Talk:Rush (band)/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

They're Canadian

yes, I have to add my two (US) cents. They are not called the "Canadian power trio" for nothing. They don't have a well known rock instrumental entitled YYZ ( the IATA airport identification code for Toronto Pearson International Airport) because they are North American. They were all born in Canada and only Neil (fairly recently) maintains a full time residence in the US. They are, is, have been and always will be Canadian. Let's not get too detailed, it starts to get silly. --24.189.35.249 (talk) 21:58, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello. I love America. Big Time. It's my favorite country by far. And I love Rush. Rush is from Canada. They clearly appear to identify themselves as Canadian. They are Canadian. Calling them North American is silly. It would be nice to claim them, but also a little silly. Let's be reasonable and agree that they are "Canadian." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.156.133.52 (talk) 01:20, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

This is somewhat of a non-issue by now; the only guy who was trying to put in "North American" was a persistent vandal who we haven't heard from in awhile. Of course, Canada is in North America, but that's besides the point. :D JuJube (talk) 22:04, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I note that one particular user insists on reverting to Rush being a "North American" band instead of a Canadian one. Please, we have few enough decent prog rock bands here in the Great White North - can we agree that they should be referred to as Canadian? Risker 05:36, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

• It's just a persistent anon vandal who has been blocked three times for this already. He refuses to discuss the issue and instead just vandalizes the article as soon as his bans expire. Danny Lilithborne 05:38, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

• Of course, when I write the reason I change "Canadin" to "North American," the reason is deleted: Canadians often speak of North America, and Rush has sold over 90% of concert tickets in the U.S. and most of its albumbs in the U.S. Therefore, in keeping with Wikipedia standards of a 'world view' it is appropriate for Rush to be considered both a North American phenomena nd a North American band.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.36.62.103 (talk)

I agree with Fnlayson - that argument is silly beyond belief. Would you call, say, a British band that sell exceedingly well in Germany a "European band" rather than a British one? Calanor 17:30, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

• They are FROM Canada. That's all that means. Where their sells come from has nothing to do with it. -Fnlayson 12:12, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I can't imagine who would think of Rush as anything other than a Canadian band. In fact if you read any of their interviews, they constantly refer to this fact - "As a Canadian band, we have a different perspective on things" etc. etc. Ml Ncst 15:06, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't Rush's Politics and Philosophy be a part of this article, since it is so integral to their lyrics?

They have evolved, from the anti-socialist Ayn Randian to the Jungian philosophies, to a more libertarian/anti-establishment group.

The evolution from Closer to the Heart, to Freewill, to New World Man, and beyond all are all indicated by Peart's studies of various works.

Unless this article is merely fluff and advertising such things are more than idle chatter.

They are relevant. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.201.66.133 (talk) 23:47, 12 January 2007 (UTC).

If any of that was supported by citation, and not unfounded speculation, then yes, it would be worth it. But the interviews I've seen often show Neil and the guys dissembling and dodging on their politics. ThuranX 23:58, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

It's OR. Wikipedia has way too much of that already. No need to add it to a featured article. Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 00:22, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Logo in Infobox

Does anyone else agree that the Rush logo in the infobox looks really really bad? Just wondering. Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 23:11, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and it's particularly dated. Wisdom89 23:19, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Band logos, in my opinion, plummet music articles from "encylopedia" to "Hit Parader Magazine" pretty quick. But that one in particular looks foolish. Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 23:30, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Done well, I could see cosidering it. However, given Rush's amazing graphic design, and willingness to stay fresh, picking any one album's typeface and calling it their 'logo' seems esp. foolish. This would be FINE on the AC/DC, Metallica, KISS, or Rolling Stones pages, but on Rush's page, which font do we show? We've got three no votes, so I'm going to revert it out.ThuranX 02:12, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Lead - Rand

The length of the lead is of adequate length so there really isn't any need to add additional details. Furthermore, Ayn Rand is already mentioned in the body of the article. Wisdom89 15:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Heavy Metal

The current article lists Rush as "Heavy metal" in addition to "Hard rock" and "Progressive rock". IMO that could definitely be debated. They definitely had an influence on several notable metal bands but I don't think of them as metal themselves, Lifeson's guitar style is different, it's usually a lot more rock and roll-oriented (especially in the early stuff). On occasion they strayed into the realm of metal, but if that was enough to call them a metal band, then we could also list them as New Wave which wouldn't make any sense at all. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.238.170.154 (talk) 22:33, 26 January 2007 (UTC).

The book "Visions-The Official Biography of RUSH" By Bill Banasiewicz published in 1988 has this written on its back cover "Over the course of 16 albums and thousands of concerts throughout the globe Rush have established themselves as the most popular heavy metal and progressive rock trio in the world. Their unique blend of power rock and intelligent lyrics has won them a following as devoted as any in rock." That's from their official biography. And, by Wiki-policies WP:CITE and WP:V...the genre becomes referenced and verifiable content. Whether it disagrees with any editors personal opinion doesn't matter. The only way it would be disputed text is if the band releases a new revised Biography that says "Hi we're Rush and we've never, ever, never, ever, never, ever, never, ever been a Heavy metal band". Then there'd be a valid reference against it....maybe :) Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 22:41, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Rush IMO stopped being HM in any meaningful sense after the first album - Caress of steel is very prog sounding to me... More recently, (post that 1988 book) when the guitar goes back in the spotlight you could argue they're more metal than they've been in years but at the time of writing there was no validity in calling Rush Metal - it was either lazy journalism or poor sub-editing putting a "magic phrase" on the book jacket to try & attract more readers. Does the book call them metal within the main text when referring to anything between, say, 1977 (after all the world's a stage) & 1988? Now I'm not arguing to change necessarily, I'm just arguing that one opinion should not be enough to shut up shop & revert all contrary opinion. Also, bear in mind that what is metal today isn't what was metal 20-30 years ago. That could be part of the problem here.Megamanic 06:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

But your opinion isn't how we write the article. ThuranX 11:47, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely it could be debated. Rush really hasn't done anything 'metallic' since 1975's "Caress of Steel". The label of "progressive rock" fits the bill just fine. Wolf2112 03:19, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Opinions have no place on Wikipedia. It's all about WP:V and WP:CITE. If the bands bio tags them in a certain way and if it backed up by other publications(which there are many) then editors opinions are negated. 156.34.217.192 13:38, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

But all you're doing is finding an opinion somewhere & citing it. The journalists in question have probably listened to 1% of the Rush music of most of the editors here but you're saying that his/her (usually) uninformed opinion should hold more weight. You really can't use the scientific method to describe art. Somebody could equally go out & find 20 "Rush sucks" websites, cite them & somehow those goobers would carry more validity by dint of being "published".Megamanic 06:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

And we don't cite blogs either. assuming the journalists who wrote about Rush were thoroughly intellectually and professionally void isn't a good approach to editing at wikipedia, as it ignores WP:Verifiability and WP:AGF. ThuranX 11:47, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

It's possible that Rush was called 'heavy metal' due to some hard rock samples being metal. See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_Rock#Differentiation_from_heavy_metal

BreakerLOLZ

Here's a funny story regarding Rush as a metal band. I remember as young kid who had never actually heard Rush thinking they must be really metal and drugged out, based solely on the images on their album covers and concert T-shirts. I misinterpreted the red star from 2112 as a Satanic pentagram. There were Rush concert T-shirts at the time which featured marijuana plants entwined around the letters "RUSH", and the word Rush itself, I was told, was a reference to a drug high. So I thought they must be heavier than Sabbath but more blatantly pro-drug. The first Rush song I actually heard was "2112: Temples of Syrinx" from the live All the World's a Stage album, which sounded pretty heavy and metal back in the 70s, especially the part where Geddy sings "we are the preists of the temples", which sounded to me (with no access to the actual lyrics) like "we are the priests of the devil". So I thought Rush was evil. A few years later I heard this catchy new tune in an ice cream store and thought "that'd be a damn good song if it weren't for the annoying female vocalist". The tune turned out to be "Spirit of Radio" and the 'woman' singing was of course Geddy Lee. I liked Spirit of Radio so much I had to buy the album (Permanent Waves), which is when I realized how rich and complex Rush actually was. But I digress. Was Rush ever a true metal band? Nah. They have some metal songs and were pretty heavy through 2112, but there's an attitude and a style to metal that Rush never presented. Rush attracted a different sort than true metal bands like Judas Priest or Iron Maiden. Rush fans were usually good students, creative types, or geeks who went out for band rather than football - you know - the sort of kids who would be beat up by Judas Priest fans. In any case, I think Rush ceased to exist in 1980 and deep down we all know it. They had a really interesting unique sound from Fly By Night through Moving Pictures. After that they became a totally different band (several totally different bands, actually). It's the same 3 guys and they have the same name but the music is consistently uninpsired and pretentious. I guess it shows that producers have a lot more to do with what makes a band great than fans realize or care to admit. 69.86.5.79 03:36, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Rush in Pop culture

PhilWelch, the admin who turned Rush in popular culture into a redirect, and handed out blocks for reverting it, has surrendered his Admin-ship. Should we now reconsider restoring that page to a real page, and including a 'main article tag under reputation as there once was? I'd certainly like to do this.ThuranX 17:16, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes it should be restored. Previous concensus on the article was that it should stay. Phil Welch's actions...including his blocks...were an afront to the Wikipedia community and what it is built on. Despite clear concensus the former admin acted purely on his own POV...which was clearly wrong. The article was interesting...referenced...and an excellent companion to the main article. I vote yes. 156.34.216.103 17:27, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Bring it back. The former admin's actions were a clear abuse of power in the face of previous concensus. Restore the article. 216.21.150.44 17:30, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

(fixed yer spacing uop there...) I fixed it already. Also, I don't need to hear about Mr. Welch any moer. I got the block for defending the article, I'm well aware of his behaviors. ThuranX 17:31, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Even though I fought vehemently for the popular culture article to remain active and not relegated to a single cited sentence, I think I'd rather see it re-worked into the main article in a non-list format citing only the most relevant examples. Wisdom89 19:06, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I will leavethat to you. For now, the information is again accessible, which is better than before. ThuranX 20:13, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

• Leaving PhilWelch's questionable handling of the incident aside, I believe the information has a place on Wikipedia: as a ref/external link to its sole source. Wikipedia has been migrating away from the laundry list of trivia and "in pop culture" sections, and the cite that Rush has been extremely noted in popular culture (which is the power windows site) is more than adequete. If any info is merged, it needs to be the small handful of most notable instances, and within prose format. Otherwise, it seems the only way to solve this matter is to nominate the article for deletion and see what the rest of the project feels. — Deckiller 07:09, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Consensus is to keep the article as is....at least until Wisdom89 can migrate some of the content back into the main article. Then it can be turfed through proper procedure(with no more Admin tool abuse) 156.34.238.136 10:41, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Dude, you can't create a bunch of anonymous sockpuppets and pretend that's "consensus". Anyway, let's centralize this discussion on Talk:Rush in popular culture. Philwelch 20:32, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

They are NOT my Sockpuppets. I have taken your baseless accusations to your ongoing RfA. ThuranX 21:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

It done been AFD'd. Philwelch 19:55, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

This is precicely the reason why we felt the need to get a consensus from the community as a whole. Those kinds of "in popular culture" pages are shunned now on Wikipedia, and since editors close to the topic feel attached, they may not realize this. — Deckiller 04:39, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Recent edits

I am uncomfortable with the recent edits made by user Snakesnarrows - There just seems to be an overabundance of personal interpretation and original research. For now I have reverted and removed the edits and brought the topic to the talk page for resolution. I'd like to get some more eyes on this and the opinion of several of the other main editors. Wisdom89 23:00, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Just as an addendum - I've noticed some of the edits in question were made by other registered and anonymous users as well - just so there is no confusion or misunderstandings. Wisdom89 23:04, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Sounds

Does anyone think any of these sound clips is Featured SOund worthy? Personallt, I'd like a clip of YYZ. The Placebo Effect 13:52, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Why I Undid revision 114092176 by 74.104.10.216

74.104.10.216: You are correct that Rush used to use "Taurus" pedals, but they only did so until the early-mid 1980s. At that time, MIDI took precedence, so the foot-pedal controllers are now indeed more generic. Rush no longer uses the "Taurus" brand of pedals (in fact I think they've been out of production for some time). See the source article I referenced to for the details on the foot-pedal controllers that they currently use. (Particularly, Geddy uses a Korg and a Roland PK-5, and Alex uses the same model of Korg.) Feel free to ask me if you have any questions. Cheers. -- ManfrenjenStJohn 18:01, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Fish Islands

In a discussion group I used to be part of called something like 'Midnight Star', a member raised an interesting question which I don't think was ever adequately answered. In a song by this band called Rush, "Limelight", they mention a place where they used to live, maybe in Canada, though I have never been able to find out for sure. I know there is a "Lakeside Park", but when the band speaks of "Living in the Fish Islands..." I wonder where these Fish Islands are -are they near Lakeside Park? More importantly, how good is the fishing there? Teetotaler

I think Geddy has a summer cottage there. He was turned on to it by Chris Squire from YES. They double bass jammed on Schindleria Praematurus....--66.73.52.194 14:31, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Wow. that's one for the Misheard Lyrics books... No, Geddy sings 'Living in a fisheye lens', referring to the scrutiny of the media and public, using an allegory to a specific type of camera lens for wide-angle shots. ThuranX 21:16, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

And the Lakeside Park is around St. Catherines, Ontario, if you're wondering. - The Fwanksta (talk) 02:13, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

"For other uses, see Rush."

