Talk:Rush (band)/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Misc

Hey, I propose a grammatical edit: "Rush" is treated as a plural throughout this article; e.g. "Rush are...". A band name should be treated as a singular; c.f. "the Senate is..." vs "Politicians are..."

I'll go ahead with this in the next week or so unless someone out-grammar-nazis me. --RobHutten 11:37, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

The above is a matter of British usage v. U.S. usage --> British: "Rush are ...."; U.S: "Rush is ....". So either way is reasonable, but there should be consistency within the article. Moleskiner 11:05, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Which is standard usage in Canada? Use that. — Phil Welch 18:14, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Which of these albums are repackages of earlier songs and/or interview albums? Satisfactory answer?

Hey, I don't know. -- User:Two halves

I'm not sure why this question is being asked. The discography is very specific and even a casual glance clearly indicates which albums are studio, live, repackagings, interviews, etc.Gurp13|Talk 18:47, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Moved from Rush: Merely Players:

this is an amazing page written for one of the most amazing bands in all of rock history. however i disagree with some of the statements made about rush. it said in a round-about way that rush had hit mainstream rock and alternative rock in the 80's and into the 90's and could be considered boring. in my opinion rush's music is just as interesting and complimentary to all of their music styles just as it was before or, in other words, as it was in the beginning. implying rush has band members of god-like musical genius. progressive music, or progressive rock if u will, is all about new ideas. rush is still exploring just as many new and ideas as they were before. again in my opinion, rush is one of the only groups i know that can make "the impossible sound easy", and the living proof is in the amount of radio time they get. the average person cannot begin to phatom [fathom] the complexity that goes into a 5 minute rush song, as oposed to a 5 minute pearl jam song, nirvana song, or any other bands that are labeled alternative that the gentleman who wrote this so nicely threw rush in with. any decent musician would disagree with the said portion of my topic aforementioned above. i feel that whomever wrote this statement is not a musician, or is a musician that still cant seem to grasp the complexity of musicianship balanced with multifaceted zeal, distinguished dextertiy, and philosophical musical composition peices. but any musician can tell you that two of those cant exist with in the same being. to give my long long rambling a conclusion i will end off with stating that one should look more carefully into a topic before discussing it.

thank you, i enjoyed reading this material, i hope to hear your side of it in the near future.

-- 208.20.34.37

Getting this article Featured

FYI, I removed the claim about Rush being the first musicians ever to receive the order of Canada. That claim is false and be shown to be false with even a simple search of the Order of Canada database.

Hi I think this article has been wikified really well and it contains loads of information that a reader who does not know much about Rush would learn from and find interesting. I was wondering if there is a way where we can nominate this page so that it could become a featured article on the Main Page? I really think that the article would be worthy of this... Just an idea :) Davehard 17:05, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

I think it would be great to see Rush on the main page. :D I don't think it should be nominated yet, though - there's still some work to be done before it could be considered for FA status.

For starters, take a look at the Dream Theater article, which was featured earlier this year. The discussion page contains a lot of details about the work that went into making it a featured article - I think a lot of the tips could be applicable here.

I'd love to help out with this any way I can. Give me some time and I'll see what I can do.

Durga2112 02:05, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Okay, some specific things that I have borrowed from the DT article:

~~The lead needs expanding to summarise who Rush are~~

*There should be more talk of their style of play, influences and if possible those they have influenced

The reference should be dated as to when it was cited, and more references added if possible
~~Not many red links. At least stubs should be written of all the albums and videos.~~

Also, I would like to add, the way the article is currently written, there is one massive history section and a few other minor sections, including quite a few lists. I think the history section should be divided into at least a few subsections. Again, look at the Dream Theater article for a good example of that. With Rush's old pattern of 4 studio albums + a live album, that gives a pretty natural way to divide the history. We could even title the sections something like "early years", "progressive years", "synthesizer years", etc.

Anyway, let's do this thing. :)

Durga2112 02:21, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

We could do things like what influences some of their songs. and how certain songs or albums tie in with events in the band's life, such as how Ghost Rider from Vapor Trails was influenced by the tragic events that happened in Neil's life. Another idea I had was to include the band's view of their music like how the band generally think that people either love or hate their music and that most of their fans consist of musicians. Davehard 16:08, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Yup - anything you can think of, just add it, and it can be refined if necessary.

Durga2112 01:26, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Can anyone think of anything else that can be done/added? I'm running out of ideas (Davehard 11:58, 29 October 2005 (UTC))

I filled in some of the red links, so we can strike that off the list. I think that once we get citations and references, we can go for a peer review. After that, it should be on its way to becoming a featured article ^_^ Deckiller 18:14, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I think the 68-77 section should be split into 68-74 up to the debut and then Neils arrival up to 2112 as a direct trajectory could be mapped (FBN-Anthem(Philosophy)/By-tor(Prog),Caress-Fountain(Very Prog),2112(Very Philosophical, Very Prog)) with all the worlds tying all four first albums nicely. I think the last history section should be split too, 88-test for echo, a brief description of Neils tragedy, then vapour trails and onKaptKos 17:38, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Another section that could be added is Rush in popular culture (see Iron Maiden for eg), possible entries: Futurama eps:68 "Obsoletely Fabulous", The Fantastic Four Comic issue dedicated to rush after 2112, Yo la Tengo video for "Everyone but me" FTK cover, Nightmare on Elm street - Grace under pressure poster on bedroom wall, Gregory's girl - poster of Neil, Freaks and Geeks esp:6 & 16, School of Rock ref to 2112 and Neil. These are just off the top of my head so there has to be plenty moreKaptKos 10:50, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Most of KaptKos's suggestions have been taken care of. I split the last section into 2 parts (before even reading the discussion forum I might add!), so that's done. I indicated below the addition of the "Trivia" section. I was also thinking of a Rush in popular culture area. Very good idea KaptKos. The Power Windows website has an excellent and very voluminous list. Wisdom89 04:29, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Your clean up has been excellent. I believe the Power Windows site is the best site devoted to Rush currently on the web. Any information sourced from them would certainly be a great addition to this article. FA status is not too far off now. Anger22 12:55, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. I also added the "Rush in Popular Culture" section today. Hopefully most of it is accurate since it comes predominately from the Power Windows Website - perhaps that should be referenced? Feel free to add and make revisions! Wisdom89 20:12, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Have to say, great job Wisdom89, its really looking slick.KaptKos 13:21, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Don't mean to sound pedantic, but isn't that picture from the Body Electric video as opposed to a GUP Tour photo? I'm not going to change it cause I'm not 100%, yet KaptKos 13:51, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, you are right, it is a shot of a music video. (Also, I have just come back from a break from Wikipedia and it was a nice thing to see that Rush is so much closer to becoming a featured article :) ( Davehard 16:55, 6 March 2006 (UTC) )

I think the "Rush in Popular Culture" section need consistancy in its date formatting. I think the year alone should do, day and month seems a bit over the top IMO. Also IMO its looks neater when a comma is used as opposed to brackets eg, "Gregory's Girl, 1981." vs "Gregory's Girl(1981)." Is there a general rule on this sort of thing?KaptKos 10:46, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok I took care of some of the peer reviewer's concerns regarding the article. Parts of the history still need to be trimmed and fleshed out, with less focus on songs and albums. I've noticed that the history section doesn't read like many of the others on Wikipedia. I'm concerned about that. There seems to be a lack of general history, and more talk about album descriptions (which I am mostly responsible for). Also, citations are a must right now. While we have a reference section, inline citations are the next logical step and probably the article's biggest problem. The last paragraph in the introduction needs them desperately. Does anybody know of any online references which substantiate the claims we've made? I know that Rush, Kiss, RS, Beatles thing is accurate, or at least it was around the time of Test For Echo. Now I'm not so sure. Wisdom89 03:20, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I included a reputation section in order to get a more unbiased representation of the band as per the peer reviews. Include and edit as you see fit though. Wisdom89 21:39, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I have started adding inline citations. If you wish to contribute please note that they must go in sequential order. Each time you edit with a ^[1] the system will number it not how it is listed in the references and notes section, but will automatically assign the next number in sequential order. Therefore if you find a reference on the net place the link in the proper order within the references section so that the order does not become disturbed. Wisdom89 01:16, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I think the ref issue has been pretty much put to bed except for this statement in the reputations section: "However, many of the criticisms targetted the band's earlier lyrics when Neil's inspirations were mainly drawn from the science-fiction and fantasy genres. Much of the censure evaporated as time wore on, and as the lyrics became increasingly more introspective, humanitarian, and thoughtful." I believe it, I'm sure most people working on this page believe it but it hasn't got a ref and was singled out on the FAC review page as a problem. Can anybody come up with anything, I've been trawling the web and thumbing any mags I can get my grubby hands on but can't find squat. --KaptKos 11:44, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Prog rock

I changed the first line to say just say that they are a rock band instead of a prog rock band. Their style has included so many different kinds of rock over the years that it's unfair to label them in this way, especially since their more recent music has drifted away from the prog rock feel of some of their earlier songs. Zarvok | Talk 08:22, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

To be perfectly fair, many people remember them best as the band that made 2112 and Fly by Night, instead of the band that made Roll the Bones, YYZ, and Tom Sawyer.

Vapor Trails, their most recent album, is very much a progressive rock album. I feel the band has maintained the prog rock mentality throughout their whole career. I think we should refer to them as such.

Agreed. Rush is widely known as a progressive rock band. --Pinnecco 18:48, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Indeed. I'll change it to prog rock again and hopefully no one will disapprove. Enigma00 23:17, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

As a fan since 1980, I would whole-heartedly *disagree*.

Rush has always worked out of a *hard rock* context, with progressive influences and leanings. Prof rock always seems to go out of its way, whether subtlely or explicitely to include "showy" aspects of instumental prowess. Rush moved on from that self-consciously progressive phase of their career atfer Moving Pictures (indeed, it only lastest a total of 5+ years), and became more focused on songwriting...again, still out of hard rock context. -- jgeiger54

I would like to point out that the symbol everyone seems to be alluding to is an upside-down pentagram. This is what is commonly associated with the occult. The symbol on the album for 2112 is oriented the opposite way. This should be enough to quell such accusations that RUSH is somehow aligned with the occult.

--Greg

Anyone who thinks 2112, Caress of Steel, and Fly by Night, are not Prog rock albums, really needs to reread the Progressive Rock article. 2112 is the QUINTESSENTIAL prog rock album by Rush, and the most remembered. Thats why I merged the ridiulous 2 year era titled "A new direction" with Prog Rock era. The new direction described was prog rock, hence why i merged them. I will also continue to do so, until this change is permanent. -Mike

How about fixing the time period in the title if you're going to impose your views reguardless of the opinions of the rest of us? IMO hemispheres is pure prog, 2112 is prog/metal.KaptKos 16:54, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I am going to agree with KaptKos on that. Any user(especially ones who've been banned for violating Wikipedia ethics) that wants to start pushing their personal POV and take aggressive ownership of the page would be better served bringing their debates to this page first. "I will also continue to do so, until this change is permanent" is an invitation for an rv war...and another potential ban. As this article is into it's final FA stages there's no reason for anyone to barge in with a belligerent attitude and ruin a lot of other people's hard work. Anger22 17:17, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I quickly threw the pic back in that the 'anon with an agenda' deleted. Anyone who wants to re-locate it go right ahead. He also was quick to re-section without changing the years to match his POV. I corrected that too(not to say I support it.....just cleaning up someone elses mess) Anger22 19:20, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to take a third stance on this, with ideas from both side. Peart doesn't use varied percussion on 2112/Caress of Steel. There are little to no keyboards until Farewell to Kings. However, SOME PROG ELEMENTS, such as extended songs, time changes, and lyrical themes ARE present, hence the title "A new direction". They are shifting toward pure prog seen on Farewell to Kings and Hemispheres, which take the Caress of Steel/2112 elements, combine them with varied percussion, keyboard, and classical guitar, and so on. MOREOVER, Rush themselves stated on All the World's a Stage, which came out directly after 2112, that "This marks the end of the first chapter of Rush". Interesting to note is that the prog period ended after the next four albums (1981), and the synth period ended after Hold Your Fire (and another four albums). Hmm.....if we take a POV, it should be that of the band itself...— Deckill e r 19:31, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I think titling the eras is POV in any way. They should just say "1975-1981" or something along those lines. Here's my thoughts:

Early days (1968-1976)
The Progressive Rock era (1977-1981)
The Synthesizer period (1981-1989)
Changing styles (1989-1997)
Haitus and comeback (1997-present)
Future plans

— Deckill e r 19:33, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Deckiller. I'm willing to compromise, but it's absolutely unacceptable to begin making gross changes to the history section to conform to a subject POV, especially when the article is a candidate for FA conference. Wisdom89 19:47, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Look good. Hopefully no more attacks from any POV pushing anons. :) Anger22 19:53, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

