Talk:Yeezus/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Track list

The tracklisting is wrong, and I would like to fix it with the real one. - Roxxoredizorz

Do you have a source where you are getting the "true" tracklist? --Esanchez<subYUser_talk:Esanchez7587|Talk 2 me]] or Sign here) 22:41, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the back of the CD. - Roxxoredizorz

The CD has not been released and I seriously doubt you have seen it. STATic message me! 00:20, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

 Not done No changes suggested.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 00:46, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

the CD hasn't been released but people have it... but you must know that by now Distortiondude (talk) 17:38, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

The tracklisting is wrong because it should be this

1. On Sight

2. Black Skinhead

3. I Am A God ft. God

4. New Slaves ft. Frank Ocean

5. Hold My Liquor ft. Chief Keef and Justin Vernon

6. I'm In It ft. Justin Vernon and Assassin

7. Blood on the Leaves

8. Guilt Trip ft. Kid Cudi

9. Send It Up ft. King L

10. Bound 2 ft. Charlie Wilson

ITunes, Amazon.com and kanyewest.com all do not list featured artists. See the notes section, the vocals are credited there. STATic message me! 16:38, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 14 June 2013

Cthemc (talk) 18:15, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Please specify the change you want to be made. STATic message me! 19:00, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

"Drill"

Hi, I would like to specify that by "drill", Kanye doesn't talk about drill'n'bass at all, unlike this article points out (link to drum'n'bass when you click on "drill") but about drill rap, a subgenre of trap music. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Le Felz (talk • contribs) 22:01, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

In Utero link

Can someone who has the power edit the in utero link to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_Utero_(album) thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.178.147.16 (talk • contribs)

Done with this edit. Thank you. Begoon talk 05:39, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Track listing changes

Since the track listing was originally added to the page, various editors keep chopping and changing the various featured credits for each song: namely, whether or not God or Justin Vernon should be credited on "I Am a God", whether or nor Travi$ Scott or Justin Vernon (or neither) should be credited on "I'm in It", whether Tony Williams should be credited on "Blood on the Leaves" and whether Iamsu!, or all people, should be credited on "Send It Up". The problem is arising from the different websites giving different features for each song: is there a more official source yet to check, or can we establish some consensus to stop the constant alterations? I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 11:40, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

The back cover states that "For full album credits, go to kanyewest.com". There are no credits there yet, but would most likely be made available on the 18th when is the official release. So just wait 3 days and then get the official credits from there. 2Flows (talk) 11:57, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
Amazon.co.uk has listed the featured credits, and have Chief Keef and Justin Vernon on "Hold My Liquor", Kid Cudi on "Guilt Trip" and King L on "Send It Up", which makes more sense. I can't even hear Frank Ocean on "New Slaves".  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 17:24, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
I don't understand where XXL Mag is getting their info, I can't see any producers OR features listed on the back cover of the album, which is apparently where they are getting their info from. It only shows the song titles and what it samples. This should be removed, methinks.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 17:28, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Everybody is getting their info from THE ACTUAL ALBUM because it leaked. Frank Ocean is at the VERY end of New Slaves after Kanye sings his autotune. Bon Iver comes before Chief Keef's chorus in Hold My Liquor. Agent Sasco and Bon Iver can both be heard in I'm in It. I don't really hear Tony Williams on Blood on the Leaves, honestly. KiD CuDi is on Guilt trip. King L is on Send It Up. Charlie Wilson sings the bridge in Bound. Any more questions? Distortiondude (talk) 18:10, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Saw the edit, thank you! Distortiondude (talk) 18:19, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Edit request 15 June 2013

I just listened to track 6 on this album, and whats on the wiki here ""I'm in It" (ft Justin Vernon)"" might be incorrect Along with that, I can confirm that the song Samples Assassin but Im not sure if its featuring Justin Vernon or Travis Scott... The vocals dont sound like Justin to me, but more like Travis@SexForDummies (talk) 12:18, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[1]

Agent Sasco is an uncredited feature on it Distortiondude (talk) 17:51, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://hiphop-n-more.com/2013/06/kanye-west-yeezus-track-list/

Who's removing the features from the track list?

I have the album, as do many others. The features I put in are on the album, so why are they being removed? Distortiondude (talk) 18:04, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Please, provide us with an image that shows the features listed on the songs.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 18:09, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't have an image to show that, unless you want me to screenshot my iTunes library. But these features are on there, and if you don't believe me, go listen to the album yourself because they're pretty hard not to hear. Distortiondude (talk) 18:12, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Just because an illegal torrent download listed the artists as featured artists, does not mean they are actually credited on the official album. The other vocals are now credited in the notes section. STATic message me! 18:21, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
Exactly. There's a lot of conflicting sources on the features... and there is just NO WAY that Frank Ocean is on "New Slaves". As I posted above, the websites "confirming" this info apparently takes it from the back cover, which, if you actually take a look, shows nothing of the sort.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 02:17, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
Hit it right on the head about bolding a lot lol. Well the fact that XXL Magazine is definitely a reliable source, they would not just make it up. I would be partial to not even listing the so called "official" tracklist on Wikipedia until Mr. West, the US Amazon or iTunes revealed one. There is still the question of the French Amazon having 4 extra tracks and no comment by Kanye about the leak. STATic message me! 05:06, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Ad from Def Jam, showing the correct track listing (no features).  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 06:05, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Would it be opposed of to remove the featuring and production credits until we got official word, since there is so much conflicting information?  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 06:05, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
I would be opposed, since the ones we have stripped it down to have been reported by universally reliable sources as appearing as guest artists on the songs. That source 100% confirms what tracks are on the album, and what they are titled, but clearly purposely does not list featured artists. I do not understand the removal of the uncredited vocals credit however? STATic message me! 06:16, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

A person from a Kanye forum (kanyetothe) says that they put together the credits before the album leaked, and it was just picked up by publications as being official. The only thing this article should contain is the song list, as the rest lacks any sort of real confirmation.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 07:01, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Here we have it. Although, we're a bit late in seeing this...  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 07:04, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

No mention of leak.

I have found that no mention of how Yeezus was leaked on this entire article.  11Block |talk 21:12, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Per WP:LEAK it is not our place to report leaks to illegal torrent download sites, unless the artist responds to the leak in someway. Examples would be pushing up the album, changing the tracklist, adding songs things of that degree. STATic message me! 21:35, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

"Sixth studio album"

Should Yeezus really be written as Kanye's "sixth studio album"? I recently edited the article to change this to "seventh studio album", taking Watch the Throne into consideration, and got reverted. I do understand the reason for the revert, but if we're going to keep the current wording "Yeezus is the xth studio album by Kanye West", then there's no reason for WTT to be ignored because it's both 1) a Kanye West album and 2) a studio album.

I'd personally prefer a rewording to either "seventh studio album" or "sixth solo studio album", because either of those two would be more accurate than the current wording. Any other thoughts? Holiday56 (talk) 06:34, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree that it's his seventh studio album. Using "solo" just complicates things. Watch the Throne is his album.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 06:55, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
A lot of reliable sources say sixth album though [1] [2] [3] Calidum Sistere 07:17, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
And Bionic (Christina Aguilera album) was referred to as Christina's fourth album, while her next album, Lotus (Christina Aguilera album), was referred to as her sixth (by her record label). We can do our own math on here. It's his sixth solo studio album, but his seventh studio album.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 08:39, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
Kanye West’s sixth solo album “Yeezus”.  — Statυs (talk, contribs)
I'm fine with qualifying it as his sixth solo studio album. Calidum Sistere 16:56, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
Yes it should be listed as either his sixth studio album, or sixth solo studio album. I doubt any reliable source refers to this album as his seventh as collaboration/compilation/mixtape albums are not taken into account when tallying up number of albums. STATic message me! 18:14, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
And for that matter why not count Cruel Summer as one of his too. Calidum Sistere 18:16, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
Cruel Summer is excluded from the count, as it wasn't a studio album, but rather a compilation album. Is there any consensus on what wording should be used? I'd personally prefer "seventh studio album", and I don't see why Watch the Throne should be ignored just because it was a collaborative studio album. Do we really need sources to reference a simple count? Just because media outlets tend to ignore collaborative albums (much in the same way that they forget about Christmas albums and other studio releases of the sort) doesn't mean that we should. Holiday56 (talk) 12:17, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
Sixth or seventh depends on the point of view (whether to include "Watch the Throne" or not), so if we choose one of them, there would always be someone to disagree. I'd go with "sixth solo studio album" since this is true and doesn't depend on the point of view. 2Flows (talk) 18:45, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
Solo album is a type of billing for an artist formerly of a group or act, which West is not, so "seventh studio album" is more appropriate here. Dan56 (talk) 10:32, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
Fair enough. Dan56 (talk) 16:59, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
I propose the following compromise to stop further reverts ""is the sixth solo album and seventh studio album"". «»Who?¿?

genres

lots of writing referring to the sound as some sort of industrial music. make the genre industrial hip hop

Unless you have an official source (not from some illegal torrent website) clearly stating that the genre is industrial hip hop and NOT abstract hip hop, then no. Also, sign your comments.  11Block |talk 11:12, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
pretty sure none of the sources for the genre ever actually call it "abstract hip hop." only source that even calls it "abstract" is a quote from a questionable source on the article cited. find some actual official sources for that and it can stay. "industrial" has been thrown around everywhere.. "experimental hip hop" or "industrial hip hop" much more fully represent the gamut of critical writing on it 74.105.44.63 (talk) 19:44, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
and here are two of the innumerable sources that describe the album as both "industrial music reappropriated in a hip-hop context" (PopMatters) and "a wildly experimental work" (Los Angeles Times). couldnt get more obvious than that.

http://www.popmatters.com/pm/review/172614-kanye-west-yeezus/ http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/music/posts/la-et-ms-review-kanye-wests-wildly-experimental-narcissistic-yeezus-20130617,0,3686173.story 74.105.44.63 (talk) 19:58, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Done with changing with this edit. Thank you for providing the two sources but, please sign your posts.  11Block |talk 20:10, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Who keeps chaning the tracklist and producers?

