Talk:Radiohead/Archive 6

This is an archive of past discussions about Radiohead. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

one or two more samples?

I was thinking this article could be rounded off nicely with one or two more music samples. What I have in mind is something from Hail to the Thief that shows the kind of balance achieved between all their previous influences and efforts, combining guitars with electronica and all that. Then later on in the article, I think an Amnesiac sample in which the band members have changed roles musically would add significantly there. I've got all the Radiohead discs around here somewhere, so I can chop up the samples anytime... I just wanted some input on what you guys reckon would be the best tracks to use. - Phorque (talk) 15:04, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I think unfortunately there are enough samples already, and I say this only because some seem to feel there are more than enough and want to cut the ones we have. I think every existing sample can be more than justified as providing necessary context for the prose of the article, and reasons for the specific choices are given in edits where someone has attempted to remove samples. However, adding another may be pushing it. But I've always wished for a brief sample contrasting a few seconds of the studio version of "Like Spinning Plates" (which after all, is from Amnesiac) and the live version from the I Might Be Wrong album, where the song was strikingly different- piano replacing electronics and backward vocals. One aspect given short shrift in this article, at least since the lines were removed from the intro, is Radiohead's live performances. One might think them an entirely studio-based band but unlike say the late Beatles, they didn't stop playing live when they abandoned their more pop style, but reinvented their songs live instead. And apparently they also make a lot of their money this way.

It could be interesting for readers who most likely have never heard the band live to see an example of how they tend to adapt their "experimental" songs for concerts. 172.163.213.199 (talk) 02:18, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Clearly whoever is wanting samples cut from the article is going overboard. I've battled with this in the past with FAs for musicians/bands and I'm more than willing to stand up for this article having 4-5 samples. Radiohead's music is incredibly diverse and has seen unprecedented growth and progression, as illustrated by the prose of the article. Illustrating that with samples adds to the article significantly. Provided samples conform to fair use standards and are justifiably placed in a box alongside relevant discussion, there can be as many as are necessary. Hecklers will always argue that there's "too much" fair use in a band's article, but how in the hell do you illustrate the focus of their notability (their music) without some fair use? There simply isn't another free way to illustrate a popular modern band's music. Know what I mean? - Phorque (talk) 04:55, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there's a problem, as long as each sample illustrates a specific, important point. My preferred complete list of samples would be:

"Creep": Lots of discussion in text. Important illustration of very early style, probably the band's most famous song (unfortunately).
A different sample of "Paranoid Android", showing the overlap between two movements: It would illustrate the complex melodies of the "art rock" phase and abrasive guitar riffs from their alt. rock phase (replacing the purpose of the "Just" sample)
"Everything in its right place": As used currently
"Nude": A good example of the more recent "blended" sound of their music.

This way, we'd illustrate all the major points of the band's varied style, by adding only one extra sample. Any other suggestions? Papa November (talk) 13:24, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

It is odd that there's no sample for "Creep". Given past band FAs, it's been determined that one-clip per album is fine, but if you can summarize relevant points in far fewer (as applied to this article we'd end up with seven clips), all the better. Also, consider inserting a clip in the Musical style section instead of the relevant album section in order to illustrate certain musical traits Radiohead always uses. Note how the soundclip for "Cherub Rock" is used in The Smashing Pumpkins article to illustrate more than one stylistic point. WesleyDodds (talk) 05:47, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I think a sample of Creep perhaps featuring those "sabotage" scrapes before the chorus would be an absolute must for the article. Otherwise, I thought that I Might Be Wrong would be a better illustration of the blended style of guitar rock and electronica. After that I'm sure some track from Hail to the Thief or In Rainbows will work nicely in the musical discussion section. One problem is that we need someone with a high quality source (ie. hard copy) of In Rainbows to make a lower quality sample from. - Phorque (talk) 11:00, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest a sample of the live vs. studio version of Like Spinning Plates for the musical style section- as it could illustrates a general point about the band. About "Creep," I think in the case of such a famous song, there might be legitimate concerns that including a sample of it is unnecessary because readers of this article are likely to be familiar with it already and thus it doesn't really illustrate anything except include a questionable excerpt of a very popular piece of copyrighted material, whereas other samples really provide illustrations and context that one might not already have.

