Talk:The Stone Roses (album)/Archive 2
 | 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 |
Overrated
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)
- 90.222.117.102, the neutrality of the article would be disputed if we inserted your summary in the lead. Is there are a source that verifies "several writers have retrospectively described it as one of the most overrated albums in popular music"? The only sources who explicitly said The Stone Roses is "one of the most overrated albums of all time" are FasterLouder and Virgin Media, which doesn't constitute "several writers". WP:SYNTH is clear about this: we cannot "combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." "Several" means "more than two", and believe me, I tried finding another source for "one of the most overrated" and the like because it seemed verifiable to me. But honestly, I don't see the problem in having "other critics", which is a less controversial, more accurate summary. Would you be open to revising it as "On the other hand, several critics have found it overrated in retrospect"? Dan56 (talk) 22:20, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Issue of paraphrasing
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)
Quotation placement
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)
Sturges quotation
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)
Impertinent quotation
@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)
- Just trying to neutralise a hagiography masquerading as an article. I'm balancing Wikipedia and real life, so forgive me if I haven't read all the policy essays. 5.64.46.116 (talk) 03:12, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
- @5.64.46.116:, You're seriously exaggerating this, and I think you're missing the point of what an encyclopedia is or at least strives to be. I think you're balancing this album's article (which should "fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources") with this album's quality (which in your view isn't very good? but in the view of most of the viewpoints published is very good). IMO, you're giving undue weight to contrarian viewpoints that you did not find by researching the most reliable sources on this topic. You pieced together from several sources you found deliberately to write an original thought, that "The Stone Roses has been viewed as overrated by critics", a viewpoint that no source has published (WP:NOR). On the other hand, a viewpoint such as "critics have since viewed it as an even more important release than when it was first released, as reflected by its high rankings in polls of the greatest albums of all time." (Jones, The Rock Canon: Canonical Values in the Reception of Rock Albums). Furthermore, a bloated, quote-farm dedicated to a minority opinion is also undue weight. While this article is in questionable shape as far as prose, structure, and verifiability, it will eventually be improved for GA and FA statuses by editors, so do not be surprised when your [a] footnote is removed and the second paragraph in legacy is trimmed significantly for neutrality and verifiability purposes. Dan56 (talk) 01:33, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
- Your agenda is now fully crystallised. Multiple sources have been found wherein the writer has directly described the album as overrated or opposed its classic status, but you are claiming that to mention writers have questioned the album's merits is "original research", while desperately stretching policy essays to fit your cause. Laughable. Since you don't like it and own the article, I suppose we can't have any of that "unbiased" nonsense. Heaven forbid anyone say anything about your almighty Roses. Oh, and feel free to point to doctrines like WP:CIVIL and WP:GOOD FAITH, all the while making a career out of accusing editors of using multiple accounts, because people have introduced viewpoints that differ from yours which in your mind constitutes "vandalism". Remember when you requested protection of this article, and were refused and told that no vandalism had occurred? Maybe you could show a little introspection and learn from that. EDIT: Sources are in no way being combined to represent an original viewpoint. A sentence to summarise the given citations is perfectly acceptable: see the first paragraph in the lede of Roger Federer, a good article. Some people think The Stone Roses is overrated. Sorry. 5.64.46.116 (talk) 02:56, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
- "If no reliable source has combined the material in this way, it is original research." (WP:SYN) . For example, the quoted CNN source in the Federer article combines the multiple views of 3 coaches and says "they agree that Federer is considered one of the best", hence there is no synthesis and the quotation can be used. I am currently looking online to see if there are any such claims made about the The Stone Roses album. Till now I can't find any (I am mainly searching for articles in response to the last NME British Album rankings which I would potentially suspect contain such a language.) Until we find such a source, we are violating the policy. I personally don't mind "common sense" synthesis, but rules are rules. For a really good discussion on the topic, I recommend this talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Line_of_succession_to_the_British_throne/Archive_4#Does_this_article_really_need_over_1000_names.3F to see how the rule is strictly applied on Wikipedia. Hia10 (talk) 17:40, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
- WP:SYNTH is still utterly irrelevant because nothing's being "combined". Saying that some found it overrated is absolutely not a combination, it's a summary of the cites given, in which various critics and musicians argue that the record is overhyped. Your comment on the Federer article is false, because the text you quoted isn't in the CNN piece at all. Even if it were, three coaches does not cover "Numerous commentators, pundits, and former and current players". And it doesn't need to: the cites are being summarised in the lede, and the page has been graded as a "good article" because there's no WP:SYNTH violation whatsoever. Nor is there here. 5.69.237.6 (talk) 18:17, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
- "Saying that some found it overrated is absolutely not a combination" - yes my friend it is a combination since you made it up by observing various sources. That's what Wikipedia considers it. It a very common error when editing Wikipedia articles since it is a very subtle error to make. Unfortunately, that's not how encyclopedia articles are written - you need an explicit primary and reliable source for the information to be included.
