Talk:Manic Street Preachers

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Biography / Musicians (Rated B-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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians (marked as Mid-importance).
WikiProject Alternative music (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is part of WikiProject Alternative music, a group of Wikipedians interested in improving the encyclopedic coverage of articles relating to Alternative rock. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project's talk page.
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 Wales (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Wales, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Wales on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

New Album Information[edit]

Can somebody please update the article with the following information from the link below, as it contains confirmation of the both the album title and the release date. I would do it myself but I do not know how to source information when editing a Wiki article. Many thanks: —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:36, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

EDIT: Never mind, I have now worked out how to reference information when adding new info to an article. Thanks anyway folks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:23, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

There is some news reported in a number of sources about how the Journal For Plague Lovers album cover is being hidden by some of the major supermarkets. [1][2][3] One problem is that these two sources cite different reasons for hiding the cover. The Guardian and The BBC, report that the objection is about the use of a painting of a boy's face apparently splattered with blood, whereas The Telegraph says that the objection is about objects to its use of a portrait of a child with a birthmark. I am not sure how to word it, and how to introduce it. Should it just be a new paragraph in the section on this album, or should it be in a more separate "Controversy about album cover" section.Kuitan (talk) 21:31, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


Yes we see you added information but most people are going to think it's too much. This is supposed to be an article about a musical group - not about some Sartre-inspired working class politics. I suggest you seriously consider removing this bit and concentrating on giving Wiki readers what they want: information about the band, not your fan-based adulation of them.

I just added some information about the early Manics philosophy of sellout as freedom. Please dont take this the wrong way, I am not doubting the Manics sincerity or calling them sellouts in that bullshit, punk rock fashion that is by now little more than a tired music press cliche. All I am trying to say is that by basically flying in the face of what was around at the time (the grunge/indie anti-success ethic etc.) the Manics both made it harder for themselves willingly and also that they one of the few (if not only) visible bands around at the time that were doing something new and unique to them.

"I Know I Believe In Nothing But It Is My Nothing" - Richey James Edwards. Motown Junkie 10:18, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Too many unsourced claims...[edit]

Alright, we have enough unsourced material as is, but a lot of new editors (while acting in good faith) continue to pile upon material that is not sourced, including some comments about the early era. We seriously need sources to make this a genuine encyclopedia article. Also, one user has added the 10th anniversary editions to the discography and deleted things he may not deem worthy (like the awards), which is not acting in good faith. For the anniversary editions, just add them to the original edition of said albums (which has already been done). Again, sorry to make a big deal about this but this article definitely needs work. --TLIP 23:25, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

The 10th anniversary editions are important to be included in the discography because they show how successful the Manics have been, they are also completly new editions with around 25 extra tracks and a dvd. Why delete stuff from an article when *you* don't know what you're talking about, but the previous editors do? I completly agree with the sentiment expressed below. Why bother contributing to an article when some uninformed busy-body is going to delete what you've put because you are not able to get an online source to attribute it to. ED's article (a link to which is blocked by Wiki's ridiculous link blacklist) on Wikipedia is woefully accurate regarding your obsession with citations. --Smallblackflower 17:40, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
I think deleting the awards and links and interwiki stuff was an accident. (I added them back in.) The new editor tried to restore them, but didn't know how to recover the formatted text from the previous versions (diff). -David Schaich Talk/Cont 23:33, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I deleted the awards and links section by mistake. Many thanks for putting them back (very quickly!). -lonelywreckage

I contributed the info from an interview with Delirium that the album title would 'possibly' be 'Send Away The Tigers' and its been deleted, as was the Nicky telling Jupitus that they hoped to do a duet with Nina from the Cardigans. I wasn't making any of that up, yet its been edited out. I even quoted the sources for christs sake. In future I won't bother trying to help frankly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 14:05, 16 November 2006

I'm not sure how this would affect the article in terms of it being accepted as an encyclopedia article, but here's what I think. The article could simply be stripped down. Most of the embellished info from fans who are probably just trying to help is significant to them but not to others. As an example: On the opening paragraphs, the 3rd on including information about the bands political views should be removed. The information about the genres should be included in paragraphs about the albums as the bands sound has changed with almost every album. Darkanddivine


In the info box Britpop is listed under genres. It's certainly not a genre I would associate with The Manics - can we take it out?

