---

Dan56, once again you are edit warring with me and once again its about stuffing the articles about music that you don't like with ridiculous negative reviews from low-quality sources. I know what you are up to, and you will be topic banned for WP:POV pushing if you continue. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:02, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ritchie333, JG66, your fellow collaborator is being quite hostile towards me, with silly accusations and evasive edit summaries. He removed revscores from The A.V. Club and Paste, calling the sources "garbage". When I [ politely asked why, twice ([1], [2]) and brought up the fact that both are listed as recommended sources at WP:ALBUMS/SOURCE, he resorted to the rash response above and this inadequate edit summary. If he actually believes The A.V. Club and Paste are poor quality sources, then he should argue this at the talk page for WP:ALBUMS/SOURCE. I'm going to revert him again, since I don't feel like being bullied out of any article he edits because he's unable to have faith in my edits. Dan56 (talk) 02:24, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Dan56, please read WP:PACT. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:48, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Laser brain, this attack is once again completely unprovoked and at an article where I am the leading contributor with intentions of taking this page, with con-noms, to FAC. Dan has been consistently disruptive with me at articles I edit going back three months now. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:31, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars, 3family6, STATicVapor? In a past discussion at Led Zeppelin IV, to support a point of view he was arguing, GabeMc cited a review by Chuck Klosterman in Spin magazine (in this comment). Now, he has removed a review by Chuck Klosterman, viewing his "B+" grade as "negative". Dan56 (talk) 02:50, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dan, I said that Paste was a weak source, not Klosterman, but FTR I didn't actualy add the Klosterman quote to an article, did I? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:53, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GabeMc see WP:OWN, we have to all work collaboratively, even if you are the leading contributor, you do not control all changes in the slightest. The A.V. Club and Paste are definitely not lacking or weak, they are undoubtedly reliable, professional reviewers, which is backed by their use by Metacritic. I also do not get any reason why the Spin review was removed, the template is only at 8 entries when the max is 10. Do you have guideline backed reasons for these removals? WP:ALBUM/SOURCES supports their use. STATic message me! 03:08, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:BOLD I do not need a guideline to exercise my editorial discretion. In the next two months I'll build-up the material from scholarly sources and this will all make sense. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:11, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Instead of getting upset, read WP:Assume good faith and WP:Civility, and be bold again, but after a reversion of a bold edit, you might want to be bold in an edit on the talk pages so as not to start an edit war." Dan56 (talk) 03:13, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

John, is this edit summary and this by Gabe an attack? He seems to think I made an attack (02:31, 6 March 2014), but I don't recall saying anything like "you are a resource drain that wastes time", or "you need an intervention". I also don't recall doing anything here but ask why review sources widely accepted in album articles (WP:ALBUMS/SOURCE) were removed--they're neither "low-quality" or "ridiculous negative reviews" as Gabe described above, although I could guess it's because the scores were not in keeping with the other five-star ratings that he removed them. BTW, The A.V. Club review was written by Chuck Klosterman and Paste by Mark Kemp, whose prose he also removed from this article ([3]). All of which seems like aggressive undoing of anything remotely negative of the article's topic (WP:BULLY). Dan56 (talk) 03:12, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• What do you think, Binksternet? As someone who is never shy to call me a bully, what's your opinion on this incident? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:15, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Great point, STATicVapor, they are included by Metacritic. But not only that, they are written by Chuck Klosterman (for The A.V. CLub's review) and Mark Kemp (for Paste magazine's review), two music critics more notable than Crawdaddy!'s David Gendelman or Pitchfork Media's Scott Plagenhoef, whose perfect scores Gabe did not remove, whose reviews are not at all quoted in the section's prose. Dan56 (talk) 03:25, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dan, do you even realize that this is two album articles in a row that you've presented some significant disruption to exactly at the moment where I began improving it in earnest? You are a disruptive editor, IMO. Please leave me alone. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:28, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Again, Gabe does not address my point about the notability of the actual critics over the ones he did not remove. Dan56 (talk) 03:56, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is out of hand, GabeMc. Both of those sources are perfectly acceptable. This debate over "is this an attack?" is silly and a waste of time. Please, let's keep things to a discussion of the sources. GabeMc, what is it about The A.V. Club and Paste that you find unreliable?--¿3family6 _contribs 03:30, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say that they were unreliable sources, but per WP:IINFO, we don't include everything that suits our purposes as Dan does. If pushed I'll make a case that Dan is pushing negative reviews only on articles about music that he does not like, which violates WP:POVPUSH to the point of justifying a topic ban. This is the 6th content dispute that he has been involved in in the last 30 days. Talk:News of the World (album)#Rock, Talk:Led Zeppelin IV#Rock and roll / blues, Talk:The Game (Queen album)#IMMEDIATE REMOVAL OF "POMP ROCK", Talk:Babel (album)#Genre, and Talk:All Things Must Pass#To soul or not to soul. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:35, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people." Dan56 (talk) 03:38, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on the content at hand, not the contributors involved. Any points on how these reviewers are not professional? Even when they are noted, even having Wikipedia articles. The article must apply due weight to all professional critical reviews and to be honest it seriously looks incredibly bias only having perfect scores. STATic message me! 04:12, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GabeMc, Dan56 is not obligated to bow out of any article that you decide to start working on intensively. Rather, you are advised to work with the interested editors that appear. Collaboration is slower than working alone but it makes for a stronger article, more resistant to change. Binksternet (talk) 05:03, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bink, I never said that Dan had to stop editing articles that I choose to improve, but he's not really an editor here so much as a pusher of low-quality criticism, which he is currently doing at five other articles related to classic rock: Talk:News of the World (album)#Rock, Talk:Led Zeppelin IV#Rock and roll / blues, Talk:The Game (Queen album)#IMMEDIATE REMOVAL OF "POMP ROCK", Talk:Babel (album)#Genre, and Talk:All Things Must Pass#To soul or not to soul. Dan is the most disruptive editor that I've ever seen who wasn't an outright vandal, and I have strong suspicions that he is sabotaging articles about music that he does not like. After all, he has dozens of GAs to his credit, but only one of them are in the classic rock or metal genres, which are the only genres that he is constantly pushing negative reviews on. Вик Ретлхед, Rvd4life, and Y2kcrazyjoker4 might be willing to confirm my suspicions. Binksternet, take a look at an article or two that Dan wrote and tell me if he adds the same level of criticism there: Aaliyah (album)#Critical reception, The Way I See It#Critical reception, and Sons of Soul#Critical reception, for example have only passing negative comments as though Aaliyah has received a generally more positive critical reception than Sgt. Pepper. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:10, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The difference between Aaliyah and Sgt Pepper is that people who are capable of critical thought listened to Sgt Pepper. <grin> Hey, put down the torches, people, it was just a joke.