- But I think I have a solution for you: why don't you add a new section to the article titled "Recent Criticism and Negative Reviews", in this section you can list all the negative reviews you can find (without combining them of course). This will eliminate the WP:SYNTH problem and readers of the article would then be able to view both the positive and negative feedback on the album which would make the article balanced and objective. I hope you are fine with this suggestion.
- WP:SYNTH is still utterly irrelevant because nothing's being "combined". Saying that some found it overrated is absolutely not a combination, it's a summary of the cites given, in which various critics and musicians argue that the record is overhyped. Your comment on the Federer article is false, because the text you quoted isn't in the CNN piece at all. Even if it were, three coaches does not cover "Numerous commentators, pundits, and former and current players". And it doesn't need to: the cites are being summarised in the lede, and the page has been graded as a "good article" because there's no WP:SYNTH violation whatsoever. Nor is there here. 5.69.237.6 (talk) 18:17, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
- "If no reliable source has combined the material in this way, it is original research." (WP:SYN) . For example, the quoted CNN source in the Federer article combines the multiple views of 3 coaches and says "they agree that Federer is considered one of the best", hence there is no synthesis and the quotation can be used. I am currently looking online to see if there are any such claims made about the The Stone Roses album. Till now I can't find any (I am mainly searching for articles in response to the last NME British Album rankings which I would potentially suspect contain such a language.) Until we find such a source, we are violating the policy. I personally don't mind "common sense" synthesis, but rules are rules. For a really good discussion on the topic, I recommend this talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Line_of_succession_to_the_British_throne/Archive_4#Does_this_article_really_need_over_1000_names.3F to see how the rule is strictly applied on Wikipedia. Hia10 (talk) 17:40, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
- Your agenda is now fully crystallised. Multiple sources have been found wherein the writer has directly described the album as overrated or opposed its classic status, but you are claiming that to mention writers have questioned the album's merits is "original research", while desperately stretching policy essays to fit your cause. Laughable. Since you don't like it and own the article, I suppose we can't have any of that "unbiased" nonsense. Heaven forbid anyone say anything about your almighty Roses. Oh, and feel free to point to doctrines like WP:CIVIL and WP:GOOD FAITH, all the while making a career out of accusing editors of using multiple accounts, because people have introduced viewpoints that differ from yours which in your mind constitutes "vandalism". Remember when you requested protection of this article, and were refused and told that no vandalism had occurred? Maybe you could show a little introspection and learn from that. EDIT: Sources are in no way being combined to represent an original viewpoint. A sentence to summarise the given citations is perfectly acceptable: see the first paragraph in the lede of Roger Federer, a good article. Some people think The Stone Roses is overrated. Sorry. 5.64.46.116 (talk) 02:56, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
- @5.64.46.116:, You're seriously exaggerating this, and I think you're missing the point of what an encyclopedia is or at least strives to be. I think you're balancing this album's article (which should "fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources") with this album's quality (which in your view isn't very good? but in the view of most of the viewpoints published is very good). IMO, you're giving undue weight to contrarian viewpoints that you did not find by researching the most reliable sources on this topic. You pieced together from several sources you found deliberately to write an original thought, that "The Stone Roses has been viewed as overrated by critics", a viewpoint that no source has published (WP:NOR). On the other hand, a viewpoint such as "critics have since viewed it as an even more important release than when it was first released, as reflected by its high rankings in polls of the greatest albums of all time." (Jones, The Rock Canon: Canonical Values in the Reception of Rock Albums). Furthermore, a bloated, quote-farm dedicated to a minority opinion is also undue weight. While this article is in questionable shape as far as prose, structure, and verifiability, it will eventually be improved for GA and FA statuses by editors, so do not be surprised when your [a] footnote is removed and the second paragraph in legacy is trimmed significantly for neutrality and verifiability purposes. Dan56 (talk) 01:33, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