There should probably be a sample of "Creep" in Wikipedia- in the Pablo Honey and Creep articles. However, I feel it's not particularly necessary to improve this article. "Creep" is a famous song in itself- but there's no moment in it, even the guitar crunch, that clearly shows something other samples in this article don't show. The ways in which "Creep" was a template for Radiohead's future are found more in the entire structure of that song than one moment, and mostly its influence was commercial, not musical. There is no musical justification to include the sample, basically- it would be there for identification purposes for those (few?) readers who were unaware of "Creep," because it's their most famous song.

"High and Dry" on the other hand, also highly commercial, seems to have been more influential on the music scene (Coldplay etc) and comes from the same era as "Creep." This is why there are two samples from The Bends- the text makes clear that the recording of "High and Dry" dates from Pablo Honey, thus representing early Radiohead in general. "Just" shows the rock side which "Creep" would have shown- though the sample of "Just" is taken from a really bad place, imo. It seems the samples don't always illustrate the accompanying text as well as they could if taken from other parts of the song (or vice versa). 172.163.213.199 (talk) 15:34, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, for the record I did not realize the samples had been changed. My comment was referring to the version where the 8 samples were: High and Dry, Just, Paranoid Android, No Surprises, Everything in Its Right Place, Life in a Glasshouse, There There and Nude. High and Dry, No Surprises, Life in a Glasshouse and There There samples seem to be removed after a long stable version. So I'd recommend reinstating one or more of those, as the captions illustrated points not otherwise shown by the samples (especially Life in a Glasshouse) rather than adding Creep, which might not particularly illustrate anything except its own existing fame as a song- making it a shaky fair use rationale possibly.

This band doesn't have so many albums yet- one sample to represent both Kid A and Amnesiac together is probably not enough, given the amount of attention devoted to them in this article (and otherwise) and the range of styles found there. For instance, we even mention jazz influence in the lead, but there is no sample to illustrate it. We also mention Hail to the Thief in the lead, yet there's no sample to illustrate its "blend of styles" (Nude illustrates the point too, possibly better- but Nude isn't a "rock song" and There There is). With the band's discography still pretty manageable, enough that each of their albums can receive a brief summary in the lead, the musical changes described should also be represented in the samples as much as possible.

And right now for instance one would get the idea Radiohead went from thrashy rock (Just) to more complex thrashy rock (Paranoid Android) to purely electronic keyboard tunes (Everything) to "quiet ballads." Even if we were limited to four samples and can't add back Life in a Glasshouse or There There, I think a more accurate impression could be conveyed, by using the combination of either Just/No Surprises or High and Dry/Paranoid Android for the early era, if not both (to show they did both rock songs and ballads then, and also songs that included both loud and quiet sections, rather than only introducing softer songs later in their career). 172.163.213.199 (talk) 16:00, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

<- That's a very detailed reply... I'm a little overwhelmed! Could you summarise with a list of which samples you would like to appear in the album? Also, I don't think it's fair to assume that "Creep" is famous enough for everyone to have heard it already. Wikipedia is for people of all ages and all cultures. I doubt that the song is very famous outside Europe and North America. Papa November (talk) 16:46, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Not only has not every heard "Creep", but I'd argue for the inclusion of "Creep" because it's so notable. It's important enough to the group's history that it deserves commentary. WesleyDodds (talk) 01:26, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, now that "Creep" is in, why is "Just" gone? Atlantik says "purpose is served by the creep sample"... but it was illustrating musical progression and more complex guitar work on The Bends; so how does "Creep" serve that purpose? I'm lost... - Phorque (talk) 00:48, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I've added "The National Anthem", which should be a good representative of Radiohead's jazz era. As for my removal of "Just", that was my mistake; I meant to say "Paranoid Android", which by consensus seemed to illustrate the progression and guitar work you were talking about. Atlantik (talk) 16:41, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, fair enough, but it still doesn't serve to show progression between the two early albums. Having two samples from Kid A also seems like a bad idea, considering that "The National Anthem" is there to illustrate jazz influences when "These influences would be more prominent on Amnesiac" from which we have no samples. I strongly feel that one sample from each album illustrating something from the text is the way to go. Here's a rough draft of what I think would be a good list:

