![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Numerous writers have called this one of the most overrated albums ever. Can we accept this instead of trying to downplay the criticism? Nobody's trying to strip out the massive acclaim for the record, so why can't we embrace the detractors for the sake of neutrality, instead of softening negative quotes or removing them entirely? 90.222.117.102 ( talk) 12:00, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
In response to this revision to the Reception section, paraphrasing is preferred in sections that are potentially quote farms, so "full of filler" and "overrated" were appropriate, while "impressive chemistry" was a paraphrase of "they're an awesome heartbeat"--in harmony, in beat, etc. "awesome" → obviously the critic was impressed by it → "impressive". Dan56 ( talk) 22:34, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
The Boston Phoenix quotation was placed in the third paragraph because it remarked on how it has been "deified" by what the critic felt were "dubious" judges of quality, and the line "the rest of us really like it too" comes off as flippant after he says this. I didn't interpret this review as a rave retrospect, which is what the second paragraph essentially deals with. Paragraphs need to have a flow and be consistent topically, and IMO placing the Phoenix quotation in the third offers this more than in the second paragraph. Dan56 ( talk) 22:34, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
In keeping with my previous argument, I don't see how this change from Sturges of The Independent serves the purpose of the paragraph better: "...referenced the band's single "[[Fools Gold/What the World Is Waiting For|Fool's Gold]]" in arguing that the album is "a 'classic' that is nothing but [[Pyrite|fool's gold]]". In the original source ( Sturges, The Independent), Sturges immediately backs her argument up that the ranking by NME is ridiculous to her because of what she feels were more qualified albums. IMO, readers will understand her complaint if it read as "Fiona Sturges of The Independent did not subscribe to popular opinion of the album as a 'classic' and was confounded by the NME's ranking of it in 2006 as the best British album of all time over records such as Revolver, Exile on Main St., The Queen Is Dead, and London Calling." ... as opposed to the cute little headline and reference to "fool's gold" in her article LOL. Dan56 ( talk) 22:34, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
@ 5.64.46.116:, please do not turn the Reception section into a quotefarm by using quotations without pertinence. The author you cited chose the focus of her article to be the band, not the album, which she does not say is overrated. Furthermore, Sturges of The Independent is already cited making the point you seem to want Anderson to make, so regurgitating that viewpoint is not neutral in form nor encyclopedic. Dan56 ( talk) 00:53, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
There are six citations combined into one in this addition by 5.64.46.116, which should be removed IMO because none of them say "some critics have found The Stone Roses overrated in retrospect". "If no reliable source has combined the material in this way, it is original research." (WP:SYN) More problematic is that they used sources that are not the most reliable available on the article's topic ( Virgin Media? FasterLouder? A musician, not critic, Bob Geldof? A musician, not critic, Eddie Argos in The Guardian citation?), which makes their research method and intentions dubious to say the least; this has been their sole interest in this article. The lead should summarize verifiable and prominent viewpoints ( WP:LEAD → "The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources.") The importance of a viewpoint such as "critics have found the album overrated" isn't established by any source because no source has verified it to begin with, and of the two quality (critic) sources cited in this OR bundle--Sturges of The Independent and Kulkarni of The Quietus--neither are reputed journalists, and only Kulkarni explicitly calls the album "overrated", making this a minority opinion not warranting mention in the lead. Since this user has for the most part been unresponsive and uncivil ( [1], [2], [3], [4]), what are the thoughts of editors experienced in these issues? @ Stee888:, @ Kww:, @ Dennis Brown:, @ Mlpearc:? Dan56 ( talk) 04:09, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Result: The article should not include statements to the effect that "some have found the album overrated". Although there was a low level of participation, consensus appears clear. As one user points out, this is "a useless statement" because it could be true of a record by any band. In fact, we could say, more generally, that almost anything in the world that some people like, some people will find overrated. So, the statement tells the reader nothing of interest. While specific criticisms and reactions may have a place in the article, I think a very strong case has been made against this type of generalised statement.
Is this sentence in the lead and this in the third paragraph of the Reception and legacy section synthesis and should either be removed? Dan56 ( talk) 18:55, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
Album articles are written by people who love the records, so there's little chance that criticism will be readily accepted. I've ironed out the supposed "SYNTH" and integrated it into a paragraph as suggested. This chinwag would be pretty much done, then. 5.69.237.6 ( talk) 14:39, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Result: No consensus, so exclude the quote for now. There's a majority against including this quote, but few editors participated and I can't see that any arguments put forward are decisive. So, it looks like no consensus. This means that the last stable state of the article with regard to the material should be maintained (i.e. the quote should be excluded until a consensus for it can be established).