Wikipedia's own Britpop entry describes it as:

"Britpop emerged from the indie scene of the early 1990s and was characterised by bands influenced by British guitar pop music of the 1960s and 1970s. The movement developed as a reaction against various musical and cultural trends in the late 1980s and early 1990s, particularly the grunge phenomenon from the United States. In the wake of the grunge invasion led by bands like Nirvana, many bands positioned themselves as opposing musical forces, referencing British guitar music of the past and writing about uniquely British topics and concerns."

I don't think that refelcts The Manics body of work - even that produced during the "Britpop era".

--Mike Infinitum 22:45, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

    • Many newspaper articles reference Britpop when discussing the Manics, especially Everything Must Go. I also don't see that definition as excluding the Manics, who typically referenced British culture, developed as a reaction against various musical and cultural trends in the late 1980s and early 1990s and were influenced by punk, popular guitar based music of the 1970s. I tend to agree that I wouldn't categorise them as Britpop, but the wider audience does, and adopting a neutral point of view means we should reference it. The Manics are associated with the Britpop scene. After all, they supported Oasis at Knebworth, one of the seminal Britpop moments. I think it should stay, because the band are associated with the genre, whether it fits them or now:
      • "BRITPOP BANDS: Blur, Suede, Manic Street Preachers" Wales on Sunday (Cardiff); Oct 14, 2001; RACHEL MAINWARING; p. 20
      • "Obviously they were working in a vacuum of Britpop, the time when mediocre guitar bands could break through and shift thousands of copies. Britain was open to guitar music and the band admits they rode the coat-tails of the revolution." How the Manics were reborn Western Mail (Cardiff); Nov 3, 2006; Claire Hill; p. 1
      • "The 1990s saw a return to bands recording live in the studio as the advent of what would be known as Britpop created a whole new generation of artists. Bands including Radiohead, Spiritualized, Manic Street Preachers" The Independent (London); Nov 9, 2006; Terry Kirby; p. 14
      • "Everything Must Go was one of the high watermarks of Britpop" Bristol Evening Post 16 November 2006
      • " Bradfield is vocalist and guitarist with the Manic Street Preachers, one of Britain's best-loved bands, a spiky gang of punky, Welsh ideologues who rose through the '90s Britpop boom to become stadium-filling anthemicists." The Daily Telegraph (London); Jun 29, 2006; Neil McCormick; p. 026
    • There's a random selection of clippings placing the band in the genre. Hope that helps. Hiding Talk 20:19, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Mike Infinitum - I did a double take when I saw "Britpop" in the genre section. It's true that articles sometimes wrongly identify the Manics as Britpop, but that is often the fault of inaccurate journalists who classify any artists who were performing during the early 1990s (or indeed any British artists at all) as Britpop; for instance, I've seen the same label inappropriately attached to Elvis Costello, New Order and Muse, to name but a few. I'd also disagree that the above clippings place the band in the genre - some of them do, but others arguably place them alongside it, not in it, which is exactly correct. Tobelia 12:23, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Darkanddivine I agree with Tobelia in that the Manics were only briefly associated with the genre, and they certainly courted that scene with the Oasis supports, but even once the Britpop bubble burst they went on to become an even bigger band just at the end of the 90's/early 00's. —Preceding comment was added at 21:32, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I think Britpop is a fair label for post the richie era, although to say that the Manics were reacting to Grunge is wrong, as the band were fans Nirvana, Hole etc. (Can get soruces if anyone wants) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:45, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Flicker and Jenny Watkins-Isnardi[edit]

