Talk:Master of Reality

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

<^>v|This album is connected|v<^>[edit]

  • All song titles serve as redirects to this album or have been placed at the appropriate disambiguation pages.--Hraefen

Talk 17:45, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Masterofreality.jpg[edit]

Image:Masterofreality.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 Wikipedia: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 (talk) 20:25, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

About the lengths of each song[edit]

I just bought the album, and I've noticed that a lot of the songs lengths are mis printed, like the song "Solitude" is listed as being 8:08 minutes long, but in reality, it's actually on about 5:00 minutes long. The song " Into The Void" is also mis-listed as being 3:08 minutes long, where as it's actually more near 6:00 minutes long. Also, the other osngs are mis=labled by around 3 to 5 seconds. So, I guess my point is that we shuld robably add this information into them ain article some how. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.35.153.232 (talk) 01:02, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gold status[edit]

Acording to the reissued release of Master of Reality the album achieved Gold status on advance orders alone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.145.217.9 (talk) 00:22, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doom metal[edit]

This article talks of Master of Reality's influence on doom metal but what references I can find all point to Sabbath's debut album being the primary influence, particularly this article chronicles_of_chaos unles someone can produce documention of this album's influence I will move the claim to Black Sabbath (album). J04n (talk) 01:40, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"After Forever" lyrics[edit]

The original Master of Reality album credits all songs to the 4 band members except "Embro", "Orchid", and "After Forever" which are credited only to Iommi. The text of this article made mention to Iommi's lyrics to "After Forever" and someone changed it to Butler's lyrics. I assumed this was a good faith error as Butler was the primary lyricist for the band during this era and reverted it back to Iommi. It was then reverted back to Butler citing the liner notes to Black Box (BTW I converted the reference to the proper format). I don't have Black Box and can't find the liner notes on-line. Can anyone else verify this? J04n(talk page) 11:52, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Crediting Iommi as sole composer on "After Forever" was done in error. Only "Embryo" and "Orchid" should have been credited to him alone. This has subsequently been corrected on later releases, such as Rhino's Black Box and Sanctuary's Deluxe Remaster, which restores all four members' credits. 98.116.201.174 (talk) 01:36, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the liner notes of the 2004 Sanctuary records reissue of Master of Reality, Hugh Gilmour doesn’t interpret the lyrics of “After Forever” as Christian but as a constructive critique on theological beliefs.
Furthermore, following Steve Huey of the All Music Guide, I think that the lyrics of “After Forever”, rather than being convincingly Christian, philosophize about death and the afterlife in the mood of “a horror movie with a clear moral message like, for example, The Exorcist”.--Rivet138 (talk) 23:33, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A separate page for "After Forever"[edit]

The "After Forever" link redirects to Master of Reality. Can I create a separate page for it? It has been covered by a few notable artists and it was one of the earliest showings of Christian metal. Rockgenre (talk) 02:27, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It had its own page before which was deleted. It was nominated for Afd with a couple of other songs which I thought was unfair. Here is the discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Killing Yourself to Live. J04n(talk page) 10:36, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
While looking at that old discussion I realized that most of the votes were from "Libs" puppets. It's a real shame that it was deleted when it had a lot to do with one voter. Rockgenre (talk) 00:28, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're right. If you look both Lykantrop and I !voted to keep it and merge the other two to the parent albums; DreamFocus and hexaChord !voted to keep all three. With four of the delete !votes coming from indefinitely blocked puppets I see no reason why it couldn't be brought back. I actually added a bunch to After Forever (song) just before it was deleted if my memory serves me right; we should be able to get access to the deleted page to restart it. Do you want to bring this up to an admin or shall I? The closing admin is still active so it should be brought up to him. J04n(talk page) 01:00, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I also voted to merge that song stub. If you think that AfD was invalid, you could probably take it to Wikipedia:Deletion review, but I would say it was a good decision unlikely to be overturned. Incidentally, while WP:MRD never really took off, this merge was agreed unanimously in that forum. / edg ☺ ☭ 01:04, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Edgarde; your points are valid and I agree with you with each of the songs except "After Forever", I'm simply going to ask the closing admin if he would have reached the same conclusion without those four !votes, if he would have I'll drop it. I don't think DRV is necessary. J04n(talk page) 05:18, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any reason not to add that information to this article, provided you can provide sources. In the unlikely circumstance that there exists enough verifiable, encyclopedic information to merit a separate article on just this song, it can be spun off as needed. However, a strong album article beats 8 song stubs. / edg ☺ ☭ 01:04, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see no reason why the very notable song should not have its very own page. J04n if you would be so kind as to contact the admin that would be great. And on another note, recently the block on Mr. Libs has ended. Rockgenre (talk) 01:22, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lord of this World[edit]

