Talk:Tinderbox (Siouxsie and the Banshees album)

Proposed merge with Candyman (Siouxsie and the Banshees song)

Stub article with not many sources; unlikely to grow much further. Lachlan Foley (talk) 19:14, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Brett Anderson "hailing" the article

In this edit I removed a sentence that described the album as having been "hailed" by Brett Anderson of Suede, because the source provided was merely a list of LPs on Brett Anderson's website, under the title "Some Current Fascinations". This, as far as I am concerned, is not "hailing" an album. My edit was reverted by Carliertwo with the edit summary "Brett Andersson called it "CURRENT OBSESSIONS", sure he hardly likes it", though this does not address my concern as it still provides no evidence he "hailed" trhe album (and it should be noted that the title of the page is "Some Current Fascinations", not obsessions). PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 23:23, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

I corrected the title leading to the url. Whatever he namechecked it, he mentioned it in a list called "Some Current Fascinations". Which verb should be used according to you ? BTW, erasing the whole url whereas it is an information, was not a good idea. Carliertwo (talk) 23:50, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

All that can be said for certain from that source is that Anderson is/was listening to the album at a certain time, and that presumably he likes/liked it for some reason. Without a quote from Anderson as to why he likes it or was listening to it, it would be a form of original research for us to interpret it as anything other than that he was listening to it and presumably liked it, and that's why I removed it - it would be a rather mundane thing to state in the article. Anderson might have put the album on that list because he was fascinated by a particular use of rhythm or a certain production - we just don't know. What is needed is an interpretation of this source, or a quote from Anderson, in a secondary or tertiary source. See WP:PRIMARY. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 08:31, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

"it would be a form of original research", I disagree, the man is apparently fascinated by this album which means he has an interest in that work. Primary sources are perfectly accepted in this case because it is an information, no more no less. Carliertwo (talk) 13:34, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

WP:PRIMARY states that "all analyses and interpretive or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, and must not be an original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors". Anderson's webpage is a primary source in respect to how he regards the album; ergo, it needs a secondary source to enable non-original interpretation. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 18:14, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

wp:STICKTOSOURCE. Does he likes the LP or does he hate it ? Surely, this is the latter, I'm gonna write this! Primary source is perfectly valuable when the main person is speaking, who else can enter in his mind apart himself? Does one need a secondary source from a journalist to say he likes the band? Seriously. His website's page is called Culture, these are things that he recommended his fans to listen. Carliertwo (talk) 00:20, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

You ask who else can enter Anderson's mind, and the answer is that you have. Where does it state that he recommends his fans to listen to these things? Also on that same page of Anderson's is a list of places he is visiting, including the royal armoury at the Tower of London - would you state that he therefore hails the royal armoury? You ask whether he hates or likes the LP, but this is a false dichotomy; as I noted above, it could be just that he likes certain aspects of it. Even if it can be accepted that he definitely likes it, that is still a rather banal statement to have in the article ("Brett Anderson of Suede later stated that he likes the LP"), which presumably is why you increased the praise by using the word "hails". When I read the article for the first time, and I read that Brett Anderson hails the LP, I thought 'ooh, that's interesting, I wonder what he said about it?', and was disappointed to discover that he said nothing about it, instead it was just on a list, and not even a list of all-time favourites, but instead just a list of some current fascinations - which no doubt would be replaced at some point for new current fascinations. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 06:26, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Request for comment

The consensus is against including "Tinderbox would be later hailed by the lead singer of Suede, Brett Anderson on his website" in the article. Cunard (talk) 04:56, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should this source be used to state that "Tinderbox would be later hailed by the lead singer of Suede, Brett Anderson on his website", as is currently the case in the legacy section of the article? Please see the discussion above. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 21:17, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Anderson seems to have had a number of "current fascinations", and it consequently seems to me to be overstating the case to claim he "hailed" Tinderbox. Additionally, the Wikipedia article for Anderson lists him as a singer-songwriter, but not necessarily as someone particularly noted for his critical analysis of music (at the risk of sounding snarky, he's not the Roger Ebert of music). Consequently, I'm forced to conclude, without additional information, that there's nothing particularly significant about this mention. DonIago (talk) 13:58, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Agree with DonIago, this claim in not significant and is quite unencyclopedic. Meatsgains (talk) 18:40, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

(Responding to FRS bot) "Hailed" smacks of puffery. Also, I'm not sure musings on a personal website are RS (see WP:SPS). If he were to be used, stick to the source: "In 20xx, Brett Anderson, the lead singer of Suede, included Tinderbox on a list of albums that he called "current fascinations".[ref] —Ojorojo (talk) 21:17, 17 December 2016 (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.