Is this chap really notable enough to warrant his own article? There's really nothing there that can't be merged into the "Early years" section of the Manics article. PC78 14:01, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree. No information in his own article whatsoever, might aswell be merged into the bands main article as only a sentence or two could give you all the information needed on him in the band. Speed2006 21:00, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Since no-one objects I'll go ahead with the merge. PC78 16:14, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, regarding that line about Flicker leaving the band because of musical differences, I've got a BBC article that says he was sacked [4]. I don't know enough about the band's early history to start messing about with the text though. PC78 16:41, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, same situation with Jenny Watkins-Isnardi. Is there really anything to say about her that can't be said in the main article? PC78 16:41, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I think more info should be accessible about Flicker and Jenny Watkins-Isnardi, as at one point both have been influential in the band girlwhowantedtobegod

They're both really nothing more than footnotes in the band's early history. But if you think more can be added to those articles, then be my guest. PC78 12:47, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
I've gone ahead with the merge, despite the objection (of sorts) from the anon user above. There was very little content in the Watkins-Isnardi article anyway, plus I was concerned that it didn't meet WP:BIO. PC78 15:49, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

But now we've got Jenny Watkins-Isnardi redirecting to here, and no mention of her. Who was she? Rojomoke (talk) 08:33, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Moved from article[edit]


  • In an episode of the animated, satirical British comedy Monkey Dust, the Manics can be seen playing at the Ivan Dobsky concert. While they are playing, (they are playing You Love Us) Prison Superintendent Mr. Drummond can be seen jumping around in the mosh pit.
  • According to James Dean Bradfield, the first concert him Sean and Richey went to was Echo & The Bunnymen at the Bristol Colston Hall in 1985.
  • James narrowly escaped being named Clint Eastwood Bradfield; his parents changed their mind the day he was born.
  • "Everything Must Go" has been remixed by the Chemical Brothers to serve as the title song for the Playstation game "Gran Turismo: the real driving simulator".

If I did a lot of work on this, we could reach GA, even FA at a push[edit]

I have this along with The Doors as my next priority for GA. Dunno which I'll start on first.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 22:10, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

  • I've got a fair few clippings on the band, so if you do choose this to work up, keep me in mind. Hiding T 00:01, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Cool. Thing is, this band article easily has the potential to reach featured article status. They have been around for a long time, and there will be plenty of sources. It's just getting an article to FA that will be difficult. GA is hard enough...--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 02:46, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Cool. I would like to see this become an encyclopaedic article, but there are far too many irrelevant details in there. My biggest bug is there are alot of things in there that have happened recently, which aren't at all important, in the scheme of things. Ade1982 (talk) 20:00, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

The introduction needs to be a brief run down of who they are and of their history. only the basic and major events. no details. The rest of it needs editing or a complete re-write. Needs sources too if it's gonna ever be a FA. Person642 (talk) 23:16, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Added Inappropriate Tone template[edit]

This article reads more like a feature from NME than an encyclopedic entry, with POV and hyperbole all over the place, (all of which, to make matters worse, and as mentioned above, is unsourced). Here are some examples of what I'm talking about:

At early gigs they were bottled and heckled from beginning to end. Bradfield and Wire hurled abuse at their audiences and tear through short sets similar to those of The Ramones famous "Twenty minutes of energy" gigs, a display of an odd punk rock style band/audience interaction that had been unheard of since the infamous riotous early gigs of Scotland's The Jesus and Mary Chain a few years earlier.

Specifically: "hurled", "tear", "odd", "unheard of", "infamous", "riotous"

Their first single for the label - Motown Junk (released on January 21, 1991) - showcased their iconoclastic ("I laughed when Lennon got shot") punk/metal influenced rock n' roll. The song also displayed their huge cultural scope with a Public Enemy-sampling intro and an outro sample of The Skids.

Specifically: "iconoclastic", "huge cultural scope".

In a now legendary interview with then New Musical Express journalist Steve Lamacq - a man known for despising anything he sees as hype or contrivance...

Specifically: "legendary", "despising".

