Talk:The Joshua Tree

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleThe Joshua Tree has been listed as one of the Music good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
May 4, 2010Good article nomineeListed
July 31, 2010Good topic candidateNot promoted
Current status: Good article

Section order[edit]

Seems to make more sense to have the track order of the original release before that of the subsequent releases. SilkTork ✔Tea time 21:15, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Frequently cited as one of the greatest albums in rock history"[edit]

What does this piece of puffery actually add to the lead? How frequently? Cited by whom? One among how many? We have guidelines on this, such as WP:PEACOCK and WP:WEASEL. There's already plenty in the lead about the album's critical and commercial success without adding this vague yet boastful description. N-HH talk/edits 09:09, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see what the problem is, it's well sourced in the legacy section that the album is frequently ranked among critics' lists of the greatest albums. It's not puffery when reliable sources back up the album's standing. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 15:07, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
101 different albums are cited by different critics for this sort of thing, at different times. And, as noted on another page, all they're doing is telling us what their favourite album is - and sometimes that turns out to be this one. I don't see what it's telling us of any interest; nor should we be importing music-critic hyperbolic language about "greatest ever" albums into an encyclopedia. There are other ways of expressing and summarising the enduring critical evaluation, without this fairly transparent bid to convince readers that it is "one of the greatest albums in rock history". The more you see this phrase on more pages - and it appears on a lot - the more you realise how devalued and meaningless it is as a statement. N-HH talk/edits 16:05, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Joshua Tree. 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 //www.rollingstone.com/news/coverstory/u2s_serious_fun

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:31, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 17 external links on The Joshua Tree. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:18, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Subgenres in the infobox[edit]

@Y2kcrazyjoker4:, in regards to your edit summary, what issue do you have with the sourcing of "alternative" and "art rock" in the article? And what sources say this is an album of any of those other subgenres you claimed to be capable of "dumping" onto here? isento (talk) 06:56, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Isento: "Art rock" is defined on Wikipedia as a genre that "reflects a challenging or avant-garde approach to rock, or which makes use of modernist, experimental, or unconventional elements". There is nothing about the music on this album that would seriously qualify as an avant-garde approach. If anything, the band pulled back from the avant-garde approaches they took on The Unforgettable Fire to make a more accessible record in The Joshua Tree. It sounds to me like the author Vyverberg is not describing the album in the way the genre is actually defined, but rather judging U2's attempt to elevate music from perceived disposable pop culture to something that could be taken seriously. Also, Josh Tyrangiel doesn't explicitly call the album art rock, he merely says the band made that kind of music in a loosely-defined period in which the album falls, which is not precise enough. I also fail to see how the album could seriously be considered "alternative". It was one of the most mainstream, accessible albums of the 1980s and sold 25 million copies. Of the two sources provided for "alternative": one is a radio station website whose author comes across as amateurish in his writing and can't seem to decide whether it's pop or alternative (not to mention a radio station website is on shaky ground as far as WP:RS goes); and the second is by an author who doesn't seem to really be a qualified music journalist - some of his other books include Dachsunds, A Complete Idiot's Guide to Beer, The Loch Ness Monster, and Vampire History and Lore. That's the problem with genre-focused editing: a single author can write what they want, and a Wikipedia editor takes it with a grain of salt, even if the author is largely unqualified or a large segment of music journalists would disagree with their opinion. That's why for any genres that I add beyond the all-encompassing "Rock", I set a high threshold (and expect others to): several reliable sources (as in at least 4), from more trusted music outlets or critics than just a random author, and a mix of contemporaneous and modern references. (Are there any sources from 1987 that call this an alternative or art rock album?) I really wish we could take away the focus away from edits focused on labeling bands and albums as certain genres, and instead add prose that delves into the details of their sound. Or refocus that energy to entirely different parts of the articles. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 07:37, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm unconvinced by your denigrating insinuations about a prolific non-fiction writer in Kallan, your gripe about a source not being "precise enough" (when "post-punk" had been hardly sourced at all at U2 prior to my arrival there this week), your remarks that this album was mainstream and high-selling (much like Out of Time and Nevermind?), and negative projections onto my "genre-focused editing". isento (talk) 07:52, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Statements like "I set a high threshold" and so on read like WP:OWNBEHAVIOR. This is not contentious material, and you haven't offered anything tangible to demonstrate otherwise. isento (talk) 07:57, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I cited pretty high-quality sources elsewhere in a similar discussion in regards to the band's avant-garde qualities, among them John Smith in The U2 Reader recounting his time with them making this exact album. isento (talk) 08:00, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
One of the contemporaneous reviews cited in this article (Hot Press) credits this album for "basing itself in the mainstream before very cleverly lifting off into several higher dimensions..." Perhaps that is an indication this was not merely some mainstream rock record. isento (talk) 08:04, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've added, as far as I can see, an indisputable source in Chicago Tribune writer Joshua Klein to the article, for art-rock. Another earlier for alternative in Dettmar, which ought to be precise enough. I hope the totality of sources referencing these subgenres at this point is enough to move past this ... isento (talk) 08:19, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Although that portion of the John Smith account might be useful to add too. isento (talk) 08:20, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

'their ANTIPATHY for the "real America" '???[edit]

Where is the citation for when anyone in the band said they had "antipathy" (disdain, hatred)for America? This is very suspect, especially to have in the intro. 2600:8800:7098:CF00:3D2D:2AC6:6729:4D2E (talk) 01:54, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, I can't seem to get a hold of the book the citation is from, so if someone could further ellaborate on this claim I'd be interested. Yobbin (talk) 02:53, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Joshua_Tree&oldid=1215229246"