Talk:Black Sabbath (album)/Archive 2

Genres
I removed hard rock and blues rock from the genre because they were very poorly sourced and taken completely out of context. For example, the Sputnikmusic review, which was used to support hard rock, says "both fans of blues influenced hard rock and heavy metal of all sorts should find something they like on the album". Did somebody just find that review by doing a Google search of "Black Sabbath" and "hard rock" and use it to support their opinion of the album? --64.132.0.250 (talk) 18:58, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Good work, those genres keep sneaking back in there. J04n(talk page) 19:07, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The "blues rock" genre addition is the pesky one. It's sourced to allmusic but if you actually look at the allmusic article for Sabbath it doesn't refer to the band as blues rock at all; it says "The group took the blues-rock sound of late-'60s acts like Cream, Blue Cheer, and Vanilla Fudge to its logical conclusion." ChakaKongtalk 21:38, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Read the whole review. "Unfortunately, much of side two is given over to loose blues-rock jamming learned through Cream, which plays squarely into the band's limitations." MrMoustacheMM (talk) 22:56, 25 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Same response. What does the band have to do with it? Huey's characterization is of the album: "...much of side two is given over to loose blues-rock jamming...". If you feel this isn't explicit or strong enough, then that's a reason, but how does Allmusic's reliability come into question? Dan56 (talk) 22:56, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It seems rather arbitrary to refer to this album as blues rock. We are supposed to use the artist's primary genre and avoid sub-genres. I think you guys might be confusing a style with a genre; yes the style is at times bluesy, but Black Sabbath is quite strictly classified as heavy metal. ChakaKongtalk 23:26, 25 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Why are we supposed to use the artist's primary genre and avoid sub-genres? I cant comment on your last sentence; I haven't listened to the album and am just adding what I can dig up in sources. Dan56 (talk) 00:42, 26 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Why? Because it's in the guidelines. I'm trying to find the exact quote.
 * You have never even heard this album? How can you assign a genre to something you've never heard? ChakaKongtalk 00:50, 26 June 2013 (UTC)


 * There's no such guideline at WP:ALBUMS; as with any article's material, we should research the most reliable sources on its topic. Genres are opinions, and reputed, notable sources and critics are the interpretations that should be noted in an article (WP:SUBJECTIVE). The only question becomes the relative prominence of those opinions (WP:YESPOV), such as how many more writers say "heavy metal" instead of "blues rock". I don't need to be an expert on the topic either. If anything, it's a benefit, as it'll ensure my objectivity in researching sources for an article and that I never draw on OR. Dan56 (talk) 01:02, 26 June 2013 (UTC)


 * With respect to this, if you feel the quick find I added in the music and lyrics section isn't strong enough to support adding "blues rock" in the infobox, you can argue that. It's reasonable to insist on finding a source that explicitly says "Black Sabbath is a blues rock album" or something along those lines. Dan56 (talk) 01:04, 26 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I think the information you have added there is sufficient to support "blues rock" in the infobox. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 16:15, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I wholeheartedly disagree. Aside from a single mention from Allmusic ("Most of the second half has blues-rock jamming") there is zero to prop up "blues rock" in the infobox. Everything else simply mentions that the band's sound evolved from blues rock, but everything from that era grew from a blues influence. Is a single mention from a single source enough? No. ChakaKongtalk 20:27, 26 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I believe you're overlooking the second sentence, as far as there being only a single source mentioning "blues-rock". But where does it say "the band's sound"? The quoted material from the cited sources are discussing the album. And which one of the sources say that "everything from that era grew from a blues influence"? Dan56 (talk) 04:17, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It's unclear what you mean by "the second sentence". I think the nature of our disagreement here may stem from the fact that you certainly appear to have absolutely no firsthand knowledge of the subject. I regard that type of editing as one of Wikipedia's biggest inadequacies; younger editors with no conceptualization of the historical context of what they're writing about nonetheless feel that anything a 3 second Google search brings up is the infallible truth. Allmusic, regardless of its standing as a "reliable source" is populated by dilettante "journalists" and should not be trusted categorically. ChakaKongtalk 11:31, 27 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Actually, Dan56 having no knowledge of the sound of the album is a good thing. As he said, it gives him an objectivity to the subject that you (and I) don't have, because we have listened to the album. Since Wikipedia is based on reporting what independent, reliable third-party sources have to say, not what our own opinions on the music are, he can find and use this information without being biased.
 * As for your attempt to downplay Allmusic's reliability, both WP:ALBUM/REVSIT and WikiProject Albums/Sources support using Allmusic as a source for information in album articles (excepting the genre sidebar, which everyone agrees is not accurate enough to use for genre citations, so we can only use what is written in the review itself). A quick look at the WP:RSN archives shows several times where Allmusic was questioned, and every time Allmusic was concluded to be reliable. Therefore, we can certainly use the site's reviews to support genre claims in Wikipedia articles.
 * While I think there is enough support in the given sentences for "blues rock" already, it wouldn't hurt if we can find another reference supporting it, just to reinforce it. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 16:11, 27 June 2013 (UTC)


