Talk:The Loudest Sound Ever Heard
Latest comment: 1 year ago by TARDIS in topic Updated article
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
Should primary source content be included
editDoes it matter how Hindalong feels about the content and if he thinks it's "probably their most hopeful offering"? It's problematic at best. We don't have any content from WP:SECONDARY sources to WP:BALANCE the content. We have WP:PEACOCK terms to couch the "offering". It feels like promotional fluff. I'd sooner read what a professional reviewer thinks about the lyrics, or even a professional program such as "Under the Radar". I appreciate the music, but not the opinion being offered by Hindalong. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:19, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
- @Anarchyte: This conversation started before this comment, so I'm on WP:BRD and I'm with you. From the comments left by the other editor, I'm feeling they want a WP:BATTLEGROUND, which I'm not willing to enter. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:45, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
- Pretty mundane quote. While I think it technically could be done, I don't think its worth mentioning. Sergecross73 msg me 15:46, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
- I think it's problematic too - pretty much any artist promoting their new record in interviews says something like "I think this is our strongest record to date" or "I feel my songwriting has really improved since the last record"... if you allow the artist's opinion to be included all album articles are going to end up with a quote about how this is "our best work so far, we're really proud of it" and it becomes meaningless. There's enough third-party opinion from the critical reviews, surely? Richard3120 (talk) 16:01, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
- There are five reviews present and something could be gleaned from them. I'll see if a critical reception section can be created. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:04, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
- Richard, the quote came five years after the album so it's a stretch to suggest it's promotional, and they have had a number of albums since then, and Steve's not saying it's their strongest album, he is just differentiating it from their other albums. I could add more sourced content about the recording of the album and the themes present on the record. But I won't do it until we can be sure Walter isn't going to remove informative content as is his nature. Considering this is the first bit of talk on this page and has had a lot of response within a short space of time, and it is all backing up a petty opinion of Walter's, I wouldn't be surprised if we have more sock-puppeting behaviour here. It is being noted for a case of sock-puppeting. In the end, who is it harming to have this quote on the page? When I look at a music article, I love seeing what the band thought about the album and their insight rather than what people who had nothing to do with the album think about it. That's not informative, that's just other's opinions. Religious Burp (talk) 23:07, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
- I'm tired of you casting aspersions on me. Stop it now. Please read WP:NPA where it states, "Comment on content, not on the contributor". Consider this a warning. The next will be official.
- The reason these editors are here are to generate WP:CONSENSUS on the issue at hand and I requested that in a few locations that would gather interested editors. No sock puppets involved. I even admitted that I could be wrong in my position that PRIMARY may not apply here.
- If you want to read about the band's opinion when reading an article, there are places for that: blogs, Facebook, Twitter, fan forums, the band's own website and a few other locations. Wikipedia is a place for reliable, secondary sources that discuss the subject in an neutral, encyclopedic way. See WP:NOT and WP:WIAE Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:29, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
- Concerning the last bit of your argument about adding insight from the artist - that's the very reason I objected to its inclusion. It's a rather mundane, pointless quote. One of my main areas of contribution is providing insight on the writing/recording/creation process. I love that "behind-the-scenes" type stuff. But this quote doesn't say anything of interest. It's right up there with artists proclaiming "Our newest album is our best yet" or "This one is for our fans who we love and are thankful for" - all artists say junk like that. There's no real insight. Sergecross73 msg me 00:22, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
- And to be fair the the artist here, it may actually be a superlative for them, even when reflecting back after five years, but is it encyclopedic? If it were written in the artist's memoirs, I could see adding a statement like, "In his memoirs, drummer and lyricist Steve Hindalong considered this album to be the release that lyrically offered the most hope", with a ref to support it. No need for the quote. But a link to a response to a fan post isn't the best source. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:57, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
- Look at every Wikipedia article about a U2 album and you will see primary comments from the members of the band about the album. Will these be removed too? Describing an album as hopeful adds flavor that isn't otherwise in the article. Currently, you learn nothing about this album from reading this article. With a quote like this, you can at least see how the band views the album compared to their other efforts. More than happy to add more sourced insights and flesh out the article, but not if it is removed by a guy who probably hasn't even listened to the album. Yes, you can read that content elsewhere, but Wikipedia is often the first place people stop when they want to learn more about something. If I listen to an album and want to learn more about it, I want to see more than the information on the album sleeve & a few reviews of it. This is just a small quote from the band, but removing information like this is a pattern of behaviour from Walter. And that kind of bullying needs to be stopped. It can be debated whether this addition is interesting, but it's certainly relevant. There is a lot of information on Wikipedia that won't interest everyone, but will interest a reasonable section of people who are seeking more insight into that subject. Religious Burp (talk) 01:42, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
- The U2 articles may all have extended quotes. War uses one, and it's taken from a secondary source: Thrills, Adrian (26 February 1983). "War & Peace". NME. Archived from the original on 17 July 2011. Retrieved 7 November 2007.