Can you please leave the tracklist alone the way it is, everytime we come here it looks different. Please put the song producers back or make the page open for public editing — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.219.228.99 (talk) 01:22, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

An actual producer of the album said that the credits circulating were not true... so... No...  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 03:27, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
I am honestly genuinely scared of how much this page is going to be vandalized, when the protection ends in a little over a week. Just imagine how it would have been if it wasn't protected during the last week. >.< STATic message me! 04:26, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
STATic is right. Tons of people are making countless, false edits based on what they think is truth. Most of this false information however, is coming from websites that illegally feature the album due to a leak a few days ago. So, if you want to edit any of the official credits, THEY MUST BE OFFICIALLY SOURCED. I highly suggest that we wait until the official physical release comes out before anybody starts making guesses.  11Block |talk 11:11, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Edit Request 2013/06/17

Charlie Murphy is on the closer, Bound 2. http://www.vibe.com/article/qa-charlie-wilson-talks-recording-bound-2-kanyes-yeezus — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tcybulski (talk • contribs) 23:46, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Minor Edit Request 2013/06/18

Alexis Petridis, who reviewed the album for The Guardian is referred to as a woman, but Petridis is most definitely male. Proof: http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/alexispetridis

It's a small error but it was bothering me. And attention to detail is important. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.155.192.38 (talk) 13:45, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Done Fixed, thanks for the info. 2Flows (talk) 14:34, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

So many co-writes!

I'm not a fan of Kanye, but I have noticed the lyrics to his earlier albums were all written by him. On Yeezus all of the songs have 5 to 13 writers each. Should this complete selling out be noted? Mrmoustache14 (talk) 16:35, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

#1, it has so many co-writes because of the amount of samples... the writers of every song sampled must be credited as a writer. #2 What?!  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 17:26, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

"Featuring God"

And what source, other than Kanye himself, indicates "God" is featured on the album? That would indicate there is proof that "God" exists, which is a debate that shouldn't even exist here. Why is "featuring God" allowed? -- Erroneuz1 (talk) 00:19, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

That's how it is on every store, digital and physical, so that's how it'll stay. Distortiondude (talk) 01:51, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Still not seeing how that makes it acceptable to list an entity which may or may not exist, and as such, is not a provable contributor to the track. -- Erroneuz1 (talk) 04:16, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
It doesn't matter if he exists or not. Art is above any form of religion (or non-religion). What if God were actually an alias of someone else? Or "something"?--z33k (talk) 14:00, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Exactly, we don't know, it can't be verified, so why should it be included? I didn't think WP's job was to parrot the backs of CDs. -- Erroneuz1 (talk) 05:18, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
Travis Scott and Mike Dean just confirmed "featuring God" was a hoax [4]: "the tracklist was a hoax and the song was never intended to feature The Almighty. "People gotta stop doing that man," he said, chastising radio and media outlets for spreading the error." 2Flows (talk) 09:40, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
If you check Kanye West website it clearly says FEAT GOD in the tracklist. On itunes it clearly says Feat. God on the tracklist. Kidstylez (talk) 15:48, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
And someone said God is not listed in linear notes which would make the song title "I Am A God (Feat. God)" Kidstylez (talk) 17:28, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
As stated above in the source above by Travi$ Scott and Mike Dean it was not meant to. Does it really make sense to have no featured vocals credited on the whole album just to credit (featuring GOD), when there is no extra vocals or anything to represent "God". STATic message me! 17:48, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
We have to decide whether it is correct to list a featured collaborator, even if he obviously cannot be on the track. The statement that the song features God comes a primary source (Kanye himself). According to WP:USEPRIMARY, a primary source is an acceptable source for "information about what the person says about himself or herself and can normally be used for non-controversial facts." A claim that a song features X (could be God, the President or whatever) is already a claim about someone else, and as such is not reliable, in my opinion. Also a statement "feat. God" is quite controversial. 2Flows (talk) 19:33, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
I mean it would be different if there was a sample of someone speaking on the song as "God", reading a bible verse or something of that nature, I would not be as opposed to listing it. However, there is not and we do not credit the actual featured artist as featured artists, why would we list an Almighty being as a credited featured artist? Do we need to start a Musical career on the God page now so we can mention this song? Or maybe a discography? No no no. It should be enough that two of the main producers on the album laughed about it and called it a hoax carried over from the fake tracklist. STATic message me! 00:53, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

From what Travis said, it seems like because of the claims of the song "featuring God", Kanye decided to take the joke seriously and have it listed like that... God is not wikilinked... So nowhere is it saying that the song is featuring the "actual" God... That's just the way it is and it's nothing to be butthurt about. Several sources called "Hold My Liquor", "Can't Hold My Liquor", so should we change the title to that too, even though that's the official title, because it's not reliable if Kanye said it himself? Give me a break.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 01:01, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Please remain civil no one is "butthurt" just trying to discuss a topic, get a cooler head Status. Song titles are always contested when a album leaks "I Am a God" vs. "I Am God", "Bound" vs. "Bound 2", "On Sight" vs. "On Site". On another note the God featuring had been wikilinked in the past. STATic message me! 01:46, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
What is wrong with the word "butthurt"? "When a person gets overly offended for a non mean-spirited joke"; which this whole "featuring God" thing is - a joke. I'm just using an example... It's the same exact logic was removing "featuring God" because Kanye is not a reliable source... If he's not a reliable source for the featurings on his album, how is he reliable for what the song is called? The point is that its ridiculous. Could you provide a diff for that? I don't believe I have ever seen it wikilinked.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 02:46, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
No one said Kanye was not a reliable source, I also never said it should be removed I was just giving a logic viewpoint that makes sense. However when all iTunes, Amazon and Kanyewest.com list it I mean there is no reason not to. Not like it madders but here is just one of the many diffs, I am not just saying it to say it. STATic message me! 03:17, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
2Flows, above, said that Kanye is not a reliable source. And I wasn't exactly talking just to you, but in this conversation as a whole. So people don't link God, maybe a note should be added. Joke or not, it's just simply the way it is. For all we know the weird screaming sounds in the song could be this "God". But it's not really a big deal, and if God is no wikilinked, then there's nothing controversial about it.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 04:24, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

On the back of the album it says go to kanyewest.com for the full credits so we should definitely use the credits from the website. Koala15 (talk) 01:05, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Indeed.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 02:46, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
As long as God is not wikilinked it should be fine, since it can refer to someone else's work on the song, as someone said above. 2Flows (talk) 09:41, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
Personally, this is ludacris. God did not actually come into the studio and produce a song for Kanye West. God hasn't been proven to actually exist. Just because Kanye West claimed that "God is featured" DOESN'T actually mean that God is real. That is also another completely separate debate. However, use some common sense. Do you honestly believe that you can actually hear God sing or rap in this song? Did he even produce this song? Obviously, no. Thank you.  11Block |talk 17:45, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
If anyone believes that the "Featuring God" issue has been resolved at its current standstill then please leave a message to my talk page. 11Block |talk 01:29, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Anyway, this is not the first album to credit God. In Death of a Pop Star for example God is credited as "Spiritual producer," which is not mentioned on the album's article though. But as I said, as long as "God" is not wikilinked, I don't see a problem, because it can refer to someone else (or even Kanye himself) using the name. 2Flows (talk) 17:00, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

"i am god (feat. god)" is complete name of a song, just like, for example, "i would do anything for love (but i won t do that)". end of debate. Karol--78.98.79.145 (talk) 21:07, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I doubt it. STATic message me! 05:56, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
may i ask why? if you look at the official album credits (http://images.modlife.com.s3.amazonaws.com/custom/kanye/YEEZUS-CREDITS.pdf), you can see that it is written like a complete name of the song. so it supports my claim --78.98.79.145 (talk) 19:31, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
On the sticker on the back of the CD case, the song is credited as "I Am a God" with no mentions about features. 2Flows (talk) 22:50, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
It may be also worth mentioning, Billboard calls it "I Am A God (feat. God)" on its charts, but the proper title is "I Am a God". STATic message me! 23:24, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
So, simple yes or no question here, is it the role of Wikipedia to just copy/paste the tracklist of CDs/records/albums, etc? -- Erroneuz1 (talk) 18:31, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
Yes. Koala15 (talk) 21:13, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Digital Album Version

I noticed that the two tracks "Black Skinhead" and "I Am God" are listed as "Digital Album Version (Explicit)" on digital retailers (Amazon.com, Spotify etc.) How are they any different from the CD version, and if so shouldn't that be mentioned in the article?--z33k (talk) 14:05, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

They aren't.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 16:20, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

my little correction

Omega is not a progressive rock group. In fact they used (nearly?) every stile which came up during the, (60's), 70's and 80's ... Hardrock, Progressive rock, Psychedelic rock, New Wave, Space Rock, ... I think during there peak-times they said something like, that nearly every 2-3 years they change there style...