Pablo Honey - "Creep": discussed in text, breakthrough hit for the band, good illustration of early sound Done
The Bends - "Fake Plastic Trees": having an acoustic number with some of the ethereal atmosphere mentioned in the text (which was also a minor hit) will help show off another side of Radiohead's sound not really seen in any of the other samples, especially seeing as later albums' discussions are dominated by talk of electronica and jazz.
OK Computer - "Paranoid Android": shows complex guitar work Done (but should probably have bitrate reduced from 196kbps to ~64kbps or ogg quality = 0)
Kid A - "Everything in It's Right Place": shows off the big change in sound nicely as it is Done
Amnesiac - ~~"Life in a Glass House"~~: "Pyramid Song" Done
Hail to the Thief - "2 + 2 = 5": as discussed in the text, this song combines guitar rock with electronic sounds. Done
In Rainbows - "Nude": can stay as it is!

I know this still needs lots of debate, and maybe it's safer to use fewer samples, but as Wesley pointed out: one sample per album is still in line with fair use. There's just lots to be said about Radiohead's catalogue! - Phorque (talk) 14:40, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that sounds fine as long as the fair use rationales are well-written. If we're including 7 samples, it's not enough to simply say something like "this sample is being used to illustrate the style of Radiohead's music". We need to be much more specific: what aspect of the band's style are we showing? Why do we need it in addition to other samples? etc… Papa November (talk) 15:04, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the samples proposed above, except for Life in a Glass House, that song does indeed show their Jazz influence but is the least typical song on Amnesiac. It is a complete outlier in their music if you know what I mean. I would propose Dollars & Cents or Pyramid Song. These songs have in my ears a clear Jazz influence and are more typical for Amnesiac/Radiohead. PS sounds Jazzier than D&C (especially the drums)IMHO but PS has a chord progression similiar to Everything In Its Right Place, and that might be a problem (we don't want to give the impression that Radiohead uses that chord progression for 2/7 of their songs). Merijn2 (talk) 13:40, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion with regard to Pyramid Song, it fits in nicely now. I'm working through these samples and am just gonna decide on a Bends sample once I can think up some suitable commentary. Perhaps we don't need "Nude" so much anymore, because it wouldn't serve to say much more than the "2 + 2 = 5" sample already does. - Phorque (talk) 16:30, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, looking closer, I don't know if there's enough musical commentary on The Bends to provide rationale for a sample. I still feel compelled to have some kind of media illustration for the importance of that album in their history though. Perhaps a screenshot from the "Just" or "Street Spirit" music videos would fit in better to demonstrate their rising profile. - Phorque (talk) 16:43, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Non-free image

We now only have two non-free images left in the article (Image:Jonnyelectronic.jpg and Image:RHbear.svg), and some work has been done to improve their quality. With the former, I'm not entirely sure what its purpose is. Also, the image description page is rather brief.

What is the image actually showing that could not be done with a free image? At the moment, the fair use rationale is inadequate, as it is possible to illustrate (quoted) "both a bandmember in live performance and the band's approach to live performance" with a free image.

If it's to illustrate Jonny Greeenwood playing a synthesiser in concert, then it should be replaced with something like this, this or this.
If it's for some other specific point, the fair use rationale needs to be updated.