 * RE to Chakakong: I don't see how listening to an album gives someone "firsthand knowledge". And the word "truth" is not appropriate here; it's an opinion, and one from "dilettante" music journalists is better than one from Wikipedia editors. WP:OPINION makes this clear: "All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than to an original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors." And "young editors" who misuse Google are at fault, not the process of researching sources--there are guidelines on reliability of a source and distinguishing questionable sources. Along with the archives at GoogleNews, there are numerous books that have been written on this topic that are remarkably accessible through GoogleBooks: here's one that offers some historical context and refers to this album and its songs (pp. 19-20) in a discussion on the band. And Allmusic was acceptable enough when citing their four-and-a-half star rating, but now it's questionable and marred by dilettantes? Dan56 (talk) 19:02, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Dan65: Toni Iommi quite clearly states on page 61 of his autobiography that Black Sabbath dropped blues prior to recording this album because "it didn't sound right" and "our own stuff was so different". You currently are in violation of Ownership_of_articles. 173.212.77.20 (talk) 21:25, 12 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Let me get this straight: I am claiming to own the article because I reverted your removal of a genre supported in the the article's "Music and lyrics" section and encouraged you at your talk page to cite your source (a band member's autobiography; a primary source which you did not even give the title for) in the article? I apologize; I am a truly horrible person LOL :) Dan56 (talk) 21:39, 12 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Dan56 was quite correct in reverting your removal of sourced information. He is not trying to WP:OWN this article, and accusations like that do not assume good faith. Regardless of what Iommi says in his autobiography, other reliable sources have called this album "blues rock", and right now I don't see a good reason to remove that info. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 00:53, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

This conversation is quite emblematic of the idiocy of Wikipedia "editors." Anybody who plays guitar and has studied blues and rock music can hear that this is essentially a hard rock album with blues and even jazz influences. It wasn't until the 1980s that everyone started calling Black Sabbath "heavy metal." They influenced later "metal" bands who used Sabbath's heavy chords and gloomy, supernatural-influenced lyrics and who then dubbed themselves "heavy metal." But if you listen to most of these later bands they lack the rhythms of Sabbath that came from Sabbath's roots in blues rock. Most later "metal" bands also didn't bother with the extensive, hard rock guitar solos that Tony Iommi is famous for. Nor did most later "metal" bands experiment with acoustic tunes, orchestral tunes and piano-based ballads, which Sabbath did on later albums. Yes, this album did INFLUENCE later "metal" bands, but is essentially a hard rock/blues rock album! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.21.2.61 (talk) 00:59, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

"Rolling Stone Top 500 Albums" list
There is some confusion as to where this album ranks in the Rolling Stone Top 500 Albums of All Time list. My source clearly places it at #243 while other editors state it is ranked at #241. This should be discussed.