Maybe the authors of the source (http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/music-arts/five-star-review-kanye-west-yeezus-rocks-raps-article-1.1373220) thought that OMEGA is a Progressive Rock band, because of Gyöngyhajú lány is a Progressive Rock title. But, just a little example: they also had great success with there album and single Időrabló (álias Time robber), which is clearly Space Rock.
--Impulsiv. (talk) 01:48, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Exec. producers

Another user keeps removing the notes about executive producers, stating they are not special, and I completely disagree with him. In music, the exec. producers' role is quite different from that of other producers - "The executive producer is just responsible for business decisions, whereas the music producer produces the music." That's why exec. producers must be distinguished from the rest, by indicating them as (exec.) and also placed on top of the list of producers, since they are considered more important than the rest. This is also the way we have done it on the majority of album articles... 2Flows (talk) 00:23, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

That is definitely the truth. Exec producers are usually the main funders or masterminds behind the project and are definitely worth distinguishing. I mean they even get there own section in album liner notes, sometimes even on the back cover of the album. I think the argument might be that all three exec. producers are also normal record producers on the album. STATic message me! 00:45, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
The fact that it has been done doesn't mean that it should be done. Besides, as Static said, all 3 are also music producers... There are two different types of producers; music and executive. Yes, executive producers are important, but so are music... Without them... the music would not exist. Denote the difference between both or none.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 01:02, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
In addition, it's best not to clutter up the infobox. A "credits and personnel" section can be more specific about those kinds of things.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 04:27, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
Rick Rubin is only exec. The idea is that listing exec. and record producers together without indicating them can be confusing. 2Flows (talk) 09:36, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
Listing executive producers in the infobox is done in many GAs and FAs so there is no problem with doing it here. There is the case for being both (West and Che), but Rubin is only an executive so it should be noted. STATic message me! 06:00, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

"Rave" reviews

I do not think this article, or any album article for that matter, should describe an album as having received "rave reviews" in the Critical Reception section. To say an album has received rave reviews, and supporting this by lifting the wording from one journalist, feels like the use of sensational language to unnecessarily stress how well the album was been received. I am in favour of saying an album receives "positive reviews", or "mixed reviews", or "negative reviews", which is more neutral in tone. This approach is supported by many reviews of Best Picture winners at the Academy Awards, which can be found to receive positive or extremely positive reviews. DElliott (talk) 17:39, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely, saying "rave reviews" sounds like an advertisement. "Critical acclaim" or "positive reviews" would be better. Thank you for noticing that!  11Block |talk 18:07, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
Maybe the both of you should look up the word "rave" in the dictionary; it's perfectly appropriate for this context, as several other news sources have found as well ([5]), along with the better-quality articles (James Cagney, Dor (film), Channel Orange, to name a few). Don't change what the source cited clearly supports--Stick to the source, unless you can find as much reliable sources that use your preferred phrase. Awfully limited language does not demonstrate any neutrality. If the reviews were strong enough for these folks to use "rave", then that's the tone of the material in question. We're not misleading readers with a perfunctory "positive reviews" when that can range from lukewarm ("B-" anyone?) to what Metacritic likes to call "universal acclaim", especially when there are several sources backing it up. Dan56 (talk) 13:17, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
The use of the phrase "rave reviews" in the opening paragraph of Dor (film) is not supported by any references and you are the editor that insisted on using the phrase "rave reviews" in Channel Orange. Furthermore, I can see only two reputable sources at these folks: the Australian Edition of the International Business Times and XXLMag; the remaining seven links are of questionable authority. It was not deemed necessary to use sensational language to stress the reception in any of the following articles on Academy Award winning films.
These were not cherry picked to suit my argument, I just went in reverse chronological order from 2013 - 2009. DElliott (talk) 14:07, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Those aren't sourced either. And how is me being the editor relevant? Channel Orange passed GA, which is more than can be said here. And James Cagney? Dan56 (talk) 14:31, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
They are not sourced but they do not present nearly as sensational a view of the critical reception of the material. You being the editor is relevant because it suggests you have a desire for this phrasing for the critical reception in more than one article. Please remember that this is an encyclopaedia article and not an entertainment magazine/blog, unlike several of the sources you claim support your use of the phrase. DElliott (talk) 14:50, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
This suggests the same about you, although I did base that on the fact that multiple sources have used the phrase; I'm not one to go around tossing a phrase just because I like the sound of it. If this is all stemming from your opinion that "rave review" is sensational, I have no comment. Your use of the word "sensational" is getting redundant; why don't you explain how it's "sensation"? BTW, the source used at Channel Orange was Metacritic's article on the album's reception. Why don't you cite some "encyclopaedia article"s that verify your point of view? Dan56 (talk) 14:58, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
Saying "rave reviews" sounds like you are using words found in a persuasive essay in which that is not how you write articles on Wikipedia. Also, "you" are the editor. I am an editor, you are an editor, the people that are discussing this are editors.  11Block |talk 01:27, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
"rave": "1. An enthusiastic review". It's clearly defined there, as well as by the specific phrase in question "rave review" by Macmillan. And if look at any news source (say the LAtimes, or USAtoday), it's clearly acceptable. I can't believe I'm defending a commonly-used phrase to this extent. Dan56 (talk) 01:40, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
It could be because you repeatedly reverted good faith edits without first attempting to reach a consensus. DElliott (talk) 10:55, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Got to agree with Dan – "rave" seems appropriate in this context, as it doesn't actually refer to totally outstanding reviews everywhere – just that the response was extremely positive in most places, if not absolutely, totally and definitively universally acclaimed. It seems that people presume the meaning of the word to refer to a more enthusiastic context than is actually the case – I must admit that I did as well to begin with, before I actually bothered to read a definition. I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 08:38, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