The group's next album, The Holy Bible, released on August, regained their critical acclaim but sold extremely poorly. In fact it sold fewer copies than the previous albums and was not released at all in America, though an American mix of the album was in the can (and was released in Canada - it would later resurface as part of a 10th anniversary edition of the record). Despite this it is regarded by many as the band's magnum opus and is often voted onto lists of all time great albums.

Specifically: "extremely", "in fact", "in the can", "magnum opus".

etc. etc. throughout the whole article.

I'm not disputing the factuality of any of this information, just the way in which it is presented. Firstly, is is not sourced, and secondly, this is an encyclopedia, not a biography or a fan mag, so it needs to be toned down to something more NPOV.

Straussian (talk) 13:10, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

  • I agree with all of the POV complaints here except for "iconoclastic". "Iconoclasm, Greek for "image-breaking", is the deliberate destruction within a culture of the culture's own religious icons and other symbols" - seems like a pretty fair (if figurative) non-POV description of the line "I laughed when Lennon got shot"...? Señor Service (talk) 19:37, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with all of this and I'm currently stripping the article down on my computer. I will try and get a version up soon so people can have a look and crit before it goes over the current one. For example James Dean Bradfield does not play bass etc on the Massive Attack song, he remixed it.Darkanddivine —Preceding comment was added at 22:49, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

  • AFAIK, James *did* play additional bass and guitar on the Massive Attack song for the remix; I just have to dig up the source. But anyway. I've also been wanting to help out on improving this article for the longest time, but haven't had free time so far. I still want to contribute whatever I can. --NicolaM (talk) 02:21, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah sorry I know about the remix, the original article suggested he played bass on the actual song rathar than the remix. Still working on a more factual re-write as I don't have much time. It is split into era's based on album, and shortened with later details stripped down significantly. Darkanddivine —Preceding undated comment was added at 23:07, 8 January 2009 (UTC).

Unregistered user.

I found the eccess use of brakctes to be quite distracting. examples:

Politically, the Manics appear as a socialist group — a stance inflected by their working class upbringing in Blackwood, Caerphilly, South Wales (they grew up during the miners' strike of the 1980s) as evidenced by their often highly politicised lyrics and actions (they once dedicated an award to Arthur Scargill, leader of the National Union of Mineworkers and later the Socialist Labour Party). The band also played a highly publicised gig in Cuba as guests of President Fidel Castro [1].

Although it gives a reason for their socialist leanings, I dont think it is necisary. The bit about Arthur Scargil dosnt seem apropriate. Firstly, as an apropriate example and Secondly it is extra info that isn't really needed. Politics could be dealt with later on.

The cover was highly reminiscent of The Clash's first album (simply titled The Clash)

No need to give the name of another bands album. If it's needed though, maybe rearange the sentence to say "self titled album".

In 2001 they became the first popular western rock band to play in Cuba, (at the Karl Marx Theater) and met with president Fidel Castro.

Could be incorperated into the sentence or erased completely.

The greatest hits (plus remixes) album Forever Delayed was released in...

The fact that some remixes were used is not relivant here. It would need mentioning only when going into some detail about the album. Or, again, incorperate it into the setence.

single as well as album (entitled The Great Western) were released in...

use commas instead?

—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:48, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

No mention of the Winter 2007 arena tour?[edit]

Gig was held at Manchester Central, amongst others.

Also perhaps worth mentioning the band supported the Foos a couple of weeks back? Worley-d (talk) 23:22, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

HOW ABOUT NO! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:32, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


There is A LOT of junk in this article and far too many unsubstantiated claims. This is suppose to be a wiki article, NOT a fan bio.