Legacy section

I removed the legacy subtitle as the content doesn't represent any legacy on the part of he band or album and just presents further reception of the album. Representing this as it is as a legacy is unbalanced and detracts from the npov. -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 05:44, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Request for comment 2017

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The consensus is roughly in favor of including the proposed text as consistent with the policies and guidelines listed. Due to the relatively low participation in the RfC, this is a purely local consensus. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:59, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

---

Following a suggestion of Ojorojo written in a previous rfc, can this new version be included in the article?

"In 2011, Brett Anderson, the lead singer of Suede, included Tinderbox on a list of albums that he called "current fascinations".

Some Current Fascinations Culture. Brettanderson.co.uk. 20 July 2011. Retrieved 1 November 2011.

The site Brettanderson.co.uk is his official site, it was written on the "[Sleeves of his records like Black Rainbows]".

Per WP:PRIMARY, "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge."

Per WP:SELFSOURCE, "Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves."

Per WP:WPNOTRS, "Specific facts may be taken from primary sources."

If you're against this, explain clearly why it doesn't respect these wikipedia rules. Carliertwo (talk) 00:32, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Support. Brettanderson.co.uk, his official website, was written on the "[sleeves of his albums like Black Rainbows]".Carliertwo (talk) 13:57, 8 January 2017 (UTC) updated

comment This is not an RFC and does nothing to seek out wider community input. While the above is a limit updateded consensus this would represent a local consensus and it would be dubious to consider that it overrides a consensus that sought wider community consensus. Further the source the source provided doesn't meet the standard of a reliable source. It's a trivial mention on a personal website and as presented this is simply puffery taking away from the NPOV.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 05:06, 10 January 2017 (UTC)-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 05:01, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

This was converted to a RFC days after this response.[1]-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 05:06, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Not correct, in the new version, the tone is factual and neutral. As user Ojorojo previously wrote about the previous edit, ""Hailed" that smacks of puffery", and the word "hailed" is no more used. There is no wp:puffery anymore as all the words are neutral, there aren't any peacock adjectives. BTW, the article wp: puffery is an essay and "Essays are not Wikipedia policies or guidelines".

The new version meets WP:PRIMARY, WP:SELFSOURCE and WP:WPNOTRS as shown above. Carliertwo (talk) 00:42, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

No it's still puffery. It's taking a trivial mention and attempting to use it to puff up the bands relevancy. Even if we ignore the fact that the source is not actually a reliable source to make any statement it still can't be used. This is a self published source and it doesn't meet the standards of WP:about self. However there's no reason to ignore the fact that it's really not a reliable source to make any statement. It's a trivial mention. Drop the stick and move on. There's no justification for the inclusion of this content in the article.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 18:45, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

I disagree, it is a reliable source proved by the physical releases of his music. Did you bother to read the 3 wiki policies WP:PRIMARY, WP:SELFSOURCE and WP:WPNOTRS that fit with the official website of a singer. You cited one wiki guideline that doesn't apply in this case: WP:aboutself = "Self-published or questionable sources as sources on themselves" which is for "social media" networks such as fb and "twitter" so it is not about a official website of a singer. Spare me your cheap advice of dropping this issue. Your history says that you only spend your time fighting at ANI and talks of articles : I prefer to follow a suggestion of a person who is an useful contributor like Ojorojo. Carliertwo (talk) 00:13, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

You should go back and read WP:SELFSOURCE again, it doesn't say it applies only to social media sites. It says,These requirements also apply to pages from social networking websites such as Twitter, Tumblr, and Facebook. What this means is that in addition to all self published sources, such as personal websites, it also applies to social media sites. WP:ABOUTSELF applies to when and how you can use self published sources. Since you like Ojorojo let's quote what they say your source can reliably say, In 20xx, Brett Anderson, the lead singer of Suede, included Tinderbox on a list of albums that he called "current fascinations". This is a trivial detail. You could replace Brett Anderson with an artist of more renown, such as Dave Grohl, or even the President of the United States and it's still a trivial detail. It detracts from the NPOV of the article since this detail is so trivial. It's inclusion is wp:undue and out of WP:PROPORTION. Anyway this conversation is played out. Get a consensus.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 04:48, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

You should only read sentences in guidelines that are relevant to this source which is a official website. WP:SELFSOURCE says, there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity. Citing wp:proportion and wp:undue for one sentence in an article is not relevant. Let's wait and see for other contributors to join in that conversation. Carliertwo (talk) 14:35, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

