Talk:Raw Power

Discrepancy

This page contradicts the main Stooges page's discussion of the album in several ways. It says Pop insisted on the Ashton brothers' involvement; the Stooges page says that the Ashtons were a fallback choice after Pop and Bowie were unable to find British musicians to use. The Stooges page further says that Ashton was rankled by this, and by his demotion to bass. The Stooges page says that David Bowie mixed Raw Power; this page says that Iggy Pop mixed it. It seems that the two pages have radically different sources. I have no way of knowing which is correct, but they should be reconciled. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.236.128.9 (talk) 20:13, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:StoogesRawPower.jpg

Image:StoogesRawPower.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 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 11:24, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Article focus

Too much of this article is dedicated to the different mixes of the album with lengthy quotes from Bowie, Pop and other band members. While this is a contentious issue among diehard fans, it's over-represented here and could be cut down considerably. Morganfitzp (talk) 03:26, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

- No, with due respect to you, you are wrong. For years, I was quite sad that this very influential album would go into the future with a new mix - one that no one heard in the days when Punk Rock first started. I was quite heartened at the clear statements in the current page (late 2015) that show that no one involved prefers the new mix, and that only CBS really wanted it. Otherwise, we could have the unwanted mix as the "normal" mix for the next thousand years. It's a big deal, please leave the current page as it stands.

I say this as someone who knew Ron Asheton and Iggy both, from the period shortly after the album.

Also, it is worth pointing out that Chrissie Hynde has described wandering around London in 1973 with a copy of Raw Power under her arm. I don't have a reference (it was in an old paper magazine), so I did not add it to the "Legacy" section. 162.205.217.211 (talk) 05:12, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

official remix for gimme danger released

This might freak some fans of raw power out but there is a remix of gimme danger that has been officially released. It's first placement was in a promo for the americans season two It's second placement has been in the new game "watch dogs" as far as I know, there has not been any kind of official announcement but, I should know as I (along with matt novack) was the one who did this remix. I'm sorry if my comment has been messy, I've never done this before. If I've missed anything I can be reached at josh@joshmobley.com. Jmobb (talk) 03:05, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

References

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Raw Power/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Article requirements: Y All the start class criteria Y A completed infobox, including cover art and most technical details Y At least one section of prose (excluding the lead section) Y A track listing containing track lengths and authors for all songs Y A full list of personnel, including technical personnel and guest musicians Y Categorisation at least by artist and year Y A casual reader should learn something about the album. Andrzejbanas (talk) 09:02, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Last edited at 09:02, 11 May 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 03:57, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

What was the release date?

According to the article's lead and infobox, Raw Power was released on February 7, 1973. The "Release and reception" section, however, says it was released in the U.S. in May 1973 and the U.K. a month later.

So was it released in February or May-June? Was it released in some foreign territory three months before its U.S. release? Was it released in February and recalled, then released again in May? — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:21, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Raw Power. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051228203950/http://www.i94bar.com/ints/james1.html to http://www.i94bar.com/ints/james1.html

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:51, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Christgau's Consumer Guide

Does anyone else have an issue with calling Christgau's Consumer Guide Christgau's Consumer Guide? Calling the source The Village Voice works as well, but it should be made clear that both od the reviews are by the same guy from the same publication. Esszet (talk) 12:51, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

They're not from the same publication; one was published in the 1981 book Christgau's Record Guide and the other was published in a 1997 Village Voice column, for which Robert Christgau did not write exclusively ("...the same publication"). What is the reason for clarifying in this template that both reviews were authored by the same critic anyway? Dan56 (talk) 21:14, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

They are from the same publication: Christgau's Consumer Guide. Go here, and you'll see that both reviews are listed under "Consumer Guide Reviews" (the first one must have been published in there during its Newsday period from 1972-74). The point of clarifying that they're by the same author is to make clear that he has differing opinions of the original mix and the remix. Esszet (talk) 22:04, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