According to this, Rolling Stone modified their Top 500 list in 2009. This is their official list and the album is at #243. ChakaKong</b><sup style="color:#0033FF;">talk 01:23, 21 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Nothing here distinguishes one list from the other as "official". The subject of Rolling Stone's 500 Greatest Albums of All Time (which is what is linked for readers in this article) is the original issue from 2003, so why wouldn't we choose the original over a revised edition? We could append the revised edition's ranking of this album with something like "...number 241 on Rolling Stone magazine's list of the 500 greatest albums of all time; it was ranked 243 in a revised edition in 2012." Although it seems unimportant and awkward to read. Dan56 (talk) 01:40, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * When I say official, I mean it's coming directly from Rolling Stone. If the list was altered by the official source, it seems to me the original list is obsolete. <b style="color:#999999;">ChakaKong</b><sup style="color:#0033FF;">talk 01:56, 21 May 2013 (UTC)


 * It's coming from their website; if neither list was published in print as a special edition of the magazine, this article would not exist. Dan56 (talk) 02:11, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * What matters is both the ranking AND the year the ranking was compiled. If both are given with the linked citation from RS, whether directly from their web site or archived from their web site, that is fine with me. Steelbeard1 (talk) 02:33, 21 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Done. Dan56 (talk) 02:46, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Looks good! MrMoustacheMM (talk) 02:55, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed. It looks great. Steelbeard1 (talk) 02:59, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Looks fine, but wasn't the revised edition of the list done in 2009 and not in 2012? <b style="color:#999999;">ChakaKong</b><sup style="color:#0033FF;">talk 11:10, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Additional citations were added which make the years the lists were compiled more obvious and corrected year in article where necessary to match the additional citations. Steelbeard1 (talk) 13:21, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * BTW Steelbeard1, I certainly hope your sudden presence here isn't a manifestation of your promise to Wikistalk me. Should I assume you've been watching my edits? <b style="color:#999999;">ChakaKong</b><sup style="color:#0033FF;">talk 11:15, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * FYI, everyone, ChakaKong made a faulty edit which created an obvious false statement in the MGM Music article at []. Warner Music does not own the rights to the MGM soundtracks which Time Warner continues to own.  Time Warner's WaterTower Music currently owns the rights.  When I pointed out the faulty edit to Kong, he got very hostile as you can read from both his talk page and my talk page. Because Kong refused to apologize for both his faulty edit and his hostile reply to my pointing out his faulty edit, I've been following his edits to watch for any further faulty edits or editing dispute he gets involved in. I do this to anyone who makes obviously bad edits.  Steelbeard1 (talk) 12:55, 21 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Response to ChakaKong's Q: "In 2003, Rolling Stone asked a panel of 271 artists, producers, industry executives and journalists to pick the greatest albums of all time. In 2009, we asked a similar group of 100 experts to pick the best albums of the 2000s. From those results, Rolling Stone created this new list of the greatest albums of all time." Dan56 (talk) 16:48, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Right. But the article currently states "it was ranked number 243 in a revised edition of the list in 2012". <b style="color:#999999;">ChakaKong</b><sup style="color:#0033FF;">talk 16:57, 21 May 2013 (UTC)


 * The date is in the url, so it looks like it was published on 5/31/2012. Dan56 (talk) 04:49, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Legacy
I've checked the sources cited in the "Legacy" sections, and they are dubious at least:
 * the section suggests that the album influenced doom metal, and cited a book by Piero Scaruffi. However, the text implies that Scaruffi is saying that the band influenced doom metal, not this particular album ("Black Sabbath, a highly influential band, ... laid the foundations for black metal and doom-metal.")
 * The Rock and Roll Hall of Fame hasn't written anything about this album being a commercial success.
 * Spin magazine points this record as the first from the stoner rock and goth album, not as an album that influenced those genres.
 * And finally, I propose to put this sentence about the legacy in the previous section, at the end of "Accolades". If we find some additional info about the legacy, we can always create a separate section.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 14:38, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Genre (2nd discussion)
Hi. I suggest to drop the blues-rock term from the genre sidebar because it is not the main genre. The critics (Huey, Wagner, Stagno) credited the album for being the first heavy metal record in their reviews. However, Huey mentions that the album was also rooted in psychedelia, while Stagno says it contains elements of rock, jazz, and blues. Moreover, Spin attributes the album as the first stoner rock and gothic rock album. My point is, to avoid listing every genre that has basis to be listed and include heavy metal as the sole genre.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 19:38, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Recent changes
If you want to discuss this, use the talk page and not edit summaries. Yes I feel your recent edits are not making anything better, it was fine the way it was. Mlpearc ( open channel ) 19:13, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * For the record (I see I've been summoned to ANI) the edits I'm referring to are within these diff's  Mlpearc  ( open channel ) 19:18, 25 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Can you please explain why this:

"According to Black Sabbath guitarist and founder member, Tony Iommi, their debut album was recorded in a single day on 16 October 1969. Other sources state that 17 November 1969 was the date of recording."

is not an improvement over this:

"According to guitarist Tony Iommi, the album was recorded in a single day on 16 October 1969, while other sources say that 17 November 1969 was the date of recording" ? Harmelodix (talk) 19:16, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * These are minor edits that really should not result in confrontation. Maybe both parties should just walk away. Caper454 (talk) 19:18, 25 June 2014 (UTC)


 * My edit summaries say everything I have to say.  Mlpearc  ( open channel ) 19:19, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually Mlpearc, you are a bit trigger happy when it comes to reverting other editors for no good reason. Like I said, maybe this is a battle best avoided. Caper454 (talk) 19:22, 25 June 2014 (UTC)


 * The article hadn't even properly introduced Iommi yet, so the casual reader would not know who he is unless we tell them he is a member of Sabbath. Harmelodix (talk) 19:32, 25 June 2014 (UTC)


 * The way the text was, which Mlpearc twice restored, we had "According to guitarist Tony Iommi", which is a poor construction in BrEng, which requires a preceding article ala "According to the guitarist Tony Iommi". So Mlpearc twice restored bad grammar because what exactly was wrong with my edits again that the article was better off with a revert? This article is in terrible shape, so why waste energy reverting attempts to improve it? Harmelodix (talk) 20:48, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, no. "Tony Iommi" is a proper name (and a pretty cool one at that) and does not require a determiner. Adding "guitarist" doesn't change that; "Tony Iommi" is the head of the noun phrase and "guitarist" stands, if anything, in a kind of modifying apposition to the name. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 18:34, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Have a look at False title. I saw teach someone this before. Harmelodix (talk) 18:36, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks: interesting. Ha, at least I was right about something: "a kind of appositive phrase before a noun". How odd that I would find myself agreeing with William Safire, and in partial disagreement with Linguistic Hero Role Model Geoffrey Pullum. Well, YMMV, of course--but let me just note that "the" is not grammatically required, and that the authorities cited in that article discuss style and not grammar. So, you can be perfectly right in saying that certain usage guides and authorities (that includes Fowler) look down on the construction, but I'm afraid you can't call it bad grammar. But thanks for pointing this out--I learned something. Drmies (talk) 18:45, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I concede that its a matter of proper BrEng style rather than grammar. Harmelodix (talk) 18:54, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Haha, that is very gracious of you. :) And I will keep this in mind when editing BrE articles. Drmies (talk) 19:09, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * According to Fowler, and this article is written in BrEng, omission of the article in this construction is "American journalese".(Burchfield, R. W. (1996), The New Fowler's Modern English Usage, The Clarendon Press, p. 775, ISBN 0-19-869126-2) Harmelodix (talk) 18:41, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Genres revisited
[Moved from above; "this" refers to Talk:Black_Sabbath_(album). Drmies (talk) 18:31, 26 June 2014 (UTC)]
 * This does not look like a consensus to me, but even if it was a consensus, are we really saying that we are to include blues rock, which was originally added by a sockmaster, even though nobody has provided a reliable source that explicitly states that the album is blues rock. Its currently unsourced and per WP:DENY fair-game for removal., can you provide us with some guidance please? Harmelodix (talk) 17:15, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, if you really want an RfC, you can have it. It seems overblown to me, for this one little thing in the infobox, but if you all can't agree, sure. But before we go that far, is it correct that MrMoustache's brief quote, below, is the only source for blues-rock as a genre? That it "has some blues-rock jamming" doesn't mean that most of the second half is blues-rock (jamming). If that's all the referencing there is, I don't see how there is much of a case to be made for the inclusion as a genre; conversely, one might propose "jam music" as a genre, by the same token. Drmies (talk) 18:04, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * , you are correct that "has some blues-rock jamming" is the only "sourced" support for this, which as I pointed out, is typically not nearly enough for Dan56. Harmelodix (talk) 18:29, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

