Talk:Rush (band)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Featured article star Rush (band) is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do.
Main Page trophy

This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on September 19, 2006.


Contents

[edit] 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.


[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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

Archive – By email – More featured articles...

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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)

[edit] They're Canadian

I note that one particular user insists on reverting to Rush being a "North American" band instead of a Canadian one. Please, we have few enough decent prog rock bands here in the Great White North - can we agree that they should be referred to as Canadian? Risker 05:36, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

  • It's just a persistent anon vandal who has been blocked three times for this already. He refuses to discuss the issue and instead just vandalizes the article as soon as his bans expire. Danny Lilithborne 05:38, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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. — Deckiller 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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. — Deckiller 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. — Deckiller 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Shouldn't Rush's Politics and Philosophy be a part of this article, since it is so integral to their lyrics?

They have evolved, from the anti-socialist Ayn Randian to the Jungian philosophies, to a more libertarian/anti-establishment group.

The evolution from Closer to the Heart, to Freewill, to New World Man, and beyond all are all indicated by Peart's studies of various works.

Unless this article is merely fluff and advertising such things are more than idle chatter.

They are relevant. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.201.66.133 (talk) 23:47, 12 January 2007 (UTC).

If any of that was supported by citation, and not unfounded speculation, then yes, it would be worth it. But the interviews I've seen often show Neil and the guys dissembling and dodging on their politics. ThuranX 23:58, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
It's OR. Wikipedia has way too much of that already. No need to add it to a featured article. Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 00:22, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Logo in Infobox

Does anyone else agree that the Rush logo in the infobox looks really really bad? Just wondering. Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 23:11, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and it's particularly dated. Wisdom89 23:19, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Band logos, in my opinion, plummet music articles from "encylopedia" to "Hit Parader Magazine" pretty quick. But that one in particular looks foolish. Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 23:30, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Done well, I could see cosidering it. However, given Rush's amazing graphic design, and willingness to stay fresh, picking any one album's typeface and calling it their 'logo' seems esp. foolish. This would be FINE on the AC/DC, Metallica, KISS, or Rolling Stones pages, but on Rush's page, which font do we show? We've got three no votes, so I'm going to revert it out.ThuranX 02:12, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lead - Rand

The length of the lead is of adequate length so there really isn't any need to add additional details. Furthermore, Ayn Rand is already mentioned in the body of the article. Wisdom89 15:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Heavy Metal

The current article lists Rush as "Heavy metal" in addition to "Hard rock" and "Progressive rock". IMO that could definitely be debated. They definitely had an influence on several notable metal bands but I don't think of them as metal themselves, Lifeson's guitar style is different, it's usually a lot more rock and roll-oriented (especially in the early stuff). On occasion they strayed into the realm of metal, but if that was enough to call them a metal band, then we could also list them as New Wave which wouldn't make any sense at all. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.238.170.154 (talk) 22:33, 26 January 2007 (UTC).

The book "Visions-The Official Biography of RUSH" By Bill Banasiewicz published in 1988 has this written on its back cover "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. And, by Wiki-policies WP:CITE and WP:V...the genre becomes referenced and verifiable content. Whether it disagrees with any editors personal opinion doesn't matter. The only way it would be disputed text is if the band releases a new revised Biography that says "Hi we're Rush and we've never, ever, never, ever, never, ever, never, ever been a Heavy metal band". Then there'd be a valid reference against it....maybe :) Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 22:41, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Rush in Pop culture