And to be candid for a moment. I've never encountered a single Rush/music fan who felt 2112 was a quintessential prog rock album. It exhibits elements of prog and certainly it was the band's initial breakthrough tour de force, but it's mostly heavy metal/hard rock revolving around a concept. None of side 2 qualifies as prog, not even close. Rush's prog hey-day was easily during A Farewell to Kings or Hemispheres. I realize that this is simply my own POV, but honestly. Get real. Wisdom89 19:59, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. Plus, as I have previously mentioned, Rush considers 2112 to be the end of their hard rock phase, much like MP was the end of the prog rock, Hold Your Fire ended new wave/synth, and Test For Echo ended the alternative phase. The live albums were released after each "chapter". — Deckill e r 20:01, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not too keen on "Changing Styles" as a title for 1989-1997 as Rush are well known for changing styles throughout their career but the best I can come up with is the pretty lame "Different Styles" or the lamer "Altering Styles". Anyone any thoughts/suggestionsKaptKos 16:41, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

How about modernization? Or something else along those lines Wisdom89 16:53, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

we had this discussion before(near the bottom of this talk page). I think I might have been the one who coined 'changing styles'? I agree that it still doesn't really say what the era was about. But it was better than the previous title -- 'Return to form' -- which, to me anyways, sort of sounded like the previous era(s) were substandard....kinda like saying 'back from purgatory'. As Deckiller said before..it's like opening a can of worms once you start trying to label a band's career stages. I have no idea what title can reflect/encompass that 90's-present era. The band themselves said it was just a way to keep things simple and make music that was fun to play onstage. 'Simple and fun' isn't really much of a section title though. Can anyone else think of a way to re-word that so that it makes sense in a 'Rush' context? I can't. Cheers! Anger22 17:38, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

"Deviating from the norm" per Vital Signs :) just kidding. I think "Fourth phase" works well, because it's technically their fourth cycle. — Deckill e r 21:54, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Fourth phase is great if the other eras are named first, second and third. I actually thought Deviate from the norm was kind of catchy and a Rush fan would get it...but everybody else would read it and go...HUH?!. I had a few bouncing around my empty head like..."Continuing success into a new millenium"(too long?).. or .. "Emotions high and low", "Continuing through Joy & Tragedy"..those 2 refering to Neil of course. Or maybe "Always Progressing", "Constantly Preogressing" or "A work in progress"..again..another subtle Neil reference. A Tolkien line like "The road goes ever on"(that's my inner Rush nerd talking) It's a tough one to nail down, thats for sure. WAIT! how 'bout "Changing Styles"?...I kid, I kid Anger22 23:57, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

"Return to Rock", "A straight forward approach", "Modern Rock", "Simpler arrangements" Wisdom89 00:19, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Just noticed another one...."Success under pressure". It's from a Rush biography by Steve Gett. Sort of describes what they went through in the 90's and beyond and how they survived AND thrived through Neil's tragedies and a period when they weren't sure if they were going to continue. Maybe?? Anger22 00:36, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

How bout "One step backwards, two steps forwards" ie the step back is the return to a guitar driven sound, the steps forward is taking that sound to somewhere new?KaptKos 10:07, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Way too long and ambiguous. Just keep it simple. Wisdom89 15:08, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Simple eh? OK, "Guitars reamerge", "Guitar Renaissance", "Guitars to the fore", "Guitars back in the driving seat", "Guitar Takeover", "Revenge of the guitar", "Alex's guitar wants to kill yo momma", "Don't hide your guitar under a bushel", etc KaptKos 09:32, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

How bout "Lifeson Unleashed"KaptKos 13:31, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Hall of Fame Debate

A user with the ip address 68.126.179.198 changed a line, removing the phrase "Indeed, many believe that era to be the nadir of rock and roll." from this section, stating it was biased and unencyclopedic. I disagree with this characterization and think the phrase should be reinstated. Anyone have any thoughts. I'll wait a bit before doing it. Gurp13|Talk 06:11, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

I think the anon was correct to remove it. It does sound a little extreme and people's thoughts on Rush's prog rock have been expressed just fine in the line above it. Also, I'm not convinced this opinion is as widespread as the statement makes it sound. People curious about prog rock should see its article. While I don't like prog rock myself, the Rush article isn't the place to bash it, and the relevant point has already been made. Zarvok | Talk 19:07, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

I removed another part in this section (as well as making some other edits), that posited that Rush is no longer a progressive band and that critics derided them for being part of "prog" scene in the late 70s. I felt the paragraph ignored the fact that prog music is still alive and well today, and while not as widely-known as it was in the 70s, the genre is still flourishing and many, many prog bands count Rush as a huge influence. Vapor Trails is definately progressive album, and in the end the paragraph seemed to say that prog is dead and that Rush is no longer a part of that - I don't agree, and Rush is even listed on the 'pedia under the catagory "Progressive rock bands" - what more is there to say? Enigma00 23:40, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

I've written a 6 page double spaced research paper for my Honors English 1020 course. It is quite good, complete with sources and as NPOV viewpoint as is possible for something supporting a cause. I feel that it has argued the points meerly from a factual viewpoint rather than bringing up my own opinions or the opinions of fans into the mix. Where could this be added to the article? Should I expand this section (Not with the whole paper, of course, but with a run-down), or would it belong as an addition in the "Related Links" section, or as a related link from this section? I feel the paper could add to this article greatly :) TheAssassin419 11:02, 4 March 2006 (EST)

We can't have any Original research on Wikipedia, but if you do cite some sources, you should be fine. Deckiller 04:05, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I will look it over again for this, of course. Where do you feel this should go if everything checks out alright? I know that NPOV is a policy, but if nothing but stastical facts and cited comments are given to lean towards a point is that still considered to be NPOV as long as everything is cited? TheAssassin419 11:02, 4 March 2006 (EST)

That should be fine, as long as everything is balanced/neutral, and there's no speculation. Deckiller 04:14, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

And just post it as a more detailed overview of the Hall of Fame debate? TheAssassin419 11:22, 4 March 2006 (EST)

Yeah. Deckiller 04:43, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Awards; FACTS

This kind of note does not belong in the article, any article:

"(I assume that it's on the same mag)"

Just put in the facts, or leave these comments out. Also it would NOT be the same "mag", Alex would not be "Best Rock Talent" in "Bass Player", (here WikiDon stats the obvious >: "he is not a bass player"); he won for:

1983 - "Guitar for the Practicing Musician" - "Best Rock Talent"
May, 1991 - Inducted into the Guitar for the Practicing Musician Hall of Fame

Is Rush a one-hit wonder?

People may be interested in looking at the article 1980s One-hit wonders in the United States where there is an edit war (which I am involved in) over whether Rush is a One-hit wonder. Samboy 19:48, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Rush? One-hit wonder? I don't think so. --Jasonn 21:28, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Considering that they, officially, had more then one hit on the charts, they are not. You can't say that Tom Sawyer or any one of these was a hit without including Closer to the Heart, 2112, and The Spirit of Radio. I'd accept the claim that they're a no-hit wonder, though ;) 69.192.139.156 1 July 2005 16:57 (UTC)

I always thought a one-hit wonder put out like one or two albums and then they were done. They were real "flashes-in-the-pan. They don't have careers in the music industry. Like New Kids on the Block. Or Milli Vanilli. I think it's real obvious that Rush has had a much lengthier career than this and it would be silly to group them in with other bands that were true one-hit wonders.Gurp13|Talk 21:34, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't think a one-hit wonder would get the ammount of multiple platinums that Rush has. What do you think? Fly By Night, Anthem, 2112, Closer to The Heart, Tom Sawyer...

I had heard that technically they are a one-hit wonder because they have only had one top-40 hit. Obviously it's silly to refer to them that way when normally the term is reserved for "flash-in-the-pan" kinds of artists. Rufus Sarsaparilla 15:52, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, their only top 40 hit in the US was "New World Man," according to Billboard. 74.130.112.195 01:26, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Something someone added to the Hebrew wikipedia and I moved here

Biography

Over the course of their decades-spanning career, the Canadian power trio Rush emerged as one of hard rock's most highly regarded bands; although typically brushed aside by critics and although rare recipients of mainstream pop radio airplay, the group nonetheless won an impressive and devoted fan following while their virtuoso performance skills solidified their standing as musicians' musicians.

Rush formed in Toronto, Ontario, in the autumn of 1968, and initially comprised guitarist Alex Lifeson (born Alexander Zivojinovich), vocalist/bassist Geddy Lee (born Gary Lee Weinrib), and drummer John Rutsey. In their primary incarnation, the trio drew a heavy influence from Cream, and honed their skills on the Toronto club circuit before issuing their debut single, a rendition of Buddy Holly's "Not Fade Away," in 1973. A self-titled LP followed in 1974, at which time Rutsey exited; he was replaced by drummer Neil Peart, who also assumed the role of the band's primary songwriter, composing the cerebral lyrics (influenced by works of science fiction and fantasy) that gradually became a hallmark of the group's aesthetic.

With Peart firmly ensconced, Rush returned in 1975 with a pair of LPs, Fly by Night and Caress of Steel. Their next effort, 1976's 2112, proved to be their breakthrough release: a futuristic concept album based on the writings of Ayn Rand, it fused the elements of the trio's sound — Lee's high-pitched vocals, Peart's epic-length compositions, and Lifeson's complex guitar work — into a unified whole. Fans loved it — 2112 was the first in a long line of gold and platinum releases — while critics dismissed it as overblown and pretentious: either way, it established a formula from which the band rarely deviated throughout the duration of their career.

A Farewell to Kings followed in 1977 and reached the Top 40 in both the U.S. and Britain. After 1978's Hemispheres, Rush achieved even greater popularity with 1980's Permanent Waves, a record marked by Peart's dramatic shift into shorter, less sprawling compositions; the single "The Spirit of Radio" even became a major hit. With 1981's Moving Pictures, the trio scored another hit of sorts with "Tom Sawyer," which garnered heavy exposure on album-oriented radio and became perhaps their best-known song. As the 1980s continued, Rush grew into a phenomenally popular live draw as albums like 1982's Signals (which generated the smash "New World Man"), 1984's Grace Under Pressure, and 1985's Power Windows continued to sell millions of copies.

As the decade drew to a close, the trio cut back on its touring schedule while hardcore followers complained of a sameness afflicting slicker, synth-driven efforts like 1987's Hold Your Fire and 1989's Presto. At the dawn of the 1990s, however, Rush returned to the heavier sound of their early records and placed a renewed emphasis on Lifeson's guitar heroics; consequently, both 1991's Roll the Bones and 1993's Counterparts reached the Top Three on the U.S. album charts. In 1996, the band issued Test for Echo and headed out on the road the following summer. Shortly thereafter, Peart lost his daughter in an automobile accident. Tragedy struck again in 1998 when Peart's wife succumbed to cancer. Dire times in the Rush camp did not cause the band to quit. Lee took time out for a solo stint with 2000's My Favourite Headache; however, rumors of the band playing in the studio began to circulate. It would be five years until anything surfaced from the band. Fans were reassured in early 2002 by news that Rush were recording new songs in Toronto. The fruit of those sessions led to the release of Rush's 17th studio album, Vapor Trails, later that spring.

Discography

Rush (1974)
Fly by Night (1975)
Caress of Steel (1975)
2112 (1976)
All The World's a Stage (Live)(1976)
A Farewell to Kings (1977)
Hemispheres (1978)
Permanent Waves (1980)
Exit Stage Left (Live)(1981)
Moving Pictures (1981)
Signals (1982)
Grace under Pressure (1984)
Power Windows (1985)
Hold your Fire (1987)
A Show of Hands (Live)
Presto (1989)
Roll the Bones (1991)
Counterparts (1993)
Test for Echo (1996)
Different Stages (Live) Vapor Trails (2002)
Rush In Rio (Live)(2004)
Feedback (2005)
R30 (Live)(2005)

Can I note that the discography on the main page doesn't include all of the singles, just "Not Fade Away" and "Closer to the Heart". Can someone in the know duplicate the (exemplary) album table for singles? Also we need to decide on "Feedback" - it's an EP but do we include it as an album or not? & if not where? "Other releases" is too vague & it's too "big" for singles...