The clarification can be made in the prose, not at the expense of misrepresenting publications/sources and the ratings template, which is meant to be a simplified representation of the reception, not to be complicated by off-topic addendums and misrepresentations; there's already a note clarifying one score is for the remix. And no, it was not necessarily published in the Newsday period simply because it can't be found; perhaps the first appearance was in the 1981 book. And if we could prove it was from the Newsday period, we would credit the "reviewer" in the template as Newsday. "Christgau's Consumer Guide" did not publish the review, The Village Voice did, just as "AllMusic" published the first score/review and Chicago Tribune published Greg Kot's pop-music columns. I'm sure there's some WP guideline on sources encouraging/preferring deference to the "original" source of a column or article or whatever, which would be The Village Voice in this case. Dan56 (talk) 22:39, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

It doesn't matter, the column as a whole is called "Christgau's Consumer Guide". Doing that is a lot easier than clarifying it in the prose. And are there even previously unpublished reviews in the book at all? Esszet (talk) 22:55, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Wait, even if it isn't called "Christgau's Consumer Guide", he did still write both reviews for the same column (see previous link), so there must be some way of indicating that he did. Did the Consumer Guide regularly feature other reviewers, or were they just special guests or something like that? Esszet (talk) 23:15, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

It does matter, rendering much of your other questions moot, IMO. Christgau's website, an archive of all these columns, should be seen as a convenience link rather than signifying a collective "whole". And yes, there are previously unpublished reviews in the book; there are instances where he admits in the column (ca. 1970s) of not officially reviewing an album (Woodstock, for example), and a capsule-style review of that album appears in the 1981 book ([1]). Dan56 (talk) 05:35, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Also, there have been other instances where multiple reviews in a ratings box were authored by the same critic. I appreciate the notoriety of Christgau and his columns, but I don't see either of these factors as enough reason to give prominence to a newspaper/magazine column over the newspaper/magazine in who/what we credit in the ratings box. Dan56 (talk) 05:51, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Another point: The columns as a whole haven't "existed" exclusively as "Consumer Guide"; Christgau has continued this capsule-style column reviewing as "Expert Witness" at MSN Music ([2]) and Vice/Noisey ([3]). Dan56 (talk) 20:38, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Since they all have the same title, it does signify a collective whole (up until he started publishing reviews in a column with a different name, of course). Even if the same author did publish two different reviews of the same album in two different publications, I would personally have no problem with crediting them both to "Greg Kot" or whomever. There doesn't appear to be a Wikipedia policy on this, but I don't see why reviews would necessarily have to be listed by publication or website (I guess the Consumer Guide is actually a column) as opposed to column or author. Esszet (talk) 16:12, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Up until? Christgau has continued archiving the "Expert Witness" columns as "Consumer Guide(s)" at his website, and they are essentially the same format; they are the same "thing" to me, and if I were to treat "Consumer Guides" as a collective whole, "Expert Witness" would be a part of it. As for why review scores should be credited to the publication (newspaper/magazine/book); since we do this for the other entries in the ratings template, it would be more consistent internally if we credited the publication for each score, rather than having most credit the publication and a few the author/column. Dan56 (talk) 21:19, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Then maybe Expert Witness should be included, but there have been three large books published under the name of "Consumer Guide", so that must constitute a collective whole of some sort. As for whom (or what) to credit reviews to, I guess it would depend on whether the author or publication is more important; Allmusic is obviously a project much larger than any of its individual authors, but since the Consumer Guide pretty much begins and ends with Christgau (with a few exceptions, apparently), it would be fine to credit it to him instead of the Village Voice or Newsday or whatever. Esszet (talk) 11:43, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Well, you're free to create an individual article on this collective whole if you think it has that kind of gestalt, but this break in stylistic consistency you're suggesting does not make practical sense; the general reader will be less familiar with a specific music critic or "column series" than a long-running, nationally circulated newspaper (Village Voice) or popular webzine (Vice), both of which register far more Google hits than "Christgau". Your original intent was to clarify that two of the scores are from reviews by the same person, and misrepresenting the sources as "Christgau's Consumer Guide" would accomplish that only if the general reader is already familiar with Christgau (not likely) and if the reader clicks on the link to the Robert Christgau#Consumer Guide and Expert Witness to understand what "Christgau's Consumer Guide" is (and reads it, which is less likely IMO than the reader actually reading the section in which the clarification is already made). This exercise just strikes me as much ado about nothing. Leave it be. Dan56 (talk) 16:54, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Dammit, it isn't misrepresenting it; Christgau's own website (and thus not a convenience source) lists it as a Consumer Guide review. Since we're clearly getting nowhere. let's just wait for other people to contribute. Esszet (talk) 18:43, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