Hi all. I'm new to this article, so sorry if this has been discussed before. Should the 'other use redirect' link exist at the top of the article? The way I see it is this: a user will never land on Rush (band) with the intention of viewing info about Rush. It will only ever happen the other way round. It's not possible to 'accidentally' wikilink to this article, and the link itself gives away the subject matter. Plus, Rush doesn't have info related to Rush (band). It seems to be a redundant link in a very prominent place. To me, the redirect is almost like placing a link to Queen at the top of Queen (band), and to a lesser extent, like putting a link to Beetle on The Beatles.

Anyways. I thought I'd just ask this here first, as I don't like altering featured articles without discussing the change first. Thanks! -GilbertoSilvaFan 14:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this up. If I read you right, I can allay part of your concerns: The link to Rush (band) is the first link under the "Music" section at the disambiguation page for Rush. As for the "other uses redirect" template... My personal opinion is, You're Right... but who knows? I think you were smart to bring this up on the talk page instead of just changing it. I agree with you that it may be unlikely that people will accidentally land on the page. But then, I think, "Who knows how people get to this page?" So... I think it can go, but others might disagree. Hope I've helped at least a little. : ) -- ManfrenjenStJohn 22:35, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey thanks for your reply. To be honest, I don't really mind if the link stays there. I just thought it would be an interesting point to raise, since this happens on a few other articles. Let me sum up my point again, since the first half of your paragraph suggested you miss part of what I was getting at. Here's my point: when someone is looking at Rush (band), they won't want to view the information on Rush (which has links to such topics as "a semiaquatic grass-like plant", "room deodorizer" and "sorority slang"). True, Rush has information about the band, but so does Rush (band) - the page they're already on :-)

I don't think people will want to view information on sorority slang, semiaquatic grass-like plants or any other uses of the term Rush if they end up at Rush (band). I know people can end up at any Wikipedia page looking for any number of things, but if there's a link to Rush, then why not a link to Tambourines, Kangaroo or Yeovil? They're all equally as related to the band Rush as Rush is. Plus, I really don't think that people looking for sorority slang will end up on the rush band page, since... well... they just won't. I can't explain why they won't, so maybe that's a flaw in my argument, but if you really think about it, they just won't. Hmm. Anyway. The reason I bother discussing this at all, is because the redirect link is riiiight at the top, and looks a bit silly. I dunno. Discuss. If you want. Oh, and thanks again for the reply. Take care. -GilbertoSilvaFan 23:00, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Heh. Well it sounded like you weren't clear that the main disambig. page for the word Rush had adequate links to Our Boys. I guess I like it because Our Fellas come first, and the disambig. between Rush (band) and Rush (album) has its uses, but the difference between the 2 is certainly clear within "our" article. So... As for removing the template from "our" page, I support you if you want to, primarily because space is at a premium in our wonderfully developed "featured" article. (The amount of vandalism it's attracted lately is probably testament enough to our Quality Work. :) I can't speak for anyone who hasn't spoken, but I'm in support of cutting said fat from our Featured Article. Cut to the Chase, right? :) -- ManfrenjenStJohn 03:19, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Cool, I was clearer that time. Good job removing the redirect, I think it's better that way. Though I'm sure that if someone disagrees, they'll be posting here shortly. Anyways. I have to admit I'm not really a huge Rush fan, but I love Spirit of the Radio (who doesn't?). One thing, the MP3 link on your user page isn't working... I'm itching to know what the file was of. -GilbertoSilvaFan 12:28, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

No problem, thanks for the encouragement. This is how consensus is built and articles are improved. It really is a quintessential WikiP article, and that includes a constant strive for improvement. I think even more could be streamlined to make it more "encyclopedic". About the MP3 link -- Yes, I deliberately put it there even though it's now (very) dead. When Rush revamped their website on the day they released "Far Cry", there was a security gaffe on the site that allowed you to deep-link to the MP3 of the song and download it directly. They've since fixed the hole -- The song is intended to be stream-on-demand only, which is how it is now. (I put the link up after they fixed the hole.) Personally, I can't wait to buy Snakes & Arrows. Don't steal from the artists! -- ManfrenjenStJohn 20:39, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: Singles

Far Cry is consistently being added and deleted from the singles list. I know the single has been released, but do singles count if it is from an album that hasn't been released yet? G4rce 01:35, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Far Cry is NOT #1 US Mainstream Rock single like the other Rush singles on the list. So it has no place being added on the list as such.

New references

Based on the, presumably, "talk page trolling" that had spilled all over this forum the other day, I took it upon myself to search for semi-reuptable sources to support at least some of the hangups the anonymous user had with content of the article. If anyone is willing to help me in this matter, go right ahead. I figure it can't hurt since that "returning to their roots" section does/did have some original research in it. Wisdom89 00:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

As a long time rush fan I say to all those who've contributed to this article -- thanks for the elegance! My goodness, this is an exemplary wikipedia page. More of this!

Rush genres - a frequently disputed topic - My proposal for consensus

Hi folks. It seems like one of the issues of more varying agreement is the "Genres" entry(s) for Rush on the Rush main page, and usually for any related pages (band members, albums, etc.). Today I placed the following genres in the following order, in the infobox on the Rush main page:

• Hard rock
• Progressive rock
• Heavy metal

I consider this to be the order of current relevance, from most to least. I base this on several reasons (probably #3 being the weightiest):

1. It's how they're ordered in the lead (with the exception of heavy metal)
2. Various editors frequently change the genre to a single genre; in my experience, to one of the ones I've included. I had consensus in mind in listing these three genres, being the genres that different editors frequently change the entry to. (Many editors have entered a single one of the above genres, which inevitably leads to another editor changing it to another, and back, and so on... so I thought it best to simply include all 3)
3. If I had to pick one, it would be Hard Rock. That is why I placed that first. My primary reason is this: Geddy Lee has stated in numerous interviews that he does not consider Rush to be producing work in the progressive rock genre anymore (I first heard this statement circa 2002 but it may date as far back as 1989). I distinctly remember a single interview (unfortunately I don't recall which interview it was), where Geddy stated (paraphrasing:) "I don't think the 'progressive rock' label applies to us anymore. I think we've moved beyond that. I don't know what you could call us these days. If I had to pick a genre, I'd say 'hard rock', and in a way i think we've always been that as we've moved through other genres." Again, I'm paraphrasing, but I distinctly remember him making each of those points. I believe the interview I'm referring to occurred during the 2002 promotional junket, and I think he made some of those points (specifically the "hard rock, not prog rock anymore" point) in more than one interview. If you know the interview(s) I'm referring to, please feel free to offer a cite for it/them.

1. So to sum up my own beliefs, in which I have taken into account Geddy's explicit statements, Hard Rock is the most relevant because it applies now, and it arguably always has.
2. Prog rock is second, because it could be argued that that genre label spans the majority of their career. (Keeping in mind Geddy made the "we're not prog rock anymore" comment circa 2002 and possibly earlier as well).
3. Some folks (not me) have argued that Rush is or was a Heavy Metal band. In my opinion, that is a style that they have flirted with in a number of songs. I would not say that "Rush is a Heavy Metal band". I *would* say that "Rush has many songs with a distinct Heavy Metal influence", and even that "Rush has inspired a large number of subsequent Heavy Metal bands". So I put Heavy Metal last to appease consensus.

Certainly it could be argued that other styles have been used by Rush. I think common sense limits it to these three -- the other styles rush has dallied with that come to mind (ska, reggae, rap) are (I'm sure most Rush fans and observers would agree) merely used experimentally by the band and are therefore not a genre to associate with Rush at such a high level.

So my goal has been to promote what I believe is consensus; a combination, in an order of relevance, that hopefully most Rush observers would agree on. Some fans like the prog stuff more, some like the newer stuff more (perhaps "Modern Rock" could be added as a current genre). So my goal has been to provide an objective view that most observers can hopefully agree on.

If your opinion differs on how it should be, by all means, share your thoughts. I'm not married to The Way I Did It, although I do believe that it is encyclopediacally correct, and the most likely to achieve consensus. With the open nature of WP being what it is, I encourage everyone to feel free to speak of their opinion. Consensus is best, and that is what I hope we can achieve.

Thanks!

I agree with the 1-2-3 list at the beginning of this section. To classify them as hard rock is most accurate, as progressive is next accurate, and as heavy metal is least accurate. This, of course, is considering their career on the whole, at which (I might add) ManfrenjenStJohn did a great job. 24.117.147.70 17:48, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

--

ManfrenjenStJohn 22:06, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Genres part II

I removed "Heavy Metal". See my previous post; I feel this is a genre Rush has broached, but not a genre that is descriptive of the band.

Feel free to discuss your opinions here.

Thanks. -- ManfrenjenStJohn 23:02, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

This topic has already been beat to death. The band's own biography label them with the genre. It isn't about personal opinion. It's about WP:V. And it certainly has that. 156.34.229.100 23:24, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

• Exactly. This is not a voting issue. -Fnlayson 01:43, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
• Excellent; I'm glad we've been able to meet the right criteria. Since you have found a source of Verifiability, might I suggest that you place the cite for it in the proper place? That would almost certainly end the "beating to death" & the "long, slow edit war" that I've been trying to bring to an end. Since you know where the verifiable info comes from, you could conceivably end the seemingly endless back-and-forth with a well placed cite to the source. Thanks. -- ManfrenjenStJohn 03:15, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

• Rush's site is now all (or almost) macromedia based. So linking to a bio page will require linking to an archive version of the page or go some place else. -Fnlayson 03:56, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

• I think the growing number of flash cites (and the relative difficulty of citing content therein) is something WikiP is going to have to confront and find a way of dealing with eventually, so why not be among the first. I may not be the most forward thinking, but my first idea is to link as close as you can, and then add a "manual" citation stating "under this flash element". I'd bet S&A concert tickets that there will in fact soon be a cite template for dealing with flash websites anyway. So if that's where the citation gold lies, Be a Pioneer, dude! -- ManfrenjenStJohn 07:58, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

• I did several searches last night for Rush biographies that covered their generes without finding one from a respectable music source. Give it a go and see what you can find.. -Fnlayson 18:35, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

You know, I think we beat a horse to death with this topic, then into glue, then washed the glue off in the yard, grew some flowers, which got made into a garland, that went around the neck of a pretty new horse. who we then beat to death. With the same topic. can we jsut put a banner at the top 'Rush's musical genres are well cited, see XYZ in the archives, and do NOT rechange it"? Really. This is the second most contentious change in this article, and every time, we go through the same dance. back to the same cites. Ultimately to the same genres. The only thing more changed is the North America vandal's attacks on the page. ThuranX 04:41, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

• I think the 'north america' fellow was wrong but still well-intentioned (NEP is pretty staunch about his adopted home), but that's not the issue here. It seems like you know what to do to put an end to this. So do it!! It's been beaten to death but not documented clearly, and THAT is why newbies come along and change it (again, probably with naive good intentions). So put your stop sign where it needs to go. Be kind to the newcomers, and uphold the WP policy values. You said it yourself: it's in one of the written biographies. I may not be an WP expert, but I know that citing refs in ISBN published works is an everyday task. Sounds like you (or whoever was at 156.34.229.100) is the guy to do it. So go, man, go! -- ManfrenjenStJohn 07:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
• BTW, isn't there a method of locking certain content from new & unregistered users? Can that apply to sections? Cause if you could apply it to the infobox, that's at least a temporary solution. I'm on your side, man. : ) -- ManfrenjenStJohn 07:44, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
• Furthermore, I laughed out loud at your "endless horse parable". : ) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ManfrenjenStJohn (talk • contribs) 07:51, 14 May 2007 (UTC).