Maybe a Rush Discography page is warranted in which case we need to detail releases & chart positions in the major markets US, UK, Japan?, and Canada (of course in this case) thoughts? Megamanic 09:22, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

A couple things about the main page studio album listing... Vapor Trails is listed as Gold, but RIAA doesn't (yet) show that. Does anyone have current official sales figures to support it? Also, I'm curious about the decision regarding Feedback. How did it get labeled as an EP? According to Wiki, an EP is seven or fewer songs between 15-25 but Feedback is 8 songs at 27+ min. Granted they didn't write the original songs, but given the album's status as a 30th anniversary release and the excellent material, I, for one, think it warrants a place in the studio release listing. McJaje 16:19, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Heres[2] a warners investor note stating Vapour Trails gone gold and amazon categorises Feedback as an EP [3]--KaptKos 09:22, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

The Warner release I suppose validates it's status although I find it odd that RIAA still hasn't updated their database to reflect that after all this time. Last figure I saw was around the 440K+ range, so maybe it's close enough. Regarding Feedback, given its apparent status as an EP, does that disqualify it as a studio album? Anyone with any opinions regarding including it in the Rush canon? Or should it remain as "Other"? Incidentally, should a table of video sales also be included? ESL has gone G, ASOH is P, Chronicles is P, RIR is M(5), and R30 M(3). (Note that video certification is G-50,000, P-100,000, M(x)-100,000*x.) RIR and R30 sales show a lot of fan support still exists. McJaje 15:06, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Trivia

Just a note, Geddy Lee's name is not just a stage name. He has legally changed his name from Gary Lee Weinrib to Geddy Lee. Davehard 13:06, Oct 01, 2005 (UTC)

The recent addition about a rumour concerning Rush's name is new to me. Wikipedia is not a rumour mill. Unless it can be substantiated, I'm going to remove it within a day. RedWolf 01:27, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)

The following Trivia section was removed:

It is rumored that the band's name is actually an acronym for Rule Under Satan's Hand. This is similar to the rumor of the name of the band KISS stands for Knights In Satan's Service.

Sounds to me like another attempt by a religious biased group to knock down rock music. Unless it can be substantiated by multiple credible sources, it doesn't belong on the article page. RedWolf 03:31, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)

FWIW, I strongly agree with the decision to remove the suggestion that RUSH is an anagram for anything. This is an OLD rumor that dates back to the late seventies and early eighties as I remember hearing it then. Any body who believes there is anything Satanic about Rush is clearly misguided. People that think this also think the Teletubbies represent a gay agenda and that all rock music is satanic. Gurp13|Talk 18:53, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps the rumor itself is notable? Philwelch 20:08, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't know. I would say no at this point, unless someone could present an argument as to why. It just seems silly. It was was one of those stupid things that people with too much time on their hands made up. It has no basis in fact at all. Rush is not a group that deals in satanic themes. I can't think of one single Rush song that even mentions the Devil, per se. On the other hand, if this was Slayer, or Slipknot, or something, I could see why something like this might make sense. We may just as well include anything else that people can make up. To me, an encyclopedia article should contain facts and useful information. I just don't see how it might make sense to put it in. Under what context? I mean, Kiss actually played on the demonic angle. It would make sense to have the name rumor in that article. But, Rush never went that way. The only slightly demonic, or rather occult, item in the band's history is th use of the Starman Logo, the pentagram and the guy going into it. Maybe if people wanted to discuss that and the symbology of it, maybe in that context it would make sense. But, it seems kinda silly to me, with all due respect. Gurp13|Talk 00:36, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You might want to look a little closer at the starman, or try reading the caption in the article. It represents the individual against the collective. Philwelch 04:50, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Er, yes, Phil, I got that. I *did* in fact read the caption. However, through the ages, many people have used the pentagram inside a circle as a symbol of the occult. Please do not mistake what I have written above as my misunderstanding of Rush's use of the symbol. What I was trying to say was that we could discuss the symbol, we could. I don't know if it has true relevance, though. A symbol is what you make of it. Rush has stated, as you put it, that the starman logo has a certain meaning for them. However, lots of other people see a different meaning when they see it. To illustrate, the Buddhists use the swastika, for thousands of years now, to represent the concept of peace and energy. The Nazi's came along and co-opted the symbol and it has since become a sign of terror and evil. So, we can't just state flatly that a symbol has no other meaning because the band says so. And, are we really so naive to think that the band used it without knowledge of it's other connotations? Personallly, as I said, I don't think Rush is in anyway actually involved with Satanic, or otherwise infernal, forces so I don't think it's a relevant discussion for the articleGurp13|Talk 18:33, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

OK, my apologies. By the way, the only Satanic reference in Rush's music I can think of is "By-Tor and the Snow Dog", and that wasn't particularly pro-Satanic ;) — Phil Welch 19:58, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

--- The first main section lists Ziggy Stardust as an example of a glitter rock band. This is probably in reference to a David Bowie album, which is an example of glam rock, a more sophisticated version of glitter.

Considering Peart's interest in and appreciation of Ayn Rand, and obvious lines from Tom Sawyer, Roll the Bones, and Freewill, we should take into account that Rush doesn't advocate worship of the devil but actually goes against the existence of God. 69.192.139.156 1 July 2005 16:55 (UTC)

Neil Peart has dealt with the Satanist rumour himself, in the form of a letter to the Daily Texan, reproduced here. And Wikipedia's own article on the pentagram would appear to suggest that the symbol that Rush have used is a simple five pointed star, and not a pentagram as it doesn't include the inner pentagon. It would also appear to be upside down if it were intended to be a Satanic symbol. PocketMumble 10:32, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

I seem to recall reading somewhere, I think an offical biography from the Hold your fire era, that either Geddy or Alex's older brother suggested the name. I always assummed it was a drug reference as in "getting a rush" and considering the bands output any suggestion of even a vague interest in the occult is ridiculous, whatever the case this could be put in the early history section with a reference( if someone can find one)and put this to bedKaptKos 17:15, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Exit Stage Left and A Show of Hands....

They both are listed to be on DVD however those are illegal bootlegs from Brazil. I don't think anything unoffical should be listed here. Chronicles was also released on Laserdisc.

Founding Members

I read somewhere that Geddy Lee was in fact not in the original group, and that it was actually John Rutsey, Alex Lifeson, and a man named Jeff Jones. I found it on http://www.nimitz.net/rush/faq2ans.html#48 . Is this true? Spaceboy492 03:04, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

That's also what it says in the article. Long story made short, up until 1973 or so, Geddy and Lerxst were both members of various abortive bands before finally forming Rush with John Rutsey. The Lifeson/Rutsey/Jones lineup apparently also went the name "Rush". It's interesting to note that Rush celebrated their 30th anniversary in 2004, meaning anything before 1974 doesn't count for them. 1974 was the release of their self-titled debut album as well as the joining of Neil Peart. — Phil Welch 03:09, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

I think I may have found our Jeff Jones. http://www.jeff-jones.com/ . Not too hard of a find. :) He's from Toronto, and he's worked with Terry Brown, Rush's producer. He plays the bass and does vocals. His age may be the same, too. It may just be coincidence, but I don't think so. Spaceboy492 16:20, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Extremely Interesting Bit of Trivia

in 1973 rush and april wine played at my current high school. my dad saw them and im doing research to try and find pictures. however due to the fact that rush was a no-name band at the time and everyone wanted to see april wine this is becoming hard to do. im close though. i have proof that april wine was there and my dad's word (as well as two teachers) that rush was too. I'll add more when i find it but it's neat.

History

I like this section, although when we start adding citations, references, interviews, and so on, it might have to see a rewrite in some areas. That's just my prediction. Deckiller 21:43, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Geddy Lee as a Q107 item

does anyone think it's important enough to mention that as a contest for rdio station Q107 you would be awarded 5000 points for bringing in Geddy Lee? no one did and it was kind of a joke but it might be something to go under the trivia section. any other thoughts?

FA status

I can think of two major things that need to be done: first, we need to get the article cited (I'll try and start on that tonight). Second, we need to decrease the sheer amoung of anon edits made to the history section: it really needs stability. Deckiller 00:55, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Most of the edits in the history section have been made by myself - I'll make sure to not have it anonymous. The section still needs some revisions, but I feel it's vastly more comprehensive now. Wisdom89

Ah okay; they're great edits, but I thought they were from different users. Yeah, the history section does look better now. Deckiller 12:44, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

It's looking pretty good; I'd say it's just about fleshed out enough to attain to the comprehensive standard of FA. I'll start citations tonight, since the Patriots FA has passed. Deckiller 20:20, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Tonight, after a meeting, I shall get to work with citations. This page will be featured by the end of the month. Deckiller 22:51, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Before I begin, a few notes:

The prose is outstanding; it clearly fits the "brilliant" category. However, there are some weasel words and whatnot, including a few minor POV issues that will be solved with citations (most likely).
The lead may need a slight tuneup; I'll see what I can do.
I'll list more later; peer review will really help us out methinks. Deckiller 22:56, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok I've made a ton of edits to the history section 1989-present. I feel that more additions are probably unnecessary here, but perhaps slight rewrites in areas for better fluidity, or perhaps some rearrangements. There's a growing disproportion though. The other eras need "fatter" descriptions to even it out. Perhaps someone could include more information about Grace Under Pressure, Power Windows, Hold your Fire, and A Show of Hands.

Also I was thinking, should there be more information about how the band performs live? Wisdom89 20:35, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

If necessary, we can add that and/or move it to its own page. It all depends on what the peer review says, although we sill have to get the citations first :) I'll definiately try and work on it, but my wikitasks have been somewhat numerous lately. Deckiller 20:38, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

That's sort of a systematic bias WRT the mid-to-late 80's albums. Power Windows and Hold Your Fire aren't nearly as popular as their later or earlier albums. — Phil Welch 20:51, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

This article needs a some POV fixes, which, again, can be fixed once all sources are cited. Deckiller 14:49, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

After nosing around on other band articles (Dream Theater for instance) I've noticed several other sections regarding the band (besides the history) that are included - things such as trivia/notes , concert performance etc..etc.. Perhaps these sections could be added to the main Rush page as well? Wisdom89 16:14, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Sure. The more items are covered in a concise manner, the better chances we'll have of meeting the second FA standard. Deckiller 16:46, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Featured Music Project evaluation

Rush (band) has been evaluated according to the Featured Music Project criteria, most recently affirmed as of this revision. The article's most important issues are listed below. Since this evaluation, the article may have been improved.

The following areas need work to meet the criteria: Pictures - Audio - References

The space below is for limited discussion on this article's prospects as a featured article candidate. Please take conversations to the article talk page.

Pictures: Free pics would be nice, what's there needs fair use rationales; using album covers in the discography is dodgy
Audio: None
References: Needs a "References" section, inline citations
Looks pretty comprehensive, but for such an influential band, there could probably be a section specifically devoted to style, influences and legacy
Lots of lists of awards and things that would be better in a subarticle

Question for BorgHunter

Your removal of the heavy metal references puzzled me I thought I'd ask a quick question.(or 2) Your remark 'Heavy Metal my rear' would seem to indicate POV rather than an edit based on some sort of cited evidence. I DO agree Rush are not a heavy metal band now. But they started out as one.(or at least what was considered heavy metal at the time) I can remember reading music magazines like Creem and Rolling Stone back through the 70's. They would have 'special heavy metal issues' periodically to highlight the genre and Rush was always listed as one of the premier examples of the genre. They are not heavy metal anymore. But they also really aren't a 'Progressive Rock' band anymore...and yet you left that reference alone as if it were still current. If you remove heavy metal because it doesn't apply anymore...by that reasoning...shouldn't you have removed the prog category too? Perhaps it should be a matter for the this talk page? Are there any other regular Rush editors who want to comment on which cateories they think apply to Rush. The career has changed so much in 30+ years, they would probably fall into several I would think. Anyone else? Anger22 11:17, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

They were probably most like heavy metal on their first album, before Peart. However, 2112 (which launched their career) is certainly prog rock, and not a single one of their singles in memory was heavy metal. If you call Rush heavy metal, you have to apply that label to a number of bands, including most classic rock. In addition, metal, by its very definition, is "simple." Rush's sound has always been complex. I could not imagine a mosh pit, one of the metal staples, at a Rush concert, especially considering the erudite lyrics and complex guitar and drum beats that Rush employs. Rush bears very little similarity to metal. —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 13:06, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