{{cite web}}: Unknown parameter|deadurl=ignored (|url-status=suggested) (help) Of course I've listened to the album, and I have a copy on my music shelf, but that's immaterial. Again, please see WP:NOT and WP:WIAE to talk against your final point. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:58, 30 August 2017 (UTC) - Plesse read WP:OSE too. Quotes and sources need to be evaluated on an individual basis. If you've got concerns about U2 quotes, bring it up on their talk page. I haven't worked on any U2 articles, but if their quotes in their article are as dull and pointless as your proposed content addition, then sure, perhaps they should be removed too. Sergecross73 msg me 02:41, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
- The U2 articles may all have extended quotes. War uses one, and it's taken from a secondary source: Thrills, Adrian (26 February 1983). "War & Peace". NME. Archived from the original on 17 July 2011. Retrieved 7 November 2007.
- Look at every Wikipedia article about a U2 album and you will see primary comments from the members of the band about the album. Will these be removed too? Describing an album as hopeful adds flavor that isn't otherwise in the article. Currently, you learn nothing about this album from reading this article. With a quote like this, you can at least see how the band views the album compared to their other efforts. More than happy to add more sourced insights and flesh out the article, but not if it is removed by a guy who probably hasn't even listened to the album. Yes, you can read that content elsewhere, but Wikipedia is often the first place people stop when they want to learn more about something. If I listen to an album and want to learn more about it, I want to see more than the information on the album sleeve & a few reviews of it. This is just a small quote from the band, but removing information like this is a pattern of behaviour from Walter. And that kind of bullying needs to be stopped. It can be debated whether this addition is interesting, but it's certainly relevant. There is a lot of information on Wikipedia that won't interest everyone, but will interest a reasonable section of people who are seeking more insight into that subject. Religious Burp (talk) 01:42, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
- And to be fair the the artist here, it may actually be a superlative for them, even when reflecting back after five years, but is it encyclopedic? If it were written in the artist's memoirs, I could see adding a statement like, "In his memoirs, drummer and lyricist Steve Hindalong considered this album to be the release that lyrically offered the most hope", with a ref to support it. No need for the quote. But a link to a response to a fan post isn't the best source. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:57, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
- Richard, the quote came five years after the album so it's a stretch to suggest it's promotional, and they have had a number of albums since then, and Steve's not saying it's their strongest album, he is just differentiating it from their other albums. I could add more sourced content about the recording of the album and the themes present on the record. But I won't do it until we can be sure Walter isn't going to remove informative content as is his nature. Considering this is the first bit of talk on this page and has had a lot of response within a short space of time, and it is all backing up a petty opinion of Walter's, I wouldn't be surprised if we have more sock-puppeting behaviour here. It is being noted for a case of sock-puppeting. In the end, who is it harming to have this quote on the page? When I look at a music article, I love seeing what the band thought about the album and their insight rather than what people who had nothing to do with the album think about it. That's not informative, that's just other's opinions. Religious Burp (talk) 23:07, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
- There are five reviews present and something could be gleaned from them. I'll see if a critical reception section can be created. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:04, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
- I think it's problematic too - pretty much any artist promoting their new record in interviews says something like "I think this is our strongest record to date" or "I feel my songwriting has really improved since the last record"... if you allow the artist's opinion to be included all album articles are going to end up with a quote about how this is "our best work so far, we're really proud of it" and it becomes meaningless. There's enough third-party opinion from the critical reviews, surely? Richard3120 (talk) 16:01, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
Article was recently unlocked. I'm assuming the consensus was to not add the direct quote from the creator and to add a critical reception section with details from professional reviewers. Correct me if I'm wrong. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:22, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
Updated article
editI have been in the process of revising all the album entries for the Choir, removing POV and unsourced language, adding relevant information with reliable sources and doing basic formatting and cleanup; the current version of The Loudest Sound Ever Heard is the result. TARDIS (talk) 19:23, 11 March 2023 (UTC)