Talk:Maxinquaye/Archive 1

cover
Is "Hell Is Round The Corner" a cover of Portishead's "Glory Box"???
 * No, it either samples it or uses the same sample as "Glory Box" 203.217.72.38 12:04, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
 * They both sample "ike's rap" by isaac hayes.--Zsnow 22:59, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


 * "Ike's Rap III" is the proper Isaac Hayes track sampled in both tracks. Khal 16:10, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Pumpkin ... Led Zeppelin - "I'm gonna Crawl"
Pumpkin uses a Smashing Pumpkins sample, yes. But how about the use throughtout the song of Led Zeppelin's "I'm Gonna Crawl"? (on 'In through the out door') No one ever mentions that. Or am I wrong? JeroenVanB 21:30, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Tricky - Maxinquaye.jpg
Image:Tricky - Maxinquaye.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 04:54, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Inclusion of Public Enemy member
I notice that Public Enemy members (Carlton Ridenhour etc) are mentioned in the Personnel, presumably because of the cover of Black Steel on the album. The tracklisting section already mentions that Black Steel is a cover and links to the page for the original song if anyone wants to know who wrote it so I don't think there's any need to list all the composers of Black Steel again here in this Maxinquaye article. Also, reading just the Personnel section of this article would give the false impression that Pulic Enemy were somehow directly involved in the production of Maxinquaye which could be misleading. For those reasons I'm removing Chuck D et al from the Personnel section of this article.

62.189.108.220 (talk) 13:07, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

FTV
FTV is credited in the album's notes as contributing to "Black Steel". FTV would seem to be the band French TV, which sometimes goes by those initials and seems to have worked elsewhere with Tricky--but I can't find confirmation online that they're the FTV mentioned in the notes. Nareek (talk) 04:15, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Etymology
Where does the word "Maxinquaye" come from; what does it mean? Equinox (talk) 04:47, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The general belief is that it's a sort of portmanteau of Tricky's mother's name: Maxine Quaye :) — sparklism hey! 08:20, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

back and forth
user:Dan56 You've again reverted a whole host of revisions (review quotes I found to be far more descriptive of the record) as well as the correction of your explicit misquoting of a source because...the lead was partial? (I simply included a retrospective critical quotation which seems to echo the overwhelming positive critical consensus already alluded to in the sentence before and put the album itself in a larger historical context..if you're suggesting that makes it partial, I'd like to disagree completely) and because one quotation was contextualized incorrectly? If these two things were an issue, I don't see why it wouldn't have been far simpler to manually fix them rather than ditch all my edits.
 * I didn't "ditch" the reviewers you added. Dan56 (talk) 07:26, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Re: the lead, my revisions don't remove or add any information, so you'll have to justify your reversions on the basis of the stylistic superiority of your version. As far as I'm concerned, my writing is simply better—better reflects the kind of encyclopedic and expositional language expected out of a good Wikipedia article. Phrases like "who sang on most of the songs with him" are so imprecise ("most of the songs" sounds VERY encyclopedic) and flaccid in their prose (i.e. sings? she also raps, and whispers, and croaks...why not include those words too?) Withholding the date of the album's release until the second paragraph is just mind numbing—not only is that not the standard approach for Wikipedia articles on works of art, it also involves you attempting some sort of narrative chronology into an exposition that is muddled by it (i.e. we don't need to be told when and how he recorded the album before we learn information as basic as when it was released). And "a term Tricky himself disliked" is simply superfluous to include in the lead. "That was being dubbed" versus "dubbed"...."all-time lists of the greatest albums" versus "all-time lists"...."key album" versus "pivotal release"....do you have any justification for maintaining the lead this way? GC16 06:06, 5 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I addressed similar complaints you made here, so I'm not indulging you any more, although I will mention the definition of "sings" renders that complaint utterly ridiculous (not to mention based on nothing currently cited in the article). Dan56 (talk) 07:26, 5 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Try again. The Christgau quote is still misquoted to your preference and without brackets or any further indication when it simply doesn't need to be picked apart and reconstructed in the absurd way you've done, and your paraphrase makes claims that are nowhere in the review (he doesn't anywhere suggest that Tricky represents the culmination of black British dance music. On the contrary, he sets him directly apart from it (especially as the British rave scene was still very much prominent at the time)), and whether your emphasis on this convoluted suggestion is even relevant to an excerpt of a critical review is a pertinent question—you seem to be trying to include historical context that fits your interest in both Christgau and discussions of genre—a quote focusing on his relationship to trip hop after you already mention his distaste of the label, another on Brit dance music that references several groups, etc, when the sources contain far more relevant descriptions of the music and work as a whole. GC16 05:45, 6 December 2015 (UTC)


 * "From Soul II Soul to Massive Attack to Tricky is a straight line leading straight down to a bad place you should take a chance and visit ... He saw through the willed optimism of black-Brit dance music a long time ago." Also, you were the one who first mentioned "his distate of the label" . I merely expounded on it since it's come up in several reviews (WP:WEIGHT). Dan56 (talk) 03:48, 6 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I think you're conflating the "straight line" "from Soul II Soul to Massive Attack to Tricky" with "black-Brit dance music" as such rather than a particular trajectory to come out of it. It seems to me, from both the written and historical context, that Christgau is setting this particular tangent as splitting away from "the willed optimism of black-Brit dance music". There's nothing in the text to suggest that Massive Attack or Soul II Soul are being portrayed as representatives of this optimistic black-Brit dance music in general, or that Tricky is being cast as its culmination—a word which suggests finality. From a basic historical perspective, this review was written while black-Brit dance music was at its critically acclaimed and still-developing peak via rave culture and jungle etc, and Christgau was peripherally aware of this in other writings—I think the proper interpretation is one of him setting Tricky against concurrent optimistic black music rather than as its logical end. (This relationship was dramatized later in the decade by Tricky's feud with jungle star Goldie, another acclaimed black Brit producer.) "Culmination" is certainly the wrong word, or at least not one justified by the text.


 * Fine. I've revised it to "deviation from the more optimistic Black British dance music " Dan56 (talk) 16:40, 6 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Re "trip hop": no, my sentence was "though Tricky would later attempt to distance himself from the label" which implies a subsequent career trajectory (i.e. his later attempts to make abrasive works that could not be categorized as part of the term), while your "a term Tricky himself disliked" simply suggests an artist's superfluous distaste over a word, hardly as substantial or informative. Again, your simple changing of syntax has semiotic effects you don't seem to want to acknowledge. GC16 05:45, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * "A TERM TRICKY LOATHES" (WP:STICKTOSOURCE) Dan56 (talk) 16:31, 6 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Invoking dictionary definitions doesn't change the fact that your choice of syntax implies, quolloquially, something far more rigid than what she actually does, and furthermore, you've failed to show me why "vocals" isn't the more proper and technical term, especially when the album credits themselves, as well as the majority of the sources, use it to describe her role. Plus, "most of the songs" still sounds terrible, and you repeat it for an image caption. There are several other problems with the lead (why isn't the information in the second and third sentences combined into a more succinct one sentence, for example the one I already tried to include? Ie "The album was produced by Tricky at his home studio in London with the assistance of co-producer Mark Saunders, and features the vocals of his then-girlfriend Martina Topley-Bird."? Why did you remove this edit? I'd like an actual answer rather than vague dismissals.