A place for your yes, no, and maybe (be brief)

 * I say No, but if a WP:RS can be found that "explicitly states" that the album is an example of a blues rock album, I will happily reconsider. Harmelodix (talk) 19:18, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * FTR, in my opinion this is the best way to leave this section Music and lyrics (I'm really trying to stay out of this as it's gotten way out of hand, just saying)  Mlpearc  ( open channel ) 01:19, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * No to blues rock as a genre. For the last month I've played the album about once a day or so since it's in the kitchen CD player (and I'm kind of lazy). One has to be tone deaf or ignorant not to hear the blues rock on the second half, in the guitar playing (Clapton, sure, but also Page and Alvin Lee) and in the very songs and chord progressions--but rock got all that from blues, and metal got it from rock. To sort this under the genre is too much, and the AllMusic source simply does not verify it as a genre, only as a influence, maybe even a style. But not a genre. And it's not a big deal. Drmies (talk) 02:07, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * No. That is, if I can add my 2 cents without offending anyone. Caper454 (talk) 10:41, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

A place for nice, calm discussion

 * It is currently sourced in the Music and Lyrics section: "Most of the second half has blues-rock jamming." and sourced to the Allmusic review mentioned in the above talk section. Regardless of who re-added it, it was correctly re-added per the above consensus. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 17:35, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * That's not nearly explicit enough, per Dan56's usual disclaimer for genre removals/additions. FTR, it looks like a sock ring is quite adamant about its inclusion. Why are so many "non-sock" editors getting in line to defend the additions of socks? Harmelodix (talk) 17:38, 26 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Please What is it with you, you've been throwing accusations of socks, sockmasters for going on three days, either show some proof (diff's) or shut the hell up.   Mlpearc  ( open channel ) 17:43, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not accusing anyone of anything, but its odd to see such adamant support for something added by a vandal of Wikipedia, which in and of itself isn't an issue if the sourcing explicitly stated that this album, not just elements of it, is a blues rock album. I don't see anywhere near the threshold that Dan56 usually requires, e.g. from two weeks ago, "None of the sources explicitly say this album's music is 'R&B' or 'dubstep'". Harmelodix (talk) 18:01, 26 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Well, I disagree, as do two other editors currently. I'd say a description pertaining to a large portion of an album (most of a side) would qualify as a genre that applies to an album.
 * Who added this information is irrelevant. The fact is that it is sourced, the source supports the information it claims to support, and several editors disagree with you removing it. I'm supporting its inclusion due to WP:RS and WP:V. If it was originally added by a sockpuppet, so be it; it is now supported by other "non-sock" editors (as you so eloquently put it). MrMoustacheMM (talk) 17:46, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Lets let this RfC run for at least 30 days. Then we can ask for an uninvolved closer to determine of blues rock is currently properly sourced and appropriate for the article. All I see is now two or three buddies agreeing with each other (when don't you guys agree), which is not really the intent of WP:CONSENSUS. Harmelodix (talk) 18:01, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:AGF and knock off these half-accusations you keep throwing around (sock puppets, collusion, etc). They are in no way helping the discussion. Maybe we all agree because we all happen to have a similar opinion on this discussion. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 18:55, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * No problem. In fact I had already stopped, but I don't mind reiterating that I won't allude to the fact that at least three socks have edit-warred to retain blues rock at this article. I'm more concerned that its completely unsourced and contested. Do we usually leave unsourced stuff in articles even after its contested? Can a local consensus override WP:VERIFY, which allows for the removal of any and all unsourced material? Harmelodix (talk) 19:00, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Moustache, enough already. Harmelodix has moved on, so should we all. Harmelodix, the policy does not mandate removal, of course, and in this case it think the issue is "poorly sourced material". I believe that if the above-mentioned note is the only verification, it's very poor. VERIFY doesn't help much here: you can be right in removing it; they can be right in restoring it, and it's not a BLP matter or anything like that. So we'll need to come to a consensus here. Dan, you've edited tons of these articles. Don't you agree it's a bit thin? (And for the record, I hear the bluesy rock influence/style as well, but "genre", that's a big word.) Drmies (talk) 19:13, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * , I hear you on the difference between "unsourced" and "poorly sourced", but how about WP:OR? To take "has some blues-rock jamming" as meaning "is a blues rock album" might be OR, and if it is, then it can be removed regardless of local consensus, because local consensus does not trump "one of Wikipedia's three core content policies", does it? Harmelodix (talk) 23:00, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * That's a good point, but, you know, those others will disagree. Yes, almost everything is negotiable. But I'm hoping that they come up with something stronger than the jamming. Whoever's going to close this could hardly be convinced by the one (half) citation. Drmies (talk) 23:10, 26 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I think that to interpret "has some blues-rock jamming", as meaning "is a blues rock album", is to engage in original research, and I invoke WP:STICKTOTHESOURCE. All the sources that I can find call it a metal album and nothing else - nobody says its multi-genre, so I think that we should reflect what the preponderance of reliable sources say, and exclude blues rock until a reliable source explicitly states that the album is of that genre, versus vaguely implying that some of the music is blues rock-esque jamming. The cited source doesn't even explicitly say that any of the songs are of the blues rock genre, let alone that the entire album is. Harmelodix (talk) 23:00, 26 June 2014 (UTC)


