Talk:Juju (Siouxsie and the Banshees album)

February 2013: vandalism by a brand new IP [Special:Contributions/2601:A:4100:5A:642E:1EB6:B88:2B18|2601:A:4100:5A:642E:1EB6:B88:2B18] that looks like a clone of BEATWEAKer, a user that has been blocked indefinitely

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)

Legacy and reception

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)

Reverting again

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)

Carliertwo didn't undo any of your edits: see the difference between your revision and my last revision. Your corrections was only reverted by Lachlan Foley. Carliertwo (talk) 18:06, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

May/June 2013

Constant Vandalism by an user regarding the reviews

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)

External links: Discogs

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)

Manual of Style: Legacy

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)

• Solution: This alternative that I put here represents a good compromise. Siouxsie's point of view about Juju associated with the gothic adjective is included here. This solution respects all the wp:guidelines previously mentionned.Carliertwo (talk) 15:30, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Band genre

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?

• Alternative rock – because this is the most recent (last) genre they played in, I personally believe it is most accurate and reflective. they are perhaps best-known as a post-punk band, but to label them as such I think would be to place them in a time capsule, since they were not playing post-punk music in the last part of their career. Lachlan Foley 08:35, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

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

Genre warring

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)

He refuses to listen to reason, has said he "doesn't care about history" and thinks the old sources are silly and wrong, etc. He simply wishes to change the genres to suit his liking. Thoughts?Greg Fasolino (talk) 06:26, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

67.83.143.151, users of wikipedia have to respect certain rules when editing. The most important rule is that our own opinions don't matter: what matters is what the reliable sources say. This group started as a post-punk band; I suggest you read this article on Mojo magazine's website here. You will see that Mojo (arguably the most famous paper talking about music these days) present them as "post-punk" on the cover of their magazine in 2014.

Here is a quote taken from Mojo, November 2014 issue, page 75 in the lead of their article about the band: "For nearly two decades, Siouxsie and the Banshees led the post-punk revolt with bared teeth and glistening claws, scattering their influence everywhere." So, their genre is indeed post-punk.

The Juju article on wikipedia also mentions that certain journalists tagged the album Juju as a key influence on gothic rock. When there isn't any consensus for a change in an article, the content stays as it is. The article is well-balanced, there is even one section that talks about gothic rock.

Your behaviour is not constructive as your opinion seems to be biased. You are obviously a gothic rock fan; previous edits of you had shown that you even tried to erase sources mentioning post-punk just to put forward your vision on gothic rock genre. So don't force us to report you on the noticeboard, you'd probably risk to be blocked. Carliertwo (talk) 01:17, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Not my vision, fact of history as reported by NME and other British publications like the Guardian newspaper as to what Gothic rock bands are, Siouxsie and the Banshees is one of them. To me that means the reference shows that those bands are primarily Gothic rock bands, secondary punk bands, as per historical reference. Alltalk is a constantly used "source" despite not being in existence when these bands were formed and/or were still in existence (for example, Bauhaus broke up in 1983, Alltalk was formed in 1991). The only reason that people are using that source is because it agrees with their assertions, despite it not being a source of first hand information, that's why it was deleted by me. If you are going to put up the assertion that Siouxsie and the Banshees was not primarily a Punk or Gothic Rock band but a 'post-punk' band, then use a different source that was in existence when the band made these albums. Don't use Greg as a source as that would be considered Original Research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.83.143.151 (talk) 05:03, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Again, you misunderstand how Wikipedia works. It's by sources, and by consensus. He clearly explained this above, but you're not following. When there's no consensus, it stays as is. There is no valid reason to alter the order other than your whim and your personal interests. Secondly, references belong in the article, not the infobox, per Wikipedia preferences. The valid and appropriate references to why the album is considered both post-punk and gothic rock are noted and sourced in the appropriate section. Please, for the last time, stop trying to insert your personal disagreement with the body of music journalism history. Greg Fasolino (talk) 14:42, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

This isn't an article on a band, it's on an album. Now Siouxsie has been a few things over the years, through to today's darling of Radio 4, but Juju was firmly in the Goth camp. An obvious and easily sourced claim that earlier Siouxsie (not Juju) came from punk doesn't change this. Viam Ferream^Talk 16:27, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it's on an album. An album released in 1981, when the common term for the music contained in the album was post-punk. The term "gothic rock" was not in common use in 1981. Juju was retroactively considered a prototype for gothic rock, which is what is noted in the article as it is.Greg Fasolino (talk) 19:29, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

source for release date

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)