Talk:Collective Soul

message: I had no choice as an editor but to remove the most heinous POV drivel from the lead paragraph, but the entire article is peppered with the same fan-drool.  I don't have time to go through and find neutral ways to paraphrase this article (and I suspect the article would be about 1/3 as long if it were properly done) but maybe someone who has the time and expertise could do a little more than I did?  ThanksDrewson99 (talk) 03:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Ridiculous POV

message: Considering that this already has a comprehensive list of singles produced by the band, I think it's redundant to make the bulk of the article about what position each single debuted at on some billboard chart. Personally, I think the article should focus more on the history and sound of the band.
:Agreed.  I'll try and find time to do some work on the page. Beatdown 21:17, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I did a major clean up of the 1993-2001 Atlantic Records section.  I removed most of the info about singles because it is contained in the info box at the bottom of the article.  Still some work to be done on the whole article, but things are looking better.  Beatdown 14:10, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Clean Up

message: I've read that the band got the name "Collective Soul" from Ayn Rand's The Fountainhead?  Can anyone confirm?
:I've read that, also, but unfortunately I can't recall where. Amina skywalker 03:28, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origin of band name? 

message: The line, "They became one of the most successful bands for over a decade. Consistently among the most-played on radio stations and TV during the 1990s," has been removed for its irrelevance, inacuracy and highly subjective nature.
**Response**: 
What are you talking about? 
Do you have any knowledge about the bands success? The statement is true.
I have also read that this statement is true, atleast of the most-played radio content.
**Yeah. True and correct. Do your assignment and research. Their fame even  reached surprisingly, rural areas back in 90's. And i mean, mountains, cows, forests... You know what i mean.  Fleurbutterfly 21:17, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Subjective Information Removed

message: The "major label years" is just a mess.
"They even landed a dream gig, warming up for rock superstars Aerosmith."
Was this their dream gig or the author's dream gig?  If this was their dream gig, tell us why.  Otherwise, it's not worth including.
"It was certified triple-platinum in 1996 and spent an incredible 76 weeks on the Billboard 200, making it a blockbuster success."
A blockbuster success?  You don't work for the record label do you?  Come now, state the facts and check your bias at the door.
"They hit a supreme high with their radio success, few rock bands have this much success with rock singles."
Tell the readers why this radio success is important and how it was obtained.  Or simply omit this information.
"Many people said they did not think that the band would be around for long."
This sounds pretty shady.  Who said this?  Your friend Billy?  State who said it or don't include it.
"Critics and experts did not favor this album as much as the fans."
Again, elaborate or don't include it.
"However, everyone knows these bands have their own unique qualities. Critics questioned their choice of "image" and were saying that Collective Soul had become a "gimmicky pop-rock band". This was rather untrue, they still played their instruments with skill, despite the technological advances."
If everyone knew this, there would be no need for wikipedia aricles about bands.  Who were the critics and why do we care?  Who's to say that they played with skill?
Basically, just clean up the bias and posr your sources.  This seems highly opinionated.  Opinion is fine, in moderation.  I just don't like reading about Joe Shmoe's take on the band.  I like to read what the band did(albums, tours, etc.), who is in the band(bios, controversey, dynamics), and finally the music itself(sound, style, influences).
:I tend to agree with most of what you have said (whomever you are), and have embarked on a re-write this afternoon. In the future, may I recommend that you be bold in updating pages. Wikipedia is a community effort, and thrives on the community's input/work. JPG-GR 19:42, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. It reads just like a VH1 special. --Deuxsonic (talk) 21:23, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major Label Years 

message: The last two sentences of the introduction read:
Some have called Collective Soul a Christian rock band, a styling the band has repeatedly denied. They do, however, admit that their lyrics are often spiritual in nature.
Should the latter line read "admit" or "acknowledge"?  "Spiritual" does not necessarily equate to "Christian".  Even the band's name is more eastern in religious philosophy than Christian.  Additionally, the swearing found in the songs  "Smashing Young Man", "Vent" and "Burn" somewhat closes the door on the "Christian Rock" styling.  Can a music group be spiritual and non-Christian? -Eccl.7.12 15:47, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "acknowledge" is a better word.  David Bergan 23:14, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is It Guilt or a Separate Issue? 