 * *colloquially* Dan56 (talk) 03:48, 6 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Bad autocorrect—but you can't honestly be saying that because the dictionary defines singing so vaguely, that something like "rapping" stills fall under the heading of "singing," despite the fact that in common logic they are obviously distinct.GC16 05:45, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you should rethink your perspective on things, seriously. And what "rapping"? According to Neil Strauss, she "sings and singsongs" Dan56 (talk) 16:31, 6 December 2015 (UTC)


 * You didn't indulge anything, you answered the bare minimum with cheap excuses that justified what frankly still reads like an elementary summary. If we could get some outside editors to help settle these issues impartially, that would seem to me the best way to go.GC16 22:40, 5 December 2015 (UTC)


 * No objection to that. Dan56 (talk) 03:48, 6 December 2015 (UTC)


 * In addition, you've removed my revision of your overlong biographical information, which itself repeated the same basic and relevant information in addition to including information about his mother (after whom the album is named). Why? Is knowledge of The Wild Bunch and its history really so pertinent to this record so much as knowing generally that Tricky was involved in Bristol's music scene and collaborated with Massive Attack? GC16 22:51, 5 December 2015 (UTC)


 * The Billboard article by Dominic Pride from 1995 on the album found it to be relevant information for context, and I agreed--it gives background to what he does as a musician on record (producer, rapper) as well as his subsequent use of experimental music and slow tempos (lo-NRG, as Christgau called it). I don't see how his mother committing suicide is tied to the story, but it would make more sense to bring it up in the paragraph where the title is being discussed since that's the only relevance here, the title. Dan56 (talk) 03:48, 6 December 2015 (UTC)


 * This doesn't seem like reason to include a biography, especially since Tricky had already been engaging in this kind of experimentalism with Massive Attack for two albums before Maxinquaye and this wasn't the first major album he was a significant part of, just a solo debut—a sentence or two rather than the paragraph you wrote seems more than enough.


 * Again, not a biography (perhaps you should look up that word as well smh). Dan56 (talk) 16:31, 6 December 2015 (UTC)


 * The significance of his mother's influence has been discussed at length by journalists as a context for hearing the album: see Stylus in 2003: "'it's tempting to read the whole of Maxinquaye in terms of 'issues' – add this fear of closeness together with the widely publicized fact that Tricky's mother died when he was four, and that the album is named after her (her name was Maxine Quay), and you have yourself a juicy Freudian reading of the record. And it does work on that level – Tricky even taunts us with that angle directly.''" and Tricky himself in The Wire: ""And I said my mum committed suicide, he goes, ahh that’s it. My first lyric ever on a song was “your eyes resemble mine, you’ll see as no others can” [from Aftermath]. I didn’t have any kids then – Maisie wasn’t born – so what am I talking about? Who am I talking about? My mother. My mother, I found out when I was making a documentary, used to write poetry but in her time she couldn’t have done anything with that, there wasn’t any opportunity. It’s almost like she killed herself to give me the opportunity, my lyrics. I can never understand why I write as a female, I think I’ve got my mum’s talent, I’m her vehicle. So I need a woman to sing that." This quote also seems to introduce a genuinely pertinent piece of information on something Tricky did for the first time on this album—use female vocals so prominently—so I think a bit on this relationship would be illuminating and relevant. GC16 05:45, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I've already added info on his mother's suicide, and all that was not exactly the information you had added before, but I'll add it now. Dan56 (talk) 16:31, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

I see the lead still reads languid-not-professional and the Christgau extraction still appears as an unruly botching—any chance you, as an administrator, could draw some of that third party user attention I suggested to sort these impasses out? Unsure of the most efficient ways to do so. GC16 10:36, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Recent revision to the lead
I cant believe you're making such a big deal out of this,  Dan56 (talk) 18:29, 21 February 2016 (UTC)


 * 1) Repetition is not inescapable if you stick to my revision. You're revision forces more repetition (Tricky is named three times in the span of two sentences, both of which you've extended and make more awkward, longer, for no substantial reason), and you never justified forcing a mention of the release date and record label in the first sentence when we were discussing this in the above good article review, so like WTF? The sentence structure you used is more awkward, and now you have the mention of the recording year following the release date?? If that isn't awkward or anachronistic, I don't know what to say to you. It makes NO sense to write that way, to mention it, just because of your opinion on the relevancy of the release year and record label?? WP:LEAD says to define the article topic in the first sentence. Other relevant information is to be spread out in the lead, with some logic to style I hope smh... Dan56 (talk) 18:30, 21 February 2016 (UTC)


 * 2) Additionally, like I said in my edit summary reverting you (which you didn't address), "trip hop" was a term used back then, to describe what's since been called by other names (Robert Christgau, "Consumer Guide: Burial: Untrue", MSN Music: 2008), so my phrasing is appropriate: "what was being called 'trip hop'", and you removed "a term Tricky himself disliked", when the appropriateness of the term is given significant enough discussion in the Reception section. Dan56 (talk) 18:29, 21 February 2016 (UTC)


 * 3) There was nothing wrong (grammatically or any other way) with the previous revision, which was how you passed it in GA! You basically chopped it up and condensed the lead into two paragraphs made up of two overlong sentences each; if you read it, the first sentence in the second paragraph in your revision sounds extremely running off at the mouth. I cant believe you're making a deal out of this. Like come on! You passed the article with my revision (as is) of the lead. If you had a problem with it, you shouldn't have passed it to begin with :/ Dan56 (talk) 18:29, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I passed it because I thought this was just a dispute between you and me -- thus just a matter of taste and also because I never thought nothing was going to come out of that discussion regarding the lead, but then I discovered GC16's comment on your lead version in this talk page. That was when I changed my position on this subject, because I realised that somebody else had voiced a preferral of my way, strengthening the position of having such a lead.


 * Apologies for completely missing that part out -- and fair point indeed. That part of the lead can easily be fitted onto my edition.


 * There is nothing wrong gramatically, but it just seems to jump to something completely different after the first sentence. I believe the reader is out for two key things in the lead, album name, artist and release date. The rest is effective junk, and can be placed afterwards. The issue with the second paragraph and can be easily resolved by cutting off the sentence after "record chart" and then starting another sentence with '[It] recieved'.