Personally, I'd prefer to get rid of it. I think we'll have trouble justifying the amount of non-free media in the article at FA review anyway and the image isn't particularly good quality compared with the free images listed above. Papa November (talk) 14:49, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Agree that the Jonny image should be removed as it does not directly pertain to the section (the bear would fit better under that Kid A section) and there are already 2 other free depictions of him in the article. –Pomte 15:01, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I like the third image you linked to, but the current nonfree image is the only one from the time frame under discussion (1999-2001). If it were deleted, well, there would be no such representative image, and we would have too many images from the current era. Atlantik (talk) 21:24, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, the free images are great, but what do they show other than a band member playing live? It's better for an image to relevant than to be free. - Phorque (talk) 00:52, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, but as non-free images must be irreplaceable by a free equivalent, this point is enough to stop the article being featured! If it is showing something truly irreplaceable, then we need to update the fair use rationale to say why this is the case. I'm not sure I can think of a good enough justification. Papa November (talk) 15:31, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Image has been replaced in article with one of the free ones. The old one is up for deletion as it is now orphaned. Please see the notice below. I've also temporarily removed the sample of "Nude" as there isn't a fair use rationale for this article yet. It can come back when we've sorted it out. Papa November (talk) 18:49, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

regarding the bear logo's size

It's not as "enormous" as it looks. It measures 159 × 160 pixels. What it is, is very visually striking, the hallmark of a well-designed and effective logo. An image of this size is certainly much lower resolution than would usually be used for commercial printing/reproduction. That's my view, because scaling it to 100px makes the caption look unnecessarily cramped. Papa November said he was gonna work on it to neaten up the SVG which got distorted from the PNG version, so he can scale it down if we're gonna play it safe, but I feel there's rationale enough for it to stay at the size it is. - Phorque (talk) 01:04, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

It's best not to specify sizes of thumbnails, so we avoid overriding user preferences: an image looking too big on our own monitor isn't enough justification for fixing the size. Non-free SVG images should not include more detail than necessary for rendering at 300-400 px. The bear image however is very simple, and it should be OK to use it as long as:

We do not specify a display size above 300-400 px (it's easiest if we just leave it to the user preferences)
It renders accurately at low resolution (I'll fix this as soon as I can - I'm staying at my parents' IT graveyard!)

Papa November (talk) 17:31, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Jonnyelectronic.jpg)

⚠

Thanks for uploading Image:Jonnyelectronic.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Papa November (talk) 18:49, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Ready?

I think it might be worth another go at getting featured. I can't see anything else that obviously needs work. What does everyone think? Papa November (talk) 10:42, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I think at this stage any criticism thrown at us in FAC should be easily remedied. Oh, and don't forget about fixing that bear logo SVG. - Phorque (talk) 12:02, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I want to perform another copyedit before this article is submitted to FAC again. Give me a few days. WesleyDodds (talk) 12:24, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I think the logo's fixed now (Inkscape on a Pentium II isn't fun!). Does it look OK to everyone else? Papa November (talk) 15:14, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

It's still looks the slightest bit off to me, but barely detectable. Should be fine. - Phorque (talk) 16:01, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll do some more fine-tuning when I get back to a decent computer - I don't think it should be enough of a problem to stop us getting FA in the meantime! Papa November (talk) 17:38, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I think the article's pretty good at this stage; it has a good shot at passing FA for once. Atlantik (talk) 16:26, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

The last sentence of "Legacy" should be a separate paragraph. It is distinct from the preceding topic of bands appropriating Radiohead's sound. Perhaps a second sentence could be added so it isn't just a one-sentence paragraph. Mewikiman —Preceding comment was added at 22:42, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Legacy section

Seeing as Mewikiman has raised concerns about the Legacy section...

Here's a source where Bloc Party's frontman says he's "inspired" by Radiohead.
As for other acts covering Radiohead, why not just mention which songs they cover and where? Just one from each genre would effectively convey the far-reaching influence of Radiohead. (eg. Jazz pianist Brad Mehldau covers "Paranoid Android" on his album Largo.)
Another thing we might improve on is mentioning critics' tendency to compare bands to Radiohead. This Dillinger Escape Plan review says "If DEP aren't careful and continue down this innovative path, they could easily be labeled the Radiohead of metalcore." Citing two or three specific examples is more helpful than "In the late 1990s and early 2000s, many critics compared the sound of contemporary bands to that of Radiohead." I've also read that Deftones get labeled as "The Radiohead of metal" from time to time, but I can't find a decent publication to cite.

- Phorque (talk) 08:48, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey seriously, can anyone tell me what songs the bands mentioned in the article have covered? I can't find any evidence to support Slipknot covering a Radiohead track. :/ - Phorque (talk) 16:17, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Peerreviewer output: recommendations for WP compliance

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question. *Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.^[?]