But by that arguement, as I posted before, they are no longer a progressive rock band either...by standard definition of progressive rock that is. They no longer compose epic length songs or concept albums. Nor do they compose music that has extended instrumental breaks in them. They don't fit into either style of music anymore but their footprint in both genres is undeniable. I saw RUSH(twice) on their 2112 tour. Saw them again on their Hemisperes tour as well and you're right...there wasn't a mosh pit back then. But there was certainly a lot of headbanging going on. You seem to have, and correct me if I'm wrong, removed the heavy metal references as if you believe that it was some kind of insult to have them there. Which would be POV on your part. Rush themselves have had no aversion to doing interviews with RIP and Hit Parader and Circus and countless other magazines that devote themselves to heavy metal(and all it's sub-genres) It would seem they know their own place in that wide-spread genre. I am curious to whether anyone else has opinion on this. Anger22 14:13, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Forgive me for being off-topic, but I'm noticing a (very common on Wikipedia) pattern here. Your version of the page is NPOV. Mine is POV. Why is this? By what objective standard of heavy metal are you saying that Rush is part of this genre? What specific song do you think fits whatever criteria you have set for it? Rush's first big hit, "2112", was certainly prog rock. Many subsequent songs, such as Xanadu, etc., were prog rock. Their big singles, like "Freewill", "Limelight", "The Spirit of Radio", etc., while not extended in length, still could be considered prog rock. I can't recall a single successful single or album of Rush's that most people would consider heavy metal. Can you provide these instances, and give some support from critics for it? —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 15:42, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

On the NPOV POV thing...from the best I can understand...pages are supposed to have NPOV(no point of view) but sometimes a contributor can accidently express his POV(point of view. You did neither really, it was your comment that eluded to it. And as far as I can see I have no version of the page myself. I simply asked a question regarding the removal of a piece of an article that has been there for a while without anyone taking exception to it I don't believe in edit wars. That's why there's a talk page. Anyway as for a reference. The introduction in the book "Visions-The Official Biography of RUSH" By Bill Banasiewicz published in 1988 has this written on its back cover A)"Over the course of 16 albums and thousands of concerts throughout the globe Rush have established themselves as the most popular heavy metal and progressive rock trio in the world. Their unique blend of power rock and intelligent lyrics has won them a following as devoted as any in rock." That's from their official biography. Will that work? Anger22 17:15, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Rush's first four albums fall in the category of 70's heavy metal, no question. Wisdom89 18:42, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Math rock

Isn't rush also math rock?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.155.219.157 (talk • contribs)

Generally, their later work may have touched on it, but they are generally considered Progressive rock. From what I've read, Math Rock is sort of the next generation of Prog Rock, along with Prog Metal and Industrial. Deckiller 23:24, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

My own POV on that, and I stress my POV, is that when I hear the term "math rock" the first 2 bands that pop into my head are Dillinger Escape Plan and Meshuggah. I don't know if that is what math rock is all about but I do know that Rush sound nothing at all like either of those 2 extremely technical bands. Like I said...my POV. Someone else can correct me on my 2 examples. Anger22 00:36, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Math Rock is a recent term and applies more to the angular sounds of instrumental early nineties indie bands. While Dillinger and Meshuggah are complicated, they as well don't fall into the label, as it applies to a specific style, not just the prescence of complicated riffs. Rush certainly isn't math rock. Math rock bands don't have 300 toms. Gatesofawesome! 23:48, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Trivia Section

In order to help diversify the article a little bit, I added this section. If anybody can think of any other appropriate additions please feel free to include them. Wisdom89 00:41, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Footnotes

If any of those references are geared toward less than, say, three or four statements, it's probably good to insert them as a footnote. Deckiller 20:22, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

We're also going to want to cite album sales, the final part of the lead section, etc. Deckiller 20:25, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

A question about the section titles

This article just gets better and better. FA status is not far away. I was just wondering though...concerning the section titled Return to form (1989-1997). Is it just me, or does this seem to indicate that the previous era The Synthesizer period (1982-1989) was somehow sub par??? I've been a Rush fan since 1975. And I know I enjoyed their 80's period just as much as I enjoyed any other period in their career. somehow 'return to form' almost seems like it means 'return to greatness' or 'back from a bad place'. Does anyone else get that sort of meaning out of that? Also, on the topic of section titles. There seems to be an inconsistency when it comes to capitalization of different words. Is this in keeping with other wiki-articles? or just bad grammar? Anger22 23:02, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

This is why I'm always a little paranoid about having headings like this (I was asked to remove them for the Patriots FA). And yes, the Synthesizer Period was godly :) Deckiller 23:03, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Would a section title like "Back to the basics (1989-1997)" or something similar be 'less insulting' to the previous period? Or perhaps altering "The Synthesizer period" to say something like "Changing styles"??? I'm just grasping at words now. any thoughts? And by 'godly' you mean excellent right? Anger22 23:25, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think any of the headings are particularly insulting, but they are implicitly POV. I think it would suffice to just use the year ranges as headers. MFNickster 19:09, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Excellent, yes ^_^. Changing styles sounds good. Deckiller 23:26, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Why thank you! There's a few editors working hard on this article I'm not about to step in and start altering what is already an excellent and in-depth bio. I'm glad wiki has talk pages. It's about the only place where democracy still works :) Anger22 23:33, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah. I basically passed the torch along a couple months ago; now I mainly do minor edits to this article, although I still want to boost the references section with Wisdom ^_^. Deckiller 23:38, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Part 4 of a Trilogy???

Rush fans are quite aware of the storyline behind the Fear 'trilogy'. Most know the reverse order of the original three tracks AND the additional chapter introduced on Vapor Trails. However, in the first refence to the Fear storyline(in the overview of Moving Pictures), it refers to Part 3 of a 4 part trilogy. I know what it's trying to say. But I'm guessing a newcomer here to learn about Rush for the first time is going to read that and think..."What kind of dumbass band wrote a 4 part trilogy?" It used to say multi-part. In my elderly mind that is probably the best way to describe it...so far. Anyone else? Anger22 21:10, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Where did you read Rush calling Fear a trilogy ? Just because part 3 was released first didn't make it a trilogy. I found nothing in writing in the Moving Pictures liner notes nor the tourbooks regarding this. Also, the Vapor Trails track is just titled, Freeze Part IV of Fear. No mention of the word Trilogy there either.

You're way behind in the history of the original post. Someone mistakingly changed an earlier version of the Rush article and made a reference to Fear being a 4 part trilogy.(which is wrong in more ways than 1) It was corrected back to multi-part...and later removed altogether as part of the FA status project. Anger22 09:16, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

How ready?

How close does everyone think we are to putting this through the FA process? It's really shaping up. The references section really pleases me. —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 16:04, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Go for it!!! :) Deckiller 20:16, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I believe there are a sufficient number of references to appease everyone. I put a couple of hours into it the other day. What's the next step? Wisdom89 23:32, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

inline citations

Anyone object to moving all the citations to follow punctuation,^[1] like this?^[2] That is way it's done in print sources, most FAs, and according to the Chicago Manual of Style. —Spangineer^[es] (háblame) 03:09, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

5 year hiatus vs 6 year hiatus

does the hiatus start with the release of TFE or the end of the TFE tour? The left the road in 1997 came back with Vapor Trails in 2002. By my subtraction thats 5. and I'm just being nit picky. thoughts? Anger22 03:09, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

oops it changed again...ignore my typing frenzy :) Anger22 03:11, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

It's five...actually, technically it's four, since they went on the hiatus in August of 1997 and started working on Vapor Trails in the summer of 2000. At least, that's what Alex said on one of the R30 interviews ^_^. "Geddy was working on My Favourite Headache", which was mid-2000. Deckiller 03:14, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

either which way as long as it's consistent. there's a ton of activity among the main editors on this page right now....I'm not about to change a . of it without asking here first. All you guys seem to have the gameplay down...it just gets better n better. no need for vandal reverters like me messing up a good thing.(unless of course someone vandalizes it) I'm glad Wiki has talk pages. Anger22 03:22, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

All Music Guide as a source

I nearly choked when I read that AMG wasn't considered a reliable source. A bit of a snag in the road. Considering that the bulk of music bios on Wikipedia are just re-writes(and in some cases..blatant copies) of All Music Guide bios you would think it's credibilty as a source would not be in question. 'Prefer sources from music magazines and publications'??? Isn't AMG an 'online' magazine? And a highly respected one at that! Hope this doesn't ruin all the hard work you guys have put into getting this FA deserving article FA'd. Good Luck! Anger22 19:23, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I promise, I'm not making it up =). Take a look at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Céline Dion/Archive2. Before it made it to featured status, I believe all of its AMG citations were removed. —Spangineer^[es] (háblame) 23:37, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Rush in popular culture

In accordance with some of the recommendations on the Rush FA nomination, I moved the content (as well as the trivia section) into a separate subarticle. However, there is a proposal/discussion ongoing about whether it should be deleted. I still feel that it may be relevant in the original Rush article. What do you guys think? Wisdom89 00:27, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

As I mentioned to you before...I enjoyed reading the little tidbits of the RIPC and Trivia sections. I was disappointed at the prospect of losing them completely when it was first proposed as part of the FA status hunt and suggested their 'see also' possibility as a means of salvaging them.

In the meantime I patrolled some of the other music pages that have already made FA status and found many of them do not have 'trivia' pages. So perhaps, sadly, it's a loss that'll just have to be. The general feeling I get from a wiki-page project that I am involved with(not music) is that "trivia pages trivialize all of us". As much as I enjoy them...these attitudes seem to be prevalent around the Wikipedia. Anger22 00:44, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Copyright violation

After perusing the internet for citations, I noticed that some of the text in the Rush article is plagiarized from the following website: http://www.artistopia.com/Music-Artists/Pros/Bio.asp?ID=574&Name=Rush

This is alarming considering this page is up for acceptance as a featured article. It's unacceptable. I'm not accusing anyone here of doing it. Most of the sections in question have existed in the article for some time, likely up to a year or more. Perhaps something should be done about it Wisdom89 05:22, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Look at the bottom of that article - it is a copy from Wikipedia (although it doesn't seem to use the correct attribution format). Noisy | Talk 17:39, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Band Members

Why the rv on the detailed band members section. I thought Wisdom89's edit was perfect and something that should have been done a long time ago. It mirrored Rush's own album liner notes. That is the way Rush has depicted their duties within the band. Was it brought up in a discussion? If it were me I'd rv it back. But as I've mentioned previously...too many editors(cooks) spoil the article(meal). Anger22 23:15, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Ah, you were already thinking the same thing I see...Anger22 23:18, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Indeed I was. Now that we're on the subject of that small section, how do you feel about it being moved towards the very top, preceding the Musical Style description? It strikes me as a more logical location for it. Wisdom89 01:45, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

That works!..IMHO. Has a good flow...Band Members->Musical Style->Reputation. Someone else may have a different opinion but for me it makes sense. Anger22 01:59, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Could that section be incorporated anywhere? Maybe expanded and added to the history section as "member biographies" or something? I guess I just think it's really too short... —Spangineer^[es] (háblame) 03:53, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

History Section

Just condensed the Rutsey era section as I still think all history sections are too long, the full history article can be as detailed as you like. If no one objects to this I will give the other history sections a similar trimming, but I don’t want to tread on anyone’s toes as I know of the sterling work some of you guys have been putting in.KaptKos 12:45, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I would just leave the history section the way it is to be perfectly honest, and just concentrate on including details in the extended section Wisdom89 19:44, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

You're right, all of the sections are fairly balanced in lenght now. I think it was just the first one that was buggin meKaptKos 10:15, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

References

Please note I have changed the references to use Meta:Cite.php. See Wikipedia:Footnotes for usage--KaptKos 13:27, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Eh...Back to Basics?

I diagree with this heading :). I think it should say "Return to roots" or something along those lines. — Deckill e r 00:32, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

is "Back to Basics" not something along those lines?:)--KaptKos 07:23, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

"Basics" may seem a bit POV (some people may find their earlier stuff deeper than their 80s stuff, you never know) :) — Deckill e r 11:17, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough, I thought it was a bit like splitting hairs but I see your point I'll gladly go along with yours. (Still thought Lifeson Unleashed was pretty cool though:))--KaptKos 11:34, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

FAC stuff

Just deleted a sentence that was highlighted on the FAC page as a problem, it being unsourced. IMO the article is not any the less without it --KaptKos 21:59, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Featured

It's featured :) — Deckill e r 01:51, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Kudos to Wisdom89, Deckiller, Borghunter, KaptKos, Spangineer et al who went the above n beyond route to get this little gem that FA star. Well deserved!!!! Anger22 03:46, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Very excellent. Great work guys Wisdom89 08:15, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Fantastic! Well done everyone:)--KaptKos 09:20, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

PainMan POV Controversy

I really don't like the changes to the article made by PainMan (talk • contribs), no offense to him. Mainly, I think there's too much POV: phrases like

"No instrument was either shifted from a "frontal" to a "background" role."
"Signals underwent another shift, though hardly a dramatic one"
"Peart's deft, thunderous percussion providing the rhythmic scaffolding for the harmony"
"the jam being marred by Peart's somewhat puerile lyrics about Big Business"
"Occasionally, the polyphony tips over into excess, such as on the third track, "Open Secrets.""
"produced bright splashes of sound and graceful sheets of harmonic color but always taking a definitive lead when the song called for it"

don't belong in an encyclopedia. "Power Windows more effective use of sequencers and guitar minimalism created a textures supposed to evoke the cold emptiness or urban and surburban life." is unreferenced. "The contention that Grace refocused on Alex Lifeson's guitar heroics, is not supported careful listening." and "However, Power Windows takes a stylistic turn, more noticeable than the one from Signals to Grace, from that album's emotional, even angry lyrics to songs less dramatically illustrating the emotional bleakness, if not bankruptcy, of modern life that had begun, lyrically, one could argue, even on "A Farewell to Kings"." seem like original research. "the more intimate and subtler role he played on Signals and which has largely dominated his style ever since" isn't even true, just listen to "One Little Victory" or, indeed, much of the music on Presto and beyond. So, in short, I'm going to WP:BOLDly revert the changes for the time being until we can get some more eyeballs in on this. The change really doesn't sit right with me, but I'd like to see what everyone else thinks. —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 23:28, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Needless to say, BH, I disagree with nearly everything you've written. However, you do it with class, unlike the kindergarten-style of someone with the laughable and wholly unfounded audacity to name himself "wisdom." Never was there a more oxymoronic moniker.