No response to my point about stylistic consistency or reader familiarity? Dan56 (talk) 03:04, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

I already gave you a guideline that would allow for internally consistent use of different types of attributions, and as for reader familiarity, I really don’t think it makes much of a difference in this case, I don’t think most people are familiar with Christgau or the Village Voice. I’d even go further and argue that since accuracy takes precedence over reader familiarity, “Consumer Guide” would be even better since it exists across multiple publications. Let’s just wait for more input at this point, this doesn’t really seem to be getting anywhere. Esszet (talk) 14:59, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

You didn't give any guideline. "Use of different types..." is the exact opposite of internal consistency. Dan56 (talk) 21:07, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

It doesn't "exist across multiple publications". In an abstract sense, sure, I can see it. But the column in which the review sources are listed in the ratings box is titled "Source", and an abstraction is not the origin of this review nor where it was obtained from; the Village Voice is, and listing it as such would fulfill both accuracy and reader familiarity better than what you're proposing. Dan56 (talk) 21:07, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure what your agenda even is anymore. Dan56 (talk) 21:08, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Since no one else is contributing…you're telling me this is an abstraction? And sure, it's just one particular edition of Consumer Guide, but then again, the issue it was drawn from of The Village Voice is just one particular edition as well and not the paper as a whole. Esszet (talk) 16:19, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

So is this about representing the "Consumer Guide" as a whole in the ratings box or clarifying that there are two review sources authored by the same critic? Because you've said before "Calling the source The Village Voice works as well" 0_0 Dan56 (talk) 19:44, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Both…? Esszet (talk) 22:36, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

"Calling the source The Village Voice works as well" Dan56 (talk) 05:28, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

In general, yes...? Esszet (talk) 14:27, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

RfC: Should the source of this review be credited in the ratings template as the newspaper/publication that published it or the catchall title of the music column in which it was featured?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This is an extension of the above discussion that resulted in an impasse between myself and @Esszet:. The review in question is this, published in The Village Voice as "Consumer Guide", authored by Robert Christgau. I insist on keeping it credited in the ratings template as The Village Voice--consistent stylistically with how the other review sources are credited; by the publication--while Esszet has insisted on re titling both the "Christgau's Record Guide" book review and the Village Voice review as "Christgau's Consumer Guide," an abstract catchall for Christgau's capsule review columns that have long been published in the Voice and titled as "Consumer Guide" (although they have in more recent years been titled "Expert Witness", in MSN Music and Vice). Should the review source in this case be credited as The Village Voice or Christgau's Consumer Guide (which is the title of a book, in which this review was not originally published in). RfC relisted by Cunard (talk) at 04:26, 6 May 2018 (UTC). RfC relisted by Cunard (talk) at 08:42, 26 February 2018 (UTC). Dan56 (talk) 21:45, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Votes

• Village Voice - Dan56 (talk) 21:45, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
• Consumer Guide - If the same review was published first in the Voice and then in book form, either is a proper source, and therefore, in general, either can be used. I would say that the source as added by the first person to cite it is the one to use. In this instance, that appears to be Sk4170 in this edit from 2011, and since he used the book, we should stick with the book. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:12, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