 * We can't go on like this. I don't want to recieve my first slap on the wrist and you don't want it to be your eighth! We need more opinions. Myname is not dave (talk/contribs) 19:12, 21 February 2016 (UTC)


 * User:Dan56 this is ridiculous now. You have two users, who you can at the very least acknowledge are not just trolls or vandals arguing for POV but editors making basic arguments for ostensible coherence, telling you that your version reads like shit. Are you going to keep riding this one out until you assume everyone forgets? And for the (obvious) record, I second the changes just made by user:my name is not dave. GC16 19:58, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * GC16 Would you be happy to take this to WP:DRN? Myname is not dave (talk/contribs) 20:10, 21 February 2016 (UTC)


 * , GC16 has been trolling articles I've edited or heavily contributed to. His objections are pretentious and (let me try putting this in a vocabulary in line with his tastes...) obtrusive (lol). "Ostensible coherence" and "your version reads like shit" pretty much sum up his argument. And for the record, why would either of us get blocked? No revisions are being made, and we're discussing. Or at least I am, because you haven't made much of an attempt to explain or justify each of your changes, while I explained every little thing you did to the lead and why it's not an improvement. Both of you are drawing focus away from the actual changes by making this about something else. And what? You think it strengthens what position when you hardly established it from the beginning. That user never even brought up the release date and record label the way you did, and some user. "I see the lead still reads languid-not-professional"... far as I'm concerned, my writing is simply better"... like who does he think he is?lol. Did you even bother reading my responses to him regarding his objections, or did you just see an opportunity to have another editor supporting your preference? I'm not talking or responding to either one of you unless you have something to say about the specific content of the lead your objecting to. Otherwise, open an RfC Dan56 (talk) 22:16, 21 February 2016 (UTC)


 * To counter "That user never even brought up the release date and record label the way you did": a line from my first paragraph on this page reads: "Withholding the date of the album's release until the second paragraph is just mind numbing—not only is that not the standard approach for Wikipedia articles on works of art, it also involves you attempting some sort of narrative chronology into an exposition that is muddled by it (i.e. we don't need to be told when and how he recorded the album before we learn information as basic as when it was released)." Not only did you not discuss this at any length, you dismissed it entirely. Here was your thoughtful objective response: "I don't see a problem with how it was before, which made more sense chronologically and with the order of what is discussed in the article's body."


 * Regarding "trolling", if I remember correctly, I was me who began trying to significantly improve this page first, with Revision as of 19:47, 15 August 2015—like so many of our encounters here, I got to the page first to attempt some positive contributions, and you showed up and went on a reverting spree, getting rid of what didn't fit your taste, refusing to hear anything different, waving your WP guidelines around like a police badge. Trying to paint me as some sort of asshole ("like who does he think he is?lol") doesn't stop the fact that you're the biggest troll here right now. Currently, two users are asking you to concede to an incredibly simple Wikipedia precedent—first paragraph is kept tight, with basic info such as release date and label.And you continue to resist, for reasons beyond any sense. On top of that, I still can't see how you can be arguing for sentences like "He recorded the album in 1994 with his then-girlfriend, vocalist Martina Topley-Bird, who sang on most of the songs with him." So yes, I stand by my "still reads languid-not-professional" and "your version reads like shit" because, as someone with an interest in keeping Wikipedia a helpful and convenient resource, I think it does. It's badly written man, accept that and help us make it better.


 * , I'd be happy to take this to WP:DRN. And while we're at it, at the moment, me and Dan56 are also currently having a similar dispute over at the talk page for My Beautiful Dark Twisted Fantasy. Feel free to help out and join in on the fun, if you're so inclined. GC16 22:56, 21 February 2016 (UTC)


 * another issue I brought up earlier this year was User:Dan56's horrible (and citational-incorrect/editorializing) mangling of the Robert Christgau review excerpt included in the Critical Reception section. There is a pathetically hyperbolic phrase there ("spectacular aural displays") that Dan56 completely made up, and he also reorganizes the structure of two sentences to express something new, and without making his changes clear with punctuation (the colon is nowhere in the original review, and there are no brackets used). I made several good faith attempts to fix that, and they were immediately reverted each time. Check that out too. GC16 23:13, 21 February 2016 (UTC)


 * There is no standard or precedent whereby the release date and record label should be mentioned in the first sentence. If there is, please cite it, GC16. Dan56 (talk) 23:21, 21 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Standard: "something established by authority, custom, or general consent as a model or example." It's incontrovertibly the way the great majority of music releases, especially those that have received acknowledge for being "Good" or "Featured" articles, have been structured. Want a citation? Take a look at Featured articles and tell me what the general consent or custom seems to be.


 * But know what? Fuck your rulebook and WP guidelines. How about this: in the absence of a WP guideline to either side, BASIC INFO IN THE FIRST PARAGRAPH MAKES MORE SENSE. IT IS THE MOST CONDUCIVE TO EXPRESSING THE ALBUM'S BASIC INFORMATION IN AN ACCESSIBLE AND UNCLUTTERED MANNER THAT WILL BEST CATER TO WIKIPEDIA READERS. Get that? GC16 23:55, 21 February 2016 (UTC)


 * There's no absence of a WP guideline. WP:LEAD makes it clear to only define the article's topic in the first sentence, which it currently does. Citing other stuff is meaningless. I was the major contributor to this article, so I chose to style it this way for the reasons I mentioned before. There's nothing inherently wrong about my choice to arrange it based on the order of the actual body. You just don't particularly like it and prefer how you've seen most other articles written, which isn't good enough reason to change it. Dan56 (talk) 00:26, 22 February 2016 (UTC)


 * "You just don't particularly like it." Yes, because as I and someone else have argued, it leaves the lead feeling vague and unclear. Again, in the absence of a particular rule either way (what is it to define something for you? Is date not relevant for you in that? "An album by x released in y" is somehow improper and filled with extra information now?), I can't see much more to your argument than what you've accused me/us of: "I was the major contributor" (translation: this page is mine all mine because I put the work in, lemme style it just how I want). "There is nothing inherently wrong" again I couldn't care less if it's INHERENTLY wrong, because it's circumstancially problematic enough to have flagged two separate editors' attention.


 * In short, your argument against our edits is "it's not explicitly in the rules and you just want it your way" and then your justification for keeping it your way is "well the rules don't explicitly say it's wrong and I want it my way, fuck convention and simplicity." Why the epic stubbornness? Do you really disagree so fervently that the way it's conventionally done is SO bad you need to dismiss it entirely? GC16 05:03, 22 February 2016 (UTC)


 * "feeling vague and unclear"? Did you ask the lead yourself how it's feeling? lol. Let me ask how it would feel if we revised it to "...released in 1995 by 4th & Broadway. It was recorded in 1994..."... CLUMSY. Dan56 (talk) 05:13, 22 February 2016 (UTC)


 * There is a rule, that I've cited before, that keeps going over both of your stubborn heads, or just over your stubborn noggin. WP:BEGIN: "the first sentence should give a concise definition: where possible, one that puts the article in context for the nonspecialist." (Here's my favorite part lol) "Try to not overload the first sentence by describing everything notable about the subject. Instead use the first sentence to introduce the topic, and then spread the relevant information out over the entire lead." Kapish?! Dan56 (talk) 05:19, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * That is not very specific towards an album. Myname is not dave (talk/contribs) 13:52, 22 February 2016 (UTC)


 * "Try not to overload": Is anyone proposing an overlong, horribly cluttered sentence like "Maxinquaye is the debut album by English musician and producer Tricky, released in 1995 by 4th & Bway, which has been acclaimed as one the best records of the 1990s and one of the defining releases of the trip hop genre"? Not even close. Including the date of the album—hey, why not include it before "debut" as in "Maxinquaye is the 1995 debut album by English producer Tricky, released on 4th and Broadway. Recorded in 1994 with the assistance of co-producer x, it..." I think I tried that too, and you reverted it as well. That way we've fixed your "CLUMSY" concern. That was easy!


