This article is within the scope of WikiProject Albums, an attempt at building a useful resource on recordings from a variety of genres. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.AlbumsWikipedia:WikiProject AlbumsTemplate:WikiProject AlbumsAlbum articles
@Atsme please explain to me what you mean by "unverifiable". I'm looking at the PopMatters page again and the Orchard is right there in front of my eyes. What isn't verifiable about that? Is it to do with them not being listed in other sources? That could be due to the fact that the Orchard typically only provides distribution and Rad Cult is the more central record label to the album's existence so other sources don't mention it. I can't confirm that because it's not in the sources but that's also not good reason to remove a claim taken directly from a reliable source. And where does this Facebook link come from? I've never seen that before, none of the sources in the article link to it, and the "discussion" is a single post linking a YouTube video that doesn't say the name of either the Orchard or Rad Cult. None of your edit makes any sense to me. QuietHere (talk) 17:47, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And in case it comes up, I would like to link this discussion about record labels only involved in marketing/distribution still getting listed in album articles to note that that's not a reason to not list the Orchard here. QuietHere (talk) 17:50, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but that is a fake graphic. I did the research and The Orchard never released that album. You are not seeing anything in text in that article - it is in the graphic only, and obviously put there to make that album seem more notable. PopMatters is not a RS, and I cannot believe the arguments I've been reading. This is exactly why it is an unreliable source. I cannot believe that you are accepting that graphic as verification that it was released by The Orchard. Common sense and everything else on the internet except that fake graphic at PopMatters tells us Cult Rad released that album. If you can verify for certain that The Orchard released that album, I will apologize to you. Atsme💬📧17:57, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
First off, what graphic? I'm talking about the text that appears right below the album art on the righthand side of the article. And information appearing in an image versus text doesn't make it less reliable anyway.
Secondly, you've been blatantly ignoring people telling you that PM is reliable and you've yet to explain why you disagree/everyone else is wrong.
Thirdly, here is two blog posts from the Orchard (found via their Facebook page) as pretty solid evidence they did release the album because why else would they post about it?
Fourth, "put there to make that album seem more notable" is such a strange allegation. Artists would gain nothing by lying about the involvement of another record label (Especially since the Orchard isn't even a huge name in the industry), and publications would gain even less by supporting that pointless lie. These are the kinds of arguments that make WP:AGF much harder than it should be on this site. QuietHere (talk) 19:51, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What do you think album art is if not a graphic? Seriously, pointing to a FB page that leads to the Daily Rind Blog, which is paid promotion/marketing, is not helping your case. If this is all you can bring to the table as a RS for inclusion in an encyclopedia that removed Eagles & White Snake tours on Timothy Drury, then perhaps you should take my training course at WP:NPPSCHOOL. The Daily Rind is a blog post, and they do marketing & distribution for a fee. You just solidifying my position. I am guilty of blatantly ignoring misinformation about sources believed to be reliable when they are not – I highly recommend that you study WP:RS. Admittedly, I am not well-versed in this kind of music, but I do know a RS when I see one, and you still have not verified that anyone else is on the Exorcise Tape label but Rad Cult. However, if you think FB is a RS, then look for yourself on Demon Queen's FB page and you will see in the Intro: "Exorcise Tape" Full Length album out August 6 2013 on Rad Cult. I hope we are done here. Atsme💬📧20:35, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Again, the blog is run by the Orchard themselves. On the current homepage at the bottom it says "The Daily Rind is a music industry blog featuring insights and resources provided by leading music distributor, The Orchard." That's the label directly promoting the release. And it's not like I'm planning on adding it to the article, obviously it's not a reliable source but that doesn't make the evidence it provides illegitimate in the course of a talk page discussion.
And it's not all I brought to the table because I brought the PopMatters page. And since that's still not enough for you, here's Amazon as well.
And I've said before and I'll say it again: if you're so convinced that PopMatters isn't reliable then you need to take that up at WT:ALBUMS or else we're all gonna keep using it just the same as we have been. "I do know a RS when I see one" isn't nearly as convincing as you think it is. Try laying out your evidence instead of just repeating a claim ad nauseam expecting we'll all just give up and agree with you all of a sudden.
The album art is an image, yes, but the text below it is text. You can't call that a graphic and expect me to know what you mean.
That Timothy Drury edit is hardly comparable, it was an unwieldy list of indiscriminate info with only two items sourced, and both sources are dead links. And I don't even know who Timothy Drury is so it's not that impressive an example to me (Though I do know Eagles and Whitesnake for what it's worth).
If PopMatters indicates that the album was released on "2013-08-06" by "Rad Cult / The Orchard", then that's what we go with unless a more authoritative source says otherwise. Binksternet (talk) 21:58, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, this detail is virtually inconsequential to notability, which appears to be your only real concern on the subject, so it's not really that big of a deal. Sergecross73msg me22:20, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Binks, Rad Cult doesn't say it, and The Orchard doesn't say it. Why believe PoPMatters? Verifiability is not based on assumptions. j/s Atsme💬📧22:27, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Gotta be honest, it seriously concerns me that you would ping someone for their expertise and then immediately question their response when it's in disagreement with you. And let me make it clear again, you're the only person involved in this who has claimed PopMatters is unreliable, a claim you continue to make despite a clear consensus disagreeing with you. Have you considered the implications of the stances you're taking? 'Cause I don't like the look of 'em. QuietHere (talk) 22:46, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and while we're here I just remembered that I also need to ask you about the FanPOV tag you added. Is there anything specific that you think needs fixing in the article that that's there for or did you just throw it on with the bunch? If not, I'm gonna remove the tag per WP:DRIVEBY. QuietHere (talk) 22:49, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No need, I've removed it and the unreliable sources tag. If Atsme can actually muster a reason as to why PopMatters is an unreliable source I'd be happy to revert that half of the removal, but I've seen no substantial criticism on this page to justify the FanPOV tag. Substantial criticism of PopMatters would be proving it lacks editorial oversight, not that it accepts pitches from freelancers to write for the site, as that is standard practice among many reliable outlets. For those readers unfamiliar with how modern digital press can function, freelancing is extremely common, and in outlets of good standing freelancers are subject to the same editorial rigor that staff writers are. The use of freelance reviewers or writers is not disqualifying to a sources' reliability unless those freelancers do not receive editorial oversight (See: the Forbes Contributor program). Parabolist (talk) 09:35, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