WP:NPOV is always relevant. It's actually one of the WP:PILLARS of wikipedia. wp:proportion and wp:undue are portions are a section of wp:npov. You say it's not relevant because it's one sentence. This is a non-argument. You have a trivial mention. You aren't even offering a POV of Brett Anderson. You can only offer that he once made a list of what was labeled "current fascination" and listed the album there on his personal website. Because this is a primary source you have to cut this so short. You can't say that he "hailed" or "name checked" them which was your prior attempt at inclusion. You can't say what the source means. To include you are attempting to wikilawyer the hell out of WP:SELFSOURCE. It does not involve claims about third parties. The reason for WP:SELFSOURCE is so that so that when article subjects make uncontroversial claims about themselves in selfpublished sources the info can be used.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 20:54, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Stating that this is wikilawyering is a balloon : nothing from the self source guideline (which is not a policy) really concerns this source. Carliertwo (talk) 02:25, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

You are right. This may not be wikilawyering. you could simply be incompetent. WP:SELFSOURCE everything from this guideline concerns this source because this source is a self published source. WP:ABOUTSELF since you don't like guidelines there's the same in policy. This allowance wasn't created so obsessed fans could use unrelated selfpublished sources to puff up the article.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 08:19, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

This is the end of the conversation started outside of the RFC -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 21:14, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Oppose, not only for reasons given by Serialjoepsycho, but also because it's wikilawyering and attempting to overturn the previous RfC just because Carliertwo didn't like the outcome. The admin who recently blocked Carliertwo for having battleground behaviour advised them twice (here) to stop wikilawyering, and yet here we are with the same issue rumbling on. Drop it, drop it, drop it. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 22:42, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

No, this is a new valuable suggestion written in the previous rfc by Ojorojo, an useful contributor who wrote several GA and FA. The guidelines are written to advise users in their edits. Carliertwo (talk) 02:51, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Support - The suggested edit seems neutral - simply stating the fact that B.A. listed the album as a "current fascination". I see no reason to oppose that. The article in general could use some work; thus to argue about the significance or relevance of that particular edit perhaps is not the best use of time. Netherzone (talk) 05:43, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Support- I see nothing in policy jumping out at me, and the language seems neutral and encyclopedic. A name of a list being stated in a factual way is.. well.. factual, not puffery, name of the list be damned. The above oppose voters should be reminded that consensus can change, nor is it "wikilawyering" to apply policies in the spirit with which they were written. Karunamon ^✉ 00:24, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm aware consensus can change. When I first commented this was not an RFC.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 02:56, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Comment My 17 December suggestion was regarding the wording only, i.e., if the Anderson source were to be used, then it should be presented in neutral, factual manner. It is up to more informed editors to decide if it indeed is appropriate for the article. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:10, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Oppose Self sources are authorized under WP:SELFSOURCE and WP:ABOUTSELF. It Authorizes users to use self published sources when the information is about the self publisher usually or especially in articles about themselves or their activities. This article is not about Brett Anderson or his activities. This is not a hard or fast requirement but it does at minimum require a justification for it's use. One hasn't actually been provided. The information is only article padding.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 02:50, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

No, in the end, what matters is what the policy WP:PRIMARY says "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge."; this one-line sentence from this primary source scrupulously respects this policy. In wp:SELFSOURCE (which is just a guideline) there are the words "may" (which means a possibility) and "usually" (which means not always). This is factual and it is not puffery contrary to what you previously advanced when [you first wrote "Oppose" about this rfc two weeks ago on 12 January] before changing the "oppose" to ["comment" a few days later] for some reason. Your point of view looks undecided as you have changed once more this week. Carliertwo (talk) 02:25, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

You are correct that I changed "oppose" to "comment". This is an irrelevant detail. Before it said oppose it had said decline [2]. You can see when it was originally posted this was not an RFC. It was simply a discussion between me and you. You later decided to convert it to a RFC. No my "point of view" hasn't changed at all. Above at the top you see me attempting to have a discussion with you that was started outside of an RFC. You are an obsessed fan and a single purpose account.With your bad faith, incivility, and personal attacks there's actually no reason for me to attempt to discuss anything with you. My comments above are for the closer. And for the closer, you will see above the statement only WP:PRIMARY should apply. There's no justification for this of course and what this all comes down to is a user obsessed with one band attempting to Puff up their bands album article.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 08:07, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

This is trolling, doing personal attacks during a discussion is a pity without mentioning a threat in an edit summary while sending me a Thank for my message. The last part of the previous post should be removed per wp: TPOC. Carliertwo (talk) 10:35, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Threat? There is no threat. Those are not personal attacks. You have acted in bad faith. You are an SPA obsessed with one band. All of which I will happily post evidence for here as per WP:NPA. Would you like me to post the evidence?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 10:42, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

