This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism articles
This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Metal, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of heavy metal music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MetalWikipedia:WikiProject MetalTemplate:WikiProject MetalHeavy Metal articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rock music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Rock music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Rock musicWikipedia:WikiProject Rock musicTemplate:WikiProject Rock musicRock music articles
This article section sounded to me suspiciously like a flyleaf book description, so I looked at the book. Sure enough, much of the text is taken from the flyleaf with a word changed here and there. The original contributer of this article has the user name duttongotham and the book is published by Gotham Books. I'm no investigative genius, but I believe the neutrality of this article is compromised. For sure, I am removing "the last rock supergroup" and "the biggest rock star of his generation" as these statements are in no way objective or supportable. I believe the article needs a rewrite. poncirus (talk)173.66.14.55 (talk) 16:10, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do we have a reliable source that verifies that these are identified factual errors in the book? Note that we cannot, as Wikipedia editors, find info in the book and then find another contradictory source and then call that an "error"--that's what Wikipedia calls original research, and is not allowed. If we don't have such a source, the whole section should be removed. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:15, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the whole section. I know that this will seem odd to some people, but unless we have a reliable source that lists the "errors", we can't identify them ourselves. If sources are found, the section can easily be re-addded. Heck, it would be good even if we just had a quote that said "The book has been criticized for having many errors"--that would be sufficient even without listing all of them, so long as we can properly verify it. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:19, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