Seriously, Aaliyah's bar is a lot lower than the Beatles'. Taking the breathlessly idolatrous review from Rolling Stone as the baseline shows that the album Aaliyah is not misrepresented by those who brought the album's article to FA class. Binksternet (talk) 23:45, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Ten reviewer ratings are permitted per album (in fact, twenty are allowed for extremely notable releases, I notice), so there's room for more. We don't have anything from Mojo, Q, NME, Uncut, all of which are far more notable than Paste or AV Club. I'd be very surprised if they weren't all perfect five-star scores, in which case, by their sheer volume, they'd trump any remotely negative scores out there – but we need to find them first, of course. In the interest of reflecting the range and variation, if ten is the maximum number of ratings in the box, I'd imagine that a single non-perfect score (not both AV's B+ rating and Paste's 89/100) would be a fair reflection. This is an album that often tops critics' best-ever polls, after all – consistently in the top five, anyway. Again though, it's all hypothetical until we can add anything from Mojo, Q, etc.

The problem as I see it is whether editors then want to include comments from these less-than-stellar reviews in the main text. From past experience, they do. This approach bulks out the content of what might already be a substantial section on an album's critical reception, and if Mojo, Q et al. then come to the party in Pepper, the section bulks out even more. Which means that any attempt at a streamlined discussion under Reception will become a litany of reviewers' opinions, with an almost tit-for-tat narrative thread. I really think this needs to be avoided for an album as revolutionary for Western consciousness as Sgt. Pepper.

[I've been concerned about that same approach becoming an issue at All Things Must Pass; Dark Horse also, to a lesser extent, where the addition of a pretty nonsensical comment from Christgau seems gratuitous, in my opinion, because the overall picture regarding that album being much-maligned upon release has been well-established in the section's opening paragraph. (eg, "Dark Horse received some of the most negative reviews of any release by a Beatle up to that point ... it was "open season" on Harrison ... another biographer, Elliot Huntley, has written of the "tsunami of bile" unleashed on the ex-Beatle in late 1974." After which we have some detailed opinion from Rolling Stone and NME, which is hardly sparing in its negativity, but most importantly, it offers the reader something in the way of rational criticism, unlike the Christgau quote.)]

In the interest of providing some balance in Pepper, perhaps Carr & Tyler's point from the mid/late 1970s (in The Beatles: An Illustrated Record) might be useful: about how Pepper became an anachronism, an embarrassment, in the UK anyway. (I'd done the same thing at All Things Must Pass, with a comment from Bob Woffinden on ATMP being viewed as "faddish" by the late '70s, together with Carr & Tyler's unfavourable verdict.) Perhaps also a comment from a less-than-glowing recent review of Pepper – just as long as we don't resort to a kind of he said/she said narrative.

Oh and no, Dan56 and anyone else is not obligated to quit contributing to this or any other article. But at the same time, a user's motives for arriving at an article can come across as very suspicious – in that there can appear to be an agenda that raises questions of bias, just as much as when an editor who's committed to expanding the article for FAC is resistant to the addition of less-than-perfect reviewer ratings. As Gabe's said, there's a fair amount of history in this regard. While everyone's so quick to justify their actions with a WP: link, it seems to me it's just an excuse to avoid thinking intelligently about where they tread and what they contribute. Of course, if there were a page named WP:FOR_CHRIST'S_SAKE_DON'T_FORGET_TO_ACT_LIKE_A_HUMAN_BEING,_NOT_A_****_ROBOT, it might be different. Right now – once again – progress on an extremely important album article is focused on an unproductive discussion on its talk page. (Hardly any wonder that these articles languish with a B or C rating for so long, is it?) JG66 (talk) 09:40, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• There are currently four paragraphs in the Reception section and at least half of the material is negative stuff that Dan added. That's after I removed some poor-quality comments per WP:UNDUE. The problem with Dan is that he does not add this level of criticism at articles about music that he likes; just look at a few of his GAs or FAs if you think that I am wrong. This is about editorial discretion, which Dan seems to think is irrelevant when it comes to material that he has added. Dan is POV pushing negative reviews from low-quality sources on articles about music that he does not like, which he should be blocked for, not defended. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:21, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The A.V. Club

Does this wesite even exist anymore? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:25, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I see that it does, but I still say that its not a high enough quality source to judge Pepper. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:32, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Crawdaddy?

I'm confused, why has the Crawdaddy rating been removed when it's "republished as a blog on Paste"? That's republished – meaning it existed as a separate review from Paste's? JG66 (talk) 17:45, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"relaunches as a blog on Paste...", but my edit summary first read "rm deadlink review" (the link to the review has been dead for quite some time). BTW, the title in the citation to the Crawdaddy review read "Blogs :: Crawdaddy :: Paste", but I'm sure one of you would have noticed that had the rating been not-so perfect. Both of you have yet to address how the actual reviewers from those two sources--Chuck Klosterman (THe A.V. Club) and Mark Kemp (Paste)--are less reputed than those cited in this article from Pitchfork, Sputnikmusic, or Crawdaddy, or MusicHound. All I've heard are far-reaching arguments in an effort to keep the reception section puffed up. BTW, JG66, I'm not new to this article--I cleaned up the reception section back in December by finding notable reviewers. I'm not expecting any faith from Gabe at this point, but I'd like some from you. Dan56 (talk) 17:47, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"but I'm sure one of you would have noticed that had the rating been not-so perfect" doesn't exactly smack of good faith. I'm talking about arriving on the scene as soon as there's talk of expanding the article. If you want to work with Ritchie and Gabe, then take my place – but for God's sake, co-operate.