In a comment above, Carliertwo states that "what matters is what the policy WP:PRIMARY says", but they then proceed to ignore the first line of WP:PRIMARY, which states that "Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them" (emphasis mine). The question here is not whether a line in the article accurately represents a source, but whether any information in that source should carry weight in this article. The most important policy here - which trumps WP:PRIMARY - is WP:NPOV, particularly the section WP:SUBJECTIVE, which states that "Wikipedia articles about art and other creative topics ... have a tendency to become effusive. This is out of place in an encyclopedia." It goes on to state that "it is appropriate to note how an artist or a work has been received by prominent experts and the general public" (my emphasis). Brett Anderson is not a prominent expert, nor does he represent the general public. This fact, coupled with the facts that this is not only a primary source that has not been covered by a secondary source, but is also a wordless source tied to a temporary time frame, means that to include the proposed line is indeed a form of puffery. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 15:05, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

No, wp:SUBJECTIVE leads to the section called "Describing aesthetic opinions" and there isn't any aesthetic opinions here. wpNPOV is respected as nothing has been interpreted from this source. Carliertwo (talk) 20:41, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

If you believe that WP:NPOV is respected just because "nothing has been interpreted from this source", then you are arguing for the inclusion of any faithfully translated information and so you obviously have a very poor grasp of the full application of WP:NPOV. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 21:11, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Per WP:WPNOTRS, "Specific facts may be taken from primary sources." which is why this demand is valuable and reasonable. Carliertwo (talk) 20:13, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Again you are partially quoting sentences in order to support your own position. The full sentence reads "Although specific facts may be taken from primary sources, secondary sources that present the same material are preferred", which is saying something quite different. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 20:30, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

This is a specific fact and "Specific facts may be taken from primary sources". Carliertwo (talk) 20:41, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

As pointed out immediately above, you are only quoting part of that sentence in order to make your claim appear more valid. The full sentence doesn't particularly support your position. The question here is whether or not anything should be taken from this source - just because it can, that doesn't mean it should be. If Anderson's reference to this album was reported in a reliable secondary source, that would provide indication that it is a significant piece of information. Without secondary affirmation, its significance is very much less. Billions of words and opinions are published by people on the internet, but that doesn't mean they all should be included in Wikipedia articles. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 21:01, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

No you carry on extrapolating and making your own subjective interpretations. You can make as much contortions as you want but in the end per WP:WPNOTRS, "Specific facts may be taken from primary sources.".- Carliertwo (talk) 21:43, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

You have a peculiar view of how the English language is constructed. It is you who is cutting bits out of sentences in order to support your view, whereas I have merely quoted what the sentence states in its entirety. This is not "extrapolating" or making "contortions". I understand from reading your talkpage that English is not your first language, so maybe this provides some explanation for your seemingly wilful misuse of statements made by other editors. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 22:29, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

I speak English fluently, so well that it took you tons of messages before you make this remark, after reading my talkpage and bringing out of subject remarks here, in a gentle way. I used the word "extrapolating" because you distort sentences on purpose and give meanings that are not present in texts you cite. If you don't know what "to extrapolate" means and what "intellectual contortion" means, you should open your English dictionary. Carliertwo (talk) 22:52, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

I realised English wasn't your first language a long time ago. As for the rest of your comment, you are just wrong. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 23:05, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

You are so wrong that your petty attempt to cancel this rfc failed (You contacted an administrator on January 11 here but he didn't find it necessary to answer). Carliertwo (talk) 23:34, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

I haven't attempted to 'cancel' anything. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 23:41, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

And, if anyone is interested in following that link you inserted, they may also like to look at this, which provides the context for why I contacted that administrator. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 17:24, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

In a previous comment, PaleClouded omits to mention that at wp:NPOV, wp:SUBJECTIVE is specifically about aesthetic opinions like who the world's greatest soprano is. Yet, there is nothing effusive in "Brett Anderson, the lead singer of Suede, included Tinderbox on a list of albums that he called current fascinations". As Effusive is linked to wp:Peacock, puffery is when there are words such as "legendary, great, brilliant, remarkable, prestigious, awesome, unique", this is not the case here either. Therefore, wp:subjective and wp:peacock don't apply in this case. Carliertwo (talk) 00:52, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

You haven't addressed my main point in that post, which is that Brett Anderson is not a prominent expert, nor does he represent the general public. You also keep failing to provide any reason why this statement should be included, and instead keep trying to find support for whether it can be included - but these are not the same question. Just because a primary source says something or puts something on a list, that doesn't mean Wikipedia should use it. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 01:38, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

I have addressed the main point of your post but you pretend not to understand. Your answer is out of scope because Brett Anderson doesn't give any subjective aesthetic opinions; therefore the rest of your comment "prominent expert" is not relevant. wp:subjective cannot be invoked.

