Talk:Babel (Mumford & Sons album)

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

Singles[edit]

I can't find sources for the fact that Babel was released as single, is the information correct? --Tia solzago (talk) 20:30, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gospel?[edit]

How is this a gospel album? Just because of its title and biblical references in the lyrics? Find that rather unconvincing. Steinbach (talk) 15:24, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If noone opposes within a few days, I'm going to remove it. Steinbach (talk) 23:13, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Genre[edit]

I do not agree with the genres Dan56 is adding to the infobox. First of all, the "Nu-folk" link redirects to British folk revival, which is not a genre in itself, but rather a music history article that details a number of revivals of folk music by British artists. Furthermore, there are 2 possibly relevant redirect links available: nu folk, which goes to indie folk, and nu-folk, which goes to freak folk. Ignoring the ridiculousness that the phrase "nu folk" can mean 2 completely different things based on the (non)-omission of a hyphen, I'd like to stress a line from WP:GWAR: "A BIG RED FLAG should be raised whenever a GW adds a genre to an infobox which redirects elsewhere- a bit of a giveaway that either they haven't thought it out, or the 'genre' is insufficiently distinct to be worthy of a mention in its own right." I think the term is vague, poorly defined, and not as helpful as simply linking to "folk rock", which has been the agreed upon genre in the band's infobox and hard to dispute.

Furthermore, I must dispute the pop genre being added. The word "pop" is a conflated (and often contentious) phrase used by critics to typically denote anything that is mainstream or melodic. The "pop music" genre includes such artists as Rihanna, Miley Cyrus, Justin Timberlake, Justin Bieber... I fail to see how Mumford and Sons fits in here. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 15:11, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, there is a description of "nu-folk" within the "British folk revival" section, that is too short for it's own article. Also, there is "nu-folk" cited within the article as there is pop. I'm going to revert your edit for now as there is no citation for folk-rock, but I'll note that's it's under discussion. Andrzejbanas (talk) 22:54, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that there is a nu-folk section in the British folk revival article, but that doesn't make it a genre (sounds to me more like a time period rather than anything musically distinct). Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 23:14, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. the link to british folk revival doesn't really explain the sound either. I'd suggest still using the term, but perhaps not linking it or removing it all together. This is a popular album so I'm sure we can find more information about music it's described as. Andrzejbanas (talk) 03:51, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Genre warriors "prefer monolithic labels rather than subtlety, e.g. by reducing one band's output to a single genre" (WP:GWAR). In other words, this isn't the article for the artist, but the album. If it's that difficult to cite a source saying this album's folk rock, then you probably shouldn't be arguing it's better than genres that can actually be verified. My previous edit summary stands. Dan56 (talk) 04:47, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm well aware of what WP:GWAR says. But I don't see how you can say we're reducing the band's output to a single genre when dozens of critics call the band and their music "folk rock" and little else. NPR, Entertainment Weekly, Chicago Tribune, E!, Spin, Entertainment.ie, NOW Toronto, Highland Echo, The Waster all use the same "monolithic label". Perusing these reviews seems to indicate that critics don't have many other labels to apply to this album than they have already applied to the band and their first album. What injustice is being committed by putting "Folk rock" in the genre field? Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 19:27, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"[their debut album] was identified as another nu-folk record" (The Guardian), "[they] emerged in the late 2000's as part of a nu-folk renaissance" (BBC), "nu-folkers", "nu-folk quartet" (The Quietus). Dan56 (talk) 03:12, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going through those links. If they said that this album is "folk rock", then you would have used them already instead of resorting to original research and an argument at a talk page. Cite a source that verifies it. Simple. Dan56 (talk) 01:08, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fine. Don't click the links. But don't let me hear how you disagree with me... Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 01:34, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Response to your edit here