I don't want to see the reception section puffed up per se; I want to see a reception section that's reflective of the acclaim the album's received. It's viewed (not by me, pls note) as one of the greatest albums of all time, if not the greatest. Of course, there are some reviewers who don't see it in that light. But given that we have ten ratings, I would've thought that a one-in-ten not-so-perfect score is a pretty accurate reflection. I mean, I've never once seen a review giving anything less than 5 out of 5 for Pepper. (Okay, you or someone else've found two – are you sure you haven't got any 5/5s to hand also?) Given its standing among critics, I would say Pepper's one rock album that would merit a wall of stars in the ratings box, other rare examples being Exile on Main St. and Blonde on Blonde. I'm surprised this has become an issue. Sgt. Pepper just is – revolutionary, acclaimed, the pinnacle of the Beatles' career. As I've said, I'm no big fan. If two or three 5/5s come to light, are people still going to be arguing for both AV Club and Paste's inclusion? JG66 (talk) 18:25, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dan, please read WP:PACT. I tried my best, but I don't trust your judgment; see below. I've also talked to you about the issue of relating what the preponderance of sources say and I affirm here that you shouldn't seek-out negative stuff about these albums from lower-quality sources just because they say what you want to say. I concur with JG66 about your timing. This is the third article where someone other than me has expressed that concern. Unless I'm mistaken, that's almost exactly what Вик Ретлхед accused you of doing at AJFA, which does fit with someone sabotaging articles. You seem to show up and exhaust people right at the moment when they are expanding, so they waste their time and get frustrated and the article is not improved. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:37, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For the record

Before I started copyediting yesterday, the Critical Reception section looked like this:

Upon its release on 1 June 1967,[68] Sgt. Pepper received critical acclaim.[69] It was greeted with "...paeans citing it as a bridge between pop and art."[70] Various reviews appearing in the mainstream press and trade publications throughout June 1967, immediately after the album's release, were generally positive. In The Times, prominent critic Kenneth Tynan described Sgt. Pepper as "a decisive moment in the history of Western civilisation".[71] Richard Poirier wrote "listening to the Sgt. Pepper album one thinks not simply of the history of popular music but the history of this century."[72]

In a negative review, Richard Goldstein of The New York Times found the album "spoiled" and felt that it "reek[ed]" of "special effects, dazzling but ultimately fraudulent".[73] After he was criticised for his review,[74] Goldstein published a response a month later, in which he said that he was worried "as a critic" that the album was not on-par with the best of the Beatles' previous work, despite being "better than 80 per cent of the music around today". He called it an "in-between experience, a chic", and felt that when the novelty of its production tricks wears off, "and the compositions are stripped to their musical and lyrical essentials, Sergeant Pepper will be Beatles baroque—an elaboration without improvement".[75] Robert Christgau of The Village Voice wrote in an article at the time that the album is "a consolidation, more intricate than Revolver but not more substantial. Part of Goldstein's mistake, I think, has been to allow all the filters and reverbs and orchestral effects and overdubs to deafen him to the stuff underneath, which was pretty nice, and to fall victim to overanticipation."[74] He called the album "a dozen good songs and true" in a 1977 retrospective review, and stated, "Perhaps they're too precisely performed, but I'm not going to complain."[60] Peter Herbst followed the same tack. In the 1979 Rolling Stone Record Guide he described the album as "...a thickly detailed, somewhat stiff collection of generally less-than-great Beatles tunes vaguely molded into a whole."[70]

In his Encyclopedia of Popular Music, Colin Larkin wrote that the album "turned out to be no mere pop album but a cultural icon embracing the constituent elements of the 60s' youth culture: pop art, garish fashion, drugs, instant mysticism and freedom from parental control."[63] In a 1987 review for Q, Charles Shaar Murray commented that the album "remains a central pillar of the mythology and iconography of the late '60s."[76] Anthony DeCurtis of Rolling Stone argued that it "revolutionized rock & roll" and that its "immensely pleasurable trip has earned Sgt. Pepper its place as the best record of the past twenty years." DeCurtis found it to be "not only the Beatles' most artistically ambitious album but their funniest" and cited its "fun-loving experimentalism" as the album's "best legacy for our time."[77] By contrast, Christgau said that, "although Sgt. Pepper is thought of as the most influential of all rock masterpieces, it is really only the most famous. In retrospect it seems peculiarly apollonian—precise, controlled, even stiff—and it is clearly peripheral to the rock mainstream", and asserted that "the 'concept album' idea was embodied more fruitfully—and earlier in Rubber Soul."[78] Mark Kemp of Paste wrote similarly, "for all its sonic richness, Sgt. Pepper remains one of rock's most overrated albums—its songwriting isn’t nearly as consistent as Revolver's, and its storyline is abandoned after the first two tracks and artificially reprised near the end."[64]

If you separate the positive prose from the negative you find:

Positve: 221 words

Upon its release on 1 June 1967,[68] Sgt. Pepper received critical acclaim.[69] It was greeted with "...paeans citing it as a bridge between pop and art."[70] Various reviews appearing in the mainstream press and trade publications throughout June 1967, immediately after the album's release, were generally positive. In The Times, prominent critic Kenneth Tynan described Sgt. Pepper as "a decisive moment in the history of Western civilisation".[71] Richard Poirier wrote "listening to the Sgt. Pepper album one thinks not simply of the history of popular music but the history of this century."[72]

In his Encyclopedia of Popular Music, Colin Larkin wrote that the album "turned out to be no mere pop album but a cultural icon embracing the constituent elements of the 60s' youth culture: pop art, garish fashion, drugs, instant mysticism and freedom from parental control."[63] In a 1987 review for Q, Charles Shaar Murray commented that the album "remains a central pillar of the mythology and iconography of the late '60s."[76] Anthony DeCurtis of Rolling Stone argued that it "revolutionized rock & roll" and that its "immensely pleasurable trip has earned Sgt. Pepper its place as the best record of the past twenty years." DeCurtis found it to be "not only the Beatles' most artistically ambitious album but their funniest" and cited its "fun-loving experimentalism" as the album's "best legacy for our time."[77]

