Talk:Sigue Sigue Sputnik

"Were" a band?

There's a Youtube video that shows a concert from 2016. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.253.186.62 (talk) 12:59, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Various

Annie Lennox was hardly "unknown" in 1983. The Eurythmics released their first album in 1981 accompanied by three singles. 67.188.226.210 23:43, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

You're also leaving out The Tourists before that. Big, maybe not, but not even close to "unknown", either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.138.236.178 (talk) 21:02, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Tony James has mentioned on his blog entry for 27th January 2009 ( http://www.carbonsiliconinc.com/blogs.aspx ) that at the time of the audition, Annie had only been in the Tourists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.236.250.250 (talk) 17:37, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Sigue Sigue Sputnik: There have been several changes to the definition of the band's Russian name. Most recently, an editor proposed that "Sputnik" means "companion" in Russian. Not knowing Russian, I turned to an online Russian-English dictionary, and here is the result: Enter word or sentence in Russian or in English: ИСКУССТВЕННЫЙ СПУТНИК; СПУТНИК Linguistic system of translation is based on PROMT automatic translation technology developed by PROMT, Ltd. All rights reserved. Translation: THE ARTIFICIAL SATELLITE; THE SATELLITE

Sigue Sigue Sputnik did a cover of the Smashing Pumpkins "Bullet with butterfly wings", which appears on the album "A Gothic-Industrial Tribute to The Smashing Pumpkins". not sure where in the discography it should be mentioned, as many other artists are on the same album. but I think it deserves being mentioned somewhere.

I've removed the word "classic" from the description of "Love Missile F1-11" as: a.) it is not actually widely considered to be a classic; b.) that statement is somewhat POV

I've also amended the part in the opening paragraph where the original writer stated that "Sigue Sigue Sputnik created their own unique sound" as this is also POV as well being partly inaccurate.

Love Missile UK Chart Position

I am pretty certain "Love Missile F1-11" only got to number 3 in the UK charts so I have changed this.

sputnik means companion in Russian as in travelling companion, just as a satellite can be seen as a travelling companion of another (planetary) body, satellite is a more specific sense of this word. Perhaps online translation software is not the best source, might I suggest a Russian-English dictionary. Mrscruffy 19:44, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

The meaning of "Sigue Sigue Sputnik"

Actually, the true meaning of that sentence in spanish is "Go Go Sputnik". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.151.117.70 (talk) 19:07, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Sigue-Sigue Sputnik is a Philippine prison gang founded way back in the 1960's. It was actually a splinter group from the original Sigue-Sigue Gang. "Sigue-Sigue" means "care-free" in Tagalog. "Sputnik" was added to identify the splinter group, and it was a reference to earth's first artificial satellite, the russian-made Sputnik which was launched in 1957. The splinter group reportedly came from prisoners tasked to throw sacks of spoiled food over the prison walls. The spoiled food was meant to be used in a nearby piggery, and the flying sacks were likened to the Sputnik. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.191.77.215 (talk) 15:47, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

I tried to include this information in the "Early Years" section but a moderator reverted it due to it being "trivial". Here is my edit. Sqgl (talk) 15:17, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

(Wikipedia does not have moderators. It has administrators. I am neither.)

"Trivial" was a bad description on my part.

I removed the material for several reasons. At the root of it all: Articles on Wikipedia should be based on what independent reliable sources say about a topic. The two sources cited are a Facebook post and a blog (citing a blog and two reliable sources as their sources).

Facebook postings are self-published sources. As such, they can only be used as sources for basic, non-controversial facts about the subject by the subject (e.g., John Smith states his father was a plumber.)

Blogs are also self-published sources. Looking at the blog's three sources, all of the material you added comes from the first of those three. That source is also a blog. The blog's remaining two sources are reliable, but saying nothing about the claims you added. (Actually, one of them supports the Moscow gang and "burn, burn satellite" material already in the article.)

If you find reliable sources discussing the Filipino gang story, we would need to briefly cover the two origin stories or find solid reasoning for including one over the other. Without that, we have the Moscow gang story, supported by reliable sources from the Gettysburg Times (published there, actually from Rolling Stone) and a book published by Hal Leonard Corporation. - SummerPhD^v2.0 15:51, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Discography

Album listing needs references. E.g. [1] shows different facta than this article about 1990s release. --Tbonefin 13:26, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Carbon/Silicon

The information about Carbon/Silicon is somewhat out of date (they have now released several CDs and toured extensively), and would perhaps be better served by a link to the bands own wikipedia entry?