I've no problem discussing my favorite band with you, however much we disagree about this or that. We have one thing in common: we love Rush. (And it probably won't surprise you to learn that the last three studio albums and half of Roll the Bones have left me cold; Vapor Trails only grabbed me when I heard the live version during RIR) Presto, however, contains one of the most beautiful songs every written, in the title track. And who, today, would even touch the subject of teen suicide, let alone with the masterful sublimnity of "The Pass"? The initial four or five bars show the Maurice Starr'd, Lou Perlman'd, Simon Cowelled crapmeisters what real music sounds like as opposed to the "pop-by-numbers" garbage even amazing talents like Kelly Clarkson and Clay Aiken are forced to sing (does anyone really think Rush could get a deal today?).

You come froma good place. "Wisdom's" words come from a pedantic, pseudo-intellectual kiddie-table point of view. YOU, I look forward to more discussion with. Probably in a less public forum.

Again, I appreciate your class and professionalism despite how, IMO, wrong you are. ;o)

PainMan 10:28, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

The recently employed changes to the article were absolutely rife with unfounded POV, unreferenced bogus claims, and psuedo theorizing. Consequently, it forced the text to read awkward and disjointed. None of it belongs in a featured article - and if it occurs again I'll have no qualms reverting it and him back to the stoneage. Wisdom89 00:19, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry if the above sounds overly restrictive and stubborn - I have absolutely no problems with making changes that increase the quality and valdity of the Rush article, however, I will not stand by and allow it to become diluted with wishy-washy subjective blurbs and flowery/decorative creative writing about bright swooshing guitar chords and sonic landscapes. I also find it strange that someone would be bold enough to paint vivid pictures about what the music and lyrics are intending to "convey". Wisdom89 00:28, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

No,"Wisdom" you're not sorry. You don't even have the brass to stand behind an insult. As for this I will not stand by... Forget about it. I never back down from a fight. As many times as you take down, I'll put it up.

And what the **** is "unfounded" POV? That's nonsensical. You may believe that Christ rose from the dead. That would also be "unfounded" POV. The more you write, the more puerile and ridiculous you reveal yourself to be.

There is no "one" way to write an article for encyclopedia. Is the goal here to reproduce Britannica's style or to come up with something newer and more interesting. As for the alleged POV, plenty of Britannica articles have much worse (witness the almost hagiographic article on Lenin!). By the standards set in your ridiculous, feeble mutterings calling Hitler's suicide "a bankrupt gambler's leap into the void" unfounded POV. NONSENSE!

As for "unreferenced" quotes, guess what? I'll go easy since serious research, like reading and writing I suspect, is something very new to you. I can pull a dozen books, more or less at random, by the most respected scholars in history, where there are multitudes of "unreferenced" quotes. The greatest history ever written in any language, Edward Gibbon's The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire has no formal references at all. If the world's greatest living historian, Sir John Keegan, can do it with no reproof from small-minded nitpickers, then it's good enough for we amateurs.

PainMan 10:28, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Agree with the above. On a collaboration such as this, is it important to refrain from editing large amounts of information on a staple article unless one discusses the need and reasoning for the changes on the talkpage. — Deckill e r 00:48, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

DK, the first thing I ever read when I discovered wikipedia was this, in paraphrase, "be prepared to have your work mercilessly edited." Unless pedantic prigs like "wisdom" object? Until the clique that's taken over an article decide to gang up on you, denounce you, insult you (and in bad English to boot!)? Then "merciless editing is suddenly taboo?

You at least handled yourself like an adult and I appreciate your refraining from "wisdom's" ad hominem attacks. Like my six year old, but with less self-control, he couldn't contain himself and communicate his pathetic attacks to me privately, he had to show off for all the world. "Lookie me! I get to insult and attack people in perfect safety and anonymity! Ain't I cool???"

The genuinely sad thing is that he really doesn't understand that his smears against me reflect for more on him than anyone else. It took a good five minutes for the laughter to subside before I realized he was serious.

PainMan 10:37, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Not only were the changes made without prior discussion (in fact, there was a curt edit summary message), but they were egregiously personal. Wisdom89 00:53, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Wrong answer "wisdom." The only thing "egregiously personal" were your insulting attacks on ME. "Don't go away mad, just go away." OH NO! I failed to reference the quote Wikipurgatory awaits!!! PainMan 10:28, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Many of the changes were unsourced and POV. No offense to Pain, but I don't think it was a great idea to make such a large change without discussion or even a sandbox project first. — Deckill e r 00:59, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I honestly don't want to offend anyone, or come off sounding overly harsh/critical, but PainMan's vernacular and syntax are (aside from being biased) horrendous. Far too many run-ons, comma abuse, and flexible prose. I've read the changes three or four times now, and there are sentences that I still can't make heads or tails of. Featured articles are supposed to well written, neutral, informative, and devoid of personal analysis. Wisdom89 02:20, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

It's fine, but there's no need to attack his writing skills. We've already attacked the other aspects :) — Deckill e r 03:08, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

It's not a personal attack Dec - I was just being candid. Had the additions been of the "brilliant prose" caliber, I might have been more accepting. Wisdom89 03:39, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

If you REALLY thing you're being "candid" "wisdom" you need professional help. You have written NOTHING that is NOT a personal attack against me! And now, though you didn't know it, you're attacking a disabled person as well. I suffer from dyslexia. I do what I can but it doesn't always turn out the way I wish--and spellcheckers suffer from serious problems as well.

And if you think my sentences are long, try actually reading some serious literature. Gibbon's sentences can run to paragraphs.

ONCE AGAIN IT'S MADE CRYSTAL CLEAR TO ME. IF ONE REFUSES TO GO ALONG WITH THE CLIQUE THAT'S DECIDED TO TAKE OVER THIS OR THAT WIKIPEDIA ARTICLE, NOTHING BUT REVERTS, ABUSE, PERSONAL ATTACKS AND HARRASMENT FOLLOW. Why am I shouting? Because I'm angry.

And, Deckiller, there are many "brilliantly written passages, deftly handled prose reflecting the soul of a poet" to quote a certain Lit prof I once had, as well as some that's not so good. I make no claims to perfection. I'll leave that to "wisdom" boy. Must be great, knowing everything, hunh "wis".

Please enlighten us with your "wisdom." Pwetty pwease.

PainMan 10:28, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

PainMan this article is too long, 50K, already without this additional detail and the verbosity of your style would endanger its FA status which calls for clarity. Wisdom89 worked more than anybody on this article, since I've been around anyway, and was instrumental in it being FAed and has done most to maintain it since it attained FA status so attacking him is not going to get you anywhere. And I don't know what edition of Decline and fall you have but mine(Penguine 2000) is stuffed full of refs (there in the footnotes). Please discuss the changes you wish to make before altering this very stable article --KaptKos 11:21, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

PainMan, you appear awfully hostile in response to my criticisms. Take them as constructive, and not offensive since they were not intended to be. Also, in to response to some of your mudslinging at my personal discussion page, I was not the one who reverted you. I merely supported the action that BorgHunter took. Granted, I would have done it myself, but all the better that someone beat me to the punch. My comments may have been rough, but nowhere in any of my responses did I dare to make personal attacks and use unmitigated childish sarcasm at your expense. You're essentially having a hissy fit over nothing. When you threaten myself with an all out revert war, you not only challenge me, but you challange the rest of those individuals who contributed greatly to making the Rush article featured. Gross instability will not be tolerated. I will repeat - I have absolutely no problem making changes to this article, there is always room for improvement, HOWEVER, the ones you made previously were nothing but awkward sounding fancruft and original research. You obviously have a great penchant for creative writing, that's truly great, but there is no room for that style in an encyclopdia. Actually, I should just terminate this post right now as you will most likely see nothing but personal attacks. If you're going to make changes, propose them here, cite your sources and work them into the text in a manner that is in accordance with Wikipedia. Your earlier phrasing was unencyclopedic - I'm not entirely sure why took such a comment as an insult. Please do not rearrange entire paragraphs and sentences while injecting unsourced POV and biased statements. Each section was trimmed to an appropriate and acceptable length during its FAC, so it is rather inappropriate for you to disproportionately increase the volume with personal interpretation and counter claims. The latter especially, you're entitled to your opinion about Rush's musical style, but don't negate statements made in the text to further your agenda. I'm moving past our initial confrontation, so bring your ideas here first and we'll all talk. Wisdom89 14:43, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Just as an after-note, I've gone over most of your comments concerning how I initially approached you. While I agree that there were a few choice phrases/words of mine (regarding your syntax or overbearing subjectivity) that might be somewhat frustrating and less than favorable for the making of "friends" on our first encounter, I still maintain my original stance. I insulted you nowhere. On the contrary, you sir, have taken great pleasure in obscenely denigrating my name here, on my talk page, on BorHunter's message board, and God only knows elsewhere. I seem to recall threats of retaliation to boot. We're talking voluminous and incessant temper tandrum rants all because you didn't like what I had to say about your changes. Yet you have the supreme audacity to call me "puerile", a "kindergartner", and "classless". Rubbish. And priceless. The topic of my user name (as a misnomer) has come up, intense condescension and sarcasm was used, and references to violence were made, all topped off with ironic declarations and shouts of MY supposed childishishness. That is truly laughable. You seem to have great difficulty absorbing criticism. I submit that if this is how you deal with contradiction and contention to your point of view in the real world, you may eventually find yourself nary a person to talk to. I don't wish to have a flame war with you. However, your reactions have been just that - inflammatory, rude, insulting, "puerile", and altogether malicious. There is no need for it. Anyway, you're right about one thing though, above you suggested that we are all here mostly out of our respect for the band Rush. Perhaps we shouldn't lose sight of this. I will not insult your intelligence by comparing my level of dedication and "fandom" to yours, which you have done elsewhere I might add, but let me just say you make an excellent point. As a sidenote, my favorite album happens to be Presto - and for the very same reasons you think so highly of it. Keep that in mind. Wisdom89 15:43, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Just in case he doesn't see it before returning to the conversation, I will make my apology to PainMan visble here was well. I will admit that I was somewhat tactless in my initial respones. HOWEVER, I feel that I am owed a significant number of apologies for the enormous barrage of insults and mudslinging I received for my criticisms. Wisdom89 18:57, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Would anyone be in objection to creating a sandbox subpage to propose further changes, mainly by PainMan, who has created quite a bit of resistance here? Then, once we all agree on what the article should look like, we can make it go live. The only rule there would be: No reverting at all. Work with changes made rather than reverting them. Is this acceptable to everyone? —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 16:41, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the creation of a sandbox subpage is a terrific idea. Once a consensus is reached about the proposed changes, the article can be adjusted - however, I must state first and foremost - all claims require citations from credible sources. Rhetoric should be carefully monitored. Terms such as deft, thunderous, emotional bleakness, cold emptiness, polyphonic melody, rhythmic scaffolding, superhuman fretwork, etc.. do not belong in an encylopedia. They are personally invented terms/phrases which reflect bias. As a featured article, it should be held to the same rules and standards set in place from the very beginning, and especially during its FAC nomination. Wisdom89 18:05, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe this will achieve anything positive, PainMan has made it clear he is not interested in citing references and believes original research is valid, therefore I don't see why this accomodation should be made. I came to this conclusion for reading the comments above by PainMan, if I have misinterperted your meaning I am open to correction. I always open to persuasion though, if PainMan comes here and talks thing over in a calm and rational manner about the changes he would like to make , and believe me I don't want to knock someone with passion, then maybe I could be turned about the sandbox --KaptKos 19:44, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