 * But you can't seriously be talking about "clumsy" when you continually reinstate phrases like "who sang on most of the songs with him" and "a term Tricky himself disliked" and "Tricky produced the album mostly himself" dear me. GC16 15:15, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

, why do you expect it to be specific towards an album? The guideline refers to any article, so what do you mean?? Dan56 (talk) 01:09, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

RfC on lead
Should the lead be in the style of GC16's/My name is not dave's edition, or should it be in Dan56's edition? Alternatively, editors can propose their own versions of a lead. and GC16: Please do not hijack this RfC. Maintain your civility and comment if it helps moving towards a solution, not just ego-boosting, or I will take both of you to ANI (in fact, I feel tempted already -- this seems to be a long term issue). Myname is not dave (talk/contribs) 13:45, 22 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Dan56 Well duh lol. This was the revision that was discussed and accepted in the good-article review by the above nominator, so why the problem now?? Dan56 (talk) 04:11, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment. Given that this article is now a Featured Article candidate, I'd suggest that the most sensible course of action would be to close this RfC. The article will be subject to plenty of detailed scrutiny over there, and any grammatical/prose issues should be picked up. Having an open RfC could be seen to affect article stability and adversely affect it's chances at FAC, and in any case it doesn't seem like people are interested in participating here that much. Thanks. — sparklism hey! 19:10, 1 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Don't feel like the brunt of additional lead info has really improved it, plus there's the aesthetic question: is there any album more ill-served by quaint verbal summaries than this one? Seems inappropriate. GC16 18:54, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Don't feel like any of your changes had really improved it either. And an "aesthetic question"? The article is well served by the current lead. Lets not fanboy over what the article is about lol. Dan56 (talk) 07:22, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Lol User:Dan56 my friend, the completely unnecessary biographical section in the lead of this album article is literally longer than the biography in the lead of Tricky's actual biographical page—otherwise, the lead is getting increasingly ridiculous, visually unpleasant, and far too overloaded with clumsily attempts to summarize complex ideas ("The songs explore themes of dysfunctional sexual relationships, fear of intimacy, recreational drug use, and cultural decline" is another sentence that makes me want to vomit—'here teacher, these are the morals of the story!').

You continue to add unnecessarily comprehensive information—it seems you've literally slopped every piece of writing one could find on Maxinquaye into one grotesque behemoth of an article. Wikipedia isn't supposed to be Google or aCritical Companion to Maxinquaye—it's a summation of reputable sources that provides information about a subject. Inevitably, this page has stopped being about the album and has instead become about your desire to obsessively frame it as your own personal research project (do you have a life outside the furious wikipedia policing you've showcased on this page alone? Have you had time to actually listen to this fucking album in between mangling critical quotes to fit a 'meaningful' narrative?). For a piece of art so subtle, ambiguous, mysterious etc. you've really done a wonderful job of making it look as captivating as a CSPAN broadcast.

Get outside for a walk sometime. Open a window. GC16 08:02, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Another thing: Wikipedia is defined by its ostensibly egalitarian mode of editing—it's a wiki and everyone is supposed to be able to contribute and take part in a balanced way. At least 5 separate editors have taken issue with your work on this page over the last few months, and every single one has been shut down by you as you continue to nurture the article as your baby. Don't you see something wrong with that? Or do the possibilities of authoritarian information and content maintenance get you all tingly inside? GC16 08:42, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Encyclopedic style and neutral point of view?
This article is full of cherry-picked quotes and fan-page meanderings from the artist and those close to him. Aren't Wikipedia articles supposed to be neutral and factual? Aren't only the words of the interviewer used as reference material in an interview? Isn't information about performances supposed to be referenced to reviews after the event, rather than to announcements before the event? Also, this is an article about a specific album. There is already an article about Tricky (musician); shouldn't the biographical material, and information about his general music style, be there instead of here?&mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 15:23, 25 April 2016 (UTC)


 * All opinions are attributed just as that, and facts are facts; what are you questioning the truthfulness of exactly? What "performances" or "announcements"? And also, parts of Tricky's bio and the genre associated with him, are inextricably linked or in some way relevant to the album, as founded in sources covering the album. Like I said here, you removed material, including quotes, that gave insight into the recording and replaced it with choppier prose, some of which changed the meaning of what the sources support. Since when is quoting an "involved party" unfit or inappropriate, like you suggested here? The whole of this article, more or less, has been accepted by reviewers at its FAR, so these objections are also unexpected for that reason. Dan56 (talk) 15:39, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment:, I'm not going to take sides here but if it is true that album articles should not contain quotes from the performer(s), then pretty much every music-related FA and GA will have to be reviewed, because virtually all of them contain quotations from the artist, similar to this article. Richard3120 (talk) 15:42, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Dan56 left a message on my talk page HERE related to this subject, which others may wish to read. In it he points out that when I made this edit I changed the meaning of the sentence.  I found the original sentence confusing, which is why I changed it, and on re-reading I agree; will someone please change it to something factual and specific.&mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 16:03, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * No where is it said that Maxinquaye was sold "mostly to young people in the UK", which is what your revision made it mean. I don't know what you're on about. Dan56 (talk) 16:58, 25 April 2016 (UTC)


 * There doesn't appear to be a policy or guideline about quotations; we only have essays, such as:   WP:QUOTEFARM, WP:LONGQUOTE, Quotations and neutrality  and Quotations/2.  They all caution against the overuse of quotations, and suggest paraphrasing whenever possible.  That doesn't mean no quotations, but they shouldn't be sprinkled throughout the article.  Also, just because a well-know person says something, doesn't mean it's notable enough to be in the encyclopedia at all, let alone as a quote; only if reliable independent sources discuss the quoted words does it give them notability.  For example, if a famous artist says "I was sitting in a red chair when I got the idea to paint 'Pickled Herring on Rye'", should that be quoted in his article? Not unless (1) art critics write about how the colour of the chair affected the development of the painting and there's no accurate way to paraphrase the words, or (2) independent authors discuss the quotation itself for its literary value.  Musicians' publicists usually prefer quotes to paraphrasing, because they are often more colourful and help the musicians attract followers, but that is not the purpose of Wikipedia.   &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 16:38, 25 April 2016 (UTC)


 * "only if reliable independent sources discuss the quoted words does it give them notability"... I don't agree with your opinion. The journalist chose what to use from the interview they had with Saunders or Tricky, from god knows how many other words and statements the interviewee gave the journalist, so that editorial discretion gives what they ultimately published in the article its notability. I mean, I'm not citing a transcript of the friggin interview lol. As for overusing quotations, those essays you cited touch on using quotes impertinently. So far, it's only your opinion that some of the quotes are irrelevant or not useful. Dan56 (talk) 16:54, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Hmmm... I had only seen the word "impertinent" used to mean "impolite", but I see that it can also mean "irrelevant", so I presume that's what you mean. The essays I linked mention several reasons for limiting the number of quotes, not just relevance. I do agree though, that so far no one has spoken up to agree with me, so it's just my opinion, and those who wrote the essays.&mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 18:42, 25 April 2016 (UTC)