Disco Kingz relevance

Are the references to Disco Kingz appropriate? This band is only tangentially connected to Sigue Sigue Sputnik, having only worked with Martin Degville AFTER his departure from the band. One suspects these links have been added for self-promotion purposes.

Sigue Sigue Sputnik (electronic)

This article needs to be updated with Martin basically taking over SIGUE SIGUE SPUTNIK and making it a 2 piece electronic band.

Here are online links: http://ko-kr.facebook.com/event.php?eid=294655110588&ref=mf http://whatsonsa.co.za/news/index.php/whats-on/25-tours/542-martin-degville-sigue-sigue-sputnik-tours-south-africa-20-and-26-february-2010.html http://astridstark1.wordpress.com/2010/02/19/sigue-sigue-sputniks-phoenix-rising/ http://www.safarinow.com/destinations/city-centre/events/Sigue-Sigue-Sputnik-SA-Tour-CT.aspx/5 http://www.docsputnik.co.uk/r2review.html http://www.myspace.com/martindegvillesiguesiguesputnik http://www.mediaupdate.co.za/default.aspx?IDStory=22085 http://www.tonight.co.za/index.php?fSectionId=348&fArticleId=5359399 http://www.sputnik2.com/ http://revoindustries.blogspot.com/2010/02/sigue-sigue-sputnik-electronic.html?spref=fb Ubastiff (talk) 12:45, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

POV

This article, which is virtually without a single reference, is full of opinionated, unsourced fancruft and froth. Seemingly this has been the case for some considerable time. Therefore I have added the {POV} tag. Further editing should first resolve the lack of verifiabilty, before treating the reader to more codswallop and hype. I have made several edits but, on reflection, think it needs a radical rewrite. And yes, that is my opinion - other editors are, of course, welcome to add their thoughts.

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 15:26, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree. It's largely crap and desperately needs sourcing, and the latest Zarjaz-spamming additions don't help at all.--Michig (talk) 13:47, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Largely rewritten.--Michig (talk) 15:30, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

There has been no Zarjaz spamming. This is a respected musician with referenced connections to the origins of this group, outside of your scope. All references to Zarjaz have been sourced and or can be sourced. Someone or something has been deleting them. If a reference has not been in place a reference has been available and has not appeared perhaps through error or inexperience with Wikipedia editing and referencing. Wikipedia says to be bold and don't worry about making mistakes. Perhaps you should practice some understanding when editing. Your input to this page is without doubt a vast improvement but your methods are a little gung ho and contrary to Wikipedia guidelines Harleancarpenter (talk) 14:16, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Deleting sourced information that is important to the true origins of this group

Wikipedia is open to everyone on the Internet to place details and information and is not a place to arrange details on subjects to suit private views, in effect arranging the world to suit, especially in self promotion. Deleting details concerning the musician Zarjaz is wrong as he is clearly important to the true origins of the concept and style ideas of this group. It is important to note that all details of Zarjaz are missing from any official SSS biographies and so are therefore also false and a deception, where other citations show evidence that Zarjaz was involved at an early stage as much as being the front man before Martin Degville and Degville replaced Zarjaz only because Zarjaz began working on other projects.

The writer of this badly written page of obvious self promotion should take note that the true legacy this group is leaving is one of plagiarism and the dependance on hype to fill out an obvious lack of creative credibility and originality. Even where this is apparent in the music press of the time, here it is shrugged off in self promotion in a way that the writer thinks everyone reading believes the spin. This page on the face of it only stands to do more harm to the group than good (that's how bad it is). The integrity of Wikipedia itself must be that the information it provides is not fraudulent or incorrect and so must therefore look harshly on anything that would diminish this. The fact is that this page fails to comply with many Wikipedia terms and conditions that could result in the whole page being pulled.