The sandbox idea isn't really going to hurt - it's useful for experimental purposes like how Borg is suggesting. It might be worth a shot provided any further contributions from PainMan on the talk page are devoid of derogatory comments towards myself and others. Any sort of dismissive attitude and resumption to changing/reverting the main article will swifly change my view about giving this a chance. Given his previous comments, I'm skeptical, but always open. Wisdom89 21:00, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

My concern is that going along with this could be seen as giving legitimacy to someone who has shown, by his comments above, he has no regard for policy/guidelines? BTW, I'm asking not telling --KaptKos 21:37, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you are right - let's hear a few more opinions on the matter. In the meantime, I've taken the liberty of including references to the synthesizer section, something I've been itching to do now for about a month Wisdom89 21:47, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

My 2 pennies...BH's idea of a sandbox to play in makes for the best idea...for now. I have been watching this one closely(since the page appears in my VandalProof watchlist so often) and I have read the comments on the various editor talk pages. Despite the belligerent attitude and threats to keep POV pushing...all must assume good faith and hope that it doesn't become ugly. And if your looking for a side project...the Neil Peart page just took a swan dive into the POV/No Cite/Weasel word/Original research pool too. Cheers! Anger22 22:08, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I'll give the Neil Peart page a going over this week, I should be able to get my hands on enough stuff to draw up a proper bio, I'll leave the rest of it alone until thats done, except where there is duplication --KaptKos 11:57, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Now I'm not entirely sure how useful the Sandbox proposal would be. Instead of taking his concerns and suggestions to the talk page where active discussion is ongoing, PainMan has reverted to his original version and in doing so has removed recently updated information, including five citations. If this is going to be constructive, the talk page must be used to establish consensus and decision making. Wisdom89 02:14, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem with a sandbox but one: I am unschooled in their use. In short I need to learn how to make use of them/it. If someone would be so kind to put up a link that explains what they have in mind (rather than my having to search and perhaps find something different than what is meant and end creating controvery unintentionally) I'd appreciate it.

I'm still confused by Wisdom89's comments: the talk page must be used to establish consensus and decision making. Since when is scholarship supposed to be based on "consensus and decision-making"--this sounds like taking points from the Kerry campaign.

How does one square "merciless editing" with "establish[ing]consensus and decision making"?

I for one prefer merciless editing. And what's wrong with a little controversy? What's wrong with disagreement? If one only talks to people with whom one agrees, one's ain't gonna learn much. It's a kind of intellectual masturbation.

I agree things got out of hand. Things were written by me and by others than shouldn't have been. I would have responded much differently had I been approached much differently. Instead it seemed be the same old wikipedia c***: "This is our page auslander GO AWAY!"

While some contoversy, some disagreement is healthy, total scholastic warfare isn't.

I've further improved my changes the section in question and sourced everything that needed to be sourced. I completely disagree with so many things written in this section, I don't have time to refute them.

PainMan 19:26, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Bottom-line I don't have a problem with the sandbox idea (as far as I understand it).

However, I have the following questions/concerns...

How is it to be decided when "consensus" is reached?

Who is to decide it?

And if the minority (even if it's just li'l ol' me) doesn't like the results, do they just have to go pound sand?

How is the minority to be heard once "consensus" is reached?

I remain skeptical of the idea. Very little good comes out of committees. Especially creativity and scholarship. There are exceptions, but its rare (which is why 99% of TV is bilge). We are governed by committees and look what an utter disaster that has been.

"When we made ourselves sovereign, we forgot to make ourselves intelligent."

But I'm willing to give it a go.

PainMan 19:26, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Opinions may differ... but I've rewritten to the best of my admittedly prodigious ability. I also proofed and spellchecked the article until my dyslexic eyes bled. If I missed one or two things, well I've found typos in Britannica as well--and Wikipedia is a LOOOOONG way from Britannica's standard of excellence.

PainMan 18:38, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Please use the sandbox for major rewrites. Thanks--KaptKos 19:07, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Pls explain how this squares with the "merciless editing" that's at the heart of the wikipedia paradigm. Thanx.

PainMan 19:28, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't like the changes you have tried to make to this article, so I have been merciless and reverted them. If I liked the changes you have made I would not have touched them. If you changed less stuff at any one time you will have a much better change of the detail remaining, but I doubt the style will be unaltered --KaptKos 21:22, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

While at first glance it seems somewhat paradoxical to speak about reaching a consensus and the concept of wikipedia "mercilessly editing", a couple of things must be kept in mind. Everyone is entitled to make changes in the hopes of improving the article (any article for that matter), however, one must also remember that one of the core requirements for maintaining/nominating featured articles is editorial stability. The daily routine of basic maintenance does not really apply (spelling corrections, minor edits, grammar, addition of citations/new information etc...). The changes that you are proposing happen to be voluminous and, unfortunately, are in conflict with the opinions of several of the main editors. This could potentially lead to edit warring, which is never productive and often maddening. Additionally, your reforms violate WP:CITE since they remove reputable sources already in the article, as well as WP:NPOV. In situations such as this when there are style/information/content disputes, the talk page should be used for discussion and agreement before significant revisions take place. Wisdom89 19:32, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Apologies are not my favorite thing, wisdom, but I respect the first of your long screed, it was calm, mature and not a thrust to the vitals. The second two I felt were more in keeping with your very first remarks.

I have no problem absorbing criticism whatsoever. However, I regard your initial remarks anything but. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by PainMan (talk • contribs) .

I'm sorry, but if you feel slighted at remarks that essentially focus on the negative side of things, then there honestly isn't anything further to say. Accusing me of insulting you doesn't change the fact that my comments were nothing more than criticisms of your approach and style. Getting in an uproar over an opinion about your syntax or rhetoric isn't going to do much beyond raising ire. Wisdom89 22:54, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

What I objected to was the implication that the article belonged to you and that changes had to pass your muster before they could be accepted or you would take them down, revert them (whatever). My intent, delivered with a sledgehammer where a plastic mallet would have worked far better, was to say that I would not be cowed into going away just because you (or anyone else for that matter) happen to disagree with my changes. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by PainMan (talk • contribs) .

Again, nowhere did I even BEGIN to insinuate that the article, in anyway shape or form, "belonged" to myself. That is patently absurd. I would never claim such a thing. When you bypassed the talk page and undid a significant amount of solid work on a featured article and replaced it with your POV, original research and personal interpretation I grew peevish, I'll admit - and I already apologized for my apparent lack of restraint/tact in a comment or two of my own - mostly when I critized your ability to write. However, you did it again..and then again..and then again after the editors requested discussion. You can imagine how frustrating THAT is, yes? Wisdom89 22:54, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

And I disagree with your definition of what encyclopedia writing should be. It does not have to be dry as dust, lacking all style and panache. There's NO reason why the prose in an encyclopedia, this one, Britannica, Colliers, World Book, whichever, has to read like a High School history book! These article should not just be dry facts, they can and should be literature. If the final result falls short of the goal, that's no reason not to try. Not every word, or every play, of Shakespeare's possesses Olympian grandeur (in fact its hard to sqaure the early comedies with later tragedies which have made "Old Billy" the greatest writer in humanity's history).

I agree, the prose within an encyclopedia need not be insipid, boring, and bland, however, that is not an invitation to decorate sentences with adjectives which reflect personal perception (i.e thunderous, deft, musical "conversation", etc..etc..). I like jumpy rhythmic beats in my sentences, they give it punch and zest, but read over some of the words/adjectives you choose to include in your changes. I trust you'll see what I mean. Wisdom89 22:54, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

There is, however, no reason for this to continue as it is. If you feel insulted then I am big enough to offer you an apology. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by PainMan (talk • contribs) .

I accept your apology, and I hope you accept mine Wisdom89 22:54, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I have become very, VERY frustrated with this entire wikipedia thing. There are so many cliques that form around various articles and mercilessly and viciously defend their article as tho' they were Athanasius and I were Arius marching toward confrontation before Constantine the Great.

In short this is not so much an encylopedia--aside from some very, very fine scientific articles--as a congeries of claques.

The most repeated phrase in the "official" statements about Wikipedia is "merciless editing." "Prepare to be mercilessly edited," etc, appears everywhere.

Nowhere does it say that a "consensus" must be reached before such editing. For example, if someone were to write: "Under Comrade Stalin, the Soviet Union marched from the fedual horror of the days of Czarist oppression to the realization of the paradise inherent in the worker-peasant state's drive toward Communism..." I doubt anyone would object to the editing out of such blatant obvious propaganda. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by PainMan (talk • contribs) .

Please read/see WP:CON. It explains what I've been trying to say all along. Wisdom89 22:54, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm using absurdity to demonstrate my point and am not comparing your opinions vis-a-vis Rush to propaganda. After all, they are just a band. The point is, upon what stone is it graven that a vote has to be taken of Rush fans before the article can be changed?

Someone commented that you had done most of the work on the article. The layout is excellent. You obviously know your technical chops. It's just that I disagree greatly with many of your conclusions.

I'm a scholar, specifically historians. Very often, in the most serious of scholarly works, specific citations are left out. I can list many, many examples to prove my point. That was how I was operating when I first edited the article.

I have now gone back and sourced everything I could think of. Where there's an available web source, I listed the URL. For a radio station interview that happened 22 years ago, it's a little harder to provide the source (do I have to mail a copy of the interview to everyone who wants one? No thanks, I don't need the GestapoRIAA on my tail). It seemed to me that ascribing the quote to a radio interview was sufficient, but apparently it wasn't. So I remedied that.

The same with the thesis of a late friend of mine who had attended Berklee (where Geddy Lee has taught) and Julliard before his death from ARC (Aids Related Complex) five years ago. His sister has allowed me to use it, but she's currently editing the mass of writings that he left behind in order to publish a book on rock and pops' critical "pariahs." So sending out copies would also be impossible.

In sum, yes I lit into you, but only in response to your attacks upon me. In no way did I "threaten" "retaliation" against you or anyone. That's a crime in this state and comes very close to libel. Both imply "terroristic" threats or the use of violence against you. So I would ask you to be more careful in using such terms--since no one in their right mind could interpret anything I wrote as a threat to you.

Now, I'm tired and it's time for lunch. It would take too long to properly proof this. So I'm leaving it as is.

If an olive branch isn't possible between us then at least truce should be. Especially between Rush fans. If we don't give the guys their critical and musical due, neither the critics nor anyone else is going to.

If there's a way to reconcile our two views, I don't have a problem with trying. However, I still believe that "merciless editing" is the wikipedia standard. If I'm wrong, point me to the page that tells me so.

(Finally, who cares about the length of the article? There are articles in Britannica that run to 150+ web pages!) PainMan 19:11, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

There are guildlines in relation to article size here and here. Of course they are only guildlines and do not have to be strictly followed and there is a guidline for long articles so its not like its verboten, but its needs to be highlighted as an issue, an issue that after discusion may disappear but then again may not. (IMHO this article is already too long and could do with a trimming). But anyway this is Wikipedia not Britannica, I don't want Wikipedia to be Britannica. --KaptKos 09:53, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Given the venom perviously expressed toward me, I don't expect to be believed, but I did not check the Talk Page before proceeding to revert the section I've been working on. So I wasn't trying deliberate to buck the sandbox thing.

-->>IfI had known I would have posted why I disagree with abstaining from reverts and then posted my revert. I wasn't trying to spring anything on anyone.

I don't respond well to orders. Spent too many years in corporate America working for guys with double digit IQs and six figure incomes.

Also I was unaware of that the sandbox thing had moved along. It didn't seem like anyone was really interested.

I have to say I am somewhat annoyed. Now it appears that a certain group of fans have decided that those who disagree with them shouldn't be editing the article. What's next? Locking the page so that a friendly administrator-type (and, natch, I don't know any such types) has to approve reverts?

How is that supposed to achieve consensus?