Glad you liked it, the note is now added. ThuranX 20:48, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• Thats what i thoguht but click on the heavy metal link and it tells you about it and how it started so rush is an early form of Heavy metal but not modern heavy metal like Behemoth. 24.195.201.60 15:59, 14 May 2007 (UTC)Tridentdc2424.195.201.60 15:59, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I am still trying to figure out where this so-called genre edit war is on this article? Wikipedia is overpopulated with teenybopper editors who think that heavy metal started in 1982 with Motley Crue's first album. And every now and then one of those musically impaired "young'n's" drifts over here and deletes the genre from this article without ever reading the talk page discussions. That's not really an edit war? Just misguided youth who have no knowledge of Rock music history... only the junk they see on MTV and VH1. If you want to see a real edit war... look at the Oasis edit history. Is it being suggested that we have to ref infobox content? That has been done in other articles and it really just ends up looking cluttered and stupid. The infobox should be free of superfluity. And referenced content belongs in the body of the main article. The ISBN of Bill Banasiewicz's book is 0711911622. Someone has aleady posted the text from the book's cover overviewin a previous discussion on this talk page. If someone wants to junk up the infobox they can go right ahead. IMO the referenced content should be added(without being too 'wordy') to the article itself. 156.34.142.110 16:34, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Gee whiz, I really appreciate your attempts to keep wikipedia aesthetically pleasing yet incredibly difficult to use.74.67.228.2 04:46, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Roll the Bones and Counterparts Platinum and Gold

These two albums were listed as M(2) and P, but should be P and G according to riaa.com. Whoever set them to M(2) and P, please cite your source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.119.161.98 (talk)

Single images

Some users have gone through & deleted all of the images of single covers on the album pages. Can some people with scanners & more complete collections of singles than I please go back, re-create them & attach something like this:-

Which I got from here File:Prime Moverrush.jpg Please make note of the "Purpose" section in particular & make sure it's liberal enough for other editors to use the images in a reasonable way on the Rush related pages without going to the image homepage to check - assume they won't be doing that ;)

This public service announcement was brought to you by the letter Ǣ Megamanic 06:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Chart position padding

I pruned the singles section while citing a source to avoid fan padding. — Deckiller 19:37, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Not Fade Away/You Can't Fight It

Shouldn't there be a link to the article for "Not Fade Away" somewhere in the band template? Surely if it covers things like compilations and solo albums then an early Rush release is important enough to be included.The Myst 08:42, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Got rid of "many notable" two bands is not "many"

in regards to their influence on prog rock bands. If you can find many bands, then source it. Zephead999 19:18, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• If you want to argue semantics that's fine, but all that really does is incite reversions. It was decided long ago that we would only mention a handful of bands who have cited Rush has major influences - consensus was reached to avoid clutter in the lead section due to anonymous fanboys/users who would just added band after band. The fact of the matter is that Rush HAS influenced "many" progressive metal bands, but we opted to name two reasonably well known groups. Essentially you're just trolling. Wisdom89 21:11, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• It lists 2 bands and says "such as", meaning "for example". Trying to list every reasonable one would be excessive. -Fnlayson 21:29, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• If ever consensus decides to list every prog rock band they've influenced (I don't think it needs to) Porcupine Tree can be added to the list. Steven Wilson said that Alex Lifeson had been a big influence on him during an interview for "My Planet Rocks" on Planet Rock on 22 September 2007. Kelpin 15:54, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I got rid of how RUSH fans think they are extremely good at their instruments.

People I'm sorry but biased fans who would vote that Alex Lifeson is one of the greatest guitar players of all time (lmao) does not mean anything. Zephead999 19:21, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, that's it. an NPOV tag is added

Sorry buddies but that's what happens when you try to make RUSH look like they are THE greatest bands of all time, there are so many examples on why this article is filth, so i reverted it then YOU guys put it back to how it was before. So untilly uo get your act together the NPOV artickle will remain. Zephead999 19:48, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I have reverted the "totally disputed" tag, which suggests that there are questions about the accuracy of literally the entire article. This tag is not appropriate because there are many sections of the article whose accuracy and neutrality are not disputed by anyone. If necessary, you can tag the specific individual statements that concern you, although discussion here on talk would be best of all. Newyorkbrad 19:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry buddy, if you want to to debate then let's debate. Untill then it's added. Check out my recent adds to the discussion, so far nobody has wanted to argue, just revert. With that attitdue it's getting an NPOV. Now excuse me, I have an NPOV tag to add. Zephead999 19:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Then place the same tags on Led Zeppelin and John Bonham since you insist on adding that they are the greatest band/drummer ever. Bsroiaadn^Talk 19:59, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

heh, nice try buddy. But you are the biased one here. You insist on putting the b.s "arguably" text in his article. sorry to dissapoint you buddy, but if you think he is "arguably" then then put the "arguably" text in the hundreds of other people that is regarded as one of the best things at what they do. Zephead999 20:02, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Given that Zephead999 was just blocked for replacing the entire article page with the phrase "RUSH SUCKS [BODY PART]," I think this thread is over. Newyorkbrad 21:39, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Zephead999, what the **** is your problem? Zeppelin SUCKS!

The website that cites Alex as a "master guitarist' is not a reliable source

It's obviously a fansite more than anything. Nobody can 'master' the guitar, especially not Alex Lifeson. His fans even say he is not the best guitarist. Now I'll take this out without further a do. Zubt555 21:09, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• Fansite..perhaps..not sure really - However, I can dig up other sources to support the claim. If you don't like the term "Master" then you can simply change the wording to reflect what is stated in the source. People DO find him to be quite a technocrat, and that includes professional reviewers, not just fans. However, I will try and find other sources that will corroborate. Is that reasonable to you? Wisdom89 21:25, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Look jut say he is influential, or he is widely regarded as a great guitar player. But there is not a chance in hell that he is ever put in the leagues ove Steve Vai, Paul Gilbert, etc. Seriously. THAT is what a master is, the word "master" should never be tossed aroun loosely, especially on an article that is a Featured Article.

On a side note, Jimmy Page is leagues above Alex in terms of technicality and originality, the majority of the critics, media, and fans alike have agreed to this; stop trying to be alterantiv and accept the turth. 71.182.85.70 21:38, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• Dude, who really cares in the long run? It's all anecdotal evidence and opinion anyway. I've spoken to many, and have read more than the occasional commentary, that has stated Lifeson's proficiency over Page's, and many others. It means nothing. There's no BEST guitarist. There are literally thousands upon thousands of unknowns who could destroy all of them most likely anyway. And what's the criteri? Speed? Sweep Picking technique? Tapping? Chords? Creativity? - which is subjective inherently. So let's just end the debate. The article is what ultimately matters, so try improving or adding to it. Is that cool? Wisdom89 21:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

We don't need to be trashing Alex. We don't need to be trashing Jimmy Page either. I personally love both mens' playing. Two different takes on 70's guitar riffing. If you play "Xanadu" and follow it up with "Houses of the Holy," or start with "Heartbreaker" and follow it with "Cygnus X-1," all you are going to hear is two excellent songs in a row. Peace Out.

EXACTLY! There is NO best guitarist, that's why i was furious when i saw the 'he has mastered the guitar' bull**** comment on this page. 71.182.85.70 22:15, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Simmer down dude. There's no reason to curse and be uncivil. You don't have to be furious just because you didn't like the wording. I've changed it to something more neutral. All articles have potential problems, even featured ones. Besides, there are plenty of statements in the article which cite CRITICISM about Rush...yet none seems to comment on that Wisdom89 22:28, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I have a problem with the removal of the word "Master". This is an appropriate word usage when used to reflect the various styles he has used in writing, which have included: Reggae, Ska, Classical, Flamenco, Funk, Swing, Rock, Jazz, Fusion, and on the most recent album- Electric Blues of the Chicago/Stax-Volt variety. Additionally, from a purely compositional standpoint, he builds chords, intervals, and implied melodies from within atonal frameworks which are not only innovative- but exceptionally challenging to play. Referring to the man as a "Skilled Guitarist" does a dis-service to the reader is in that while being accurate (he is skilled) the word usage does not encompass the *scope* of the man's work. Might I suggest that the relativistic term (master/skilled) be removed and replaced with an amplification of his actual career record (condensed) of musical styles encompassed.^^^^ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 134.215.224.137 (talk) 14:06, August 23, 2007 (UTC)

While I agree with you in almost every aspect, use of the word "master" in this context is completely subjective. To my recollection the term is not found or used in any of the citations currently supporrting the statement, which means it's partially POV. We've chosen a more neutral and toned down description of his playing ability to thwart a potential edit war. If you can find more reliable sources that corroborate your opinion and maybe delve a bit deeper into analyzing his guitar playing in the way that you have described, then I'd, without hesitation, be completely behind reinserting the master label. Wisdom89 15:33, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree except for the fact that "skilled" is equally subjective in this context. It would better be stated as "influential" and/or perhaps "innovative". Cites for such assertions can be found usually attached to the awards he has received where other *musicians* have assigned terms such as "master guitarist" or "innovative" et al to the subject. So I'm not a proponent of inserting the word "master", I'm simply trying to stress the idea that "skilled" (while true) is a misnomer and a better expression should be found. As a point of reference, there are probably a number of "skilled" guitarists involved in editing this page, and few if any of us probably measure up to his "skill level".

So I think it's safe to say that requesting a cite for "the blueness of the sky" is a bad way to combat fanboy flaming about the content of the article. Lifeson was voted "Best Rock Guitarist", was the runner up for Best Rock Guitarist 4 times, and was voted into the Guitar for the Practicing Musician Hall of Fame (An award designed to make room for up and coming talent by making the recipient ineligible for further awards).

So while "master" may not be appropriate, "skilled" is just bad.

Submitted with a smile and wink. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.215.224.137 (talk) 08:03, August 24, 2007 (UTC)

I just put down " Rush has been held in a high regard and has had a broad influence"

Seriously, look we all know Led Zeppelin has influenced everybody and their dog when it comes to music. But all they put down was "had a broad influence" in their article. So why should a less notable band like RUSH cite bands? When one of the most influential bands of all time, Led Zeppelin does not? I'm sorry but it only make sense, and my edit is more plausible. 71.182.85.70 21:47, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that 71.182.85.70, Zubt555, and Zephead999 are all the same person, the last being blocked indefinitely. I gave him/her a second chance, seems they have gone back to their old ways almost immediately. Bsroiaadn^Talk 21:51, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I tend to agree - however, I think it's better not to remove citations that have existed in the article for such a long period of time. I removed the statement about earning the respect of other bands and such - but the fact remains, Rush has influenced these bands and the statements are well substantiated. What do you think?Wisdom89 22:02, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Keep your personal thoughts to yourself, don't remove my edit unless you have a legit reason why you did so. Or i'll contact one of the admins and have you banned. Is it oddd that I'm a fn of Led Zeppelin? more people like Led Zeppelin compared to RUSH, this is a fact, learn to accept it. 71.182.85.70 21:58, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

There's no reason for an admin to block people who revert your edits, as your edits aren't to improve the article, but rather to get the article to go along with your point of view. Bsroiaadn^Talk 22:00, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. This is akin to trolling and POV pushing more than anything else. Wikipedia is about improving articles, not inciting arguments about which band is more talented than another. End this silly debate. Wisdom89 22:02, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

People this is not a debate. Let me ask you a little question. If band A has influenced countless more bands than band B, don't you think band B should just say "has been held in a high regard and has had a broad influence" and band A should have more exentisve information in their influence section? That's what is going on here. if Led Zeppelin just says "has been held in a high regard and has had a broad influence" then surely RUSH should.

Why is that exactly? Both Rush and Led Zeppelin have influenced myriads of other bands. Has Zeppelin influenced more? Probably, but that's not an issue. You're simply trying to modify the Rush article so that it appears inferior to the one on Led Zeppelin. That's counterproductive and just ends up stirring the pot. Just let the facts in the article be. Did it ever occur to you that because zeppelin is so influential that it would be silly to name a few bands, while with Rush it's feasible to name their admirers in short form both modern and progressive simply BECAUSE they are less influential? Wisdom89 22:12, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok, editing is getting hot so lets cool down

This article has passed peer review and featured article candidate submission - consensus was reached among the editors then and many times after about how the lead should be formatted, and what citations should be included. Slapping a NPOV tag on the article and removing sources while arguing about Led Zeppelin is akin to Trolling and POV more than anything else. I won't say vandalism since this is content based..despite the fact that Zephead has been banned indefinitely. We should be trying to IMPROVE the article. Wisdom89 22:18, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Neil and Poetry

This was removed, "Nonetheless, his lyrical contributions provide a compelling case study. Polygram distributed a poetry packet to high schools in 1986 in conjunction with the release of Power Windows with the intent of stimulating student interest in poetry and teaching about metaphors, similes, and personifications as used within the lyrics of that album."

I'm fine if you don't feel it should be there, but I have a copy of the packet. I'm not sure which box it is in, it's been a few years. But if the issue is "unsourced claim" as listed in the change log, I can substantiate it. Is nobody else aware of this? McJaje 16:16, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh if you can substantiate it, feel free to reintroduce the claim back into the article Wisdom89 04:50, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Do you think it contributes to the article or is too trivial? I felt it was a concrete example of recognition of Neil's songwriting abilities, albeit from a self-serving source. McJaje 16:16, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

• It seems related to his lyricist paragraph. Shortening it some would help, I think. -Fnlayson 16:20, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Non-free Images

So far one image has already been nominated and deleted as per regulations - the remaining fair use pictures are also marked for deletion. Can anyone find the time to dig up some free images to replace these. I didn't realize they could be deleted if they met fair use criterion. Wisdom89 23:02, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Counterparts Message Board

I did add this important forum since it is great and exists as RUSH. --Florentino floro 14:30, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

While I agree with you in that it is great..as are many other music forums out there. Wikipedia is not (see WP:NOT) a place for advertising or promotion in any form - so for now I am removing this section Wisdom89 15:24, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, forums are prohibited in External links section by WP:EL. Although, that wasn't actually in the External Links section, it's still a good guide to follow. Remember this is supposed to be like an Encyclopedia page not a fan site. -Fnlayson 15:44, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

if we include one rush forum we have to include them all (since they are all unoffical and about the same) so i say we include none.harlock_jds 15:45, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Pinoyexchange

I respectfully disagree with you. A filipino forum is in wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PinoyExchange

PinoyExchange

in fact in the external links we have this:

External links Pinoy Exchange.com MyAyala.com Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PinoyExchange"

I want to be enlightened on this matter. What is the difference between a filipino Forum in wiki and an Canadian/USA Forum not allowed to be in Wiki, so that there will be uniformity, fairness and less discrimination?