Original research and poorly sourced material is not acceptable--you did not look for the the most reliable sources on the topic, and statements from acceptable sources you found like E! Online and Now are being used out of context, or to advance a position not directly and explicitly supported by the source. Dan56 (talk) 02:37, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It was bad enough that you synthesized this mess as one citation, but you removed how Mojo magazine had explicitly characterized the album, suggesting that anything you've found were more notable publications ([2]). You didn't even include any of it in the prose, because how could you?--it's either coming from an inappropriate source (a columnist who reports weekly album sales or a blogger who's not a notable individual holding that interpretation, or because it's cherry-picked and omitting bits that change the writer's meaning). There's no reason to dispute Mojo magazine's description of this as a "nu folk" and "pop" album if you're willing to introduce the above as one synthesized citation slapped onto the infobox without being able to actually use it in the article. Dan56 (talk) 02:37, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Since you've conveniently neglected to address my original points, I'm going to copy and paste them here, since that is the crux of my argument why your edits to this article are inane:
First of all, the "Nu-folk" link redirects to British folk revival, which is not a genre in itself, but rather a music history article that details a number of revivals of folk music by British artists. Furthermore, there are 2 possibly relevant redirect links available: nu folk, which goes to indie folk, and nu-folk, which goes to freak folk. Ignoring the ridiculousness that the phrase "nu folk" can mean 2 completely different things based on the (non)-omission of a hyphen, I'd like to stress a line from WP:GWAR: "A BIG RED FLAG should be raised whenever a GW adds a genre to an infobox which redirects elsewhere- a bit of a giveaway that either they haven't thought it out, or the 'genre' is insufficiently distinct to be worthy of a mention in its own right." Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 05:24, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I showed that multiple mainstream sources verify (WP:REDFLAG) the band's association with nu folk revival ([3]). If you don't like the article to which it links to, then take up Andrzejbanas's suggestion and unlink it instead of removing it altogether when "nu folk" and "pop" are the only genres mentioned and cited in the article's prose. Dan56 (talk) 07:37, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And yet, way more mainstream sources simply call Mumford and Sons "folk rock" (the Google test shows "Mumford and Sons" + "folk rock" hits 1.26 million, while "Mumford and Sons" + "nu folk" hits 418k). You're not getting the point. "Nu-folk" is a buzzword meaning modern folk music, which as I mentioned above, confusingly means different things based on if you use a hyphen or not. The Wikipedia nu-folk link redirects to "freak folk", which is more avant-garde/psychedelic music and is not what the band falls under (see Rolling Stone basically referring to them as unfreaky-folk). Perhaps sensing this, you have piped a link to what you think is more relevant, British folk revival, and yet, that is not a genre, it's a history article listing various surges in popularity in folk music. If you wanna link to British folk revival somewhere in the album article, then be my guest, but it's not what belongs in the genre field. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 20:24, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Way more mainstream"? The "Google test"? Really? ◔̯◔ Dan56 (talk) 07:39, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As Andrzejbanas had removed the genres (in January) you say no one had a problem with until I came along (in your edit summary, Y2k), I responded quickly by adding what was cited in #Critical reception, i.e the Mojo review, the following day ([4]). So yes, the burden is still on you if you're disputing those two from a review by Mojo rather than a mish-mash of sources questionable as professional critiques (THe Huffington Post page is merely republishing a review by the Associated Press?, the Daily Mail link isn't even available to verify what it actually says?, a Grammy News Report from The Washington Post?, a website called Advanced Internet?) Dan56 (talk) 18:31, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Y2kcrazyjoker4, you removed what had been cited, was reverted, and started this discussion. As Andrzejbanas intimated twice before, a consensus is needed for your challenge ([5], and most recently). Dan56 (talk) 19:04, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Random solicits to editors 424ever and Pstoller (two editors I noticed on my watchlist of articles edited). Can you please weigh in on this discussion? Y2kcrazyjoker4 insists that the genres currently cited in the infobox ("nu-folk" and "pop", both attributed to Mojo's review, which is in the article's critical reception section) do not belong in the infobox. I believe his assortment of sources citing "folk rock" in the infobox are questionable as professional critiques (THe Huffington Post page is merely republishing a review by the Associated Press?, the Daily Mail link isn't even available to verify what it actually says?, a Grammy News Report from The Washington Post?, a website called Advanced Internet?) On the other hand, I would compromise with the infobox as it is now ("nu-folk, pop, folk rock") if Y2kcrazyjoker4's were willing to not argue or dispute the first two genres any more. Dan56 (talk) 19:19, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How is one critic's opinion of the album more valid than what four separate references all say? You refer to WP:OR, yet I fail to see how anything in that guideline is being violated. First off, the AP doesn't host or archive all of the content that its writers produce, so there is nothing wrong with The Huffington Post page - would you rather use this version from Lohud.com or this version from News Tribune? Secondly, here's the relevant section from the Daily Mail article: "WITH their first album a hit on both sides of the Atlantic, Mumford & Sons unsurprisingly stick to a winning formula. Adding a fresh sheen to rustic folkrock, they shun electronics for surging banjos and steelstringed guitars, with Marcus Mumford's rough-hewn voice centre stage. All very easy on the ear, but there is emotional heft in both Lovers' Eyes and Lover Of The Light." Thirdly, the website is NJ.com (not Advance Internet, which is the publishing company), which is the online portal for several New Jersey newspaper, and is absolutely a reliable source. I do not agree with "nu-folk" and "pop" in the infobox at all - one is a buzzword for recently released folk music, another is a conflated, catch-all term (and I can provide a few sources that outright disagree with Babel being labeled pop). They are from 1 critic's review, which in my opinion, is not as reliable as a collection of several sources for a genre. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 19:56, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate Dan56's call for an opinion. I'll have to do some further research and thinking before I arrive at a conclusion for myself (which is, of course, not binding on anyone else). But, briefly and off-the-cuff, there are multiple published sources that refer to Mumford & Sons as a "nu-folk" act, such as this one from the Scottish edition of The Herald; and while this may just be a trendy term for 21st century "folk rock," I don't think anybody would mistake Mumford & Sons for Fairport Convention. So, I wouldn't be too quick to dismiss it as a valid genre, especially for this artist and album. OTOH, Y2Kcrazyjoker4 has a point about how problematic "pop" is as a genre label. In particular, as nu-folk is (as I understand it) essentially a contemporary-folk/indie-rock crossover genre, calling it "pop" could be construed either as a contradiction or a redundancy; undesirable either way. I'll think on this more; I hope you both will, too. Pstoller (talk) 01:27, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Additional food for thought: The "nu-folk" appellation appears to have originated in the UK press, where its use is common, but it's not yet a popular term in the US. The most prominent nu-folk acts, including Mumford & Sons and Laura Marling, have taken issue with the label, but musicians often take issue with being bound by someone else's idea of genre. My main point is, using US articles about M&S as examples that they aren't regarded as nu-folk won't really fly; back where they're from, there is an acknowledged nu-folk scene of which M&S are regarded as prime exponents. This does not resolve the question of whether "nu-folk" is an actual genre or merely a new label for an old bottle; but I think that's not something for Wikipedia editors to decide.
The fact that there is not currently a separate article on Wikipedia about nu-folk does not mean that there shouldn't be. This is a label that's been applied to an entire scene, not just one artist; it's been in use for a number of years; and it shows no signs of going away. Wikipedia's article on genres has numerous entries that are less popular as both music and parlance than nu-folk. Perhaps Dan56 could start creating one.
So, my thinking is becoming more concrete that this article should include both the "nu-folk" and "folk rock" genre labels, as both are potentially helpful to interested readers in locating and describing the content; and it should omit the "pop" label on the grounds that it's arguably inaccurate and almost certainly unuseful. I also think the citations for the genre labels are extraneous. There's my 2¢: spend it wisely. Pstoller (talk) 04:49, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I should articulate my questions about the sources for "folk rock" better:
  • The Associated Press review by Fekadu (republished at The Huffington Post) describes the album's "swag" (not explicitly the album, just its attitude? or whatever else the writer's superficial slang can be interpreted to mean) as "indie folk-rock" (which should link to what? indie folk or folk rock?) Dan56 (talk) 06:04, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Both the NJ.com and Washington Post articles are news columns reporting the 2014 Grammys, not the kind of professional critique ideal for citing a genre (it's a subjective interpretation is it not?)--NJ.com dedicates one sentence to Babel in its five paragraph report of the award winners: "Mumford and Sons won the 2013 Grammy Award for Album of the Year for the folk-rock Babel." Dan56 (talk) 06:04, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The only one of these four sources that would merit inclusion in the article's prose (rather than being slapped onto the infobox as a citation) is the Daily Mail in #Critical reception, but barely--as a middle-market tabloid newspaper, its a far less notable and professional publication than any of the ones already quoted in #Critical reception, especially Mojo. Also, the quote being highlighted ("Adding a fresh sheen to rustic folkrock, they...") begs the question--is the "fresh sheen" "pop"? It's something plus "folk rock" for sure, though. Dan56 (talk) 06:04, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
While some of these sources are event reportage, they reflect a popular understanding in the mainstream US media. As for music critics, Rolling Stone describes the songs as "hooky folkfest stomps" that achieve "big rock catharsis"; EW calls M&S one of "a whole new generation of bands who…treat folk-rock with such devotion you'd think it was an old-time religion"; The Chicago Tribune says the group "ushered in a hootenanny-style folk-rock wave"; and Spin calls M&S a "Transatlantically multi-platinum folk-rock foursome".