This is the biggest problem I have with the word in this context. One needs to read a dictionary definition to convince themselves that it isn't unfairly biased and it could be sufficiently served by the phrase "extremely positive reviews". DElliott (talk) 10:52, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
You're the one who needed to be referred to a dictionary. And I don't need consensus to revert back to the revision of an article that stuck to the source that was citing "rave reviews". You would need consensus to make an edit that is not faithful to what the source explicitly says. And so I suppose these are "unfairly biased" as well: [6], [7]. BTW, how is "extremely" any less biased than rave? Dan56 (talk) 19:32, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
I think the average visitor to Wikipedia may also need to refer to a dictionary to ensure it is a fair statement. I suggested "extremely" because you earlier criticised that "positive" alone was insufficiently discriminative, even though "rave" appears to suffer from the same problem. I would be happy to see "enthusiastically reviewed" in the place of "received rave reviews", because I believe the current statement presents an unnecessarily persuasive view of the reception of the album. DElliott (talk) 11:18, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
If you're correct about how the average visitor feels, then this material is challengeable and should be cited, but it is (WP:CHALLENGE). I don't see any sources ([8], [9]) using that phrase, so we'll just stick with what's cited already. "Rave reviews" is a viewpoint that has been published by reliable sources, so you shouldn't add your own view or remove what's attributed simply because you don't agree with it (WP:TRUTH) Dan56 (talk) 17:22, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
WOW!!! So you're going to mislead readers entirely because you're irked by the word "rave"? Synthesis like this is not appropriate. You cannot use a source that specifically deals with a few critics' reaction to the misogynist lyrics on the album out of context (WP:NOR). Furthermore, your DailyMail source written by Gower erroneously attributed Jim Farber's five-star review as being for The New York Times and introduced their leading example of the album's "mixed reviews" with Randall Roberts' three-and-a-half out of four star review for the LA times. Reliable sources exist to show this is factually incorrect, so don't use it (Wikipedia:These_are_not_original_research#Conflict_between_sources). They also use the same diction you're hung up about: [10], [11], [12], and even your own Daily Mail source (caption under one of their images reads: "Rave reviews: Critics remained divided over the Kanye's lyrics but praised the album"), which further discredits Gower's article. And Popcornduff better start elaborating on his "editorialising language" line; it's sounding like a broken record. Dan56 (talk) 23:04, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
You criticised me for not having any verifiable sources to support my edit and now I've gone and done that. Here's another one, published by one of the organisations you say supports the phrase rave reviews. I will need to trust the wider community on the accuracy of the Daily Mail article because I am not an expert on all the reviews this album has received. What I can say is the title of the article says the album has drawn mixed reviews, the caption of the first photograph says the same, but the caption of the second photograph uses the phrase "rave reviews", which feels like cherrypicking. I also see that you have no problem with the other source I provided. I remain in favour of changing the phrasing, especially in light of the contradicting articles published by Contact Music. Finally, the post you made on my Talk page was insulting. I did not make this edit based on novel research of by incorrectly synthesising material, I lifted the phrasing "mixed reviews" directly from the sources in question and in good faith. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DElliott (talk • contribs) 08:03, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
You're entire point was to replace "rave reviews" with "positive reviews", so what source have you provided saying "positive reviews" or whatever variation you wanted? You cherry-picked the phrase "mixed reviews", which undermines both you're argument (so now it's not even positive anymore?) and this entire discussion. Using material out of context from a source is original research (WP:NOR) so my templated message to your talk page was appropriate; the article is clearly about how one aspect of the album was received, and it doesn't take an expert to see Gower's article has factual errors and inaccuracies, so don't play dumb and don't be offended by a message with "please"s and "thank you"s in it; hardly "aggressive". And how is an article about "Will We Get To See Baby North West On Kris Jenner's Show?" even directly related (No OR) to Yeezus? Dan56 (talk) 08:39, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
Furthermore, stop misusing sources as a way of removing two little words that irk you. I see you're willing to provide erroneous information and mislead readers into thinking the album received mixed reviews just as long as "rave reviews" is removed. Neither of you have explained how it's "sensational", so what? "I think the it's sensationl" < clear-cut definition and usage. Dan56 (talk) 08:58, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
I would like to see the phrase "rave reviews" replaced with something that reads as less of an endorsement of the album. Initially, I tried to argue for this from a common sense perspective but that did not succeed. I then decided to find sources to support my position and found several articles on Google News discussing how the album has been perceived to have received mixed reviews. I didn't use the material out of context, I lifted the phrase "mixed reviews" directly from the sources. This is exactly what you have done to support "rave reviews". Do you disagree that the more recent Contact News article contains a sentence fragment about how Yeezus has received mixed reviews? It appears that you have provided some reliable sources to support "rave reviews" and I have provided some reliable sources to support the phrase "mixed reviews". It is now misleading to say the article has received rave reviews when people can read articles from reliable sources about how it has received mixed reviews. You do not own this article WP:OWN. DElliott (talk) 09:29, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
  • It's NOT an endorsement of the album. Dan56 (talk) 09:35, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for pointing me to the relevant piece of policy. DElliott (talk) 10:10, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
I'm afraid DElliot is right. "Rave reviews" is editorializing language unsuitable for an encyclopedia. It's that simple. It isn't a question of finding sources that use it - lots of journals will use the phrase, but we shouldn't, because it's not appropriate and reads like an advertisement. Phrases like "positive reviews" and "mixed reviews" are preferred because they are neutral. I'm also not sure why Dan56 is so set on using the phrase "rave reviews"; what about "positive" or "very positive" doesn't suffice? Popcornduff (talk) 09:39, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
I'm afraid your superficial argument is sounding more and more like a broken record. "not appropriate and reads like an advertisement". Gee, care to explain HOW? And you clearly cant be one the same page with DElliot, who says the album received mixed reviews, when you're suggesting we write "positive". Dan56 (talk) 09:44, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
Well, at the risk of being tautological, it sounds like something that would go on on advertising copy, or the back of a book, or someone's self-aggrandising personal bio: "The novel that critics loved..." ""The album received ecstatic reviews..." "Critics loved the album..." etc etc. It all belongs to the same world of sensationalist or colloquial language. I'm afraid if you don't agree on that I can't think how I can demonstrate this further. What is it about "positive reviews" that isn't acceptable to you?Popcornduff (talk) 09:51, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
Do these read like advertisements? ([13], [14]) Does it say "positive reviews" at Metacritic? And did you just make those quotes up? Why don't you back up that claim, that "rave reviews" is part of that "world", because while I'm basing my argument on what's been published, you're making unsubstantiated claims about a phrase being sensationalist. Dan56 (talk) 09:53, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
I'm afraid you've missed the point. I could equally link you to a dictionary definition of the word "love" and ask you if it sounded like an advertisement. It would be a bizarre question. But to use the phrase "critics loved the album" would nonetheless be inappropriate in an encyclopedia. What language Metacritic uses is also besides the point; Metacritic is not an encylopaedia and uses its own preferred language. Remember that it would be fine for use to write something like "The album has received a Metacritic score of 85 out of a 100, indicating 'universal acclaim'"" (in speech marks to denote that the language is not Wikipedia's).
To answer your additional question from before ("And you clearly cant be one the same page with DElliot, who says the album received mixed reviews, when you're suggesting we write "positive"): I agree with DElliot in that we can't use the word "rave". If the album has indeed received mixed reviews (I haven't checked) then we should say "mixed reviews". How well the album was actually reviewed isn't the subject of this debate. Popcornduff (talk) 10:00, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
The "preferred language" appears to be yours. Dan56 (talk) 10:26, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
I would like to clarify that I am not in favour of the phrase "mixed reviews" but since it seems essential to lift the wording directly from the sources, this is what I felt I was able to argue for; I am against the phrase "rave reviews". DElliott (talk) 10:08, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
Now my interest is piqued! What's wrong with the phrase "mixed reviews"? Seems pretty neutral to me. Popcornduff (talk) 10:13, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, that was a typo. It should have read "not necessarily in favour of". DElliott (talk) 10:18, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
Dan56, can you tell us, please, why you object to "positive" or "very positive" reviews instead of "rave"? If you have no objection to it, then we should use it as a term that satisfies everyone. Popcornduff (talk) 10:38, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
Oh I don't know? Maybe because it's accurate, AND SOURCED? And about as "sensationalist" as "very (positive)". Dan56 (talk) 12:23, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
We used "rave reviews" to describe My Beautiful Dark Twisted Fantasy, which passed the check for good article, so I don't see why it would be considered inappropriate. On The College Dropout "general acclaim" is used which sounds perfectly fine, as well. I don't think "rave" sounds like an advertisement, but if some people have such a problem with it, we can write "general acclaim" and it would mean pretty much the same... 2Flows (talk) 10:43, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
The rule isn't "if it passed GA (or even FA), then it's proven fine", unfortunately. Popcornduff (talk) 10:49, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
I didn't claim there is a rule, I just gave an example of description of critical reception from articles which have been thoroughly reviewed by experienced editors. 2Flows (talk) 11:15, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
I have no problem with wording similar to "general acclaim", providing it does not read like an endorsement or editorial support for the album. DElliott (talk) 12:46, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
What does that even mean? "read like an endorsement...". Anything reads like an endorsement if it's worded in a way that's more favorable of a topic than can be substantiated. Accolades like Grammy wins and critics' poll ranking show up in advertisements. Should we exclude those from articles? Both you and popcornduff are missing the point: "rave reviews" isn't endorsing the album, it's accurately describing the nature of the reviews. If you cant understand that, well tough. I don't know how else I can word my explanation. Dan56 (talk) 12:53, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
What rule says "rave reviews" is "sensationalist"? Furthermore, the only editors who have made this an issue are you and DElliot, so unless there are any objections other than you two... Dan56 (talk) 12:19, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
What is it about "positive reviews" that isn't acceptable to you? Popcornduff (talk) 12:29, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
What is it about "rave reviews" that isn't acceptable to you? Dan56 (talk) 12:44, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
It's aggrandising puffery. It isn't as clear or neutral as precise as "received positive reviews", which is a simple statement of fact easily demonstrated with sources. This makes it perfectly suited to an ecnyclopaedic tone.
In the interests of avoiding an edit war, I'm proposing that we use the term "positive reviews" (or some near equivalent) on the assumption that no one objects to it. That way there's no downside, right? Unless you have some objection to the phrase, or see some inferiority in it - do you? You seem to be avoiding the question. Popcornduff (talk) 13:11, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
"Puffery" is exaggerated praise, so you are in fact questioning how well the album was reviewed. Puffery here is "used without attribution to promote the subject of an article"; "rave reviews" is attributed to a source and is NOT promoting the subject of the article. Because it gives you that impression is not reason enough to remove it (WP:VNT). All you continue to do is talk derogatory guff about the phrase "rave reviews" without anything to substantiate it. Dan56 (talk) 13:55, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
Let's also remember that 11Block objected to the phrase, too. Popcornduff (talk) 12:32, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
Not since I brought up its definition (01:40, 25 June 2013). Dan56 (talk) 12:44, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
Silence is not consensus. Eleventhblock may not have been able to revisit this talk page since their earlier contribution. DElliott (talk) 13:02, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
Dan56 first linked to a dictionary definition for the phrase on 13:17, 24 June 2013. 11Block's last contribution to this debate was at 01:27, 25 June 2013, in which s/he wrote: "Saying "rave reviews" sounds like you are using words found in a persuasive essay in which that is not how you write articles on Wikipedia." I don't want to put words in 11Block's mouth, but it sounds like your dictionary definition didn't change his/her position (and nor should it - no one is disputing the meaning of the phrase). Popcornduff (talk) 13:04, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
Again, 01:40, 25 June 2013. Dan56 (talk) 13:55, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
If multiple reliable sources stated that the album received "rave" reviews, I don't see the reason why the word can't be used. That's not an endorsement of the album, it's just what news/websites reported. I don't see why this kind of drama happening because of the word. — Tomíca(T2ME) 14:37, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
I see nothing wrong with it saying "rave" when multiple reliable sources related directly to the album, say it received "rave reviews". It received a 85 at Metacritic which indicates Universal Acclaim, why in the world would we put that it received mixed reviews when it obviously did not. Cut out with the WP:SYNTH with sources not even related to the album. STATic message me! 14:53, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
The question isn't about sources or dictionary definitions. Imagine 50 independent and reputable sources wrote that "critics loved the album," or "critics went nuts for the album," or "the reviews have been ecstatic". Fine on blogs or music journals or whatever, but not great for an encylopedia.
The question of whether or not the album was reviewed well is altogether separate. Popcornduff (talk) 16:16, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
You can imagine all you want, but you wont find those lines in any reputed news source, which happens to be cited in this article. And yes, you are bringing into question how well it was reviewed. You clearly are under the impression that "rave" suggests something stronger than "positive". Dan56 (talk) 04:02, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
I believe that "Rave reviews" is getting nowhere. I'm not saying this is a pointless argument but, we are going on and on and on. I am still objected to the "rave reviews" phrase but both sides have little evidence.  11Block |talk 15:26, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
I've asked this several times before but it's been repeatedly ignored: Would defenders of the term "rave review" accept a different term, or is this the only one that would suffice? Popcornduff (talk) 16:16, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
I think defenders would accept any other term OTHER THAN "rave reviews". It just sounds like an endorsement.  11Block |talk 22:09, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
Also, Dan56 keeps on bringing up the "dictionary definition". I read the definition but, that does not mean anything. I know what "rave" means but, how does that change anything. "Rave" is still regardless of any way you try to define it, sounds persuasive.  11Block |talk 22:14, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