Suggesting that "Lord of this World" has Christian lyrics like "After Forever" is misleading. I mean, you could also mock satanists from an atheist point of view. --Rivet138 (talk) 19:18, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is solely your opinion - without the band's input on this, the current Reliable Sources must stand. 104.169.26.177 (talk) 09:30, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merged duplicated reference[edit]

This reference appeared twice in the article, once in the infobox and once in the lede:

1. ^ Taylor 2006, pg. 199, "Some say that Master of Reality was the first stoner rock album."

So I merged the two occurences and name the reference "Taylor". Nite-Sirk (talk) 20:03, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

This article requires more references. Anybody know where they can verify the information?--Spiralarchitect8 Talk 10:31, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if I'd necessarily agree with that; this article contains almost 30 citations, so it's difficult to say that it's poorly or inadequately sourced. Feel free to add additional sources if you feel it will improve the article. ChakaKongtalk 17:39, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious removal[edit]

Robert Christgau's criticism of the band in his review of the album, which was added by me on 22 October 2012, was removed by Harmelodix, who claimed it is "off-topic and POV". His bold edit was reverted by me, as I was specific about my reason (WP:BRD)--that the artist is a point of criticism by the critic, as in virtually every review of any album. He can now discuss it here, where I've opened a post for him rather than revert him, which I would have been justified in doing so (WP:BRD). Dan56 (talk) 01:30, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't the place for Christgau's opinion about the band. This is an article about the album. Harmelodix (talk) 01:32, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Harmelodix, that's not an acceptable rationale. Christgau doesn't mention the album explicitly anywhere in his review, and he's obviously critiquing the band in the context of the album (musically uninteresting → "dull" → "I don't care how many ... incipient groovers are buying"; "amoral exploitation" → "Christian/satanist/liberal muck"), as is the case with what you've added from Graff's review about "singling out 'Children of the Grave' and 'Sweet Leaf' as 'timeless' tracks", or what you've just added here about "representing "the greatest sludge-metal band of them all it ins prime", so you're not being consistent. Furthermore, instead of restoring your bold edit and edit warring, you should engage my points and not reiterate what you've said in your edit summary. Accusations of POV pushing aren't the least helpful either. Dan56 (talk) 01:38, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Drmies, will you help? Dan, you are a bully, and I just wish that you would stop confronting my work everywhere I go! Harmelodix (talk) 01:42, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • What am I supposed to be doing here? I don't have this album, and Mob Rules is my favorite anyway. But if you insist: Dan is not being a bully, and crying "bully" is weak. If someone is following you everywhere you go you should bring that up in the appropriate forum, WP:ANI. Dan, I think you have a tendency to overformalize things to the point of wikilawyering (with your careful spelling out of B...R...D, so that you can call your revert the one following on the bold edit after which your opponent shouldn't revert anymore.

    Now, the Christgau review (some people feel he's worth citing) is a review of the album by a notable critic, so I don't see much of a reason to remove it. (The "representing" bit is not very well written, but it's sourced also.)

