Talk:Love/Hate (band)

Love/Hate (band) was a Music good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
January 10, 2008	Good article nominee	Not listed

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography: Musicians

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians (assessed as Low-importance).

Metal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Metal, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of heavy metal 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.MetalWikipedia:WikiProject MetalTemplate:WikiProject MetalHeavy Metal articles

Categories[edit]

Someone has added Hair Metal to the genres and changed the text to say this is the what LH were (as opposed to Hard Rock). I think it's a reach to describe them as Hair Metal, but won't argue that it could be added to the Genre list. However, it certainly isn't thier defining genre so I've undone the copy edit. Hair Metal brings to mind the big arena rock of the likes of Bon Jovi or Cinderella, LH were a very different beast who moved in related but different circles.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 19:13, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Detailed History[edit]

I've transcribed a summary of the bands history from the lengthy accounts on the bands website. I've only been able to get as far as the third album at present, but will follow up with the balance soon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ThePaintedOne (talk • contribs) 15:30, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've completed the transcription from Jizzy's history. I've also added as much info as I can on the tours of the last few years, this needs some more citations and in particular some info and when and how the band started touring again. I have to admit the date of 2004 is a guestimate on my part, hence I've put in a citation tag. I'm going to trawl about some news sites and see if I can fill in some of the gaps and add citations. Other than that, I think this is pretty much there.ThePaintedOne 18:56, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, with just a bit of digging I've found citations for several tours going back to 2002, which looks to be when the band re-emerged. The citation from 2002 certainly suggests this. The modern section could certainly do with some filling in, as some of the citations are a bit thin.ThePaintedOne 19:32, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note, just to clarrify the copyright situation. The history from Jizzy's record has not been copied, I have written original copy using his material as source.ThePaintedOne 19:00, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note sure why, but someone just deleted out some random bits from the history, which was all sourced from the band history on the website. They also removed the text block at the top which linked to this source. While the format was wrong and needed to be changed, the answer was not to simply remove the source for 90% of the article. I've put back in the removed items and reworded and moved the main source to the ref section at the bottom of the article. It would be nice of people could discuss here before revoking this. Thanks, --ThePaintedOne (talk) 07:41, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is ridiculous. Will the anonymous editor who keeps deleting big chunks of the copy without any edit summary please explain why. The material you are taking out is relevent and sourced, so there is no reason to take it out. If you disagree, please explain why, otherwise I'll just keep reverting the deletes.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 09:03, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am the anonymous editor. You don't know anything about Love/Hate or its so-called history. You're just appointing yourself the Guardian of a band's legacy by cherry-picking from Jizzy Pearl's history. The band never wore 'flowers in their hair' in 1985, ever. that is just stupid. Keeping the band's history relevant is just what I'm doing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.96.230.210 (talk) 18:47, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The material you keep removing is sourced, I fail to see why you have a problem with the history as put up on Jizzys's site, what better source can you cite? He was there first hand, unless you want to quote another band member contradicting him this is about the best source you're going to find. It looks like you are just a fan who doesn't want to see negative comments about the band, but that's not what Wikipedia is for. If you look through the edit history you'll see that I wrote the vast majority of the article, which was little more than a stub previously. That took a lot of time and effort, most of it transcribing from Jizzy's notes on the bands history. I didn't 'cherry pick', I paraphrased so as to avoid copyright issues and follow wikipedia rules, and tried hard to capture all the significant events he described, both good and bad. I am not the guardian of the page, but having put a lot of my time into trying to improve thier presence on Wikipedia, I do object to a random anonymous author just deleting sourced material without reason. The stuff you are removing is no more or less relevant than much of the rest of the copy, so it would seem to be you who is cherry picking out facts you don't like. If you can cite a source contradicting the history as presented, then we can obviously work together to find a neutral set of copy which suits both sources, but without that you're just presenting your opinion, which is not necesarily relevent to the band, this page or anything else in Wikipedia. --ThePaintedOne (talk) 13:11, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As an asside, if you want to make the article more relevent, it would be much more useful if you could improve the more recent history, which is thin and lacking in details beyond dates of tours. --ThePaintedOne (talk) 13:17, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

anonymous again. I recently contacted Jizzy as he is an old friend of mine from the "80's days" and told him about Wikipedia. He will probably post here at some time in the future. He laughed when I told him about the 'flowers in the hair' part. He was also not pleased that you made him out to look like an alcoholic. Writing insulting things about people is not 'relevant' to a band's history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.96.230.210 (talk) 20:54, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If Jizzy didn't want to appear as an alcoholic then he probably shouldn't put online an article where he discusses how his drinking was affecting the band's performance (from http://www.lovehate.com/Hist_four.htm)

I want to include one item to end this episode, it has to do with me...we had a gig opening up for L.A. Guns at the Scream club. there were hundreds of people there...I was drunk, fucked up , as usual, we took the stage ...turns out someone had videoed the gig---we went to our pal G. xxxxx's house one night to watch the video, we had planned to give Jon a "dressing down" for his multiple guitar changes and "rock star " attitude on stage. we were all set to ream him a new asshole...but ...the video.. MY PERFORMANCE....I watched it in stony silence, I was looking at a fucked -up drunk idiot singer

The BLP rules are prpetty clear on what can or can't be said about living people, but when the person themselves posts online on thier own website talkling about it, that's a pretty good source. Everything that has been put in that history has been paraphrased straight from Jizzy's own history. If you can given an example that hasn't, or where in re-wording what Jizzy wrote (required to avoid copyright infringement) I changed the sense of the statement, then I'll happily re-write or take it out. As another example, the 'flowers in the hair' comment comes from http://www.lovehate.com/Hist_two.htm

1985 was the start of the "glam period" in LA and we were no exception. My hair was platinum blonde, we had black lips and red cheeks and flowers in our hair.