Now I submit this LONG EVIDENCE of HISTORY of PinoyExchange

to prove that Wikipedia allows Forums to be in Wiki:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=PinoyExchange&action=history

So, I appeal to you to REVERT to include Rush Message Board as a GREAT FORUM in WIKI, as PinoyExchange is in, since it is not advertising. Thanks.

--Florentino floro 03:50, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

• That's an article about a web site. That's different than listing a forum page in the External links about a band or anything else. -Fnlayson 04:43, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Metallica?

The lead section says that Rush has influenced Metallica. The citation for that is an article by David Lynch. I don't think David Lynch's opinion is enough to verify that Metallica has indeed been influenced by Rush. Please find a source where a member of Metallica mentions Rush as an influence. If such a source can't be found, I'll delete the claim in about a week. 74.77.208.52 20:14, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Just as a matter of fact, Metallica thanks Rush in the master of puppets liner notes. Wisdom89 04:39, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

The question is, thanks them for what? Thank yous in liner notes can be for a host of things that have nothing to do with musical influence. If Metallica is indeed influenced by Rush, it shouldn't be too hard to find a quote where Ulrich mentions Peart or Hammett mentions Lifeson or something of that nature. A thank you in a liner note doesn't help unless we know what the thank you is for. 74.77.208.52 16:01, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

does a band have to list another band as being a influence to have been influenced by them? I think a music critic pointing out the influence is enough to include it as a cite, no need for the band to confirm every band that influenced them.harlock_jds 16:07, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

If it's not the band saying it, then it's just speculation. Speculation is not encyclopedic. The fact of the matter is that Metallica has been very open in listing the bands they are influenced by. They've mentioned many bands, from Motorhead to the Misfits. To my knowledge, they have never mentioned Rush as an influence. They have also released several albums of covers of bands they are influenced by. To my knowledge, they have never covered Rush. I think it's clear that Rush is not a particularly big influence on Metallica, if they are an influence on them at all, so it's ridiculous for this page to list Metallica as a prime example of a band influenced by Rush. 74.77.208.52 16:20, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Metallica were most certainly influenced by Rush. And it's verifiable. In the video Cliff 'em All when the interviewer asks which bands were their biggest influences one of the first bands shouted out is Rush. Rush had Metallica as an opening act too. 205.174.170.95 16:55, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Then you need to post a citation to that interview. The fact that Metallica were an opening act for Rush is not proof in itself, Kenny Wayne Shepherd was the opening act for the Eagles on their 1996 UK tour but he was in no way influenced by them. Kelpin 17:05, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Rush NEVER EVER had Metallica as an opening act. Not once. Ever. Googie man 17:42, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

If a member of Metallica sincerely mentioned Rush as an influence in Cliff 'em All, then that is the proper cite to use. 74.77.208.52 19:31, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

What's the proper formatting for a {cite video}? {cite book} and {cite web} are easy enough. Does {cite vid} have such a thing? 156.34.221.221 20:00, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

IP< please look here for the cite video template: Wikipedia:Citation_templates. Hope that helps, and please consider registering an account, so we can help you out on your talk page with questions like this. ThuranX 01:57, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Geez, I can get you guys loads of references to Rush's influence on tallica, in any Cliff Burton interview in which he is asked about his influences he always states Rush/Geddy Lee as one of the first —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dimedude (talk • contribs) 13:02, August 20, 2007 (UTC).

It's more a case of Geddy Lee having an influence on Cliff Burton (and Jason Newsted) than a case of Rush's stylistic aesthetic having an influence on Metallica's approach to music, but that's a minor point. If the influence lies only in the basslines, that's good enough for me. We just need a more appropriate cite than a David Lynch article and commentaries about thank yous in liner notes. 74.77.208.52 17:54, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Rush's critical reception

The article mentions Rolling Stone magazine's distaste for Rush, but doesn't discuss how the band is viewed by other critics. This is unsourced, and I hope to source it later, but my understanding is that Rush are not well-regarded by rock critics, who see them as bombastic, ham-handed corporate rock. If true this would provide a nice contrast to the overly worshipful tone of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.111.197.14 (talk) 04:38, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, this would be an interesting research project. The "corporate label" was most prevalent from 1980 to 1992. As soon as Moving Pictures took off the negative critics usually used the "corporate rock" tag to slam the band. But in reality, there have been five distinct stages of bias to the band's life in regard to critics and the press. The first stage started about the time of Caress of Steel's release, where the album was summarily ripped apart- they were a joke. This period was short lived. The release of 2112 saw actual praise from the music press... this stage lasting until Moving Pictures. From Moving Pictures to Roll the Bones they were written off as corporate rock actually maligned for the rap section on "Roll the bones". From Counterparts until Test for echo they garnered very little press, and what articles were written were generally negative, many contained the term "Dinosaur". Post the 1997 tragedies of Neil Peart, the press softened significantly, and many positive articles were published (And notable in mainstream media like CNN Et al). The positive spin, by and large has remained. Although I seem to remember a Rolling Stone reviewer recently referring to them as a "bar band". If I have time and there is interest, I can document this, and would look forward to any feedback to alleviate any bias I happen to bring to the table. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.215.224.137 (talk) 16:05, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

tables???

Why do we need to open a Featured Article with tables about another band? That's horrifically ugly, poorly laid out, poorly planned and simply doesn't belong there. A note stating that at one time the and went through what was ultimately a non-notab le period as Hadrian is enough. The people listed are NOT members of Rush, by any definition, they're members of 'Hadrian'. this section needs to be removed, and the featured Article quality writings restored. ThuranX 21:58, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Just a passer-by comment but I agree that the band member table is not necessary and the section looked much better before as a simple list. If someone is looking for a consensus to restore the section back to the way it was - you'd get no argument from me. Peter Fleet 23:17, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I have reverted back to the earlier version of the table..that I found neat and unobstrusive. There is no reason to mention Hadrian in the band's history. That information can be found in the history article. Wisdom89 02:34, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

There is now a new article called Rush band members, which reads as a content fork to History of Rush's first section, the changes in line-up. I read it as placing undue weight on minor members with brief and sometimes VERY brief tenures, and once again places more weight on 'Hadrian'. This is a new editor, perhaps someone should explain to him our notability guidelines, and that 'the dude who sat in with them once while tunig their guitars' is not notable, nor is the guy who jammed with them for a couple months. ThuranX 11:45, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Vapor Trails 'Ultimately sold...' ?

The phrasing in the 'Album Sales Overview' section makes it sound like Vapor Trails will never sell another copy. 'ultimately going on to sell approximately 342,000 units' should be changed to something like 'It has sold approximately 342,000 units to date'. One example of why would be seeing how the Caress of Steel album was released in 1975, and didn't reach gold status until 1993 according to the RIAA. 142.68.197.58 17:46, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

• Fair point. LP keep selling over time usually. I say change "ultimately" to "eventually". -Fnlayson 18:02, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
• Ah, you already fixed it. Good. -Fnlayson 18:34, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Reputation / Rock and Roll Hall of Fame

In the sentence "Rolling Stone has often been blamed for their inability to enter the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame.[50]" the citation link points to an about.com discussion of Neil Peart's technique and not any sort of authoritative information supporting the topic doing the citing. While I wouldn't be surprised if the quoted statement is true, there doesn't appear to be any supporting citation any longer, if there ever was. Recommend delete this statement. -Sbrawner 18:44, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Good catch. I removed the statement for now until someone comes along who wants to find a more authoritative concrete citation. At one point, the citation did support the statement. Wisdom89 18:56, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the legions of Rush fans (like myself) that they unquestionably belong in the hall of fame. I also agree with Alex Lifeson's statement that inclusion in the Hall of fame is (somewhat) diminished when you actually see who is in the hall (I mean, come on Grandmaster flash gets into the Rock and Roll Hall of fame and Rush doesn't??) However, an excellent reason as to why they are not in the hall (as I was doing some research on the matter) may be because they are considered progressive rock and the hall has frowned on prog-rock bands. YES isn't in the hall, ELP and many others. The hall of fame is most definitely biased on prog-rock, "non-commercial" bands, regardless of their longevity, record sales, concert attendance, musicianship, how many artists' they have influenced, etc.. Dantali (talk) 21:09, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Jeff Jones in the lead paragraph, why?

Stu Sutcliffe and Pete Best are founding members of the Beatles, but you don't see their names making for a very poorly written first paragraph of their entry. This Rush article is a disgrace to Wikipedia - it reads like a third rate hodge-podge created by a committee, than a professional sounding encyclopedia article. Furthermore if you want more proof of how members who were once in bands that later became famous, and are NOT in the lead paragraph, I'd be more than happy to provide that to you. Please tell me *why* they need to be in the first article, instead of just telling me. Googie man (talk) 02:14, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

• The above editor exaggerates a bit, but I agree with his point. Stuff about the founding members should be in the History section, not the lead. JuJube (talk) 02:29, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

• The Lead is supposed to summarize the entire article (see early years section). And the Lead is more than just A paragraph. It summarizes their beginning including former members. Maybe some of the detailed wording could be moved from the lead to the main article though... -Fnlayson (talk) 04:48, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, the original post is so diparaging as to dissuade anyone from cooperating, but... First, the purpose of the lead is to summarize, and it looks like whoever wrote it chose to emphasize the evolution from nobodies in Canada to worldwide success. Not a bad angle on things, and a stylistic choice overall. Perhaps a comparison to the FA version, to make sure this isn't a recent addition, or if it IS the FA version, then the FA review didn't find it nearly so offensive as Googie man, and perhaps it doesn't really need a change. I can see why someone might wonder about it, but given this is an FA article with lots of serious contributors, the attitude shown is ridiculous and insulting. ThuranX (talk) 05:12, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Disregarding for a moment the incredibly petulant and acidulous attitude of Googie man, my concern is this: Who cares? Per WP:LEAD, it's supposed to summarize the article. That's exactly what it's doing since Jeff Jones is mentioned briefly in the beginning of the history section. We're talking maybe 2 sentences at the most, which, frankly, isn't damaging or causing clutter in the slightest. I personally do not mind if it's ultimately purged, but I cannot agree with swiftly changing the lead section of a FA without coming here first. It undermines the major editors - and since said user eventually did bring it to the talk page and opened up discussion as he did above, I have to say that I'm going to have difficulty giving a shit what he proposes. Sorry for the vulgarity, but really. Give me a break. Wisdom89 (talk) 05:24, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Wow, you people are very thin skinned. I have made ZERO personal attacks, and simply offered an opinion on the article itself. I've been reading about this band for a long long time, and this article is flows poorly, is not well written, and when compared to other first rate articles, is simply,...awful...in my opinion. And like assholes, as the cliche goes...Now, Mr. Wisdom, your vulgarity completely undermines the credibility of your arguments, as you cannot decry someone's "incredibly petulant and acidulous attitude", by showing yourself, and incredibly petulant and acidulous attitude. I disagree with your assessment that it isn't damaging or causing clutter, as the lead paragraph sets the tone for the rest of the article. It gives Jeff Jones much more credence than he deserves for his very significant lack of contribution to Rush.When you say it undermines the major editors, I assume you're referring to yourself, as you are the one who reverted my removal of those names with no other explanation that "their names have to be there." You don't give a shit what I propose - fine. I've been a fan of this band longer than you've been alive, and an editor on Wikipedia since much longer than yourself. But by saying you don't give a shit, you're showing yet again a petulant and acidulous attitude. If you're so desirous of having Jeff Jones in the opening paragraph, will you please put in the greatly underreprestented Pete Best and Stu Sutcliffe in the Beatles article? If you're such a proponent of the wiki way, perhaps you could see that I've made significant contributions to the site, and try to offer some rational arguments, rather than cursing and use of self-righteous and pretentious insults. So Mr. Wisdom, knock yourself out. I assure you that many Rush fans will roll their eyes after reading the first paragraph, and seek information elsewhere. Googie man (talk) 05:38, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

As a refined and seasoned Wikipedian as you claim to be, is it customary for you to open up discussion with disparaging remarks about an article, while indirectly insulting its editors? The length of time you've been a fan or a Wikipedian is utterly irrelevant to this discussion. Stick to addressing the issues. That's right, I don't give a shit what you're proposing because you've already demonstrated disrespect and uncategorical disregard for civility or good faith. You bypassed both and decided to get snarky. However, if you change your high-horse attitude about being a Rush and Wiki-veteran I may rescind the declaration of not caring about your proposal. As a major editor of this page I've encountered all sorts of discourteous users, and have handled them all with civility, but you sir are taking the cake. Wisdom89 (talk) 05:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