- Note: Regarding the CNN article,I was mostly referring to the sidebar content. Obviously the article doesn't cover "Numerous commentators, pundits, and former and current players" but I assume the other sources cover all those aspects. I just picked CNN as an example; I didn't go through the other sources for the lack of time. Hia10 (talk) 18:45, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
Original research
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)
- Note: this editor's continued removal of a "good faith" tag brings to mind another IP's removal a few days ago. This bundled OR was originally added by Le contrôle de la qualité ([5] in June, [6], [7]) I subsequently tagged it, before an editor named Truthsettler removed it and was reverted by the IP 92.40.249.202 ([8]), after which I tagged it again, before being reverted by 92.40.249.110 ([9]). All of this indicates a connection between several of these accounts, including 90.222.117.102 and 5.64.46.116, who continued to restore the OR-bundle supported material and remove the tag, despite my efforts to incorporate the citations individually into the article. Dan56 (talk) 04:09, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
- This is truly laughable. I smashed your original research argument above (02:56, 10 July 2014 edit, "Impertinent quotation" section), so you just continue rambling on with it as well as returning to your straw-clutching claims of sock-puppetry. Pathetic. The fact that I have already stated I am 90.222.117.102, and 92.40.249.202 and 92.40.249.110 are clearly the same user on a mobile device (IPs do rotate, believe it or not), underscores your desperation. 5.64.46.116 (talk) 04:42, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
RfC: Are particular sentences in this article synthesis?
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)
- Comments
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)
- @5.64.46.116: The issue has been resolved. The synthesis problem has been avoided. Good Job.
- I have reworded the section from "Claims of overhyping" to "Negative Views". The word 'overhyping' seems informal and the word 'claim' isn't entirely accurate: pundit's opinions are 'views' - not really claims. "Negative views" seems like better English to me. Hia10 (talk) 15:12, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
- Cheers. There's a problem with that, though. Aside from maybe one or two people, no-one's really got a negative opinion on the album. The cites give opinions from those who think the record has been overhyped over the years. There's a reaction to the hyperbole, not so much to the album itself. 5.69.237.6 (talk) 15:45, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
- By the same token, Wikipedia articles are vandalized by people with certain biases, so quit with the bad faith assumptions. Dan56 (talk) 20:35, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
- Okay so now you're trying to clear my latest additions. A summary sentence of opinions like "some have said it is overrated" is not allowed, and now individually giving the opinions isn't allowed either. In other words: ONLY HYPERBOLIC PRAISE OF "THE GREATEST ALBUM OF ALL TIME" IS ALLOWED. 5.69.237.6 (talk) 21:46, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
- The "SYNTH" in the third paragraph was removed and Dan56 put it back in. He now claims that individual opinions can't be given either. 5.69.237.6 (talk) 21:50, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
- Okay so now you're trying to clear my latest additions. A summary sentence of opinions like "some have said it is overrated" is not allowed, and now individually giving the opinions isn't allowed either. In other words: ONLY HYPERBOLIC PRAISE OF "THE GREATEST ALBUM OF ALL TIME" IS ALLOWED. 5.69.237.6 (talk) 21:46, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
- Unless where going to make a two-paragraph dedication as well to a position that's actually verifiable ("The Stone Roses has been acclaimed by critics and musicians alike", which is part of a single-paragraph overview of that position), your bloated two-paragraph collection of every instance where a source says something close to "overrated" is highly undue and unacceptable per WP:Criticism#Adhere to policy → "Do not present the material in a way that over-emphasizes it", "Integrate negative material into sections that cover all viewpoints of the event, product, or policy that is being criticized, rather than in a dedicated 'criticism' section". Trimmed. There's no "hyberbolic praise" being overemphasized. If some people have an issue with the reception this album has gotten, well... that's life. Dan56 (talk) 03:24, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
