Talk:The Stooges (album)

message: objects to the genre being linked in the infobox because of his point of view on the album's music (stated below), conflating it with his desire not to (presumably) mislead readers. The genre is verified in the article by one critic's description of the album, and according to Template:Infobox album#Genre, "genres should be linked" (in the infobox). Should "rock and roll" be linked in the infobox? (Plesh your arguments out under Discussion; explanations will be moved there if you accompany them alongside your Vote) Dan56 (talk) 18:53, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe you shouldn't use five-dollar words if you don't know what they mean, Dan. I'm not "conflating" anything. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 23:52, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  Would you feel better with a four-letter word? Dan56 (talk) 00:36, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

text: Why are you sure of that? Furthermore, why should what a Wikipedia article--especially the conflated mess that is the rock music article and the rock and roll article whose definitions have questionable verifiability--reflects determine whether we use the word here or not? A critic used it, we don't know their intentions behind using it or their understanding of the word anymore than any other critic using any other word for any other style of music. Also, keep in mind the garage rock article describes it as "a raw and energetic style of rock and roll". Can we avoid the other stuff exists line of argument and just stick to the source? Dan56 (talk) 20:04, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Why am I sure of that? Because I have two working ears and a working brain between them. I don't know what "the other stuff exists line of argument" is, but I know what common sense is. I know that The Stooges is not 1950s-style rock and roll, and if you insist on using that phrase, you shouldn't Wikilink it to an article about a style of music not present on the album. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 21:09, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  Congratulations. I hope you have two working eyes and see that the critic called this album "rock and roll". You quoted a Wikipedia article in your argument, so that other stuff. You're also presuming your opinion of the music is relevant here. Dan56 (talk) 21:21, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Dan, it's unfortunate that you're more interested in "winning" than getting it right. I never argued that the critic didn't describe The Stooges as rock and roll, just that they didn't mean the same thing as the article you Wikilinked their phrase to. If you insist on pursuing this edit war for the sake of edit warring, I'll report you to AN/I (not AN3), where you and your shtick are well known. Readers 1, Dan56 0. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 21:43, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  *Yawn* You're coming off as arrogant. There's no discussing with you. I've said all I have to say. Dan56 (talk) 02:38, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

text: The source is Denise Sullivan, a music historian . She's qualified to make a significant judgment on the album. Dan56 (talk) 20:34, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  What difference does it make whether the opinion appears in a completely unrelated book?  The source verifying "proto-punk" in this article is attributed to a review of the Stooges' The Weirdness, not of this album. Dan56 (talk) 22:57, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

text: Your second source makes the case against you, as it says that the Stooges had no connections to previous music, too what was "rock n roll" at the time and made it into something new. ValarianB (talk) 19:07, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC: Should "rock and roll" be linked in the infobox? 

message: * Yes Dan56 (talk) 18:53, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Votes 

message: Despite the exact words a critic used, I am certain that no reputable critic intended to describe The Stooges as rock and roll, "a genre of popular music that originated and evolved in the United States during the late 1940s and early 1950s". Perhaps rock music, "a genre of popular music that originated as 'rock and roll' in the United States in the 1950s, and developed into a range of different styles in the 1960s and later", better captures what they wrote? — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 15:07, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Why are you sure of that? Furthermore, why should what a Wikipedia article--especially the conflated mess that is the rock music article and the rock and roll article whose definitions have questionable verifiability--reflects determine whether we use the word here or not? A critic used it, we don't know their intentions behind using it or their understanding of the word anymore than any other critic using any other word for any other style of music. Also, keep in mind the garage rock article describes it as "a raw and energetic style of rock and roll". Can we avoid the other stuff exists line of argument and just stick to the source? Dan56 (talk) 20:04, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Why am I sure of that? Because I have two working ears and a working brain between them. I don't know what "the other stuff exists line of argument" is, but I know what common sense is. I know that The Stooges is not 1950s-style rock and roll, and if you insist on using that phrase, you shouldn't Wikilink it to an article about a style of music not present on the album. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 21:09, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  Congratulations. I hope you have two working eyes and see that the critic called this album "rock and roll". You quoted a Wikipedia article in your argument, so that other stuff. You're also presuming your opinion of the music is relevant here. Dan56 (talk) 21:21, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Dan, it's unfortunate that you're more interested in "winning" than getting it right. I never argued that the critic didn't describe The Stooges as rock and roll, just that they didn't mean the same thing as the article you Wikilinked their phrase to. If you insist on pursuing this edit war for the sake of edit warring, I'll report you to AN/I (not AN3), where you and your shtick are well known. Readers 1, Dan56 0. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 21:43, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  *Yawn* You're coming off as arrogant. There's no discussing with you. I've said all I have to say. Dan56 (talk) 02:38, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