  Note - Beyond My Ken is mistaken; Sk4170 did not originally credit the source to the book but to "Robert Christgau". Furthermore, the name of the book in which the 1973 album's grade/review was originally published in was "Christgau's Record Guide", not "Consumer Guide." Dan56 (talk) 21:50, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

• Consumer Guide for two reasons. #1 guideline WP:Citing_sources#Say where you read it says we have to cite where we actually saw it. There's no indication that any editor here has actually seen this in Village Voice. #2 it best serves the reader to pair these related reviews together. It is a uniquely valuable resource that we have single reviewer critiquing the original mix as too "thin", then explicitly revisiting that original concern as improved in the remix. Alsee (talk) 06:21, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

  There is no indication any editor has actually seen either review in Christgau's books. And it is not unique; similar comparisons are inevitably made in other reviews. Dan56 (talk) 07:44, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

  My mistake, the edit I made to the article accidentally created a false impression that I was citing the books. My article edit mentioned of Guide of the 70's and Guide of 90's, which was intended to reflect the website sections. (The website sections naturally parallel the book titles, explaining the confusion.) I propose both reviews be sourced under name Christgau's Consumer Guide database, which is where we actually found and link them.
  As a side note: I was able to view a scan of the 90's Guide online, and I found a library near me that has a dead-tree copy of the 70's Guide. I'm not enthusiastic to make the library trip, but if I (or anyone else) views the 70's book then we could cite the book-pair. And again, I favor citing them as a pair. Citing one review to the book and the other to the web-database is needlessly messier. Alsee (talk) 00:00, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

• Strongly Both is my suggestion because that is the proper attribution style. "Consumer Guide" is/was a feature of the Village Voice for decades. It was not a syndicated feature but a Voice exclusive.

Allow me an example: Joe Alsop used to write his political commentary in the New York Herald Tribune three times a week under a column titled "Matter of Fact." When we cite something from that column, the proper attribution would be to cite title of piece, title of column, newspaper. Same thing with the Raw Power review; we need to present the source clearly and completely. Robert Christgau used to do another regular piece for the Voice, a yearly review called "Pazz & Jop," where he'd run a very extensive look-back to the previous year's output, sometimes with a different outlook. That the Christgau review was first published in the Voice there is not doubt; so the magazine must be cited. But we need to be clear where exactly in it the review came from. -The Gnome (talk) 07:20, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

• I would not oppose this as a compromise, actually. It is similar to how Metacritic credited the Voice column ([4]). Dan56 (talk) 22:56, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

I second the both. This is good and interesting editing you are doing, Dan56! I think these details are fascinating.Fred (talk) 15:14, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Note: This isn't actually done anywhere for reviews from anywhere (as far as I know). If we decide to do this here, we'd better try to establish a consensus for it for {{Album ratings}} in general. Esszet (talk) 18:57, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

In fact, the documentation for {{Album ratings}} says the reviewer field should contain "the name of the source", and saying "X, Y" for just about anything seems a little excessive for that. Esszet (talk) 19:06, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

The name of the source is the Village Voice, and what you have been proposing--crediting a Village Voice column as "Christgau's Consumer Guide", or merging two review sources/scores in one template field as Alsee proposed--is not done anywhere else either. Dan56 (talk) 19:35, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

See here, here, and here, and there must be others. I'm sorry, Dan, but a lot of this does not appear to be in good faith at all. Esszet (talk) 20:46, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

None of those reviews were published in The Village Voice, but the book Christgau's Consumer Guide, so those are not examples of what you have proposed, which is forgoing crediting of the original source when it is the Voice in favor of "Christgau's Consumer Guide". I'm sorry, Esszet, but making such a claim of bad faith serves no purpose here. Dan56 (talk) 02:12, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Uh, see here, for example (go to the bottom of the page). I'll let that comment speak for itself. Esszet (talk) 10:16, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

And even if the grade was changed, you see what I mean. Esszet (talk) 10:52, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

