Talk:Tinderbox (Siouxsie and the Banshees album)

message: Stub article with not many sources; unlikely to grow much further. Lachlan Foley (talk) 19:14, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge with [[Candyman (Siouxsie and the Banshees song)]] 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  "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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Brett Anderson "hailing" the article 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Legacy section 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Goth Rock 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  "considered a classic"