By contrast, Mumford himself says of "nu-folk" in The Telegraph, "First, what we’re doing isn’t new, second, it isn’t folk…"; and, "I listened to a Kinks album and realised that, actually, we weren’t all that original, and that it had all been done before.” So, while still considering my prior statements about artists bristling at labels and the legitimacy of nu-folk as a genre in the UK press, perhaps it's best to leave well enough alone.
As for "adding a fresh sheen," I wouldn't read too much into the phrase. Even if the "sheen" is of a modern pop sensibility, that doesn't define Babel as pop anymore than the mandolins make it bluegrass. Genres, styles, and forms borrow from each other all the time, but we still don't put "classical" as a genre for every album with a string section. Pstoller (talk) 07:31, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If the citations are extraneous as Pstoller said, then I'd recommend just using the Daily Mail in #Critical reception for the reasons I stated above and without the citations in the infobox (because then they'd be based on what's cited in the article) it would read "Nu-folk, folk rock". Thoughts? Dan56 (talk) 06:07, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Would this revision suffice? Dan56 (talk) 08:13, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Seems OK to me, but I'd like to see responses from Y2Kcrazyjoker4 and Andrzejbanas. Pstoller (talk) 10:15, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I just don't see anything to convince me that nu-folk is its own distinct genre (as opposed to a resurgence in popularity of folk music). I can understand indie folk, which nu folk currently redirects to. But putting something we can't really define as a genre in the genre field of the album infobox (and thus not link to) doesn't seem to be helpful to the reader to me. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 13:17, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The coverage of nu-folk in the UK press (Herald, Guardian, Telegraph, Independent, etc.) suggests—or at least debates—that it isn't just newly-popular folk music. If it's a resurgence of anything, it's of folk-rock, not folk. You could say that "indie folk" is the same thing, and Mumford & Sons is listed on the indie folk page; but then, the unanswered questions raised on the indie folk talk page suggest that Wikipedia hasn't quite got a grasp of this subject. Meanwhile, the music is being marketed and consumed as nu-folk; and while that may not be conclusive evidence of it being a genre from a musicological standpoint, it seems to be so from a pop cultural standpoint. Nu-folk would not be the only genre acknowledged on Wikipedia of which one could say that; indeed, popular music genre distinctions are historically rife with ambiguity and overlap. As for being helpful, if you're looking for articles on nu-folk artists (as readers may well be), the genre label is invaluable. So, if we are to err, should we not do so on the side of utility? Pstoller (talk) 19:35, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK, but at the very least, I think folk rock should be listed first, since it's the broadest, most all-encompassing genre of the ones listed. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 00:20, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, why not? Makes no difference to me, and no practical difference to users. Done. Pstoller (talk) 01:03, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What does "broad and all-encompassing" have to do with anything? "Nu-folk" is more specific. Since when do readers prefer generalities over specifity? Dan56 (talk) 06:01, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Pop" was argued to be too broad of.a phrase as well, but in an effort to remove it rather than give it more weight and place it ahead Dan56 (talk) 06:07, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Dan56 and Y2Kcrazyjoker4, I frankly don't see what difference it makes which genre comes first in the info box: it's not a hierarchal list. I'm certainly not going to edit-war this, but under the circumstances I would have appreciated it, Dan, if you had joined the discussion here on the talk page with your fellow editors before reverting an edit that they had agreed upon. Pstoller (talk) 06:51, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"agreed upon" with who? Y2K proposed it, to which u said "sure, why not?" without much discussion. Dan56 (talk) 09:33, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
