Talk:Radiohead/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

The term "Arab Jew"

The article refers to Johnny wife as an "Arab Jew". While Thom himself refers to her this way in the rolling stones interview, the term is misleading and is almost never used by Jews (either of middle eastern origin or otherwise), since they usually see themselves as part of distinct (non Arab) Jewish nationality and not as Arabs. It is very likely Johnny wife would not describe herself as a "Arab Jew". The term "Mizrahi Jew", used to describe Jews of middle eastern origin, probably better suit and should replace the term "Arab Jew" (which is sometimes used by foreigners as synonymous to "middle eastern Jew" although it is misleading and wrong). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Msnoker2 (talk • contribs) 07:48, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, Jonny's wife's Twitter bio reads "I am an arab jew". But as it seems likely to be contentious, I've removed it as I'm not sure it's very important anyway. Popcornduff (talk) 08:03, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Citation needed

electronics and lyrics inspired by war

Semi-protected edit request on 6 May 2016

In the third paragraph the date for the release of the new album is wrong. It says 9 May, should be 8 May. Nahcirn (talk) 19:48, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

 Done thanks for pointing that out - Arjayay (talk) 19:58, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Genres

The genre section of the infobox is getting needlessly cluttered with sources simply labeling the band a certain way. To clear it up, I've resituated those sources here:

• Art rock
• alternative rock
• electronica
• experimental rock

Do not add any genres without reliable sources.GentleCollapse16 (talk) 18:59, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

References

References

Is this a standard thing for Wikipedia, to hide sources on the Talk page instead? I've never seen it done before; seems weird... Popcornduff (talk) 02:40, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

No, it's not. But some people (rightfully or wrongfully) dislike the use of inline citations in infoboxes. I personally don't find a problem with it.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 19:36, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 June 2016

Hello, I would be very grateful if you would kindly remove the photo of me from the Radiohead page. There are many more appropriate photos, gratefully, Clive Deamer Clevermedia (talk) 08:38, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

 Done Hi Clive! I'm sure I speak for many other editors here when I say I'm a big admirer of your work with Radiohead and other artists. I'm not sure what the Wikipedia policy about people making edit requests to articles about themselves is. However, as another photo (seemingly uploaded yourself?) is already on Wikimedia, and looks like a pretty decent one to me, I'll go ahead and swap it.Popcornduff (talk) 10:28, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Additionally, Wikipedia is always looking for good quality photos. If you have any photos of yourself working with Radiohead you'd like to donate for the Wikipedia Radiohead articles, please go ahead. Popcornduff (talk) 10:33, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

LLLP LLP

I noticed that at least on Spotify, all post EMI records are now labeled as having LLLP LLP, licensed to XL as their record company. According to beta company and similar websites, the members of Radiohead are the directors of LLLP LLP, but I couldn't find any info on whether the company is owned by XL or by Radiohead themselves, (or a third party). Since Ticker Tape has its own page, I think LLLP LLP should have its own page, but I am not sure if we have enough info on it.Merijn2 (talk) 14:35, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't think it needs its own article, because, as you say, we have barely no information about it. I'm not sure Ticker Tape needs one either, for the same reason - and I also don't think it meets notability guidelines, having not received much coverage. Popcornduff (talk) 18:09, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Acclaim for The Bends should be noted in the lede

I get that The Bends is oh-so-primitive and basic to a lot of hardened 'head fans, but there are a million publications who name it one of the best albums ever (see the album's article for a sampling). It's hugely acclaimed, and the article should reflect that rather than cater to the opinions of die hards who think the "challenging" OK Computer and Kid A are just the greatest things ever. 185.54.163.33 (talk) 18:04, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Several of Radiohead's albums are regularly featured in greatest-of lists, but Kid A and OK Computer get particular attention. Popcornduff (talk) 04:18, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

