Talk:Unknown Pleasures

message: There seems to be frequent abuse of Wikipedia pages about significant albums, in which non-notable critics and album reviewers (for example, Ned Raggett) namecheck themselves. The implication is that their opinion is sufficiently important to be worthy of citation in an article about a highly significant work. It would seem reasonable to require such critics to demonstrate notability before they are permitted to add their name to an article of widespread interest. Self-citation in such a context is also obviously problematic and perhaps should either not be allowed or at least transparently acknowledged as such. 84.39.112.114 (talk) 02:27, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: You have some kind of vendetta solely against Mr. Raggett, as evidenced by your entire (small) Wiki editing career being solely aimed at removing his name. It's grossly inappropriate. I do not know Mr. Raggett, and am a published music critic in my own right, and I myself added him (and other critics) to review sections, as is common and appropriate. Slandering us in terms of insinuating this material was written by Raggett instead is pathetic.Greg Fasolino (talk) 17:41, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Well then you're not very familiar with contemporary music journalism. Considering he is the main critic at AllMusic, which is probably the number one source of digital music criticism, it's not very surprising or "fishy" that his reviews are often cited.Greg Fasolino (talk) 20:15, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

message: Mick Harnett was the producer for this album but he did not provide his musical talent on this album he merley produced it. So if you don't mind I would like to correct this. (I should know I have the original L.P. and nowhere does it mention him playing any of those instruments or any instrument at all.)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:388:6080:86:D461:5C05:BB9B:325F (talk) 05:47, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Martin Hannett – producer; synthesizer; sound effects 

message: First, The only source of people being upset by the Band Name is one random blog post from some random individual with no credentials to their name whatsoever. Secondly, What does some imaginary offense have to do with one of the greatest albums of all-time? That section is a disgrace to the band and their fantastic music. It has no reason for being included in this article. It's incredibly  disrespectful to the music and the fans of the music itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8805:fe05:301:fd1b:9ee9:160c:6c17 (talk • contribs) 03:06, July 14, 2019 (UTC)
:This is not about credentials, "imaginary offense", whether the album is great, disgracing the band (?), disrespecting the music/fans, etc. Someone coined a term, based on than band's name, for a data visualization resembling the artwork on this album's cover. How that is an assault o)n Unknown Pleasures, Joy Division, the fans and everything else right and good in the world is beyond me.
:That said, the two sources cited are blogs and WP:SPS applies. I'm removing the section. If anyone finds coverage of this in reliable sources, it likely does merit mention (depending on WP:WEIGHT, of course), and this is likely the article it would be covered in. - SummerPhDv2.0 18:33, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Clarification: I'm fairly convinced it belongs here because the name seems to be widely used in what are certainly reliable sources. I am not adding it myself, though, because I haven't found a reliable source giving the origin. - SummerPhDv2.0 18:47, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  What Do Joy Plots Have TO Do With Anything?