Talk:764-HERO

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Old Talk

The following comes from the old page (764-Hero)

POV language like "critics agreed that 764-Hero sounded much more assured when fleshed-out" needs to be cleaned up. Rick K 09:23, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)

POV Problems?

I will try my own hand at solving this. It seems relativly simple.

Help this page!

This page contradicts itself because I know nothing about the band. The two articles disagreed about the order of their albums (for instanse, We're Solids. Does it exist? Is it number two? I have left such contradictions IN and the article is very rough, though I tried to integrate the first paragraph. If you are reading this and are a fan, please edit the page to make it accurate. Thanks! Avraham 22:43, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No Contradiction

We're Solids does exist and was released before Get Here and Stay. I currently see no contradiction because We're Solids is listed in the article as an EP while Get Here and Stay is listed as the band's second "full-length" album.

Attempt at clean-up

I tried to tidy up the page a bit, including minimizing 'weasel words' and restructuring article for clarity (hopefully). Colinclarksmith (talk) 01:12, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Small change

I changed the part at the beginning about 764-HERO being an "emo" band. They never identified themselves as such, and if you look at bands that share similar influences like Modest Mouse or Built to Spill, it's obvious those bands aren't "emo" bands. I changed it to "Indie rock." If you disagree, then I suggest we have a civilized discussion about it. Admittedly, I have never made a change on Wikipedia before, so if I went about this in the wrong way, please let me know. Favorable5 (talk) 10:32, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Over-reliance on Pitchfork, Quotes, and POV Problems

@CCS81: I would like to note that I have nothing against Pitchfork, though I do find that over-reliance of the source in articles does lead to some of the more flowery descriptions from Pitchfork articles leaking through to Wiki pages, which irks me. I tend to be touchy about lengthy Pitchfork quotes (such as the one in the lede) because they are op-eds. All because someone writes for an online music publication and is paid to review music, does not mean that their opinion should be included in Wiki pages. I certainly don't think that every good thing about a band or musician should be repeated on the Wiki page, nor do I think that ever criticism should. Other material, such as the quote about the indie rock deprivation tank is so cringe-y and unnecessary that I would advocate for its immediate removal. This kind of flowery language (that provides no context for the band), detracts from the article and amounts to WP:PUFF It appears that POV has been an issue on this page, judging from earlier entries dating back to 2005 and 2008. I think it is time to address them. KidAd (talk) 23:14, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am fine with trimming what you are calling "flowery" and "cringe-y" material from the article, so long as we make the article as good as possible. In the case of bands like this one from the late '90s and early '00s, this means drawing on what sources we have, which are typically record reviews. As long as we can do our best to summarize the career of the band on the basis of the sources that we have, I will be happy. If you can state more directly what is "flowery" and hence not "contextual," your point will be clearer. Likewise, you will need to state more directly what you find to be puffery before your point regarding that is clear. I find it hard to believe that WP:NPOV issues from 2005-2008 remain in the article, and I will need to read more specifics before understanding what it is that we are "addressing" regarding that. CCS81 (talk) 07:14, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

One more point is that I am not clear on what your distinction is between what you are calling "op-ed" pieces and reliable sources, and you will need to make explicit why such sources fail WP:RS. Otherwise they are perhaps "irksome" and "touchy" for you personally, but are otherwise the only sources upon which we have to draw. CCS81 (talk) 07:31, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@CCS81: I am perfectly happy with including material from reviews that provide context and history about the band, as that is the "meat" of the article. People who read the article likely care more about the years the band was active, the roster, and where the band is from. If this information is relayed in the reviews, I think we should certainly cite them. Still, extraneous information taken from reviews featuring the reviewer's opinion about an album should not be included in the article as fact. It is material such as this that should be cut:

Writing for loud paper, Antonio Girafez wrote that the album was "beautiful and unsettling."
More critically, Pitchfork's Rob Mitchum offered a lukewarm and sarcastic review of the guitar-driven album, describing it as "mediocre" and "boring" yet nonetheless yielding "a handful or two of peachy keen songs."
Writing for Pitchfork, Kearney described the album as "their most accomplished work to date," characterized by "crisp production" that made the band "sound richer than ever."
PopMatters critic Jeremy Schneyer called the album "the band's high water mark, beautifully marrying Atkins' relentless melancholy with his emerging pop sense." Schneyer added that "[l]ike the watercolor that graced its cover, the music was blurred, but warm and beautiful."
Spin critic Charles Aaron praised the remixes for "sneakily pulling out the rug so that it feels like you're floating in an indie rock deprivation tank."
Pitchfork critic Ryan Kearney calling them "the perfect soundtrack for their homeland."
AllMusic critic Tracey Frey praised the group's "passionate, heart-wrenching lyrics combined with an understated [...] sound." KidAd (talk) 19:06, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am fine with improving the copy in the article, but you should rethink your policy of including only "the years the band was active, the roster, and where the band is from." Please have a look at some featured articles and good articles on musical groups and notice that it is common in featured and good articles to include a sentence or two regarding critical reception of albums, not merely to state that they were released at a certain time. Relatedly, you seem to be confused regarding the distinction between "opinion" and "fact". The only "fact" being asserted when quoting reviewers in these quotes is that a reviewer said what follows, not that the reviewer's assertion captures some "objective truth" (whatever that might mean) about the musical group. In other words, quoting reviewer "opinions" is not a violation of WP:NPOV, it is instead an engagement with the best sources that we have on the subject. And it most certainly is a "fact" that a reviewer said what they did. If you can show that reviews should not be quoted in good articles with respect to other articles, you might have a case; but as is, you have only shown that you don't like Pitchfork, not that good articles should not include engagement with the best sources available. CCS81 (talk) 23:34, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've made it pretty clear that I have no problem with Pitchfork, but the over-reliance of Pitchfork quotes smattered throughout the article. We obviously have a difference of opinion on this, so I will interject a suggestion. If you take a look at the Modest Mouse article, for example, you will notice that a pitchfork score is used to highlight the band's critical reception, because it is a particularly good score (9.8). The page does not, however, include a quote from the review itself. If we used this technique, I think we would solve some of the page's problems. I can see from your recent edit that you've made significant fixes in the areas we've been discussing. Thank you. KidAd (talk) 01:51, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is important not to put too much stock in the structure of the Modest Mouse article, since it is not a featured or good article. (In fact, sections like this one are a complete mess and exhibit a lot of what makes some Wikipedia articles bad, but I digress.) I am however fine with improving the copy of the article, so long as we are not removing sources and information, and hence weakening the article. Your most recent trim to the lead is a fine example of this. But before you do any more editing, please look at some good articles on musical groups and observe how reviewer comments are integrated into the copy. A few examples from a cursory scan are Temple of the Dog, Van Morrison, Ramones. All of these articles integrate reviewer quotes to give context to the description of the album, not simply the date an album was released. Surely it is important for article readers to know something about the contents of the record, not merely its date of release, and the reviews are the best sources we have for describing these contents. And to do this, we need to be looking to good articles for precedent, not messy articles like that for Modest Mouse. CCS81 (talk) 02:24, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]