No, they don't. OK Computer does, but The Bends is far more prevalent in "all time" lists than Kid A. Again, the article should reflect history, not snobby Radiohead fans' version of history. 185.54.163.252 (talk) 14:46, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

http://www.besteveralbums.com/thechart.php?b=819

The top-ranked album is OK Computer followed by Kid A, in positions #1 and #6 respectively. Radiohead's other albums also place highly - off the top of my head, Amnesiac, HTTT and In Rainbows all feature in Rolling Stone's most recent list of the great albums ever, for example - but OKC and Kid A dominate by a clear margin. Rolling Stone, Pitchfork and the Times ranked Kid A the greatest album of the 2000s; The Bends can't compete with that. I will concede, though, that it might be worth mentioning that not only OKC and Kid A have received mentions in best-of lists.

Maybe you could stop calling us names, making weird suppositions about our tastes in Radiohead, and start producing some good sources to back your claims up? Popcornduff (talk) 15:06, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, User:185.54.163.33's tone is hostile and unproductive. But s/he has already pointed us to The Bends, where there appear to be several sources supporting her/his claim. So we should take this idea seriously. Mgnbar (talk) 16:14, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

"Rolling Stone, Pitchfork and the Times ranked Kid A the greatest album of the 2000s; The Bends can't compete with that."

Actually, it can. Being ranked the best of one decade is not the same as being ranked as one of the top 10 greatest of all time, where The Bends has been ranked by innumerable publications. Decade lists pull from a restricted selection, meaning that Bloggs may rank Kid A as the best of the 2000s, but only like it 1/10th as much as the record he ranks as the best of the 1990s. Kid A does not have the same presence in all-time lists that The Bends has. 185.54.163.232 (talk) 16:45, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, The Bends has appeared in numerous best-of lists, but you haven't produced any evidence that this isn't bested by Kid A. Nonetheless, I'll rewrite the lead to mention that several RH albums have achieved placements in various best-of lists. Popcornduff (talk) 08:56, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

You simply will not collaborate. I suggested that acclaim for The Bends should be mentioned in the lede; Mgnbar said this was an idea to take seriously; and you yourself added such a mention before reneging on it due to a clear WP:OWN issue ("repetition" is a poor excuse when all you have to do is tweak some wording). It's patently obvious that The Bends is regarded as more of an all-time record than Kid A, and if two albums are to be singled out, they should be The Bends and OK Computer. Call it a "supposition", but yeah, I think it's pretty clear that this article has been hijacked by the same "nothing-before-OK Computer-matters" elitists who plague sites like ateaseweb and greenplastic. Hoity toity nonsense is just fine on those sites, but this is supposed to be, well, an unbiased encyclopedia... 185.54.163.141 (talk) 20:53, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Drop the speculative personal attacks and start making sensible arguments. "It's patently obvious that The Bends is regarded as more of an all-time record than Kid A" - I've produced evidence to the contrary, you haven't. Evidence, please? Popcornduff (talk) 01:43, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

"Yes, User:185.54.163.33's tone is hostile and unproductive. But s/he has already pointed us to The Bends, where there appear to be several sources supporting her/his claim. So we should take this idea seriously." - Mgnbar 185.54.163.242 (talk) 01:52, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

The Bends article contains sources for The Bends appearing in best-of lists. It doesn't contain sources for it being more acclaimed than Kid A. Popcornduff (talk) 02:13, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

The article is indeed a rigged hagiography, projecting the version of Radiohead that overzealous fans want the world to believe in. Given that Wikipedia's average user is an affluent, white, 32-year-old male, you're probably on the wrong site if you're looking for an impartial article about Yorke and co. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.227.192.46 (talk) 16:42, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Can you explain what you think is biased about the article as it stands? Neutrality is important on Wikipedia. Popcornduff (talk) 17:00, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Hagiography is a common problem in Wikipedia articles about popular culture, because editors self-select based on their interests. But, as Popcornduff said, you could be more helpful by giving comments on specific parts of the text. Or be bold and make edits yourself. Mgnbar (talk) 21:32, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