message: I've read that Cho Seung-hui's favorite band was Collective Soul. Can anybody get a link to confirm this? -S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7  05:37, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Yes indeedy. It was in the article, but someone has since removed it. I vote that we reinstate this for he was so obsessed with the song, he wrote the lyrics all over his dorm room. http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0704/17/acd.01.html --Carthaginienses 16:02, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Internet rumors.... 

message: :Image:Collectivesoulyouth.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 Wikipedia articles 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 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 22:18, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Collectivesoulyouth.jpg

message: :Image:Collectivesouldosage.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 Wikipedia articles 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 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 22:18, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Collectivesouldosage.jpg

message: :Image:Collectivesoulblender.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 Wikipedia articles 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 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 22:18, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Collectivesoulblender.jpg

message: :Image:Collectivesoul7evenyearitch.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 Wikipedia articles 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 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 22:18, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Collectivesoul7evenyearitch.jpg

message: Folks, I have tagged this article as needing to be rewritten to a NPOV for its tone which is close to "advertising".  Examples:  the article says the band "exploded" in popularity, and that its manager was "greedy, deceitful". Those are not encyclopedic terms and are not substantiated in the article. Clearly somebody's shaded point of view, and not footnoted. -- hadley 23:57, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Haha, I slapped it on their earlier too, but mainly because of the first paragraph - 211.30.231.112 23:01, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The first paragraph is VERY "POV". Proxy User (talk) 20:21, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tagged as NPOV / Advertising 

message: Is Collective Soul on YouTube? http://www.youtube.com/user/collectivesoul Could someone verify this? -Yancyfry 03:56, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  On YouTube? 

message: This article needs some work. The first paragraph is especially in need of work. Come on folks, this isn't a "fan site". A decent article can be written without sounding like the band's PR agent. Proxy User (talk) 20:23, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV 

message: Most of the images on the page were clearly copyvios even though someone tagged them with a GFDL/CC license.  I'm going to go ahead and remove them from the page.  Not to mention that they were in very non-standard boxes...
66.93.12.46 (talk) 00:50, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images 

message: I am posting here because a certain user is trying to get all of my articles deleted, notably Jovian Storm (Kosche fans should know them well. Everyone else, please forgive the interruption!). If anyone has any contributions to make for Jovian Storm, please do so now. The user is claiming the article to be a hoax. I will post a similar request on Joel's Wiki page and hope for the best. Wikisicky (talk) 01:43, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Slightly OT: Jovian Storm 

message: Apparently there is no history about this band, and they just got popular in 5 seconds. Come on, someone put some work into this and tell the story of the band. I don't know anything about the band.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.172.244 (talk) 17:14, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  History 

message: This is pretty excessive and maybe requires a discography page but it's essential an internal Wikipedia link farm.--MattyMetalFan (talk) 20:54, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Music videos 

message: Collective Soul is heavily regarded as one of the first true post-grunge bands and I have multiple sources cited as well as other pages on Wikipedia stating the same thing however it appears someone on this page is trying to cover up this clearly cited fact and is in direct violation of the point of view policy. Wikierman337 (talk) 16:37, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Please point us in the direction of this multitude of reliable sources as well as the reliably cited Wikipedia articles that verify your claim. Because as things stand right now, your current source is from an unreliable site (as Ponyo pointed out) and their terms of service state "We have no obligation to, and you should not expect us to, review content on our Site, including User Contributions (defined below) or contributions by our independent contributors". As well as "ThoughtCo does not represent or guarantee that any contributor has achieved any particular level of expertise or knowledge or has any specific qualifications or credentials as to the subject matter to which their contributions relate". Ponyo, could you weigh in here please.Robvanvee 16:48, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi. I'm generally not involved with music-related articles, but I came here and decided to expand the lead section because I'm a huge Collective Soul fan, not that it's really relevant. Anyway, I stumbled upon this dispute. ThoughtCo doesn't appear to be a reliable source, but the AllMusic write-up on Collective Soul states that the band is post-grunge. Again, I'm not heavily involved with music-related articles, but it appears that AllMusic is a reliable source.--12george1 (talk) 22:27, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Awesome 12george1. I don't have a problem with the genre, I just want to see reliable sources. If one of you haven't added it back, I'll do so later. Robvanvee 04:53, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Epitome of Post-Grunge