No, I do not; the grade is being cited; the grade is all that is shown in the ratings box in that article, so the original source of the "A" grade (rather than the "A-minus") is the book. Dan56 (talk) 20:09, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Fine, smart guy, here and here (p. 2) for Get a Grip by Aerosmith. And we'll see if the closer buys you saying that you don't get it. Esszet (talk) 20:53, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

You have shown me that his Village Voice review of Get a Grip was reprinted in his book seven years later. How does this further your point that we should forgo crediting the original source of the review? Dan56 (talk) 21:03, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

And, for the record, the source given for The Eminem Show isn’t the Consumer Guide book, it’s Christgau’s website. Esszet (talk) 11:42, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

The grade being cited was never published in the Voice. Dan56 (talk) 20:09, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm not so foolish as to ask you to prove a negative :-) but I do want to know: How can you be so sure? I mean at the bottom of the page, under the text, Christgau marked "Village Voice, Jan. 6, 1998." -The Gnome (talk) 07:11, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

@The Gnome:, I was addressing Esszet's digression about The Eminem Show and Christgau's grade for that album. Dan56 (talk) 19:09, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

The Gnome, how are we supposed to cite where the review appeared in Village Voice when no one knows? As far as I am aware no one here has seen it. Also take a look at the reviews table. Putting double attribution will (IMO) unnecessarily make a mess of the 'source' column. Alsee (talk) 04:51, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Well, I've seen it, being a Voice customer back in the day, as it happens, but never mind. :-) Not that particular review, of course, but I know from reading the paper that the Dean's writings were appearing as A. capsule reviews, later incorporated with very few changes in his books about each decade in music, B. the yearly Pazz & Jop poll, whose lengthy introduction he wrote, or C. in articles dedicated to one artist each time. (I don't know where those articles found a home outside the mag, by the way.) One of the three formats. So, the text in question is a cinch to have appeared in the "Consumer Guide" column, I'd bet the house. The "Consumer Guide" books, anyway, consist of nothing but the collected, capsule reviews originally published under the eponymous column in the Voice.

I accept there's a problem with upsetting the established format for attributions. In case this technical aspect is the decisive factor, I'd side with having the original source cited, i.e. the Voice. But I'd still very much want to see full attribution, i.e. column & mag. So, I leave it to the tech savvy folks to find a way of having both, since IMVHO I consider it a piece of valuable info. Perhaps, we can do it. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 07:11, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

@Beyond My Ken:, the book was not used by Sk4170 in that edit; the revision clearly shows a link to Christgau's website as the source, for both the 1973 and 1997 grades, the two of which did not appear in the same book, ever, so it would be impossible for Sk4170 to have cited the book in that instance. Dan56 (talk) 04:12, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Website, book, whatever. Keep what the first person used. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:04, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Why? @Beyond My Ken: Dan56 (talk) 21:25, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

I won't ping/canvass editors to come !vote, but I'll note that user:Sk4170 originally added the source as Consumer Guide,[5] originally added by user:Gamaliel as a pair as "Robert Christgau" in 2006.[6] The pair was split to Christgau's Record Guide / Village voice by Dan56 in 2016.[7] And this RFC was opened because user:Esszet edited them both to say Consumer Guide[8] (after first trying to edit them both to Village Voice). Esszet explained their rationale in edit summary "same guy, same publcation".[9]. If the closer takes that into account, this is effectively four editors supporting Consumer Guide vs one for Village Voice the article was stable for a decade as a pair under Robert Christgau and cited to his website for the guide.
I'll try making an edit that directly linking these two reviews under Consumer Guide, similar to how it was originally added. Hopefully it will stick. Alsee (talk) 06:21, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