The hole this group has dug for itself means that any real success they gained is diminished by the basis of their legacy, that their foundations are based on plagiarism and defamation and their refusal to exchange the credibility they think they attain through a pirate image in return for true credibility. Really, what credibility does this group have on a world rock n roll stage if they come across as Keystone dress to excess pantomime space pirates? The best thing this group could do, for themselves, would be to gain some true credibility and do this by throwing their hands in the air and admit to these failings, the dependance of playing on public gullibility and in particular accept and acknowledge Zarjaz for his creative genius that clearly has defined this groups early identity but where they have taken obvious steps to bury him in obscurity in order to claim the credit for his work between 1979 and 1985 with Tronics and early The Zarjaz. Harleancarpenter (talk) 23:24, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more with the general sentiments being expressed by you.Sadly Wikipedia has long since been hijacked (yes I said it hijacked pure and simple ) by various vested interests who ruthlessly "protect" the content of certain Wiki entries.They are ultimately glorified fans (and often act as nothing more than unpaid P.R. agents) whose entries are nothing more than their fan POV as actual facts and of course remove anything which doesn't fit into their (almost always) rose tinted views.Sometimes almost laughably cartoonish "claims" are presented as if they are genuine ("he single handedly changed the very face of music" ) and they will attempt to back up these with long out of date "links" and of course other fan websites which believe the exact same fictions.

The argument could be used that the very people who would "contribute" to a wiki entry for a band like this (SSS) would never have enough positive things to post anyway so would be almost forced to make things up or alter existing cold hard facts which might be always negative.Otherwise this entry would be very bare indeed.

As for Wikipedia's role in allowing such obvious POV "interpretations" to be remain.Once again the very service itself has long since been riddled with "Editors" who see it as nothing more than their own personal soap box.Expressing only their opinions,viewpoints and beliefs and everything else is wiped away under the guise of ludicrous vague "rules" which seem to able to change at the drop of a hat.

Wikipedia have recently (much too late) begun one of their legendarily slow "investigations" into Editors abusing their positions just to push a certain agenda (political,social,promotional etc) in response to the numerous complaints.

Not surprisingly there have been cynical attempts to "silence" those complaints by the very Editors being investigated.

Again the argument could be used that the sort of people who devote their free time to "Editing" a website which they have no financial or creative interest in says all it needs to about what sort of human beings they are.

It will be interesting to see if this section is "disappeared" soon too huh..?

Keep up your efforts to challenge the deletions.

Know you are not alone.

86.44.106.189 (talk) 13:35, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your notes. It was quite funny that by 5pm today all the information on Zarjaz was removed. Nevertheless I will endeavor to challenge deletions, including if they delete yours. Harleancarpenter (talk) 21:08, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

If you want to add claims re. Zarjaz you'll need to cite reliable sources. --Michig (talk) 05:21, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. The thing is that I have been placing info, including source and references but these all are disappearing. I'm not wasting my time.

With all respect, as far as I know, with what I admit is limited and novice experience with Wikipedia, it would be acceptable Wikiprotocol to leave details that are unverified but flag them giving editors the chance to ad notes Wikipedia:Citing sources - Deaing with unsourced material. You have not done this but you have taken down notes and edits without question, twice, within 12 hours, as if you have a personal problem with the details themselves. I believe this is wrong and because of this I hope you understand why I might reasonably think that your actions could be seen as vandalism. I beleive I have a right to place these details but you should leave the notes in place and give me the opportunity to reference them.

Pease let me point out this quote, by you, on your own Wikipedia user page - re Wikipedia annoyances

People who nominate articles for deletion without making any effort to determine whether the subject is notable and/or improve the articles in question. We're here to build an encyclopedia not to see how much stuff we can get deleted as quickly as possible.

I hope you would understand why I might think that you may be protecting the information on this page as a representatibve for interested parties.

Lastly, what is it precicely that you feel is unverified about this? Are you questioning the existence of Zarjaz on the music scene at that time? Is it just the claim to be connected at all?

If it is the latter of these let me put some points to you?

1. I have already pointed out that the references you are relying on could have and should have mentioned Zarjaz as objective details within an example of unbiased journalism and also that because this has not happened there is reason to offer alternative details. The source you rely on may be respected and prolific but is incomplete. With this in mind it may be fair to say that your source, under the circumstances should be removed if mine are removed.

