Talk:Jethro Tull (band)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Progressive Rock (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Progressive Rock, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Progressive rock on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Biography / Musicians (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians (marked as Mid-importance).
Note icon
It is requested that a photograph or picture of this person be included in this article to improve its quality.
Note: Wikipedia's non-free content use policy almost never permits the use of non-free images (such as promotional photos, press photos, screenshots, book covers and similar) to merely show what a living person looks like. Efforts should be made to take a free licensed photo (for example, during a public appearance), or obtaining a free content release of an existing photo instead. The Free Image Search Tool may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.
WikiProject Rock music (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rock music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Rock music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors
WikiProject icon A version of this article was copy edited by Mlpearc, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on 19 October 2010. The Guild welcomes all editors with a good grasp of English and Wikipedia's policies and guidelines to help in the drive to improve articles. Visit our project page if you're interested in joining! If you have questions, please direct them to our talk page.

The absolutely awful English in this article.[edit]

So it's obvious that this article has has a large contribution from someone who does not practice English as a first language. Should we try to correct all of these grammatical mistakes and awkward sentences or just restore this article to a previous version? — Preceding unsigned comment added by FrustratedGnome (talkcontribs) 23:57, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

I think the bigger problem is the article has been attacked by someone who thinks that Jethro Tull are zomg the best band EVER lol!!!11one1 and has defaced it with an atrocious point of view. There seems to be a lot of not very well cited references to blogs, which is also a major problem. The only good sources I have at home are David Rees' 1998 book and the extensive liner notes to the 20 Years box set, which will get us some of the way back to a half decent article. I saw the band once, in 2001, but sadly felt they were long past their prime when compared to, say, Van der Graaf Generator. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:59, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
I do agree. I am a very big Jethro Tull fan (especially their 60s/70s work), but Wikipedia is not the right place for personal opinion and recounting. Alex (TangerineFloyd) (talk) 03:58, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Stage show (moved from article)[edit]

Er why move uncontentious content out of an article onto the talk page just because you have personality issues? What is your problem? Are Tull going to sue because they didn't play Austria, Germany, or Greece in 2010? Or they didn't wear white jumps suits on a 1980s tour? Wikipedia is about information; just because you don't like the tone or its purpose doesn't mean it's factually incorrect and should be deleted wholesale. As far I can see, the deleted material above is just a synopsis of the band's touring history: when, where and how. However I am not a typical Wiki editor ie mostly single white males who like to "promote their values or because they feel more comfortable expressing their personalities online" (eg character disorders). So I don't go deleting large swathes of article for the sake of I don't like it! I think you should respect others and allow them to make their own judgements on information. And not be told what they cannot read because it's deemed by you to be "mostly unsourced original research". Well most articles on WP contain unsourced original research, so you'd better get started. However taking that sanctimonious route leads you right back to me first point. (talk) 12:27, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

It hasn't been deleted, just parked here while we work out what to do with it. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:38, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Now I understand why there's little mention of their stage shows. I would encourage those working on this issue to find a way to place the info into the article as I think it is appropriate to do so. Enjoyed what I've read so far as the article is well done. Kudos to the folks doing the work!THX1136 (talk) 16:36, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Poor referencing and poor English from Brazilian IPs[edit]

I can see by the threads above titled "The absolutely awful English in this article" and "Stage show (moved from article)" that people have been having trouble with the expansion of this article ever since April 2014 when it came under the attention of someone in Brazil using various IP addresses. I agree with the concerns, and I have joined Radiopathy, Ritchie333, Escape Orbit, Howenstein115 and others in correcting or reverting this person's work. I removed 10 kb of stuff, which is a lot.

The trouble comes from a combination of poor English skills and the reliance on fansite transcripts of articles published in other media. The fansite transcripts are not reliable so I have removed a bunch of links, especially to Tull Press which seems favoured by this person.