It needs seriously cleaning up. I've started to remove some of it but it needs a real good clear up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacobsdad (talkcontribs) 12:11, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm a big Manic Street Preachers fan and would like to get this article sorted. I'm gonna start now and work over it in the next few days. Lets see how we go. —Preceding unsigned comment added by StephenBHedges (talkcontribs) 17:09, 8 October 2009 (UTC)


Theres a band called The Manics, but "the manics" is redirected here, can someone who knows how to do it cancel that redirect or whatever? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:03, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

No because most people searching for "manics" or "the manics" will be looking for this page. The Manics is a page but IMO should not be, the band completely lack any WP:notability whatsoever. Polyamorph (talk) 11:04, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
I have requested speedy deletion on "The Manics". Polyamorph (talk) 11:06, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Right, the article on the completely non-notable high school band "The Manics" has gone. At some point I recommend someone create a redirect from the empty page to here. Polyamorph (talk) 20:20, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of La Tristesse Durera (Scream to a Sigh)[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article La Tristesse Durera (Scream to a Sigh) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Single songs generally do not meet the requirements of WP:N, no mention of notability no references

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 16:41, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I removed the prod, sure it needs references but we have an articles on all the manics singles, notability arises from the fact that the manic street preachers are among high in the list of the most notable of modern bands. Polyamorph (talk) 21:32, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
See Talk:La Tristesse Durera (Scream to a Sigh)‎ Polyamorph (talk) 01:30, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Don't copy and paste[edit]

The section about the next album was a direct lift - in it's entirety - from an NME article. This is copyright violation, and is poor writing. pomegranate (talk) 22:42, 27 March 2011 (UTC)


Nicky Wire isn't in the picture. Shouldn't it be fixed, since he's a core member of the group? RicheylovesJDB (talk) 01:29, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

4st 7lb // 4st 7lbs // 4st 7 lb // 4st 7 lbs // 4 st 7 lb // 4 st 7 lbs[edit]

4( )st 7( )lb(s): What is the correct title and should it be all the same? --Diwas (talk) 22:53, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

4st 7lb is the correct title (from Holy Bible album cover). It should indeed be consistent throughout the article. Polyamorph (talk) 08:35, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
Now I see, it is a citation. What is to read in "Manics New Testament", Melody Maker (IPC Media): 4, 27 August 1994? Did they wrote lbs? --Diwas (talk) 18:37, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
I don't know, but symbols of measurement units are not pluralised. So if they did use that it was a mistake. Polyamorph (talk) 19:00, 16 October 2011 (UTC)


  • changed formation location to Blackwood, Caerphilly – it needs to be established either in the article or in edit summaries that they are from "Gwent"
  • removed chart success stuff from lead section – I don't see why this needs to be here; I don't think it's particularly encyclopedic nor do I think the Manics' notability needs to be established on Wikipedia
  • removed numerous unnecessary references – there is no need for these references to be on this page; they belong in the articles for their respective subjects (which are wikilinked, which is sufficient)
  • added several 'citation needed' tags

