Talk:The Human League/Archive 3

Unofficial websites used as "sources" (again)

If anybody has the time, can they please proof the main article and cull all "sources" that are referenced from fan websites. Even sources that are so-called "officially recognised" are not valid, and only tend to be gushing fansites anyway. 79.66.120.93 (talk) 00:03, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

The websites used as references have been checked by successive copyeditors and admins and have passed WP:RS. There is no blanket ban on ‘fansites’ as sources on wikipedia per WP:RS. SPS's should be assessed on their merits and content, but better sources should be used where available per WP:RS. Which is where the problems start, The Human League have had a cool media profile since their height in the 1980s therefore media sources are lacking. Pop groups by their very nature do not have academic quality tomes written about them. This is compounded by Philip Oakey's refusal to let the management produce an official website. The media now deal almost exclusively with the sites listed below for information (and ironically use Wikipedia). Those sites are almost certainly 'gushing' that is because their main purpose is to promote the band, and in that way no different to a commercial website, it doesnt follow that they are untruthful or inaccurate, and the band manager would certainly not permit that for legal reasons.

Five Unofficial websites are used as sources; the webmasters all have contact with the band in varying degrees and are professional people not just mad fans. One of them actually works for the band. In detail:

• www.blindyouth.co.uk - Producer Sean Turner's very detailed historical website about the 'Mk 1' (1977-1980) Human League, personally endorsed by both Martyn Ware and Philip Oakey, the only information resource about The Future and Mk1 THL online.
• EY / League-online.com- contains an officially recognised biography of The Human League written by Robert Windle. His website and music label EY are no longer associated with The Human League, but his League biography is still online and officially recognised in that it is used by the band management as a background media release; and it was mirrored until recently on the band’s private media enquiries website www.thehumanleague.me.uk (currently offline)
• www.susanne-sulley.net – Vocalist S.Sulley centric, but contains a [20000 word biography] of Sulley’s involvement with the band since school. Officially recognised it was used by the band on the 2007 Tour programme. I own this website and per WP:COI I do not self-source in my edits. (If it’s used as a source then someone else has added it) nor am I formally employed by the band. Sulley’s bio contains about 6 months worth of research, if anything was wrong she'd either Email me to correct it or have her manager do it.
• www.black_hit_of_space.dk - a very carefully researched statistics and information resource by Niels Kolling. Again, quoted by the band on their publicity material and tour programmes. The single biggest collection of 'hard factual' information about the band online. 100 x more detailed than sites like Discogs.It is now oficially recognised by the band and management and is being used as the 'de facto' official Human League website by the promoters of the band's 2008 tour of the USA[1]
• www.human-league.dk – Run by the band's graphic designer, site mainly contains artwork he has done for the bands album covers and tour programs but information about future events/intentions have come directly from the band or management themselves and this is stated.

In the same way as the commercial media are not always 100% correct, I'm sure that there could be errors in the above websites. Therefore if someone wishes to challenge a fact in the article because they have found conflicting information elsewhere then raise it in Talk:The Human League with reasons/justification/Rationale so consensus can be reached. What will not be acceptable is blanket deletions of sourced information by a single individual without consensus. andi064 ^{T . C} 20:54, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Peer Review

As a measure of transparency I have put the article up for peer review by established Wikipedians (with no edits to the article), with GA nom to follow on once ‘to do list’ is completed. With a 14 day timescale dependant on the uptake of reviewers comments on WP:PR. The article will take PR from current revision. To add PR comments please go to Wikipedia:Peer review/The Human League/archive1

andi064 ^{T . C} 23:42, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

• I'd have to say that I'd like to see a bit more history about the members. I'd like to know where they came from and what their past acomplishments are etc... Also, it seems like a small amount of sources for all the information already there. Are there any more, good sources out there for this band? Undeath (talk) 00:58, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Noted & thanks (I've copied this onto The Peer Review page ) andi064 ^{T . C} 13:06, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

New Romantic References (Re-opened)