 * FTR, what the cited source actually says is, "Unfortunately, much of side two is given over to loose blues-rock jamming learned through Cream, which plays squarely into the band's limitations." So I've made a series of edits to make the article more closely reflect what the author intended., what do you think of my contributions? Harmelodix (talk) 00:09, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with them, but you're kind of clouding the RfC, which should be on one, small point--and you may antagonize your opponents here. Drmies (talk) 00:58, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay, but if this is about what the cited source explicitly states, then the language that we use shouldn't be the biased paraphrase of an editor who wants to include blues rock. It should be based on what the cited author actually said and meant. Its a cherry pick in the extreme to say that Steve Huey implied blues rock as a genre, when he obviously didn't. Harmelodix (talk) 01:08, 27 June 2014 (UTC)


 * , please do not nitpick a perfectly acceptable paraphrase of Huey's opinion on the second side when you "cherry-picked" (without attribution → no "according to Huey" or "Huey viewed...") "evil, paganism, and the occult" out of "evoke visions of evil, paganism, and the occult as filtered through horror films and the writings of J.R.R. Tolkien, H.P. Lovecraft, and Dennis Wheatley." Once again, you're misinterpreting Wikipedia guidelines (WP:CHERRY)--no significant qualifying information was excluded from the paraphrase--Huey quite clearly says that much of the album's second half has blues rock jamming. Dan56 (talk) 02:38, 27 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Furthermore, I reverted your removal because it was disruptive, not because whether I agreed with it or not. If you want to make potentially controversial changes that have been discussed before, it'd be wise to discuss them first, and heed was I originally wrote on "22:56, 25 June 2013" in the above discussion--I didn't have any position, but indulged in the discussion when AllMusic's reliability was questioned. I made no such argument about genres when I reverted you . The hidden comments saying "Discuss changes on talk page first" should have been enough, but they weren't and you were reverted twice, by me and others. That's a benefit of discussions, to avoid edit warring and disruptive reverting. Dan56 (talk) 02:53, 27 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Dan, what I hear you say is "Harmelodix can't revert because I said so, and if they revert it's edit warring, so I am entitled to revert them (and that's not edit warring)." Pot, kettle: your revert is disruptive. Frankly I'm very disappointed with your words and actions--and not just because some of the phrasing you introduced is just horrible. Besides, Huey didn't "feel" something was inspired by Cream, he said they had learned it through Cream: if you're going to be (cherry)picky, I can be picky too. "Learning" is not the same as "being inspired by", so you're probably committing the Terrible Sin of Original Research (I'm being facetious--you're guilty of poor writing). The verbosity in "Wagner said that the album is often credited for making the distinction" is pretty bad too. I seem to remember from earlier discussions that I wasn't impressed by your prose, but what's more offensive here is the ownership you claim. In fact, I don't think I approve of anyone's edits here; it's as if the two of you are trying your hardest to drive this to some climax. Drmies (talk) 04:01, 27 June 2014 (UTC)