PainMan 19:42, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I suggested the idea mainly because no one here seems very responsive to your edits at all. Unless you change your attitude a bit and act friendly on this talk page to everyone (yes, including those who have been a bit rude to you), I don't envision your edits staying put. Especially considering that, firstly, this is a featured article, and secondly, there are definitely some issues that need to be hammered out before the change goes live. Basically, my main concern is that I want everyone to agree that the article is better when it's changed, and no one has come out and said that your edits improve the article. So, they've reverted you. I don't endorse that path or consider it the best course of action, but they're doing it and there's no policy against it. I hoped that by having these disputed changes on a sandbox, the immediatists here would be happy, and the eventualists like myself would be pleased that, no matter the outcome, in the end we'd have a better article. If you don't like the idea, we can scrap it, but I suspect that any sweeping edits to the article (as you have made) would be reverted fairly quickly. In such a case, I'd suggest making your changes slowly and incrementally, with lots of discussion, so the article can be refined into one consensus agrees with, and hopefully we wouldn't see any revert warring, which is absolutely no good. Sound fair to you? How do you want to do this? —BorgHunter (talk) 20:01, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

The problem with the Rush article and wikipedia itself, is that Rush would disagree with it. Have all of you forgotten what The essence of the band Rush? One entity existing in the way it wants to and never faltering for anyone? The article, unfortunately is a disgrace, and will never be the way Rush would want it to be because of the nature of wikipedia. Just remember, Pain, Wisdom and whoever else, do not let anyone else tell you what is good, or not, because only you can decide that. --Friar xion 01:06, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Album articles lack NPOV

Since the whole "poetic, Un-cited POV" thing is fresh in everyone's mind. If anyone gets a chance they should browse through the Rush discography. The early albums seem OK but the later releases, especially the 80s, have a fair share of POV, weasel words, original research and not a citation to be found. I quickly cleaned out a couple(Signals was oozing poetic crap galour) but don't have much time to fine tune the others. Good Luck! Anger22 00:10, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

New lead image

I wasn't a fan of the replaced image but the new one is very poor, IMO. Any thoughts?--KaptKos 09:16, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Someone should volunteer to go to the next Rush concert and take a high-quality photograph. — Phil Welch (t) (c) 09:30, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Someone could volunterr to remove the current image and replace it with something better Wisdom89 20:14, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

How bout moving this one up Image:Rush R30 2004.jpg, its a nice, moody, current image and they don't look like dorks which, IMHO, they did in the replaced image. Whats the big deal bout the new one being free use anyway? The old one, and this, are promos, so whats the problem?--KaptKos 10:48, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Done! Wisdom89 16:39, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

For a number of reasons, free is far, far preferable to fair use. The main reason is that in most redistributions of Wikipedia, fair use images cannot be used. — Phil Welch (t) (c) 20:19, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Thats a pretty good reason:)--KaptKos 06:18, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

To avoid the current lead image appearing twice I stuck the free image I was giving out about into the Hiatus section. I think it looks pretty good where it is now, and it shows the boys can still RAWK (well Alex anyway!;), it just sucked as lead image--KaptKos 06:35, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Too 'Pro Rush'?

I offer my comments here for consideration with the understanding that I may be 'offbase'. Nevertheless, it seems to me that this article isn't sufficiently objective about Rush. It seems to reflect the perspective of a small percentage of Rush fans, namely the diehards who refuse to acknowledge the radical decline in the uniqueness of Rush's sound after 1981's Moving Pictures album. 'Vital Signs', a medicore track at the end of Moving Pictures, seemed to signal the direction the band was headed. The 'Vital Signs sound', with it's muted guitar and heavy synth accompaniment, would be typical of Rush in the creatively empty years to follow. Rush never produced any original music of note after it's last gasps of creativity on 1982's "Signals" ("New World Man" and "Subdivisions" - decent overproduced synth tracks). They have however put out some great nostalgia albums in recent years (great live albums featuring 70s era Rush, and an awesome album of cover tunes from the Haight Ashbury era).

Well, we have to maintain a neutral point of view, which means we can't base it on either opinion; we have to state the musical facts. — Deckill e r 05:47, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

And your having a negative opinion about the band after Moving Pictures constitutes a fairer and more accurate perspective? The article does not concern itself with any one person's opinion. The guideline of WP:NPOV requires all opinions to be represented - and the article certainly makes mention of the more negative viewpoints on Rush's "artistic decline". Please see the reputation section. Wisdom89 05:50, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Rush 'is' a band? I is not so sure....

I don't want to make a silly change if this is a house style or something, I'm quite a new user, but can anyone tell my why it's Rush 'is' a band.

Surely something like "the Beatles is a band which changed popular music for the better" would be ridiculous? Why are Rush different, and why isn't it "Rush are a band"?

22:32, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Would you write "Pink Floyd are a band"? Why's it different from that? BabuBhatt 22:36, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I would write "Pink Floyd are a band" as opposed to "Pink Floyd is a band". Or are you just agreeing with the original point? Syxx 23:04, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Pink Floyd "is" a band. The Beatles "is" a band. The Rolling Stones "is" a band. Rush "is" a band. No band is plural. BabuBhatt 23:18, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

The whole singular-plural/American-British vernacular argument has been squeezed dry. The difference essentially boils down to preference in the end, but seeing as though the entire article is written in an American format, why should it conform to British variances? Wisdom89 23:20, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

See WP:BITE. As a relatively new user, you can be forgiven for not knowing the style guidelines in Wikipedia:Manual of Style#National varieties ofEnglish. Americans basically say "X is a band" where the British say "X are a band". It's just a regional difference, and nothing to lose sleep over. See American and British English differences#Singular and plural for nouns. And the general rule is that the usage should reflect the geographical origin of the article's subject. Rush are from Canada, hence North American usage prevails. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 07:28, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks everyone for clearing that up - Richardrj, re: your last line: I believe Rush "is" from Canada!? But I see now what you're getting at.

One the question of the habit of an entry's place of origin determining the style of their Wikipedia entry, the cases of Bertrand Russell - "Welsh" philosopher or not? - Seamus Heaney "from Londonderry", or Derry, and Danah Boyd aka "danah boyd" - i.e. her preference - lead me to believe that all is not as cut and dried as it seems.

Maybe there should either be a) oa single Wikipedia style/policy for this sort of thing or b) a European (English) Wikipedia distinct from a North American one and an Australasian one.

Anycase, that's just musing, especially as this is actually also discussed way down the page under singular/plural.

Album: Russian (Rush-ian) Roulette

No word on the (vinyl) album from the 70's/80's allegedly containing a bunch of mixed up songs on each side of the disc. Is this an urban legend, or did such an album exist?

There are a couple bootlegs by that name, but no release. There was a Rush release for south america nad parts of europe called Rush through Time, but that's different. (and I've got a copy.) ThuranX 04:02, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I remember discussions online about this way back in the early 90's - my understanding was that it was a radio promo that was pressed with the tracks running side by side rather than one after the other so that you wouldn't know which track the needle would land in. I haven't located any source to cite on this right now Terrymr 03:31, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

That would be a hell of a promo. However, the only google results I get are for the 1979 PinkPop bootleg. ThuranX 05:31, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah - the discussion I remember about it was pre-web back when we all subscribed to an email digest called the National Midnight Star - maybe its archived somewhere. I'll see what I can find Terrymr 06:47, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Found it quicker than I thought : http://www.white-barn.com/nms/html/nms_483.htm#RUSH'N'ROULETTE Terrymr 06:49, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Getting bloated

This is starting to get bloated with pointless detail. I think the three or four influenced bands(including cites) in the intro and at most ten external links (they take up a whole screen at the moment) is more than enough. Can we come to some agreement on this cause cause I realise its a potential rv war in the making? --KaptKos 12:02, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm all for trimming external links. As for mentioning influenced bands--mention three or four here, but take all the others and mention on their articles that they were influenced by Rush. — Philwelch t 12:06, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Curtail the external links significantly. I propose mentioning only the following in the lead: Metallica, Primus, Dream Theater, and Symphony X(the last two demonstrating their influence on prog acts, the former two on popular/somewhat mainstream bands)Wisdom89 14:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Nice purging! I took off the Peart links cause they should be on the Peart article and left only the official and well established forums/fan sites. I'm happy with Wisdoms influenced selection and I like Phils idea to link the removed bands back here --KaptKos 15:31, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I trimmed down the list of influenced artists, leaving what I feel to be the more noteworthy examples. The only thing remaining would be sources that can validate the claims, which shouldn't be too difficult. If I have time later I'll give the net a search, but if anyone wants to dive in first, feel free.

I fear that the Artistopia cites for the influenced bands are a nice case of circular linking. ;) The Artistopia bio is quite certainly an earlier incarnation of the Wikipedia article (with the mass of edits, I didn't bother to find the exact match, would probably be somewhere last year), and at the end of their site under "Copyright Citations", they even link back here as the "original article". Sorry... :) Varana 17:28, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Its a fair cop! I came across so many entries in other encyclopdias that were undoubtly sourced recently for wikipedia that this one, being so out of date, just seemed origional at first glance but, at second glance, obviously isn't. I'll trawl again as penance:-(--KaptKos 18:11, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

CNN will have to do for now --KaptKos 09:53, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

TWICE???

Wasn't Rush a featured article months and months ago? Why is it up again? I just checked, it was features ono 9 april 2006!ThuranX 00:10, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

That can happen. I think. Master of Puppets ^{The Walrus!} 01:19, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

April 9th was when the article was promoted to featured article status - it has never been featured on the main page Wisdom89 01:41, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I could've sworn that it was, because i recall seeing it on the front after the article's editors worked towards the Feat.Stat., and thinking 'hey, it happened!'... but I might be wrong. ThuranX 01:49, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

It's Rush! They should be the featured article every day!--Hooligans 02:01, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Here's the FAOTD of April 9, 2006:

The Blue ice covering Lake Fryxell

Antarctica is a continent encompassing the southern extremity of Earth, and containing the Earth's South Pole. It is surrounded by the Southern Ocean and divided in two by the Transantarctic Mountains. It is considered to be the coldest, driest, windiest, and highest (on average) continent on Earth, and 98% of Antarctica is covered by ice. There are no permanent human residents and only cold-adapted plants and animals survive there, including penguins, fur seals, lichens, and hundreds of types of algae. The first commonly accepted sighting of the continent occurred in 1820 by the Russian expedition of Mikhail Lazarev and Fabian Gottlieb von Bellingshausen. Antarctica is not under the political sovereignty of any nation, although seven countries (Argentina, Australia, Chile, France, Norway, New Zealand and the United Kingdom) maintain territorial claims. Most other countries do not recognize these claims, and the claims of Argentina, Chile and the United Kingdom all overlap. Human activity on the continent is regulated by the Antarctic Treaty, which was signed in 1959 by 12 countries and prohibits any military activity, supports scientific research, and protects the continent's ecozone. Ongoing experiments are conducted by more than 4000 scientists of many different nationalities and research interests. (continued...)

Recently featured: Kakapo – Thomas Pynchon – Lothal

--Boneka 11:42, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Featured

Congratulations on crafting an excellent article. —Wrathchild ^(talk) 02:20, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Great job! It was such a nice surprise to see this article featured on the front page! Lew19 09:24 AM, 19 September 2006 (EST)

Excellent work to everyone on this article - great to see an icon of the Canadian music scene featured. Bravo! Tony Fox (arf!) 15:37, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Eponymous

I took out the word eponymous because it was not being used like the examples given at dictionary.com.

It's a cool word but someone will have to rearrange the sentence if they want to use it. --Gbleem 03:11, 19 September 2006 (UTC) I'm thinking I may be wrong now. I've found examples where eponymous is used as an adjective for the thing being named after and the thing being named. --Gbleem 13:17, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Great job

Great work to the editors who crafted the article. BabuBhatt 04:55, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Ray Danniels' name has two Ns. www.amazon.com/gp/imdb/actor/nm1511101 He also represented Van Halen, among others. There is a 12 string acoustic guitar, but a classical by definition has 6 nylon or gut strings with horizontal tuning pegs. I've never heard Black Sabbath mentioned as an influence on Rush. I've got dozens of interviews and bios and nothing. 60s blues and rock musicians are mentioned frequently. Is there an exact quote on this reference? Geddy has played many synths over the years; is it necessary to list ones he doesn't play anymore? 209.43.99.78 06:50, 19 September 2006 (UTC)19 Sep 06 0248 Michael Z. Williamson

I read band bios all the time and this is one of the best. One of the few that doesn't read like it was written by a crazed fan.

It's the crazed fan with control that wins the race. : ) Codackussell 09:05, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

The Juno Award?

On the main page where this article is featured, it says "Rush has been awarded the Juno Award several times" well, there's lots of dirrefernt types of Junos, thats like saying they won the Grammy Award several times. I'm prety sure that should be reworded... --Thankyoubaby 05:21, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Gold and Platinum

Are the gold and platinum certifications listed in the opening section for U.S., Canada, or all territories? Infamous30 06:23, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I love it

Rush is so loved that even being on the main page isn't bringing alot of vandalism. lol I love it. --Woohookitty^(meow) 10:54, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Don't bet on it. I just read it and was aghast at what was written. Well done KaptKos for the revert. Remain vigilant. ComaDivine 11:08, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm getting RSS from clicking my watchlist, but I see Angers on patrol so Vandals beware! --KaptKos 11:50, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Ooooo they'll all be scared now :) If anyone toys with it..it'll rollback so fast their head will spin. Kudos to everyone who had the night shift. So far the "good" edits have been OK. This is nothing compared to the day Pink Floyd went front page. That was an rv nightmare. Take care! Anger22 12:48, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

All praise the almighty Rush

"Since the release of their eponymous debut in 1974, the band has become well-known for their instrumental virtuosity, complex compositions, erudite lyrics, and inspirational camaraderie. Rush's three decades of continued success under their current lineup of Lee, Lifeson, and Peart has earned the band the respect of their musical peers, and their supporters are often cited as some of the most intensely loyal in rock."

