I have corrected the spelling of the word "unconventional."
Greg Fasolino (
talk) 16:54, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Sounds (magazine) 's review were reverted three times by Lachlan Foley on 4 May, here, and once again on 5 May, here and finally on 2 June, here. This is wp:vandalism. Is this user lazy?, is it too much to ask that he reads other people's contributions before to click on the button "undo", seriously! Carliertwo ( talk) 15:24, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Discogs was not approved by a very large majority of several WP users in a discussion here. Carliertwo ( talk) 16:10, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
The WP manual of style is clear. It doesn't encourage half-baked propositions like naming a section: genre connection. The manual of style only offers this solution: Musical style, writing, composition. User Lachlan Foley doesn't respect a wp:neutral point of view in his edit here. Indeed, the professionnal Juju reviews written by Allmusic here, Sounds (magazine) here and The Guardian here don't mention once the genre that he's desesperate to connect this LP with. Allmusic qualified this Lp as "a post-punk classic" and only with this term, they didn't write a gothic classic. The WP users always have to wp:STICKTOSOURCE, if they are synthesing several published materials to advance a position, it is wp:original research. If you give a big weight to a position that doesn't represent the opinions of the majority of the reviews, it is wp:undue weight. Regarding the parts Lochhan Foley added from Paytress's biography, it's far too long and there are not from professionnal critics. Chainsaw is not a writer. Who cares of what he's saying. He's not a critic. Same remark for Phil Oakey. Chainsaw and Phil Oakey opinions should not be worked into an article about Juju- they haven't made any dent into their career or critical credibility, their opinions mean nothing. As compared to the other opinions out there that say "this lp is post-punk". A marginal opinion is definitely notable for inclusion, if the source is reliable - and if the article is avoiding any issues with wp:undue weight, which is my issue here. The article should establish post-punk as the main genre. Carliertwo ( talk) 15:24, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
there is edit warring over the genre the band are specified as being in the lead sentence. I would like to have some sort of vote in order to establish which it will be. if this is not actually a valid way of going about things and there is a rule against having votes, let me know.
what do you think the genre in the lead sentence should be?
Post-punk, for two main reasons: 1. They weren't just a post-punk band, they were (along with a few others) the founders of post-punk and literally defined the genre. 2. The bulk of their career, including their most influential work, was post-punk. The merit of their last work aside, objectively speaking, you could erase the last few Banshees albums entirely and their 1990s career in total without changing the band's impact on music history and culture at all. Greg Fasolino ( talk) 13:12, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
I object to the use of a poll as a substitute for discussion; it smacks of gaming the system by Lachlan Foley because he isn't getting his way. The logic would be to keep "English rock band" as it is put on the Siouxsie and the Banshees article. "English rock band" only, because they constantly evolved: punk in early 77, then from July 1977 til 1984 post-punk, and then alternative rock without mentionning some of their singles that can only be categorised as pop. Carliertwo ( talk) 18:16, 12 June 2013 (UTC) McGeoch was Scottish, not English
Woovee and Carliertwo, any thoughts on how to deal with the recent genre warring? This editor seems hell-bent on inserting their own dislike for the sources into articles. Greg Fasolino ( talk) 05:28, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
As written, the article has a release date of 19 June 1981 but several other sources report 6 June 1981 and it didn't chart until 27 June 1981. Is there an authoritative source for this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.121.143.6 ( talk) 11:07, 7 June 2022 (UTC)