Talk:Of the Heart, of the Soul and of the Cross: The Utopian Experience

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Of the Heart, of the Soul and of the Cross: The Utopian Experience article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

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

Hip hop High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hip hop, a collaborative effort to build a useful resource for and improve the coverage of hip hop on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.Hip hopWikipedia:WikiProject Hip hopTemplate:WikiProject Hip hopHip hop articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was move to Of the Heart, of the Soul and of the Cross: The Utopian Experience. Joelito (talk) 21:26, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of the Heart, Of the Soul and Of the Cross: The Utopian Experience → Of the Heart, of the Soul and of the Cross: The Utopian Experience – Naming conventions -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 15:11, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Survey[edit]

Support: Some sources give every word as capitals but their official site has it as per nom... except that it omits the last subtitle part. I'd support either per nom. or per nom. minus the subtitle. —Wknight94 (talk) 04:16, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

Add any additional comments

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Image copyright problem with Image:Oftheheart pmdawn.jpg[edit]

The image Image:Oftheheart pmdawn.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --09:40, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Further readings[edit]

I removed the following entry from the Further readings' sections, as "psychedelia" is not related to the actual article (or if it is, please add some content regarding to it, and provide some decent references):

"DeRogatis, Jim (2003). "Set Adrift on Memory Bliss". Turn on Your Mind: Four Decades of Great Psychedelic Rock. Hal Leonard Corporation. pp. 413–416. ISBN 1617802158. Retrieved August 27, 2013." Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 23:11, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The chapter that the book reference is linked to has enough information on this album in the following pages to warrant keeping it in "further reading". This info begins after the first page introducing the duo. Dan56 (talk) 00:07, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So please tell us here, which part of your reference is actually related to the article? Meanwhile, please do not make any changes before discussing it here first. After you have pointed out how the reference in further readings is related to the actual article, then it can be freely included to the further readings section. Thanks. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 23:36, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Uhm, I did ("begins after the first page introducing the duo"), and don't make ultimatums. Did you bother to read any of the chapter? Let me help you out: [1]. Dan56 (talk) 07:47, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Invalid source removed (missing pages, invalid source). As a result of the discussion at the talk page, the contributor (Dan56) has not explained how the source is even related to the article. Aside from that, the claimed source is missing pages and therefore cannot be used as a valid source. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 16:31, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that your view of Google Books is missing some pages (which I think is what you mean) does not make the source invalid. This editing is beginning to look disruptive. If you have valid point please make them here and get consensus before reverting again.--SabreBD (talk) 16:44, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just to name a few:

- WP:INCITE Inline citations allow the reader to associate a given bit of material in an article with the specific reliable source(s) that support the material.

- The online source you provide is whether broken or outdated, and the page you were referring to here at Talk Page, is missing. Page links should only be added when the book is available for preview, unfortunately the page you are referring to is not available for preview. You can fix the problem by adding the necessary inline citations.

- This template is used when an article cites a book as a reference, as well as page numbers used, but the range of page numbers is too broad (over two pages).[2] Please specify the range of page numbers (now 4 pages), or add the necessary inline citations to fix the problem. At the moment, the link you have given is not available for preview.

I dropped out this one in my latest edit since it can be seen to be included already in the 3 aforementioned. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 14:25, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am not really sure why you think these templates are appropriate for a further reading section. They are designed for sections of text. Further reading cannot really be short of citations, or need page numbers because it has no citations. Also, once again, could you state what is your problem with linking to the book? The link seems to work fine for me.--SabreBD (talk) 19:06, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If that's the case, please provide the proper inline citations that show the relevance to the text. The link you are trying to push here, it has nothing to do with the article itself. The burden-of-proof is on you; please provide the proper citations that show the relevance of your source to the text. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 09:26, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK just one simple question this time. When you click on the link do you see a book or is it that you disagree with what you see?--SabreBD (talk) 09:57, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Jayaguru-Shishya understands the purpose of Further reading. And the tags placed aren't appropriate ([3])--the links arent broken, and the page numbers are included in the citations. Dan56 (talk) 10:06, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Friskics-Warren's book in the pages noted in the inline citation includes commentary on the album and its songs throughout (mention of the album's title throughout the book for you)
DeRogatis' book with the album mentioned. Dan56 (talk) 10:12, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Holden article for The New York Times; tip: click "CTRL" and "F" on your keyboard, type in the album title, and you'll find it. Dan56 (talk) 10:12, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I have clearly explained, I see a book where most of the pages that you are referring to are not available for preview. This violates the Wikipedia policy on referring to online sources. Second, those pages that are available for preview, they are in no way related to the article itself. Therefore I have been asking you to provide proper inline citations (again a Wikipedia policy), which you have refused to do. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 17:39, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This template is used when an article cites a book as a reference, as well as page numbers used, but the range of page numbers is too broad (over two pages) <- as I have been perfectly clear, the range of pages given exceeds two pages. Therefore, the template is well grounded. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 17:40, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have misunderstood Wikipedia guidelines on previewing books. This page follows the guidelines for both citations and further reading. Furthermore the template you are using is not for that purpose as explained above. None of this matters, because it is clear from your last edit that what you are doing is attempting to remove a reliable source because you do not like what it says. This editing is purely disruptive. Please desist.--SabreBD (talk) 18:48, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Leave your own opinions out of this and concentrate on facts. So please provide a citation which shows how it is relevant for the article? As I have said numerous times, it'd solve the problem. Thanks.

Until the relevance to the article is shown, the link remains removed or there will be appropriate tags. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 08:49, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That has already been done.--SabreBD (talk) 13:07, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The link shall remain removed until provide citations that show the relevance to the source have been provided for the Wikipedia community. If you find the source relevant to the article, you can provide the citations here that show the connection. Thanks for your cooperation. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 17:31, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Editors here have been very patient with this nonsense, but it is just vandalism to keep tampering with valid content. Please desist.--SabreBD (talk) 18:04, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jayaguru-Shishya, your tone is annoyingly authoritative. Can you please get a consensus before reverting again? At this point, you should, because this is not worth getting blocked for. Dan56 (talk) 04:41, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]