Talk:Raw Power

message: This page contradicts the main Stooges page's discussion of the album in several ways. It says Pop insisted on the Ashton brothers' involvement; the Stooges page says that the Ashtons were a fallback choice after Pop and Bowie were unable to find British musicians to use. The Stooges page further says that Ashton was rankled by this, and by his demotion to bass. The Stooges page says that David Bowie mixed Raw Power; this page says that Iggy Pop mixed it. It seems that the two pages have radically different sources. I have no way of knowing which is correct, but they should be reconciled.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.236.128.9 (talk) 20:13, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Discrepancy

message: :Image:StoogesRawPower.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 11:24, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:StoogesRawPower.jpg

message: Too much of this article is dedicated to the different mixes of the album with lengthy quotes from Bowie, Pop and other band members.  While this is a contentious issue among diehard fans, it's over-represented here and could be cut down considerably. Morganfitzp (talk) 03:26, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Article focus

message: This might freak some fans of raw power out but there is a remix of gimme danger that has been officially released. It's first placement was in a promo for the americans season two https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEpffIkw6fM It's second placement has been in the new game "watch dogs" http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=5&cad=rja&uact=8&sqi=2&ved=0CDoQFjAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwatchdogs.wikia.com%2Fwiki%2FMusic&ei=xrq4U9ssw6HIBPfhgdgJ&usg=AFQjCNEvJBExbIpUFkfqvGENsRcmS8IbuA&sig2=xVFMIa4pVEPoA4qNaC7FiA&bvm=bv.70138588,d.aWw as far as I know, there has not been any kind of official announcement but, I should know as I (along with matt novack) was the one who did this remix. I'm sorry if my comment has been messy, I've never done this before. If I've missed anything I can be reached at josh@joshmobley.com. Jmobb (talk) 03:05, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: official remix for gimme danger released

message: Substituted at 03:57, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: According to the article's lead and infobox, Raw Power was released on February 7, 1973. The "Release and reception" section, however, says it was released in the U.S. in May 1973 and the U.K. a month later.
So was it released in February or May-June? Was it released in some foreign territory three months before its U.S. release? Was it released in February and recalled, then released again in May? — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 02:21, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  What was the release date?  

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Raw Power. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051228203950/http://www.i94bar.com/ints/james1.html to http://www.i94bar.com/ints/james1.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:51, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Does anyone else have an issue with calling Christgau's Consumer Guide Christgau's Consumer Guide?  Calling the source The Village Voice works as well, but it should be made clear that both od the reviews are by the same guy from the same publication. Esszet (talk) 12:51, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: They're not from the same publication; one was published in the 1981 book Christgau's Record Guide and the other was published in a 1997 Village Voice column, for which Robert Christgau did not write exclusively ("...the same publication"). What is the reason for clarifying in this template that both reviews were authored by the same critic anyway? Dan56 (talk) 21:14, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: They are from the same publication: Christgau's Consumer Guide.  Go here, and you'll see that both reviews are listed under "Consumer Guide Reviews" (the first one must have been published in there during its Newsday period from 1972-74).  The point of clarifying that they're by the same author is to make clear that he has differing opinions of the original mix and the remix. Esszet (talk) 22:04, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  The clarification can be made in the prose, not at the expense of misrepresenting publications/sources and the ratings template, which is meant to be a simplified representation of the reception, not to be complicated by off-topic addendums and misrepresentations; there's already a note clarifying one score is for the remix. And no, it was not necessarily published in the Newsday period simply because it can't be found; perhaps the first appearance was in the 1981 book. And if we could prove it was from the Newsday period, we would credit the "reviewer" in the template as Newsday. "Christgau's Consumer Guide" did not publish the review, The Village Voice did, just as "AllMusic" published the first score/review and Chicago Tribune published Greg Kot's pop-music columns. I'm sure there's some WP guideline on sources encouraging/preferring deference to the "original" source of a column or article or whatever, which would be The Village Voice in this case. Dan56 (talk) 22:39, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't matter, the column as a whole is called "Christgau's Consumer Guide".  Doing that is a lot easier than clarifying it in the prose. And are there even previously unpublished reviews in the book at all? Esszet (talk) 22:55, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