I'm a long time fan of the band, I've seen them live numerous times and if Jizzy were to post on his website saying that he would rather this stuff came down I'd definitely comply just out of respect for him. But some random IP editor claiming to be a mate is a different thing. Frankly I'm more inclined to note the editor last October who claimed to be Jon E Love. They made a couple of minor edits which would make sense if they were who they say they are and I left it alone. I don't know if it was really Jon, but whoever it was didnt go in for wholesale deletion and they didn't touch any of the stuff you are so worked up about.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 07:05, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In a spirit of compromise, I've taken out the specific 'flowers in hair' comment, as re-reading the source Jizzy could have been exagerating and frankly it's hardly the most important fact here. I've also taken out the 'drinking heavily' comment with regards Jizzy, as while it's clearly supported by the source, BLP states that in situations like this its better to err on the side of caution. If you want too discuss any other specific items that you take issue with from a factual perspective, then I'm sure we can work something out. --ThePaintedOne (talk) 07:18, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have edited out the so-called 'history' of Love/Hate regarding Juan Croucier because it is completely untrue. While it is true that the band employed and paid Juan to do demos only 'why do you think they call it dope' was included in the songs that eventually made the 'Blackout' record. There was no plan to call the record 'pain killer'; these were demos only. After recording the band for several weeks Juan mixed only one song and the band was so disasatisfied with the results that Juan was let go without any more participation. It wasn't because of 'lack of funding'. The unfinished demos were NOT the reason the band got their record deal or the reason Tom Werman became interested. Love/Hate recorded a 4-track demo by themselves in their own home studio in Summer 1988 and THAT became the demo and the songs that captured record company interest. Either a friend of Juan or Juan himself has decided to 'rewrite history' 20 plus years later--- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.253.31.103 (talk) 18:38, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also want to add--where is this new 'sourced' material you speak of as regards this Juan Croucier piece?

Sorry, my mistake. Although I watch this page I somehow missed that addition in June, so I thought you were removing chucks from the history I put up two years ago, which was all sourced from the official band history (One of these days I must convert that to inline cites, but life doesn't give me as much wiki editing time as it used to!). There have been some previous anon editors who have ripped out whole chunks of sourced stuff without explanation, so I jumped the gun a bit. Having gone back to the source and checked through the edit history, you're right. So I've put that section back to the way it was prior to the June addition. I really must find the time to clean all this up sometime, per the GA review. --ThePaintedOne (talk) 07:32, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Acts[edit]

While it is relevent to list the support acts in current tours, and I can appreciate those acts wanting the information on the page, can it please be kept brief and to the point. The page is principly about Love/Hate and information on other acts, other than to mention thier connection to Love/Hate, is not appropriate or on topic. Detailed information should be put on those bands own pages and this article linked to them.

This is not directed at any particular band or edit, but some of the recent edits have veered towards promotion for the support acts, which is not relevent for an article on Love/Hate.

Thanks, —Preceding unsigned comment added by ThePaintedOne (talk • contribs) 08:42, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA review[edit]

The lead is too short and does not summarize the article - WP:LEAD. Include notable albums/members/sales/style as done in Radiohead and Metallica
A picture of an album cover should not be used for the infobox
band from the early 90s - the infobox says 1985
Remove the credit thing from history
when Jizzy Pearl (real name Jim Wilkinson) joined Jon E. Love, Skid Rose and Joey Gold - what does everyone play?
out a 4 track EP - 4-> four - link EP
song they played at the time called Love and Hate - songs should be on "quotes"
elease of the album Love - albums should be in italics
1987, the band - In 1987?
A Nightmare on Elm Street 4: The Dream Master & Critters 2 - italics for movies
he band then put together a 4 track demo - 4 -> four
Italics for albums in titles
It reached #154 on the billboard 200. Billboard 200 - reference?
Hollywood Sign Stunt lowercase s for stunt
In 1997 comma after years
1989 - 1991 -> 1989–1991
a 2 week tour in Germany - 2 -> two
2002 - present is poorly written
February 24, 2007 full date needs wikilinked
.[11]. remove fullstop after reference
Principal Members -> Current members
Additional support was from Gypsy Pistoleros[ - missing a fullstop on this sentence and needs to be rewritten
Other Members -> Former members - tell us what they played
References need to be formatted to include publisher, retrieve date, date etc, see Metallica#References to see how they should look and Template:Cite web for the template which helps
with Glam Metal at its height - glam metal should not be capitalized
Words like "popular", "classic" are POV and opinion
fire dept - department
One sentence paragraphs are missing fullstops

The one sentence paragraphs need to be merged and rewritten as its a bad case of proseline "In 1987..In 1990", numbers below ten written as words, references formatted. More references like using billboard.com for the chart position. If you disagree with this review feel free to submit it to WP:GAR, thanks. M3tal H3ad (talk) 05:01, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review and extensive feedback. I'll try and address as many of these as I can over the next few weeks. Sources are hard to come by as the band had only fleeting and limited mainstream popularity, but I'll see what I can do to improve them.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 11:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Love/Hate (band). 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) 08:42, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]