#1) If we are to follow the guideline WP:Citing_sources#Say where you read it, then we are to credit the source as robertchristgau.com, since neither books Christgau's Record Guide: Rock Albums of the 70s nor Christgau's Consumer Guide: Albums of the 90s are where we read this. #2) The ratings template has nothing to do with there being a "uniquely valuable resource [in a ] single reviewer critiquing" such and such; the template is simply a supplementary representation, a general overview of scores; the prose is for the meat and details of the critiques. #3) Do we have any reason to doubt the 1997 review was first published in the Village Voice when Village Voice is credited at the bottom? Please note the guideline you cited: Note: The advice to "say where you read it" does not mean that you have to give credit to any sources, search engines, websites, library catalogs, archives, etc., that led you to Smith's book. If you have read Smith's book yourself, that's all you have to cite. You do not need to specify how you obtained and read Smith's book. So long as you are confident that you read a true and accurate copy, it does not matter whether you read the book using an online service like Google Books; using preview options at a bookseller's website like Amazon; on an e-reader (except to the extent that this affects page numbering); through your library; via online paid databases of scanned publications, such as JSTOR; using reading machines; or any other method.

The Village Voice column was read via Christgau's archive site. And there is no reason to doubt it is a true and accurate copy, no more than we would doubt this link you have placed contains true and accurate excerpts from the books. But these are simply Convenience links--For example, a copy of a newspaper article no longer available on the newspaper's website may be hosted elsewhere.--for citing the original source, which is (for the 1981 review) the book and (for the 1997 review) the Village Voice column. Dan56 (talk) 07:35, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Also, @Alsee:, this revision of yours to the ratings template is a bloated mess. It defeats the purpose of having a supplementary illustrative representation of scores when so much information is packed densely into a single parameter. It is a (bibliographically misleading) eyesore. Dan56 (talk) 07:46, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

This isn't going anywhere, it should just be abandoned. It's 3-1 in favor of Consumer Guide, that seems to be the end result here. Esszet (talk) 17:58, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Consensus is not the result of a vote. Decision-making involves an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. This has not been done; I have addressed concerns by you, Alsee, and Beyond My Ken (who proposed using what the original editor had used, which was "Robert Christgau," not "Consumer Guide"), and I have done so in accordance with any relevant guideline. My concerns above have been left untouched, and there has been nothing from Alsee since his initial and only input here in April. This topic involves the ratings template, so I am leaving a note at the template talk page to encourage input. Dan56 (talk) 18:46, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

It did involve such an effort; I attempted to address your concerns, and it failed. I'm guessing BMK and Alsee haven't tried to do so because they looked at the discussion above and don't see much of a point in trying. An RfC should last until enough comment has been received that consensus is reached, or until it is apparent it won't be; it's apparent that it won't be in this case. Just give it up, and by the way, I realized I got sucked into it before, but I've since realized something: it's a Wikipedia article. Calm down; it isn't really that important. Esszet (talk) 19:00, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Dan56, you're absolutely right that consensus isn't a vote. I'm an experienced closer myself. I once closed against a 20-vs-10 majority. (The majority were almost all canvassed/sockpuppet/meatpuppet accounts pushing a blatantly nationalistic agenda.) Closes against the majority are fairly rare, and it's wise to be cautious in any 1-vs-N situation.
The issue will be closed by an uninvolved party. I have no opposition to more input, but the discussion now four months old. The RFC can be closed immediately, by anyone competent to do so. Alsee (talk) 00:42, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Which Classic Stooges albums were influential to Punk Rock?@Woovee:

All 3 of them of course. I was surprised to have had a previous edit reverted, even though I had supplied a reliable source supporting my inclusion of the debut album (the editor who removed this, wrote "original research", ignoring the AllMusic reference provided at the time).

I restored the edit and supported it with 2 references. Referring to a number of songs on that album, a writer for AllMusic writes: "one listen reveals why they became clarion calls in the punk rock revolution". The Saturday Evening Post states "The Stooges unleashed their self-titled debut 50 years ago – yes, 50 years ago — this week, completing a foundation for punk rock that would be built upon by the New York Dolls, Patti Smith, The Ramones, Blondie, and Television."