Persuasive of what? An endorsement of what? I think you should reattune your sensibilities if the phrase continues to leave a bad taste for you. Dan56 (talk) 04:02, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
According to Rolling Stone, Mojo and Q, they consider a rating to be considered "excellent", and this album has a Metascore of an 85, so this means it has a majority of the reviews to back-up that claim. So, now onto the term "rave", this is a synonym for "excellent", which means it is perfectly acceptable usage of the term.HotHat (talk) 04:41, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
On a side note, they consider a to be a "classic", so I would call any album that receives more than five reviews and that has an aggregate of 95+ to be a "definitive" accomplishment, but this album not record has not attained that noteworthiness, see Rumours for that type of LP.HotHat (talk) 04:50, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
Again, no one is disputing the dictionary definition of the word "rave". We all know it means excellent. But I would object to writing "the album received excellent reviews" or "good reviews" or "bad reviews" too, because those are value judgements. Wikipedia should be dispassionate: a positive review meant the critic was positive about the subject and nothing more. It's not Wikipedia's place to say if a review is good or bad or excellent. Or "rave"! 12:42, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
"Rave review" means "very enthusiastic review"; the album received such reviews. You're being indifferent to this fact. Since you brought up Wikipedia's "preferred language", please explain how this detail wasn't nitpicked when these articles were reviewed for featured-article promotion: Pipe Dream (musical), Wilco, Flower Drum Song, Judy Garland, Carousel (musical), The King and I. Or why actual encyclopedias (since you feel the news sources are being neutral either) such as Oxford or Britannica have used it. Dan56 (talk) 13:59, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
What exactly is wrong with "critical acclaim"? The majority of albums with a similar or higher Metacritic score to Yeezus are simply described as either receiving a "positive reception" or "critical acclaim". The term "rave reviews" seems to be a privilige allocated only to Kanye West and other albums Dan56 deems fit. For me, "critical acclaim" would be the preferred term, as it seems to be the standard one used on Wikipedia for albums with this much critical success. Regardless of the dictionary definition of the word "rave", the term "rave reviews" does indeed read like an advertisement and the fact that so many users think so should be taken into account. 2.127.89.190 (talk) 09:53, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
To avoid repeating myself, read my previous post. And to the few folks who've made this an issue (while hardly contributing to article), since it "reads like an advertisement", find me an advertisement for an album that backs up your claim. I've done all the heavy lifting to respond to your nagging concern; even encyclopedic use isn't enough (Oxford, Britannica). Funny, didn't one of you say this phrase was out of place in an encyclopedia? Dan56 (talk) 10:07, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Dan56, your tone isn't helping us reach a resolution here - referring to your opponents as "nagging" and suggesting their opinion isn't relevant because they have "hardly" contributed to the article. That's not fair, and will only irritate people (WP:OWN).
Please respond to this question: is there a downside to replacing the term "rave reviews" with "positive reviews" or "critical acclaim"? Is there some reason the term "rave reviews", which several editors have shown discomfort about, is necessary for this article to be great? If there is no downside to using an alternative, then everyone wins. Since we are trying to resolve an editing conflict, this is an obvious solution to explore.
A few editors' "discomfort" is irrelevant, and that is one of the reasons, along with (yes) the nagging--repeatedly claiming "rave reviews" reads like an advertisement, yet not backing it up with nothing but a subjective take on the phrase. And my tone is a result of no one responding to my points and having to repeat myself. "Discomfort", LOL. I responded to your question on "13:59, 30 June 2013". And again, what of your claim that it's not language suited for an encyclopedia? (Oxford, Britannica). There's no "we" and no "editing conflict"; I've reverted the change to sourced content (i.e. removal of "rave reviews") twice, others have as well (i.e. major contributors to the article). Dan56 (talk) 10:56, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
I don't see how your post there answered my question. Can you explain? Popcornduff (talk) 11:44, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Ignoring the fact that it received rave reviews. Dan56 (talk) 11:49, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
I'm confused. This suggests "rave reviews" is a phenomenon or event that is distinct from receiving "very positive reviews" or "universal critical acclaim" or somesuch. Are these different? Your repeated links to dictionary definitions suggest not. Popcornduff (talk) 11:52, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
I'm confused--then why are you upset with it? So now you prefer "critical acclaim"? Well, if you made the seemingly baseless claim that "rave reviews" can be found in ads, here's an ad that uses the former ([15]) Dan56 (talk) 11:59, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
This is such an unfortunate example of ownership behaviour. DElliott (talk) 11:00, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Sticks and stones, bro. Sticks and stones. Dan56 (talk) 11:08, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Please stop exhibiting ownership behaviour by implying that people who haven't contributed to the article have less valuable opinions. You're effectively using the same language as in ne of the examples on the WP:OWN page: X created/wrote the majority of this article." (in a manner implying some kind of inappropriate right or status exists because of that). 11:50, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
The article's major contributors are relevant (WP:OAS), as opposed to a few users who appear to be solely interested in this quibble. Stop implying that people who make overwrought complaints at a talk page constitutes an editing conflict that needs resolution. This is hardly a priority for this article. Tomica, Static, and 2Flows were in agreement, before you drowned their comments out. Dan56 (talk) 11:59, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
  • No evidence (at least none provided here) showing it to be a phrase used in advertisements. Dan56 (talk) 11:08, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Oh come on, now because you are losing an argument you are going to claim WP:OWN. It is the fact that your WP:OR holds no weight at all when you have no reliable sources to back up the claim. Rave reviews is used in many other GAs and FAs along with being used in other encyclopedias. It is basically an open and shut case. STATic message me! 14:36, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Hang on a minute! Regardless of his argument, Dan56 is being rather rude and certainly, I think, displaying ownership behaviour. That has nothing to do with who's "winning" or "losing".
Nonethless, I think I am going to have to bow out on this one. I've looked at the Oxford and Britannica examples, and I'm really surprised they use "rave review", but they have and I'm going to concede that. I (and others?) still feel the term is too casual and exciteable for an encyclopaedia, but clearly many disagree, and me opposing it any further here isn't going to achieve anything. You're also right in that I can't back my position up with any concrete resource. I'm not sure how I'd even begin doing that, even if I'm right...
So my last appeal is this, even though it's the same one I've made several times and been ignored. Several editors object to the term "rave reviews", but presumably no one objects to other terms, so why don't we simply use the one that satisfies everyone? Dan56 has suggested that not using "rave reviews" ignores the fact that, erm, the reviews are "rave", but I find this argument confusing. As I wrote above: 'This suggests "rave reviews" is a phenomenon or event that is distinct from receiving "very positive reviews" or "universal critical acclaim" or somesuch. Are these different? Your repeated links to dictionary definitions suggest not.' Popcornduff (talk) 15:16, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
The Oxford Encyclopedia of British Literature appears to express a preference (11:1) for critical acclaim compared to rave reviews. DElliott (talk) 15:27, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
  • The usage of "very positive reviews" definitely does not cut it in the least, nor does "universal critical acclaim" because it's an almost direct quotation of Metacritic, which is not synthesis at all. So, when based upon 41 reviews by Metacritic, the album has only got one negative review and one mixed review. Furthermore, the album received 28 ratings and reviews at or above 80. I would be fine with: the album has received a "preponderance of rave reviews", which would be my olive branch to the side opposing the usage in the first place.HotHat (talk) 16:21, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
MILLIONS of Wikipedia articles use the term "positive reviews", "mixed reviews" and "negative reviews". Why can't Yeezus say "positive reviews"? Not "very positive reviews". Also, we are throwing around objections to phrases yet, no one is suggesting any words we can use. It feels like we are never going to reach a consensus.  11Block |talk 17:28, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
  • It has done way better than your mere "positive" reviews, even Metacritic says "universal acclaim", but we are not to copy verbatim from them. We can use "widespread approval" or "widespread praise", but I am sure both of those would meet with your ire, as well. "Positive" would be a distasteful disservice to the reception of this album.HotHat (talk) 21:27, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
"Widespread approval"/"widespread praise" seem neutral enough to me. But what's wrong with "very positive" or "extremely positive"? Popcornduff (talk) 22:06, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
...or "was acclaimed by critics"? Why does it have to be a non-encylopedic phrase like "rave reviews"? Enough people are objecting to the phrase that it should be a clear that a compromise is needed. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 16:36, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
We do not need to copy what Metacritic says, see the clear reliable source in the article which says "rave reviews". And non-encyclopedic? See Oxford, and Encyclopedia Britannica. STATic message me! 16:52, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
What is the obsession with only denoting the album's reception by one specific phrase? There are several people here arguing against it - clearly there is an opposition to it. Why is there such an unwillingness to find an acceptable alternative? There are more than enough words in the English language that mean the same thing as "rave reviews" and sound more neutral. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 17:04, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
How is "widespread approval" (not in any source) any more neutral than "rave reviews"? The opposition has yet to answer that question with anything other than a subjective "It sounds more neutral"-type answer. And other than Popcornduff, no one has conceded that encyclopedias have used it before. An "obsession", Y2kcrazyjoker4, with this phrase developed from the opposition obsessed with removing a phrase for no reason other than it doesn't appeal to a few Wikipedia editors. If it was acceptable for Britannica and Oxford, what's the big deal? Dan56 (talk) 17:43, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
As defined by dictionary.com, rave means "extravagantly flattering or enthusiastic". That definition, particularly the word "extravagantly", contributes to the sensational tone of the word. Furthermore, would it not be more encyclopedic to define reviews by positivity/negativity, not by level of enthusiasm? Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 17:57, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
"Rave reviews" from Collins Dictionary. Regardless, "positivity" and "negativity" are also levels of enthusiasm, just broader. "Rave reviews" and "lukewarm reviews" would be more specific on one side of the spectrum (the latter phrase I found was used by a few sources for Cruel Summer (GOOD Music album), which appears accurate from the looks of its MC entry, even though it received an aggregate score that indicates "generally favorable"). And this is starting to sound like a meta argument--"rave reviews" isn't flattering towards the subject of the article's topic, it's saying that the reviews were flattering of the article's topic. Dan56 (talk) 18:21, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
You still haven't explained why 'rave reviews' is preferable to a different term everyone can accept, though. Popcornduff (talk) 18:36, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Who is "everyone"? Dan56 (talk) 18:38, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Everyone in this debate. I assume everyone can agree "very positive reviews" conveys the necessary information without issue, for example. Do you think that's an unfair assumption? Do you dislike this term yourself? Anyone else want to weigh in? Popcornduff (talk) 19:20, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Sufur222, 2Flows, Static, Tomica, and HotHat found no problem with what is currently cited. I just don't see the problem with sticking to the Internationl Business Times author's phrase when it is a phrase specifically defined in dictionaries that seems appropriate/accurate to the level of this album's reviews, when it is verified that the phrase is used under this context in reputed sources, and when it is a phrase acceptable in encyclopedias more reputed than Wikipedia such as Britannica and Oxford. Can anyone cite evidence that this phrase isnt appropriate to be used in an encyclopedia? If not, I don't know why anyone would still have a legitimate issue with this phrase. Dan56 (talk) 19:32, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
The Oxford Encyclopaedia of British Literature, one of the examples you say supports the use of this phrase on Wikipedia, has an 11:1 preference for the phrase critical acclaim compared to rave reviews. The Oxford Encyclopaedia of American Literature is 5:1 in favour of critical acclaim instead of rave reviews. Perhaps the rarity with which the wording "rave reviews" appears in those volumes suggests that it may be out of place in this article. DElliott (talk) 23:05, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Where does it say it prefers one phrase over another? (references such as p. 81 in the book you're citing don't refer to the acclaim coming from reviews, but awards). I kept hearing the argument that "rave reviews" is "out of place" in an encyclopedia, or that it's "unencyclopedic language". Well, I proved it has been used. Now you're arguing it's not used enough? I didn't say it supports the use of this phrase on Wikipedia (the source currently cited does); I referred to Oxford and Britannica in response to those arguments, although no one has yet to prove their argument that "rave reviews" is something that would be used in an advertisement. Why don't you answer my previous question: Why do you still have an issue with "rave reviews" considering what I said in my previous comment? You can no longer say it's "unencyclopedic language", right? Dan56 (talk) 23:22, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
I think it's difficult to disagree that the Oxford Encyclopaedia of British Literature has a latent preference for not using the phrase "rave reviews". You can see this by noticing that it only uses it once, and it uses the phrase "critical acclaim" 11 times to describe how the work of various artists was received. Also, you said that if the phrase is suitable for the Oxford and Britannica encyclopaedias then it's suitable enough for Wikipedia, which feels a lot like you are using them to support your argument.
I don't see much wrong with the use of critical acclaim on pages 390, 140, 311, 350, 466 510, 338, and 17 of [16] to describe how the various works were received. I can only find reference to one instance of the phrase in Britannica. I have shown you that "rave reviews" was used once in three different encyclopaedias, compared to the many times that "critical acclaim" is used. Nobody here is denying that you have found two sources to support the phrase; I think we are arguing for a common sense approach to how the phrase is applied. DElliott (talk) 08:20, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
"Common sense approach"? I think you simply dislike "rave reviews". For whatever reason it doesn't sit well with you. Again, how many of those pages you mentioned refer to reviews? Pages 390 and 81 clearly attribute it in the context of awards. Oxford and Britannica was never in my argument before you brought up the argument that "rave reviews" is not encyclopedic language. I have disproven that to appease the both of you. I think it's difficult to prove Oxford's preference to describing reviews when no reviews are mentioned in the pages you cited, which you didn't seem to read in context. Why do you still have a problem with "rave reviews"? What's the big deal? Just stick with the source cited. It's a pretty decent source, is it not? Dan56 (talk) 08:43, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
I did not bring up this line of argument. DElliott (talk) 09:10, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
"Please remember that this is an encyclopaedia article and not an entertainment magazine/blog" (14:50, 24 June 2013). Popcornduff brought it up more explicitly that it isn't "suited for an encyclopedia". Dan56 (talk) 09:17, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