2. The claim made by Zarjaz is just that - an important claim made by Zarjaz, about details concerning the origins of this group, in the public domain and so this would in fairness be verifiable by referencing any place or places these claims have been made. I would need to do no more than that and I have done just this, as I have said, but these have been pulled at one point or another.

3. You are saying that your source is credible even though details concerning this important issue are missing. That doesn't mean it didn't happen. It just means that YOUR sources have failed to mention them. Even down to Tony James. He has not mentioned Zarjaz within your sources but he has not denied them either. For you to say or even imply that these claims are false, which I believe you are doing, is questionable.

5. I have noted that your writing does not include details of the band being sued by Stanley Kubrick for using A Clockwork Orange clips without permission. As I say I have not read your source book but does it mention this anywhere? If it does I must ask then why didn't you mention it? If it doesn't I would ask why not?

4. You have claimed that the band put out and album in 1990 of what you believe to be demos from 1984. Before I changed it your heading for the section "Success" initially detailed 1982 - look at the edits. It seems to be the only edit you didn't undo.

I will reference these details to the best of my ability. I will reference the Zarjaz claims r.e. Albinoni vs Starwars to where claims are being made in the public domain (again). Further to this I suppose it would be between Tony James and Zarjaz to argue it out if things are being denied and not for me or you to alter. As I say I am just noting that claims are being made as a Wikipedia user. Harleancarpenter (talk) 15:47, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

You're missing the point. There are no reliable sources stating that Zarjaz had anything to do with the band. If there were I would happily include it. I searched for them but didn't find them. If any of the sources mentioned the band being sued by Kubrick I would have put it in the article. You'll need reliable sources independent of the band and of Zarjaz stating his involvement if you're going to include it in the article.--Michig (talk) 18:20, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

It is you that has missed the point. Wikipedia guides say an editor should be given the chance to reference before being deleted. You deleted before giving a chance. Your references show an obvious bias. It should be challenged and is challengeable under Wikipedia principles and guides. Now you are dictating what is acceptable, even though Wikipedia guides say it is acceptable

[[Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners] - Good references gives mainstream press, and authorised web sites as good reference examples. I have stated that my entry is that a person has claimed. Therefore a claim on a website authorised by this person would be acceptible. You are now saying that 1. Because you haven't found any, there are without doubt no references, anywhere to this information. 2. Any official Zarjaz website would not be accepted. This is 2 contradictions. I also believe you have found this reference yourself on the Internet and have decided to dismiss it before it is offered because of the valid challenge it presents.

Also, the same Wikipedia page states that "Blogs, fan sites and extreme minority texts are not usually acceptable". With the emphasis on usually, this must mean that sometimes in unusual circumstances they would be accepted.

Before I give any reliable references, on the basis that because of the underground, unusual and rarity of this information, along with the significance it has on popular music and that it is in places "Using the subject as a self-published source - Living persons may publish material about themselves (as source), such as through - or personal website", would you accept -

1. Reliable reference to this in an established magazine defining the connection but along with 2. Reference in established music press that Zarjaz was working on the music, ideas and concept in issue here between 1979 and 1985 and that he has been a long standing, established and in places well liked recording artist. 3. Reference to claims on any website authorized by Zarjaz (as source from a website of a living person) (but remember it is the claim I am noting, not whether it happened or not)?

If not, on the basis of Wikipedia principles and guideline as mentioned here, why not, especially concerning the details "usually accepted"? What would constitute an unusual acceptance? Why would you not accept reference to any Zarjaz website?

I am sorry to keep asking these questions but it is hard to define what to give as reference when you keep moving the goal posts. Wikipedia says one thing, you say another.Harleancarpenter (talk) 19:59, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

You might want to take a look at WP:AGF and quit these silly accusations of bias and bad faith on my part. Anyone can make all sorts of claims on their own websites, and they often do. We don't accept these as statements of fact.--Michig (talk) 05:32, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

It's incredible that you say that because the reference you just gave seems to support me totally.