*Per Wikipedia:What is a featured article?, Images should have concise captions.^[?] *Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, if January 15, 2006 appeared in the article, link it as January 15, 2006.^[?]

This article may need to undergo summary style, where a series of appropriate subpages are used. For example, if the article is United States, then an appropriate subpage would be History of the United States, such that a summary of the subpage exists on the mother article, while the subpage goes into more detail.^[?]

*Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)

- Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “~~All~~ pigs are pink, so we thought of ~~a number of~~ ways to turn them green.”

*The script has spotted the following contractions: Don't, if these are outside of quotations, they should be expanded. *Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.^[?] You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Wim van Dorst (talk) 20:31, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Popularity

A user has commented that the statement "Radiohead's popularity in the United Kingdom increased with the release of their second album, The Bends (1995)." in the lead section needs citation. Can anyone back this up with sales data? Papa November (talk) 11:28, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

This isn't the kind of statement which needs to be backed up with numbers; it's a comment on their popularity, not album sales, and the two are not strictly the same thing. It should either be sourced to a RS which actually says "Radiohead became more popular" or should be rewritten to describe the increase in sales without passing commentary on it. Chris Cunningham (talk) 11:35, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Some final things

I didn't get a chance to reply before the FAC closed (congrats on the Featured Article status, by the way), but I wanted to point out that the "Style and influences" sections focuses an awful lot on traits that have changed, but little to none at all at elements common throughout the band's history. I see no mention of Thom Yorke's vocals (which are quite recognizable and oft-commented upon), or of the band's lyrics(common themes seem to be alienation and technology). Please try to tackle this sort of information in the section. WesleyDodds (talk) 07:12, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Recent activities (post In Rainbows)

We need some info about the recent webcasts they've done, the big one being "Scotch Mist" on New Year's Eve. We got new versions of 9 of the songs on In Rainbows and a video for Nude, free for anyone to watch on the internet and promoted by TBD Records through YouTube. I think that's notable enough, but correct me if needs be.

There was also the (free!) gig at 93 Feet East. The whole album was played, plus encores, and it received quite a bit of press attention.

I'd do all this myself, but I'm not totally confident on sourcing/etc, and seeing as this page only just got featured I don't want to mess it up immediately. The above stuff seems quite noteworthy to me though. Phyte (talk) 00:15, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that most of these events are quite notable, but they would be much better placed on the In Rainbows page; perhaps a "Promotion" section could be created there, including such information? Nevertheless, it would probably be better to discuss this on the In Rainbows talk page, as that article is missing those facts. Atlantik (talk) 00:37, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I think that putting 93 Feet East on the In Rainbows page would be a very bad idea, since they played older tracks as well, such as The Bends and The National Anthem. You can watch videos of these extra songs on Youtube as proof. --RaphaelBriand (talk) 22:57, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Controversy

Honestly, look at all the well written articles on amazing bands on wikipedia, none of their articles sum their their entire career in their intro. Radiohumor (talk) 05:17, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes they do. –Pomte 05:22, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

fine then Radiohumor (talk) 02:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

They weren't, they wanted to expand like radiohead. not necessarily being directly influenced by them. Metallica could say they they wanted to expand like how the beatles did, does not mean their new album will be influenced BY the beatles. Sorry, try again. Radiohumor (talk) 02:43, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Remind me why we should not have their sales and their "one of greatest band" reference in RS 100 list in the intro? Honestly every band has it, it's being included. Radiohumor (talk) 03:27, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

What? So, your plan basically was to ask a question, wait 5 minutes, then go ahead and make the edit? I really think that is inappropriate behavior. I have reverted your edit. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 03:35, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Why have you reverted my edit? Look at every notable band in history that has a wikipedia article, they talk about their sales or give some sort of list. THe beatles, pink floyd, led zeppelin, you name it. Radiohumor (talk) 05:26, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem with sales being in the intro, since that's an objective measure covering most of their career. The RS list though is just one magazine's rankings, and a lot of big name magazines do it. The intro should be restricted to general statements about their acclaim/impact/influence, and then the reader can read on to find specific examples. And I'm not saying this just because they're #73, it just doesn't seem essential enough to their status as a band. –Pomte 07:24, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