If you had shown me one shred of respect, instead of repeating your "I don't give a shit", then I would've apologized for any insult. If you don't care, fine with me. It's people like you who are the reason that I mostly edit photographs instead of doing any editing. I don't really have the time or inclination for it. If you want the article to continue to be the 3rd rate hatchet job that it is, as I say, knock yourself out, and keep on not giving a shit. Where in any book about Rush, any other website, will you read ANYTHING about Jeff Jones, much less the opening paragraph? No where, I promise you. So, keep on defending the indefinsible, because of course, you want it and put it in there. After all, you said it yourself - you don't give a shit. So, why should I give a shit about you? This is the last time I'll waste my time on you, or this issue. Feel free to have the last word.Googie man (talk) 05:59, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I do not require an apology from you - nor did I solicit one. What I'm essentially telling you is that you can change the lead as you so desire if you feel it gives Jone's too much credence. "I don't care" simply meant *shrug, trim it as you see fit and most likely no one will revert you. Also, continuing to take jabs at the article isn't really helping anything. The only response you'll get from me (and probably others) regarding your "opinion" is simply, well it's a featured article and has undergone peer reviews. I consider it quite brilliant. No one else feels that's it's awful or 3rd rate. Anyway, doesn't matter. I'm done with this discussion unless we're going to talk about improving the article. If there are OTHER concerns you have, feel free to bring them here and we can all talk about it. Wisdom89 (talk) 06:08, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Googie man, your attitude was bad when you got here, and it has gotten worse. You opened by insulting the efforts of all the other editors here. Saying this was created by committee in the way you did read more as an indictment of all other contributors than anythign else, when the reality is that it's a self-evident fact: Wikipedia edits by boldness when possible and CONSENSUS when needed, which is essentially ad hoc committees. You called it third rate writing, insulting the skill of anyone who worked on it, you challenge us to validate it to you, and you were dismissive of all efforts. When you return, you demand "rational arguments" from us whi arguing from special knowledge for your own version: "I've been a fan of this band longer than you've been alive, and an editor on Wikipedia since much longer than yourself.", making ageism and 'voice of experience' claims on the article. Well, get to it. Fix the entire article up. We'll see how you do. When you're done, coome on back for the reviews. ThuranX (talk) 06:30, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Well you know what, since you've at least bothered to address this issue in a way I can respect, I'll grant you a couple of thigns. You're right, I've been obnoxious, and I shouldn't have done that. However, I tried to fix the article, and the fix was taken down in less than 5 minutes, for what appears to me, no reason whatsoever. So, I'm not going to bother with the omissions, such as the fact that Terry Brown was fired after the "Signals" album because the mixing was poor, or the assessment that guitar solos weren't a prominent feature of the album, which they were. I've seen blatant copyright violations on this article that I tried to fix, but my edits were reverted as well.That was a while ago, and about the time I gave up on this article completely. Well except for tonight, when someone decided that a guy who was in the band for 8 weeks, before they even recorded an album, should get featured among the first three sentences. So thank you, but no thank you, I'll stick to the books I have, or UBL.com, or Rush.com, for Rush information. You won't find anything about Jeff Jones in any of them, for starters. Googie man (talk) 06:39, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but you're being somewhat disingenuous - according to your editing history, you have edited this article maybe a maximum of 5 times, and none of them seem significant enough to have you jaded. Although, at least one reflects the same condescending attitude that you've manifested here.[1],[2], [3],[4] Wisdom89 (talk) 07:11, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh I'm sorry Wisdom89, but I really don't give a shit about your opinion. Now, to address the threadbare substance of your OWN condescending opinion, you'll see that my good faith edits to removed illegal, copyrighted images, were reverted. You'll also see that those images are no longer on the article. And not leave me jaded? I've simply hated this article now for 4 years, as it's had a series of painful mistatements, and even when I try to get rid of the most painful ones, people such as yourself swoop in and change it. My few edits on this article are emblamatic of what's wrong with Wikipedia, with illegal images being protected, a behavior I've seen for years, so why instigate an edit war? So Wisdom89, if you care to attack me further, and practice the very same behavior yourself that inspires such righteous indignation in you, take it up on my talk page. I find your such a practice... hmmm, disingenous? And one last thought; IF I AM SUCH AN OBNOXIOUS DISINGENUOUS CRANK, WHAT DO YOU ***GIVE A SHIT*** WHAT MY OPINION IS OR NOT, OF THIS ARTICLE? JESUS CHRIST I DON'T EVEN CARE AT THIS POINT!! Googie man (talk) 13:55, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, obviously. Wisdom89 (talk) 15:33, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

That's all you have to say with regard to my response to your accusation of disingenousness? So, since you've taken upon yourself to obliquely and pretentiously call me a liar, I'll state it to you again. This article had numerous, illegal copyright violations at one time. I removed them. My removals were reverted within minutes. This article has a long history of certain users defending stolen images, a practice I find simply idiotic, not to mention completely against the fundamental prinicples of Wikipedia. Oh, and you'll see that someone claimed as fact something about Metallica and Rush that was completely untrue. Pardon me if insisting something is true when it's patently false, is a quality for which I have no respect. This is getting to be laughable, as I'll point out yet again, you continually practice the behavior you condemn in me! And, the strangest part is, you've offered no good reason whatsoever as to why Jeff Jones, who was in the band 40 years ago, before they became famous, should be in the opening paragraph, arguably the most important paragraph of the article? So, here is something else I'll say again: *I don't care about this article anymore*. This is now between you and me. And, like I said, if you have any other further issues with me, over which you want to continue your blatant hypocrisy, **take it up on my talk page right here. Googie man (talk) 16:05, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Just focusing on the article from now on, I explained the Jeff Jones thing already - you've consumed yourself so much with this petty and unproductive feud that you failed to realize that. Go look at my very first response. Yes, I called your approach petulant and acidulous, and another user thought you were disparaging, nevertheless, we all explained why and did not just tell you just because. As it currently stands, the lead paragraph is in summary style and doing what it's supposed to. As for your suggestion that no book would ever mention Jeff Jones, how exactly do you think we got the information? Even their official biography mentions the 1968 inception with Jones [5]Wisdom89 (talk) 17:56, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, let's focus on the article. Here you revert a a perfectly legitimate edit about the origin of Geddy Lee's name? This is perfectly relevant, factual information, that belongs on the Rush article, as well as the Geddy Lee article. Furthermore, I may be remembering this incorrectly but I don't remember you helping me out at all when I removed copyrighted images from the article, thereby showing your approval for having stolen images, and illustrating your disregard, or lack of understanding, of Wikipedia policy. A real journalistic endeavor would've meticulously asked permission to use the Starman photo, or the still from a video, instead of using the vague and legally risky assumption of Fair Use. Then again, you have no sense of obligation in this matter to do with right thing, as your inaction proves definitively. Did you know also that Rush does not allow cameras into their concerts, hence every image of Rush on Wikipedia was illegally taken? Buying a ticket is like signing a contract, and it's in the small print, not to bring cameras. Then again, you don't care about that either, as it makes *your* article look good. Finally, with regard to Jeff Jones, I'm looking at the Martin Papoff book right now, probably the definitive biography of Rush, and can't find one single mention of Jones. And if there is,' it's certainly not in the most important part of the article. The only thing I've failed to realize is what a waste of time debating with you actually is. You obviously believe as though you own this article - I disagree with you, but as I;'ve said, I no longer care about this travesty of Wikipedia - this is between you and me. Now, as I've said before, you are chosing to continue this feud, and it's personal, it's not about the article. So please, take this to where it belongs, my talk page. Oh by the way, I see that Pete Best and Stu Sutcliffe are still not written about in the most important paragraph of the Beatles. Following your logic, everyone kicked out of a band before they became famous should get lead member status, so please, make the Beatles article factually accurate. Could you please explain again how I'm painted in a corner? I'm obviously not as intelligent as yourself, and I don't quite get it....Will you please take up this personal issue on my talk page, finally? Googie man (talk) 18:17, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

No, I have no interest in discussing our supposed personal issues on your talk page, at least not if it's just going to be inflammatory. I want to converse civily here about the article and put this BS behind us. We need to build consensus. I don't know why you're digging up irrelevant edits I've made in the past to this article when it has absolutely zero bearing on the Jeff Jones//lead issue. Kinda bad faith. Please stick to what is pertinent. By accusing me of WP:OWN, "stealing" images, and using blatant sarcasm, you're simply making personal attacks. I'm asking you politely to stop. We are all editors, and apparently all fans of Rush. We should be working together. Ok, you found a reference that makes no mention of Jeff Jones anywhere, I have found several that do. We both can make our case. However, ass I've said above, I really wouldn't mind purging some of the detail from the lead. However, as a founding member of the band, you do not believe it warrants a brief mention since, in its current status, the lead is adequately summarizing the article on all aspects: formation, music, and lyrics? Wisdom89 (talk) 18:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, fair enough. I personally believe that the opening paragraph should be an overview of the highlights of Rush's long career. Having Jeff Jones in the opening paragraph implies a position of prominence in the band he simply does not possess. There is a section about former members in the body of the article, and also in the infobox - I think that's enough. Thank you for your appeal to the high ground. And, we both obviously are big fans of the world's greatest band, so we have that much in common. Googie man (talk) 18:47, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Personally i think the lead paragraph goes too much into the bands founding and history and instead should be a more general overview of the band. harlock_jds (talk) 20:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I altered the lead paragraph slightly - how does everyone feel about this? Wisdom89 (talk) 21:18, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

• Good, thanks. I added the neighborhood wording back to clarify what Willowdale is. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:27, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Much better, thank you. Googie man (talk) 21:30, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

• Not a fan of change by verbal assault, but it's a good adjustment. ThuranX (talk) 00:35, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring

What's with all the edit warring over how to list the band genres in the info box? Can somebody just quickly take a look at WP:MOS for band info boxes and be done with it? This has been going on for far too long and its disruptive to the article. Bring it to the talk page. Thanks guys. Wisdom89 (talk) 22:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

An armistice was agreed to by a group of editors to keep articles the way they were, as far as genre delimiters are concerned, and since then the Rush article has had line breaks for months. However, now some users (who are well aware of the armistice and were part of it) now want to change the page back to comma breaks. If we just let anyone do this it will start a genre delimiter war again so I try to keep the peace and protect pages and make them stay as they are (whether that is line breaks or comma breaks). They won't listen, though. I say "this page has had line breaks for months and no one complained so let it stay" after all no problem = no fix. But they (two users it seems only) won't listen. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 22:46, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Aren't they Jewish

I know it really isn't important, but I'm pretty sure all of Rush is, or at least used to be, Jewish. I think it's an interesting fact. Thhhh (talk) 23:45, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Geddy is Jewish, yes. Neil Peart is agnostic, and Lifeson, well honestly, I don't know about his religious beliefs. Regardless, it may be interesting, but I don't think it belongs in the article. Wisdom89 (talk) 23:57, 5 February 2008 (UTC):

Here's another interesting one - Geddy's parents *met* in Auschwitz, making them both Auschwitz survivors. I read that in a newspaper article years ago, and haven't been able to find in web searches, so I can't footnote it. Googie man (talk) 00:12, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

The religions of band members is rarely notable when the band's religion isn't notable. There might be some exceptions, like the spiritual searchings of The Beatles. This materials' notable in context of the individual bio pages, but not to the Rush article. ThuranX (talk) 00:30, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

To add some more info, if you read Neil's published books (and various articles and interviews about him), he refers to Ayn Rand's philosophy of individualism, as well as other beliefs/theories of hers. Not that this is a "religion", but merely a belief system that he (apparently) believes in. --24.189.35.249 (talk) 22:04, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Logo

There's been a very long and contentious discussion at Template talk:Infobox Musical artist#Logo about the use of band logos in articles, in which I cited this article as an example of how a logo can be incorporated into an article in an informative way, with good critical commentary about the logo's significance and the band's visual imagery. Unfortunately another editor pointed out to me that the quotation in the image's caption was unreferenced, so I came back and placed a fact tag on it. Now another editor has removed the quotation entirely. I feel that without that critical commentary the logo doesn't really serve a purpose in the article. If there were some discussion in the article about the band's visual imagery, with some referenced commentary, it would be perfectly appropriate. But in the absence of that it doesn't seem to serve a purpose other than decoration. Could some discussion of the logo's significance be added, or the quotation added back in with a reference? --IllaZilla (talk) 01:12, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Canadian

Hello. I love America. Big Time. It's my favorite country by far. And I love Rush. Rush is from Canada. They clearly appear to identify themselves as Canadian. They are Canadian. Calling them North American is silly. It would be nice to claim them, but also a little silly. Let's be reasonable and agree that they are "Canadian." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.156.133.52 (talk) 01:19, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Except Canada is in North America. JuJube (talk) 02:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Folks have already agreed, except for a vandal or two. -Fnlayson (talk) 04:21, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I know, just pointing it out. JuJube (talk) 06:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

• Right, I like that. I was replying directly to original post by 141.. -Fnlayson (talk) 06:37, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Blender magazine can't be a good source

