Talk:Born in the U.S.A.

message: Set Album to Class B & Top Importance Megamanic 09:05, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A bunch.  See the new Born in the U.S.A. (song) article.  Wasted Time R 03:38, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I've moved this material to the new Born in the U.S.A. (song) article, which explores at length the folklore around the song.   Wasted Time R 03:37, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: There are at least 18 outtakes from the Born in the U.S.A. sessions (17 found on Tracks, 1 on The Essential Bruce Springsteen.) Should they be included in this article?24.0.60.105 (talk) 08:31, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Outtakes 

message: It says on the previous album section "The River" instead of "Nebraska". Therest of the links look ok. I can't find the spot to edit it. Not a big wiki editor here. So, can someone else do it. Thnx.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.4.233.154 (talk) 04:19, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: There are two album chronology sectors - one for just "Bruce Springsteen", another for bruce w/ e street band. Bruce did not make Nebraska w/ the e street band, but did make The River with them. So the chronology section for "w/ e street band" correctly lists River as previous album, while the "Bruce" sector correctly lists Nebraska as the immediate predecessor to Born in USA.--JayJasper (talk) 21:11, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  The album chronology sector is messed up. Needs a fix. 

message: , why are you starting an edit war over this revision to the infobox? (one revert after I reverted the IP user's unexplained genre change, then a second revert). READ the article please, because you'll find that genre--"rock and roll"--to be cited, to at least two sources: 
 
The Roger Scott sentence is the only explicit reference to a genre description of this album. Dan56 (talk) 03:55, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems unlikely that all three of these critics would have predicted that 20 years in the future a "web site" called Wikipedia would come up with its own separate and unique definitions of "rock and roll" and "rock" and apply that distinction in their reviews. Could it be possible that these critics used these terms, which are mostly synonymous outside of Wikipedia, interchangeably? Christgau, for one, uses the term "rock and roll" almost exclusively when referring to rock music, saying:"I'm a rock critic, but I prefer to call the music I've devoted my life to rock and roll. Metal—it's rock and roll. Mbaqanga—it's rock and roll. Leonard Cohen chansons—rock and roll. Disco—rock and roll." -- Robert ChristgauHis definition of "rock and roll" seems fairly broad which highlights the problem with using music writers to define genres—you have to presume to know how that person defines the term. Another problem is that when the reader clicks on the link to "rock and roll," it links to an article about "the first wave of music that originated in the US in the 1950s prior to its development into 'rock music'" and there is no mention of Bruce Springsteen or music of the 1980s in that article. Also, when the reader clicks on the links to the songs that make up this album, none of them are identified as "rock and roll." However, if one goes to the article "rock music" it actually mentions Bruce Springsteen and even this album in particular. Strange, isn't it? Piriczki (talk) 14:34, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't see your point, . One article (this one, or Springsteen) has no bearing on another (rock and roll), because they're usually made up of different sources covering their respective topics. You're focusing on Christgau when that's the least explicit of the three here, which also include Scott and Bull ("American rock & roll from the early Sixties"), who for all we know in this instance felt Springsteen was performing on this album that earliest style referred to in rock and roll. And according to the quote you cited, Christgau may just as well be calling this album "metal" or "disco", right?? Dan56 (talk) 00:52, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

text:  Either way, who are you to interpret what they may have meant beyond the words they explicitly used?? It's ridiculous to suggest your change should be applied to every instance a critic refers to something as "rock and roll". You seem to have a larger issue with the distinction made by the existence of those two articles, which is irrelevant here; why not suggest a merger of the rock and roll article into rock music if you feel that way? You know as much as I do when those critics say "rock and roll" to mean "rock" or to actually mean "rock and roll", and the fact is we don't, so this argument is pointless unless they make the distinction themselves between the two in the source(s). Dan56 (talk) 00:52, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Genre warring 

message: Substituted at 10:04, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Born in the U.S.A.. 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/20130506001015/http://www.infodisc.fr:80/Album_S.php to http://infodisc.fr/Album_S.php
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120519050548/http://chartheaven.9.forumer.com/a/complete-uk-yearend-album-charts_post21.html to http://chartheaven.9.forumer.com/a/complete-uk-yearend-album-charts_post21.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111012001701/http://austriancharts.at/1985_album.asp to http://austriancharts.at/1985_album.asp
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130616233823/http://www.radio3net.ro/dbartists/supersearch/Qm9ybiBpbiB0aGUgVS5TLkEu/Born%20in%20the%20U.S.A. to http://www.radio3net.ro/dbartists/supersearch/Qm9ybiBpbiB0aGUgVS5TLkEu/Born%20in%20the%20U.S.A.
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:41, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Born in the U.S.A.. 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:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://infodisc.fr/Album_S.php
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121027131313/http://www.infodisc.fr/B-CD_1985.php to http://www.infodisc.fr/B-CD_1985.php
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) 08:04, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: There is a major problem with this page. After editing the recording section to be efficient and better english, I found "==Early configurations==" section below, which goes into greater detail of the same information. Need some opinions, should I combine, or do we delete one?Tillywilly17 (talk) 07:36, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Early configurations 

message: As of 8 th of July 2017 the album had sold 29 300 000 examples.
At the same date Tunnel of love had sold 8 350 000 examples. Peter Larsson 77 (talk) 17:42, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have a reliable source for that claim? Speatle (talk to me) please ping me when replying to something I said. 20:10, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Worldwide sales 

message: Could someone change the certification to diamond? I tried but couldn't do it properly. Wolf O'Donnel (talk) 23:44, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Why? Diamond (10× platinum) was surpassed and now it's 17× platinum. Dhoffryn (talk) 23:52, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

text: Diamond is only for 10 million. So you can't use it for 17 million. And 1.7 diamond does not exist. You can see the breakdown of levels on their page. Dhoffryn (talk) 02:08, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Seems rather silly to use 1.7x diamond – zmbro (talk) (cont) 02:24, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Certification