Further reading: The music news site https://ultimateclassicrock.com/stooges-debut-album/ the article hyperlinked to the left is titled "How the Stooges' Debut Album set the Stage for Punk". And while https://www.brooklynvegan.com/the-stooges-turns-50-a-look-back-on-the-album-that-helped-birth-punk/ may not meet the standard of a reliable source, it is a widely read music blog and further demonstrates that, no, this is not my personal, original research.

Edit: I belatedly checked the source in the article that was used to support the contention that Fun House and Raw Power, but NOT the Stooges (1969) were influential to punk. Rock 'N' Roll Hall of Fame essay. And it says nothing about any of this! So, if you're the guy bent on removing the description of the debut as an album influential to punk, please explain yourself. Keithramone33 (talk)

It's cited in Raw Power#Legacy and influence. Meanwhile, do any of the sources you cited mention Raw Power? Because, if not, then you're taking a source not explicitly covering this article's topic and synthesizing it to make an original claim... 𝒮𝒾𝓇 𝒯𝑒𝒻𝓁𝑜𝓃 (talk | contribs) 21:16, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Well, not an original claim. If a number of sources make the same observation about the 3 Stooges albums (they were influential), then noting that "this album is considered influential, as were it's predecessors" is not my thought, it's my noting that this is consensus, or at least a common thought. The Stooges themselves are secondarily a subject of the article, and the sentence as it exists puts the primary subject, Raw Power, into perspective- it was a further influential work.

But, do I understand that you feel, for technical reasons, I need a source that discusses all 3 albums' influence in the same piece, in order to include all 3 album titles?

Keithramone33 (talk) Keithramone33 (talk) 21:57, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

A source that confirms this thought within the context of discussing this article's topic would justify mentioning such a thing in the lead, in the spirit of WP:STICKTOSOURCE and WP:NOR. The technicality establishes relevance to the main topic. Otherwise, what else is influencing this inclusion except one editor's ambition and personal selection of source(s)/material.... 𝒮𝒾𝓇 𝒯𝑒𝒻𝓁𝑜𝓃 (talk | contribs) 03:10, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

But don't worry. I don't care enough to contest what's currently in the article. This album, nor its story, is a priority in my life... 𝒮𝒾𝓇 𝒯𝑒𝒻𝓁𝑜𝓃 (talk | contribs) 03:11, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for explaining the issue. I'll see what I can do to resolve it at some point (I'm not doing research tonight, but if someone deletes it before I get around to that, at least I know why). As to whether wanting to include the 3 or so words reflects "ambition", it's not like that. It's just that I've spent a few decades immersed in this corner of music, and the wording of the sentence prior to my original edit seemed to deliberately exclude the first album, and from my perspective, its not at all controversial to say that all 3 albums have great influence on punk music. Like I mentioned tonight to a fellow music devotee what the issue was, and his comment was along the lines of "as if everyone doesn't know that (names of songs) helped invent punk." For non-controversial issues, I didn't anticipate any kind of edit war, especially since I'm enough of a Wikipedian to know to include reliable sources, so when I saw the edit removed, it was very distracting to me. But I appreciate your technical knowledge, and willingness to explain. Thx again.Keithramone33 (talk)

I decided to (hopefully) put the matter to rest tonight after all. The Saturday Evening Post link does indeed discuss Raw Power's influence ("Over the years, The Stooges served as an influence to musicians across a multitude of genres, notably punk and metal. Kurt Cobain of Nirvana called Raw Power his favorite album."), and so using this reference is appropriate for the lead's assertions of the influence of the album, as well as the current version's context of mentioning that it is the 3rd consecutive such seminal long player. Again, my interest in including this is that, as a person who has read much about this, I believed excluding this context was misleading about the impacts of the band's recordings relative to one another.Keithramone33 (talk)`

Keithramone33 Just a heads up, when sourcing things, please do not just use urls and fill sources out properly (see WP:BAREURLS). – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 15:59, 5 June 2022 (UTC)