Okay, Blender is a crappy magazine that does not support progressive rock type music, that is why Peart is so high on that list of worst lyricists. That article, I've looked around, has recieved a lot of complaints out of how bad it is. I mean look, even McCarthy is up there for worst something when he shouldn't be. That article should not be used as a source and therefore, if no one disagrees, I will remove that little part. I just do not think of it to be a good resource because Blender sucks so badly. DrSatan (talk) 02:11, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter what the valued opinion of the magazine is. The article isn't claiming that Neil Peart is the 2nd worst rock lyricist of all time, it's merely reporting that Peart was identified as such, by the magazine. Wisdom89 (talk) 02:13, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Your opinion of their opinion isn't what's important, what's important is that we can cite that "Blender said hes' the #2 worst ever", nad that's all we said, we didn't say 'neil is #2 worst'. ThuranX (talk) 02:52, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Having this quote in the article is about like having in the Barak Obama article "National Review magazine says Obama is the second worst Democratic candidate." It's long been known that many music magazines are openly hostile to Rush because they're simply not cool. "Rolling Stone" has not reviewed a Rush album I think since "Presto,", and other magazines tend to follow suit. And is "Blender" *really* that credible a source? I'd say that such opinions are extremely subjective, and therefore shouldn't be giving the credence in an article on the 9th largest website in the world. In my opinion, and hopefully I'm being more respectful this time and don't cause anyone offense, the tone of the Neil Peart section on the Rush article does't give him the justice he deserves as a lyricist, as the negative seems to outweigh the positive. Thanks, Googie man (talk) 04:06, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I hear you Googieman, I really do. Regarding his lyrics, there isn't much positive on the web beyond internet forums or fansites which laud him. Personally, I find his lyrics pretty darn good most of the time, especially after 1980 (and many before that time as well). If you can find some reliable sources that praise Peart for his lyrics, by all means please add it to the article. We're also working on the Neil Peart article if you're interested in participating. We're trying to get it to GA status. Wisdom89 (talk) 04:23, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll see if there's anything giving NP the praise he deserves. I simply just never have understood how the music press has treated Rush over the decades. Time is a gypsy caravan steals way in the night to leave you in dreamland I mean, how can anyone say those aren't great, poetic lyrics? Anyway, I'd be more than happy to help with the Peart article. Thanks, Googie man (talk) 04:43, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah Googie man, that's exactly what I was thinking. Guess my opinion does matter then. DrSatan (talk) 00:27, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

THe fact that a national magazine ranked him #2 worse lyricist is significant as a sign that a lot of people do not like his lyrics. The issue is that it's seen as 'negative' and people want to remove it just for that reason which violates NPOV (we shouldn't ignore a citation source because we don't like it or think it's crappy or you think their is some sort of media bias against them). If the same magazine had ranked him as the 2'nd best lyrist you can bet their would be no issue with including it here. harlock_jds (talk) 01:12, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, but it's like what Googie man said, let's say a magazine that's known for being conservative said that Obama was ranked low among some thing based on its own opinion. It's not really a great source to use in that situation. I feel the same for this magazine source. DrSatan (talk) 01:50, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

The magazine's entry does a fine job of demonstrating that audiences are still divided to this day regarding the quality of Peart's lyrics. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 02:10, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. We've got critica lreview of Peart; that it's not positive is really irrelevant. As for the spurious Obama example, we can, and often do, report that too, either relying on the link to the magazine to show people what to make of the comments, or by saying, '...but conservative magazine RightwingRioters said of Obama in 2007 "well, we don't like him cause he's wrong, and we're not." ' We can include context, but only if it's supportable. Asserting that Blender and the entire music industry have axes to grind isn't valuable. ThuranX (talk) 02:39, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Spurious? Refusing to acknowledge their every release for almost 20 years by "Rolling Stone", is a spurious example? Hostile reviews of albums that fans consider masterpieces, is spurious? I'm not saying that the music magazines have a big black list of bands, and that Rush is on the top of it. I'm saying that most of these magazines write what's equivalent to the music version of GQ - their magazines are slick, packaging a certain image and persona, and Rush just doesn't fit this mold.And Blender magazine? What level magazine is this? I mean, hypothetically, let's say that the Fort Wayne Indiana Gazette has a music pontiff, and that writer doesn't like Rush, why don't we just include their opinion about Neil Peart's lyrics as well? Googie man (talk) 20:56, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I was also thinking about the Obama example and thought 'why wouldn't it go in the article'? The fact that the National Review would say that is very notable even with the Bias (and i don't think their is a clear bias here other than Rush fans feeling needlessly persecuted) harlock_jds (talk) 20:12, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, here's my point about "National Review" - they are openly NOT neutral, whereas one of Wikipedia's cornerstones is neutrality. I mean, would you ask Al Gore to write an article about George W. Bush? So magazines like "Blender", I think, are about as hostile to Rush as "National Review" is to Barak Obama. There's not even the pretense of objectivity, as magazines like this have been calling Rush pretentious dinosaurs for about the last 30 years. And do *I*, a Rush fan feel persecuted? No, not at all. I don't even believe the band is persecuted. The band makes a choice to make a certain kind of music that never has, and never will, suit the tastes of the music press. One of the consequences of this is that Rush are either excoriated, or ignored. I just don't think that a magazine that more or less ignores them, until given the chance to excoriate Neil Peart for his lyrics, is a really neutral of valid source. Googie man (talk) 20:56, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

nothing in WP:NPOV or WP:SOURCES says that a reference source has to be Neutral or objective, just that it is a Reliable source which includes magazines. Like i said before the Obama example would be ok (as would Al Gore writing about G.W Bush in a reliable source). Once again i ask if Blender named him the #2 best lyricist would that be included? If so then this has to be included as well or it's a clear NPOV violation harlock_jds (talk) 21:16, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

In light of what you're, I'll elaborate. I think a magazine like "Blender" is an unreliable source - how exactly do you determine who is the 2nd worst lyricist? I mean, shouldn't the guy who wrote "the bitch is hungry, she needs to tell, so give her inches, and feed her well?" be considered the second worst, or even the worst lyricist? How does one go about determining the worst, or even the best lyricist for that matter. And to address your point, I'd say no, if Blender claimed that Peart was the second best lyricist, it should not be included in the article. The opinion is simply too subjective to have merit or reliablity. The way I read the article now however, the negative seems to outweigh the positive. Then again, I'll admit, I'm really biased in favor of Neil Peart's lyrics. Googie man (talk) 21:24, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

The negitive outweighs the positive? HOW? This is one ofthe few negitive statements in the entire article. It's as subjective as saying he's 'one of the finest practitioners of the in-concert drum solo' or 'one of the greatest drummers in the history of rock' (both of which i agree with BTW). We aren't saying he's 'the 2'nd worse lyricst' what we are saying that a magaziene with a pretty large readership listed him as such and people can take it or leave it as they will. Feel free to add a contradicting statement from a verifable sourse if you can find one but shouldn't remove it just because you don't like it 01:41, 14 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Harlock jds (talk • contribs)

(Undent). Essentially, you say 'I don't like Blender, because Blender doesn't like Rush'. that's not a good enough reason to remove verifiable citation from a magazine with a much higher subscription to it than to your opinions, and it's written by people paid more for their opinions than you are for yours. As to your comments about Rolling Stone, yeah, cause any magazine that published Hunter S Thompson and gets Pulitzers is nothing but cheap biased fluff. I get that you're a die-hard Rush fan who can't bear to see negative words about the band, but you haven't actually said anything that speaks to a policy problem, a POV issue, or so on. We've got good reviews, and to balance, we've got bad reviews. That's NPOV. That's good. Removing them due to WP:IDONTLIKEIT is NOT a valid editing idea. ThuranX (talk) 00:17, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I admitted I was wrong to everyone for my attitude with regard to the Jeff Jones issue. So why you're devolving this basically now into a personal issue is beyond me. I've never denied this is an issue of opinion, and my opinion. So telling me in so many words that I'm an insignificant nobody, so who gives a shit? Come on...what's the point in that? Furthermore, there are plenty of crap magazines that have millions of subcribers. There are plenty, PLENTY of people in this world who are paid much more money than myself whose opinions are absolutely worthless, yet you see and hear them screach everywhere. Ann Coulter, for one. Shall I name more? So your argument by the authority that people get paid a lot, and a lot of people subscribe to their magazines, doesn't *really* hold a lot of intellectual weight. And you don't think that Blender is every bit, or even more, the puffery that "Rolling Stone" is? And you're missing my point - it's more than just I don't like to see negative things about Neil Peart and Rush. I admitted that too - I don't. BUT, I also think an article on the 9th largest website in the world should rise to a higher standard than using a shit magazine on the level of "Maxim" like "Blender" as a source for why Neil Peart is, or isn't a bad lyricist. And, who or what makes you the final arbiter of what stays or goes in this article? Yet, you speak with the voice of ultimate authority, which you most definitely don't have. By the way, I'm not the one who initiated this thread, so I'm not the only insignificant no one who wonders what fucking Blender magazine's opinion of Peart's lyrics matters one iota. Googie man (talk) 00:43, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Evidence of Blender Magazine's Utter wretchedness

The greatest song since you were born according to "Blender"? "Smells Like Teen Spirit?" "Evenflow?" No, even better. "Billy Jean" by Michael Jackson, see for yourself here here.Oh, and the lyrics for the best song ever, "Billy Jean", by Michael Jackson? Shakespeare weaps in his grave, I tell you:

"The Billie Jean is not my lover The Billie Jean is not my lover The Billie Jean is not my lover The Billie Jean is not my lover"

I could go on, and on and on, but I won't. The point? Any magazine that says a **Michael Jackson** song is the best song **ever**, is not really in the position to be the judge of the lyrics of a progressive rock band. But, like you say ThuranX, "Blender" is this great arbiter of art because a billion people read them, and the guy who wrote the article says Neil Peart is the second worst lyricst like gets, like ginormous sums of money. So, the link stays, you say? Whatever you say, because after all, what does my opinion matter? Googie man (talk) 01:45, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

This is tantamount to whining and does not help the article. JuJube (talk) 02:08, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll tell you what doesn't help the article - using a source that thinks Michael Jackson wrote the best song ever as evidence of why Neil Peart is supposedly a bad lyricist - THAT'S what doesn't help this article. Googie man (talk) 02:17, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Did you read WHY they chose it? No, I would bet you didn't. You really should. It's not my first choice, but they make a good case for the impact at the time. I suspect from your attitude that you weren't even alive then, judging by the songs you suggest should've been number one. It opened MTV, it broke from disco in a big way, it innovated in its' sound and mood, created an idea that got replicated for decades... And if your really thought Michael Jackson wouldn't be top ten material, you've never paid attention to his skills, just the tabloid crap. He's one of the biggest names in rock and roll for a reason: He earned it. In fact, if you stopped and read just the first couple dozen listings, you'd see some pretty good reasoning going into many of them. I don't agree that 50 Cent should be so high, I'm surprised that The Message isn't in 50cent's place - that song scared the shit out of white suburban folks when it came out. I could go on and on about why some other songs should be higher or lower, (48, 50, 54), but really, you're still riding this 'IDONTLIKEIT' vibe. Your opinino is they're wrong on the 500 list, they're wrong on Rush, so they can't be used.

You need to understand three things: One, WP:CONSENSUS. It's against you this time. Two, WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The list of reasons not to use. Three, When a magazine wins Pulitzer prizes, like Rolling Stone, it's instantly worthy of some respect as a Reliable Source. When a magazine maintains its readership and stays on the stands for years, receiving increasing subscriptions as well as being cited in other places (not wikipedia, but other reporters' works), that demonstrates credibility by simple dint of the test of market forces. Consumers don't buy totally valueless, uninformed crap for their media publications in the numbers that would support Blender. They buy blender because it appeals to a broad market share, and because that market share has found that Blender doesn't lie or deceive them to get that market share. There's been no demonstrable Payola scandal about Blender, to the best of my knowledge. So unless, and until, you can actually provide us good reasons for not including the section, it stands, it stays. And by good, I mean citations of fact which discredit the writers, publisher, editors, and magazine in general. Note that as far as I'm concerned, Jayson Blair does not discredit the entire new York Times, nor will a single writer taint all of blender. Until then, I will not reply more, and I strongly encourage other editors here to drop the matter, as nothing we've said thus far has sunk in, and you're really wasting our time with any more 'IDONTLIKEIT' arguments. good luck, Wikipedia's a big place, I'm sure you'll find other articles to work on. ThuranX (talk) 05:12, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

So this issue really is this - YOU like having the link to Blender, that's your opinion. Then, when I tell you why we should chose a publication more worthy of Wikipedia, you tell me that I'm using a "I don't like it argument" I think I've raised much more valid points that are much more rational than simply "I don't like it" - but if that's what you want to do to evade the issue, fair enough. I edit plenty of articles, and I will over time, edit this article, and all other Rush related articles. Googie man (talk) 05:42, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Googie man, they have a damn good point. Blender does blow, but people read it and it's popular. I guess the sentence can stay. Your argument is that Blender sucks, that's a fact, but still...you have to accept that people suck too. We just need some good magazine to say Peart is the 2nd best, then we're in business. I still think it's weird that a magazine that has no business talking about Rush is considered valid, but I see your points anyway. So, I don't care becase "I" know Neil is better than most people. Byahh!DrSatan (talk) 10:22, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