Here are some of the IPs that have been involved:

As you can see by clicking on a few of these links, this person has been all over Wikipedia on Tull-related articles. There is clearly a lot of cleanup work for us to do, and a call for continued vigilance, keeping alert for poor contributions. Binksternet (talk) 06:18, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

A very serious problem that the Brazilian editor is guilty of: copyright violation. At the Martin Barre biography, I just removed a bunch of text pasted from Same with Minstrel in the Gallery and Please be on the lookout for text copied from websites. Binksternet (talk) 09:21, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
I started picking through the article and sourcing to books. There's nothing comparable to Revolution in the Head or Dave Marsh's book on the Who, but there are a couple of books which I can at least trust to be factually correct. I got up to about 1971 and had to take a break from it. I've listed it on Today's article for improvement which would hopefully get a response. Band articles need to be accessible to non-fans. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:38, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for this series of edits in early August where you brought in the Rabey and the Rees books. You also removed a lot of unnecessary fawning fluff from the article.
Another good source to use would be Nollen's Jethro Tull: A History of the Band, 1968–2001. Nollen has lots of good analysis along with usefully juicy detail such as how the film-makers producing This Is Spinal Tap were partly inspired by Jethro Tull.
The Macan book Rocking the Classics: English Progressive Rock and the Counterculture would be a fine reference for comparing Tull to other bands such as Gentle Giant, King Crimson, Pink Floyd, Yes, Pentangle, etc.
For pure drumming analysis, Lackowski's book On the Beaten Path, Progressive Rock briefly describes the contribution of Tull's drummer Barriemore Barlow to the band as a whole.
Another good reference to use would be the Hegarty/Halliwell book Beyond and Before: Progressive Rock since the 1960s which also discusses Tull in context. This book says Tull influenced other bands such as the Chinese proggers Cold Fairyland. This book describes a little bit of Tull's theatrical stage presence, which I know has been a disputed subject here because of poor sourcing. Binksternet (talk) 15:44, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
I'll start picking through the books. And sadly, while I was taking a break from this, one of my favourite bassists Glenn Cornick, who's brilliant playing on the first three albums passed away, so I'm glad I got all of the article that deals with him up to scratch :-( Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:28, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Binksternet and Ritchie333 thank you very much for all your work; I wish I had the time to help you more.Alex (TangerineFloyd) (talk) 05:31, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Three albums described as trilogy, trio or triad?[edit]

Some fansites describe three of Tull's albums as something of a folk rock series: Songs from the Wood, Heavy Horses, and Stormwatch. I wonder whether we should repeat this idea, or whether it is not important enough. Other sources (books) describe Stormwatch as taking a different path than the previous two albums, and book authors often describe Tull's albums in pairs, for instance Songs from the Wood and Heavy Horses are a light/dark pair of folk rockers, while Stand Up and Benefit are another light/dark pair of hard rockers.

What I would like to know is whether somebody significant has categorized the three albums as coming in a series, having a shared theme. Who was the first person to publish this idea? Binksternet (talk) 15:44, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Personally, I think of all their studio albums divided into groups of three: This Was/Stand Up/Benefit (the early albums), Aqualung/Thick As Brick/A Passion Play (the concept albums), War Child/Minstrel In The Gallery/Too Old To Rock n' Roll (the rockier albums), Songs From The Wood/Heavy Horses/Stormwatch (the Folk-Rock albums), A/Broadsword/Under Wraps (the electronic experiment albums), Crest Of A Knave/Rock Island/Catfish Rising (the return-to-rock-roots albums) and Roots To Branches/J-Tull Dot Com/The Jethro Tull Christmas Album (the terribly boring albums). I didn't read this anywhere, but this is how they're organized in my head. However, that can barely be the rule. There are Folk-Rock songs in Minstrel In The Gallery, too, and other albums. And Stormwatch has a general feel that is very much like 'A'. So, I'm not so sure we could include this in the main article, unless you can find a good source (Jethro Tull themselves or someone who is well-known) that we can quote from.Alex (TangerineFloyd) (talk) 05:48, 5 September 2014 (UTC)