m typo |
Adding RFC ID. |
||
Line 22: | Line 22: | ||
== Unexplained removal == |
== Unexplained removal == |
||
{{rfc|bio|soc}} |
{{rfc|bio|soc|rfcid=3B00456}} |
||
Why was [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Are_You_Experienced&diff=598576436&oldid=597978058 this review quote] removed from the "Reception and legacy" section? [[User:Dan56|Dan56]] ([[User talk:Dan56|talk]]) 17:21, 21 March 2014 (UTC) |
Why was [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Are_You_Experienced&diff=598576436&oldid=597978058 this review quote] removed from the "Reception and legacy" section? [[User:Dan56|Dan56]] ([[User talk:Dan56|talk]]) 17:21, 21 March 2014 (UTC) |
Revision as of 17:00, 23 March 2014
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Unexplained removal
Why was this review quote removed from the "Reception and legacy" section? Dan56 (talk) 17:21, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
- 1) Bob Christgau is an absolutely terrible source for music that is at all hard or heavy, and due to the fact that he has made numerous disparaging comments about the related genres I think his bias precludes him from being used at this article for critical commentary. 2) He was quite vocal in his dislike of Hendrix, so this review seems to be a pathetic way to save face; he's backtracking so the meaning is lost. 3) You cannot continue to go around to every single article and demand that they include a review from Christgau. You are POV pushing and if I didn't know better I'd swear that you either worked for Bob or you are Bob. 4) The "review" is exactly three sentences long, which is not at all serious critical commentary. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 17:31, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
- 1) Christgau is one of the most notable critics in rock ("eminent rock critic", said The New York Times, "preeminent rock critic", said several writers, "the rock critic's rock critic", "Along with presenting reviews of music from all genres, Christgau insightfully and tersely analyzes the cultural or aesthetic significance of many hard-rock and heavy metal recordings.") Dan56 (talk) 23:52, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
- 2) To address your suspicion that Christgau dislikes Hendrix--apart from him being "appalled" by Hendrix's performance at the Monterey Pop Festival (is this what's been misconstrued as Hendrix-hate?), almost everything he's written since then about Hendrix has been positive, including his "back catalogue" reviews for Blender and the majority of Hendrix's discography in his Consumer Guide reviews. Dan56 (talk) 23:52, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
- 3) The review quote had been in this article since before November of last year--you cant go around articles removing perfectly appropriate critical sources without a reason in your edit summary and act outraged or whatever when someone challenges your removal. And you've recently admitted how you feel about Christgau--"...lame blurb-cruft from someone who does not understand anything about rock guitar..." Dan56 (talk) 00:13, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
- This is actually quite a common situation on Wikipedia where we have a choice of sources to include. It has to be down to editorial discussion. I see from the central discussion that Christgau is known for writing very short reviews. Dan56, is there a reason you are adding these reviews to many albums? --John (talk) 19:28, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, the same reason AllMusic's reviews are added to almost every album article--these reasons were outlined at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Albums#Robert_Christgau_as_a_source_for_.22hard_or_heavy.22_music.3F. Dan56 (talk) 19:32, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
- The problem isn't so much that Dan adds a Christgau quote to every single article that he edits, its that its for the sake of adding it, not that it brings anything to the article. Also, using Christgau to explain hard rock or metal is like asking a skinhead what they think of ethnic Jewish music. Christgau is a self-avowed jazz fan who is on record disparaging this kind of music. Also, the business that you can gain consensus with your friends at an album project and then dictate content at an article page where that discussion has not taken place is absurd. John, you asked us to accept a voluntary IB, so how does Dan's continuation of his edit warring here work with that agreement? Now Dan will canvass three or four editors who never edit here to support his position, thus bullying yet another article into his will. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 19:33, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
- Also, Dan's approach is basically that no editors can ever remove anything that he added, but if they do then he will attempt to exhaust them while recruiting Wikibuddies to sway the discussion, hence my accusations of meatpuppetry. In the next few minutes several editors with a history of working with Dan will show up here supporting anything he wants, which is classic WP:MEAT. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 19:37, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
- OK, let's leave the ad hominems for a moment and pretend we are all the best of pals discussing this over a small beer in a Paris cafe. Dan56, do you see why your additions are being seen as unhelpful? There is no Wikipedia guideline (that I know of; tell me if I am wrong) that says we need to add Christgau or AllMusic reviews to all music articles. --John (talk) 20:11, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
- "Articles should provide an overview of the common interpretations of a creative work, preferably with citations to notable individuals holding that interpretation. Verifiable public and scholarly critiques provide useful context for works of art." (WP:SUBJECTIVE). As the discussion currently taking place at WP:ALBUMS' talk page continues to show, Christgau is clearly a notable individual holding the interpretation in the quote GabeMc removed. Btw, since Gabe recently responded at that project talk page, and since he has expressed the view that Christgau is an inappropriate source at other album articles/discussion, might it be more appropriate to discuss this at WP:ALBUMS? Otherwise, this anti-Christgau argument can be argued by him elsewhere--"an absolutely terrible source for music that is at all hard or heavy", which makes this an issue broader than just this article. Dan56 (talk) 20:44, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