The most popular genre of book in this country are romance novels, so the argument by popularity just doesn't hold a lot of weight - in my opinion anyway. There are plenty of fansights out there that say that Peart is the best thing to come along in the English language, and we of course can't use those. Can Peart be pompous and preachy? Sure - just read the lyrics for "Freewill" or "Roll the Bones", and his naiveity at the time is stunning. The Peart whose had his wife and child die within a year of each other would never pen "Roll the Bones" now. But are pompousity and pretention emblamatic of his entire career? No, and I really doubt the band would have such a loyal following now if they did. BUT, the way the article reads now, one who didn't know any better could come away with the notion that Peart's lyrics are viewed by fans and critics alike, in a mostly negative light. I just don't buy that, and I've made my feelings abundantly too well known about having "Blender" to support such a notion. Googie man (talk) 13:44, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

The reason i think it belongs in the article is because i can think of no reason that is shouldn't be in the article other than the drive to remove anything even remotely negative about the band from the article (which is bad in general for wikipedia). You don't like Blender, that's fine but to deny that this doesn't reflects a popular opinion about his lyrics is silly. You haven't given a reason blender isn't a reliable source other than saying: 'it's subjective' (and i doubt you want to remove ALL cited subjective statements made about Rush that is in the article), complaining they don't give enough attention to Rush in general, and pointing out other things you disagree with in the magazine. Focus your energy on finding positive statements about his lryic writing. harlock_jds (talk) 11:54, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Best advice I've gotten on WP in a while, and I will endeavor to look more for the positive. I've written professionally, so I can be rather nitpicky and contentious when there is something that to me is akin to the proverbial turd in a punchbowl. Thanks for putting some much needed priorities back into my thinking. Best, Googie man (talk) 13:44, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Recent GUP additions

Hi Googieman, I reverted your edits only because that was a lot of information (correct mind you), that was unattributed - for a feature article, I think it might be best to find the citations first, get a test run going here..and then have it go live. How do you feel about that? I hope you don't feel this is WP:OWN, I just wanted to make sure the article is diminished in quality by superfluous text without attribution. You know? Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 19:25, 15 February 2008 (UTC)::

No I understand. I'll see if I can find the sources online. Thanks, Googie man (talk) 19:29, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Wisdom,here's a link for Geddy's quotes about Steve Lillywhite and the recording of GuP. Can't find anything yet for Lifeson's thoughts on Signals and the firing of Terry Brown. This link work? Googie man (talk) 19:47, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Yup, that's definitely good - power windows is quite reliable - and we have numerous references using that site. Good job. Feel free to add as you see fit. Don't be alarmed if someone comes along and trims it down though, just to preserve length. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 19:59, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Continues to divide audiences

Just a question, was that a conclusion made from the Blender article that I did not see, or did someone on Wikipedia draw that conclusion and write it. I think it needs its own source if it was not written on Blender's Top-40 Worst Lyricists. DrSatan (talk) 17:50, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Will someone please archive this page!!!

For the love of Óðinn, will someone please archive the talk page! It's getting huge. I would do it myself, but I'm not sure if I should. I don't know if it's the same as a talk page and I'd hate to mess it up. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 22:15, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

This article is a mess

The article looks like crap. It is waaay unorganized. The members and style sections are at the top? Why is there a seperate article for their history? Why is that unsourced? Why are there sections about the members? This isn't featured material. A FAR is in near sight. —Burningclean _{[Speak the truth!]} 23:26, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

This article is just fine. It remains fairly close to the article that was voted to FA status. And several dedicated administrators and editors (many of the same admins and users who got it featured in the first place) have worked hard to maintain it as such and to keep newbies and no nothings from coming in and complaining and trying to change(ruin) it. If it ain't broke... and it ain't... don't try to fix it. 156.34.222.121 (talk) 00:07, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, seems like the user has a stylistic issue with the article. Sorry to hear that. This article has remained remarkably stable since it was promoted to FA status - no edit wars, no wholesale changes. In fact, the only changes have been the addition of sourced material mostly. An opinion of disjointedness and then an insinuation of FAR is a little disrespectful to the editors. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 01:13, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

While I think that Burningclean's premise is voiced in a hostile manner, I'd like to hear his suggestions. I don't think there's anything wrong with the article, and note that the bands in the articles he's raised to FA have far less history and scope than Rush, and that ought to be considered. That said, if he can present some solid ideas with rationales, I'd like to hear them. The bitch-fest above, though, does not cut it, nor does the 'FAR threat' he gives. ThuranX (talk) 01:28, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Calmly is fine. (but after 20000 'account' edits and 30000 'anon' edits... I am allowed to be bitchy :D ) I am simply trying to nip another "User:PainMan" in the bud. No one wants to see anything like that bulldoze through here again. Wisdom89... as always... you have the com. 156.34.222.121 (talk) 01:46, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I didn't mean for it to be hostile. The anon above is very hostile. You should take a look at WP:CIVIL. FAR isn't always a nomination of whether or not it is kept, it can also be a type of peer review. I'll list some suggestions. —Burningclean _{[Speak the truth!]} 04:12, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Suggestions

You all should also keep in mind that the FA criteria for bands has changed since this was promoted. —Burningclean _{[Speak the truth!]} 04:14, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

• The "Style and Influences" section is way to short for a band like this.
• "Style and Influences" should be before "Band members" and they should both be placed after the history portion.  Done
• The sound samples should be reformated so that they fit in with the prose. (see Alice in Chains to see what I am talking about.)  Done
• The "external links" section has too many ELs. See WP:EL  Done
• "Fan convetions" either needs to be expanded and sourced or removed entirly  Done
• "Awards" should be split onto a different article (ie: List of Rush awards).  Done that for WP:FL status. Maby try FL for the discog too. Keep in mind, those last two are suggestions. And getting FLs is pretty fun if you ask me.
• Okay the three biggest problems:
  • "Style and Influences" is way too short for a band such as Rush. Look at Opeth, they are know by probably less than 500,000 people, and look at that Style and Influence section.
  • All of the references are unformatted. They should be in {{cite web}} format, or akin for the type of ref.
  • The biggest problem that I see: Whay is there a seperate article for the history? It isn't even sourced. That should be merged into the main article and sourced.

The last three "suggestions" that I listed make me see this article as not FA worthy. The rest is stuff that should be taken care of, but doesn't mean it should be demoted. —Burningclean _{[Speak the truth!]} 04:28, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

• There's no hard requirement to use cite templates for references. The influences section has been trimmed down from time to time so it does not become huge. I don't see why length there makes the article un-FA. -Fnlayson (talk) 04:48, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

First off I'd like to say that more often than not Burningclean and myself disagree on all things Wikipedia band articles; however, in this instance, Burning is absolutely correct and I myself was thinking about an improvement drive for this article. The fact that this article hasn't changed since its FAC isn't necessarily a good thing; now a lot more is expected from band articles and Burning is absolutely correct on all counts above.

Apart from those excellent suggestions I'd like to say that my biggest concerns is that "Reputation" section which goes beyond fan-boyish gushing. "Despite his high esteem and popularity", "Peart's iconic status as a drummer.", and "Peart is widely regarded by music fans, drummers, critics, and fellow musicians as one of the greatest drummers in the history of rock, this high esteem continuing today as it has throughout his playing career.[70] He is also regarded as one of the finest practitioners of the in-concert drum solo". The overall tone too is blatantly POV; even if you have sources citing it, statements like these aren't fit for an encyclopedia like Wikipedia.

I also want to add that the way Burning was ganged up against was shocking; this article needs a do-over and FAR might be the best place for it. indopug (talk) 05:11, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

ganged up on? For coming in here in a hostile manner? Really? He was told to talk calmly by multiple people, a sign that his comment was easily recieved as troubling and that multiple people said so put the burden on HIM to tone it down. that's not ganging up, we told him to tell us what's wrong without bombastic threat, a behavior which both of you continue to manifest. 'do it our way or will insult your efforts with an FAR without talking to you about compromise 'cause we want it that way' is the message you both send, and frankly, it makes you both look like big jerks. When a simple list was presented, Wisdom responded. You two continued to demand absolute fealty or FAR. Hardly the best way to achieve any improvements. ThuranX (talk) 13:25, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

You don't think the IP was the least bit hostile? I beg to differ. Wisdom is doing a really good job on cleaning it up. The cittions are my problem because if this were at FAC right now, I think the majority of the people would want formated citations. Burningclean _[speak] 18:00, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I am never hostile. Unless its for a valid reason. This article did not have any issues that required an editor with no previous interaction/experience with the article's regular editors suddenly storming in and insulting everyone who had ever worked on it. The article has already had a few stormtroopers march in and throw insults and demand changes without thinking that the article already has a dedicated group who look after it. The first defence when that happens is to say HEY!, back-off, step away from the page and try again later... without the insults. It certainly made you step back and try a different approach. Some of your suggestions had some merit. Some had partial merit. And some were a waste of time. But at least you broached them in such a way that others had the opportunity to review them and decide as a community. Rather than have it lambasted and changed without anyone else getting an input. I've been a regular Wiki-editor for 4 years. I've seen situations where AGF and cutsey-lovey-dovey tactics work in a dispute. And other times when it requires a hammer. In the end as long as the quality of the page is maintained... everybody wins. 156.34.222.121 (talk) 21:57, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

You should never be hostile for any reson. If you think that was a "valid" reason, then that was "a waste of time". I really don't care how long you've been on wikipedia, what does that have to do with this. I wanted to read about Rush and i noticed it was a featured article, when i looked at it, it certainly didn't look like a featured article. Wisdom cleaned it up pretty nice, there are a few kinks still however. I didn't back off and try another approach, I just listed what I thought sucked, because that's what someone wanted. If there were so many "stormtroopers", then don't you think the article should be cleaned up a bit so there aren't any more. I think that sounds like complete common sense. Have you even read the below discussion? If you did, you would have noticed that I lifted up a bit because Wisdom cleaned it up. Burningclean _[speak] 22:10, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

My response:

• Ok, as far as the style/influences section is concerned, and its placement with in the article: This is purely a stylistic concern, and it's really not necessary to go around comparing your personally desired format from other featured articles to this one. This is more or a less a preference issue.
• Again, the same goes for the sound files. There is no rule/guideline that discourages their placement outside of the prose, unless it's in a box arbitrarily off to the side with no real purpose. Each song was picked as a representative tune for each era in the band's progressive history, hence why they are placed at the beginning of each section. You could be bold and place them in the body of the article yourself. I won't object - and I'm sure others wouldn't either.
• There are only four external links that I can count. Hardly a cornucopia of superfluous links. I suppose the official rush radio site can go for all I care, but the others have merit and add to the article beyond the content therein.
• The fan convention section, well, this I don't really mind too much about. I'm not sure why it was even placed in the article. I'll remove both links as they are empty and just take up space, as minimal as it may be.
• The awards section was split into a different article in the past, however, it was suggested long ago to reinsert it back into the article. As a stand alone, it really didn't stand the test of a single article. There were other spin off articles from the main one too (trivia and pop culture relevance), and both were nominated for deletion and changed into a redirect effectively destroying them.
• I won't comment on your important points, as they seem completely valid. That's something that can be worked on here though, through this discussion, and not FAR.
• As for the separate article for the history. During the nomination for FAC it was suggested by many peers to trim down the section and make a parent article as it was excruciatingly too long..and dwarfed the rest of the sections. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 05:27, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I've taken the initiative and tweaked some of the minor concerns. The other editors of the article will need to chime in order to determine whether there is consensus for these suggestions to be addressed. As I see it, the style section is brief, but descriptive enough without being detracting. It's written in summary style and serves its purpose with aplomb. Regarding the "fanboyish" stuff that was brought up above, all I can say is no, I don't agree. Each statement is backed by references. Wikipedia isn't proclaiming Peart's iconic status or the talent's of the band members, the citations are, and I feel that the statements reflect this. I also find it mildly interesting that nobody has made reference to the negative criticisms in the article, only the positive. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 05:50, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

If the concerns are not addressed, Indopug and I will take this to FAR. If this article were an FAC right now, I would strongly oppose. FAR is the best place for this right now. —Burningclean _{[Speak the truth!]} 18:31, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Since no one else has responded yet, I am addressing the concerns. However, my opinion is this: Taking this article to FAR after the changes I've already made (please comment), in addition to simply believing a section should be longer is a tad extreme. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 18:49, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

• Looks better to me. Seems like the discography and sales sections can be grouped together under an Albums (or similar) section label. Still thinking about that. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:09, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I would have no problem with that at all - believe it or not it has crossed my mind before. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 19:11, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

There is still a lot of fanboy cruft throughout. I really would like for the stly section to be bigger. FAs are supposed to go along the lines of this, taken directly from the FA criteria page: ""Well-written" means that the prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of professional standard." —Burningclean _{[Speak the truth!]} 19:15, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I just don't really see it. Also, I'm not entirely sure why there is a problem with the citation formatting. Per WP:FOOT, the formatting is just fine. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 19:16, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

On WP:CITE#HOW it says that sources should be inline. —Burningclean _{[Speak the truth!]} 19:48, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Footnotes are inline references. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 19:50, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

- That states that one of the standard style formats should be used, not that Cite template have to be used. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:58, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

The citations are fine. Someone needs to reread CITE#HOW, but it's not Wisdom. ThuranX (talk) 13:25, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

"Hiatus" section, second paragraph is semantically incorrect. "After sufficient time to grieve and reassemble the pieces of his life, and while visiting long-time Rush photographer Andrew MacNaughtan in Los Angeles, MacNaughtan would play matchmaker and introduce Peart to his future wife". As written, it means that it was Andrew MacNaughtan who spent time grieving and "reassembling the pieces of his life", whatever that means. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.27.147.145 (talk) 13:21, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Is/are

WP:ENGVAR talks about this, and I'm pretty sure it says Canadian bands, just like Canadians, use the correct language, and not "they is."

