Talk:Cowboy Junkies

Cowboy Junkies name

Cowboy Junkies did not take their name from the Townes Van Zandt song; Van Zandt wrote the song especially for them several years after they coined the name. Bearcat 06:21, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

For extra confirmation, the first Townes Van Zandt album ever to include his own rendition of the song, No Deeper Blue, was released in 1994. So unless somebody would like to propose that Michael Timmins is psychic, the band's choice of name can't possibly have been influenced by a song that Van Zandt never recorded or released until ten years after the band chose their name. Bearcat 11:38, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Timmins lg.jpg

Image:Timmins lg.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 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 08:44, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Waltz Across America

Missing from the list of their live albums is "Waltz Across America". I'd be glad to add it, but I thought I'd post here first to see if there were any objections. Malachi292

Please feel free to add Waltz Across America. I think it's unlikely there would be any objections. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 18:43, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

The Nomad Series

Can someone add a paragraph about the Nomad series, Remnin Park, Deamons, Sing In My Meadow, and The Wilderness? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.84.122.194 (talk) 01:39, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

The Sharon Temple Session

"The Sharon Temple Session" album added, it is a major album because it follows the groundbreaking album "The Trinity Session" and is similar in its recording style, tone and acoustics. It is a key part of their catalog, and represents a signifigant portion of their early work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.84.122.194 (talk) 00:48, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

The Sharon Temple Session album removed, because it is not a major album. The session work done at the Sharon Temple was the band's initial attempt to create the music that eventually became The Caution Horses, but after sitting on the music while touring, the Junkies rejected the work and re-recorded it in a studio. Eventually the band did release the initial recordings done at the Sharon Temple as a separate offering from their Latent Recordings website, for the fans, for download only. It is no longer available from their website. Therefore, The Sharon Temple Session cannot be called a major album, but a album for fans with a limited offering. Does not deserve an article, and does not deserve a listing on the band page. Not sure it deserves a place on the discography page, but if someone feels it does, won't argue with someone listing it there. Mburrell (talk) 23:36, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

choosing a name

When the band were preparing for their first gig, they had to choose a name for the band. They considered various names, until Cowboy Junkies was considered and agreed upon.

No kidding. Is that really worth two sentences and a reference? —Tamfang (talk) 05:29, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Sharon Temple date

The date given in the Sharon Temple section (April 1987) predates the Trinity Session which doesn’t make sense. The source is no longer active but the archive for it says April of 87… so the article matches the source but is likely incorrect. I’m leaving this as a note since I don’t know how to fix it. Bookcats (talk) 09:40, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Puff piece (POV)

This article reads as if it was written by a publicist for the band. Have they never had any problems or bad records? Has no one ever had a bad thing to say about them? From the Guidelines: "Striving for a neutral point-of-view helps prevent articles from becoming advertisements or propaganda." I know nothing about the band and have no desire to do research to improve the article, but somebody should. Languagehat (talk) 12:12, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Well, there is the problem. Articles are created by people interested in writing articles, volunteers. These volunteers do research, find citations, and write the articles. It takes work to do the research and write the articles. It takes more work to re-write an article after non-neutral accusations. Instead of pointing out that an article comes off as non-neutral, dive in and fix what you see is wrong. There is no paid staff, just volunteers doing the best they can. Please be part of the solution, instead of a hit-and-run critic. Thanks. Mburrell (talk) 21:07, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Of course I'm well aware of that. It is perfectly legitimate to draw attention to a problem even if one has neither the time nor the capacity to fix it oneself; otherwise nothing would ever get fixed. I am tolerant of articles that lean toward being more favorable than a strictly objective observer might write -- after all, as you say, volunteers write them, and often do so because they are favorable to the subject -- but this one is egregious, over-the-top puffery and should, as I say, be improved. Languagehat (talk) 21:14, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Tell you what, I helped write portions of this article, and I can tackle fixing egregious puffery if it exists. Please point out which are the offending sentences and I will see if I can reword them. I personally don't see puffery, but rather than assume you are wrong, I will let you point out the offending words or sentences, so that I can see what you see, and either agree and fix it, or disagree and leave it. Thanks. Mburrell (talk) 23:20, 25 July 2023 (UTC)