Talk:Genesis (band)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former featured article Genesis (band) is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Good article Genesis (band) has been listed as one of the Music good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on January 7, 2007.

Neutrality[edit]

I have been slogging through this article and it's like Sysyphus pushing a rock up a hill. I'm carrying on with the book cites, but in the meantime, can I please put out a heartfelt plea to everyone (especially IPs, who seem to be the worst offenders) adding content to cite what you're adding to a reliable source, and include whatever information is necessary for somebody else to verify it. For books and journals, that means title, publisher, page number and ISBN. I know lots of hardcore Genesis fans can't bear the fact that the same group (or some of them) that put together Foxtrot (album) and Selling England by the Pound had the sheer and utter chutzpah to release Invisible Touch and We Can't Dance ... but that doesn't belong in an encyclopedia with a neutral point of view. (And I quite like 80s Genesis, well bits of it anyway). Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:37, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

To 76.117.58.67[edit]

76.117.58.67, Please stop undoing my edit. I have made it quite clear why I think the edit is opinionated (your opinion that the band was no longer a "homogenous" band during the Duke era). I feel it is original research, and opinionated at that. I have pointed you toward the appropriate section of the NPOV article dealing with subjective opinions, which you seem to just ignore. And all you do is go on reverting my efforts, and those of others in this matter, calling us "dumbass" and "stupidass" repeatedly. You even created a user page for me, calling me an "asshole" and "motherfucker." Your behavior is childish and disruptive. I care about this article, a former featured article, and feel it is being overloaded with too many details and subjective opinions and summaries. But I'm thinking of giving up on it now, if all I suffer is abuse from you. 147.46.57.248 (talk) 04:01, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

He won't be able to answer you using that IP for the next year unless you visit his talk page. His behavior has been entirely unacceptable; thank you for drawing my attention to the problem and I'm sorry that you and the other editors here have had to endure his abuse.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 04:20, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, he won't be able to answer at his talk page either now. Access revoked for removing the active block notice repeatedly.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 02:44, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Delete the biased and unnecessary 'Criticism' section[edit]

I don't understand the relevance of, or need for, the 'Criticism' section. It should be removed.

Genesis have been selling records since 1970 (or 1967 if you like) and have been hugely successful. Over that time, they've had thousands of news articles and many book written about them. Amongst that lot, plenty of negative comments were written along with lots of positive ones. There is therefore no foundation for having a 'Criticism' section with a cherry-picked selection of the negative comments. It's far from an objective view of the band but it occupies a relatively large percentage of the article.

That gives the articles bias, not objectivity. The wiki pages on Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd and the Rolling Stones don't have a 'Criticism' section, correctly so. Nor do the pages for Kajagoogoo, Adam And The Ants or the Spice Girls so its not musical snobbery. It's just bias in the article.

Pending a discussion here, the 'Criticism' section should be removed because it's biased and a disproportionately long part of the whole wiki page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ToaneeM (talkcontribs) 22:37, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I completely agree. For this article to improve, this should be addressed. LowSelfEstidle (talk) 16:38, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

So delete factual information on the band just because you think it's biased? The general public deserve better than that!

The above, unsigned comment appeared. It is a ridiculous statement. The information is factual; the presentation of it is biased. My above point stands and scornful, flawed one-liners are not a substitute for presentation of a reasoned point of view. The general public deserve better than that 'un. ToaneeM

Criticism of Genesis has been more significant among rock journalists than Led Zeppelin, The Rolling Stones or Pink Floyd, who are afforded more respect and critical acknowledgement. The comments by the Q journalist ("perennial whipping boys") and The New Rolling Stone Album Guide ("Genesis has had a hard time getting respect"), plus Gabriel's comment that the band never escaped being regarded as "snotty rich-kids" and Collins' admission that he only knew of one journalist who actually liked the band, tells you all you need to know about why the section is relevant. Rodericksilly (talk) 05:56, 4 July 2015 (UTC),

Rodericksilly, that's an appalling generalisation and a useless argument. An unbiased article cannot be based on your whimsical throwaways like "tells you all you need to know". You quote a few comments. My starting point: "Over that time, they've had thousands of news articles and many book written about them. Amongst that lot, plenty of negative comments were written along with lots of positive ones." Be reasonable. Led Zep, Stones and PF (to use my few examples) have produced their happy share of dud albums and bland patches and been criticised for it. It's part of being a long-lived and successful rock band. Genesis are absolutely no different in that respect. Rutherford once commented that "there were three UK music papers in the 70's and if they didn't like you...". It doesn't mean that their opinions warrant a 'Criticism' section. Again, from my starting note: "Nor do the pages for Kajagoogoo, Adam And The Ants or the Spice Girls so its not musical snobbery. It's just bias in the article." None of the objectors here has put forward a reasoned justification and none can because it's bias. Sorry, but there it is. Therefore it must go as it's against the spirit of Wikipedia.