U made the change for him less than an hour elapsed after he suggested it, while I was offline. I would have appreciated some patience so I could be online to respond. Dan56 (talk) 09:38, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It was agreed upon between two of the three editors active in this discussion. There was not much discussion, because, as I said above: "Makes no difference to me, and no practical difference to users." The latter part is what matters—there is zero impact on the user experience of this article, or of Wikipedia in general, from rearranging genres in an info box. I didn't make the change "for him," any more than I argued for recognizing nu-folk "for you." I made it because it seemed a reasonable suggestion, especially as he was making a relatively significant concession in accepting that nu-folk would be treated as a legitimate genre. I understand stumping for the term's acceptance, but refusing to allow nu-folk to be listed after folk rock—or at least, not without a fight—comes perilously close to Genre Warrior behavior. Pstoller (talk) 12:45, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe it makes "no practical difference to users" since the edit history of this article shows IPs having changed the genre field frequently. Dan56 (talk) 00:55, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
First, "having changed the genre field" ≠ "having swapped two genres to appear in a different order"; nearly all of those changes were to the actual content, not merely to the sequence of it. Second, even if such swapping were the entire history of changes to the genre field, it would not demonstrate any practical impact on users. If you believe it makes a practical difference—such as one arrangement making it easier for users to find or comprehend the article—you should be able to explain how. Pstoller (talk) 04:30, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I did (06:07, 14 March 2014, my response to what Y2k argued). Since you agree with rearranging them, you should be able to explain the rationale behind it instead of saying something indifferent like "Makes no difference to me". If it makes no difference, why agree with it in the first place? Dan56 (talk) 06:11, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That response does not explain any practical difference in your preferred sequence. Plus, it presumes a Wikipedia guideline that says, "narrower genres should go to the left of broader ones"; to the best of my knowledge, no such guideline exists.
I already explained why I made the change: "it seemed a reasonable suggestion, especially as (Y2Kcrazyjoker4) was making a relatively significant concession in accepting that nu-folk would be treated as a legitimate genre." I argued for nu-folk based on a survey of the term's usage, which strongly suggested that there is a practical impact of including it in the info box. Y2K was prepared to accept that, provided there was an additional change that has no practical impact. My agreement was thus an easy and obvious decision. But, if you would prefer to "un-resolve" an issue that you specifically solicited me to help you resolve over a point that has no real effect on Wikipedia or its users, you may; I'll be happy to cut this page from my "watched" list and leave things pretty much as I found them. Pstoller (talk) 21:46, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Its not enough for Dan to bully editors over the genres included; he also needs to dominate the order in which they are included. FTR, I agree with Pstoller and Y2kcrazyjoker4, which makes three !votes to one in favour of listing folk rock before nu-folk. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:51, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your input, GabeMc. On a related matter, if you read back to entries in this section from March 6-7 re: "pop," you'll see Y2K and I concluded (and Dan conceded) that, source notwithstanding, it doesn't belong in this info box. (It does belong in the Critical Reception section, where the Mojo review is quoted.) If our arguments make sense to you, you might choose to revert your own info box edit. Pstoller (talk) 00:24, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Dan, what's the point of soliciting the opinion of another editor if you're just going to be stubborn and refuse to acknowledge their opinion (or in your case, acknowledge it and then backtrack) when they decide against what you want? Furthermore, esteemed critic Greg Kot from the Chicago Tribune, in this review conspicuously excludes the band and album from pop genre, instead referring to them as rock. There is absolutely no consensus or agreement that Mumford and Sons falls into the same genre as Lorde, Miley Cyrus, Rihanna, Taylor Swift, etc. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 21:14, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Mumford & Sons aren’t really interested in any sort of folk revivalism. They actually have a lot more in common with contemporary arena performers" ([6]). BTW, GabeMc's restoration of "pop" here is then as invalid as him being part of a consensus to list "folk rock" before "nu-folk", so I'll go ahead and remove "pop" and push "nu-folk" ahead. Dan56 (talk) 21:21, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"I'll just go ahead and do whatever I want" isn't really in keeping with Wikipedia's editorial policy, even taking the "be bold" mandate into account. Edit-warring, even less so. Gabe's restoration of "pop" to the info box has no bearing on the validity of his participation in an editorial consensus on any other point; I have already asked him to review the prior discussion on the subject of "pop" so he can either revise or explain his position, if he wishes. Perhaps you could give him the time to respond before unilaterally ruling his edits "invalid."