PhilWelch, the admin who turned Rush in popular culture into a redirect, and handed out blocks for reverting it, has surrendered his Admin-ship. Should we now reconsider restoring that page to a real page, and including a 'main article tag under reputation as there once was? I'd certainly like to do this.ThuranX 17:16, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes it should be restored. Previous concensus on the article was that it should stay. Phil Welch's actions...including his blocks...were an afront to the Wikipedia community and what it is built on. Despite clear concensus the former admin acted purely on his own POV...which was clearly wrong. The article was interesting...referenced...and an excellent companion to the main article. I vote yes. 156.34.216.103 17:27, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Bring it back. The former admin's actions were a clear abuse of power in the face of previous concensus. Restore the article. 216.21.150.44 17:30, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
(fixed yer spacing uop there...) I fixed it already. Also, I don't need to hear about Mr. Welch any moer. I got the block for defending the article, I'm well aware of his behaviors. ThuranX 17:31, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Even though I fought vehemently for the popular culture article to remain active and not relegated to a single cited sentence, I think I'd rather see it re-worked into the main article in a non-list format citing only the most relevant examples. Wisdom89 19:06, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
I will leavethat to you. For now, the information is again accessible, which is better than before. ThuranX 20:13, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Leaving PhilWelch's questionable handling of the incident aside, I believe the information has a place on Wikipedia: as a ref/external link to its sole source. Wikipedia has been migrating away from the laundry list of trivia and "in pop culture" sections, and the cite that Rush has been extremely noted in popular culture (which is the power windows site) is more than adequete. If any info is merged, it needs to be the small handful of most notable instances, and within prose format. Otherwise, it seems the only way to solve this matter is to nominate the article for deletion and see what the rest of the project feels. — Deckiller 07:09, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Consensus is to keep the article as is....at least until Wisdom89 can migrate some of the content back into the main article. Then it can be turfed through proper procedure(with no more Admin tool abuse) 156.34.238.136 10:41, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Dude, you can't create a bunch of anonymous sockpuppets and pretend that's "consensus". Anyway, let's centralize this discussion on Talk:Rush in popular culture. Philwelch 20:32, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

They are NOT my Sockpuppets. I have taken your baseless accusations to your ongoing RfA. ThuranX 21:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

It done been AFD'd. Philwelch 19:55, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

This is precicely the reason why we felt the need to get a consensus from the community as a whole. Those kinds of "in popular culture" pages are shunned now on Wikipedia, and since editors close to the topic feel attached, they may not realize this. — Deckiller 04:39, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Recent edits

I am uncomfortable with the recent edits made by user Snakesnarrows - There just seems to be an overabundance of personal interpretation and original research. For now I have reverted and removed the edits and brought the topic to the talk page for resolution. I'd like to get some more eyes on this and the opinion of several of the other main editors. Wisdom89 23:00, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Just as an addendum - I've noticed some of the edits in question were made by other registered and anonymous users as well - just so there is no confusion or misunderstandings. Wisdom89 23:04, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sounds

Does anyone think any of these sound clips is Featured SOund worthy? Personallt, I'd like a clip of YYZ. The Placebo Effect 13:52, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why I Undid revision 114092176 by 74.104.10.216

74.104.10.216: You are correct that Rush used to use "Taurus" pedals, but they only did so until the early-mid 1980s. At that time, MIDI took precedence, so the foot-pedal controllers are now indeed more generic. Rush no longer uses the "Taurus" brand of pedals (in fact I think they've been out of production for some time). See the source article I referenced to for the details on the foot-pedal controllers that they currently use. (Particularly, Geddy uses a Korg and a Roland PK-5, and Alex uses the same model of Korg.) Feel free to ask me if you have any questions. Cheers. -- ManfrenjenStJohn 18:01, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fish Islands

In a discussion group I used to be part of called something like 'Midnight Star', a member raised an interesting question which I don't think was ever adequately answered. In a song by this band called Rush, "Limelight", they mention a place where they used to live, maybe in Canada, though I have never been able to find out for sure. I know there is a "Lakeside Park", but when the band speaks of "Living in the Fish Islands..." I wonder where these Fish Islands are -are they near Lakeside Park? More importantly, how good is the fishing there? Teetotaler

I think Geddy has a summer cottage there. He was turned on to it by Chris Squire from YES. They double bass jammed on Schindleria Praematurus....--66.73.52.194 14:31, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Wow. that's one for the Misheard Lyrics books... No, Geddy sings 'Living in a fisheye lens', referring to the scrutiny of the media and public, using an allegory to a specific type of camera lens for wide-angle shots. ThuranX 21:16, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "For other uses, see Rush."