- I'd really like to know what problem you have specifically with "In a retrospective review for Blender, the music critic Robert Christgau described Are You Experienced as "a roiling sea of guitar" that influenced the way in which "a generation of fans heard music". A consensus at WP:ALBUMS (unsolicited comments from project members who edit album articles of various genres) found him to be a more-than appropriate source here. Dan56 (talk) 21:21, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
- I absolutely require you both to stop commenting at all here about each other. You are welcome to discuss your individual dispute at my page. We need to keep this area for discussing improvements to the Are You Experienced article. I've redacted part of each of your posts which broke talk guidelines. Please, both of you, stop this bickering here. --John (talk) 21:35, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
- With the issue of whether or not Christgau is an appropriate source for music that is "hard or heavy" settled at WP:ALBUMS' talk page, what problem do either of you (if that's the case) have specifically with "In a retrospective review for Blender, the music critic Robert Christgau described Are You Experienced as 'a roiling sea of guitar' that influenced the way in which 'a generation of fans heard music'." Looking at secondary sources covering each critic, he appears to be a more notable critic than Noe Goldwasser and as much notable, if not more than, Charles Shaar Murray--the other two in that paragraph, neither of which have been "trim"med out. Is it Christgau's diction, grammar, what? in this quote? Dan56 (talk) 22:43, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
- Goldwasser founded one of the most widely read guitar magazines in the world, and he knows Hendrix's music inside and out as both a musicologist and a guitar player. He served as the series editor of the Hendrix Transcriptions that transcribed and analyzed every single note on Jimi's three studio albums, including bass and drums. Charles Shaar Murray is one of the most respected UK music journalists of the last 50 years and the author of arguably the best scholarly analysis of Hendrix's music ever published. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:48, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
- With the issue of whether or not Christgau is an appropriate source for music that is "hard or heavy" settled at WP:ALBUMS' talk page, what problem do either of you (if that's the case) have specifically with "In a retrospective review for Blender, the music critic Robert Christgau described Are You Experienced as 'a roiling sea of guitar' that influenced the way in which 'a generation of fans heard music'." Looking at secondary sources covering each critic, he appears to be a more notable critic than Noe Goldwasser and as much notable, if not more than, Charles Shaar Murray--the other two in that paragraph, neither of which have been "trim"med out. Is it Christgau's diction, grammar, what? in this quote? Dan56 (talk) 22:43, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
- You know, the discussion at WP:ALBUMS' talk page cited several secondary sources from me and one from Wasted Time R about Christgau, none of which I see have changed your dislike of him. Regardless, I don't see how any of what you said (verifiable or not) proves my previous remark untrue. And it definitely hasn't answered it--so I'll ask again: What problem do you specifically have with the "Reception" section continuing to include "In a retrospective review for Blender, the music critic Robert Christgau described Are You Experienced as 'a roiling sea of guitar' that influenced the way in which 'a generation of fans heard music'." Dan56 (talk) 22:59, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
- That's the third time you've avoided my question: What problem do you specifically have with the "Reception" section continuing to include "In a retrospective review for Blender, the music critic Robert Christgau described Are You Experienced as 'a roiling sea of guitar' that influenced the way in which 'a generation of fans heard music'." Dan56 (talk) 23:04, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
- Please read WP:IINFO. You aren't arguing to include Christgau because he offers so much to the article—your position isn't content improvement oriented—you are demanding that he be including based on his notability, not the value of the actual material you are pushing. As JG66 said, its "Christgau for the sake of Christgau" with you, and its doesn't seem to matter if actually improves article. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:10, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
- That's the third time you've avoided my question: What problem do you specifically have with the "Reception" section continuing to include "In a retrospective review for Blender, the music critic Robert Christgau described Are You Experienced as 'a roiling sea of guitar' that influenced the way in which 'a generation of fans heard music'." Dan56 (talk) 23:04, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
- But you're the one whose points of excluding the quote were credibility-related ([1]), not that the quote is a detriment to the section's prose. And I've addressed your concerns about Christgau's appropriateness, with reliable secondary sources to boot, as well as a consensus for Christgau's appropriateness as a source for criticism on "music that is at all heavy or hard", as you put it (WP:ALBUMS (Robert Christgau as a source for "hard or heavy" music?). A lot of bending over backwards, but you're still stubbornly defending your removal and being difficult with something as simple as a one-sentence review quote from one of the most reputed critics in rock music, removed from what is now a two-line paragraph in a short reception section. Dan56 (talk) 23:52, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
- "Editors, instead of simply declaring something to be 'cruft', should take care to explain in their rationale for deletion why they think the material should be removed." (WP:NOCRUFT) GabeMc: ""lame blurb-cruft from someone who does not understand anything about rock", "token name-drop". Dan56 (talk) 00:21, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
- Yep the review should be restored to the article, I see no logical reason for its removal, and Gabe's points have no reliable sources backing them. I still do not see why this needs to be discussed, Christgau is most certainly a notable, reliable reviewer and it always good to have retrospect reviews. STATic message me! 00:26, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