 * "Pertinence" is used in WP:QUOTEFARM: "...a quotation is used without pertinence..." And which of those essays say "only if reliable independent sources discuss the quoted words does it give them notability"? Not that I don't think Richard Buskin doesn't do that in his article/interview... because like I said before, the source is not a transcript of an interview. It's an article in which a journalist quotes and discusses what the subjects have said. Dan56 (talk) 21:40, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll use a quote I deleted as an example: It was from an interview in the Guardian.  It appears to be a direct transcript of the interview.  As is pointed out in Interviews, even highly respectable magazines with responsible editors don't fact-check the words of the interviewee - they just print them verbatim.  That means that the interviewee is the source, not the journalist, and she's a primary source.  According to WP:Verifiability one should "base articles on reliable, third-party, published sources" and Identifying reliable sources says the same thing.  About the other quote from this article in Sound on Sound: The entire section from which the quote was taken. called "Tricky's Home studio" (and most of the rest of the article, but that's beside the point) is a recounting an event, by one of the participants in the event, in his own words.  There's no contribution or discussion from the journalist. However, Dan56, I think you are right about what I said above - it should have been "only if reliable independent sources discuss the quoted words does it give them verifiability" not notability, and I apologize that.&mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 04:33, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * That story about Topley Bird sitting by the wall of Tricky's house has been mentioned in other sources, another interview and another not an interview . And I read the guidelines on primary sources, and there's nothing about not being able to use them, just that secondary sources are preferred; this article makes sporadic references to primary source material like interviewees who's information isn't verified elsewhere, and when it does make reference to them, they're attributed/quoted, which isn't inappropriate. I think you were rash in your judgment here; you removed a quote from Tricky when he's barely quoted throughout this article, same with Saunders, although you left material coming from his quoted words in Buskin's article yet are now claiming such material cant be used altogether . I still don't understand what your ultimate point about all this is. Dan56 (talk) 04:49, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I made a number of changes, not all for the same reason. I see that you have undone most of them.  In general, I felt I was improving the article by: (1) summarizing some biographical material, since this article is about an album (and the GA reviewer agreed with me about that) (2) paraphrasing some material that had been presented as quotes, since "Using too many quotes is incompatible with the encyclopedic writing style", and (3) in particular, summarizing (not removing) the material in the quote from Saunders because I believed it to be promotional: he was being interviewed for a magazine, so he described the recording process in as exciting a fashion as he could - to promote record sales. I replaced it with plain factual text.  As to your comment that I didn't remove all information from that source: I just removed that part that was opinion, and paraphrased the rest.  Even though the interview is a weak source, as you pointed out primary sources can be used with caution, and I had no reason to believe that the mixing of the album didn't happen as described. I notice that the quote was added after the GA review.&mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 07:49, 26 April 2016 (UTC)


 * "To promote record sales"? Seriously?? By comparing the sampling process to building a car from junkyard parts?? I mean, no one really knows anyone's intentions for what they say, now do they, but that's a ridiculous assumption with all due respect. And as far as what's opinion, I cited some opinions from those involved in the record because they give insight that was best articulated by their own words. And it was attributed as opinion, quoted properly... there's nothing wrong with doing that. There were other problems with your revisions; you left prose riddled with awkward run-ons and grammatical mistakes, and even removed a line where Simon Reynolds interpreted the album title as "Zion" (why? when the Rastafarian aspects to the record's themes is evident in what's later cited). As far as the Background section going into some bio, it's just two paragraphs, and it's Tricky's first album; most sources that extensively cover this album's story go into similar background, which is where the info is culled from... the section reflecting the sources on the topic, according to their prominence, which suggested to me was enough to give at least that much info that was biographical. In short, it's his first album, and readers should be given some info as to his artistic beginnings and not the impression he came out of nowhere. Dan56 (talk) 15:53, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't see why you think that it's improbable that celebrities try to be as interesting as possible during interviews in order to further their careers. To me it's obvious.  You'll notice that Elvis Presley, a featured article, is maybe 5% or less quotes, and most of them are quite short and to the point. And, of course, if you found grammatical errors the thing to do is correct them - that's non-controversial.  I likely would have gone over the sentences for that sort of thing when I was finished, but I stopped editing right away when you left a message on my talk page.


 * Frankly, Dan56, I see no point in discussing this further. Looking back at the article history and the history of this talk page, I can see that you have deep feelings about this article and will likely keep arguing long after I run out of energy.  So, summarizing my position, encyclopedia articles, unlike magazine articles and artist profiles, should be contain only verifiable facts written in plain factual language, with no attempt to display the importance of the subject or make the article more exciting through the inclusion of rhetoric, musings of closely connected people, proliferation of quotations, etc.   I can see that you'll likely restore the quote from Tricky, but I hope you will keep my comments in mind as you continue to edit the article.  I thank you for keeping the discussion civil. I have to get back to my usual "beat" now before someone deletes the abandoned drafts I've been trying to save.&mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 02:41, 27 April 2016 (UTC)


 * "Celebrities"? Lol. Saunders, like this record tbh, are relatively obscure. He'd have to be delusional to think the quote he gave would help this album sell any more copies than the little it's been able to sell so far. Dan56 (talk) 16:55, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Categories
I've just noticed that this album falls under the categories for WikiProject Rave, as in acid house/trance/EDM/etc... Seriously, if anyone can "rave" to this album, I want to meet them and give them a medal (or a barnstar). Richard3120 (talk) 15:57, 25 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Lmaooo... I added the Wikiproject banner because of Simon Reynolds' association of this album with British rave culture, or the drug culture aspect of it, in his book Generation Ecstasy: Into the World of Techno and Rave Culture. According to one source, this record incorporates "ambient techno" in its "mercurial style of dance music", so it's related in to some degree IMO. Dan56 (talk) 16:45, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Ha ha, fair enough – seeing as the project in question seems to be inactive and I don't think many people take too much notice of categories anyway, no harm done. Richard3120 (talk) 16:49, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Friendly intro
Hey gang (User:Binksternet, User:Greg Fasolino, User:Ilovetopaint, Drmies, User:Myxomatosis57, User:OpenFuture,), wondering if we can get some friendly moderation on this article, which has unfortunately degenerated into User:Dan56's pet project over the last year or so. I've attempted to make positive contributions in the past, ranging from rephrasing sentences to adding subsections to altering quote choices, all which were all summarily reverted by Dan56 without convincing explanations beyond "I like my way better." IMO the lead is clumsily organized (release date in last paragraph? unconnected background info in the first paragraph? No context specific to the album i.e. how and where it was recorded until the second paragraph?), the writing in terms of style strikes me as is often tacky and indulgent in places (how many in-depth explanations from the artist's mouth do we need? some summarizing and restraint would be welcome in that department), some iffy quote interpolations, etc. Several other users (My name is not dave, Anne Delong) have criticized Dan56 on the talk page for similar issues, as you can see, but he's simply dismissed them and held up the article's Good Article status as sufficient validation of his efforts—user my name is not dave nonetheless only approved the article with the following caveat: "It seems to be a matter of taste when it comes to the lead, I think we've gone past the stage of convincing each other, so better hold it there." Any thoughts on all this would be welcome. GC16 15:38, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Under consideration here: there are no subsections whatsoever, making the article visually into an overlong slog of an essay, with particular sections (#Music and themes, #Release and reception) including lumped-together information that could easily be split up into easier and more readable parts. I made the following simple changes to rectify this issues (under an IP accidentally, my fault), which were immediately reverted by Dan56 without any satisfactory response beyond, basically, 'i don't see why this needs to change, I liked it better my way." GC16 15:38, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * You're behaving--once again-- like a dishonest douche who omits details of our conflicts to paint a more favorable picture of yourself. My edit summaries, which you're well aware of, detailing the problems in your changes:
 * "His use of female vocalists did not "draw inspiration from his experiences in the British drug culture"; erroneous conflation; the rest is superfluous, preferential, and a matter of opinion; minus one sentence as a concession, the first paragraph... summarizes key parts of the article: what led to him to recording/wanting to record a solo album; he didn't pop out of thin air. The release date is appropriate in the sequence the summary is modeled after, the article's.)
 * "The "lyrics and themes" section includes material on composition/music; the "accolades" section includes material that has nothing to do with "accolades"; your subsections are tacky and unnecessary"
 * "furthermore I dont see how the vague use of the term "legacy" differentiates one paragraph of appraisals by critics from another paragraph of appraisals by critics; related, if not entirely the same, information" Dan56 (talk) 05:07, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Dan56, every single one of those summaries is a veiled POV claim—all of those problems could be fixed if you were willing to minimally reorganize the information into orderly sections to fit them. The first sentence ("erroneous conflation") was simply a small error that could have been fixed in a second. I wouldn't have objected to that. Also, I'm behaving extremely well actually, I'm absolutely sure of it. :) GC16 05:28, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 👍 Dan56 (talk) 05:31, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Do you guys see anything problematic about these changes? They seem like relatively uncontroversial and positive contributions to me, backed up by plenty of common sense and prior Wiki formatting precedence:


 * edit 1
 * edit 2
 * edit 3

Anyway, feedback or consensus on this would be helpful. I'm afraid Dan56 is again trying to thwart any positive and democratic editing contributions on a page seen as personal property. GC16 15:38, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Comment - Here's what the article looked like when it was deemed a good article. Nicely balanced into sections, and about the right length to maintain the interest of the reader (about 27,000 bytes). Still too much fanpage trivia IMO, but a reasonable proportion of basic factual information. Now its over 43,000 bytes, so about 40% of the text has been added since the review.  If most of this was just removed or summarized, especially the quotes, there would be no need for extra sections. Just because something is true, doesn't mean it should be in an encyclopedia. I tried to makes some edits in this direction, but I was in the middle of a big project at the time and didn't have time to spend on long discussions.  GC16, to receive a wider and less selected group of responders, there's always the Feedback request service. &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 17:32, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks much for that information User:Anne Delong. GC16 17:57, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes,, 40% of the text has been added since the GA review. Since the GA review, the article has also been promoted to featured status, supported by , , and . Dan56 (talk) 05:11, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Noticed that. Shook my head. Didn't change my opinion.&mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 05:24, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 👍 Dan56 (talk) 05:31, 16 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment I'm not sure whose edits are whose, but the current lead flow is awkward, and I do believe the "Music and themes" section should be broken up. I think there should be an official standard for album lead paragraphs that goes like,
 * Release date, initial sales and reception, most important landmark achievement(s)
 * Background (how the album came together)
 * Recording/composition of the album
 * Elaboration on the album's legacy (if some consider it the greatest of all time, if it ignited a movement, etc.)
 * --Ilovetopaint (talk) 18:40, 15 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks Ilovetopaint, I generally agree, and my attempts to alter the lead have been blocked repeatedly . GC16 05:24, 16 December 2016 (UTC)\


 * For the record and, here is my proposed lead, which is rough and could use some modifying but generally works well IMO.  GC16 19:15, 16 December 2016 (UTC)


 * , the "music", as discussed by the sources in that section, is tied to the "themes", so why would you want this section to be broken up? Ex.  Which section would this material belong in if they were to be split up? And how does the current lead not discuss those things you listed? They're all mentioned! Not too mention the fact that a previous RfC here, started by Gentle's ornery complaints, was closed and the lead deemed appropriate by the closer. Dan56 (talk) 04:40, 16 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Beware, the pivotal topic sentence Dan56 quoted above was paraphrased inaccurately by....Dan56. lol. As I said below, Reynolds never relegates the "themes" to the "production," and nothing about his essay on Tricky would preclude a break up from happening to benefit the page. GC16 05:58, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Um, Why couldn't the sentence "In Reynolds' opinion, Tricky's experiences with drug-induced paranoia, anxiety, and visions [...]" just be moved to the themes section? It tells us nothing specific about the recording or style, but about the thematic content. Again, if you wanted to, you could make this work. You're hiding behind appeals to Wiki authority and useless guidelines. GC16 05:35, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Um, did you bother to read the entire sentence? Maybe?? No??? I'll embolden key words for you, friend.  Dan56 (talk) 05:40, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) The Reynolds text literally doesn't say that. You've summarized pages of discussion into the equation production = themes. He simply talks about what's going on in the songs, and then talks about the ideas surrounding them. There's no explicit connection that would preclude them being reorganized to the needs of the page. There's also, y'know, no reason why you couldn't just say "In Reynolds' opinion, Tricky's experiences with drug-induced paranoia, anxiety, and visions of specters and demons were represented in songs such as "Aftermath" and "Hell Is Round the Corner"—especially considering you wouldn't be putting words in the author's mouth about "the production" being the sole source of these ideas. 2) Everything after "For the latter track" could be relegated to recording and style, except for the final part saying "Tricky's LYRICS made explicit reference to his "visions of "mystical shadows," which.....you know what's coming...would fit perfectly in the LYRICS and themes section. try harder, you're not gonna make it . GC16 05:49, 16 December 2016 (UTC)


 * LOL i love that you quote your own inaccurate paraphrases to justify your position. never change 1!!1!1!!1!! GC16 05:53, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I love that you accuse others of the kind of bad research you do yourself! :)  Dan56 (talk) 06:20, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Dude what. What are those supposed to signify? [7] was an honest article summary disagreement, [8] was me accidentally slipping a citation ahead of a few words, [9] a cited genre? I don't understand. I assume you can't defend your edits, and are trying to go off topic, and poorly at that.  GC16 06:40, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes. You know me so well. Bra-. Vo. Dan56 (talk) 08:55, 16 December 2016 (UTC)


 * ... why would you want this section to be broken up? Because it's simply too big. I don't see why subsections can't be worked in.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 08:26, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * , is this better? The two "sections" cross reference each other topically (sounds/production tied to themes, vice versa), so I did not want to wholly separate them. Dan56 (talk) 08:55, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Dear me, we've made a breakthrough fellas. A better future may still be possible after all. GC16 19:17, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