5.69.237.6 has insisted on adding this additional quote from the journalist Peter Robinson, because "he's saying that any merits this album may have are a fluke". I don't understand how this isn't just a reiteration of Robinson's view of this album as "average" (flukey "merits"?), and how it isn't undue weight when the first quote from Robinson makes his view/criticism clear to readers and when no other source/critic in this section is given more than one sentence summarizing their view. So I restored the previous revision. Thoughts? Dan56 ( talk) 22:45, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Result: No consensus, so material relating to Eddie Argos should be excluded for now. There was a 2-1 majority in favour of retaining the material, but participation was low and no decisive arguments were put forward. It is not, therefore, possible to declare a consensus, and the material in question (a single sentence relating to the view of Eddie Argos) should not be included into the article until a consensus is reached.
5.69.237.6 added negative material in a way that over-emphasizes it. There are several critical/journalistic sources in the third paragraph of this article's #Reception and legacy section that express the view that the album has been overrated, overhyped, and "deified" by critics, including one that objects to NME magazine's ranking as the greatest British album in the form of Fiona Sturges of The Independent. The IP's addition of a quote from singer Eddie Argos saying the same thing regurgitates Sturges' point and is thus undue weight. Dan56 ( talk) 20:39, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
I've been asked for an opinion on the matter at hand, and I think that the all the entries in the section are legitimate. Even Eddie Argos, for his background and work as an indie rock musician, is entitled to have an opinion on the band and album. What I don't understand is why the Boston Phoenix review is put among the detractors when it is actually positive. Who cares if the reviewer criticizes people who liked the album? This section is about reviews of the album itself and that one is very favourable. Lewismaster ( talk) 17:20, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Still a bit of an edit war going on about this in the opening paragraph, not helped by lack of citations for both of the above points of view. Arguably the statement that some find the album overrated is superfluous, given that people often say this about virtually any classic album that you can think of (see also Sgt. Pepper, Pet Sounds etc etc). MFlet1 ( talk) 14:24, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
There's been a very negative atmosphere on this page for a while, with one or two people shutting down just about anything that goes on. Today I tried to resolve a dispute between an "owner" and an IP for the betterment of the encyclopedia, but unfortunately it's gotten to that toxic point where neither wants to be seen as "losing" the dispute. I'm over it and don't care what happens from here, but I definitely want to see more collaboration being allowed in the future. Karyn Devlin ( talk) 21:51, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Both of you are established editors with a seasoned contribution history.
WP:Assume good faith, as
WP:LAME disputes such as this can cause editors to leave. ~
NottNott
talk|
contrib
21:59, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
As per Dan56's comment on my talk page regarding this this addition, I'm inclined to agree that the quote was not explicitly stated by any source: which to me (as a third person with no knowledge of the subject) appears to be a NPOV issue off the top of my head. The word shouldn't be included in my opinion. I'm losing track of what else is being discussed here, could there be a reminder as to what phrases we're discussing? I'm losing track, apologies. ~ NottNott talk| contrib 22:13, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
A senior administrator has observed Dan56's unwillingness to co-operate on the project, specifically with IP users. [12] 90.222.127.214 ( talk) 16:37, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I'm changing the release date to "May 1989". This is verified by the 33⅓ book on the album and the Stone Roses bio by John Robb, who was the first journalist to document them in the music press:
Dan56 ( talk) 16:53, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
I knew you were going to ask me that. ;-) I tend to avoid these kind of arguments as it seems to me to be getting bogged down in trivial details (in my opinion). I'm working on Hounds of Love and I'm amazed that most of the editing on that article is more concerned with having the "right" genre in the infobox than actually improving the text of the article. Anyway, before I get accused of being another fanboy and sucking up to you, I have to say I fall in the "overrated" camp regarding this album – it would be in my top three overrated albums along with OK Computer and Astral Weeks (that's going to get me some hate mail). My (irrelevant) opinion aside, I don't think it can be disputed that the praise for this album outweighs the criticism, so it isn't unfair to lead with the praise... I wonder though if some sort of compromise can be reached, something like, "Since its release the album has received widespread praise and has featured regularly in critics' polls of the best albums of all time, although it has also received criticism from several prominent figures in music"? I think that avoids WP:SYNTH because you are mentioning the critics individually rather than collectively. I must say though, I do find it baffling and sad that so many of the arguments on Wikipedia are about what to me are trivial, and in several cases have resulted in ANI or ArbCom, which has led to a number of excellent and longstanding editors leaving over the last 12 months. Richard3120 ( talk) 21:20, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on The Stone Roses (album). 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.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 15:25, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Numerous writers have called this one of the most overrated albums ever. Can we accept this instead of trying to downplay the criticism? Nobody's trying to strip out the massive acclaim for the record, so why can't we embrace the detractors for the sake of neutrality, instead of softening negative quotes or removing them entirely? 90.222.117.102 ( talk) 12:00, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