obviously this is all open to discussion. there is also some code below the 'Awards' section, which I don't know how to get rid of. Lachlan Foley (talk) 23:25, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I reverted your first edit as it removed references and added citation needed tags to facts covered by the same references you just removed. I reverted your seconf edit as it removed a citation that I had just added to improve the article.--Racklever (talk) 07:53, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
I don't believe that is a sufficient explanation for reverting productive changes that most likely took almost an hour. Lachlan Foley (talk) 02:04, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
Hi Lachlan. Your time on Wikipedia is appreciated but please remember that Wikipedia is a collaboration and that we operate through consensus. It may be that your edits are productive, but that is something determined through consensus, I would hope you would agree. Also, the amount of time you spend on them is obviously important to you, but it has little bearing on determining if they should remain in the article. I have seen some well developed hoaxes on Wikipedia that must have taken ages to create, and whilst I applaud the effort they took they should certainly not remain in the article. Looking through your edits I see you have removed references. I also see Racklever states that the references removed cover points where you have now added citation needed tags. Therefore I will revert your edits and I suggest we talk them through on the talk page and implement them individually over a period of time once consensus is reached, to demonstrate good faith by all parties in reaching a consensus, which your comment above "this is all open to discussion" indicates is the way you would like to move forwards. If you'd like to kick off proposing your first change, we can take it from there per WP:BRD. Happy editing, Hiding T 08:04, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
lead section:
I don't see why this chart success stuff needs to be here. is there a rule that requires it to be stated how many "Top 10"s they have made? I think it may be approprate if the artist's notability needs to be established, but that's clearly not the case with the Manic Street Preachers.
added ; Studio albums; it says you're supposed to do it in in the musical artist manual of style.
  • moved "(Everything Must Go)" to after the award names, not in the middle of them
  • italicised publication names (e.g. Q)
  • I don't see why "Songwriting Prize at the Classic Rock Roll of Honour awards, 2011" is exempt from the formatting of other awards, i.e. separated by an en dash.
the rest is removing unnecessary references. to give an example: there is a reference after the date Richey Edwards disappeared. is this needed? surely the date he disappeared is already established on the Richey Edwards article, and if not, shouldn't time and effort be devoted to establishing it on his page rather than this one? if it already is established, then why does it need to be referenced inside this article as well when a simple click through to that article will provide immediate proof?
I don't agree with keeping references just to make the article "look better" or make the subject look "more notable".
I personally looked through all the references I removed to see whether they provided information for the {{citation needed}}s I added, and I did not find any. Lachlan Foley (talk) 03:12, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Hi Lachlan. Thanks for discussing this on the talk page, it is appreciated, especially given your heavy sigh above, I apologise for adding to your frustration! So, with regards the lede; that section serves as a summary of the entire article so it can and likely should make mention of chart success. Per WP:LEDE, The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article. A lede serves to convey enough information that a reader doesn't need to read the whole article if they do not desire further depth.
With regards the musical manual of style, my reading of the page differs somewhat from yours and I don't think it mandates the use of Studio albums. But the change itself is a good one, and should be made for the reasons of clarity.
The changes in the Awards section I don't disagree with in principle. With all the changes you made to the article it was confusing looking through the diffs but I'm sure we can discuss them again if need be.
With regards removing references, we don't remove references just because that reference may appear in another article. If the text is in this article, the reference must be here too, to demonstrate verifiability and provide easy reference for our readers. Please do not remove references you view as being unnecessary. Our policy says that All quotations and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material. It's possible these items have been challenged in the past, and it's also possible they may be challenged in the future. It is also possible that in a print edition of Wikipedia, such as WP:1.0, the Manic Street Preachers album is included but the band member articles are not. We will have performed a disservice to the project as a whole by removing references we feel unnecessary. I can assure you references are not kept just to make the article "look better" or make the subject look "more notable". References cut to the heart of what Wikipedia is, per guidance: By citing sources for Wikipedia content, you enable users to verify that the information given is supported by reliable sources, thus improving the credibility of Wikipedia while showing that the content is not original research. You also help users find additional information on the subject; and you avoid plagiarising the source of your words or ideas by giving attribution.
With regards the citation tags, if they are added without removing any references, I think we may be able to better work out if any references do help support the material. I know Everything by Simon Price will reference a fair bit but currently my copy is packed up due to renovations. You don't happen to have an accessible copy do you?
So hopefully we have some areas of agreement? I don't see anything controversial in the majority of your changes, with the exception of removing references and rewriting the lede. I hope the ordeal isn't too frustrating for you, I find myself that collaboration doesn't always run as smooth as we'd like! Happy editing, Hiding T 08:36, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Listing Richey Edwards as a Former Member[edit]

The band seems to consider him still a part of the band. They keep his spot empty and say his royalties go into a separate account for him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

  • His royalties no longer go into a separate account for him, since he is now legally deceased they will be dispersed according to his estate. Since he is now legally considered dead he is a former member. The band keep his spot empty as a mark of respect. Hiding T 07:20, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

British band[edit]

Since Wales is not an independent country, and many people do not even know where it is, I think that we should state that MSP are a British band from the United Kingdom. I going to modify this.Larry.europe (talk) 23:40, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

If they identify as a Welsh band, they are Welsh. © Tbhotch (en-2.5). 23:17, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

4REAL - number of stiches[edit]

Any source for this? The current link is dead. This article states 17 and Edwards' article states 18. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 11:52, 1 October 2014 (UTC)