I am trying to make edits in "good faith", trying to "help the project", where you seem, on the face of it, that you are sticking to one option. I actually agree with you that you are correct and you can delete text without reference but at the same time Wikipedia seems to be giving options to resolve this where you seem to be ignoring these. Its no wonder I have my doubts and in any case I am not making accusations but trying to create "discussion and criticism", where you seem to be prohibiting this by a, not respecting my point of view and b, accusing me of making accusations against you.

The third paragraph of the text you have offered says this -

When disagreement occurs, try to the best of your ability to explain and resolve the problem, not cause more conflict, and give others the opportunity to do the same. Consider whether a dispute stems from different perspectives, and look for ways to reach consensus.

You are not doing this. You have not answered questions and you are dictating what Wikipedia does when Wikipedia actually offers alternatives.

I am not "attacking" you as an editor but establishing how things look in relation to your actions. I have not actually accused you of anything, just asked that I hope you understand why I might think this way.

The text continues-

Be careful about citing this principle too aggressively.

You are not doing this but aggressively preventing me from giving valid input, with valid (to Wikipedia guidelines) reference and then accusing me a making "silly" accusations, made in discussion trying to resolve issues that I think are relevant.

The thing is that Wikipedia guidelines conflict with what you are saying. This says to me that you may be correct but at the same time there are ways around it, i.e. by allowing you some discretion. I have to ask you again, why is it that your discretion is falling against this important issue?

PLEASE, explain this point? Wikipedia guidelines - Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons - Using the subject as a self-published source. says -

Using the subject as a self-published source

Further information: WP:SELFPUB Living persons may publish material about themselves, such as through press releases or personal websites. Such material may be used as a source only if— there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;

On the whole as I say, I agree with you but if Wikepedia guides say material published by themselves through a personal website can be used as source why don't you use your discretion in favour of this? Also, as I keep saying, I am not giving this reference as "statements of fact" but the fact that a statement was made. Instead of making accusations against me to support what seems to be a one sided view point please answer this question. Fair question I would have thought. Harleancarpenter (talk) 08:44, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

You say "I have not actually accused you of anything", but you can see above: "as if you have a personal problem with the details themselves. I believe this is wrong and because of this I hope you understand why I might reasonably think that your actions could be seen as vandalism", "I hope you would understand why I might think that you may be protecting the information on this page as a representatibve for interested parties", "Your references show an obvious bias" - I think these are pretty clear.

Zarjaz claims here that James was interested in him being a singer with a new project, that he was invited to record demos, and that a different singer was chosen for the band (Degville). He also claims that SSS adopted some of his ideas and used his records in their live set. So he was perhaps one of several singers considered, but as he's barely notable himself this is hardly worth mentioning. As for his claims that SSS took some of his ideas, these are claims about somebody else, and the same website claims that he is a "genuine creative genius", that "influence is apparent throughout the music industry", that he put out the first "indie cassette album" in 1980 (clearly not true), and that Oasis and Snoop Dogg were influenced by him. This doesn't really sound like a credible unbiased source, does it? I notice that you haven't come up with any other reliable sources to back up any of your other claims.--Michig (talk) 16:34, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

It might also be worth reading Wikipedia:Conflict of interest.--Michig (talk) 17:33, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry but you are now going into areas that have not been raised by me. that have nothing to do with me and have nothing to do with this issue.

1. You quote me but I have already said that I have not openly accused you of anything. Have another look - "as if", "I hope you understand why I might reasonably think", "could be seen as vandalism".

With the reference to bias, I will stick to that because I think it is fair comment in view of the problems you are making here. I have pointed out that the reference you are relying on is incomplete and is therefore showing a bias that should be challenged but you insist on preventing it from being challenged therefore you are showing bias and acting against Wikipedia guidelines.

3. The point is that I am (as I have persistently said) noting that claims have been made by a living person, about details and events relating to this page, in an autobiographical way, on a website, authorized by the person. - This clearly falls within Wikipedia guideleines and is acceptible by Wikipedia as source. - Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons - Using the subject as a self-published source

You have claimed that no Zarjaz website is acceptable. I'm sorry but this is totally wrong and until you resolve this you may be bringing Wikipedia into disrepute.

4. Are you saying that you will not agree to details from a Zarjaz website on the basis of reasonable doubt to its authenticity? If you are then let me put this to you -

Others, myself included will disagree with you from throughout the music industry between 1978 to today. Are you intentionally preventing Zarjaz information going onto this page by making false claims that he is barely notable?