- "If some people have an issue with the reception this album has gotten, well... that's life." I absolutely could not agree more. You really will do everything you can to strip out anything negative about your beloved album, won't you? 5.69.237.6 (talk) 14:21, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
- Unless where going to make a two-paragraph dedication as well to a position that's actually verifiable ("The Stone Roses has been acclaimed by critics and musicians alike", which is part of a single-paragraph overview of that position), your bloated two-paragraph collection of every instance where a source says something close to "overrated" is highly undue and unacceptable per WP:Criticism#Adhere to policy → "Do not present the material in a way that over-emphasizes it", "Integrate negative material into sections that cover all viewpoints of the event, product, or policy that is being criticized, rather than in a dedicated 'criticism' section". Trimmed. There's no "hyberbolic praise" being overemphasized. If some people have an issue with the reception this album has gotten, well... that's life. Dan56 (talk) 03:24, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
- Poll
- Remove from lead ... at the very least, considering no sources can support that sentence without being combined/interpreted through our own research (WP:NOR), which should suggest it's not notable enough to be given weight in the lead; "According to the policy on due weight, emphasis given to material should reflect its relative importance to the subject, according to published reliable sources." (WP:LEAD#Relative emphasis) Dan56 (talk) 19:05, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
- Support: There is synthesis and violating sentences should be removed. We have failed to find a single reliable source that says "Some critics have found the album overrated", there are multiple opinion pieces and reviews that recently panned the album, however combining those reviews is a straight-forward case of synthesis and violates WP:SYNTH. I don't mind listing the negative reviews in the "Reception" section or in a new section, but those reviews should never be combined as per Wikipedia policy. Hia10 (talk) 19:10, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
RfC: Extraneous quote
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)
- Again, those who love the album come here. What hope is there of a discussion that's not riddled with pro-Roses bias? 5.69.237.6 (talk) 13:07, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
- Best response ever ◔̯◔ Dan56 (talk) 03:41, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
- That's it. Let the true colours show. 5.69.237.6 (talk) 15:29, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
- Best response ever ◔̯◔ Dan56 (talk) 03:41, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
- The sentence in question is more about the reviewer's negative opinion on the group's other albums. Don't think it belongs here. --SubSeven (talk) 01:35, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
- Opposed inclusion I was called by the 'bot. Looking at the proposed text noting that the record success is a "fluke" the text should not be included. It is irrelevant and it stands out "like a sore thumb," it is a phrase dropped in to the text without legitimate context and should not be included in the article. Damotclese (talk) 16:12, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
RfC: Overemphasis of negative material
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)
- Argos singled out The Stone Roses as the one album he rejected as a "classic". That's not the same as just saying "it's overrated". 5.69.237.6 (talk) 21:15, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
- a) Not a notable individual holding that viewpoint (WP:SUBJECTIVE) b) do not argue semantics; "classic" means "a work of art of recognized and established value", and there are several cited already that dispute its "recognized and established value". Dan56 (talk) 21:31, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
- Nope. The Guardian thought he was notable enough to ask for his opinion, and he has a Wikipedia article unlike other detractors. Again: Argos singled out The Stone Roses as the one album he rejected as a "classic". That's not the same as just saying "it's overrated". 5.69.237.6 (talk) 21:34, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
- a) Not a notable individual holding that viewpoint (WP:SUBJECTIVE) b) do not argue semantics; "classic" means "a work of art of recognized and established value", and there are several cited already that dispute its "recognized and established value". Dan56 (talk) 21:31, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