"The best albums of all time"

The phrase "the best albums of all time" appears in two consecutive sentences within the lede. I propose that one instance be altered to "the greatest albums ever made", in order to ease repetition. Thank you. 2A02:C7D:6A44:4600:3CE2:4E31:8781:E595 (talk) 20:04, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

That would only be a superficial fix. It's one of the reasons I was opposed to adding the Bends' appearances in such lists to the lead (see the discussion above), because it makes the lead quite repetitive. I might try to rewrite it to make a general statement about numerous albums' appearances in best-of lists, instead of listing them in order. Popcornduff (talk) 07:52, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Paul Thomas Anderson

Is he really relevant enough to have his picture included on the page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.35.42.66 (talk) 06:36, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Probably not. Removed. Popcornduff (talk) 06:41, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Toronto stage collapse

There's a new Pitchfork article about the Toronto stage collapse, and the ongoing case: http://pitchfork.com/thepitch/1310-waiting-on-justice-for-the-radiohead-stage-collapse-that-killed-scott-johnson/

There's also this source about the collapse which looks useful: http://www.stagetech.com/sites/default/files/TPINOV12_Radiohead_comp.pdf

I'll set about incorporating this information into the article, but I'm wondering if we now have enough information that it's deserving of its own article. This might be especially useful considering the information is currently duplicated in both the Radiohead and The King of Limbs articles; we could cut back the information on both pages and just link to a new article explaining it in detail. Thoughts? Popcornduff (talk) 03:25, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Done: Radiohead stage collapse

Facial collapse

The stage collapse reminds me of an incident at the Glasgow SECC on 30 November 2003, in which an 18-year-old male from the East End of Glasgow suffered a severe injury during the heavy section of "My Iron Lung". His head/face was sandwiched between the back of an audience member's head in front, and the forehead of another person behind him: the result was an appaling "facial collapse" which involved the destruction of his entire facial skeleton. I have clippings from Scottish newspapers the Daily Record and the Evening Times covering this story. Is it notable for the article (or possibly My Iron Lung or Radiohead live performances)? 194.88.142.251 (talk) 04:00, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 December 2016

Laugelaugelauge (talk) 13:52, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Cannolis (talk) 14:24, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 January 2017

Update band image to this: http://beardedgentlemenmusic.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Radiohead-2016-620x350.jpg 2601:C2:C000:FA40:1DE5:FFCC:AA8B:C10 (talk) 14:38, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

 Not done It would be great to use this image, but unfortunately the copyright doesn't belong to Wikipedia. Popcornduff (talk) 16:19, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 February 2017

To the section "Collaborators" add the following sentence at the beginning of the paragraph that begins "Dilly Gent has been responsible......"

Jim Warren has mixed the live sound for Radiohead shows since May 3rd 1992, and continues to do so to the present day. He was awarded a TEC award for outstanding creative achievement for live sound production for the Hail to the Thief tour. Profcomp (talk) 23:19, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

 Not done Your source doesn't seem to say that. Popcornduff (talk) 04:32, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 14 external links on Radiohead. 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/20090515111700/http://israelity.com/2009/01/20/the-radiohead-israel-connection/ to http://israelity.com/2009/01/20/the-radiohead-israel-connection/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070409000921/http://blender.com/guide/articles.aspx?id=824 to http://www.blender.com/guide/articles.aspx?id=824
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.amug.org/~scrnsrc/grammys_98.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://observer.guardian.co.uk/life/story/0%2C6903%2C375564%2C00.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.radiohead.com/deadairspace/index.php?a=65
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.radiohead.com/deadairspace/index.php?c=292
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.idiomag.com/peek/35718/radiohead
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.radiohead.com/deadairspace/index.php?c=428
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://stereokill.net/2009/05/18/radiohead-begin-recording-new-album/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.radiohead.com/deadairspace/index.php?a=497
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120201120225/http://www.grammy.com/nominees to http://www.grammy.com/nominees
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://radiohead.com/deadairspace/111107/Touring-2012
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.musicweek.com/news/read/hearing-begins-into-radiohead-drum-technician-s-death/063437
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120206154836/https://www.followmearound.com/presscuttings.php?year=2001&cutting=121 to http://www.followmearound.com/presscuttings.php?year=2001&cutting=121