 * , you're being wait too critical. I only brought up WP:CHERRY because he accused me of it in his previous comment. Did Cream teach Black Sabbath how to jam in a blues rock style? I was being a little intuitive to avoid overquoting, and frankly don't regret it:, , , . I in no way implied ownership in my last comment, so I'm disappointed you would feel that way, and I'm more disappointed in how you're sympathizing with Harmelodix, who has continued antagonizing me and other editors with amateurish accusations, like that pathetic attempt to bring up my past edits in his first two comments at this subsection. In any case, WP:BRD is pretty clear about what I said before: "any edits that are potentially controversial are often the targets of reverts, so—in the spirit of collaborative editing—prior discussion is often wise." I was saying this exactly: "If you want to make potentially controversial changes that have been discussed before, it'd be wise to discuss them first". Dan56 (talk) 15:28, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * This is more self-fulfilling and self-serving complaints from Dan56. My edits are only controversial because Dan says they are, which is pretty convenient when you want to stop any and all progress at an article. Harmelodix (talk) 16:14, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Dan, do you realize what that sounds like if you say that while reverting? I am doing my best to get along with you, and I have in the past tried to assist you, but I think that you are taking a personal conflict with an editor way too far, and out into article space. If you want people to stop making disruptive edits, don't make any yourself! ("But my edit wasn't disruptive." Yes it was.) Drmies (talk) 16:35, 27 June 2014 (UTC)


 * , your edits are controversial because other editors have reverted your removal of it or disagreed with you in this section, or because previous edit warring had gone on that led to the original discussion up top. Pick., I made my points in my previous comment, and have nothing to say to you about your last. Dan56 (talk) 23:37, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, I suppose we're all edit warring then. Mark me down at 1R: I have reverted those edits of yours for reasons I gave above. Drmies (talk) 01:09, 28 June 2014 (UTC)