You have stated, illegally, not to mention ludicrously, that claims on the Zarjaz website are "clearly not true". Do you have any evidence to support this? What you might be concerned about here is if Zarjaz has any evidence to support this. Even I myself, through my own research can show, very easily, details of areas of the music industry acknowledging Zarjaz as a "creative genius", his "influence" and the "first indie cassette album". This is all reference-able material - I have some of it. I have also said that I may give reference to these when you resolve the problems you are making.

I have re checked the reference you gave "that Oasis and Snoop Dogg were influenced by him" and I have found that it does not say this at all. It does refer however to music and styles used by Oasis and Snoop Dog after he did.

I'm sorry but your claims and actions have been suspicious but now you have stepped over the line.

Your notes "This doesn't really sound like a credible unbiased source, does it?" Not the way you put it but where there are references to this information you have a plate of egg on your face don't you? I think you may have committed acts of defamation by saying this.

I'm sorry but you are acting illegally here and if you refuse to resolve this I will take action against you with administration. You are refusing to give reasonable reasons why you refuse to allow notes being posted. Further to this you have defamed a living person with false statements and you are using this false defamation to prevent information being posted on Wikipedia.Harleancarpenter (talk) 20:33, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

This just gets sillier. Several independent artists had cassette-only releases in the 1970s (e.g. Throbbing Gristle, R. Stevie Moore), the claim to have released the first in 1980 is is the only statement that I said was clearly not true, the others are matters of opinion. You should be very careful about making legal threats here (See Wikipedia:No legal threats).--Michig (talk) 21:18, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Wrong again, the Tronics in 1980 released a cassette album. It was recognized by Virgin distribution and the NME as being the first independent cassette album to be nationally and internationally distributed through a major distribution network constituting a cassette release that was not issued merely as a demo or small localized release. It is noted on the Freakapuss website, along with the NME, to be the first nationally and internationally distributed cassette album, not just a cassette album as you carelessly claim. Everyone knows the Tronics were not the first band to make a release on cassette. However, before the release and acceptance of the Tronics cassette album by a major distributor there was not an indie cassette scene, but shortly afterwards it caught on and became a boom, started by the Tronics and this album distributed through Virgin. The term "independent cassette album" was established during this boom and refers in this case to an independent cassette album made during or after, not before. Check the music papers of the time. Because you or your scope of reference does not include this information is not my problem.

Don't threaten me. You are already controlling this page and disrupting Wikipedia, you are rude and insulting, along with defaming living people, where I believe there is also a reasonable suspicion of a COI - all against Wikipedia guidelines and principles. It might also be worth you reading Wikipedia:Conflict of interest

Not only that but you are showing a distinct lack of knowledge in subjects that you claim to be knowledgable in. You criticise and attack credible and respected people with false claims where the real flaws are in your own lack of knowledge on the subject and the incomplete mainstream music industry publications you rely on for details.

I have not made legal threats, just pointed out that you have made remarks on Wikipedia - against Wikipedia guidelines and principle, bringing both the people you have carelessly defamed and Wikipedia into disrepute. Since this is an issue occurring on Wikipedia it is reasonable to discuss it. If you think I won't mention the "L" word your mistaken (again). Look, just stop this act that you are Wikipedia or represent Wikipedia. For your information Wikipedia clearly says that defamatory remarks are against Wikipedia principles, along with, edits and input are the responsibility of the editor. The legal threat would come from the person you defamed. FYI outside of Wikipedia I believe stating false defamatory claims even as a point of view, on a public access website is illegal and I also believe Wikipedia administration will not look kindly on this. They will also support that you would be held responsible.

We shouldn't be having this conversation. Do you really think I can't provide reference? Do you really think someone like Zarjaz would make claims like that without some kind of confidence he could back them up with evidence? You shouldn't be even involved here, you're not an expert on these details, by your own admission. I am just trying to resolve this so you will not make more problems when I make edits and insertions. Harleancarpenter (talk) 23:51, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Requirements re. citing reliable sources still stand. Conversation over. --Michig (talk) 05:37, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Not yet I think. And as i say, your sources are not reliable. It might also be worth reading Wikipedia:Verifiability before you make any problems concerning details not within your scope. Harleancarpenter (talk) 08:58, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

One more thing if you don't mind Michig. Before I post anything, in order to not waste time, do you intend to delete details about Zarjaz in terms of relevance, where you have mentioned misguided POV on this before?

