Talk:The Black Parade/Neutrality of Article in Dispute (April, 2007)

This is a direct copy of a discussion that had been on Talk: The Black Parade, to cut down on the length of that talk page. The discussion should be finished here, then put back in its original location on Talk:The Black Parade for archival.

Neutrality of Article
As this subject has been brought up before and now the template has been placed I believe we should discuss this issue and come up with ways to fix it. The only reason I could see neutrality issues is the excessive amount of positive responses to the album used but the album has been praised heavily and only a few places have criticized it and those are listed. A possible way to fix it is to maybe remove some positive reviews? I'm not quite sure as I am not the one that placed the template, however, I do think that resolving this issue is another step that needs to be taken to help make this article a Good Article and was just providing my thoughts on the matter.   Orfen    User Talk | Contribs 04:54, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It would be rather helpful if the person who placed the template upon the article could elaborate their claims. I believe we could get to the bottom of the problem that way.  I'm not sure if removing the good reviews would help much, however I suppose we could look for criticisms more often.  I'm not entirely sure how to improve it either.-- J UDE  talk 05:23, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I asked the person who added it and he hasn't given me a response. I mean, there wasn't that many bad reviews anyways. The template might just be a general dig from someone who doesn't really like MCR. mcr616 Speak! 13:56, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the article seems very bias, and fan orientated in favour of it. From the article one would think it was viewed as the greatest album of all time or something to that effect, when that isn't the reality of how it is viewed. Even the "criticism" section seems sort of "nudge, nudge wink wink, its good really".

On Rate Your Music's inpartial (ie- not just the opinions of one person or fan, whether it be negative or positive) 2006 list of top albums it doesn't even make it into the top 100 for that year. Its around the #170 mark for all albums released in 2006.

Whereas albums that are actually considered in very high regard, such as The Dark Side of the Moon, A Night At the Opera, Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band are on the "all time" list at #13, #168, #27. All of those albums are also viewed in the top 5 for the respective year they were released, unlike MCR who only just made it into the top 200 for their year. - Daddy Kindsoul 16:14, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You could perhaps add your source to the reviews section, then. Everything "in high regard" is quoted directly from reviews and sourced.  I understand your gripe with the article, however I don't think you have provided us with much help in understanding what it is we should do to change it.  You provided one source that says that the album did mediocre.  A ton of reviews say that.  We can't source all of the mediocre reviews, but if you could provide us with some very critical reviews, we would gladly cite them providing they were from a reliable source.-- J UDE  talk 17:46, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Meaning no offense to Daddy Kindsoul, I would consider Rate Your Music a very poor source for any Wikipedia article. Rate Your Music was founded in 2000, which means that all of its content is based on the ratings users have provided since. Older, well-known albums will recieve higher ratings within their release year, because they have stood the test of time. There are only a handful of albums from the Beatles era which most Internet users have 1) heard of and 2) know well enough to bother rating. In the cases of your other examples (A Night at the Opera and Dark Side of the Moon, which are newer but still hardly current), you're still dealing with a fairly high proportion of users in my age group or maybe ten years older than me, who were children (or hadn't even been born yet) when these albums came out. Because A Night at the Opera is one of a very few albums from 1975 which have recieved radio play and hype through the late 90s and today, it's one of the very few albums from 1975 that the younger portion (and I daresay majority) of the internet's population will know well. Consequently, it's one of the very few albums from 1975 likely to even be rated, let alone recieve high ratings, at a site like RYM. Now, I'm not saying that a high rating for A Night at the Opera isn't logical- but you're a lot more likely to see accurate results fifteen or twenty years after an album's release, thanks to its having survived this far, than you are two months in.