But how so? I'm pretty sure Led Zeppelin (they have more talent in their fingers then all of radioehad combined, and in terms of significance and notbality, they are astronomically more important and more respected then radiohead will ever hope to be) has a reference from VH1. So why not a small band like Radiohead? Radiohumor (talk) 19:56, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

What does your opinion that Led Zeppelin are better than Radiohead have to do with anything? Of what possible significance or relevance is that?! ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 22:13, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

"So why not a small band like Radiohead?" Your opinion of the band aside, this is an absolutely ridiculous statement and speaks of your ignorance on the subject. You'll notice that this is a featured article, whereas two of the three that you mentioned are not. So instead of trying to pattern this one after the others, perhaps you ought to think of doing the reverse. Cheers, faithless (^speak) 22:23, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

lol what? Sorry but Radiohead IS some no-name, non-notable, nobody cares about, small band when compared to Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd, The Beatles, etc. Just because it was on the main page of Wikipedia does not mean a damn thing. Now my point remains, bands like the ones I mentioned are prodigiously more notable and relevant than radiohead can ever dream to be, yet they at least have their sales in their intro. So Radiohead's sales will be in the intro as well.

Let's also not forgot that only like 4 or 5 bands have openly said they were influenced by Radiohead, and thousands of said they were influenced by Led Zeppelin, and Zeppelin's intro references a number on a list. So like the Rolling Stone reference will also be included as well. Radiohumor (talk) 22:33, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

That's absolutely ridiculous. Regardless, I'm not saying that Radiohead is on the level of the Beatles; they're not. But that's irrelevant, because we're talking about the quality of the article, and this article is unquestionably better than the article for the Beatles. That doesn't mean Radiohead is a better band. The Beatles are my favorite band, but this is a much better article. Also, please check your opinion at the door when editing Wikipedia. faithless (^speak) 22:40, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Indeed and quite so! Thank you, Faithless. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 22:45, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

How is it ridiculous? Anybody who has the slightest shred of knowledge on music will realize that radiohead's relevance does not hold a candle to Zeppelin, or pink floyd, or and unarguably the beatles.

Anyway you're right, let's not talk about the band's notablity and talk about the band's article, just their pure articles. Many, and I mean MANY notable bands on wikipedia include their sales or a quote, or SOMETHING that discusses their relevance, NOT just "the big 3" that I mentioned earlier, I assume all those articles are rubbish as well, right? Look i'm doing you a favor, i'm making your pitiful band look good with the album sales and the rollng stone reference. Radiohumor (talk) 22:53, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

For the last time, watch the attitude. Radiohead are not "my" band, and as the biggest band in the world over the last fifteen years, they're hardly pitiful. I don't know what you have against them, nor do I care. If you want to contribute constructively, please do so. But no one cares what your musical tastes are, so stop using this page as a forum to espouse your hatred of this band Regardless of what you think of Radiohead, this article is very well written, which is why it is a featured article. So far all you've done is suggest that it be changed to mimic inferior articles, without providing any rationale. faithless (^speak) 23:08, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Radiohumor, you have been asked and asked, both here and on your talk page, to adjust your tone and to be civil. Now, I am telling you for the last time. A great many people have cooperated on making this a better article, and they did so without rancor until your arrival. No one "owns" this article, and it matters not one jot whether Faithless, Pomte, Atlantik, or myself are Radiohead fans or not. The fact that you do not seem to like them is totally beside the point. I fail to understand why you came to this article when your sole intention seems to be to stir up trouble. The concensus seems to be for that information to be left out. Please respect that. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 23:25, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Dispute resolution