In response to this revision to the Reception section, paraphrasing is preferred in sections that are potentially quote farms, so "full of filler" and "overrated" were appropriate, while "impressive chemistry" was a paraphrase of "they're an awesome heartbeat"--in harmony, in beat, etc. "awesome" → obviously the critic was impressed by it → "impressive". Dan56 ( talk) 22:34, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
The Boston Phoenix quotation was placed in the third paragraph because it remarked on how it has been "deified" by what the critic felt were "dubious" judges of quality, and the line "the rest of us really like it too" comes off as flippant after he says this. I didn't interpret this review as a rave retrospect, which is what the second paragraph essentially deals with. Paragraphs need to have a flow and be consistent topically, and IMO placing the Phoenix quotation in the third offers this more than in the second paragraph. Dan56 ( talk) 22:34, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
In keeping with my previous argument, I don't see how this change from Sturges of The Independent serves the purpose of the paragraph better: "...referenced the band's single "[[Fools Gold/What the World Is Waiting For|Fool's Gold]]" in arguing that the album is "a 'classic' that is nothing but [[Pyrite|fool's gold]]". In the original source ( Sturges, The Independent), Sturges immediately backs her argument up that the ranking by NME is ridiculous to her because of what she feels were more qualified albums. IMO, readers will understand her complaint if it read as "Fiona Sturges of The Independent did not subscribe to popular opinion of the album as a 'classic' and was confounded by the NME's ranking of it in 2006 as the best British album of all time over records such as Revolver, Exile on Main St., The Queen Is Dead, and London Calling." ... as opposed to the cute little headline and reference to "fool's gold" in her article LOL. Dan56 ( talk) 22:34, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
@ 5.64.46.116:, please do not turn the Reception section into a quotefarm by using quotations without pertinence. The author you cited chose the focus of her article to be the band, not the album, which she does not say is overrated. Furthermore, Sturges of The Independent is already cited making the point you seem to want Anderson to make, so regurgitating that viewpoint is not neutral in form nor encyclopedic. Dan56 ( talk) 00:53, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
There are six citations combined into one in this addition by 5.64.46.116, which should be removed IMO because none of them say "some critics have found The Stone Roses overrated in retrospect". "If no reliable source has combined the material in this way, it is original research." (WP:SYN) More problematic is that they used sources that are not the most reliable available on the article's topic ( Virgin Media? FasterLouder? A musician, not critic, Bob Geldof? A musician, not critic, Eddie Argos in The Guardian citation?), which makes their research method and intentions dubious to say the least; this has been their sole interest in this article. The lead should summarize verifiable and prominent viewpoints ( WP:LEAD → "The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources.") The importance of a viewpoint such as "critics have found the album overrated" isn't established by any source because no source has verified it to begin with, and of the two quality (critic) sources cited in this OR bundle--Sturges of The Independent and Kulkarni of The Quietus--neither are reputed journalists, and only Kulkarni explicitly calls the album "overrated", making this a minority opinion not warranting mention in the lead. Since this user has for the most part been unresponsive and uncivil ( [1], [2], [3], [4]), what are the thoughts of editors experienced in these issues? @ Stee888:, @ Kww:, @ Dennis Brown:, @ Mlpearc:? Dan56 ( talk) 04:09, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Result: The article should not include statements to the effect that "some have found the album overrated". Although there was a low level of participation, consensus appears clear. As one user points out, this is "a useless statement" because it could be true of a record by any band. In fact, we could say, more generally, that almost anything in the world that some people like, some people will find overrated. So, the statement tells the reader nothing of interest. While specific criticisms and reactions may have a place in the article, I think a very strong case has been made against this type of generalised statement.
Is this sentence in the lead and this in the third paragraph of the Reception and legacy section synthesis and should either be removed? Dan56 ( talk) 18:55, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
Album articles are written by people who love the records, so there's little chance that criticism will be readily accepted. I've ironed out the supposed "SYNTH" and integrated it into a paragraph as suggested. This chinwag would be pretty much done, then. 5.69.237.6 ( talk) 14:39, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Result: No consensus, so exclude the quote for now. There's a majority against including this quote, but few editors participated and I can't see that any arguments put forward are decisive. So, it looks like no consensus. This means that the last stable state of the article with regard to the material should be maintained (i.e. the quote should be excluded until a consensus for it can be established).