text: Wait, even if it isn't called "Christgau's Consumer Guide", he did still write both reviews for the same column (see previous link), so there must be some way of indicating that he did. Did the Consumer Guide regularly feature other reviewers, or were they just special guests or something like that? Esszet (talk) 23:15, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  It does matter, rendering much of your other questions moot, IMO. Christgau's website, an archive of all these columns, should be seen as a convenience link rather than signifying a collective "whole". And yes, there are previously unpublished reviews in the book; there are instances where he admits in the column (ca. 1970s) of not officially reviewing an album (Woodstock, for example), and a capsule-style review of that album appears in the 1981 book (). Dan56 (talk) 05:35, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  Also, there have been other instances where multiple reviews in a ratings box were authored by the same critic. I appreciate the notoriety of Christgau and his columns, but I don't see either of these factors as enough reason to give prominence to a newspaper/magazine column over the newspaper/magazine in who/what we credit in the ratings box. Dan56 (talk) 05:51, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  Another point: The columns as a whole haven't "existed" exclusively as "Consumer Guide"; Christgau has continued this capsule-style column reviewing as "Expert Witness" at MSN Music () and Vice/Noisey (). Dan56 (talk) 20:38, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Since they all have the same title, it does signify a collective whole (up until he started publishing reviews in a column with a different name, of course).  Even if the same author did publish two different reviews of the same album in two different publications, I would personally have no problem with crediting them both to "Greg Kot" or whomever.  There doesn't appear to be a Wikipedia policy on this, but I don't see why reviews would necessarily have to be listed by publication or website (I guess the Consumer Guide is actually a column) as opposed to column or author. Esszet (talk) 16:12, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  Up until? Christgau has continued archiving the "Expert Witness" columns as "Consumer Guide(s)" at his website, and they are essentially the same format; they are the same "thing" to me, and if I were to treat "Consumer Guides" as a collective whole, "Expert Witness" would be a part of it. As for why review scores should be credited to the publication (newspaper/magazine/book); since we do this for the other entries in the ratings template, it would be more consistent internally if we credited the publication for each score, rather than having most credit the publication and a few the author/column. Dan56 (talk) 21:19, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

text: Well, you're free to create an individual article on this collective whole if you think it has that kind of gestalt, but this break in stylistic consistency you're suggesting does not make practical sense; the general reader will be less familiar with a specific music critic or "column series" than a long-running, nationally circulated newspaper (Village Voice) or popular webzine (Vice), both of which register far more Google hits than "Christgau". Your original intent was to clarify that two of the scores are from reviews by the same person, and misrepresenting the sources as "Christgau's Consumer Guide" would accomplish that only if the general reader is already familiar with Christgau (not likely) and if the reader clicks on the link to the Robert Christgau#Consumer Guide and Expert Witness to understand what "Christgau's Consumer Guide" is (and reads it, which is less likely IMO than the reader actually reading the section in which the clarification is already made). This exercise just strikes me as much ado about nothing. Leave it be. Dan56 (talk) 16:54, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Dammit, it isn't misrepresenting it; Christgau's own website (and thus not a convenience source) lists it as a Consumer Guide review.  Since we're clearly getting nowhere. let's just wait for other people to contribute. Esszet (talk) 18:43, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  No response to my point about stylistic consistency or reader familiarity? Dan56 (talk) 03:04, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I already gave you a guideline that would allow for internally consistent use of different types of attributions, and as for reader familiarity, I really don’t think it makes much of a difference in this case, I don’t think most people are familiar with Christgau or the Village Voice.  I’d even go further and argue that since accuracy takes precedence over reader familiarity, “Consumer Guide” would be even better since it exists across multiple publications.  Let’s just wait for more input at this point, this doesn’t really seem to be getting anywhere. Esszet (talk) 14:59, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  You didn't give any guideline. "Use of different types..." is the exact opposite of internal consistency. Dan56 (talk) 21:07, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  It doesn't "exist across multiple publications". In an abstract sense, sure, I can see it. But the column in which the review sources are listed in the ratings box is titled "Source", and an abstraction is not the origin of this review nor where it was obtained from; the Village Voice is, and listing it as such would fulfill both accuracy and reader familiarity better than what you're proposing. Dan56 (talk) 21:07, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm not sure what your agenda even is anymore. Dan56 (talk) 21:08, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

text: So is this about representing the "Consumer Guide" as a whole in the ratings box or clarifying that there are two review sources authored by the same critic? Because you've said before "Calling the source The Village Voice works as well" 0_0  Dan56 (talk) 19:44, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Both…? Esszet (talk) 22:36, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  "Calling the source The Village Voice works as well" Dan56 (talk) 05:28, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: In general, yes...? Esszet (talk) 14:27, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Christgau's Consumer Guide