I would be upset to see this degenerate into an edit war. I will remain uninvolved in this dispute, and would prefer to see this resolved through polite discussion in this section. There appears to be a clear consensus in the section above that sales figures and the Rolling Stone greatest bands of all time list rating should not appear in the lead section. If you wish to add this information back in, please discuss it here first. If things become too hot, I may consider fully protecting the article for a short while to let things cool down while the discussion takes place. Papa November (talk) 00:24, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay fine let's not talk about Floyd, Zeppelin, or the beatles. Click this link - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_articles#Music generally all the bands that are in that list either talks about their album sales, or use some reference from a magazine or something to persuade the reader into thinking they are good; or they have both in their intro. So why not Radiohead? I'm adding my edit back in untill you can give me a proper reason why Radiohumor (talk) 04:28, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Because we are an encyclopedia and therefore neutral. We're not trying to convince anyone of anything, we're just reporting the facts. faithless (^speak) 05:03, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Right, and the info that I want in the intro are facts. It shows the band's notabliity too right in the intro. Again, the featered articles that I showed you has them, Radiohead will too. Radiohumor (talk) 05:58, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Radiohumor - I know you're trying to help, but I'm afraid you need to change your approach. If there is any disagreement about content, you need to discuss it, build consensus and then abide by the decision. Please read WP:DR for more information about how to deal with this. You may want to ask for a third opinion. Papa November (talk) 09:44, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, please could you be more specific about which featured articles you are talking about in the Music section? Papa November (talk) 09:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay I honestly don't want to name all the bands on there. Seriously it's not that hard to find at all, just click on the bands in that section and they all have sales or a reference from a list or something. Radiohead WILL have this. Radiohumor (talk) 20:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Please familiarize yourself with this policy. Continuously inserting information against consensus is considered vandalism, and may lead to your being blocked. faithless (^speak) 22:19, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

But the general cnsensus is flat out wrong. There is some aspects in religion that's questionable, but hey since a lot of people believe in it..THen it's right, right?

Give me five reasons why that info should not be in there buddy. Like I said earlier every band that's been featured on wikipedia has the sales and/or a reference from a list or something. Radiohumor (talk) 22:28, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I think that it's not a bad idea to include album sales in the intro; it is a pretty legitimate piece of information that would do nothing to detract from the article. This would be a good source, yet I do have a concern that it would be hard to somehow assimilate the mention of their sales. Atlantik (talk) 23:49, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I have no objection to information's inclusion, I only object to the way Radiohumor has gone about editing. Consensus is what drives Wikipedia, not your opinion. No one has to "give you five reasons," one will suffice: consensus. And your assertion is incorrect; this is a featured article, and doesn't include that information. I suggest you modify your attitude; if you're going to contribute constructively, great. If you're going to edit war, whine and continue to act uncivilly and childishly, take it somewhere else. faithless (^speak) 01:52, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay so if nobody has a problem I'm putting it back in then. Radiohumor (talk) 01:05, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Did you bother to read the paragraph by Faithless that immediately preceded your comment? The objection has never been to the content itself (it seems the majority of people believe it would be valuable, which means we are approaching a consensus) but to the manner with which you have comported yourself both in the article and here on this talk page. You still fail to recognize, much less to address, the error of your ways. I must agree with Faithless when he says if you do not intend to be constructive, please go elsewhere. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 02:07, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Here's the thing though. you can't just blank out the text because you dont' like how it's worded. If you'd like to change how it's worded in the intro then do so. I can't just say I don't like how the world war 2 article is worded and blank out the page. So don't bother to delete my text, just change the words. Radiohumor (talk) 04:35, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

This is very, very, funny. Just for the record, The Beatles will never be as big as Beethoven, or even Jesus. Both Jesus and Beethoven have been around longer, and so there have been quite a few more generations exposed to their work. Upstarts! Sigma-6 (talk) 18:41, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay Bloc Party was not influenced by radiohead's music

the way they word the aticle makes it sound like they were influenced by Kid A's sound or something. When in actuality all they claimed to do was wanted to be like radiohead in the fact that they changed their sound. I'm taking the bloc party thing out. Radiohumor (talk) 04:42, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, the irony...

you can't just blank out the text because you dont' like how it's worded. If you'd like to change how it's worded in the intro then do so.

faithless (^speak) 06:20, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Irony, indeed... ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 05:29, 31 January 2008 (UTC)