I didn't rule his edits invalid, I suggested Y2Kcrazyjoker4 had by reverting him. Dan56 (talk) 23:29, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As for the Chicago Tribune quote, remember the quote from Mumford himself in which he rejects the nu-folk label. If you're satisfied using individual cherry-picked quotes to justify a position, nu-folk can come out altogether on the strength of a source of arguably greater authority than any journalist, or even of journalistic consensus. I don't take that position; however, your arguments give any other editor the grounds to advance it. Pstoller (talk) 23:23, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't cite the Chicago Tribune in any of my arguments. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 kept mentioning it in his edit summaries today while reverting Gabe's restoration ([7]) and then mine ("Tribune conspicuously excludes it from pop"), as if one review not mentioning a genre is proof of that interpretation not existing. Dan56 (talk) 23:29, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You cited it directly above. That someone else also cited it doesn't mean you didn't. I think Y2K's citation in the edit summaries is somewhat off the mark, but his on-the-mark point was that there's no journalistic consensus on Babel-as-pop, not that the Trib alone justifies pop's exclusion.
And I repeat: whether or not he reverted one of Gabe's edits—based on discussions here that preceded that edit (and despite my suggestion that Gabe consider reverting it himself)—has no bearing on the value of Gabe's other contributions, which you, not Y2K, described as "invalid." Let's not mistake a position on a single edit for a referendum on the editor. After all, nobody who's disagreeing with you about what goes where in this info box is saying that this conflict invalidates any of your other edits. Pstoller (talk) 00:15, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I said "...is as invalid as..." (a relative remark). It was another way of me saying either this revision or this revision. Dan56 (talk) 00:28, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I understood that it was intended as "a relative remark." The problem is, the two things are not relative—the mere fact that Gabe made both edits has no bearing whatsoever on their respective validity. Pstoller (talk) 01:16, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've added another review source for "pop" and restored the order here. Dan56 (talk) 00:35, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Likewise, there is no real relationship between which genres qualify for the info box and the proper sequence for those genres: that is, whether "nu-folk" should go before or after "folk rock" is entirely unrelated to whether "pop" should be included at all. The real problem is that this has descended into a power struggle over which editor gets how much of "his way," having virtually nothing to do with what is best for Wikipedia and its users. Outside of this talk page, nobody cares how nu-folk and folk rock are listed, so long as both are there. I'd be happy to see "folk rock" first purely on the grounds that the order would be alphabetical; in the absence of a guideline, the only bases for the decision are purely arbitrary. It's probable that nobody really cares whether pop is listed, either; but, there is enough of a debate over exactly what that term means that it is at least a real issue for Wikipedia, albeit of no special impact for the current article. My main argument against including it is that it contributes (however infinitesimally) to the blurring of the definition of "pop," not that it harms the article about Babel. Beyond that, I don't care what the editors decide. I only care that it should be a decision by consensus if possible or by majority if not.
Aside from the issue of how pop is defined (which will not be decided here), I have no personal interest in the matters under discussion, just as I have no personal interest in the music of Mumford & Sons. So, I'm un-watching this page. Pstoller (talk) 01:16, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Daily Mail ("rustic folkrock") is considered unreliable per WP:Albums/Source. 183.171.180.115 (talk) 06:25, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
According to the "relevant discussion" cited at WP:ALBUMS/SOURCE, it's acceptable for "non-contentious statements" and should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis for "contentious statements", all under the heading "Daily Mail (UK): use in BLPs". Dan56 (talk) 06:41, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 13 external links on Babel (album). 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) 16:05, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Babel (album). 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) 11:24, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Babel_(Mumford_%26_Sons_album)&oldid=1208757097"