Talk:The White Stripes

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Good article The White Stripes has been listed as a good article under the good-article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a review.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Portal:Biography
 Biography Portal
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ]
(If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed biographical guide to musicians and musical groups on Wikipedia.
Kim Gordon and Thurston Moore of Sonic Youth
Portal:Alternative music
 Alternative music Portal
This article is part of the Alternative music WikiProject, a group of Wikipedians interested in improving the encyclopaedic coverage of articles relating to Alternative rock. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project's talk page.
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the Project's quality scale.
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the Project's importance scale.

Contents

[edit] Sub Pop?

The White Stripes are listed as being one of the many bands Sub Pop records signed or released material of, Does anyone know of or own this material? should it be listed on the article?

Yes, in 2000 Sub Pop released a 7" by the White Stripes containing three Captain Beefheart covers.

[edit] Most popular riff for youngsters

I've removed this:

The main riff of the song Seven nations army which features on the Elephant album has become the most popular riff for youngsters trying out their first guitar in guitar shops, thereby dethroning Smoke on the water by Deep Purple.

It might be true (wouldn't surprise me), but it sounds rather speculative - if there's a news story or something that we can quote as claiming this, then lets do that, but if it's just a guess or based on personal experience or something, I don't think it should be in the article (oh, and it's "nation" not "nations", btw). --Camembert

Fair enough. This was my first contribution here. If I had taken the trouble to see that Talk pages exist, I'd probably have posted it here. My source is www.guitarnoise.com which is a respectable music website, but then again the source wasn't firm enough to remove all speculation.

Anyway, I think some statement of this kind may be relevant - when doublechecked in the near future. No one knows how the popularity of the White Stripes will evolve, but "Smoke on the water" has been every teenager's first riff and it is changing. I think White Stripes are writing history and I wanted to give account of it by posting the anecdote. Cheers, JVDP.

You're both wrong, everyone knows it's the intro to Stairway to Heaven!  :P Tmorrisey 04:47, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Debut year

The text says: their self-titled debut album in 1997, however, the discography sections outlines: The White Stripes (1999, Sympathy for the Record Industry). Two different dates, I'm not sure which is correct (or if either one is correct), but I am just pointing this inconsistancy out. Aggelophoros 05:24, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The White Stripes was released in 1999. Fixed. --BloodyLoony 23:04, Feb 9, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Marriage

Concerning the relations between the two, has it been confirmed that Mag is actually his ex-wife? Because the latest news I hear is that they are in fact brother and sister! --BloodyLoony 23:04, Feb 9, 2004 (UTC)

Yes, they are a divorced couple. -- unsigned
hello, last I checked (according to the Unofficial FAQ, which I must link up sometime), their status is deliberately ambiguous, because, in Jack's opinion, it isn't relevant to the music -- I'll check sources and revise -- kwill 11:35, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)
There's absolutely no doubt they were married. Entertainment Weekly printed their divorce papers. Gamaliel 17:50, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Arg... The White Stripes website says that Jack White has just married Karen Elson. Moreover, it says that's the first marriage for both of them. So the marriage explanation may be false, too.
I think the mere fact that we are discussing this should be acknowledged in the article. Something along the lines of "it is widely believed that they were married, but this has been disputed by some"
There should at least be consistency in the article. In the beginning, it says that they were married, in the end it says there were rumours of them being married. I agree that Jack and Meg were married in the 90s, it's commonly known. Jack (John Gillis) even took Meg White's last name. --Unclevortex 13:44, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I've located and linked the divorce papers. --Dhartung | Talk 19:08, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Many media references seem to perpetuate the question; so I think that saying "in fact" is a little strong. So we have a page containing what looks like divorce papers: what evidence is presented that this John Anthony White is the same Jack White III mentioned on album sleeves, for instance? Maybe the original newspaper article is more convincing. Anyway, I propose rewriting it from "In reality, they are ex-husband-and-wife and Meg is seven months older than Jack; their divorce papers were revealed online " as: "It is now widely believed that they are ex-husband-and-wife and Meg is seven months older than Jack; purported divorce papers were revealed online [link]" Notinasnaid 15:04, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
Oh, come on, this is silly. We're treating the divorce papers as POV? That's almost as silly as the editorial voice of Wikipedia pretending we don't know who Jandek is. You know, it's a publicity stunt, it works for them, great, but we're an encyclopedia -- we don't have to perpetuate it. If they can't propel themselves on just the music by now ...
Anyway, here's the Detroit Free Press:
Jack had also become close friends with Megan White, a Grosse Pointe native still living on the east side. They would marry in 1996 in South Lyon, and Jack would take his wife's surname. [1]
Is a professional newspaper enough for you? --Dhartung | Talk 17:01, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
Much better source than a certificate which doesn't even have the expected name (surely lots of J Whites in Detroit); on a music site (I don't remember the music press as being paragons of accuracy). The article should probably cite the newspaper article. Notinasnaid 20:22, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
We don't need a "source" for a widely known fact, and the Glorious Noise website helpfully links to a 2001 Freep article [2] that shows that. The link is there so that someone who's interested can go look at them, not as proof. If it will raise your comfort level, I can add in a reference. --Dhartung | Talk 21:00, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