 * This is a pretty clear argument against blues rock as a genre; there is too much in there for me to cite, but if this article is to make it to GA or to FA this book (published by Ashgate) ought to be cited. (In addition, chapters 2 and 3 argue heavy metal (Sabbath) vs. hard rock (Led Zeppelin) pretty extensively. Very useful, and academic to boot.) Then there's this, "Sabbath was an unpredictable creative breakthrough" away from blues (rock). Here, "blues-derived" but totally different. So I really see no reason to call blues rock an operative genre here, but plenty of reason to extend the discussion into origins and what Sabbath did with it--especially the Ashgate book can do that. Such an extension is especially warranted given that this is their debut album and since it has become so important, a point I tried to make with a minor edit (a transition sentence) here. Drmies (talk) 14:29, 28 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Alright, I think I've seen enough convincing arguments to remove "blues rock" from the infobox. Consider my mind changed. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 18:08, 29 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Well, it seems that everyone except Dan56 is in agreement here, so I presume that we can close this RfC and remove blues rock from the infobox without bothering someone to officially close this, but I don't want to breach protocol. What says you, ? Harmelodix (talk) 22:09, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Ha! Well, obviously I can't close this, even if it were uncontroversial. (Thanks, Moustache: it's not easy to change minds, sometimes, and doing it means one is not yet fossilized--I envy you your flexibility.) Best thing to do is to ping an admin to see if they can close it, and to not act preemptively, lest one (you) be accused of acting hastily. Let me place a note on AN. Drmies (talk) 04:42, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Drmies! Harmelodix (talk) 18:03, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * , have you asked for an uninvolved close, or should I do that? Harmelodix (talk) 17:33, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I did, I thought--but there's nothing on AN right now. Drmies (talk) 09:20, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * , is there a request there now, because I'm still not seeing one. Harmelodix (talk) 17:27, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * It was there, then it was archived, and now I put it back up again. Drmies (talk) 17:38, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Left-handed
This is getting silly. Why would leaving out what happened afterward confuse the reader? Said reader might well ask, "so what if he got a different guitar after the album was recorded? And what does "the original left-handed SG" mean? The original SG was, apparently, right-handed. As I indicated here, mentioning the afterward-guitar makes sense only if it is placed in some kind of meaningful content. Might as well mention that years later Iommi was endorsed by Laney--that also has nothing to do with this article. Drmies (talk) 14:18, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * This requires a discussion? Silly indeed. The edit you prefer mentioned a right-handed model which the left-handed Iommi played upside down. Fine. Then it jumped immediately to "the original left-handed SG guitar". Don't you suppose the average reader might stop and think "What original left-handed SG guitar is being referred to"? So I restored the original text which explains it. It's one sentence for God's sake, and it serves to provide some needed context. Caper454 (talk) 14:32, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Gotcha. Thanks. But that only increases the confusion, since there was no original left-handed guitar, if indeed the left-handed SG was acquired after the recording, if "Soon after recording the album" means "after the recording. Drmies (talk) 15:22, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Never mind. Fortunately the source is available online. "Original" is simply incorrect. Drmies (talk) 15:31, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * How on earth did this increase confusion? This entire issue/discussion was completely unnecessary. Caper454 (talk) 15:38, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Wait. Do you understand that if the original SG was a right-handed model, that there was no original left-handed model? Just checking. Drmies (talk) 21:10, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Most likely, the first (most notable) left handed guitar was a used by Jimi Hendrix I'll go out on a limb here and say, up until then (and a little time after) no guitar manufacture made a left handed version. They were made (strung in reverse) by the user.  Mlpearc  ( open channel ) 21:31, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Drmies: As the source states, he purchased a right-handed SG as a backup. He then later traded that right-handed model for a left-handed model, and this original left-handed model ("original" meaning the first left-handed model which he owned) subsequently became his primary guitar. I honestly don't get what you mean by "there was no original left-handed model". Caper454 (talk) 22:58, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The word you're looking for is "first", not "original". It was his first left-handed SG, maybe. "Original" here must be read in the context of the recording, and since it is not used in the recording, and since this is not an article on Iommi's ownership of guitars, "original" makes no sense. Drmies (talk) 23:39, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * You're making this unnecessarily complicated. The word "original" is absolutely fine and makes perfect sense here but go ahead and change it to "first" if that will finally satisfy you and put this to rest. Caper454 (talk) 00:49, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll have to agree with here "Original" (to me) in that context implies it was manufactured as a left-handed instrument, when in fact it was just new to Iommi.   Mlpearc  ( open channel ) 01:55, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I already changed the wording yesterday to make it make sense, Caper. Drmies (talk) 02:23, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Mlpearc: What are you missing? It was manufactured as a left-handed instrument. Caper454 (talk) 14:07, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * My apologizes, I should of said "The first manufactured left-handed instrument".  Mlpearc  ( open channel ) 14:14, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Should have said. Caper454 (talk) 16:26, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Should have stayed awake in English class.   Mlpearc  ( open channel ) 16:29, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Genre again
I think it's definitely blues-rock, and here's a reference for hard rock, which my opinion all the 70s Sabbath albums kind of are. http://rockhall.com/inductees/black-sabbath/bio/ 108.81.33.59 (talk) 02:40, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Your source only refers to the album as "blues-based hard rock" and doesn't explicitly refer to it as "blues rock". Caper454 (talk) 17:52, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 14:22, 1 May 2016 (UTC)