User talk:PickleJam420

November 2022
Hello, I'm Pizzaplayer219. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Sugarland seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Pizzaplayer219TalkContribs 14:28, 2 November 2022 (UTC)


 * I don't feel my edit is less than neutral. I believe you have made a mistake.  It is even referenced on the Wikipedia page about The Village Voice that during that time period they made dramatic staffing changes.  "In April 2006, the Voice dismissed music editor Chuck Eddy. Four months later, the newspaper sacked longtime music critic Robert Christgau."  referenced:  Sisario, Ben (November 30, 2006). "Idolator and Pazz & Jop Polls - Report". The New York Times.
 * Also there are other critics that counter The Village Voice's negative review of the performance.
 * This is also referenced: Adler, Heather (2007-11-19). "Good, bad and ugly at AMA". The Ottawa Citizen.
 * So in summation, I am wanting to make this change to the article because there is really no good reason for the negative review of the performance to be listed. It should never have been mentioned in the first place due to contradicting reviews and lack of experienced musical editors and musical critics at The Village Voice at the time. PickleJam420 (talk) 14:48, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * According to this discussion, The Village Voice is generally considered a reliable source to use. Pizzaplayer219TalkContribs 17:25, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * In the article you are referring to it states "Given the controversies related to that publication, caution needs to be exercised when using it as a source. The reliability of the specific material that wants to be used, need to be assessed in the context of the claim made. If not overly contentious, and if not challenged by other sources, or if this is the only source for a claim, etc. are the questions needed to be asked. Blanket statements about a source being reliable or not as an absolute, do not work. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:53, 2 June 2008 (UTC)"
 * So I will redirect you back to the earlier point I have made, that other critics have challenged their review and that makes the statements made by The Village Voice overly contentious in this situation.
 * Once again I would have to challenge your decision to remove my edit. I also have to point out specifically Wikipedia articles about art and other creative topics (e.g., musicians, actors, books, etc.) have a tendency to become effusive. This is out of place in an encyclopedia. Aesthetic opinions are diverse and subjective—we might not all agree about who the world's greatest soprano is. However, it is appropriate to note how an artist or a work has been received by prominent experts and the general public.
 * If the article cited the musical experts such as Rolling Stone Magazine, Billboard, The New York Times, The Washington Post, or NPR I would have no issue with it, but The Village Voice lost the ability to call itself an expert when it dismissed Robert Christgau who is widely recognized as an expert.
 * I am not a fan of the band Sugarland, and I feel as if I have debated my points as far as I'm going to. I'm not an expert on Wikipedia's policies and I really don't want to be.  I've had quite the education today on these topics and I enjoy debating ideas, but I feel I've put far too much energy and time into this discussion already.  Thanks for replying to my messages and I hope you have great rest of your day!  I'm gonna go play video games now. PickleJam420 (talk) 02:36, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * If you want to make a discussion related to The Village Voice as a reliable source then you should go to WP:RSN and discuss the source there. Pizzaplayer219TalkContribs 15:33, 3 November 2022 (UTC)