i went to a WS concert in buenos aires, argentina in JUNE 2005, and at the beggining, Jack introduces themselves as: "I'm Jack White and this is my sister Meg". I know this is not true, since i read a biograbhy on the WS, saying that they met, they got married, formed the band and then divorced. regards, chinohudson.

That's fascinating, if they're still pushing that schtick. ;-) I suppose we can add something about that to the article.
 --Dhartung | Talk 21:12, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, concerning the main entry, it should be stressed right on top that there is this ambiguity surrounding the duo. It's a major part of the band's "mythology", so it's pretty important as a fact on them - despite of what Jack White says ("important thing is the music") JUST to reinforce the importance of this mysterious relationship. Definitive proof: "It's True That We Love One Another", included in the album Elephant. (anonymous reader)

How is that song definitive proof? --S-man

the bro and sis thing is of course fake - but they said they were 2 out of 10 children, i think. --S-man 03:23, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree that something should be added about this issue. I will attempt a couple sentances in the bio section talking about what's up. 07:40, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Huh? As far as I knew they were brother and sister though I may have been wrong, and I can't remember where I got that from. As for the song "It's True That We Love One Another", that doesn't really prove anything EITHER way, as the main female vocals aren't sung by Meg - Demonic Duck 19:50, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "blunk"

I don't know what "media" coined or used this silly term, but that doesn't mean we have to pick it up. If you can cite this term coming into use in more than one place, or in more than an edge context, go ahead and mention that the term has been used to describe their music, and by whom, but perferably not in the lead paragraph and preferably not in such a way as to legitimized the word. Jgm 21:49, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

All of the major papers used the term when they first became known and were hailed as the saviours of rock. Rock is a very broad category of msuic so it needs narrowing down. They certainly do not fit into rock & roll and they are a mixture of punk and blues. IIRC the band themselves have even endorsed the word in a interview with NME. --Josquius 16:10, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Hi, sorry, I'm not quite buying it. A google search yields a few instances of the term used in conjunction with the band, but nearly every one claims that it is "so called blunk" or that "(someone else) clumsily dubbed it blunk". Neither Rolling Stone nor Spin, the prominent US music magazines, which have each done many reviews and several feature articles on the band, have ever used the term. Again, I don't mind if the term is mentioned in the article, but the term does not have enough common usage or acceptance to go in the lead as the primary description of the band's music. Jgm 19:40, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV

Is it just me, or is this article extremely lacking on the NPOV front? "incredibly bad" is everywhere in this article! Am I missing something here? If not, I'll give NPOVing it a go. -- Brother Dysk 15:30, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

Right, vandalism, hadn't spotted that happening. -- Brother Dysk 02:51, May 6, 2005 (UTC)

I've protected the page due to our persistent daily vandal. Soon he'll find something else to play with and I'll unprotect it. Gamaliel 16:51, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