Hi all. I'm new to this article, so sorry if this has been discussed before. Should the 'other use redirect' link exist at the top of the article? The way I see it is this: a user will never land on Rush (band) with the intention of viewing info about Rush. It will only ever happen the other way round. It's not possible to 'accidentally' wikilink to this article, and the link itself gives away the subject matter. Plus, Rush doesn't have info related to Rush (band). It seems to be a redundant link in a very prominent place. To me, the redirect is almost like placing a link to Queen at the top of Queen (band), and to a lesser extent, like putting a link to Beetle on The Beatles.

Anyways. I thought I'd just ask this here first, as I don't like altering featured articles without discussing the change first. Thanks! -GilbertoSilvaFan 14:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this up. If I read you right, I can allay part of your concerns: The link to Rush (band) is the first link under the "Music" section at the disambiguation page for Rush. As for the "other uses redirect" template... My personal opinion is, You're Right... but who knows? I think you were smart to bring this up on the talk page instead of just changing it. I agree with you that it may be unlikely that people will accidentally land on the page. But then, I think, "Who knows how people get to this page?" So... I think it can go, but others might disagree. Hope I've helped at least a little. : ) -- ManfrenjenStJohn 22:35, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey thanks for your reply. To be honest, I don't really mind if the link stays there. I just thought it would be an interesting point to raise, since this happens on a few other articles. Let me sum up my point again, since the first half of your paragraph suggested you miss part of what I was getting at. Here's my point: when someone is looking at Rush (band), they won't want to view the information on Rush (which has links to such topics as "a semiaquatic grass-like plant", "room deodorizer" and "sorority slang"). True, Rush has information about the band, but so does Rush (band) - the page they're already on :-)

I don't think people will want to view information on sorority slang, semiaquatic grass-like plants or any other uses of the term Rush if they end up at Rush (band). I know people can end up at any Wikipedia page looking for any number of things, but if there's a link to Rush, then why not a link to Tambourines, Kangaroo or Yeovil? They're all equally as related to the band Rush as Rush is. Plus, I really don't think that people looking for sorority slang will end up on the rush band page, since... well... they just won't. I can't explain why they won't, so maybe that's a flaw in my argument, but if you really think about it, they just won't. Hmm. Anyway. The reason I bother discussing this at all, is because the redirect link is riiiight at the top, and looks a bit silly. I dunno. Discuss. If you want. Oh, and thanks again for the reply. Take care. -GilbertoSilvaFan 23:00, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Heh. Well it sounded like you weren't clear that the main disambig. page for the word Rush had adequate links to Our Boys. I guess I like it because Our Fellas come first, and the disambig. between Rush (band) and Rush (album) has its uses, but the difference between the 2 is certainly clear within "our" article. So... As for removing the template from "our" page, I support you if you want to, primarily because space is at a premium in our wonderfully developed "featured" article. (The amount of vandalism it's attracted lately is probably testament enough to our Quality Work. :) I can't speak for anyone who hasn't spoken, but I'm in support of cutting said fat from our Featured Article. Cut to the Chase, right? :) -- ManfrenjenStJohn 03:19, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Cool, I was clearer that time. Good job removing the redirect, I think it's better that way. Though I'm sure that if someone disagrees, they'll be posting here shortly. Anyways. I have to admit I'm not really a huge Rush fan, but I love Spirit of the Radio (who doesn't?). One thing, the MP3 link on your user page isn't working... I'm itching to know what the file was of. -GilbertoSilvaFan 12:28, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

No problem, thanks for the encouragement. This is how consensus is built and articles are improved. It really is a quintessential WikiP article, and that includes a constant strive for improvement. I think even more could be streamlined to make it more "encyclopedic". About the MP3 link -- Yes, I deliberately put it there even though it's now (very) dead. When Rush revamped their website on the day they released "Far Cry", there was a security gaffe on the site that allowed you to deep-link to the MP3 of the song and download it directly. They've since fixed the hole -- The song is intended to be stream-on-demand only, which is how it is now. (I put the link up after they fixed the hole.) Personally, I can't wait to buy Snakes & Arrows. Don't steal from the artists! -- ManfrenjenStJohn 20:39, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/u/s/Talk%7ERush_%28band%29_5d47.html"