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) 16:29, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Radiohead. 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/20131231034303/http://www.listsofbests.com/list/13644-q-readers-best-albums-ever-2006-readers-poll to http://www.listsofbests.com/list/13644-q-readers-best-albums-ever-2006-readers-poll

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) 21:52, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Request for comment: do we need the List of unreleased songs by Radiohead article?

Last month I started a discussion on the "List of unreleased songs by Radiohead" talk page but it didn't attract a lot of responses. Since many of the unreleased songs have since been released, I'm not convinced we still need the page. If any other editors have any feelings I'd like to hear it. Thanks. Popcornduff (talk) 10:01, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Radiohead. 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/20071126085601/http://www.nme.com/blog/index.php?blog=10&p=2728&more=1 to http://www.nme.com/blog/index.php?blog=10&p=2728&more=1

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) 09:21, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Tour controversy

I'm concerned that the paragraph covering the controversy about the Tel Aviv show is bloated. Thinking of moving most of it to the Moon Shaped Pool article instead. Is that a good idea? @Brandt Luke Zorn: want to weigh in? Popcornduff (talk) 07:52, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

@IAmTylerSanders: Thanks for tagging the section as overlong recently - even though I consider myself a pretty ruthless editor when it comes to trimming, as the only consistent editor on this article, I can definitely lose the plot sometimes. I'd appreciate your feelings about the issue above, if you have any. Popcornduff (talk) 07:20, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

I boldly trimmed it to one paragraph.[1] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:05, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

I disagree with this edit.[2] Do you realize that this section takes up more space than their most popular song, Creep. This is an excellent example of WP:RECENTISM, where something relatively unimportant, but recent gets more coverage than something more important, but long ago. I'm just picking Creep as an example. There are many things way more important than this non-event that gets less coverage in the article. In fact, wouldn't a single sentence more than suffice? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:15, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

@A Quest For Knowledge: I understand your concerns and I think your points are reasonable.

The thing about Creep is that there's an entire article dedicated to it, so we can just summarise it in the Radiohead article. But there's no dedicated article to cover the Radiohead tour controversy. I understand the recentism argument, but the controversy nonetheless received wide coverage in numerous reliable sources, and involved some high-profile artists. I think it deserves a decent summary somewhere.

Would it be better covered in the Moon Shaped Pool article, under the "tour section"? If not - I don't think it's worthy of its own article, is it? (I'd be happy to write it, if anyone wants to persuade me that it's notable enough.) Popcornduff (talk) 10:56, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Additionally, I'm kind of on the fence about this issue, so if others editors want to chime in, I'm happy to go with consensus either way. Popcornduff (talk) 10:58, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

OK, on reflection, I think you were right - even if there's nowhere else to put the information, it was taking up too much space on this page, so I've trimmed it down. If anyone has suggestions for where else it could be covered in more detail, I'm all ears. Popcornduff (talk) 06:08, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Rolling Stone

The following is in paragraph 4,"In 2005, they were ranked 73rd in Rolling Stone's list of "The Greatest Artists of All Time";" I am proposing a reference should be cited, as occurs for Jonny Greenwood, Ed O'brien and Thom Yorke within the same sentence. Here is the link to the source: https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-lists/100-greatest-artists-147446/radiohead-9-86226/.

I am a new user to Wikipedia. Thank you,in advance, for your patience and support.

--Jstevevt (talk) 17:32, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Time for a new infobox pic?