I've unprotected the page. Gamaliel 17:04, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Seems to me that the current non-vandalized page is actually POV in the opposite direction---it reads like a press release for the band, about how awesome they are. It presents things as important facts that are in fact part of the band's self-serving mythology. For instance the sentence "The number three also has a significance for this band" and following paragraph, which I'm tempted to delete, but won't. Maybe for a band with such a developed constructed mythology, there needs to be a seperate section on 'mythology' or whatever, that's about the symbols they like to use to develop a mystery about themselves or whatever. I don't know if that's a solution to the fawning POV stuff or not. JonathanNil 18:33, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Just pointing out

The White Stripes are a minimalist, not very good, rock and roll duo from Detroit. Might want to take "not very good out" if we're being impartial here.

You must be looking at an old version. That phrase has already been removed. Gamaliel 20:51, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestions

Two great links that ought to be in this article:

The Unofficial FAQ: http://www.whitestripes.net/faq.php Lyrics and setlists of almost every show: http://all.at/expecting

I took the liberty to add them --Unclevortex 14:49, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Unofficial bass-added tracks

Does anyone have any info as to who these "several musicians" who "have produced unofficial bass-added tracks" might be? Specifically, is anyone suggesting that one of these might have been Kyle Gass, whose band Tenacious D briefly combined with White Stripes in 2002? TOttenville 8 13:18, 23 June 2005 (UTC)

I've sourced the bass tracks, or at least the best-known ones, to Steve McDonald of the regional/celeb band Redd Kross. It was written up in Blender.--Dhartung | Talk 18:51, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Actually, it's only MHO that the "Redd Blood Cells" project should get a good mention on the main entry. It was a very popular thing back then, Steve McDonald gained some view with that and the project was (allegedly) approved by Jack White himself. And the tracks are actually pretty good with the added basslines. It's something worth mentioning as part of the history of the band and a major sign of their increasing popularity when "White Blood Cells" was released. (anonymous reader)

[edit] Discography cleanup

The discography needs to be standardized. A text-only table is acceptable; how it is now is not. --FuriousFreddy 03:38, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Yes, let us please use a simple list. This style of list is not a good idea: it slows loading and encourages use of copyrighted images. Jkelly 03:10, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

I'd disagree, since there are unlikely to be pages about the separate albums, including the album covers on this page in the album list makes sense

  • acceptability: personally, I think it looks great
  • slowness: readers can switch off images if they wish
  • copyright: including them falls under Fair Use
  • standardization: is there a discography project? if so then I'd agree that the list should conform to the standard (although I don't see why the standard couldn't allow for album cover images)

--Kwill 11:25, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

  1. Album pages unlikely: Please see WP:ALBUM. If this table exists because you don't think that the albums get articles, there is some confusion that needs clearing up.
  2. Slowness: Wikipedia isn't exclusively for the use of people browsing on their personal computers.
  3. Copyright: I'm not arguing that this particular instance infringes copyright. I'm concerned that WP as a whole is trying to reduce the number of fair-use images, and putting album covers in artist pages encourages people to stretch fair-use rationales further and further.
  4. Standardization: Please see Wikipedia:Guide_to_layout#Standardized_appendices. It doesn't mention "Discography" specifically, but you will note that we do not insert book cover images for a bibliography. There has been some conversation about laying out guidelines for musical ensembles, but they won't diverge from the Manual of Style.

I hope that my expanded response is clearer than the brief response above. Jkelly 17:32, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

looking over some big-name discographies, I see your point - pictures on a separate album page, and if there isn't currently enough info to justify a separate album page, the pictures are superfluous

is a table or bullet list preferred? already answered, doh! - --Kwill 08:02, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Alright, so is there any reason not to edit the discography into a standard format now? Jkelly 01:49, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

nope - anything I do will only be when I find time, though --Kwill 11:04, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Since the agreed-upon changes have been made, I've taken the liberty of removing the ugly ol' cleanup template. Prizm 20:59, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The White Stripes and The Daily Show