    I just had a look at the article. I find it odd that you're fighting over this minor point when there is so much work still to be done. Drmies (talk) 02:11, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies, I only emphasized that policy because of how Harmelodix complained at WP:ANI about what he felt was an inability to discuss changes with him and his most recent misinterpretation of BRD ([1]), when in fact, he refuses to address any of the points I've made and instead, as you pointed out, cries "bully". And he obviously shouldn't have restored his minor removal. Dan56 (talk) 02:39, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Harmelodix's edit represents a rather minor removal of content as far as I can see. He didn't remove the entire reference to Christgau's negative review, he just trimmed it. Is it really worth the discussion? At any rate I'd be much in favor of leaving the original intact because I think the article is bettered by the illustration that Christgau provides (which was the overwhelmingly popular opinion at that time it was written) of just how objectionable Black Sabbath's music seemed to the music establishment in the early 70s. Caper454 (talk) 02:21, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
His original reason ("Bangs and Christgau are making essentially the same point") for removing another part of Christgau's quote isn't consistent with the argument now, which comes off as an attempt to tone down how critical this reviewer actually was. Dan56 (talk) 07:55, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I flubbed the edit summary; what I meant to say was that keep Christgau on-topic, which is the album not the band. His quote is there for contemporary critical commentary about the album. My addition is different, because it illustrates how the album is viewed in relation to the band's catalog, in retrospect, which speaks to its legacy, not its contemporary reception. Harmelodix (talk) 16:09, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the relevance of "contemporary" vs. "retrospect"--criticism is criticism, and Christgau used his review (save for the last sentence) to criticize the band. There's no reason not to summarize what he used the majority of his review to say. If it wasn't relevant, he wouldn't have used the band as a point of criticism. Their responsible for the product he graded a "C-", so they're obviously the main point of his criticism. I already pointed out the obvious connection above: musically uninteresting → "dull" → "I don't care how many ... incipient groovers are buying"; "amoral exploitation" → "Christian/satanist/liberal muck"), etc. Dan56 (talk) 05:39, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Drmies, FTR, Dan56 is concerned about a "dubious content removal", but what he's really talking about are six words: "found the band 'dull and decadent'", which as I said, pertain to Christgau's opinion of the band Black Sabbath, not the eponymous album, so what's dubious about the removal? Dan56 should go add that at the band article where its on-topic for their legacy, not the album's. Harmelodix (talk) 22:35, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
None of his review relates to any band or album's legacy, since it is a contemporary review. Read the review--rather than explicitly naming the album anywhere, he used the band to express his criticism; even the final line doesn't mention the album by name, although it is implicit, as is his criticism of the band as criticism of the album, all of which was printed in the Voice as a review of the album. Dan56 (talk) 05:44, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Recent revert by Mlpearc[edit]

This will go nowhere. Harmelodix (talk) 01:10, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This revert misses the point that new sections, indeed new paragraphs even, need new nouns. Is it your position, Mlpearc, that I am wrong? Harmelodix (talk) 23:28, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Mendaliv, if its your position that I am wrong that Mlpearc is shill reverting for Dan56, then can you please add to this discussion and enlighten me that Mlpearc is correct to revert here? Harmelodix (talk) 23:31, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You're not wrong, you're redundant. Mlpearc (open channel) 23:34, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a professional writer in RL, are you? New sections need new nouns, so that a reader that comes only to the section will not find any ambiguity. Pick up any decent book and see if they cross chapters without re-stating the noun. Harmelodix (talk) 23:40, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. If you're going to accuse me of editing for someone else you better damn well show some proof or shut your keyboard, in this neighborhood this is no small accusation. Mlpearc (open channel) 23:37, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Are you threatening me? Because you seem like Dan56's meatpuppett, but that's just my opinion. Its just that your timing here is suspect at best, and your reverts are even more mindless than his.Harmelodix (talk) 23:40, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I can not resist (I'm not having a good day :P ) Harmelodix, you haven't been to this noticeboard yet Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations. Mlpearc (open channel) 23:51, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you should stop confronting my work and your attitude will improve. Harmelodix (talk) 23:54, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So, what is this discussion about? A revert or WP:SPI or WP:NPA? If revert, then the article reads good in the present shape. If SPI, evidence please (WP:WIAPA, #5). If NPA, WP:DON'T.
Bottom line: Wikipedia:Staying cool when the editing gets hot. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 00:22, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Harmelodix, you've done about 5,0000 edits today and have initiated confrontations with several editors now. Maybe a break would be beneficial. And to be clear, Mlpearc and Dan56 are two separate people. Baseless puppet accusations are unwise. Caper454 (talk) 00:29, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Who did I "initiate" a conflict with today? Oh, you mean when I was reverted that was my fault? 1) I never said they were the same person; I said that in the midst of a conflict with Dan56 their presence seemed meatpuppett-like, and 2) I already apologized to Mlpearc. BTW, I'll make as many contributions to Wikipedia in one day as I please, and I don't need you to tell me when to stop. Just stop flaming the fire. Harmelodix (talk) 00:38, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Who is flaming the fire now? I was just trying to give you some friendly advice but you're quite obviously too busy finding all your fellow editors objectionable. I'll allow you to clash as you see fit. Caper454 (talk) 00:49, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm agreeing with you in principle, but I'm also telling you that you never call a black man boy without apologizing for it after he's complained about it, or stop giving him unsolicited advice. Got it, flamer? Harmelodix (talk) 00:53, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Harmelodix, you just don't know when to stop, do you? I'm sure you know how simple it is to tell the color of a man's skin via this type of interaction. Calm down and watch the personal attacks before you get yourself blocked. Caper454 (talk) 00:59, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's my point, Casper, you are reckless in your condescending tone, and even after I asked you to refrain from disrespecting me you implied that you "make the call" when I should stop editing. But you don't, do you? You are obviously flaming this situation - any intelligent person can see that, or else you would simply and gracefully back away instead of continuing to poke jabs at an obviously frustrated editor, right Socrates? Harmelodix (talk) 01:04, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Doom and stoner[edit]