Subject reopened from Talk:The Human League/Archive 2

I think there shouldn't be any problems with putting the New romantic also as one of the categories (at the end). Human League were never TRULY (strictly) New romantic, but to some degree like-it-or-not the WERE (New romantic), in the Dare-Mirror_Man-Fascination period (1981-1983). Their biggest hit 'Don't You Want Me' is pretty-much New romantic (both in musical style and in manner of performing it), and I think most of the people that were (and/or are still) really into new romantic, accepted that song plus a few more HL songs as their favorite NEW ROMANTIC songs. That's simply undeniable. And I strongly suggest to put the word 'truly' when saying 'never were (truly) New romantic', meaning if not 'truly', to some degree however they were (New romantic too, and not only 'New wave').208.72.122.7 (talk) 11:00, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for reading the old debate and replying. That THL were associated with the genre in 1981 is undeniable, the same for a lot of chart bands of the time. Commercial bandwagons are easily jumped on. The problems arise when people try to classify them as a 'New Romantic Band' per-se, which it is accepted they never were. The reason the Wikipedia ref to New Romantic was removed is because the media will try and label them New Romantic after researching the band on Wiki and this has caused problems in the past. The biggest error is assuming Oakey’s dress sense 1979-1982 was NR, which it wasn’t. What is needed is a better researched and written New Romantic article which makes the distinction between Blitz bands, Commercial New Romantic bands and those bands just associated with the genre because of their fashion and or musical style. I don’t claim to be a NR expert so it is best left to someone who knows their subject. If you really wish to place The Human League in the New Romantic article that is fine as long as the distinction is made for historical accuracy's sake. To NR purists it's a bit like equating The Beatles with The Monkees it's something that really annoys them. From a THL perspective Catherall and Sulley go mad if it is suggested they were ever NRs. Regards andi064 ^{T . C} 11:37, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Does the Human League dislike the New Romantics? Duran Duran in Particular? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.87.6.102 (talk) 10:06, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Caterall and Sulley are not qualified to judge about 'new romantic' or 'never new romantic', they are just singers (and unfortunately fairly lousy ones). Oakey or Sutton are the ones responsible for music and everything that concerns style and categorization, and they most probably have nothing against 'new romantic' as one of the sporadic labels. The person that removes 'new romantic' from wiki's HL is wrongly paranoid and abuses wikipedia for some silly personal reasons! 66.11.67.81 (talk) 02:17, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Really? According to her website Sulley is the band's media manager. She was in the band before the term New Romantic was even thought of. Neil Sutton did not start untill the 1990s and is just an employee. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.40.14.51 (talk) 03:40, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

It's not a question of who was in the band for how long, but who knows something about music and musical styles. The girls were there from the early days, but they neither had proper musical education neither too much brains, how can anyone consider them of some serious authority like the guys of early Human League were, or like Neil Sutton now (who is the guy who now knows most about music and who was practically more or less the only one responsible for composing and musically arranging everything on their last 2 albums). Whether the girls like it or not, Dare and much of Hysteria were VERY much of New romantic musical style, and that is simply a fact. Secrets and Octopus also invoke that style in many of their songs, like in Shameless, The Snake, Reflections, Tranquility, These are the Days, Cruel Young Lover (or any that is not too much 'pop' is basically still NEW ROMANTIC style since both Oakey and Sutton fortunatelly musically gravitate toward it). And that is why so many New romantics still love their music after all these years and in spite of awful and irritating singing of the girls in some of their songs. 208.72.122.16 (talk) 05:32, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Your edits seem to be driven by a certain "issues" and overlook the huge weight of evidence against the Human League being classed as New Romantic by anyone except the historically and culturally ignorant. As has been pointed out on numerous occasions, much of what is cited as "evidence" of them being New Romantic actually pre-dates New Romaticism, while the geographical and cultural separation of the Human League's place of origin and operations from that of New Romanticism cannot be underestimated. While inevitably people's personal tastes may overlap, my memory of the actual time in question is that there was no great commonality between those who were heavily into the Human League, OMD, et al, and those who self-identified as New Romantic. In fact, I knew a number who adopted the styles of the latter after completely losing interest in the Human League. These continued attempts to label the Human League as New Romatic smack of wishful retroactive expansionism beyond what New Romaticism actually was. Nick Cooper (talk) 07:56, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