  • I'm wondering if the December 1 appearance of the White Stripes is a culturally significant enough event to include in the entry. Considering they are the first band to appear (and perform two songs, The Denial Twist and My Doorbell), it seems like an important cultural moment, but I thought I would see what others think. Jlove1982 04:31, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
What is the Daily Show and why is it culturally significant? Notinasnaid 08:38, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
The Daily Show is a satirical news show that airs Monday-Thursday at 11 PM on Comedy Central. It's the network's flagship show, and in some cases is considered more informative than regular news[3] I'd go into it more, but I don't have time at the moment. However, up until yesterday, there had never been a musical guest on the show.
I think it's significant enough for a sentence, which I see has already been added.--

Esprit15d 18:14, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I know its already been added, but how can you not add it? I heard about weeks before it happened and I think, considering its the first ever performance on the show it is indeed notable. Iamdracula 08:17, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

"The White Stripes were the first musical act to only appear for a performance on the show (on an earlier show, the group Tenacious D had performed a song after their interview)." The White Stripes also gave an interview. --Phoenix Hacker 05:12, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Calling all White Stripes experts

(self appointed or not)

(1) The White Stripes were formed on July 14th 1997 in Detroit, Michigan in the USA. Is it relevant that this happens to be Bastille Day in France? If not should we just change it to 14th July? Perhaps it's Wikipedia policy to identify any event as occurring "on Bastille Day" if the date is 14th July?


(2) I just cleaned up a sentence describing a formula for White Stripes albums at the end of 'Rising Popularity'. Personally I'd delete it altogether but as I only know Elephant I don't want to tread on anyone's toes. Stroika 22:06, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

1) Unless one of them mentioned that in an interview, I think it's an irrelevant aside. 2) That sentence can be cut as original research unless this "formula" has been commented upon by reviewers. Gamaliel 22:21, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Stroika, and I think this, along with your next points too, is related to my observation above about how too much promotional 'mythology' is included in the article as important fact, which is a POV problem, really--even if (or especially if) it's been mentioned in an interview or whatever. Delete the Bastille Day reference? Move it to a 'mythology' section?JonathanNil 18:37, 20 March 2006 (UTC)


i have no specific source or link but i am a huge stripes fan and jack has said a few times and made a point of making everyone know they were formed on bastille day, this however has been proved false as bastille day 1997 was a wednesday or something and they played their first show, the one jack has said was on bastille day, at a venue (gold dollar i think) which only had bands one day of the week, which didnt coincide with bastille day. - LRsFarquad92

[edit] Meg

No mention of Meg's incredible percussion training and her prowess behind the drum kit? 66.109.99.18 19:23, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Be nice :) --Esprit15d 02:43, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] It has been suggested that Little Room be merged into this article or section.

Little Room is not noteworthy on its own. Jim62sch 16:19, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I vote Merge. Little Room is certainly not notable enough to have it's own page. Every bandsite's forum page cannot have it's own article. I don't even know if it should have a mention in the WS article, except for the fact that Jack White has taken interest in it. I would delete the main article and merge the following into the main article:

The Little Room is a web forum for fans of The White Stripes, named for their song on their third album, White Blood Cells. The Little Room has a large community with over twenty thousand members. Both Meg and Jack are both members of the board, although they do not regularly post, On July 4, 2004, Jack White agreed to directly answer twenty questions posed by Little Room members.

I took out the cryptic message part because if Jack agreed to answer questions from the boards, there's no doubt that he reads it.--Esprit15d 13:54, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
The above looks good to me. Jkelly 17:47, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Keep The Little Room. Bannus 01:35, 28 January 2006 (UTC)


what was the original article like? should have been kept

^ I agree with the above comment, the article should have been kept. Who the hell is responsible for this crap? --S-man 07:28, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Needs cleanup" vs "good article"

This seems a bit odd. The article itself has a "needs cleanup" tag and the talk page has a "nominated as good article" tag. I'd say that neither is entirely justified. --Lee Hunter 12:44, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I removed the cleanup tag - it was added by a bot.--Esprit15d 13:35, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


what was the original little room article? i think it should have stayed - littleroomer