I don't think that it is correct to retcon music genres. How can an album of 1971 be labeled doom metal or stoner rock? In those years even the term heavy metal was barely used! Those are subgenres created by music critics much later in the late 70s and 90s, but it is surely correct to say that Black Sabbath music greatly influenced doom metal and stoner rock bands, as well as black metal and thrash metal. Lewismaster (talk) 18:14, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Master of Reality. 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, 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:15, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Master of Reality. 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) 10:51, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Master of Reality. 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) 01:14, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict with the "Cover versions" section[edit]

Three months ago, I tried to make reading this section more enjoyable by adding sort of bulleted lists to each song mentioned, replacing this kind of big block of lines.

I just noticed that these changes had been removed, and I would like to know why.

After I persevered in bringing back my "bullets", I also noticed that I was accused of vandalism. As there was no intention to harm the article but on the contrary to improve its readability, I sincerely hope that this is a joke. The fact that I do not have an account may be to my detriment, but I'm not one to change the articles to include nonsense or things like that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.161.156.166 (talk) 20:56, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Professional ratings[edit]

Does this article benefit in any way from two rather negative reviews from Robert Christgau? I removed one but it was quickly restored. Aside from the multiple Christgau reviews, the "Professional ratings" section contains six other reviews, more than enough in my opinion. Why do we need two almost identical reviews from the same reviewer? One is enough. SolarFlash (talk) 14:16, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Does this article suffer in any way from a second score, revised in retrospect? Last time I checked, the limit was 10 scores (MOS:ALBUM#Album ratings template). Dan56 (talk) 02:48, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, neither review devotes even a single word to discussing or reviewing Master of Reality. Does the article suffer? It certainly doesn't benefit from having two separate negative revues, virtually IDENTICAL, from the same source, with neither of which even devoting a single word to its subject. In both reviews Christgau dedicates much more attention to Grand Funk Railroad, and literally only even mentions Black sabbath when he's insulting them. How is any of this improving the article in any way? SolarFlash (talk) 15:46, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Our responsibility is to report information from prominent sources, not protect subjects near and dear to our hearts. Christgau is a prominent voice in the area that section of the article is dedicated to, the Voice is a prominent source for reviews during that era, and the book is too. The ratings template really just is decoration, a visual supplement, as described in MOS:ALBUM#Album ratings template. And another negative score visually reinforces the claim (according to the section) that the album was originally panned by critics. And the visual that the Voice score offers is not illustrating "Robert Christgau". So let's not get started on the merits of things there. Dan56 (talk) 21:17, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with a lot of what you're saying. But one review from Christgau is quite enough. I'm not trying to remove them both, just one of them. Christgau was not such a prominent source that two almost identical reviews from him should be what we decide our "responsibility" is. I view that as lazy editing. It's irrelevant that one review was featured in the Village Voice and the other wasn't, the source is ultimately the very same writer with the very same opinion. Let's assume that you’re correct in your stance that we need to keep both reviews for the purpose of illustrating how negatively Black Sabbath's music was viewed by the critics of the day: we’re still ultimately only hearing from ONE source, Robert Christgau, and no other voices from that period. So I don’t believe your standpoint on this is convincing, as it fails to illustrate that any critic other than Christgau gave an unfavorable review. If you are correct and every critic of the day panned Sabbath’s music, surely you shouldn’t need to rely on multiple reviews from the same author. That’s cheating. Surely other reviews exist. If you can’t find any, then you understand the rules. SolarFlash (talk) 22:25, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Bangs of Rolling Stone is also a negative appraisal being heard from that time period. Dan56 (talk) 