142.162.200.157 (talk) 02:12, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

English differences reminds readers that British English can use either the plural or the singular form for collective groups, while American English prefers just the singular. This has been discussed many times before, and the consensus is to use the word "is", as the band is a single entity. You wouldn't say Citibank are a company, you'd say Citibank is a company. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 04:03, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

This has been discussed many times before, and the consensus is to use the word "is",

What consensus?

You wouldn't say Citibank are a company,

Nah.

And Canada uses the same as Britian.

142.162.200.157 (talk) 02:31, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Canadian English is a blend American and British English. Right, you admit that you wouldn't say "Citibank" are. You wouldn't do that for any company or organization. A group is also a collective and falls into the same category. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 03:38, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

You didn't answer the first question.

The consensus was reached long ago, dig through the archives if you wish to see the discussion. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 04:04, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Right, you admit that you wouldn't say "Citibank" are.

Huh? I said nah. That's two negatives. 142.162.200.157 (talk) 03:52, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

der no consensus —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.162.200.157 (talk) 04:29, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Rush is a Canadian rock band. I'm Canadian, and that is Canadian English. And while we're on the topic of Canadian English, there are a few other words used in this article that maybe should be converted as well:

• favor = favour
• centerpiece = centrepiece
• traveled = travelled
• clamor = clamour

and other words such as bandmates and drumkit that really should be split with a hyphen. I've attempted to edit these words in the past, but it always seem to get reverted rather quickly. 142.68.130.128 (talk) 02:12, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Source? Consensus? RandySavageFTW (talk) 14:49, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I am a late arrival on this discussion. Wisdom you may need to catch me up. It's hard to see who is on which side of the debate. Fnlayson, I do not wish to pick on you but your earlier edit summary about the article using Canadian grammar/spelling by consensus is wrong because, in fact, the article is actually doing the opposite to what Canadians use. Rush are a Canadian band. But historically the article has been written in incorrect American form. WP:ENGVAR dictates that the grammar of the article should reflect the nationality of the article subject. In which case 'Rush "ARE" a band" would be correct as that is proper Canadian English grammar. Whoever, some Canadians tend to ignore correct grammar simply because we are immersed in the spelling/grammar of our neighbours to the south and therefore we end up using American spelling and grammar as norm. This article, right or wrong, has been written historically in that incorrect form. And, despite wp:engvar, when a page has been been in a certain style for a long time there isn't a need to switch it even if its wrong. Unless there is consensus to do so. It would be my vote, as a patriotic Canuck, to have the article written properly. But there are lots of other issues on Wikipedia this one is rather minor and I can live with it just the way it is right now. Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 21:37, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey Anger, nice to see you again. Since you are Canadian yourself, I will defer to you. However, from my understanding of Canadian English and those Canadians I've spoken with (I actually work with a few), the syntax is a mixture of American and British variances and thus there is no correct way to use the singular or plural for this article, and in fact, there is no one correct way even if the band was British. It's just preference. We should obey WP:MOS and make sure that it's consistent throughout. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 23:08, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Like Wisdom, it's my understanding that while textbooks in Canada may favo(u)r the British style, in common usage things are a fairly even mix. As such, my feeling is that if a significant group pushes for a conversion to 'proper canadian' style, then that's fine, but otherwise, edit warring over it is childish, and it should be left as it has been. As this is mostly the work of a single editor, 'randy savage', and not a major consensus shift, I say it stands as is/was, that is 'is'. ThuranX (talk) 23:12, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I get used to hearing both depending on where I am. Southern Ontario and Southern British Columbia use a very "Americanised-ized" English form. The east coast and the midwest are likely to be more British in style. Strangely Southern "O" and "BC" dwellers will "speak" differently from what they "write" which makes it even more confusing. As long as it's consistent. I, myself, tend to look at a group of humans as a "they" rather than an "it". So saying "they is a band" hurts the ears a little. Maybe if I was from Arkansas "they is a band" would sound normal.(apologies to anyone from Arkansas its just a joke) For this article as long as it is consistent throughout then great. It was elevated to a featured article in the current English form. So why change it. Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 23:50, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

"They is"are is still incorrect in American English. "Is" in American usage is for a person or a single entity. "They" is still multiple persons, while a band, company and other named group are single entities. I'd prefer to use proper Canadian English, American English or other version in keeping with an article's subject. But consensus wins out. It is not productive to keep switching back and forth on things. -Fnlayson (talk) 01:09, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

"They are" Is incorrect grammar? Since when? "They are making their way over to our table now." not 'They is making their way over to the jug band.' They are is proper grammar. ThuranX (talk) 01:30, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

• Duh, right. Was supposed to be "They is". I started writing that, reworded it and missed fixing that part. Struke-out wrong word above. -Fnlayson (talk) 01:36, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

They is tryin' ta figger out which trailer park is the biggust. Thanks for the clarification and thanks for the chuckle. I is ready to give up for the day. Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 01:46, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

In fairness o all, 'they is',while redneck-ish, is not the only American group to violate grammar regularly. 'youse guys is really startin'sa piss me off, and yous gonna disappear permanent-like if yas don' move along' represents another stereotypical pattern, lest someone thing we're bashing southerners or midwesterners. 02:09, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Logo

Back in February I made a comment about the use of the "Starman" logo that was never addressed. Basically there's no commentary in the article about the logo (who designed it, what it symbolizes, etc.), or supporting references. Based on the lack of commentary it appears to be used primarily as decoration, which isn't appropriate use of non-free content. If some supporting referenced commentary could be added, that would be great, but for now I've removed it from the article. I also removed it from the article on 2112, because per WP:NFCC #3 "minimal use" it should really only be used in either that article or this one, but not both. I also removed it from the userbox template, as NFCC #9 clearly doesn't allow non-free images to be used in userboxes or userpages, only in the article namespace. --IllaZilla (talk) 22:36, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

A pertinent interview with respect to this topic can be found in a 1983 issue of Creem magazine. Hugh Syme, the man behind most of the band's covers and graphic representations is asked about the image by interviewer Jeffrey Morgan.

Morgan: On the inside cover of 2112 is the first appearance of what has become a logo for the band.

Syme: Initially, that logo didn't begin as an identity factor for the band, it just got adopted. We didn't consider it a mascot overall icon of representation for the band at the time. What I did do with that particular cover was read their lyrics, and understand that there is a good force and a bad force: the good force was music, creativity, and freedom of expression-and the bad force was anything that was contrary to that. The man is the hero of the story. That he is nude is just a classic tradition ... the pureness of his person and creativity without the trappings of other elements such as clothing. The red star is the evil red star of the Federation, which was one of Neil's symbols. We basically based that cover around the red star and that hero. Now, that hero and that kind of attitude about freedom of expression and the band having that kind of feeling ... at the time, it never ready occurred to me, to be honest with you, that they would adopt it quite so seriously as a logo. Because it's appeared just about everywhere, thereafter.

This should provide enough content to include with the graphic in order to keep it in the article. Peter Fleet (talk) 00:23, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

So add a sentence to this article like: Hugh Syme creator of graphics on many of Rush's albums stated that the Starman logo, "... didn't begin as an identity factor for the band, it just got adopted." in a 1983 interview.<ref>Morgan, Jeffrey. "Article name", Creem magazine, Month 1983.</ref>

with the reference info properly filled in. Add this with more details to 2112 (album) maybe. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:32, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

John Rutsey

Wanted to see what the other main editors thought about this. Recently a user placed the birth and death dates of Rutsey within the article. Now, it's been a while since I perused WP:MOS and what not (not sure if it's even covered in there), but is this conventional? Does it belong here, or just within the article for Rutsey himself? Personally, it doesn't bother me, but, it kind of sticks out being that, while pivotal, he's a minor component of the article. I mean, if Jeff Jones passed away tomorrow, would we do the same thing? Anyway, those are just my thoughts. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 04:18, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, given that no one seems to take issue, I'm just going to remove those details. I don't think they're particular necessary for the main Rush article, the info can be found in John Rutsey. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 21:58, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Rush appeared in an episode of Trailer park boys, season 3, episode 5 "closer to the heart" thought it should be in the article but didnt know where to put it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.125.176.53 (talk) 09:15, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I think that was just Alex Lifeson, and it is already mentioned in that article. Cheers. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 15:54, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Band history and former members

Hi - I would like to know why my revisions to the band history (regarding Lindy Young and Mitch Bossi) have been removed. I believe they are relevant to the article and I made sure that I cited multiple sources. I understand there is a more comprehensive article on the band history linked here, but I don't feel that a concise paragraph summarizing some of the bands early lineup changes (as part of the main article) is extraneous information.

I think that if Jeff Jones is listed as a former member (having played ONE gig with the band), then Lindy Young and Mitch Bossi should be included as they were members of Rush for longer periods of time than Jones was. Mrose77 (talk) 14:44, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey there, I think the reasoning is as follows (at least for the the inclusion of Jones at the expense of others): Jones was a founding member of Rush in its earliest incarnation with Lifeson and Rutsey. His tenure really doesn't have any bearing here. As for Young, well, his stint overlapped with and was mostly with Hadrian' and Judd, so it's somewhat confusing (and argumentative) to include him as a early member of Rush. Bossi, ok, I'm not sure about this one. He was asked to join Rush once they reformed, and I believe he stayed for a few months, but again I think he is omitted from the concise/main article for the sake of brevity, conciseness and directness. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 16:59, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Consecutive Gold studio Albums?

In the fourth paragraph states "These statistics place Rush fifth behind The Beatles, The Rolling Stones, Kiss and Aerosmith for the most consecutive gold and platinum albums by a rock band." I would like this to read "These statistics place Rush second behind the Rolling Stones for the most consecutive gold and platinum studio albums by a Rock Band." I don't think live albums and greatest hits compilations are the same thing as a new album going gold.LedRush (talk) 04:42, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I think according to the RIAA it's the most gold and platinum albums, period, not consecutive. I believe you are correct. This should be changed. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 04:53, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Sure, seems fine. What's the reference for this; RIAA's site? Really both studio and all albums rankings could be mentioned in the article. Although that's too much info to do both in the lead. -Fnlayson (talk) 04:57, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I didn't get the reference. I just looked up the other four bands mentioned above Rush and counted the consecutive gold+ studio albums they had.LedRush (talk) 05:00, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

At my count, Rush: 16, Aerosmith: 15, Beatles: 13, Kiss: 12 and The Stones: 25 LedRush (talk) 05:10, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• Looks like the info can be pulled from RIAA artist tallies. Correction: That does not help much. All albums are listed. -Fnlayson (talk) 05:18, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, we can start with that list and check each band with more than 16 gold albums. Does that count as "original research"? LedRush (talk) 05:25, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it's easier to count from the RIAA tally list, using the number 24 as the magic number for Rush. I believe this is what the statistic in the lead is going by. At least, that what I remember doing when I originally put it in : ). Counting. Is it original research? Well, yes and no. We're counting ourselves, but this is a reliable source that can be fact checked. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 05:37, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

24 is the number of gold albums. I wanted to put the list for consecutive gold studio albums. The RIAA tally list doesn't list consecutive albums, nor does it distinguish studio ones.LedRush (talk) 05:39, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, that's kinda my point. Consecutive albums is difficult to prove, and even harder when you're attempting to establish where Rush falls with respect to other rock bands. Wouldn't the total number suffice? Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 05:42, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

The source, as it is, doesn't support the "consecutive album" claim made in the article. How did you get comfortable with that claim?

Anyway, I have counted the number of consecutive albums myself and the claim is accurate. Also, my proposed claim about consecutive gold studio albums is also accurate. Unfortunately, I don't know how to cite it. Basically I just searched for the artists sales on the site and checked it against a list of all albums found on Wikipedia. We could just site to a search page like this (http://www.riaa.com/goldandplatinumdata.php?table=SEARCH_RESULTS) for each band with more Gold records than Rush has consecutive ones (as those are the only ones that could have more consecutive ones and the cite would show which records actually went gold).LedRush (talk) 20:29, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Starman Logo

Does anyone know what the starman logo is supposed to signify? Capitalist Shrugged (talk) 17:07, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

From 2112, it represents the individual against the tyrannical masses. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 00:41, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

$100,000 donation to human rights museum

Does someone want to add a section about Rush's new contribution of $100,000 to the Winnepeg Museum of Human Rights. It came from their Snakes and Arrows concert at Winnepeg and they are selling shirts to promote the museum and raise money. [6] DrSatan (talk) 01:41, 22 June 2008 (UTC)