- a) Read the article, The Guardian didn't ask him for his opinion on The Stone Roses, but they asked several musicians what their "supposedly great records they'd gladly never hear again" happened to be. He was asked as one of several other English musicians, not as a journalist, critic, or expert. More importantly, there are five detractors mentioned in this paragraph that have articles, including two artists--Bob Geldof and Justine Frischmann--and three journalists, so that's an irrelevant point. b) You're still arguing semantics, even after I offered you the definition of "classic". The meaning is the same--Argos believes the album is not as good as others recognize it to be. And for the record, Argos uses the word "overrated", so the context is obvious, if not to everyone ;) Dan56 (talk) 22:01, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
- Yep, read the article, hence why I brought it back in. What's an "expert"? That The Guardian enlisted Argos for the piece asserts his notability. You're still skipping over the fact that he singled out The Stone Roses when he had 60+ years of popular music recordings to choose from. Absolutely not the same as saying "by the way, the album's overrated". Oh, and it would be rude not to wink back ;) 5.69.237.6 (talk) 00:00, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
- a) Read the article, The Guardian didn't ask him for his opinion on The Stone Roses, but they asked several musicians what their "supposedly great records they'd gladly never hear again" happened to be. He was asked as one of several other English musicians, not as a journalist, critic, or expert. More importantly, there are five detractors mentioned in this paragraph that have articles, including two artists--Bob Geldof and Justine Frischmann--and three journalists, so that's an irrelevant point. b) You're still arguing semantics, even after I offered you the definition of "classic". The meaning is the same--Argos believes the album is not as good as others recognize it to be. And for the record, Argos uses the word "overrated", so the context is obvious, if not to everyone ;) Dan56 (talk) 22:01, 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)
- Thanks for your input. The placement of the Phoenix review has been an eyesore for a while now. It makes sense for it to round out the paragraph on proponents, being that it's from a reviewer who somewhat acknowledged the overpraise, but professed to "really like" the album and gave it 3/4 stars. 5.69.237.6 (talk) 20:27, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Greatest ever vs. overrated
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
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)
- DeRogatis, Gambacinni and Robinson are monsters in the world of music criticism, though, and each have spoken to a culture of people overrating this album. It's not some random guy in the Metro saying the record isn't any good. Geldof is a highly notable music figure too, and Frischmann, well, was a star for a while. Between these folks and reviewers in respectable publications like The Independent and The Quietus panning the record as overrated tosh, a mention is warranted. As for the "lack of citations" in the lede, that's preferable per WP:LEDE. The lede summarises the cited text of the body. 90.222.127.214 (talk) 18:45, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
- A few pesky, inconsequential IPs ([10], [11]) removing one line in the lead, "Some critics, however, have found the record to be heavily overrated", is hardly a concern. Furthermore, this addition constituted original research as it synthesized viewpoints from multiple sources to support a statement none of those sources explicitly make, i.e. "On the other hand, some have seen The Stone Roses as heavily overrated". It is acceptable to summarize the third paragraph of "Reception and legacy" in the lead, which is a summary of the article's main aspects, because SYNTH is not summary, but it is unacceptable to clutter multiple citations like in that addition. So it has been reverted. Dan56 (talk) 20:54, 3 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)
- Interesting. I on the other hand would definitely want to see more competence of pretty straightforward policies like WP:NOR. For the betterment of the encyclopedia, of course 9_9 Dan56 (talk) 21:55, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
- What about you, then? Are you totally incompetent with policies, or just bending them to fit your agenda? God forbid anyone say anything remotely negative about your precious one-album wonder. Karyn Devlin (talk) 21:58, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
- @Karyn Devlin:, I explained to you the policy regarding original research and synthesis as clearly as possible, and you gave this non-response and questioned my objectivity. If you hadn't noticed already from my user page or contributions elsewhere, I'm an avid Robert Christgau reader, so why would I care for how this album is presented the way you are suggesting when he dismissed it? And when I originally added anything remotely negative when cleaning up that section so long ago? Dan56 (talk) 22:06, 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.
RfC: Should this revision be retained?