Negative: 349 words

In a negative review, Richard Goldstein of The New York Times found the album "spoiled" and felt that it "reek[ed]" of "special effects, dazzling but ultimately fraudulent".[73] After he was criticised for his review,[74] Goldstein published a response a month later, in which he said that he was worried "as a critic" that the album was not on-par with the best of the Beatles' previous work, despite being "better than 80 per cent of the music around today". He called it an "in-between experience, a chic", and felt that when the novelty of its production tricks wears off, "and the compositions are stripped to their musical and lyrical essentials, Sergeant Pepper will be Beatles baroque—an elaboration without improvement".[75] Robert Christgau of The Village Voice wrote in an article at the time that the album is "a consolidation, more intricate than Revolver but not more substantial. Part of Goldstein's mistake, I think, has been to allow all the filters and reverbs and orchestral effects and overdubs to deafen him to the stuff underneath, which was pretty nice, and to fall victim to overanticipation."[74] He called the album "a dozen good songs and true" in a 1977 retrospective review, and stated, "Perhaps they're too precisely performed, but I'm not going to complain."[60] Peter Herbst followed the same tack. In the 1979 Rolling Stone Record Guide he described the album as "...a thickly detailed, somewhat stiff collection of generally less-than-great Beatles tunes vaguely molded into a whole."[70]

By contrast, Christgau said that, "although Sgt. Pepper is thought of as the most influential of all rock masterpieces, it is really only the most famous. In retrospect it seems peculiarly apollonian—precise, controlled, even stiff—and it is clearly peripheral to the rock mainstream", and asserted that "the 'concept album' idea was embodied more fruitfully—and earlier in Rubber Soul."[78] Mark Kemp of Paste wrote similarly, "for all its sonic richness, Sgt. Pepper remains one of rock's most overrated albums—its songwriting isn’t nearly as consistent as Revolver's, and its storyline is abandoned after the first two tracks and artificially reprised near the end."[64]

• Need I say more? Dan jumped on me when I balanced the comments, which were way out of line with the preponderance of sources. Of the 570 words in the section, 61.2% were devoted to negative comments, which is certainly WP:UNDUE when writing about one of the most universally appreciated albums in the history of rock music. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:01, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• The positive info could be expanded, perhaps? Instead of arguing over whether something should be cut out or not, why not just expand the info gleaned from positive reviews? As you said, it's one of the most acclaimed albums in history - so the reception section could certainly be expanded.--¿3family6 _contribs 18:12, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Right, that's what I would be doing now if Dan wasn't wasting my time. I always copyedit a section before I expand it, but isn't it possible that enough positive stuff had already been said, and the task at hand was more appropriately to balance the sections per WP:UNDUE? Are you saying that the proper remedy for UNDUE is to beef-up the praise? That's not a good approach to writing, IMO. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:14, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand (aka Off-topic slandering of Dan56)

On the other hand, if you look at one of Dan's FAs, Aaliyah (album), you'll find quite a different balance that includes no outright negative commentary at all and a nearly 3 to 1 margin of positive to mixed.

Positive: 280 words; 72.5%

Upon its release in July 2001,[53] Aaliyah received highly positive reviews from critics.[1] At Metacritic, which assigns a normalized rating out of 100 to reviews from mainstream critics, the album received an average score of 76, indicating "generally favorable reviews", based on 14 reviews.[54] Michael Odell of The Guardian felt that it is "as much a brochure for the current state of R&B production facilities" as it is about Aaliyah's singing. He found the music's textures "scintillating" and felt that its distinguishing characteristic is "a playful and confident reworking of the [R&B] canon."[48] Brad Cawn of the Chicago Tribune viewed that Aaliyah demonstrates Sade's grace and Missy Elliott's daring, and called its music "cool and glittery neo-soul ... equal parts attitude and harmony, and all urban music perfection."[55] In his review for The Independent, Simon Price cited the album as "further evidence that black pop is the avant garde."[56]

Nathan Rabin of The A.V. Club asserted that the album establishes Aaliyah as a significant artist unobscured by her collaborators.[34] Ernest Hardy of Rolling Stone called it "a near-flawless declaration of strength and independence", and commended her for exploring her "fantasies and strengths."[28] Craig Seymour of Entertainment Weekly praised its melodrama and opined that, apart from a few songs that stray from her musical strengths, Aaliyah "skillfully portrays love as part woozy thrill, part pulse-racing terror."[27] Slant Magazine's Sal Cinquemani found her personality highlighted on every song and compared her to Janet Jackson, but with better and more arousing metaphors.[36] Joshua Clover of Spin viewed it as her most profound work and wrote that she makes "art" out of Timbaland and Static's "formal finesse" by "investing sound schemes with urgency and emotional intricacy".[24]

Mixed: 106; 27.5%

In a mixed review, Connie Johnson of the Los Angeles Times found the album musically safe and felt that its lyrics lack the depth and "personal revelation that gives music some immediacy."[57] John Mulvey of NME found it "graceful" and "satisfying rather than extraordinary" and viewed that it is redeemed by Static's consistent songwriting.[33] Robert Christgau of The Village Voice gave it a three-star honorable mention,[51] indicating "an enjoyable effort consumers attuned to its overriding aesthetic or individual vision may well treasure."[58] He cited "We Need a Resolution" and "U Got Nerve" as highlights and called Aaliyah "a slave to her beats, but a proud slave".[59]

• In fairness, many of the comments in mixed are actually complementary. What do you think, Binksternet? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:09, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not going to bother investigating this matter. You are comparing apples to oranges here; the effort is useless with regard to improving the Sgt Pepper article. Binksternet (talk) 19:53, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Its not useless if we are talking about material that was added in an attempt to disrupt the article, but no worries; I should have know better then to ask for your opinion. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:28, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gabe, you should have known better than to remove those scores as well. Dan56 (talk) 00:06, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• At another of Dan's FAs, The Way I See It, the ratio is 282/97 positive to mixed. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:20, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• At Sons of Soul Dan has the ratio of positive to mixed at 252/162, but as with the other two there is absolutely nothing that could be regarded as outright negative. He only pushes negative commentary on articles about music that he does not like. I think that's a subtle form of vandalism, but at the least its POV pushing. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:25, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• If you look at an article that Dan recently nomed at FAC, Misterioso (Thelonious Monk album)#Release and reception, you won't find any mixed or negative reviews. I suppose the album is universally adored. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:29, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Back to this article...