- I'm glad we got nothing better to do. Christgau's reviews are terse and sometimes to the point; this one hits the mark, IMO (OR, of course). I am not in favor of adding them all over the place, but if they contribute something, as it does in this case, I don't see why not. That it should be item no. 1 in a paragraph is disputable. But really, this is all quite silly. Policy will not decide one way or another, and it can easily be argued that a really short review/remark shouldn't be given the weight that other, longer reviews get. From a practical point of view I don't care which one of you wins; perhaps you should consider an RfC to settle it. Or maybe an ArbCom case. And I dedicated that remark to the girl in third row with the yellow underwear. Drmies (talk) 01:20, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
- Can't say I see a strong policy-based reason to remove the quote, but I do agree that it's crufty and adds little if anything of substance to the article. From a strictly editorial standpoint (if I were primary editor) I wouldn't include it. Curly Turkey (gobble) 01:39, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
- Okay so I read this whole argument and it was relatively hard to decide but i'm going to have to (surprisingly haha) agree with StaticVapor (and Dan56) on this one. Why would you remove his review if he's a credible reviewer? It feel's as if there's more of a personal bias coming from Gabe rather than Dan even thought it's continually insisted that Dan is trying to include Christgau's input in every reception section. It makes more sense to leave the review rather than take it away from a rather empty section just because it annoys you that he likes Chrisgau as a reviewer. BlaccCrab (talk) 03:02, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
- My views would align pretty much with BlaccCrab really. Sorry Gabe. Cherry-picking reviews is harder to defend than being overinclusive...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:08, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
- Casliber, if you think that I'm cherry-picking then you should re-read the section. I added an especially scathing review that called the album a "violent piece of junk". I'm not cherry-picking anymore than any editor who makes choices about what to include and what not to include. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 16:16, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
- Curly Turkey, above, succinctly expresses a view that coincides with my own. The sentence in question gets the name of the album wrong, but that could be fixed easily enough. Does the addition add anything, though? Like Curley Turkey I take the view that it doesn't, and at 77,000+ bites we have here a pretty long article without further lengthening it. Tim riley (talk) 10:11, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
- Well for one, it introduces the theme of the second paragraph--"retrospective review", the influence of its guitar sound, how listeners hear music differently because of it, etc. Secondly, there is a drawn-out "Recording" section and a "Music and lyrics" section that doesn't use summary style effectively, because of unnecessarily details on songs that already have Wikipedia articles of their own. The "Reception" section, unlike those sections, doesn't need a trim as it is noticeably short and inadequate, especially considering the ratings template, which supplement nothing now because none of the reviews from it are mentioned now. However, the length of either sections should hardly matter when it is one sentence being discussed, one sentence which was included in this article when it was being reviewed for FA, where there was no voice of concern for either the length or this sentence. Dan56 (talk) 10:37, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
- I must admit, I am not familiar with Christgau or his expertise in the field of rock music but I see no benefits in including this quote here as there seems to be plenty more where this came from. If a piece of information exists then it doesn't necessarily mean that it should be added. I think the article has enough journalistic view points as it is and it is more than capable of standing up on its own without having this quote in it. IMO, nothing would change in terms of quality if this quote were to be omitted. Cassiantotalk 10:59, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
- Cassianto, how can a skimpy paragraph citing two journalists equal "plenty more where this came from"? Per MOS:ALBUM, "the way that the album affected the cultural consciousness of a society or culture should be included to further establish notability." → quote: "influenced the way in which a 'generation of fans heard music'". Furthermore, it is a "notable individual holding that interpretation" (WP:SUBJECTIVE), and his expertise has been established in past discussions, including this most recent one. Also, unlike the other two journalists cited in that paragraph, Christgau's quote is from an actual review: "For older albums, try to include not just contemporary but also some more recent reviews." (MOS:ALBUM#Critical reception) Dan56 (talk) 11:12, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
- Can someone sum this up in one sentence for me, while I watch Pakistan DESTROY Australia. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 11:28, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
It's a review from a respected rock music critic. I don't think this reception section is overly long and we're talking about one sentence. But what sways me is that this line has been included in the article since November. Dan isn't adding this new content now, out of the blue, it's been part of the article that lasted through hundreds of edits by Gabe over the past few months and is only being deleted now in March. This seems to be part of a personal dispute between the two editors that began in January until Dan backed off from editing this article.
Whether or not this review is included, it's important to note that, unless there are editing restrictions, all editors can work on any article...the primary author might not agree with all of their edits but that doesn't mean they are necessarily bad edits. Liz Read! Talk! 12:03, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
- What is a "roiling sea of guitar" and what does it mean to "change the way a generation of fans heard music"? Including this does degrade prose, IMO. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 16:03, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
- Is "roiling sea of guitar that changed the way a generation of fans heard music" better than "One of the most stunning debuts in rock history, and one of the definitive albums of the psychedelic era"? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 16:12, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
Protection
I have protected this page for 24 hours while the content dispute is ironed out here. --John (talk) 22:58, 22 March 2014 (UTC)