- This addition (again using the same sources to introduce the same poorly researched material) gives undue weight to the minority viewpoint that The Stone Roses has been overrated by critics. Reception sections should be written in a way that does not overemphasize material, giving weight to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence among the most reliable sources (WP:CRIT#Neutrality and verifiability, WP:BESTSOURCES), "preferably with citations to experts holding that interpretation". 90.222.127.214 (who is very likely 5.69.237.6--this article's previous disruptive presence) continues to reintroduce otherwise inconsequential and irrelevant sources to support a point of view it appears they favor (a slideshow by Virgin Media, a telecommunications company, and a list by FasterLouder, which I imagined the IP found by Googling "Stone Roses" and "overrated" (WP:NOR --> "research the most reliable sources on the topic", did ya?). The IP also replaced the sentence about DeRogotis' view on the album with a misappropriated quote; in his article, he says "you Brits really fall (and hard) for certain inexplicable cons", not a direct reference to this album. What he did call this album explicitly was "exceedingly overrated moment". In sum, the IP appears to want to bludgeon readers to death (as much as he can get away with) with the point of view that this record was overrated, as it the third paragraph as it is isn't enough. 90.222.127.214, your bold edit was reverted. Please justify your changes and get a consensus for them. Dan56 (talk) 23:23, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
- No, what happened was I made a cited addition. Period. You can bend policies and rig the discussion to protect your favourite album ever, but the fact is what I did was totally within my rights. Your would-be ownership of the article is NOT within your rights. Feel free to ramble further, point to more policies that don't apply, and try all angles in order to get your way, but any discerning editor will see through your patent garbage. A senior admin has alright illuminated the fact that you're a problem editor, so maybe you should show a little introspection and realize that you're the problem, rather than other people. 90.222.127.214 (talk) 11:51, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
- 90.222.127.214 and Dan56, firstly this discussion would benefit from commenting content rather than editors. The moment an editor makes an attack on another disregarding the content being pushed to focus on the editor they've typically thrown consensus out of the window.
- No, what happened was I made a cited addition. Period. You can bend policies and rig the discussion to protect your favourite album ever, but the fact is what I did was totally within my rights. Your would-be ownership of the article is NOT within your rights. Feel free to ramble further, point to more policies that don't apply, and try all angles in order to get your way, but any discerning editor will see through your patent garbage. A senior admin has alright illuminated the fact that you're a problem editor, so maybe you should show a little introspection and realize that you're the problem, rather than other people. 90.222.127.214 (talk) 11:51, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
- I don't feel as if Virgin Media and FasterLouder are very notable or reliable opinions, as top 10-esque lists only just about tick the box for 'analytical'. I feel as if the first sentence as per 90.222's revision opening with 'On the other hand,' going on to say ' The Stone Roses has been mentioned by Virgin Media and FasterLouder as one of the most overrated albums in history.' may be slightly leading, and a bit of a NPOV issue, factoring into the verifiability argument. I feel as if the Jim DeRogatis source is much solid as the opening sentence, and if we're going to compromise at least place the Virgin Media and FasterLouder sources further down.
- Judging by the volume of content Dan has pushed out in his editing history (surpasses mine in both quality and quantity), the quality of this diff and the policies Dan has laid down before us, I'm very inclined to go with Dan's revision - although compromising with the more controversial sources further down the article is a good option. Let me know what you guys think. ~ NottNott talk|contrib 18:01, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
