From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Albums, an attempt at building a useful resource on recordings from a variety of genres. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

[edit] Picture Disc Controversy

I snipped the following from the main article - seems POV to the max without some authoritative and verifiable citation:

The double picture disk version of the vinyl album featured subtlety edited sleeve notes which effectively directly contradicted those on cardboard cover of the original, which had a Pablo Picasso-style centrefold image.

No offence, but this kind of material needs some verifiable citation prior to inclusion, especially if included in the first paragraph of an article.--DaveG12345 03:10, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

The source is the original double vinyl and double vinyl picture disk, what more is requried? Briantist 03:15, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Indeed there is even a QUOTE about Picasso under the picture! Briantist 03:16, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Yep, no offence intended, but that's not quite what is meant when verifiability is concerned. I too have both album formats - yet I do not believe my insight on them needs to be included on WP. That isn't what WP's here for. Quote someone else notable who's made the same comparison that you have made, and you are OK. Otherwise, it fails the verifiability test and, even if we both agree that we have the same albums, it fails WP:NOR. That's my interpretation of Wikipedia policy anyway. And (believe me) - this is everyone else's interpretation too...--DaveG12345 03:35, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

The fact that one format of the album contracts the first makes the whole thing ambigious! Briantist 17:22, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Quote someone reputable and verifiable who has made this comparison and connection, and fine. Otherwise (as I suspect you are fully aware by now), your theory has no place in a Wikipedia article, sorry. --DaveG12345 01:00, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Power of Love irony

Aside from Frankie being quite clear about this on every TV show they were on and in the music press of the time, it doesn't take more than about five seconds to see it...

From the first line with "The Hooded Claw" (from The Perils of Penelope Pitstop through endless cliches and sacharine suger sweet syrup... There's a "vampires" in there, a "Love with tongues of fire", "undying, death-defying love", "Envy will hurt itself", "flowers and pearls and pretty girls", "we go sublime", "A force from above", and "A sky-scraping dove". It's large blocks of flats that sky-scrape, not birds!

If there was ever any doubt about Paul Morley's marketing manipulation.... Briantist 03:29, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

See above comment ("Picture Disc Controversy" section) - cite someone else notable and verifiable who agrees with you, and we'll see about it. Otherwise, you're in the realms of original research I'm afraid.--DaveG12345 03:35, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, where is the research that supports the current view of the article? Briantist 17:22, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Not sure - most of it is self-evident to be fair. Fact is, I agree with everything in the article to date, because I have a knowledge of the subject, and find nothing in it that is remotely contentious. I assume (since the article exists in its present form) that everyone else reading the article feels the same way.

Sadly, your unsourced alteration to the article contradicted my view of the subject. In order for your view to prevail, you will need to provide some verifiable evidence to back your views up. It otherwise just looks like your own opinion, stuck into an article that does not consist of mere opinion. As noted above, quote someone reputable and verifiable who agrees with you, and I will gladly reassess my view. If your modification has true merit, it will presumably be easy for you to back it up with verifiable evidence. --DaveG12345 01:00, 16 December 2006 (UTC)