[edit] "We're Going To Be Friends"

I think the single "We're Going To Be Friends" does not exist, am I wrong? Frédérick Lacasse 03:03, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Information on the internet is patchy (even the otherwise Excellent http://www.whitestripes.net/faq.php#wgtbfpromo seems to give an incorrect

product number). But it seems likely that it was released as a radio promo in the US. Probably of only a single track. One was sold recently on EBay. It is known that a video was made, because you can see it on the White Stripes own site. Notinasnaid 16:37, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

"We're going to be friends" is the 9th track on the White Blood Cells album. Dposse 01:05, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Walking with a ghost"

??? The article says the song has been released November 14th 2005 on iTunes, but the albums section says it is in 2006. Who is right? Frédérick Lacasse 04:05, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

It was most certainly released November 2005. Zonmatron 19:55, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Minimalistic/lo-fi

"The White Stripes are a minimalist rock/blues duo " When "minimalist" is clicked, it takes you to the "Lo-Fi" article. Lo-fi and minimalist aren't the same, or am i mistaken? MwM 19:23, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

They are really not the same. According to me, the word minimalist should link to minimalist music (even if this term especially refers to classical music, there is a section in the article about rock inspiration). We should talk about the Lo-fi sound in another place in the article (maybe a section about music?)Frédérick Lacasse 21:27, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

or maybe we should write an article about minimalist rock Frédérick Lacasse 21:31, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Featured Music Project evaluation

The White Stripes 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: Lead - Comprehensiveness - Pictures - References - Format/Style
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.
  • Lead: Summary of the whole article
  • Comprehensiveness: More on music style, influences and legacy
  • Pictures: Needs fair use rationales
  • References: More inline citations, needs scholarly print sources
  • Format/Style: Remove "Trivia", short paragraphs, trim external links

[edit] Delisted from GA

I have delisted from GA because of ongoing NPOV issues that do not seem to have been resolved and because of sections that are considered stubs. I encourage anyone to re-apply when you feel you are ready. I am also curious about the status of the references section, it seems people have suggested inclusions above. Good work so far though! Flying Canuck 01:13, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

This article is in the home stretch of being a good article. Can anyone russle up some references for all his equipment info? That would be a huge improvement.--Esprit15d 15:44, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Done the ones I can find. Notinasnaid 16:11, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wasn't jack parodied?

Or spoofed whatever.. At an awards ceremony? Someone was singing fell in love with a girl only with different words.. I couldnt find this in the srticle..

Yes that was host Jimmy Fallon at MTV's VMA 2002. But not really that noteworthy in my opinion --Befuddled Steve 12:51, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
nevermind, jack's getting bald that's freaking me out.

[edit] Party of Special Things to Do

a single or a EP? see discography and definitions in wikipedia Frédérick Lacasse 22:12, 8 April 2006 (UTC)


it is clased by the band and fans as a single

[edit] References or notes

I added some <ref> tags and <references/>. It seemed from other articles that <references/> belonged in References' rather than Notes, but it has been changed back. After all, all of the notes are references. Which is right? If Notes is indeed correct, what of References: it gives these two orphaned item a rather different status. Notinasnaid 19:35, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

"References" that have the <ref> tags belong under notes. What goes under "References" are just are a list of things that were casually consulted during the writing of the article, but have not been directly connected with facts in the article, like the footnotes have been. References shouldn't be removed because the sources deserve credit. External links are just sites about the topic and can be removed and added to at will. The rationale behind this can be found here.--Esprit15d 17:25, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GA Promotion

I have recently reviewed this article & found that it meets the criterion for being a good article & has improved much since its last nomination. So I have promoted it to GA status. My congratulations to all the contributors for doing a fine job.