- Virgin Media has no place as a professional critique in a music article (it's literally a slideshow with no author and no information on who or what determined the list); FasterLouder's list was edited by Darren Levin, who has written for The Guardian and is not completely irrelevant, but 90.222.127.214 did not even bother reading Levin's introduction to the list (or maybe they conveniently overlooked it), which prefaces by saying "Just to prove we’re not complete jerks, we’ll be unveiling FL ’s 'Most Underrated Albums of All Time' list soon. In the meantime, here’s the first instalment of 50 most overrated records spanning the 1960s through to the present". So the FasterLouder source cannot even support the sentence the IP used it for. This is an irrelevant list, and the idea this record was one of the most overrated albums is already touched on in the third paragraph, which cites "an article on overhyped records for The Guardian" by Peter Robinson. What encyclopedic purpose is there to reiterate this viewpoint from a source of lesser quality (whose list is, by their admission, incomplete), other than to regurgitate a minority point of view and inhibit the flow of the prose? That's my opinion @NottNott:. The revision as it was before the IP's edit-warring gave enough weight to prominent sources disputing the record's critical standing. Dan56 (talk) 19:46, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
- I have gutted the Virgin article since I am WILLING TO COMPROMISE. The FasterLouder piece was written by an author - Andrew P. Street - with outstanding pedigree (the Guardian, Rolling Stone, Time Out, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation), so I have retained it and expanded on his unique view that the album contains only six true songs. 90.222.127.214 (talk) 11:05, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
- It's not exactly a "unique view" that the album only had a few good songs when Neil Kulkami from The Quietus is cited in the line before it saying the same thing. Dan56 (talk) 16:13, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
- I'm finding @90.222.127.214:'s edit summaries and minor grammatical changes amusing--they're worried about "repetition" ([13], [14], [15], even though the latter substitutes "felt" with "believes", incorrect tense and repeating "believed" from the preceding paragraph), yet not worried about repeating the same negative point of view. Just a lot of effort to make an article topic look slightly worse to readers smh. Dan56 (talk) 20:17, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
- It's not exactly a "unique view" that the album only had a few good songs when Neil Kulkami from The Quietus is cited in the line before it saying the same thing. Dan56 (talk) 16:13, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
- I have gutted the Virgin article since I am WILLING TO COMPROMISE. The FasterLouder piece was written by an author - Andrew P. Street - with outstanding pedigree (the Guardian, Rolling Stone, Time Out, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation), so I have retained it and expanded on his unique view that the album contains only six true songs. 90.222.127.214 (talk) 11:05, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
- Virgin Media has no place as a professional critique in a music article (it's literally a slideshow with no author and no information on who or what determined the list); FasterLouder's list was edited by Darren Levin, who has written for The Guardian and is not completely irrelevant, but 90.222.127.214 did not even bother reading Levin's introduction to the list (or maybe they conveniently overlooked it), which prefaces by saying "Just to prove we’re not complete jerks, we’ll be unveiling FL ’s 'Most Underrated Albums of All Time' list soon. In the meantime, here’s the first instalment of 50 most overrated records spanning the 1960s through to the present". So the FasterLouder source cannot even support the sentence the IP used it for. This is an irrelevant list, and the idea this record was one of the most overrated albums is already touched on in the third paragraph, which cites "an article on overhyped records for The Guardian" by Peter Robinson. What encyclopedic purpose is there to reiterate this viewpoint from a source of lesser quality (whose list is, by their admission, incomplete), other than to regurgitate a minority point of view and inhibit the flow of the prose? That's my opinion @NottNott:. The revision as it was before the IP's edit-warring gave enough weight to prominent sources disputing the record's critical standing. Dan56 (talk) 19:46, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Release date
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:
- Green, Alex (2006). The Stone Roses' The Stone Roses. 33 1/3. Bloomsbury Publishing USA. p. 5. ISBN 1441181873. Retrieved October 6, 2015.
- Robb, John (2012). The Stone Roses And The Resurrection of British Pop: The Reunion Edition. Random House. p. 238. ISBN 1448118794. Retrieved October 6, 2015.