The only negative review that was ever mentioned in this article was Goldstein's, which was in the article before I started editing in December ([4]). A "B+" or an "89/100" are not negative, they're clearly positive. Dan56 (talk) 18:41, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you argue about a "preponderance of sources", but why should we take your word for it? A quick search on GoogleBooks shows the point of view that this album was overrated (Greg Kot [5], Tim Riley, [6], Mark Kemp [7], The Guardian [8]. Dan56 (talk) 18:52, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So, are you admitting here that you do not like Sgt Pepper (not that its required of course), because that matches the pattern at all the others where you are currently being disruptive. This is the 7th article where you've started this kind of dispute this YEAR! See also: Talk:News of the World (album)#Rock, Talk:Led Zeppelin IV#Rock and roll / blues, Talk:The Game (Queen album)#IMMEDIATE REMOVAL OF "POMP ROCK", Talk:Babel (album)#Genre, and Talk:All Things Must Pass#To soul or not to soul. Anyway, JG put the AV Club back in the chart, so what exactly are you arguing about now? What is it that you want? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:04, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No I didn't ... did I?! JG66 (talk) 19:12, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry; my bad. Dan put it back for the fifth time in two days. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:21, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think he was referring to me, JG66. Honestly, I would love to see him prove "the pattern", since this entire thread seems dedicated to huffing and puffing about how I'm a biased editor close to a "topic ban". Dan56 (talk) 19:13, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