And why does then Allmusic.com for Human League have as one of the tags 'New romantic' tag too? Why cannot it be the same on wiki too? Plus, if one ignores their music being very New Romantic in certain period, how can one forget and ignore Oakey's totaly New romantic haircit. With Flock of Seagulls having those haircuts, no one has problems to label New romantic beside New wave based mainly because of that haircut (resembling Steve Strange's and others), so exactly the same logic and reason should apply for HL (having that Oakey's NR haircut in mind), it's very simple... People that for some reason deny their new romantic labelling are the ones that have some issues and falsify the facts 208.72.122.14 (talk) 11:07, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

LOL! Given the amount of people who erroneously believe the Human League to be in any way connectied with New Romaticism, it's hardly surprising that a site like allmusic.com can get it wrong, in precisely the same way that imdb.com is riddled with factual errors. Them being there does not make them true.

Basing a judgement on a hairstyle seems to be very tenuous. Perhaps you would like to post links to these hairstyles to demonstrate exactly what "similarities" you are referring to? Nick Cooper (talk) 12:12, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

1. Manager is not actually what Sulley’s website says. To clarify: she is described as the band’s ‘media officer’. Their media effort is not organised enough to for her to be thought of as a ‘manager’. In effect she is usually the band’s spokesperson, principally because Oakey and Catherall dislike interviews and dealing with the media. So that side of business is usually left to Sulley because of her talkative nature and good people skills. She knows her subject matter as she should after 28 years full time in the music industry and the band. As Sulley and Catherall co-own the band ‘brand’ with Oakey and hold 1/3 of the financial side each, have off stage business roles, to describe them as ‘just singers’ shows extreme ignorance of the band.

2. As does continually adding New Romantic to the Infobox genre section.For a start the band weren’t, which has already been discussed to death in the talk archives- and a consensus reached. Simply put, being associated to a ‘thing’ by third parties does not make you ‘that thing’ without some self identification. In the same way, to use a theological analogy, someone suggesting you are Catholic doesn’t make you a Catholic. The Human League in general (and Oakey in particular) have always considered themselves unique, innovators, and not part of any grouping or fashion. This was particularly true in the early years, and the last thing the fiercly regional Oakey (from Sheffield) would have done is copy 'Londoners'.