You only seem to be able to repeat what you've written before. I can take it you've made up your mind and really are not interested in reasoned argument, just your own opinion. The comparison with manufactured pop groups aimed at teenage girls by marketing men is hardly relevant to rock criticism of Genesis. You need to watch the Genesis documentary Together and Apart which addressed this too, with a section on how unfashionable Genesis were and how Al Murray felt he had to "come out" as a fan. This is not a fan page where criticism is to be airbrushed. I suggest you start one instead. Rodericksilly (talk) 16:59, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

If multiple, independent and reliable sources (eg: "He [Phil Collins] has been called "the Antichrist," the sellout who took Peter Gabriel's Genesis, that paragon of prog-rock, and turned it into a lame-o pop act and went on to make all those supercheesy hits that really did define the 1980s" [1]) then it may be suitable for the article (note: "may" does not mean "must"). That's one facet of criticism. Bowler and Dray's biography also documents that Genesis knew full well some fans of Trespass and Nursery Cryme would not particularly warm to "Follow You, Follow Me" and Abacab, but felt its what they needed to do to progress as a songwriter unit - and frankly I'm sick and tired of internet fanboys proclaiming everything after Collins arrival / Gabriel's Departure / Hackett's Departure / Collins writing more (delete as applicable) is crap. It isn't. Anyway, yes, a criticism section is definitely possible for this article. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:21, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

I think this section has now been significantly improved and flows much better with all the heavy and unrelated quotes taken out. Rodericksilly (talk) 20:19, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Genesis (band). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

YesY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:17, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Genesis Was a band vs Genesis Were a band[edit]

the word Genesis is singular. the word band is singular. Why would we use the plural verb for a singular subject? It'd be like saying "The Alan Parson's Project" had more than one member so we should say Were not was? Genesis Was a band. Bryce Carmony (talk) 05:03, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Withdrawn by proposer, Brittish English actually treats all bands as plural. so Coldplay are. Sumpertramp are. So for Brittish bands we will use the plural. Bryce Carmony (talk) 05:24, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

GA[edit]

I started improving this to good article status ages ago, then got totally side-tracked to do a few of the albums instead. In my absence I see a few of you, most obviously @LowSelfEstidle: and @Rodericksilly: have picked up the baton and the article seems to be in a much better shape than when I left it in terms of sourcing and factual accuracy. So what have we got left to do? There are a couple of uncited end of paragraphs and I think we're going to have expand the 80s a bit more to give proper due weight - it was their most commercially successful period after all. Anything else? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:29, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

A section definitively explaining the "lamb lies down on Broadway" :P (Jk since I don't think there is a definitive source for that) Bryce Carmony (talk) 16:56, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

The sales figures were determined to be 130 million by examining several sources. Claiming that 100 million is better because it is listed in List of best-selling music artists is not sufficient, as Wikipedia is not a reliable source. A better course of action would be to update that article, since this is a GA and that is not a featured list, implying its quality control has not been checked. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:36, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

I thought a change would be reverted on that page. They reverted some changes I made a while back and they are absolutely resolute that Genesis's sales have been exaggerrated in some sources according to their certified sales. The bottom line is that there doesn't seem to be ANY consensus on the Genesis sales figure. The band were claiming a few years ago they'd sold 150 million, then it dropped to 130 million, List of best-selling music artists say 100 million, therefore to state on this page one figure as fact is extremely dubious IMHO. Rodericksilly (talk) 23:52, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

"most commercially successful"[edit]

Can I get a show of hands for opinions on this diff? I can see arguments for and against NPOV on both sides - the earlier version gives more weight to Collins / Banks / Rutherford, who I would expect "are" Genesis in the eyes of many casual readers, while the changed version puts equal weight on all members. Any preferences? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:10, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

To me, the original version is fine. The only thing I can suggest here is something like, "There have been several formations throughout its history, of which the longest serving members include keyboardist Tony Banks, guitarist Mike Rutherford, and drummer/singer Phil Collins. Past line-ups have included original singer Peter Gabriel and guitarist Steve Hackett." LowSelfEstidle (talk) 15:18, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Lead stuff[edit]

I'd like a bit of chat about this change. Firstly, I don't want to cram up the first paragraph with the history, but I just want to list the members in a short a way as possible while still being factually correct. Just listing Gabriel and Hackett with a supplying sentence ought to do it. Ant Phillips is a marginal case, but I think he can be left out as he was never on anything that reached more than cult success. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:41, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

It seems pretty reasonable to me; anyway, I just want to emphasize the "founding member" thing, c'mon is Gabriel!. Regarding the inclusion in the lede of Land of Confusion and the Grammy (concept video) stuff; is this really necessary?; I mean, it was not the Best artist award or Recording of the Year, just my point of view. Greetings. Ajax1995 (talk) 00:38, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
It may not be the "creme de la creme" of the Grammy Awards, per se, but it is perhaps the most major and most recognisable award ceremony of all the awards they won. It's like Yes winning the Grammy for Best Rock Instrumental with "Cinema" in 1985. Pretty notable enough for the lede. Plus, the lede should be a summary of each heading in the article. LowSelfEstidle (talk) 15:21, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Genesis (band). 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

YesY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:21, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Disestablishment in 2012?[edit]

I've been wondering about the category "Musical groups disestablished in 2012". While the band is inactive and there does not seem to be any significant expectation that this will change, making Genesis effectively disbanded, there is no indication in the article that anything special happened in 2012 that would warrant this classification. The infobox treats them as still active because there is no official statement cited in the article on the current status of the band, so why the category, which blatantly contradicts it? I've combed through the history and found this edit, which provides an explanation, as a statement by Banks in 2012 that said that Genesis had "come to an end" was removed from the lede without moving it anywhere else. Bad idea, now the category is entirely unsupported. Should it be removed? --Florian Blaschke (talk) 21:16, 21 February 2017 (UTC)