GC16's unrelenting attempts to style this article as he sees fit
Even though the revision of this article Gentle seems to despise was essentially the same one reviewed (and promoted) for featured status, this guy continues to try and muscle his stylistic preferences and point of views while disparaging me for what he calls my "pet project". Nothing new. The same happened at other articles I've been the major contributor to. eg. Channel Orange--where the same layout and restructuring changes Gentle made at Maxinquaye were made by him and reverted by another editor, :
 * 00:29, 24 September 2016
 * 01:37, 25 September 2016
 * 13:29, 25 September 2016 Dan56 (talk) 05:27, 16 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I again don't understand how the approval of some Featured Article administrators allows you to ignore the essential democratic editing nature of Wikipedia—these appeals to authority aren't helpful. If you could get some of those editors to articulate a defense of your position here, that'd be more helpful. Also, in several of my engagements with them, User:TheAmazingPeanuts seems happy to go along with your lead unquestioningly. If they could articulate a defense of your edits, that'd be one thing, but they typically just revert without summary. So, again, articulate a defense. GC16 05:20, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * There's nothing democratic about enforcing a layout to an article you've otherwise contributed hardly anything to while disparaging the work of those who have. And likewise. Find editors who will articulate why a section with related information needs to be broken up. Rather than make a series of one-sentence declarative edit summaries expressing your opinion that a section is "massive" or "inaccessible", which you in no way elaborated on. Dan56 (talk) 05:25, 16 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Wahhhhhhh dude like 5 separate people have said they dislike your edits and somehow nothing's been changed. There's an issue here. Relaxxxx (sp?) GC16 05:40, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

More insight into Gentle's cantankerous presence at Maxinquaye --> "Dan56 my friend, the completely unnecessary biographical section in the lead of this album article is literally longer than the biography in the lead of Tricky's actual biographical page—otherwise, the lead is getting increasingly ridiculous, visually unpleasant, and far too overloaded with clumsily attempts to summarize complex ideas ("The songs explore themes of dysfunctional sexual relationships, fear of intimacy, recreational drug use, and cultural decline" is another sentence that makes me want to vomit—'here teacher, these are the morals of the story!'). You continue to add unnecessarily comprehensive information—it seems you've literally slopped every piece of writing one could find on Maxinquaye into one grotesque behemoth of an article. Wikipedia isn't supposed to be Google or aCritical Companion to Maxinquaye—it's a summation of reputable sources that provides information about a subject. Inevitably, this page has stopped being about the album and has instead become about your desire to obsessively frame it as your own personal research project (do you have a life outside the furious wikipedia policing you've showcased on this page alone? Have you had time to actually listen to this fucking album in between mangling critical quotes to fit a 'meaningful' narrative?). For a piece of art so subtle, ambiguous, mysterious etc. you've really done a wonderful job of making it look as captivating as a CSPAN broadcast. Get outside for a walk sometime. Open a window." What a lovely chap. Dan56 (talk) 05:05, 16 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Lmao I still stand by all of that, much thanks for bringing it into the discussion. In retrospect I am surprised by how restrained my tone actually is—thanks for the complement, here's to our cyber friendship. GC16 05:20, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * You misspelled compliment, pal. Dan56 (talk) 05:29, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Pal,,,, you just owned me over a spelling error, guess I've gotta throw in the towel now. Well done. GC16  05:37, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you've come to this realization. Dan56 (talk) 05:38, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Two comments : (1) In spite of the overly dramatic tone and language, I agree with much of what GC16  said in the quote - the part about content, not the personal aspersions, of course. (2) Gentle, I know you're frustrated, but if I were Dan56 and had just suggested a compromise of which you approved (which it appears from the section above he did), your sarcastic response wouldn't encourage me to do it again.&mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 21:11, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Acknowledged but I can't be blamed for entertaining myself with some theatrics when someone consistently refuses to engage with coherent arguments. And as you'll notice, Dan56 only made that above concession to Ilovetopaint, after I demanded the same thing for months. He's is spiteful as hell and selective in his dismissals, be that an inappropriate personal judgment or not. Not the kind of person anyone should be forced to deal with on this website just to make sure a page isn't impenetrable. And ultimately, good, clear and informative pages are what Wiki is supposed to be about, not personal grudges.  GC16 GC16 01:08, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * You're so articulate GC16, and so noble. Watta mensch <3 Dan56 (talk) 04:39, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Lead
Hey guys, can I get some consensus feedback on this alternate lead—additional changes are welcome, but I think as a baseline it's significantly better than the current lead, as its structure fits better with Wiki precedence and basic concerns over "readability". GC16 00:13, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * "Wiki precedence"? What a farce! Dan56 (talk) 06:07, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Dude all of your arguments rely on debatable interpretations of obscure Wiki guidelines which were arbitrarily decided on by Wiki users many moons ago. What's the difference? GC16  08:48, 21 December 2016 (UTC)


 * GC16 's Proposed lead:

HERE IS AN UPDATED LEAD PROPOSAL REDONE TO COMPLY WITH ISSUES RAISED BY DAN56:
 * Maxinquaye is the debut album by English rapper and producer Tricky. It was released on 20 February 1995 by 4th & B'way Records and was primarily recorded at Tricky's home studio in London in 1994 with assistance from co-producer Mark Saunders. Completed after Tricky parted ways with his previous collaborators Massive Attack, the album features vocals by Martina Topley-Bird, a singer with whom Tricky had formed a musical and romantic partnership in the years before. Additional contributing vocalists include Allison Goldfrapp, Ragga, and Mark Stewart.


 * The album has been noted for blending a variety of musical sources. It incorporates dub-inspired production techniques, heavily altered samples, and elements of hip hop, soul, rock, ambient techno, reggae, and experimental music, into a groove-oriented and low-tempo sound. The songs have been interpreted as exploring themes of cultural decline, dysfunctional sexual relationships, intimacy, and recreational drug use. Tricky drew inspiration from his experiences in the British drug culture and the influence of his deceased mother Maxine Quaye, after whom the album is titled.


 * Maxinquaye reached number three on the United Kingdom's albums chart and sold over 100,000 copies in its first few months of release. A widespread critical success, Maxinquaye was cited by many journalists as the year's best albums and described as a key release of the musical style known as trip hop.. Since then, it has been ranked frequently on all-time lists of the greatest albums and has sold over 500,000 copies worldwide.
 * GC16 08:39, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

GC16 00:13, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I'm not in any gangs, nor am I really much of a guy. Good luck with the discussion. Drmies (talk) 00:17, 21 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Not really an improvement IMO - The first sentence is grammatically awkward as fuck ("...Tricky, released on 20 February 1995..."; the poor chap :-); the two sentences in your second paragraph are overwhelmingly long and have the feel of several stand-alone sentences that have been crammed into each other by a sixth grader, with commas and fragments galore; after which a third paragraph that superfluously rearranges existing items and presents, rather unclearly, as fact the unfounded idea that the album sold such-and-such copies because of "young British listeners" (without explaining why or how), when in fact this is just a cute assumption on your part--the article verifies the album being marketed young music buyers in the UK, not that it ended up being bought mostly by them--or a poor attempt to once again cram several ideas into lengthy sentences and arrive at synthesis, just as you had once before. Dan56 (talk) 07:51, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Like I said, feel free to modify it—make those grammatical corrections and break up those sentences into something shorter, and pull out that bit about "young British listeners" (after all, it was something superfluous you had in there about the record company's marketing strategy, which I simply tried to shorten). I'd like to point out that suddenly none of your criticisms have anything to do with the way I've reordered the information in the lead—release date and recording context first, removing extraneous background detail in the opening paragraph—considering this has been the main issue raised by me and others about the lead. If the problem is simply overlong sentences, be my guest and split em up.