I know someone will chime in and say, "well, if you're arguing that most of the users are in your age group, aren't they by necessity more likely to be My Chemical Romance fans?" The answer is, of course, no. You've got just as many jazz and classic rock fans in my age group than you do alternative fans in the 30-40 age group (for example). Peoples' tastes vary. The reason that the age issue comes into play is simple: if an album is 15-20 years old or older, and the youngest users have heard of it, it's safe to say that there are going to be an unusally high number of fans vs. haters and even fewer neutral votes. If you've got the younger users rating it fairly well, their ratings COUPLED WITH the ratings of the older users of the site, who didn't have the music handed down to them, will produce a very high result for that album. On the other hand, an album like The Black Parade only has the younger users rating it, for the most part. And within that group, of course you don't have the same disproportionate number of fans vs. haters because, once again, the album hasn't been around for decades. It's only been around for a couple of months. On top of this, more established users of the site have their ratings more heavily weighted. If you've written more reviews and rated more albums, then your ratings get more votes than someone who's just made an account. This presents several problems:
 * There may be a disproportionate number of long-standing Rate Your Music members whose tastes and musical interests fall into certain categories, skewing the ratings of albums which don't fall into those categories.
 * Newer members who may have joined in order to rate current albums, or even specifically to rate The Black Parade, will have their ratings count for less than a more established user.
 * Having established users' votes count for more creates the potential for clique voting- a group of established users who all know each other writing concurring opinions for or against something, skewing both its position in the charts and the positions of any other albums which have been affected by the album's movement.

Finally, the users of Rate Your Music are a completely uncontrolled sample. You never know who's going to turn out to rate an album. The 223 people who rate an album may have an opinion entirely contrary to another sample of 223 users who didn't all rate the album. Someone with an axe to grind or a fanboy can seriously skew the results in either direction- and there isn't even a way to control how many fanboys and how many axe-grinders have joined the site. There could be 50 more fanboys than axe-grinders, and someone just happening by a review might think the album contained the key to immortality, when in reality its overall critical performance was poor. Yeah. Rate Your Music probably isn't a good source for a critical opinion. --Moralis 18:15, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * "There are only a handful of albums from the Beatles era which most Internet users have 1) heard of and 2) know well enough to bother rating."

Sorry but I think that is a very, very nieve comment...

Take 1966 for example, there is a top 1000 albums for that year featured on the website. That is just the best 1000 of one year alone from the 60s... significantly more than "a handful".


 * "Older, well-known albums will recieve higher ratings within their release year, because they have stood the test of time."

That seems more like you're making excuses for the album's poor reception, rather than making a non-POV defense. How do you explain the albums which are featured in the top 5 for 2006? They're released in the same year as the Black Parade so they don't have a time advantage. So better ratings can't merely be a matter of "standing the test of time".


 * "Having established users' votes count for more creates the potential for clique voting- a group of established users who all know each other writing concurring opinions for or against something, skewing both its position in the charts and the positions of any other albums which have been affected by the album's movement."

Again, I'm sorry but that seems like a very far fetched attempt to defend the album. Why would MCR some how be special? I dooubt there is a conspiracy, amongst people who have never met before to somehow just give them a lower rating unjustly, but then rate all the other albums highly. Its just the way its actually viewed in a neautral field of play. - Daddy Kindsoul 00:34, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * WP:NPOVD states:
 * "Drive-by tagging is not permitted. The editor who adds the tag must address the issues on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies, namely Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Attribution, and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Simply being of the opinion that a page is not neutral is not sufficient to justify the addition of the tag. Tags should be added as a last resort."
 * With this guideline in mind, I am removing the tag from the article. Daddy Kindsoul, if you can come up with more specific examples of what needs changing (NPOV content in the article, negative press that we haven't given adequate attention to, et cetera), please feel free to let us know here, or, if you're feeling like it, to make some changes of your own to the article. If we fail to address your concerns, then you should feel free to place a tag, as well. However, the way I'm seeing this, it looks like you read the article and something didn't sit right with you, so you slapped a tag on it. You haven't really given us any explanation that we can work with, and a tag is, as the article linked above states, intended to be a last resort, not a first response. --Moralis 22:37, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

The issues are been discussed on the talkpage. I added the tag and I'm here discussing it... from the chat above my first message it would seem that article has had POV problems for a while. You seem very eager to take that tag down, I must say... its probably best to just review the issues, sort them out and then hopefully there won't be future problems with the article. Glossing over it and pretending everything is fine and dandy, when it seems to have long standing issues won't solve anything or improve it. - Daddy Kindsoul 00:34, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Moralis has removed a very biased portion of the article. I believe measures are being taken despite the lack of examples we're being given.  I understand that in your opinion the "general feel" of the article is off, however, we're trying to work toward pinpointing exactly what creates the general feel of it being biased.  The tag may stay as long as the article is being disputed.  Your concern is a valid concern, and it will be treated as thus.  I hope you understand that we need more help with examples.  Could you go through the article and let us know which parts strike you as odd?  It might help a lot.  Thanks!-- J UDE  talk 01:35, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

