Talk:Unknown Pleasures

This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Albums This article is within the scope of WikiProject Albums, an attempt at building a useful resource on recordings from a variety of genres. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.AlbumsWikipedia:WikiProject AlbumsTemplate:WikiProject AlbumsAlbum articles Rock music High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rock music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Rock music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Rock musicWikipedia:WikiProject Rock musicTemplate:WikiProject Rock musicRock music articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Alternative music High‑importance This article is part of WikiProject Alternative music, a group of Wikipedians interested in improving the encyclopedic coverage of articles relating to alternative rock. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project's talk page.Alternative musicWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative musicTemplate:WikiProject Alternative musicAlternative music articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives (Index)

2016/October 2017/April 2019/March 2019/April 2019/May

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

There seems to be frequent abuse of Wikipedia pages about significant albums, in which non-notable critics and album reviewers (for example, Ned Raggett) namecheck themselves. The implication is that their opinion is sufficiently important to be worthy of citation in an article about a highly significant work. It would seem reasonable to require such critics to demonstrate notability before they are permitted to add their name to an article of widespread interest. Self-citation in such a context is also obviously problematic and perhaps should either not be allowed or at least transparently acknowledged as such. 84.39.112.114 (talk) 02:27, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have some kind of vendetta solely against Mr. Raggett, as evidenced by your entire (small) Wiki editing career being solely aimed at removing his name. It's grossly inappropriate. I do not know Mr. Raggett, and am a published music critic in my own right, and I myself added him (and other critics) to review sections, as is common and appropriate. Slandering us in terms of insinuating this material was written by Raggett instead is pathetic.Greg Fasolino (talk) 17:41, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Greg Fasolino: Nope. Wrong. No personal vendetta. I haven't heard of Raggett, except in this and too many other Wiki articles on pop albums. Whether it's Raggett himself editing, one of his cronies, or some other party with uncertain motives, it looks pretty fishy that the name keeps popping up in all of these articles. Anyways it's not that important to me personally. Too bad that the quality of the Wikipedia is dropping quickly in recent years ... And one of the problems is all the wannabe-notable article squatters. Anyways I desist ... Outta here.

Well then you're not very familiar with contemporary music journalism. Considering he is the main critic at AllMusic, which is probably the number one source of digital music criticism, it's not very surprising or "fishy" that his reviews are often cited.Greg Fasolino (talk) 20:15, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]