So there is no misunderstanding, being behind much of the main concept and many of the styles this band has taken credit for is valid and important to the bacgkround of this group.

Any posting I might make will keep to this aspect and will be referenced. Harleancarpenter (talk) 11:36, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Any relevant information that cites a reliable independent source can stay. Anything that doesn't will go.--Michig (talk) 16:28, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry Michig but please will you be more specific here? I don't want to waste my time giving details that you or someone will dismississ on the basis of a POV that the detail is not relevant when it actually is. With all respect, and I mean that, you could be fishing for information that you would intentionally refuse whatever it was.

Do you consider details relating to the inspiration behind ideas and concepts of this group (referenced reliable source) to be relevant? Yes or no will do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Harleancarpenter (talk • contribs) 19:29, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I've already answered your question. --Michig (talk) 19:35, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, I'll try that. I'll try to put input here first so that I don't disrupt the text as you have made it. I hope you will help me in iron out any loose tags and wording placement Harleancarpenter (talk) 17:15, 29 September 2010 (UTC).

I hope you don't mind but I decided to place a small entry. In view of the vast improvements you have made to this page and in keeping with your format I decided, at least for the moment to make one small note of Zarjaz, without going into too much detail, as you have done with other references. I included the reference to releases in order to avoid mistaking with the comic artist. Harleancarpenter (talk) 14:08, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Can you specify what the article you cited actually states regarding the influence of Zarjaz on SSS?--Michig (talk) 14:50, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't see the point but to try to appease you

"Zarjaz, a veteran of several 80's releases with the Tronics on a variety of labels (Alien, Red Rhino, Orgasm, Kaleidoscope Sound, Creation), and the man who provided the inspiration for Sigue Sigue Sputnik" Harleancarpenter (talk) 14:59, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

i'm sorry michig but you obviously have a problem with this. the article does exist. it is wrong for you to delete the insert. if you have a problem with it (as obviously you do) you should flag it with some kind of notice - not remove it. you don't control wikipedia. lets leave personal difference out of ths eh? this is your last warning —Preceding unsigned comment added by Harleancarpenter (talk • contribs) 16:23, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I have removed some non noatable material. Post a few links here to show some notability/relevance and then revisit. Otherwise, move on or be blocked for continued distruption. What a time sink. --Threeafterthree (talk) 20:17, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I am abused as a contributor, by an editor Michig, with an obvious refusal to accept my input on this subject. You support him despite the evidence and give him what he wants. I will provide reference. Harleancarpenter (talk) 21:54, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Harleancarpenter, can you please use semi colons to indent your comments here? Thanks. Also, this looks like what we call a "content dispute". You want "material" in the aticle, and another editor feels it doesn't belong. This happens a bizzillion times a day around these parts. Please try to reach consensus by getting others involved, especially those who don't give a crap, since hopefully they will see the forest from the trees. You sound pretty passionate about this, which actually isn't the best thing, becasue it can "cloud" your perspective and the advice you are being given. Also, can you please try not to post "walls of text" since nobody/most editors don't want/have the patience to deal with that. Keep it real brief and provide specific edit differences via links. Just some suggesions. Anyways, --Threeafterthree (talk) 14:06, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Really, thanks a lot for your time and advice. I really do appreciate it. I know I am coming across like that but I'm not really. I held back from the daunting prospect of editing for a long time but when I took the plunge everything I did was deleted. I know I am making mistakes but sometimes I haven't. In several cases contributions I have made with proper reference has been deleted. In this case with this band I have felt that the band itself were preventing the details being brought to light. It's been very frustrating and the more my contributions are deleted the more it makes me determined to reinstate them. I think Wikipedia is a great thing and I use it a lot. I don't want to contribute for the sake of it and I try to keep contributions to a minimum and only relevant. I have found that the dates I gave were not correct and I am trying to establish the correct date. Many many thanks again. Harleancarpenter (talk) 13:55, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