I think we might be able to resolve this issue by changing the text to better reflect the attribution. This would help readers see where the statement is coming from (WP:INTEXT) and would help quantify that is the opinion of the author (WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV). I propose the following minor change: "Upon its release Yeezus received rave reviews from music critics, according to Ria Kristina Torrente of the Australian Edition of the International Business Times."[1]

I don't have the time or energy to read this entire subtopic, but as it's provoked considerable debate and I think it's important, I'd like to weigh in. To me, the term "rave reviews" does not sound neutral at all and, thus, has no place in this Wikipedia article or any Wikipedia article. The term is actually a good example of puffery and idiomatic language, both of which are explicitly discouraged by the Wikipedia Manual of Style. Boyhominid (talk) 03:02, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Torrente, Ria Kristina (June 19, 2013). "Kanye West's Yeezus Gets Rave Reviews". International Business Times. New York. Retrieved June 22, 2013.

Genre rearrangements

Instead of nitpicking the diction of one sentence that is properly sourced, can we discuss the constant rearrangements of the genres in the infobox? This LAtimes review is being misused to cite both "experimental music" and "experimental hip hop" in the infobox, yet the critic's only reference to the album this way is "a wildly experimental work". Nowhere in the esquire blog is "industrial hip hop" mentioned, and the mention of the word is in a comparison of "techniques" found in industrial music to those on Yeezus. Same for "experimental music" and this Spanish edition of GQ (puzzling why this would be used a source in the first place). The Chicago Tribune review is being used to cite "acid house", which is used out of the original statement's context: "...consolidating the worlds of ‘80s Chicago acid-house and 2013 Chicago drill music...", which would mean combining the two genres' "worlds"(?) , meaning sensibilities/elements???. If it's not explicitly described as being this album's music or this album being a "[genre] album", the currently cited genres are not adhering to WP:NOR or STICKTOSOURCE. Furthermore, viewpoints or critics' interpretations should be given weight in accordance to their prominence (WP:WEIGHT). Charles Aaron of Spin says explicitly "Yeezus is a hip-hop album" ([17]), the aforementioned Latimes reviewer calls it "a progressive, assured and kaleidoscopic rap album", this ABCnews review calls it a "hip-hop release". Is there a more prevalent categorization of the album among the reliable sources? Dan56 (talk) 14:31, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I definitely agree with you, we should not be using one statement in a review to classify the album as that genre of music. Kanye West is a rapper and the sources cite it as a hip hop release, and that is how it should be listed. STATic message me! 00:50, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Artwork copyright

I notice that File:Yeezus Kanye West.jpg, the file currently used in this article's main infobox, is being claimed under fair use. However, I'm not entirely sure that it meets the threshold of originality needed for copyright protection – what exactly is being copyrighted here? It's certainly not the disc or the jewel case – the orange sticker, then? Personally, I would have thought that this image would be ineligible for copyright, but then IANAL. It might be an issue worth taking to the Wikipedia:Non-free content review to see what they suggest. I'll happily do it myself, if nobody else is interested. Thanks, A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 20:42, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I have opened a discussion on this issue here. Thanks, A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 16:13, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

what "artwork"

Commercial Performance

According to WP:VERIFY, "Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion".

My recent edit was made in good faith to improve the readability of this section. I do not think that the current version, which shows the exact US sales numbers on a week-by-week basis, is of general interest to readers of Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DElliott (talk • contribs) 20:02, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Okay, it is still notable and verified by a reliable source. The home countys sales performance is tracked for five weeks, and then there is a sourced total sales tally at the end that is updated weekly. It is not like we are going to list the weekly sales for every single week it is on the charts. And the album still remains in the top 20 on the Billboard 200 so it is in reader interest. STATic message me! 20:49, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
Its position in the Billboard 200 chart is ephemeral. In my opinion, this will not be an interesting piece of information in the long-term and it is better served by a more concise statement about the sales record of the album than a five week account. DElliott (talk) 08:58, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

AllMusic rating

http://www.allmusic.com/album/yeezus-mw0002554883 Allmusic have changed their star rating for Yeezus from 4 to 4.5 - article needs to be amended? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.99.0.202 (talk) 15:45, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Album Cover

Is that what the album cover really looks like?--71.235.92.16 (talk) 22:16, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

The simple answer would be yes. STATic message me! 22:48, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

he couldn't be bothered. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.139.150.238 (talk) 23:39, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Lou Reed essay

Would probably be worth mentioning the Lou Reed essay in the 'critical reception' section http://www.theguardian.com/music/2013/jul/03/lou-reed-kanye-west-yeezus

I linked the original review to the article sources now. Weird that it claims that the review was published September 3rd of 2014, even though it definitely was published July 2nd of 2013. Maybe they updated the site or something.88.113.110.174 (talk) 02:58, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

NPOV?