Cheers

Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 16:42, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

YAY!--Esprit15d 17:53, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Recording session

This section has to be exanded. One sentence sections are a no-no for good articles. This is going to require cooperation from the editors who regularly work on this article.--Esprit15d 13:01, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

Go to blue orchid (song by meg white) the album pic is wrong its not the real whites meg is black in that pic. Meg is actually white. Check it out and fix it. Thanks. Tado 00:01, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the report, but this is the real cover of the single. See http://www.whitestripes.com/lo-fi/discs.html?type=singles&release=3 and compare with the cover for the album Get Behind Me Satan (http://www.whitestripes.com/lo-fi/discs.html?type=albums&release=1). Notinasnaid 07:35, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Also, the article Blue Orchid does explain this...! Notinasnaid 07:51, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New album?

The source referred to for the statement about working on a new album - isn't that old? I thought that section of the FAQ was referring to Get Behind Me Satan.

Quite possibly. Someone added In a recent interview at www.whitestripes.net, Jack White reveals he has been writing several songs for a new White Stripes album, one of which titled "Playing the Victim". and I went looking for the source in order to either add a source or delete. If I misinterpreted this, then it's likely that the original editor did too, and the whole section should come out. I'll remove it. Notinasnaid 06:44, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


i dont know about "playing the victim2 but jack told nme.com that he had songs wrote and would record them when he had "two minutes" - LRsFarquad92

Theyve also signed a new record deal for one album with Warner Brothers (As reported by www.whitestripes.net after V2 dropped them. Zonmatron 20:01, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Go to my page

Go to User:S-man/WhiteStripesReviews. It's my awesome subpage. - S-MAN!

[edit] Candy Cane Children

this is a poor forum, the mods are ridiculously strict and if you arent one of the "in" crowd expect to have comments made on you within a few weeks of joining. the litle rom is a hell of a lot better, there you can actually comment freely. so i advice anyone looking for a white stripes forum to stay away from CCC

[edit] External link to Little Room

The article contained, under external links, "The Little Room, a web forum for fans of The White Stripes, named after the song of the same name from their third album, White Blood Cells. The Little Room is a large community of over twenty thousand members. Both Meg and Jack are members of the board, although they do not regularly post. On July 4, 2004, Jack White agreed to directly answer twenty questions posed by Little Room members". This was pruned to only "The Little Room, a web forum for fans". Now, I do agree that this is much more the Wikipedia style, but I had a specific reason for putting it back. See above; this entry was the result of a merge from a self-contained article "Little Room". I agree, the full text probably doesn't belong in external links, but I think the people who agreed with a merge probably weren't thinking of its being reduced so much. Comments? Notinasnaid 07:44, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure I see the problem. "A web forum for fans" is in-style, as you say, and apparently the consensus was that Little Room didn't merit an article on its own. So brief it should be. The alternative would be to write a section here about The White Stripes' fan community and mention Little Room there. -- JHunterJ 10:49, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I think that when discussing a "merge proposal" the expectation is that the contents would be merge, largely intact, with only elimination of duplication; not that the article would be merged into a link and lose all of its content. I have no view on whether this is a good site, but there is a principle here, I think. Notinasnaid 11:04, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't know the merge principles at stake, but I'd put the wikistyle principles ahead of them. -- JHunterJ 12:31, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Concern about image licenses

There are two magazine covers in this article, one of Rolling Stone and a new one of NME. Both claim fair use and use the {{Magazinecover}} license claim. But that claim of fair use is very specific, and the claim is wrong. Rather than just delete the images, I'd much rather someone was able to make the claims correct, as they are nice pictures. This may be possible for the Rolling Stone; not clear whether the NME issue can be rescued.

For those unfamiliar with the license claim, it only covers "the use of low-resolution images of magazine covers to illustrate the publication of the issue of the magazine in question". If there were any doubt it adds "Note: It is not acceptable to use images with this tag in the article of the person or persons depicted on the cover, unless used directly in connection with the publication of this image."

In other words, you cannot just upload a magazine cover with the White Stripes on it to use in a White Stripes article. The reason it may be possible to rescue the Rolling Stone cover is that (perhaps) this is a major event in the White Stripes history (cover of Rolling Stone). The article mentions another issue, but not this one. Cover of NME is perhaps not the industry milestone it once was.