John, could you advise Gabe to actually address my points instead of resorting to this harassment. Dan56 (talk) 19:11, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dan, can you please clarify what you are arguing about? The AV Club is back, okay? What else are you disputing? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:21, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I challenge any admin to look at the five talk pages I linked above and not come to a similar conclusion. You are a disruptive editor, Dan. You push a few minority opinions on popular topics and exhaust people daily. In fact you are maybe the most disruptive editor I have ever encountered, and that's saying a lot. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:21, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The scores, which you wrongly removed, were restored. Your bold edit was reverted, so basically you forcing the issue at the talk page was pointless, because as STATicVapor, ¿3family6, and Binksternet agreed, it was ridiculous to remove them. There's no reason to continue antagonizing me. Dan56 (talk) 20:53, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• This is getting off-track. I removed some negative prose because it was out of balance and it should stay removed, but the honest truth is I removed The AV Club and Paste as low-quality sources. It had nothing to do with their rating of Pepper, which as Dan pointed out was actually very favourable. I won't remove either again, so hopefully this content dispute is over, but FTR, Paste rates Past Masters higher than Pepper which is kind-of silly. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:15, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You originally wrote "ridiculous negative reviews from low-quality sources" Mark Kemp (writing for Paste) rated it higher. What do you find "silly" about it btw? Dan56 (talk) 20:53, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I find it silly that he ranked a collection of singles higher than an album. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:09, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• This can always be a thorny issue, when we try to summarise critical commentary while keeping the proper weight in the article. I sometimes recommend using one of the recognised aggregator sites to do this, though there can be problems too with this approach. I enjoin you to continue to discuss the matter while trying if possible to allow each other to comment without becoming unnecessarily personal. If you need or want further input, please don't hesitate to ping me again. --John (talk) 22:12, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you're supposed to agree with what critics say, Gabe. If it's a notable enough critic, his or her point of view warrants inclusion even if you find it ridiculous. Edit summaries like this suggests you're treating these statements of opinion as facts ("he clearly does not know what he's talking about here"? "Know"?). It's a belief he shares. It's not anything either one of us can know or prove as fact. Christgau believes Rubber Soul was better as a concept album, he's a reputed critic, so we note his opinion and deal with it even if we strongly feel otherwise, not remove it and say he doesn't know what he's talking about--it's not a matter of fact, it's an aesthetic opinion, which are "diverse and subjective—we might not all agree about who the world's greatest soprano is. However, it is appropriate to note how an artist or a work has been received by prominent experts and the general public." You may not like or share his views, but he more than qualifies as a prominent expert in his field--popular music criticism--as do these: Greg Kot [9], Tim Riley, [10], Mark Kemp [11], The Guardian [12]. Since you're the major contributor here, do with them as you please. Dan56 (talk) 06:33, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dan, we don't regurgitate nonsense just because it came from a reliable source. This goes back to our dispute at AYE, where you wanted to add several factual errors to the article because you found sources that supported the errors, which is absolutely terrible editorial judgment on your part. Do any other sources call Rubber Soul a concept album, because we need more than one source to agree when we add something that's contentious, and indeed I'm contending the ridiculous statement. In a nutshell, Christgau is a horrible source on classic rock and metal, but I suppose that's exactly why you push him at classic rock and metal articles, right? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:02, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're having trouble discerning fact and opinion. There's a reason it's a quote attributed to a critic and not stated as fact. It's not a fact that this is a concept album, as indicated by the last two sentences in the #Concept section: "the band effectively abandoned the concept ... 'Every other song could have been on any other album'". It's an opinion, a subjective interpretation, by critics ("widely heralded as..."), and their opinion is duly noted. BTW, Christgau has been given more credit than you'd like to yourself ("eminent rock critic", "preeminent rock critic", "the rock critic's rock critic", "Along with presenting reviews of music from all genres, Christgau insightfully and tersely analyzes the cultural or aesthetic significance of many hard-rock and heavy metal recordings." He may not offer the mealy-mouthed raves of succes d'estimes you'd prefer, but perhaps you could put to rest your dislike of him since he's clearly a prominent expert in his field--rock criticism? Dan56 (talk) 00:01, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dan, we do not repeat things that are minority opinions when they are obviously wrong just because Bob Christgau said it was true. Rubber Soul is not a concept album, and the fact that you don't realize that confirms my suspicions regarding your knowledge of the things that you lord over. An editor has to exercise discretion; we don't only regurgitate what "reliable sources" have said, because sometimes reliable sources are wrong. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:06, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• So you see, Binksternet, Dan has once again swooped-in just as an article was being expanded and shut-down editing there with arguments about including nonsensical material like how Rubber Soul is a concept album because Christgau said that it was. This is the stuff that drives good editors away, and I think Dan knows that. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:14, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's a matter of opinion, not right or wrong--you can prove it to be right or "obviously wrong" as much as you can prove Sgt. Pepper's being a concept album right or wrong. And to be exact, he didn't call Rubber Soul a concept album but made a comparison--"...the 'concept album' idea was embodied more fruitfully—and earlier in Rubber Soul." This sentiment about Rubber Soul having a 'concept album' idea is echoed in The Song Cycle by Laura Tunbridge. And if it's not too much to ask, could you make your tone more civil than condescending and dismissive? I know that drive good editors away. Dan56 (talk) 01:03, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dan, what if I produced a source that said that Misterioso was really a concept album because all the songs were recorded live? Would you include the claim even though its a minority opinion that misses the whole point of what it means to be a concept album? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:24, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Go for it. Dan56 (talk) 18:57, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it that 90% of this prose is just Dan and Gabe repeating what they've already said? Can we just let it go and move on?--¿3family6 _contribs 16:36, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Problem solving 101; don't resolve the issue, just stop discussing it! GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:24, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what the issue is anymore. All I see is a massive wall of next with you and Dan arguing the same points over and over again and mentioning edits that have been done on other articles. How about you and Dan let it rest and let some other editors weigh in? Neither you nor Dan is saying anything new at this point. Nothing is even moving toward getting resolved right now.--¿3family6 _contribs 19:48, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On the substance of the matter, I don't know what the overall critical picture looks like now, but in the mid-to-late 1970s there really was a critical reaction against Sgt Peppers, at least compared to other Beatles albums. The 1975 Roy Carr-Tony Tyler The Beatles: An Illustrated Record book (a best-seller in the US) said it had many good features, but that "hindsight reveals many of the contrivances" and "its imperfections have aged badly". They think Revolver was better. The 1976 Rolling Stone Illustrated History of Rock & Roll Beatles entry by Greil Marcus goes on at length about the pop cultural moment around the release of Sgt Pepper, but says the music itself "for the most part has not survived its time". The 1979 Rolling Stone Record Guide entry by Peter Herbst is already quoted above, but note also that it gives Sgt Peppers only four stars, while 12 other Beatles albums get five stars. In the introduction to Greil Marcus's 1979 Stranded: Rock and Roll for a Desert Island, he says he ran a poll among the twenty contributors to the volume for best album ever, and Sgt Peppers was not named much, while Rubber Soul was in the top ten finishers. And in the long annotated discography of essential records at the end of Stranded, Marcus includes many Beatles works but leaves off Sgt Pepper, saying it was "a Day-Glo tombstone for its time" and that it "strangled on its own conceits". So there you have it. Disclaimers: I think these critics were all wet; I absolutely love Sgt Peppers and think it is a timeless depiction of everyday life through a variety of lenses and prisms. I also have no dog in the GabeMc-Dan56 fight. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:38, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wasted Time R, I never denied that some critics don't like the album or implied that its reception was universally positive. This dispute is about WP:WEIGHT; before I started copyediting the critical reception section it was 60/40 negative to positive, which is inappropriate and unbalanced and the result of Dan's POV pushing. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:50, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FTR, when I began cleaning up the reception section in January 2013, I trimmed the paragraph dealing with Goldstein's negative review (which had been given an overlong quotefarm before I had written anything) and added a paragraph of retrospective raves (1 January 2013) The next month, I quoted more acclamatory critics and trimmed another negative bit from Goldstein (3 February 2013), ditto later (25 February 2013), all the while defending biased, inappropriate edits like the addition of Piero Scaruffi to the article (1 January 2014). Please get your facts straight before dismissing my edits as "POV pushing". Just like Bbb23 felt your report on STATicVapor was self-serving, your comments above drawing the focus from the article to me just seemed like a lame attempt to swing editors your way. What I wrote was dead on after you forced the issue. Dan56 (talk) 22:09, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dan, what exactly are you still arguing? Is the balance about right, or do you think that we need more negative stuff? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:15, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

I've placed a failed verification tag next to "According to the musicologist Allan Moore, ''Sgt. Pepper'' is a [[Rock music|rock]] and [[Pop music|pop]] album that set the stage for later works of [[progressive rock]].{{sfn|Moore|1997|p=70}}" I could not find what part of p. 70 in Moore's book verifies this either part of this statement--"rock and pop album" or "set the stage for later works of progressive rock". Dan56 (talk) 07:52, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Page 70 reads:

"Its enormous success was to have unfortunate consequences in succeeding years, when some truly awful 'concept' albums in the style of Pepper got taken very seriously indeed by people who should have known better.' Sgt. Pepper was the high point of a cumulative process which changed the nature of the game that was Anglophone popular music. As I have already suggested, the major available positions in the preceding few years can be summarized in terms of 'pop' (represented, perhaps, by Herman's Hermits or, now, the Monkees) and 'rock' (represented by the Rolling Stones and, subsequently, by Cream or Jimi Hendrix) with the Beatles, despite their rock 'n' roll credentials and the rollicking vocals of which McCartney was capable, tending towards the former. At the time, Sgt. Pepper seemed to mark rock music's coming of age, an issue I shall return to at the close of this chapter. Now, of course, with jaded memories, we think of it as ushering in an era of pomposity, with varying degrees of seriousness, to which punk rock formed the inevitable antidote. The case was not clear at the time, for although the entire pop/rock edifice was adding storeys at a remarkable rate, 1967 still supported a very strong 'established' popular music market in the UK, catered to by Engelbert Humperdinck (who prevented 'Penny Lante'/'Strawberry Fields' from reaching No. 1), Petula Clark, Ken Dodd and the like. The distinction between 'rock' and 'pop', and the growing paradigmatic criterion of 'authenticity' (founded on such issues as whether one could have faith in the singer's expressed emotions) was, however, still there. The question after 1967 was whether 'progressive' pop/rock was to be trusted, because it was dealing with issues 'deeper' than simply interpersonal relationships. In the long run, the answer turned out to be 'no' (at least, that is, until a later generation of bands discovered the delight of pastriching the Beatles, of which more later)."