Dan56 (talk) 16:53, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
- I'm pretty certain May 1989 is correct, from memory. I'll try and remember to look up the exact date in the music press of the time when I next go to the British Library in December. Richard3120 (talk) 05:09, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
- I'm not comfortable with this, since I wouldn't necessarily believe that those references are any more reliable than the references for an April release. However, as Richard3120 intends to have a look at the British Library, I'll leave the references to April here for now. <ref name=Qfeb1990>{{cite news|last=Kane|first=Peter|title=Space Invaders|url=http://www.thestoneroses.co.uk/press/q-february-1990|accessdate=24 November 2011|newspaper=Q Magazine|date=February 1990|format=print|quote=But it was the important first album, released last April, which has confirmed them as the band most likely to}}</ref><ref name=MM9Dec89>{{cite news|title=The Stone Roses|url=http://www.pdmcauley.co.uk/MM9Dec89.htm|accessdate=24 November 2011|newspaper=Melody Maker|date=9 December 1989|archiveurl=http://web.archive.org/web/20021021045333/http://www.pdmcauley.co.uk/MM9Dec89.htm|archivedate=21 October 2002|quote=When The Stone Roses delivered their debut LP at the end of April, all hell was let loose.}}</ref><ref name=SkyJuly1990>{{cite news|last=Wilde|first=Jon|title=The Stone Roses: Are these men really the future of rock and roll?|url=http://www.thestoneroses.co.uk/press/sky-july-1990|accessdate=24 November 2011|newspaper=Sky magazine|date=July 1990|page=98|format=print}}</ref> Longwayround (talk) 10:49, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
- Official Charts Company says the album entered the charts week ending 13 May 1989 (at #32). Assuming it entered the chart on the first week of release and also that it came out on a Monday as per standard practice at the time, this would give a release date of 1 May. MFlet1 (talk) 11:31, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
- @MFlet1: Absolutely correcqt, apart from one thing – Monday 1 May 1989 would have been the May Day bank holiday, so actually it was more likely it was released on Tuesday 2 May... if the album did not chart in its first week of release, then it was released in April. Richard3120 (talk) 15:14, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
- Well spotted. For what it's worth, I think it did chart in the first week of releasre as I can't see why the album would jump from nowhere to #32 given the band's minimal media profile at the time (most of the initial sales were due to the following the band had built up through touring). MFlet1 (talk) 15:19, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
- I totally agree - it's true the album sold modestly in its first few months, and didn't really pick up speed until the autumn, when "Fool's Gold" went top ten and coincided with the Happy Mondays chart breakthrough, which allowed the music press to promote the "Madchester" scene. However, the band had built up enough of a following among the indie crowd with early singles like "Sally Cinnamon", so I would be amazed if they didn't have enough fans to chart the album in its first week, and my money would still be on the 2 May date.
- @Dan56: happy to look up the contemporary reviews from NME, Sounds and Record Mirror, like I did for Marquee Moon. I used to buy RM and remember the album being reviewed: by Andy Strickland if I recall correctly, who gave it four out of five, his main criticism being too many long guitar solos, but that the band even managed to pull that off on the closing track. Richard3120 (talk) 19:09, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
- That'd be great! This article is somewhat lacking in contemporary reviews as it is now. Dan56 (talk) 19:46, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
- What's your opinion of this btw @Richard3120:? The above RfC reached a consensus to remove that line, but it was restored recently on the basis that it is summarizing the third paragraph in the "Release and reception" section and should be allowed as an exception to WP:SYNTH. I would argue that it still isn't appropriate since the summarizing line cannot be found in any reliable source that explicitly says "some have found the record overrated", and thus should not be given weight or prominence in the lead because of WP:LEAD#Relative emphasis: "emphasis given to material should reflect its relative importance to the subject, according to published reliable sources." I would think if no source has explicitly said something to that effect, then it isn't important enough for the lead. Dan56 (talk) 19:54, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
- That'd be great! This article is somewhat lacking in contemporary reviews as it is now. Dan56 (talk) 19:46, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
- Well spotted. For what it's worth, I think it did chart in the first week of releasre as I can't see why the album would jump from nowhere to #32 given the band's minimal media profile at the time (most of the initial sales were due to the following the band had built up through touring). MFlet1 (talk) 15:19, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
- @MFlet1: Absolutely correcqt, apart from one thing – Monday 1 May 1989 would have been the May Day bank holiday, so actually it was more likely it was released on Tuesday 2 May... if the album did not chart in its first week of release, then it was released in April. Richard3120 (talk) 15:14, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
- Official Charts Company says the album entered the charts week ending 13 May 1989 (at #32). Assuming it entered the chart on the first week of release and also that it came out on a Monday as per standard practice at the time, this would give a release date of 1 May. MFlet1 (talk) 11:31, 7 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)
External links modified
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:
- Corrected formatting/usage for http://observer.theguardian.com/omm/story/0%2C13887%2C1240065%2C00.html
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090804123605/http://www.spin.com/articles/100-greatest-albums-1985-2005 to http://www.spin.com/articles/100-greatest-albums-1985-2005
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.
- 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) 15:25, 29 April 2017 (UTC)