Anyway, let's give it a few days before tagging the images for deletion. Notinasnaid 20:41, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Footnote: the NME image was already removed by an editor, after I wrote this and before I posted it. The Rolling Stone cover remains. Notinasnaid 07:59, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suzy Lee

Does anyone know who she is? The White Stripes wrote a song called Suzy Lee, she's also mentioned in We're Going To Be Friends (and some other songs, I think) and Get Behind Me Satan is dedicated to "Suzy Lee, wherever she may be" or something like that! Some further information on her might be interesting--81.159.132.253 13:50, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think anyone knows, but I have a feeling it was Jack's first love or something. Then again, it might be another fabricated thing about the band's history (e.g. Jack and Meg being siblings.)24.159.205.132 04:03, 16 September 2006 (UTC) Nick

[edit] GA Re-Review and In-line citations

Note: This article has a small number of in-line citations for an article of its size and subject content. Currently it would not pass criteria 2b.
Members of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles are in the process of doing a re-review of current Good Article listings to ensure compliance with the standards of the Good Article Criteria. (Discussion of the changes and re-review can be found here). A significant change to the GA criteria is the mandatory use of some sort of in-line citation (In accordance to WP:CITE) to be used in order for an article to pass the verification and reference criteria. It is recommended that the article's editors take a look at the inclusion of in-line citations as well as how the article stacks up against the rest of the Good Article criteria. GA reviewers will give you at least a week's time from the date of this notice to work on the in-line citations before doing a full re-review and deciding if the article still merits being considered a Good Article or would need to be de-listed. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact us on the Good Article project talk page or you may contact me personally. On behalf of the Good Articles Project, I want to thank you for all the time and effort that you have put into working on this article and improving the overall quality of the Wikipedia project. Agne 02:15, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

On it!--Esprit15d 12:34, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rhinoceros

Recently, an user added Rhinoceros in the DVDs section, later erased (as vandalism). However, it looks like the DVD is real and aviable to buy on internet. What's that??? It looks like a documentary see [4] Frédérick Lacasse 21:30, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

One user review on Amazon stated it is Candy Coloured Blues, retitled. I am looking for a more reliable source. Notinasnaid 11:54, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
I removed it as vandalism because it linked to the article on the animal of the same name. If there is truly a DVD titled that, then please provide a source and add it back in. dposse 15:28, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

rhinoceros is a real dvd available to buy, granted its unofficial but it does exist so im putting it back in. alsoputting in nobody knows how to talk to children (i will state this isnt avilable officially but quite a few of us have it)

Unless you can provide a source, i'm removing both of your edits. dposse 23:42, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New Album?

Just wondering, do I add stuff about New Album stuff. I think the White Stripes are coming out with a new album, they said in one Rolling Stone Article? Ill find it and stuff. All im wondering is that if i add it or not? Or someone else could too. Phantasmigorical 18:29, 21 January 2007 (UTC) Phantasmigorical

Feel free to add what you like as long as you cite the source. --piper108 18:42, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

K I added it, not sure if i cited it correctly. ... maybe help? The info's correct though Phantasmigorical 20:22, 21 January 2007 (UTC) Phantasmigorical

Looks good, but maybe we could get to the "gold standard" of a citation tag if you have a little more information. We could have <ref>{{cite news

|title=Fill in title of news story here
|author=Fill in author of news story here
|work=Rolling Stone
|date=2006-12-26
|url=Fill in URL, if available and known (this is not required; printed sources are sufficient)
|page=Fill in page number here}}</ref>
(see Template:Cite news for more info) Notinasnaid 08:49, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Did Jack White write the article? If not, "In a Rolling Stones article, Jack White hinted" should probably be changed to something like "Rolling Stones reported that Jack White has hinted" or some such. Notinasnaid 09:14, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Discography

I suggest to remove singles and videos lists in the discography section to reduce the size of the article, and maybe to keep main albums list. All this information already appears on The White Stripes discography article. Does anyone have an objection? Frédérick Lacasse 17:26, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Done Frédérick Lacasse (talk • contribs) 19:50, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../t/h/e/Talk%7EThe_White_Stripes_00ec.html"