Dan56 (talk) 08:00, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Are you serious? "Sgt. Pepper was the high point of a cumulative process which changed the nature of the game that was Anglophone popular music." = Pop music. "Sgt. Pepper seemed to mark rock music's coming of age" = Rock music. "ushering in an era of pomposity, with varying degrees of seriousness, to which punk rock formed the inevitable antidote&;... The question after 1967 was whether 'progressive' pop/rock was to be trusted". = "set the stage for later works of progressive rock." This last part can be reinforced by numerous RSs that I havn't added yet because of the disruption that you've brought to this article. Including: "It was in the Beatles' music of 1966 and 1967—particularly in their album Sergeant Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band—that many of the elements that later characterized English progressive rock first appear.", "Althouth the progressive elements used in Sgt. Pepper's had existed for a few years ... it was this album that truly put progressive rock on the map." "Early progressive rock bands picked up where Sergeant Pepper left off" and "precursor of progressive rock's infatuation with unified concepts" GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:48, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• See Binksternet, Dan's now started a dispute regarding genres, because he thinks that describing Sgt. Pepper as rock and pop is inaccurate to the preponderance of sources. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:50, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strange interpretation of Moore, who says that Sgt. Pepper was the high point of pop and rock music, the start of a trend in pomposity. So it would be very very much pop and rock, with just the beginnings of pomposity. Note that pomposity is not a genre, nor does pomposity compete with the genres pop or rock. You can have all of the above in one album. Binksternet (talk) 17:31, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, "popular music" equals "popular music", lol. "The question after 1967 was whether 'progressive' pop/rock was to be trusted" doesn't equal "set the stage for..."--this position is not "directly and explicitly" (WP:STICKTOSOURCE). The reason you haven't added those "numerous RSs" is because since March 10 you've been busy overreacting and wrangling about your block (Wikipedia:Village_pump_(idea_lab)#Block_review_process_page_suggestion, Wikipedia_talk:Edit_warring#Does_Change_.3D_Revert.3F), which resulted from your personal attacks while attempting to re-write a WikiProject guideline (Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Albums#Re-writing_the_lead). Dan56 (talk) 18:41, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On page 18, Moore clarifies the point he was making about pop versus popular music and he was certainly referring to the former: "Sgt. Pepper then, while popular, was not 'popular' but 'pop'." GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:05, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dan, are you seriously starting a content dispute over whether its accurate to call Sgt. Pepper a pop album? "The Beatles' Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band has long been considered one of the greatest and most important pop albums in history.", "The Beatles' Sgt. Pepper (1967) is still considered by many to be the first rock/pop concept album", "Many music fans and critics consider Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band to be the greatest pop album ever recorded". It seems to me like you just want to continue the disputes here top waste our time, because just as the one above was ending you've started another ridiculous argument that smacks of competency isses, IMO. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:30, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like you're avoiding the issue--I placed a failed verification tag to that one sentence attributed to Moore and followed the instruction at Template:Fv, to explain it at the talk page. Dan56 (talk) 19:39, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the way I read this thread it looks like two editors (Binksternet and me) think that Moore is a sufficient source for pop and rock and only you think that it isn't, but that's not really the point, which is that yet again you are wasting the project's limited resources disputing material that is uncontentious to 9 out of 10 editors/readers. IMO, this is either a matter of Wikipedia:Tendentious editing or Wikipedia:Competence is required. What do you want, Dan? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:47, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Per Wikipedia:Competence is required, one type of problem editor is one that has cognitive issues with factual material: "The best good will is for naught if a basic understanding of the facts, their mainstream interpretation and their cultural context are lacking." GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:56, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Really? then why did you feel the need to make this revision? Perhaps it's your competency in interpreting and citing sources that should be called into question? And why did Binksternet call it a "strange interpretation" and say "pomposity is not a genre"? Dan56 (talk) 20:09, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think that Binksternet was referring to your "strange interpretation" not mine. I told you that the bit about prog rock is easily sourcable in Moore isn't saying enough, but why are you acting like every piece of information in this article needs to be impeccably sourced right now? There are entire paragraphs of unsourced or poorly sourced material here yet you are obsessively focused on two or three words. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:13, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was saying it is strange to misinterpret Moore such that Sgt. Pepper is not pop rock. Binksternet (talk) 20:43, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I offered No interpretation of Moore. I plainly said Moore does not say this is a rock and pop album on p. 70, and I was right--you had to cite another page from the book. And "set the stage for progressive rock..." still isn't verified by that page. Stop taking this so personally, Gabe. Dan56 (talk) 20:53, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you read pages 70-79, you'll see that Moore is a fine source for the sentence that you are disputing here. What else can I help you with, Dan? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:33, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

pp. 70-79

I've removed the fv tag, since this is indeed covered in Moore pages 18, 70-79. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:40, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence fragment I assume you're citing ("the sophistication of progressive rock which developed partly out of Sgt. Pepper itself...") in no way means "set the stage for later works of progressive rock". You need to rewrite it so that it doesn't ignore qualifiers like "sophistication of progressive rock" (rather than "progressive rock") and "developed partly" (rather than "set the stage for later works of progressive rock"). I tried to revise it as "helped inspire progressive rock's sophisticated quality", but if you think you can do it better , please do so. Dan56 (talk) 21:56, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dan, do you even own a copy of Moore 1997? Because if you do, then you can read pages 70–79, where you'll see that he is talking about exactly what I say he is. I think you do not own the source, but you are going off what little you can see in the google books preview, which does not include pages 75-79. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:00, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But in your edit summary, you cited the sentence fragment I mentioned ([13]) How can it take 9 pages to say that one bit about "set[ting] the stage for later works of progressive rock? Either this position is stated directly and explicitly somewhere or it isn't. Dan56 (talk) 22:03, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"In general, article statements should not rely on unclear or inconsistent passages, or on passing comments. Passages open to multiple interpretations should be precisely cited or avoided. A summary of extensive discussion should reflect the conclusions of the source. Drawing conclusions not evident in the reference is original research regardless of the type of source."