The opening 100 lines or so are like something written by a fanboy...shameless fawning violates NPOV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.147.125.176 (talk) 14:12, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Church of Yeezus?

should it be mentioned that he inspired a religion and a church in the article? http://yeezianity.com i mean the founder had an interview and shit...

Not really relevant to this album as much as it would be to West's article, however I doubt it would really warrant a place there. STATic message me! 23:08, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

GA Review

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.

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Yeezus/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Prism (talk · contribs) 14:58, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

First off thanks for the review, I will be fixing all that has been noted shortly. STATic message me! 19:14, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Links

  • Disambiguation: None requiring correction.
  • External: No dead link, although four Indeterminate-class links are denoted. (here).

References

  • FN2 could have Roc-A-Fella and Def Jam linked, although not mandatory.
  • Many of these references have an unclear style—while I do observe {{cite news}} is used quite a lot, {{cite web}} is also used. And almost every reference here is missing its publisher (e.g.: MTV News is published by MTV; Digital Spy by Hearst Magazines UK), while some even have the location of the work or website. While that is acceptable, a lack of publisher in Cite web is not. Publisher required: - "Kanye West's Yeezus Gets Him 'Don Status' From DJ Khaled"; - "Who's Kanye West Sampling In Retro Yeezus Preview?"; - "Kanye West's 'Blood On The Leaves' And The History Of 'Strange Fruit'"; - "Can Kanye's Invisible Yeezus Artwork Still Nab A Best Package Grammy?"; - "The Origin Of The 'Yeezus' Cover" (which doesn't even have a |work= or |publisher= parameter to start with, merely url, dates and title); "Kanye West - chart history"; (...) please fix all Cite Web-style references without a publisher for its original source. (except some websites like PopDust and etc which have it unknown).
  • Tip – If you're going to cite a website, there's no need for doing this: |work=x. Simply include |publisher=x.
  • Singles section: "Official Charts Company" reference can have it wikilinked.
  • "Kanye Reveals Next Single From ‘Yeezus’ – those apostrophes should be substituted with "'".
  • Metacritic reference has it italicized, incorrectly.
  • I believe I took care of them all, is there anything else outstanding that needs to be fixed? STATic message me! 05:06, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Prose

Comment: Judging from an early read, this article's prose is almost excellent. Prism △ 14:58, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Lead section
  • "The album began production in the living room of a loft space at a Paris hotel. West gathered various artists and close collaborators for work and production on the album, including Mike Dean and Daft Punk. Yeezus also features guest appearances from Assassin and King L, as well as previous collaborators Justin Vernon, Frank Ocean, Chief Keef, Kid Cudi and Charlie Wilson. West enlisted the help of producer Rick Rubin only 15 days before its due date to strip down the record's sound in favor of a more minimalist approach." – While this block of text is well written, it loses a bit of flow when reading it. Add some elements that help each sentence transition better into the other, so it isn't just sentence 1 sentence 2 sentence 3'.
  • "West was inspired by minimalism from design, including architecture, and was particularly interested in the works of Le Corbusier, and visited The Louvre several times while in Paris." – I suggest you replace ", and was particularly interested" with ", with a particular interest in", in order to avoid the repetition of 'and'.
  • "including, most notably," – "including and most notably,"
Background
  • "Following the release of his fifth album, My Beautiful Dark Twisted Fantasy (2010), West collaborated with longtime friend Jay-Z on Watch the Throne (2011)." – Could you please add a reference to support this?
Recording and production
  • The image certainly looks good, though is it well positioned relatively to the content? I don't think so, as it is a picture of the Louvre and the museum is only talked about in Background.
Composition (Music and style)
  • Samples' captions: please put New Slaves and Blood on the Leaves between quotation marks. Also, they aren't sourced, and the information (if sourced) could be transcluded into Song analysis.
  • Still regarding the samples: the file purpose descriptions are seriously lacking, some don't even have one. You really need a better description and reasons as to why the sound samples are in the article.
  • I did not upload them and I have no knowledge in uploading song samples or anything like that, so unless you can explain explicitly what needs to be done to them, I would rather remove them. STATic message me! 19:14, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
  • You can remove them. Prism △ 21:21, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Promotion
  • "The final Yeezus track listing was confirmed by the French branch of Amazon.com on June 12." → Do you have a better source for this instead of just Amazon? It doesn't really prove that the track listing was revealed on that day.
  • Removed as not being relevant to the promotion of the album. STATic message me! 19:14, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Public reaction
  • Nothing to address, actually. I just think you should somehow talk about how Yeezus inspired Lily Allen to name her LP Sheezus and how she (reportedly) is scared of potential lawsuits from West. There are sources!
  • Heard about that, but not about the lawsuits. I think Kanye has enough money already hah. Sure I would be glad to add it to the article. STATic message me! 19:14, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
    • Well, not really a lawsuit, she's just worried he'll "call her out" on it, lol. Here Prism △ 21:57, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the ref, I added a paragraph on it. STATic message me! 18:01, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
Critical reception (accolades)
  • This section should talk about the Grammys Yeezus was nominated for, as well as his unexpected response to receiving them. This is vital information for the article as well, I don't see why this is being ignored.
  • Not really "ignored" just not updated I suppose, adding shortly. STATic message me! 19:14, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Alright, took me a bit but I have now added it. You are completely correct with it being vital information. So is that everything User:Prism? STATic message me! 18:01, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Review history and summary

  • March 4, 2014: Full review. Prism △ 14:58, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
  • March 5, 2014: Grammy nominations still missing in lead and Accolades; there is also a problem with the Accolades table (badly formatted). Prism △ 11:53, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
  • March 5, 2014, UPDATE: Passing review. Congratulations for the prose, which is beautifully written. Work on it a bit and FAC it. :) Prism △ 18:23, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above 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.

Metacritic Score is incorrect

The article states that the metacritic score for Yeezus is 85 however it is 84 on the actual site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dacker1256 (talk • contribs) 19:16, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Roc-A-Fella Records

From what it seems this album was actually released by Roc-A-Fella Records after all. These reliable sources clearly site the album as a Roc-A-Fella/Def Jam release; [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], not to mention that is under Roc-A-Fella on the Def Jam website and the Roc-A-Fella wesite is converted to be focused around promotion for the album if it is not obvious enough. I am going to go ahead and add Roc-A-Fella back to the article. STATic message me! 05:03, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

