Talk:Cut the Crap

message: There's a lot of information on the album featured in The Clash not featured in Cut the Crap. If we add it, where should it go. TangoTizerWolfstone (talk) 17:29, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Information missing 

message: I check pages listed in :Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of :Cut the Crap's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "joestrummer.us":
From The Clash discography: 
From The Clash: 
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 22:16, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orphaned references in [[:Cut the Crap]] 

message: Substituted at 12:35, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: Might it be worth mentioning in the Aftermath section that Strummer and Jones were soon to work together on BAD's No. 10, Upping St., doing the co-production and much of the co-writing? This is notable I feel because the aftermath already goes into great details about post-Cut the Clash, and the BAD collaboration resolved Joe and Mick's squabbles as detailed throughout the article.--01:24, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: The source should have been David Fricke, rolling stone. I did a lot of cutting and chopping before the nom, trying to get the flow right; looks like I need to do a full audit. Ceoil (talk) 01:50, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah maybe -- this is the same RS review at FN66, apparently contemporary. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:06, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Resuming, I can see now that the Fricke source matches the "stiff and unconvincing" quo now, so that's fine, but we now have Yet its reputation as a failure, or at least as a lost opportunity, has endured. Music journalist Richard Cromelin found the album's uptempo songs less effective than those on earlier Clash records, but concluded that Strummer's singing is compelling and "This Is England" and "North and South" make the record "more than passable" -- this paragraph this comes from seems to be about retrospective views like the AllMusic one that follows this, but Cromelin's review is contemporary, so it doesn't really belong; it certainly doesn't appear to support the bit about the album's 'enduring reputation'. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:19, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  No. 10 Upping St 

message: That's about it re. prose from me -- copyedited as I went but nothing major.  One spotcheck (I may do more if I have time):
*Yet its reputation as a failure, or at least as a lost opportunity, has endured. In 2016 Rolling Stone's David Fricke was dismissive because, he believed, "too much of Cut the Crap is Strummer's angst running on automatic, superficially ferocious but ultimately stiff and unconvincing" -- couldn't see this quote in the cited source. One reason I checked is I wanted to see if the general statement you make before the quote is directly supported by the source, as editorialising based on a single source is a trap we can easily fall into -- will reserve judgement on that till you sort out the supporting source. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:21, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: The source should have been David Fricke, rolling stone. I did a lot of cutting and chopping before the nom, trying to get the flow right; looks like I need to do a full audit. Ceoil (talk) 01:50, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah maybe -- this is the same RS review at FN66, apparently contemporary. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:06, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Resuming, I can see now that the Fricke source matches the "stiff and unconvincing" quo now, so that's fine, but we now have Yet its reputation as a failure, or at least as a lost opportunity, has endured. Music journalist Richard Cromelin found the album's uptempo songs less effective than those on earlier Clash records, but concluded that Strummer's singing is compelling and "This Is England" and "North and South" make the record "more than passable" -- this paragraph this comes from seems to be about retrospective views like the AllMusic one that follows this, but Cromelin's review is contemporary, so it doesn't really belong; it certainly doesn't appear to support the bit about the album's 'enduring reputation'. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:19, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: FAC Comments from Ian

message: If it's "last" in a ranking from worst to best, doesn't that literally mean that it's the best? – Reidgreg (talk) 12:36, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment 

message: Copying from Mike Christie's talk page, regarding this edit, about 50% of which I agree with, offering up the other half for discussion. Ceoil (talk) 21:02, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi — I’m not personally an expert on the topic, but the material you cut was sourced, which is what concerned me.  It’s true that we should present a neutral point of view, so I’d suggest you post a note on the article talk page making the case that the article as it stands is biased.  For example, if you can cite other reliable sources that contradict, or which might balance, the sources currently used, that would be helpful. The main editor of the article, , is very knowledgeable about Wikipedia rules re neutrality and I’m sure will be happy to correct any bias that can be demonstrated, but the demonstration would have to be sourced. Does that seem a good way to go?  And if you have any questions about editing here I’d be happy to help. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 18:46, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

text: Hi all, some of Miss-Pronunciation's removals I'm probably ok with, having worked on the Bernard Rhodes article yesterday, and having founded some sources which give a more positive view of this role. Can I have time to go through, and will comment on the Cut the Crap talk page. Ceoil (talk) 20:05, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Have made a start. Mainly due to additional sources that credit Rhodes with more of a hand in the writing that I had previously found. Sorry Mike for hi-jacking your talk, have contacted Miss-Pronunciation on their talk separately. Its great to have input from somebody who obviously has a lot of knowledge and insight, but to note, there has been a lot of friction and contradicting eachother between the mainly players in this over the years. Balance, as mentioned above is key.Ceoil (talk) 20:22, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Reversions

message: Although a newcomer to Wikipedia editing, I am extremely knowledgeable on the subject. Notifying you this article is repeatedly incorrect and a biased point of view that is non encyclopedic. I am pointing this out in order to obtain a neutral non aggressive stance for Wikipedia. Therefore how do you propose we move forward to rectify this Wikipedia dilemma? Regards and be well, Miss-Pronunciation.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miss-Pronunciation (talk • contribs) 18:33, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi — I’m not personally an expert on the topic, but the material you cut was sourced, which is what concerned me.  It’s true that we should present a neutral point of view, so I’d suggest you post a note on the article talk page making the case that the article as it stands is biased.  For example, if you can cite other reliable sources that contradict, or which might balance, the sources currently used, that would be helpful. The main editor of the article, , is very knowledgeable about Wikipedia rules re neutrality and I’m sure will be happy to correct any bias that can be demonstrated, but the demonstration would have to be sourced. Does that seem a good way to go?  And if you have any questions about editing here I’d be happy to help. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 18:46, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

text: Hi all, some of Miss-Pronunciation's removals I'm probably ok with, having worked on the Bernard Rhodes article yesterday, and having founded some sources which give a more positive view of this role. Can I have time to go through, and will comment on the Cut the Crap talk page. Ceoil (talk) 20:05, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Have made a start. Mainly due to additional sources that credit Rhodes with more of a hand in the writing that I had previously found. Sorry Mike for hi-jacking your talk, have contacted Miss-Pronunciation on their talk separately. Its great to have input from somebody who obviously has a lot of knowledge and insight, but to note, there has been a lot of friction and contradicting eachother between the mainly players in this over the years. Balance, as mentioned above is key.Ceoil (talk) 20:22, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cut The Crap...