The newer photos (2017-2018) of the group taken by Raph_PH seem to look good enough to make a new collage. The photos in the infobox now seem pretty grainy and outdated.100cellsman (talk) 02:15, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Yep, the current photos are old. Thom in particular now looks completely different. If someone wants to try making a new collage that'd be great - not my forte. Popcornduff (talk) 03:38, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

So I went ahead and made one! [3] Thoughts? (apologies for the license error)100cellsman (talk) 08:17, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that! Hmm - a couple of things look a bit odd to me. First, it would be good for the interests of visual coherence to have each member facing the same direction. Second, three of the photos are just a bit weird - Jonny is indistinct, Colin looks like he's either eating a snack or shaving (and is partly obscured), and Ed looks like he's having a bit too much of a good time. Perhaps we could find some better photo sources among those uploaded by Yasuko Otani - her work is on the Thom Yorke and Ed O'Brien pages, for example. Popcornduff (talk) 08:31, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

You do have a point. I'm sure I can find replacements for the other members but I was surprised by the lack of photos Colin has, I couldn't find any better recent pics of him. (by the way, these collage things are much more harder to create than they look)100cellsman (talk) 09:37, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I expect they're a pain to make, especially because we have to assemble them out of license-free sources. Popcornduff (talk) 09:39, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

So it doesn't matter when the photos were taken, right?100cellsman (talk) 01:44, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

I think it probably does matter a bit. We don't want to have a photo of Thom Yorke from 2018 next to Phil Selway from 1994. To be honest, though, incorporating images and media into Wiki stuff is not my strong area, and we could benefit from some more opinions.

I meant to say that I could incorporate say a 2016 pic to a 2017 pic so it's much more closer to home.100cellsman (talk) 07:31, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Some Wiki articles use non-license-free promotional photos of bands and artists and seem to justify it by having people who understand copyright regulations properly. That would be the best result. It's irritating that we can't easily use those kinds of thing when it's exactly what they were intended to be used for - to identify/represent artists in articles, magazines etc. Popcornduff (talk) 06:47, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

I see some press shots that other record labels or endorsement companies post to flickr that's CC, and some press shots are uploaded here with an OTRS license. I'm not entirely savvy with managing images here as I mostly upload them and swap from other pics.100cellsman (talk) 07:36, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Popcornduff, Here's round two of my photo montage attempt! [4]

100cellsman Nice job. I think that's good enough. The only one I really question is Colin. He looks a bit corpse-like. Popcornduff (talk) 07:42, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Well I had no other good options besides that one pic where he looks like he's eating a snack, alot of the recent photos of him give too poor views.100cellsman (talk) 08:18, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Man, wouldn't it be great if we could use this photo? Sigh. Popcornduff (talk) 07:47, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 November 2018

I found the sentence "Producer Nigel Godrich made his name with Radiohead, working as an audio engineer on The Bends and as their producer on every studio album since." (under "Collaborators") to be slightly unclear (for want of a better word). My reasoning for this is that I was reading the page for OK Computer, which mentioned that Nigel Godrich was the producer for that album and every album since. This then prompted me to think to myself "Wait, didn't I just read that he was the producer for every studio album since The Bends?". It was only after I had gone back to this page and reread the section, that I realised he was actually an audio engineer on The Bends, and a producer on all of the later albums. I believe that if the sentence was written slightly more clearly, I (and possibly others) may not have made (or make) that mistake.

My suggestion for making the sentence clearer would be something along the lines of: "Producer Nigel Godrich made his name with Radiohead, first working as an audio engineer on The Bends, and later their producer on OK Computer and every album since." Skrike (talk) 06:24, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

I've reworded this to be more explicit. Does it help? Popcornduff (talk) 08:30, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

"Band members" Section

There should be a timeline within the "Band members" section of the article. Dean12065 (talk) 14:38, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Why? Popcornduff (talk) 14:43, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Radiohead has had consistent members, so there isn't much of a point with adding a timeline. 100cellsman (talk) 15:21, 13 February 2019 (UTC)