text: The source is Denise Sullivan, a music historian . She's qualified to make a significant judgment on the album. Dan56 (talk) 20:34, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  What difference does it make whether the opinion appears in a completely unrelated book?  The source verifying "proto-punk" in this article is attributed to a review of the Stooges' The Weirdness, not of this album. Dan56 (talk) 22:57, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion 

message: , 
* "Via repetitive three-chord rock'n'roll, 'The Stooges' articulated American post-adolescent boredom in a way no rock album had" (John Tobler, 1991, Who's Who in Rock & Roll); 
* "The Stooges didn't so much connect with the music that came before it, rather it dragged rock 'n' roll down to the car wash and scrubbed it up one side and down the other" (Brian Smith, 2002, Detroit Metro Times, in 1969: The Year Everything Changed) Dan56 (talk) 00:40, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Your second source makes the case against you, as it says that the Stooges had no connections to previous music, too what was "rock n roll" at the time and made it into something new. ValarianB (talk) 19:07, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other sources supporting "rock and roll" 

message: Grit, Noise, and Revolution: The Birth of Detroit Rock 'n' Roll, (yes, Rock 'N' Roll) by David A Carson, describes the early Stooges as a "loud, raw, almost primitive-sounding rock band."  Of course (another phrase meaning "in my opinion") they were a rock & roll band.  They are, after all, in the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame, class of 2010.  That is what Rock & Roll was in Michigan during the late 1960s.  I don't think that I have ever disagreed with  before, but, Mal, you are too young to make this call. Carptrash (talk) 18:32, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but there really wasn't a name for what the Stooges were when they arrived on the scene so you really can't fault contemporary music critics who lacked the vocabulary to describe a wholly new genre of music. When KMFDM first started appearing in college radio playlists, reviewers called them "progressive house techno", as industrial music hadn't quite gelled as a thing yet. rock n roll is just too broad and generic of a genre type to apply when it can encompass everyone from U2 to Pink Floyd to Roy Orbison. ValarianB (talk) 18:44, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, there was a name for what they played when they arrived on the scene.  That name was Rock & Roll.  Carptrash (talk) 19:07, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: C'mon, you can't listen to the original I Wanna Be Your Dog and say that's actually "rock"? That's punk being born before they knew what to call it, and I think latter-day sources have acknowledged that. ValarianB (talk) 19:23, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I just listened to it, and yes, that is what rock & roll was like back then.  At least in Michigan.  I agree that this is punk in the making, but you can't call it something that did not exist at the time. This is Detroit rock & roll. Carptrash (talk) 19:46, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

text: Okay , you are going to get me to agree "by definition." What the genre should be in Rock music.  What comes to mind is another Detroit musician Mitch Ryder and the Detroit Wheels and the song, penned by Lou Reed, Rock 'n' Roll.  Which I just learned, is not a rock n roll song after all.  If you would, could you go to the Rock and Roll article, look at the second paragraph that begins "According to Greg Kot," which is followed by an "either" and no "or."  I was browbeat by a grammar fascist mother who taught me that there is no "either" without and "or" and if I put the "or" in and finish the sentence the article will end up being about the "or" and the Stooges will be a rock & roll band.  Again. Carptrash (talk) 02:17, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  the book 

message: To whom it may concern, 
I have looked at the coding process for adding citations but I could use a quick personal tutorial from a Wikipedia employee / editor. I have edited The Stooges debut album Wikipedia page and have a list of my sources where I need to add the proper citations on certain passages where Wikipedia has flagged certain content [citation needed].
Please let me know how best to get started to learn the Wikipedia encoding process for adding the correct Wikipedia citations to link pertinet accurate sources to backup the content.
Thank you!
Jarrett Gardner Jarrett Gardner (talk) 23:01, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: See WP:REFB.  However, these edits indicate that you also need to learn how to write in a more encyclopedic style, as well as citing sources.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:07, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

text: Firstly, it's always a good idea to try to walk before you try to run.  Experimenting with editing should always be done in your sandbox. Secondly, no-one "agreed to publish" any of your edits - you edited and published it yourself, by clicking the button that says "Publish changes".  If I were you, I would concentrate on simply learning how to add citations to the material you have included.  I'm sure it will then be possible for other editors to read through your contributions and improve the writing style.  But, essentially, getting your edits right is your responsibility - no-one else's.   I've added some guidance to your user talk page - I don't know why it wasn't done previously.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:47, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding accurate citations