Forgive me, but 9 pages to cite a half of the sentence being written in this article seems like a stretch. Dan56 (talk) 22:07, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's called paraphrasing, Dan. On pages 77-79 he details the three main reasons why Pepper "set the stage" for progressive rock, 1) self-conscious lyrics, 2) studio innovation, and 3) songs that break the 3-minute mold. Are you really contesting sourced material based on a chapter that you have not even actually read? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:15, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Even though GoogleBooks doesn't include a few pages, the writer's conclusion is shown clearly on p. 79: "The role of the Beatles in this development...", not the album. That's called using well-sourced material out of context to advance a position not directly or explicitly stated. (WP:STICKTOSOURCE). There's a difference between rewording a writer's statements uniquely and reinterpreting them uniquely. Where does Moore actually say anything close to the album "setting the stage for progressive rock"? Thoughts, Ian Rose? Dan56 (talk) 22:22, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you finish that sentence you'll see: "The role of the Beatles in this development was crucial not only through their utilization of the studio as a working tool in its own right (as evidenced with Sgt. Pepper) but ..." Did you read 77-79, where Moore detail the three reasons why Pepper set the stage? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:27, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Moore is crediting Sgt. Pepper's with the "utilization of the studio as a working tool in its own right", not with setting the stage for progressive rock, which I think is your own conclusion from the pages you read. On p. 77, all Moore mentions is "critical reaction to what became generically know as 'progressive rock'". Dan56 (talk) 22:48, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• "The beginnings of progressive rock are normally traced to the Beatles' Sgt Pepper's". - Alan Moore, 2001. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:29, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• "The birth of progressive rock is frequently traced back to the release of the Beatles' 1967 album". GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:30, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So you've had better sources, but have chosen to drag this discussion out? Dan56 (talk) 22:48, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Better than musicology professor Alan Moore Ph.D? Not really, but since this is not at all a minority opinion its not hard to find other reliable sources that support this point. Dan, you should never, ever, ever challenge material that is supported by a source that you do not have access to; its you who has once again wasted the community's resources arguing a tedious point. What is this, the 10th such content dispute for you this year? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:40, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You've been trolling me all year, you should know the count. You still haven't proven the Moore source supports "set the stage for later works of progressive rock", which you have since revised, so you should never, ever, ever engage in original research ;) Dan56 (talk) 00:03, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Its not OR; the cited source supports the statements, but then you don't even own a copy of Moore 1997, so how can you tell that its OR if you havn't actually read the cited source? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:23, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have--enough variants of quoted sentences in the search engine, and any page can be had. My point stands: What "later works" did the author refer to when, according to you, he said the album "set the stage" for them? That was still your interpretation/conclusion you drew yourself of an extensive discussion rather than what could be concisely and accurately cited (WP:STICKTOSOURCE), i.e. "the sophistication of progressive rock developed partly out of Pepper", "The role of the Beatles in this development was crucial not only through their utilization of the studio as a working tool in its own right (as evidenced with Sgt. Pepper)" No matter how much of an expert you think you are on the topic (and I believe you are knowledgeable here), it doesn't give you the license to go beyond what the author directly and explicitly wrote. Dan56 (talk) 04:27, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's quite odd, Dan, because my google books preview does not show anything past page 74. Have you read all of pages 70–79 in Moore, Allan (1997). The Beatles: Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-57484-6 or page 69 of Moore, Alan (2002). Rock: The Primary Text: Developing a Musicology of Rock (2nd ed.). Ashgate. ISBN 978-0754602989? Have you even read the Wikipedia article lately, because you keep quoting prose that no longer exists there? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:35, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You keep assuming I was wrong to challenge what prose was originally there. Dan56 (talk) 01:53, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not assuming, Dan; you were wrong and the fact that you didn't even read the source that you were questioning supports my assertion that you are a disruptive editor. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 15:43, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

◔̯◔ Page 70 was cited, I read page 70, it clearly did not support your original research, so I tagged it. You fixed it (after stubbornly defending it), job well done. Dan56 (talk) 15:58, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is a big difference between unsourced and OR, but you seem to be confusing the two. How can it be OR if it is exactly what Moore wrote? Anyway, please don't answer that rhetorical question; I just want to move-on. FTR, I expanded the page range on 16 March—just 13 hours after you started this thread—so that nothing was unsourced, but you continued to argue your point for four more days. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:21, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Moore never wrote anything like "...set the stage for later works of progressive rock", which was the version of the sentence on 16 March. You said earlier what pages Moore explains the reasons the album "set the stage for progressive rock", but you never said where Moore actually says anything like "Sgt. Pepper's set the stage for progressive rock", so I'm guessing you just assumed that was Moore's argument. Dan56 (talk) 01:06, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1) "The beginnings of progressive rock are normally traced to the Beatles' Sgt Pepper's". - Alan Moore, 2001. 2) According to the music journalist Thomas Blackwell, writing for PopMatters and citing Moore's 1997 book The Beatles: Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band, Sgt. Pepper "was virtually responsible for the birth of the progressive rock genre". GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:51, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We're going in circles ("So you've had better sources, but have chosen to drag this discussion out?") Dan56 (talk) 18:04, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly do you want, Dan, except to cause disruption? What are you still arguing about? Are your concerns resolved or not? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:09, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Per Wikipedia:Tendentious editing#Characteristics of problem editors: "One who ignores or refuses to answer good faith questions from other editors". GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:34, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]