22:33, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Good, we can use that one then and remove one of the Christgau reviews. SolarFlash (talk) 22:57, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Bangs' review has no score to include in the ratings template. His appraisal is just negative. It even compares the band negatively to Grand Funk (hmm) Dan56 (talk) 23:12, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I found another from the Arizona Republic dated 12 Sep 1971 [2]. If there's no rating to include in the template then just incorporate it into the prose. But I'm still not hearing any reasonable argument for keeping the second Christgau review in said template. SolarFlash (talk) 23:20, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a review that is in the template but a score. And I'm not hearing a reasonable argument to remove the score. Dan56 (talk) 23:28, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Then re-read the discussion we've just had. The reasonable argument to remove the score has been made, my friend. The reality is that you have failed to make a reasonable argument for not removing the score. SolarFlash (talk) 23:44, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I re-read it. The only thing I'm hearing now is you being patronizing. Dan56 (talk) 23:49, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Re-read the articles you've edited in the recent past. Both Nevermind and Weezer (Green Album) have two positive scores from a Rolling Stone publication; the latter album's article has two reviews written by Rob Sheffield. Wonder why you didn't object there... Dan56 (talk) 23:52, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Any other articles I've edited in the past are irrelevant and have nothing to do with this discussion or this article. Let me ask you this: were either of the two Christgau ratings originally added to the ratings template of this article by you personally? This can be verified so be honest. SolarFlash (talk) 23:58, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Then why are you asking me? Dan56 (talk) 00:08, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
They are relevant to your motives here, which I believe you're misrepresenting. Dan56 (talk) 00:09, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The ratings template shows readers that The Village Voice gave it a grade of "D". And it shows that Christgau's book gave it a C-minus. In lieu of a score for Bangs' review (or even the Arizona Republic), it's a fair representation as is, which is what the ratings template should strive for (MOS:ALBUM#Album ratings template). Since you have offered no argument based in guideline or policy, I'll abstain from responding anymore. Dan56 (talk) 00:15, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
C- or a D.... not much difference, and one of the cited sources even mentions clearly that he later changed the rating slightly. So that's more reason not to keep both ratings. Please explain how I am misrepresenting my motives. You're moving farther away from actually discussing this with every response and just getting angry. Perhaps some fresh opinions here might help if you're choosing to end the discussion. And regarding the guidelines, I don't believe there's anything in the guidelines that covers this exact topic, if there were you would have quoted them already. The guidelines only specify that the ratings template is to be "an overview of the critical reception of the album" but as I've already said several times, multiple virtually identical reviews from the same critic do not constitute an overview. It's just one man's opinion, and one man's opinion is not an overview by any stretch, no matter how many times we get to read it. SolarFlash (talk) 00:38, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

August release[edit]

The August 1971 release is supported by the 1994 book The Great Rock Discography. That book is immune to the Woozle effect because it was printed before Wikipedia, and is considered more reliable than modern digital sources.

The very first version of this Wikipedia page was posted in March 2003, and it said August 1971. In June 2005, an IP editor changed August to July without any supporting source.[3] A year later, some dude named ShogunMaximus added "21" to make July 21, 1971, without a supporting source.[4] So the page has been wrong for that length of time.

The Woozle effect is proved by AllMusic who said August 1971[5][6][7][8] up until the second half of 2016 when they changed it to July 21.[9] So AllMusic is shown to contradict itself, and is shown to be unreliable in this case. See WP:CONTEXTMATTERS.

Note that RIAA also says August 1971.[10] (Don't put too much trust in the August 1 specific day, which was a Sunday that year, a day when nobody releases albums.)

So let's not go down the rabbit hole of false dates, and stick with books printed before Wikipedia. Binksternet (talk) 17:01, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Master_of_Reality&oldid=1211262369"