As NR is not a music genre in WP:Music it should not be in any article’s infobox, let alone the Human League’s. The root of this problem is that Americans seem to have a totally different definition of NR, to the UK where it originates, and who therefore know the correct origins and history. I believe this is because principally the US was introduced to commercially styled bands which were sold to them as “British New Romantic” eg Duran Duran post 1982. It seems to be just Americans who want to label every British Synthpop/ New Wave band between 1982-1987 as NR, which is lazy and erroneous. The original NR movement (in the UK) was finished by 1983. It is also bizarre that some Americans label THL as NR but the band thought of as the “American Human League” at the time , Animotion are labelled New Wave. The consensus says that New Romantic isn’t a music genre but a fashion and social grouping/movement. This is illustrated that the music, without the idiosyncratic personal styling attributed to NRs is indistinguishable mainstream Synthpop. The test of a music genre is that you should be able to tell the genre from listening to the music alone. The synthpop style of the 1981 Human League is still being produced today by bands like Ladytron and Marsheaux yet no one label these bands NR just Synthpop. The problem on Wikipedia, as well as some poor editor knowledge, seems to stem from a very badly researched and written NR main article, which is quite a specialist subject. Without parameters it ensures that inexperienced editors just ignorantly add early 1980s bands to the article Ad nauseam without knowing the history of that band, and then get upset when they are correctly deleted by subject matter specialists. New Romantic itself isn’t really a bonifide description, as it is a term thought up by the UK media (Journalist Rick Sky first used the term in 1981) to describe the Blitz Kids and their followers in a fashion/social urban ‘tribe’ that caught on in London and some specialist nightclubs in major urban areas in the UK in late 1980/1981. But it is now the de facto label by which that social group is now known. There were very few proper New Romantics; with only a handful of bands that properly adopted their style and were part of that scene, such as Visage. NRs were also aligned very much to the mixed gay scene and home to the media Bête noire of that year ‘the gender benders’ whose figure head was the Blitz’s George O'Dowd.It was a very short lived phenomenon that lasted only during 1980-82. Commercialised copycats existed later in both UK and US but these were never considered by NRs to be authentic. As has been illustrated on this talk page, it is a label thrown around at random today. Because The Human League and ABC did not conform to NR dress styles and social conventions; they would not have even been allowed into a NR club to drink let alone play. Mick Jagger was famously snubbed and turned away from Blitz Club for the same reason by Steve Strange in 1981. All this should be addressed in Talk:New Romantic not this article. andi064 ^{T . C} 20:12, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate all the info provided, but you are again wrong. Oakey's haircut WAS gender-bender (if you require that for NR) on their early videos, it's undeniable. He almost looked as a woman, and even had feminine gestures along with it then. And comparing being called catholic and being called NR, it is simply not the same thing. Catholicism requires following certain obligations and is more official, and is not an artistic style/manner/expression. Plus this is not lumping HL into NR (like someone is only catholic and nothing else). It is just a matter of ADDING one additional label (4th or 5 th) which is based on undeniable fact that the band HL throughout their history (and actually in their most sucessful period) had characteristics of what everyone associated with NEW ROMANTIC! So again, I consider removing New Romantic tag as abusing wikipedia, especially having in mind that Allmusic.com has as one of the tags a New romantic tag reserved for HL.208.72.122.120 (talk) 23:04, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I note that you have failed to reply to my points above regarding allmusic.com as a source, as well as a request for you to identify exactly which haircut/s you are referring to. From the sound of it, however, you're actually talking about Oakey's style/s that 'pre-dates New Romanticism by a couple of years. As has been explained to you at length, New Romanticism ias more a fashion genre (although there's more to it than just hairstyles!) than a music one, and a very geographically localised one at that. I would suggest that you look at a map of the UK and try to appreciate the separation between London and Sheffield; for good measure you should also take a look at North-South divide in the United Kingdom. Given the extensive debate on this subject - both at the moment and in the past - your continued and dogged addition of the erroneous New Romatic tag here now seems to be nothing more than constructive vandalism. Nick Cooper (talk) 12:57, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

You have a very narrow-minded and extremely limited understanding of what the term New Romantic today historically presents (to so many people on this planet). It is a style of its own in many ways, and has nothing to do with geography or one particular nightclub (Blitz or whatever), and is much more than just fashion. For the haircut, find on youtube HL videos of Sound of the Crowd and you'll see the haircut with all that crazy make-up, which wasn't only 'new wave thing', but exactly NR thing. Also, type on youtube 'top new romantic' and you'll get Human League. Type 'top new wave' and you won't get HL (or not so immediately). Why is that? So it is not only allmusic, but youtube as well. And many more sources will link HL with that NR term. So who are you to deny all that? And again, I'm not sugesting the NR tag to be on the top, but on the bottom, plus the tag 'dance-pop' (that also exists on allmusic) should be also as 5th for HL.Greetings 208.72.122.120 (talk) 14:44, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense. New Romanticism was first and foremost a fashion genre firmly rooted in London between 1979 and 1983. The Human League pre-dated this time period, as did Phil Oakey's use of make-up and sexually ambiguous hairstyles. They may have a common stylistic root in David Bowie, but does not make them the same thing. As to Oakey's hairstyle in the Sound of the Crowd video, in which you hold such store, here's a surprise for you: he had it at the time of Being Boiled, i.e. 1977! If this is your standard of "evidence," then there's more that New Romantics copied Oakey than the other way around, but that does not make either him or the rest of the band New Romatics themselves. If people like you who weren't even in the UK at the time want to come up with your own warped interpretation of what New Romaticism was, then go ahead, but don't expect everyone else to go along with it, no matter how many poor quality examples on YouTube you can come up with. Nick Cooper (talk) 16:13, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

• Consensus on this was reached some time ago on this talk page (now archived), this discussion has not changed that consensus as no new argument has been put forward by this anonymous editor (who has now had two WP:3RR warnings) therefore consensus is again that the New Romantic label should not be applied to this article. andi064 ^{T . C} 17:56, 17 June 2008 (UTC)