You keep on ignoring on purpose the policy that other contributors did recognize: "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge". This policy perfectly suits. Carliertwo (talk) 00:17, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

I disagree with all your assertions, and again you fail to provide a rationale for including this statement. What you fail to appreciate is that the question being asked here is not whether or not primary sources can be used to make straightforward statements, because that is just a general question that cannot apply in all instances. As you are presenting it, you are arguing for including all primary information, without any editorial assessment of whether it is of value, just so long as it's straightforward and can be verified. This is absurd. The question to decide here is if this particular source can be used in this particular way in this particular article. And on that issue, if Brett Anderson "doesn't give any aesthetic opinions", then - even by the lowest standards of inclusion - what is the point of including this information? You have shot your own argument - such as it is - in the foot. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 01:54, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

No, there isn't any subjective aesthetic opinions such as "This album is the greatest album ever made". Therefore, citing wp:subjective is not relevant. This mentions the fact that Brian Anderson listed the album as a "current fascination". Carliertwo (talk) 08:16, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Support - Per WP:No original research and wp:Verifiability as the reliability of the source is not questionable. Woovee (talk) 21:20, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

So, anything from a primary source can be included in any article, as long as it's verifiable and there's no original research? No assessment should be made as to importance or significance? So when Boy George writes in his autobiography about meeting Siouxsie Sioux when he was younger, and says, "She was haughty, irritated by those attempting to brush with greatness. The new punk stars were every bit as puffed up as the seventies rock dinosaurs they despised", then presumably it's absolutely OK to add this, plus any other quotes I find in primary sources, to the Siouxsie Sioux article, seeing as it's verifiable and there's no original research? PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 21:56, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

I concur with Karunamon. This suggested edit is not OR, a name of a list being stated in a factual way is factual. Woovee (talk) 16:01, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

It is also banal. Primary-sourced statements like this should preferably be filtered through a secondary source, to establish their relative importance, otherwise people can have a field day adding all sorts of trite statements. Support arguments that boil down to saying "we can add this because it's factual" do not address this point at all. I notice my question about Boy George's quote hasn't been addressed. Where do you propose drawing the line for inclusion? In Pete Burns' autobiography he says all sorts of things about other musicians - should these quotes be included within the appropriate articles? He says of Elvis Presley: "I loved his eye-shadow and his photos. I thought he was one of the most beautiful men that ever lived, and a couple of his songs were great, but I wasn't an Elvis fan." According to the above support arguments, this could be added to the Elvis Presley article, because it's not original research and it's verifiable. "Pete Burns stated that a couple of Elvis's songs were great." Let's add it now! PaleCloudedWhite (talk)

Wikipedia is not a place for relating gossips. Woovee (talk) 22:24, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

So, Brett Anderson is a respected source for his own opinions or comments, but Pete Burns isn't a respected source for his? What's the difference? Pete Burns stated that he thought a couple of Elvis's songs "were great" - how is this different to Brett Anderson putting an LP on a page of "current fascinations"? You can't have it both ways; if you argue that a primary source can be included simply because it isn't OR and it's verifiable, then that argument has to apply to all primary sources, particularly if of a similar nature. On U2, Pete Burns says: "I know that every time they put a record out it's great. Everything they do - 'Where The Streets Have No Name - top that, bitches. U2 are fucking fantastic!" This isn't gossip, it's a statement of opinion. And personally I think it has more reason to be in the Where The Streets Have No Name article than Brett Anderson's 'current fascinations' page has in this - at least Burns says something and can be quoted; the statement about Brett Anderson putting Tinderbox on a page of "current fascinations" is a decidedly less emphatic endorsement (we don't know why it's a fascination, and it's only temporary at that). PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 23:00, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

This article is certainly not a biography. So I'm gonna close my discussion here by this remark. Different people, different views. This suggested edit seems fine in my view. Woovee (talk) 23:09, 9 February 2017 (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.

Goth Rock

I'm pretty sure this album would go under the goth rock category as well as the alternative rock category. Nasma654 (talk) 14:57, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Genres are subjective, and require a source for verification. What source did you draw from to become "pretty sure" that this album is goth? Binksternet (talk) 15:07, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

"considered a classic"

This statement should not be in the lead because it is not included in the body of the article. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 20:14, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

If nobody is going to discuss this then it can be assumed that there are no arguments against removing the "considered a classic" claim. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 21:28, 18 October 2021 (UTC)