Talk:The Scream (album)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on The Scream (album). 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.rollingstone.com/artists/siouxsieandthebanshees/albums/album/106537/review/5941624/the_scream

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 14:17, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Julie Burchill

 * I am concerned by the addition of this [edit].. The contributor obviously doesn't own the original and did a copy/paste from this [site], exactly presenting the same way with
 * firstly "Album Review by Julie Burchill WELL, WHATEVER WOULD EDVARD MUNCH HAVE SAID? SIOUXSIE AND THE BANSHEES The Scream (Polydor)". This is blatant. The contributor doesn't have the original, he can not advance the veracity of this article and if this sentence was published in the paper. This is why it is wiser to withdraw it the mistakes are very common on this fansite and we are not entirely sure if it is a review by Julie and not an article published in another paper. Carliertwo (talk) 21:25, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I have added a link to a scan of NME Originals: Goth. The Burchill review is on page 13 of the scan (originally page 45 of the relevant issue of the NME). PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 21:37, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

To me, Pale's will to include a derogatory term such as "The Sound of suet pudding" in this article shows how his frame of mind is. Letting him including these nasty bashing from Burchill would be against wp:neutrality. Be ready to see him post plenty of negative, things on SATB articles shortly soon or later Carliertwo (talk) 06:09, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

''In the same paper, 19 year old Julie Burchill also published a scathing review in which "she flung everything she could about the band", according to biographer Brian Johns. [source :Entranced the Siouxsie and the Banshees story, Brian Johns, Omnibus Press, page=31 isbn=0-7119-1773-6]. Burchill's review of The Scream, also including a criticism of the inclusion of an instrumental, was slagged a week later in the columns of Sounds by John Peel who made fun of the young journalist, saying that contrary to what she advanced, there are a lot of notable instrumentals on albums.[source: Peel, John. "John Peel" columns, Sounds,25 November 1978, quote: "Note to Julie Burchill. Re her review of The Scream. Chuck Berry recorded several intrumentals, notably Guitar Boogie, Blue Feeling and Deep Feeling. [...] I mention this only because I think of no other way in which I can demonstrate to Julie that age can have some advantages."]
 * I think that this edit should be included in the article instead of Pale's edit. wp:secondary sources alwyas have to be proviledged for controversial material.
 * Carliertwo (talk) 06:02, 28 March 2017 (UTC)


 * As I noted when restoring the PaleCloudedWhite version, this kind of defensiveness about plainly referencing negative reviews is unseemly. There's nothing whatsoever wrong with including sourced reviews by reputable papers that gush with praise for an album, and nothing wrong with including ones that strongly dislike or criticize it. If you can't remain neutral in the sense of including both, that's an issue. I did not recommend you be banned, Carliertwo, you have done some excellent work and research. But you do need to be more mindful about not getting emotionally attached to articles and remember our job as Wiki editors is just to report what sources said, not try to editorialize about whether those sources are good or bad, or try to sanitize a bad review. Greg Fasolino (talk) 18:30, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on The Scream (album). 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/20100105010206/http://rocksbackpages.com/article.html?ArticleID=12125 to http://rocksbackpages.com/article.html?ArticleID=12125
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110713030438/http://www.inflightdata.com/superpredators.html to http://www.inflightdata.com/superpredators.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01cyrh9
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.bozboorer.com/qa_p4.htm

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) 12:51, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

August 2020
These sentences --> are a presentation of what follows in this section, and the content of the reviews. These sentences have been included for more than six years. Dozens of longtime wikipedia users including who is a professional music journalist, has ever tagged theses sentences as wp:puffery as they reflect what's inside the reviews. Can and  (who reviewed another Satb album article) give their views about these sentences that someone tagged with wp:puffery and WP:IMPARTIAL ? Carliertwo (talk) 00:43, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Perhaps adding some references would be helpful -- that sounds like a solution that would leave everyone happy. If we do not have any references that state these things, perhaps there may be legitimate "synthesis" worries. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:57, 8 September 2020 (UTC)