On the issue of Rate Your Music, I was using MCR as an example to explain why it is a VERY poor source for a Wikipedia article. I am not making excuses for the album's performance on that site- I'm simply explaining why I don't think that site is a good source. I don't think there's a "conspiracy" or that MCR is special- I think that because of the way the site is set up it's just not an accurate representation of public opinion, and it doesn't have any particular validity as a Wikipedia source. I don't care how The Black Parade's been doing there. Not everyone likes the album. This article doesn't claim that they do and I'm not asking anyone to. You seem far more interested in defending Rate Your Music as a source than in helping to resolve this "dispute." See, so far, you haven't offered a dispute.

My beef is this: you added a tag, and said nothing here on the talk page about it. It took one of the article's contributors contacting you to get you to discuss the issue here, and all you offered was that the general feel of the article doesn't sit right with you. Okay. That's a valid issue. What about it doesn't sit right? You still haven't given any examples. You say that the negative reviews we list are only semi-critical ("wink wink nudge nudge it's really good" was the way you put it, I believe). Well, I just reviewed the "reception" section, and as far as I can tell, the criticisms listed are VERY critical ("bubblegum punk" "reeks") and well-sourced to boot. You claim that we make the album sound like the best thing on the planet, but you don't say what about the article gives you that vibe, and frankly, I don't get it myself, so I can't just go and fix it. So yeah. I'm eager to remove the tag.

If you can find a way to make this article less "bias" and "fan orientated," we'd be more than happy to oblige. We've been trying for a while to get this article to GA status. Unfortunately, all you've offered so far is a very general statement. You base your assertion that the album was not well recieved on its performance at RYM. Meanwhile, EVERYTHING in the article is very well sourced. We've provided its top chart positions and examples of both good and bad reviews, as well as a fairly neutral reaction. Explain what your problem is. --Moralis 02:20, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

About the Rate Your Music source. I do not see how that is a reliable source. It is not written by reliable people it can be written by anyone like Wikipedia. While the ratings may be rated just because people write a lot of reviews this does not make them reliable. I do not see how there is a bias then based on that source. The only possible way I could see NPOV issues is if we have undue weight within the article. There were not many places that reviewed The Black Parade bad or in the middle. Of course if these things can be found at reliable places then they can be added but as a lot of places already praised the album I don't see how that is a bias. I like tha album, I admit it. But I do not let that get in the way of my edits of the article. If there is a bad review of the album then I say add it to get all sides. The album was overall praised and that is the truth, if there were more bad reviews I could see an issue but there is not. While I can possibly see NPOV problems I do not see them from the way you are coming from Daddy Kindsoul.   Orfen    User Talk | Contribs 20:21, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Also please see WP:RS for Rate Your Music source, which I believe it fails.   Orfen    User Talk | Contribs 20:24, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Daddykindsoul is just being ridiculous. He keeps re-adding the POV tag. If he can't give us a valid reason for adding the tag, then he shouldn't. mcr616 Speak! 20:55, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I've requested mediation from the Mediation Cabal. There's a link at the top of this page. I realize that at the time of this writing the tag is gone, but I think a more productive solution can be reached than edit warring with Kindsoul over the tag. --Moralis 07:38, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I've changed the NME quote from "dubbing My Chemical Romance 'new kings of the world'" to something I consider a little more neutral, in the interests of toning down the reception section. I hadn't noticed the NME quote before or I probably would've changed it already. I don't see that we could do much more for it- but then, I don't see anything else wrong with it. --Moralis 18:18, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You've done an awful lot of work. I don't think anyone is going to say that no one tried to change the article.  I think everyone put forth an effort to change it even though we never got any answers about pinpointing what made it so "biased".  Thank you by the way!-- J UDE  talk 18:24, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I second that. Thanks, Moralis! mcr616 Speak! 20:45, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You guys have done as much as I have, but thanks for the recognition! I think we've all done a pretty good job thus far. I hope we can see it through to GA, and eventually to FA. --Moralis (talk) 20:58, 10 April 2007 (UTC)