5.69.237.6 has insisted on adding this additional quote from the journalist Peter Robinson, because "he's saying that any merits this album may have are a fluke". I don't understand how this isn't just a reiteration of Robinson's view of this album as "average" (flukey "merits"?), and how it isn't undue weight when the first quote from Robinson makes his view/criticism clear to readers and when no other source/critic in this section is given more than one sentence summarizing their view. So I restored the previous revision. Thoughts? Dan56 ( talk) 22:45, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Result: No consensus, so material relating to Eddie Argos should be excluded for now. There was a 2-1 majority in favour of retaining the material, but participation was low and no decisive arguments were put forward. It is not, therefore, possible to declare a consensus, and the material in question (a single sentence relating to the view of Eddie Argos) should not be included into the article until a consensus is reached.
5.69.237.6 added negative material in a way that over-emphasizes it. There are several critical/journalistic sources in the third paragraph of this article's #Reception and legacy section that express the view that the album has been overrated, overhyped, and "deified" by critics, including one that objects to NME magazine's ranking as the greatest British album in the form of Fiona Sturges of The Independent. The IP's addition of a quote from singer Eddie Argos saying the same thing regurgitates Sturges' point and is thus undue weight. Dan56 ( talk) 20:39, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
I've been asked for an opinion on the matter at hand, and I think that the all the entries in the section are legitimate. Even Eddie Argos, for his background and work as an indie rock musician, is entitled to have an opinion on the band and album. What I don't understand is why the Boston Phoenix review is put among the detractors when it is actually positive. Who cares if the reviewer criticizes people who liked the album? This section is about reviews of the album itself and that one is very favourable. Lewismaster ( talk) 17:20, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Still a bit of an edit war going on about this in the opening paragraph, not helped by lack of citations for both of the above points of view. Arguably the statement that some find the album overrated is superfluous, given that people often say this about virtually any classic album that you can think of (see also Sgt. Pepper, Pet Sounds etc etc). MFlet1 ( talk) 14:24, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
There's been a very negative atmosphere on this page for a while, with one or two people shutting down just about anything that goes on. Today I tried to resolve a dispute between an "owner" and an IP for the betterment of the encyclopedia, but unfortunately it's gotten to that toxic point where neither wants to be seen as "losing" the dispute. I'm over it and don't care what happens from here, but I definitely want to see more collaboration being allowed in the future. Karyn Devlin ( talk) 21:51, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Both of you are established editors with a seasoned contribution history.
WP:Assume good faith, as
WP:LAME disputes such as this can cause editors to leave. ~
NottNott
talk|
contrib
21:59, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
As per Dan56's comment on my talk page regarding this this addition, I'm inclined to agree that the quote was not explicitly stated by any source: which to me (as a third person with no knowledge of the subject) appears to be a NPOV issue off the top of my head. The word shouldn't be included in my opinion. I'm losing track of what else is being discussed here, could there be a reminder as to what phrases we're discussing? I'm losing track, apologies. ~ NottNott talk| contrib 22:13, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
A senior administrator has observed Dan56's unwillingness to co-operate on the project, specifically with IP users. [12] 90.222.127.214 ( talk) 16:37, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I'm changing the release date to "May 1989". This is verified by the 33⅓ book on the album and the Stone Roses bio by John Robb, who was the first journalist to document them in the music press:
Dan56 ( talk) 16:53, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
I knew you were going to ask me that. ;-) I tend to avoid these kind of arguments as it seems to me to be getting bogged down in trivial details (in my opinion). I'm working on Hounds of Love and I'm amazed that most of the editing on that article is more concerned with having the "right" genre in the infobox than actually improving the text of the article. Anyway, before I get accused of being another fanboy and sucking up to you, I have to say I fall in the "overrated" camp regarding this album – it would be in my top three overrated albums along with OK Computer and Astral Weeks (that's going to get me some hate mail). My (irrelevant) opinion aside, I don't think it can be disputed that the praise for this album outweighs the criticism, so it isn't unfair to lead with the praise... I wonder though if some sort of compromise can be reached, something like, "Since its release the album has received widespread praise and has featured regularly in critics' polls of the best albums of all time, although it has also received criticism from several prominent figures in music"? I think that avoids WP:SYNTH because you are mentioning the critics individually rather than collectively. I must say though, I do find it baffling and sad that so many of the arguments on Wikipedia are about what to me are trivial, and in several cases have resulted in ANI or ArbCom, which has led to a number of excellent and longstanding editors leaving over the last 12 months. Richard3120 ( talk) 21:20, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on The Stone Roses (album). 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.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 15:25, 29 April 2017 (UTC)