No problem. The best thing to do when frustrated is to try to use the talk page, it seems you have, and get others involved, like I said. It looks like there was alot of back and forth here, but with only 2 editors. "low interest" (sorry no offense) articles like this can be problematic, since who wants to get involved, sad but true. Maybe go to the music projects page(is there one?), ect, for input? I am totally out of my area of interest here, well actually I enjoy bios, so not really, but again, I would like to see strong reliable sources, hopefully multiple, before any "mterial" is added after there is a dispute involved between editors as there was here. Also, I am a minimalist/deletionist for full dsclosure, so I would need srong conviencing :)....anyways....--Threeafterthree (talk) 14:56, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

But I hope my entry/the same entry will be accepted if I go to the trouble of defining the correct date. Harleancarpenter (talk) 16:08, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Will I have to put my pants on and drive to the library to read it? --Threeafterthree (talk) 21:12, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if your library will have a copy. Mine doesn't. Michig didn't have to unless he went without his pants :). He accepted it until he discovered the date mistake. Isn't this just a date disagreement? I could send you a whole copy of the magazine.Harleancarpenter (talk) 09:03, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

If you can supply 'a whole copy of the magazine' surely you can tell us what the issue number and date is? We've been going round in circles now for nearly three weeks without any evidence of these sources you claim exist.--Michig (talk) 19:14, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, I'll do that. Give me some time. Sorry for the wrong date. Harleancarpenter (talk) 11:25, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I have included the reference to 80's releases to distinguish from the comic artist Zarjaz.

The band's music and image and inspiration also mashed together a range of other pop culture influences, including Zarjaz, a veteran of several elusive 80's releases with the Tronics the electronica influences of Suicide, and the New York Dolls.

Sorry for the mixupHarleancarpenter (talk) 17:24, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

This one checked out - I've added a mention in. I really don't think the elusive nature of the Tronics singles/album is of relevance here.--Michig (talk) 20:07, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I have said all along that you have something against Zarjaz. I would have thought that Wikipedia is a source of information, not your views. Personal;y I would have thought that credit for £4M of ideas would be relevant to some people. Granted, obviously not you but he certainly is not as obscure as many of the artists pages you have started yourself and not to mention the other valid referenced Zarjaz information removed from other Wikipedia pages. I will deal with those at some other time. Thanks anyway. Harleancarpenter (talk) 09:45, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

"I have said all along that you have something against Zarjaz" - and you need to stop doing so immediately as it's clearly untrue. If you want information on Zarjaz to be included, your best bet would be to create an article on him, citing reliable sources of course.--Michig (talk) 12:17, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh and another thing, the Record Collector article in question here (RC being the authority on this kind of information don't you think?) says that Zarjaz was "the" man behind SSS, not "a", as you have noted. Perhaps if you take things the way you put them Zarjaz might seem irrelevant. Why would you do that? When you say "clearly", I'm afraid I disagree and I would say Record Collector does also. Nevertheless, let's leave it there for now at least. Thanks again. Harleancarpenter (talk) 14:03, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

At the end of the day we need to present a balanced picture based on the sources we have. One source says he was the inspiration behind the band, all the others found so far don't mention him at all, so it wouldn't be right to concentrate on the one source that mentions him and discount the others. We really need to find more sources so that we can look for areas where multiple sources agree.--Michig (talk) 20:20, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I think you're absolutely right and I take back my previous comments. Harleancarpenter (talk) 00:14, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

References

Confirmed information was removed

I've just read through above section ("Deleting sourced information that is important to the true origins of this group") and was curious why even the little information, one sentence, that was agreed on after an extensive dispute hasn't survived since then.

Former Tronics member Zarjaz has also been identified as an influence. (Source: "The 80s Fight Back", Record Collector, July 1988, Issue 227, p. 6)

Digging through the edit history shows it was removed about a year later by an anon IP (like me) over three consecutive edits (1, 2, 3) without any reason given. I'm restoring the information. Please help watch so it isn't (accidentally, I'm sure) lost again.

--89.204.130.239 (talk) 18:19, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Potential source

http://fifteen.fibreculturejournal.org/fcj-102-sputnik-baby/

©Geni (talk) 23:44, 13 February 2016 (UTC)