Talk:Juju (Siouxsie and the Banshees album)

message: This brand new user, 2601:A:4100:5A:642E:1EB6:B88:2B18 with a brand new ip has been vandalising this page for two months for genre warring. BEATWEAKer edited the same thing at this article on  01:10, 9 September 2012‎ as 2601:A:4100:5A:642E:1EB6:B88:2B18, what a coincidence. This was quickly corrected 15 minutes later by IllaZilla at 01:44, 9 September 2012 . Plus now he tries to add a source that is a blog. Carliertwo (talk) 15:59, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: February 2013: vandalism by a brand new IP [Special:Contributions/2601:A:4100:5A:642E:1EB6:B88:2B18|2601:A:4100:5A:642E:1EB6:B88:2B18] that looks like a clone of  [[Special:Contributions/BEATWEAKer|BEATWEAKer]], a user that has been blocked indefinitely

message: The page is probably benefiting from a reworking and extra material going in, but can I just query the splitting of the "Critical reception" and "Legacy" sections in this edit? Allmusic AFAIK is a retrospective/reference site, ie their album features are not a contemporaneous review that fits properly under a "Reception" header. I'd merged them a while back precisely for that reason, so that the Allmusic and Guardian etc stuff was altogether. N-HH talk/edits 00:11, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Legacy and reception 

message: Carliertwo and Lachlan Foley: TOTALLY aside from your disagreement here, the BOTH of you keep reverting each other, and in the process, you have been undoing edits I have made that correct misspellings, typos, and other factual errors unrelated to your argument. I would please ask you to be more careful. This will be the THIRD time I have corrected the spelling of the word "unconventional." Greg Fasolino (talk) 16:54, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Carliertwo didn't undo any of your edits: see the difference between your revision and my last revision. Your corrections was only reverted by Lachlan Foley. Carliertwo (talk) 18:06, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Reverting again

message: ===Constant Vandalism by an user regarding the reviews===
Sounds (magazine) 's review were reverted three times by Lachlan Foley on 4 May, here, and once again on 5 May, here and finally on 2 June, here. This is wp:vandalism. Is this user lazy?, is it too much to ask that he reads other people's contributions before to click on the button "undo", seriously! Carliertwo (talk) 15:24, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: May/June 2013

message: Sounds (magazine) 's review were reverted three times by Lachlan Foley on 4 May, here, and once again on 5 May, here and finally on 2 June, here. This is wp:vandalism. Is this user lazy?, is it too much to ask that he reads other people's contributions before to click on the button "undo", seriously! Carliertwo (talk) 15:24, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Constant Vandalism by an user regarding the reviews

message: Discogs was not approved by a very large majority of several WP users in a discussion  here.Carliertwo (talk) 16:10, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: External links: Discogs

message: The WP manual of style is clear. It doesn't encourage half-baked propositions like naming a section: genre connection. The manual of style only offers this solution: Musical style, writing, composition. User Lachlan Foley doesn't respect a wp:neutral point of view in his edit here. Indeed, the professionnal Juju reviews written by Allmusic here, Sounds (magazine) here and The Guardian here don't mention once the genre that he's desesperate to connect this LP with. Allmusic qualified this Lp as "a post-punk classic" and only with this term, they didn't write a gothic classic. The WP users always have to wp:STICKTOSOURCE, if they are synthesing several published materials to advance a position, it is wp:original research. If you give a big weight to a position that doesn't represent the opinions of the majority of the reviews, it is wp:undue weight. Regarding the parts Lochhan Foley added from Paytress's biography, it's far too long and there are not from professionnal critics. Chainsaw is not a writer. Who cares of what he's saying. He's not a critic. Same remark for Phil Oakey. Chainsaw and Phil Oakey opinions should not be worked into an article about Juju- they haven't made any dent into their career or critical credibility, their opinions mean nothing. As compared to the other opinions out there that say "this lp is post-punk". A marginal opinion is definitely notable for inclusion, if the source is reliable - and if the article is avoiding any issues with wp:undue weight, which is my issue here. The article should establish post-punk as the main genre.Carliertwo (talk) 15:24, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Manual of Style: Legacy

message: there is edit warring over the genre the band are specified as being in the lead sentence. I would like to have some sort of vote in order to establish which it will be. if this is not actually a valid way of going about things and there is a rule against having votes, let me know.
what do you think the genre in the lead sentence should be?
* Alternative rock – because this is the most recent (last) genre they played in, I personally believe it is most accurate and reflective. they are perhaps best-known as a post-punk band, but to label them as such I think would be to place them in a time capsule, since they were not playing post-punk music in the last part of their career. Lachlan Foley 08:35, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Band genre 

message: As written, the article has a release date of 19 June 1981 but several other sources report 6 June 1981 and it didn't chart until 27 June 1981. Is there an authoritative source for this?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.121.143.6 (talk) 11:07, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  source for release date