- This reads like splurge from one of their "intensely loyal" fans than an encyclopedia article. What is "inspirational camaraderie" for example? Erudite lyrics? Puh-leese! Just because someone tries to write clever lyrics doesn't mean that they come out this way. If I wrote an article saying that the lead singer has a screechy voice which sounds as if it hadn't broken, and their songs are ever so slightly overstretched in many cases, people would complain/remove it, but when someone puts this vomit inducing eulogy on the front page we're supposed to put up with it? --MacRusgail 14:19, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree - this type of fanboy blather has no place in an encyclopedia, and certainly should not be in an article with FA status. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 14:59, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

So fix it? —BorgHunter (talk) 19:32, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that's basically all that has to be done — fanboys add their stuff, but it's easily removed. — Deckill e r 10:44, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I wish it were so easy. I'm probably on a hit list already for pointing this out, and no doubt the order has gone out on fan boards to monitor this article 24/7. --MacRusgail 15:22, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Hammer of the Gods

Eh, maybe a nice quote is from "Hammer of the Gods" in which Jimmy page says Rush is his favorite band. I'll leave it to you look it up, if you like...--Ling.Nut 15:35, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Good Save

Some one erased the whole article and put in "Rush blows". Very funny but thanks to whoever changed it back.Typhoid Orchid 17:17, 19 September 2006 (UTC) It's sad some people don't realize the power of such an amazing band... Eh, whatever. I know they rock- that's all I need... : ) Codackussell 09:08, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Singular/Plural

I've noticed a number of articles (such as this one and the Iron Maiden one) using singular words to refer to the band (as in "Rush is one fo the most influential bands of all-time" or similar) followed almost immediately by things like "Their music has...". Is this an Americanism I've previously missed or just some strange grammar? 155.136.80.163 17:45, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Typically in American English (either written or spoken vernacular), the band is treated as a single entity, but after the collective has been established as in the case of a band, or if it becomes obvious that the sentence stresses the members instead of the collective, the words "their" or "they" maybe used in place of "it" Wisdom89 18:01, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Bootlegging

I was looking over at Dream Theater, and they'vegot a section on bootlegging and band thoughts on it. Should we add one to this article, given the long history of bootlegging for Rush, including the various european silverdisc makers, and the DRE, and so on? ThuranX 04:04, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

References

I was just wondering if some sort of trivia section could be added to the page regarding references in pop cultures, such as Meatwad from Aqua Teen Hunger Force having an affinity for the band. 152.163.100.137 21:27, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

There was a pop culture section many moons ago, but it was recommended that it be spun out of the main article to reduce swelling of the text - There is now a separate article for that kind of information. Please see the "See Also" section Wisdom89 22:31, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Future Plans

I've condensed this section cause its a bit nuts for this, which is about stuff that might be going to happen, to be the same size, if not larger, than the other sections which are about things that have actually happened and what the band has produced. Can't wait for the allbum to be released so all this section will be is "They plan to go on tour promoting the new album". --KaptKos 08:32, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Definitely an improvement - I've been saying to myself for a while that the section was ballooning, and in desperate need of a thorough pruning. Good show. Wisdom89 15:23, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Discography

I thought the discography took up too much space, so I moved most of it to the Rush discography page. Same with the history of rush (Metnever)

This wasn't linked to from this page so I've done that - I've also added a singles section to your discography page & some singles that have their own pages but weren't linked properly. Megamanic 02:43, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

That seems fine; why did you delete so much of the history section?BabuBhatt 00:13, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, realized that was another "editor". BabuBhatt 22:29, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Is someone ever going to add the singles and their release months/years?

Look at Rush Discography :) Megamanic 02:14, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Maintain the Featured Article structure

The overall structure/content of the article was set out and built on during the articles FA process. A tweak here, an update there...great. Wholesale changes/alteration are not required. Anger22 01:01, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I can see why you would want to do that but there are some significant improvements that could still be made to the article and I wouldn't want to put off contributors by continual reversion. One thing I'd like to see is the discography done as a separate page with more detail (ALL of the singles please, with 'B' sides) and replaced on the main page with a gallery of album covers like the Aerosmith entry which would actually suit Rush better given that that's the paradigm that Rush themselves use. Thoughts? Megamanic 02:23, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Have to say, I would not be a fan of the Aerosmith#Discography section, its chunky and guady(kinda like Aeorsmith these days) so I wouldn't be keen on this being changed that way. The table and the image of the albums(which is pretty unusual and therefore adds interest for the casual reader) are enough for me. A concerted drive to source Fair use images - now that would be an improvement--KaptKos 07:26, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I would actually be in favor of expanding the article (if anything) with other sections that delve into the more interesting aspects of the band's career - live shows, lyrics, influence on contemporaries, things like that. Besides the obvious (i.e needed updates, grammar corrections, sentence structure, etc..etc.) this is how I would vote to improve the article. Changing the content therein isn't really necessary IMHO. Wisdom89 20:34, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, its often crossed my mind that a section on how the band exploit the visual spectrum, or the "Graphic Arts" as I like to describe it, would be an interesting ...mmmh...thing --KaptKos 22:26, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Genres

I'm not entirely sure it's necessary to list every genre the band has touched on throughout their career - even three in the info box seems a little extraneous if you ask me. I realize the band began as an early blues-heavy metal outfit, but I cannot in good faith refer to them as a heavy metal band since the group essentially pioneered the merger of hard rock and progressive rock during the 70's. This is what they are most known for. I'm just worried about glaring misnomers. I prefer the label of "traditional metal" over "heavy metal" since their roots more closely parallel the likes of Led Zeppelin, Black Sabbath, and Deep Purple, not Iron Maiden or Judas Priest. Am I alone in this? Wisdom89 20:42, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Their own biography labels them as a heavy metal band. But I agree that the infobox genre entry should be a more general "all encompassing" quick ref as opposed to a detailed(overkilled) description of the bands genres. That they were a heavy metal band for the first 3-4 albums...no one can really argue. But I think that kind of detail is already covered in the main body of the article and plunking it into the infobox is a little deceiving. There are edit wars all over Wikipedia over infobox genres. There shouldn't be one here. Let's just pick 1 or 2 and be done woth it. Thoughts from anyone else?....Kap? Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 22:52, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I really don't want to turn this into a voting process, but I'd like to achieve consensus regarding this. Musically, Hard Rock and Progressive Rock seem to be adequate in covering the band in general, although there's that whole 80's synth pop rock era which kinda makes this more muddled than it needs to be. Tell me, should the info box list all associated genres while the first sentence in the lead narrows it down? If this is the case, then honestly should progressive rock be the band's defining genre? Is that misleading? Yes, they're mostly "known" as a progressive rock band, but doesn't the article ostensibly split the band's history according to genre transitions whereby "progressive rock" is merely a fraction? I'm just looking for discussion from the regular editors on this issue. Let me know what you guys think about this. Wisdom89 01:21, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Good timing for the discussion. The musician project is having a similar "genre" discussion sparked by recent edit wars on numerous articles. I agree that the defining 'prog rock' tag is a bit misleading. Accurate for a certain period of Rush's career, but too all encompassing...like the heavy metal ref. The musician project is leaning towards genres/styles...styles being more definite sub-genres.(like All Music Guide) IE: Rush is a rock band that has played numerous styles including Heavy metal, Hard rock, Progressive rock, Synth rock, Top 40, Alternative rock, Rock and roll...etc, etc, etc. Rush are a hard one to peg since they've covered some many different sub-G's trying to lump them into 1 in either the lead or infobox is really not conveying the whole story. Anyone else? Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 01:52, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Don't really get the obsession with pigeonholing bands. Is it a control thing? By sticking a band in a category are you somehow nullifying their power or nullifying their creativity? More importantly DO WE CARE? Look at some of the other bands around like, say, Primal Scream. What the hell are they? Rolling Clones, 'E'ed up dance rock, Heavy Dub Reggae or the sound of cyberpunk flying away to infinity on a Hawkwind riff? The answer is "all of the above" depending on which album you listen to & Rush are similarly genre defying. Call them rock in the about box & divide the career by "genres" - mind you I'd say the real breakpoint between old & new was Hemispheres - Permanent Waves not PW - Moving Pictures. Just my 5c Megamanic 06:46, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

i never thought of rush as metal... but thats probably not important.

I tagged this article with a NPOV

Seriously, this is the most biased, POS article I've read in my life. I mean my god just read the band members mini bios in this article. Yeah, this article reaches with fanboyisms. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.117.209.109 (talk) 05:32, 11 December 2006 (UTC).

I have asked this user, at his talkpage, to please explain here WHY the page isn't NPOV. We'll see if he replies. ThuranX 06:09, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Alright, I will explain it, which I might add, will be pretty in-depth. BUT I have to do that in 12 hours...So in the meantime you can remove it, then in 12 hours from now, I'll tell you why it deserves it, then I will re-add it....Oh boy will you Rush fans hate me :D 71.117.209.109 06:35, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I would like you to consider that as the article was a featured article coming in and slapping NPOV on it is more akin to vandalism than anything else. The article has received plenty of exhaustive reviews and passed them to become FA the reviewers didn't think it NPOV therefore you shouldn't without a really good reason. Discuss your reasons here & leave NPOV alone until weve addressed it Megamanic 06:44, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Don't feed the trolls Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 10:43, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Hear him out. If he's a true troll, we can dismiss him easily, because either he won't show at all or his arguments will betray his 'troll-ness'. But, if he's got valid ideas, we should listen and respond. don't poke the fate bear. ThuranX 16:04, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

A valid conversation put forth by Deckiller, or Wisdom89 or Kapt Kos re: NPOV would be a a postive thing. However this tag was placed by 71.117.209.109 (talk · contribs)...who is, in all likelyhood, the editor formerly located at IP 71.236.225.50 (talk · contribs)...which was the IP sock for blocked user Zabrak (talk · contribs)...who in turn was a tagged sock for blocked user Dragong4 (talk · contribs). All that being said....Deckiller has put forth a prompt for discussion over "colourful adjectives" which I feel should be followed up on...under a new talk section header seperating it from this one which I feel was not initiated in good faith. Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 16:35, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, he/she does have a bit of a point - I was a little concerned that it would get blasted with POV comments going into FAC because of all the colorful adjectives and whatnot, and I even tried to cut some of them. I was surprised nobody had an issue during FAC. An audit might actually be necessary to weed out adjectives. — Deckill e r 12:59, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure there exists an over-use of flowery or colorful adjectives in the article - when I hear objections based on NPOV I immediately presume the complaint stems from an observation that there is a preponderance of positive spins over negative spins, which might actually be the case here. He steered us in the direction of the mini-bios as evidence for this objection - and while there are a few choice phrases which establish the existence of criticism in that section, the bulk of the text is laudatory. Am I correct in this observation, and that this is to blame for the NPOV tag?Wisdom89 17:43, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps "colorful descriptions" or "unsourced complements" are better terms in this case — terms such as:

"...the band has become known for their instrumental virtuosity, complex compositions and erudite lyrics."
"Apart from prolific writing, musical influence, and instrumental prowess, Geddy Lee's high-register vocal style has always been a main signature of the band..."

To counter this concern, we might have to do some trimming and/or some sort of balancing act to neutralize criticism and praise. Perhaps cut the excess praise that we can't really source - that might be all we actually have to do. — Deckill e r 18:36, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Can we just wait till he replies? geeze... getting ahead of ourselves. His reply might be as speculated above, or it might jsut be 'say "geddy lee's a loser" '. Let's wait and see. ThuranX 19:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Lead

I know we already have a few ongoing discussions regarding possible content revisions, but this is something that I've wanted to bring up for a while now. Does anyone else feel that the lead should be rewritten to more closely conform to a summary style? Currently, much of it simply lists award highlights (albeit factually correct and sourced) about the band members. Honestly, who cares if all three members are Officers of the Order of Canada? Not necessary for the lead in my opinion. It should discuss, albeit succinctly, lyrics, themes and musical styles across the band's 30 year history. Does anybody object to this? Wisdom89 06:16, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I went ahead and made some changes to the lead. Comments and suggestions are welcome. Wisdom89 02:47, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Jim Ainsburg

The last part of the opener reads "Jim Ainsburg is their biggest fan." Im just wondering what this is about and if its vandalism, because there are no sources if its true :P Bliks 00:47, 22 December 2006 (UTC)