It seems to me that they did it on a "oh, he's done 6 albums under Roc-A-Fella" basis and decided to throw in Yeezus in with the lot of them. Despite the sources claiming that Yeezus is "Def Jam/Roc-A-Fella Records", I am unable to locate any article that states it is published under the latter label. Here are my findings of fact:
  • The NYTimes, Spin, and Huffington Post (I assumed the section creator wanted to link this instead of a general "Yeezus" news section) articlesmake one mention of Roc-A-Fella. Only one. They do not go into any more detail than that.
  • I have confirmed via archive.org that on Jul 11 2013, the Roc-A-Fella website was promoting Yeezus in some capacity. However, promoting an album is not the same as distributing or publishing it. There is no evidence that Roc-A-Fella did either. Today, [24] is merely a redirect to the artists section of the Island Def Jam website.
  • The Telegram article is 404'd, but I'd assume any Roc-A-Fella mentions would be just as brief as the aforementioned articles.
  • The ArtistDirect.com webpage is a soft forward to Spin.com's article. I'm assuming good faith here that the numeration of sources was not used to make claim appear more legitimate than what it already is (dubious at best).
With that in mind, here's my counter-argument: Yeezus is claimed solely by Def Jam, not Roc-A-Fella - according to the US copyright database (registration number SR0000724178). However, Kanye's previous solo album My Beautiful Dark Twisted Fantasy is claimed by Roc-A-Fella under Def Jam (U.S. copyright registration SR0000683430). As a control, I also searched Watch the Throne (U.S. copyright registration SR0000683714) which was claimed under Roc-a-Fella despite its apparent dissolution in 2010 and Jay-Z's latest album Magna Carta Holy Grail (U.S. copyright registration SR0000734087) which was claimed under "Rock-a-Fella" [sic] and S. Carter Enterprises. If Roc-A-Fella were truly publishing this release - why wouldn't they claim it as theirs? Going another angle (one outside of copyright inquiries but not entirely), one can check the credits page on Kanye West's official website for Yeezus only to see that there's no mention of Roc-a-Fella there either. Sorry Static, but it seems that you may be the incorrect one here. I appreciate all the maintenance work you do with the hip-hop articles here on Wikipedia but if you're looking for ways to better yourself, fact-checking is one avenue to take. Ellomate (talk) 08:17, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
You are just making assumptions and have no reliable sources backing your opinion. All the links were valid almost a year ago, when obviously no one objected, since it is true. The "US copyright database" is a primary source (not reliable btw) and holds much less weight then reliable third party sources, which I have cited six. It seems as if that source is just mimicking iTunes, as MCHG was released by Roc-A-Fella/Roc Nation/Universal as can be seen by many reliable sources and the physical CD. Why would a vanity label be credited within the limited credits on his website? Also keep the personal attacks to yourself, it makes your entire argument look null-and-void. The only one needing to fact-checking is you as you must not understand what reliable sources are. STATic message me! 13:01, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
I apologize for my vitriol. However, it seems as though you are being extremely selective of the facts here. Your secondary sources don't site who; specifically, who said it was Roc-A-Fella. Once again, it must be said that two of your six sources are poor (in that they redirect or are dead links), and the other four make no mention of Roc-A-Fella's involvement past the parenthesis.
In regards to your copyright database not being a reliable source - why not? West's previous five solo albums (MBDTF SR0000683430, Graduation SR0000615020, Late Registration SR0000372867, and College Dropout SR0000347391) all are in some capacity claimed by Roc-A-Fella records in the copyright database? Why not Yeezus? Because it isn't owned by Roc-A-Fella.
You mention "the physical CD" of MCHG as a potential source, let's take a look at Yeezus' (pardon the high res image, I'm only trying to illustrate my point). There is no mention of Roc-A-Fella in the CD cover - apparently Spin, Huffington Post, and the New York Times are never wrong. Ellomate (talk) 18:15, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
So I'm going to revert it back. Call up Def Jam directly for a more clear answer if you live in the US - 212-333-8000. Ellomate (talk) 18:15, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
WP:WAX, two different albums completely, I am just said they do not apply to eachother as the copyright does not give the record labels that released the albums. Reliable sources govern the information, and unless six undoubtedly reliable sources are wrong and you have factual evidence of that, then do not revert. You do not have consensus for the change. You are mistaking publisher for record label. Do not be disruptive over your confusion. STATic message me! 20:14, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
WP:EANP. I have already challenged your "undoubtedly reliable sources" as being potentially inaccurate and presented factual evidence to back up my claim. Using irrelevant essays (we're not in an AfD, here) as your sword and shield won't get you very far in any argument unless of course you underestimate your opponent's intelligence as a force of habit. In regards to Yeezus & Magna Carta Holy Crail being two different albums, of course they are -- but you claim earlier (when referring to MCHG) that the physical CD is a valid source; if so, why is Yeezus' mention of Def Jam (and Def Jam only) not one? Moreover, why are you arbitrarily deciding which sources are "valid" and "invalid"? Ellomate (talk) 01:42, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
All you did was link to a primary source that stated the publisher of the album, nothing to do with record label. So you have not presented any factual evidence as related to the record label. It does not only mention Def Jam as Dan56 provided below. I am not arbitrarily deciding anything... a single primary source is not more reliable then six clearly reliable publications I cited, and that is painstakingly clear. I wonder why you have chosen to be so disruptive in this dispute, maybe just because you are so wrong. STATic message me! 01:11, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
Well, it was your decision to arbitrarily decide that Roc-A-Fella is a label on the basis of it being cited by four secondary sources whose brief mention of Roc-A-Fella apparently triumph over the official word of the artist. While secondary sources are often more trustworthy than primary sources (especially when it comes to things like news), errors can occur in the reporting that have to be scrubbed out afterwords. For example - at one point in time people believed that Yeezus would have 14 tracks according to leaked data on iTunes and Best Buy's catalog, and this was reported in Metro and Pitchfork, but since the album's been released we know that to not be the case. A look at the physical CD cover, the credits page, and Discogs metadata makes no mention of Roc-A-Fella at all, while the last five solo albums by Kanye West do. I understand your zeal as an established Wikipedian - but it seems that now that your argument has been proven wrong, you'll do everything in your power to cling to those four sources that make a brief pass at "Roc-A-Fella Records" instead of cold facts; and this insistence of fighting fire with fire with bureaucratic nonsense and twisted semantics is no help in resolving this. Alas, the pot has truly called the kettle black. Ellomate (talk) 01:42, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
Nope it was not, there was no opposition ever until now. Also, do you not know how to count? I cited six reliable third party sources and you have cited none. The artist has said nothing on this situation. A copyright database is not the word of the artists mouth and you have yet to say why you believe publisher is the same as a label. WP:WAX again, all sources were posted after the album's release, they are not speculation from before its release. Nothing has been proven wrong on my side at all, and Dan56 seemingly agrees. Again, six and four are not the same number, please count correctly, but whether it was six or four, that is still more then the zero reliable third party sources you have cited. STATic message me! 01:56, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
Your selective ignorance is at work again. I discounted two of your six sources as invalid (one was redundant and the other was a 404). The problem here is that the label is never mentioned by the artist in the credits; just "my six sources". Every time I try to challenge your claim, you present them as if they're the gospel (the brief "(Def Jam/Roc-A-Fella Records)"). Now it seems you're just grasping at straws here so you can game the system and not appear incorrect on a Wikipedia talk page. I was going to refrain from editing this article, but it seems that you would benefit from that. Ellomate (talk) 02:31, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

So as I said, four or six, or two, it is still more then the zero reliable third party sources you have cited. I am not gaming anything, I intend on we follow what the reliable sources indicate. How can I appear incorrect if I am right? Now can anyone revert this disruptive user so we can achieve consensus? They obviously do not understand WP:EW or WP:BRD as they are about to go over WP:3rr. STATic message me! 03:04, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

When your argumentation is reduced to name-calling and a request for mediation is replaced with a two-man consensus, it is a sad day for Wikipedians. Keep up the good work on your other articles though. Ellomate (talk) 03:24, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
Question, Ellomate. Isnt there a difference between publisher and record label? I looked for some past discussion at WP:ALBUMS and found this (Publisher = Label?) Dan56 (talk) 13:30, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
There is - one does the actual publishing, the other is sometimes on there "for show" (i.e: vanity) or to take a percentage of what the artist makes for signing him/her. Neither seems apparent for Yeezus in the case of Roc-A-Fella. Ellomate (talk) 18:15, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
It's my understanding that labels can deal with distribution and marketing, so if it's any correlation, the album cover/image was made "courtesy of Roc-A-Fella", according to that source. Also, it may be relevant to point out that the entire packaging (images from Discogs) is unconventional. Dan56 (talk) 23:47, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
Nevertheless, the credits page on West's website clears it up summarily. Roc-A-Fella is mentioned by Rolling Stone as the source of that image as a courtesy (hence, "courtesy of"); however it is rather dated and the equally unusual omission of Roc-A-Fella in the credits makes me believe it's just Def Jam that should be credited. Discogs also seems to back this up - not a single release points to Roc-A-Fella. Ellomate (talk) 01:42, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
As STATic indicated, primary sources are generally discouraged when reliable secondary or tertiary sources are available. Spin, Telegram, IslandDefJam, and Roc-A-Fella all give one thing while a primary source gives another. Metro and Huffington Post also aren't relaible, and I don't know what pitchfork's credibility is. If both the IslandDefJam and Roc-A-Fella websites list Roc-A-Fella as a label it was released under, than no question it should be included. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 02:57, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
Pitchfork is reliable, see Wikipedia:ALBUM/SOURCES. Not only is it a primary source, it is just a primary source of the publisher, not the record labels. STATic message me! 03:04, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
The problem is it doesn't. It does not list Yeezus as released under Roc-A-Fella records; only Def Jam. The secondary sources do not point to a primary source, hence the source of all the contention. Ellomate (talk) 03:24, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
Even if Pitchfork doesn't, the Island Def Jam and Roc-A-Fella websites themselves do. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 03:29, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
It did, the entire Roc-A-Fella website was converted to promoting the album when it was released as you already attested to. Reliable secondary sources do not need to cite primary sources, them publishing the infromation is enough to make it reliable. Also if this is not enough to convince you, I do not know what is. Why would Roc-A-Fella be sued over a Yeezus song if they were not involved in its release as you say? And as you can see from the top of the page here the album is sorted under Island Def Jam -> Roc-A-Fella -> Artists -> Kanye West -> Discography -> Yeezus. Seriously, what else needs to be said? STATic message me! 03:38, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
That sums it up. Include it in the infobox. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 04:48, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
Haha, yeah I thought so. Go ahead and restore the article to this version then XXSNUGGUMSXX. I would myself, but I already reverted the disruption three times. STATic message me! 04:54, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Single release date

It says that third single "Blood on the Leaves" will be released in 2014, but is it known when? It should be more specific if the details are available. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 02:43, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Well he announced that it would be the third single when he was doing promotion for The Yeezus Tour and that is about it. I am pretty sure there has been no update, and it has not shown up on any radio release sites, at least not in the US or UK. STATic message me! 02:51, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Daily Telegraph

Perhaps the XXL score can be replaced by The Daily Telegraph's score ([25])? More notable/widely circulated paper, broader reviews (not exclusive to urban music), XXL score noted in prose as their max, so five stars will be more comprehensible for readers than "5/5 (XXL)"? Dan56 (talk) 21:47, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Yeah sounds alright, I must have missed them when I was scanning the ones in the prose to replace NY Daily News in the template. As for the 5/5 I would like to point you to this discussion, basically we should not use stars if they don't. STATic message me! 00:38, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Sheezus See Also?

I don't think this link is appropriate. I am not clear as to when it was added. But there is an external link to an album, unaffiliated with this one except by culture reference (one directional). It is suspicious because the album (Sheezus) is being released very soon. This link either needs some context, or should be warranted in another way. As of now, seeing it as the only See Also, is very suspicious and I think lends some discredit to the whole article. I would be happy if some context were added or the link comes back after more of a connection is made, in the media or otherwise, between these two. But as it stands, this is inappropriate. 50.174.121.136 (talk) 09:24, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. I removed it. Calidum 18:28, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Yeezus/Archive_1&oldid=1052700099"