 * Re: synthesis—it's a lead summary, the point is to synthesize a hundred sources without making any false claims. Are there any false or misleading claims here? I don't see any. Sources talk about various influences, including the drug culture and his mother. I took out the bit about "lyrics" because it's unnecessarily specific. GC16 08:06, 21 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Support Definitely an improvement over the current version - only problem is weasely phrases ("has been noted")--Ilovetopaint (talk) 06:01, 22 December 2016 (UTC)


 * There's also the problem of GC16 (16? whatever the fuck it is) removing the sentence about why Tricky recorded the album: "He found his role with the group limiting and wanted to record an album with a female vocalist whose singing would offer his songwriting another dimension." There's also the problem of introducing the release date at the beginning and then awkwardly delving into material that preceded the release before returning to events happening after the release. He suggested splitting up the sentences; well the current revision does that smart guy. There's also nothing in his revision about the marketing of the album when there's a good full paragraph in the body with regards to that (WP:DUE). Yet you'll give undue weight to Mark Stewart's name when there's no discussion or mention of him singing on this album in the body itself, just a vocal credit in the personnel section. Also, "musical sources" sounds vague and pretentious; sources, like what? Blending existing songs? What exactly? Dan56 (talk) 10:19, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

REVISION PROPOSED TO ADDRESS ISSUES IN GC16'S PROPOSED REVISION


 * Maxinquaye is the debut album by English rapper and producer Tricky. After starting his music career in Bristol's club scene, Tricky became a frequent collaborator with Massive Attack in the early 1990s. He found his role with the group limiting and wanted to record an album with a female vocalist whose singing would offer his songwriting another dimension. Tricky discovered singer Martina Topley-Bird, with whom he formed both a musical and romantic relationship, before signing a recording contract with 4th & B'way Records in 1993.


 * Assisted by co-producer Mark Saunders, Tricky recorded Maxinquaye primarily at his home studio in London in 1994 with Topley-Bird, who shared vocals on most of the tracks with him. Alison Goldfrapp and Ragga each sang on one song. Tricky incorporated dub production techniques, heavily altered samples, and elements of hip hop, soul, rock, ambient techno, reggae, and experimental music into the record's groove-oriented and low-tempo sound. Inspired by his experiences in the British drug culture, the songs explore themes of dysfunctional sexual relationships, fear of intimacy, recreational drug use, and cultural decline. His songwriting style and use of female vocalists such as Topley-Bird were influenced by his mother, Maxine Quaye, after whom the album was titled.


 * Released on 20 February 1995, Maxinquaye reached number three on the United Kingdom's albums chart and sold over 100,000 copies in its first few months of release. Unusually, 4th & B'way relied on independent record promoters and the British demographic of progressive, young music buyers rather than American markets for the record to perform well. A widespread critical success, Maxinquaye was cited by many journalists as the year's best record and the key release of a musical style that was being dubbed trip hop at the time. Since then, it has been ranked frequently on all-time lists of the greatest albums and has sold over 500,000 copies worldwide.


 * Dan56 (talk) 10:13, 22 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Comments
 * (1) Perhaps there is room for some compromise: GC16's version doesn't have the reason for recording the album, and Dan56 thinks it should be there. The part about "feeling limited" is vague, and the real information is in the second half of the sentence. How about: "Recording an album with a female vocalist allowed Tricky to add a new dimension to his songwriting."  This sentence says specifically why he made the album.
 * (2) Grammatically simpler sentences are easier to read; I prefer GC16's style, providing information plainly, over Dan56's way of using a subordinate clause in front of the main part of the sentence. I agree with Dan56, though, that the sentences should not be too long.
 * (3) I see that GC16 has left out the sentence about the strategy of the promoters, and I support that omission; details of the label's sales strategy are included later in the article, and that's as it should be. Casual readers who only read the lead section are more likely to be interested in the album itself.&mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 17:28, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * By that token, "Tricky drew inspiration from his experiences in the British drug culture and the influence of his deceased mother Maxine Quaye" isn't really "the album itself", now is it? I've made a rewrite, less leading with subordinate clauses, incorporating parts of Gentle's rephrasing, breaking up sentences that might be too long, and condensing the first paragraph's background info and wording it in a way that keeps the album as its focus. I also added the release year to the first sentence. Dan56 (talk) 16:51, 24 December 2016 (UTC)


 * 1) I think the way Dan56's version tries to immediately give detailed background information after simply stating what the album is reads incredibly awkward and confusing . "Maxinquaye is an album etc. After starting his career in Bristol's club scene, Tricky joined massive attack..." what??−?? What about the album???
 * 2) The background as to why Tricky left Massive Attack (he felt limited) doesn't seem that important to me—why does any artist leave a group for a solo career? And explaining his new freedom with his ability to use female vocalists doesn't make much sense—Massive Attack used plenty of female vocalists on those early albums. Perhaps we can say "after Tricky parted ways with his previous collaborators Massive Attack  to pursue a solo career", which makes clear his intention was to go on his own.
 * (3) yeah leave out Mark Stewart and co. if you want GC16 19:10, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * , I like your grammatical changes; the new version is more readable. I would still like to see the part about promotion of the album left for later in the article instead of in the lead, but maybe others would disagree; it would be good to have some other opinions about this - likely people are busy this week with Christmas stuff.  Adding the emotion-laden word "frustrated" to the second sentence takes it further from neutral - something like "Tricky had left behind/stepped beyond the limitations of his role" or the more positive and less whiny "Tricky had branched out from his role", would address that, Similarly, I'm not sure drug culture should be described as "inspiring".  How about "drew on his experiences" or something like that?&mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 21:20, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Tricky's frustration is verified by the NME interview/profile cited in the article; I'm not sure how neutrality is a factor here when he admitted that much. "Inspired" was taken from GC16's proposed revision; I've changed to "drew on". Dan56 (talk) 23:42, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Canvassing/Vote-banking by GC16
At the conclusion of the RfC, I would like the closer to observe the repeated notifications GC16 had made to the same select group of users, possibly those he was referring to in the comment "5 separate people have said they dislike your edits"; was undoubtedly recruited because of a past disagreement with me involving content in this article, in a discussion on this talk page before this RfC. Dan56 (talk) 06:07, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Dan56, I agree that there was canvassing at the beginning; that's why I suggested the RFC to bring in others; however, in my case any page I have edited is on my watchlist unless I specifically remove it, so I would have seen the discussion anyway. Have the people who voted for the article's "featured" status been notified? That should balance things up. &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 09:23, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Maxinquaye. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081215191631/http://www.slantmagazine.com/music/music_review.asp?ID=254 to http://www.slantmagazine.com/music/music_review.asp?ID=254

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:40, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ Richard3120 (talk) 22:09, 24 September 2017 (UTC)