Talk:The Human League/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Main Infobox Image

The main picture has been changed from the FIB Benicassim press conference shot. That photo was poor resolution and unflattering to Joanne, also the Wikipedia convention is that the infobox main image shows the band performing.

The new image is now a commons montage of the 3 principals from separate photos I took of them during the 2007 Dare Tour. A montage is necessary because during the stage set they occupy different parts of the stage and it is virtually impossible to get all 3 together for a shot at the same time live. A full stage shot would appear distant and would be useless for infobox purposes. As you will be aware the Human League is only Sulley, Oakey and Catherall. But there is also a ‘Team photo’ at the bottom of the article which shows the current full band live line up with the additional musicians. andi064 ^{T . C} 21:50, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Fantastic image, btw. Susan is still a fox.67.160.65.111 (talk) 19:24, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

External Links

There seems to be some sort of edit war going on with ELs on this article. Please Stop.

I have restored the EL section to the version that has existed on this article for two years with no problem. The ELs listed all comply with WP:EL and add value and understanding to the article. All are non commercial and have unique biographical content about the article subject.

Because of the edit war, Editors are requested to justify against WP:EL critera, any additions or removals to/from this list, not doing so may be considered vandalism, Copy editors are requested to examine ELs from anon IP editors carefully. Thanks andi064 ^{T . C} 21:06, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

• I Concur! And I've restored links that were removed today. I read that Philip Oakey has also said that he doesn't need an official website as his fansites do the job for him. I dont see anything in that list that is off topic or constitutes Spam or social networking. Please disuss with article's editors ok this page before you remove or add to that EL list please. Archivey (talk) 10:56, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

New Romantics

There seems to be some sort of pov pushing reagrding the Human League and whether they were New Romantcis. I've read the archives, and all the discussion seems to centre on the opinions of the people involved rather than actual sources. I did see one poster claim that Oakey repeatedly claims the band were never a New Romantic one, which contradicts an Oakey quote in a Nottingham Evening Post interview: "I thought we were the first people who were called New Romantics." Now I can dig out a ton of sources which describe the Human League as new romantic, and given that we write Wikipedia from a neutral point of view, I'll be interested to hear why we disregard such sources. I have no objection to summarising all sources, but I object to summarising only one side of the sources, and I base that on Wikipedia policy. I'm perfectly happy for this discussion to be mediated if desired. Hiding T 13:12, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

• Just workshopping sources for the minute:

1. Avoiding the subject: media, culture and the object "Human League (as a quintessential 1980s New Romantic band)"
2. David Sylvian, discusses futurism as a subsidiary of the Blitz Kids/New Romantics movement, although notes importantly that it predates the movement.
3. Vintage "New Romantic look favored by bands like... the Human League".
4. Industrial evolution, "[of the Human League] even if they were more New Romantic than Industrial".
5. Kraftwerk puts them in the New Romantic category

• News

1. The brief reign of the New Romantics The Times (London); Nov 30, 1999; Joanna Hunter; p. 28
2. 21st Century tribes We're fashion's exotic fruits Daily Record (Glasgow); Jun 9, 2001; GARY RALSTON; p. 31
3. The old romantics The Times (London); Jul 7, 2001; Michael Bracewell; p. 40
4. New wave of fans are only Human Evening Times (Glasgow); Oct 5, 2001; p. 56
5. PREVIEW: In a League of their own Daily Record (Glasgow); Nov 23, 2001; CATRIONA KILLIN; p. 68 Susanne said: "The New Romantic thing was acting against punk and wanting to be glamorous and tuneful. We were all optimistic in the early Eighties.
6. Planet pop The Sunday Times (London); Dec 2, 2001; Dan Cairns; p. 20 "true believers"
7. Review Human League Scotsman (Edinburgh); Dec 3, 2001; Fiona Shepherd; p. 12
8. Taboo - an Eighties costume drama Boy George has set his clubbing heyday to music. Julia Robson reports The Daily Telegraph (London); Jan 15, 2002; JULIA ROBSON; p. 14 Boy George cites the League as an inspiration...
9. Take a step back in time Scotsman (Edinburgh); May 3, 2002; Fiona Shepherd; p. 12
10. Friday Review: Rock & Pop Special: THE WAY WE LISTEN NOW: The Guardian (Manchester); May 3, 2002; Alexis Petridis; p. 2
11. Seize the day New Statesman (London); May 6, 2002; Jason Cowley; p. 46 the futurist/Blitz Kids/New Romantics
12. The Guide: Music: Colin Patterson wants to stop playing the name game The Guardian (Manchester); Sep 21, 2002; Colin Patterson; p. 22
13. The '80s ... IN THE MIDDLE The '80s ; It was the decade of Dallas, big shoulder pads, Thatcher and the New Romantics. And for Valleys boy, Steve Strange, it was a time of decadence and hedonism. He talks to Ali Stokes South Wales Echo (Cardiff); Dec 14, 2002; Ali Stokes; p. 10
14. Romance lives on in a new world The Journal (Newcastle-upon-Tyne); Aug 13, 2003; Will Mapplebeck; p. 46
15. Staying in Our critics recommend the gift-buying season's most desirable compilation albums, box sets and music DVDs The Daily Telegraph (London); Nov 22, 2003; Robert Sandall; p. 24 "They started out as Sheffield's answer to Kraftwerk, mutated into the futurist wing of the new romantics and ended up doing funky Wham!-type pop."
16. POP: THE HUMAN LEAGUE Shepherd's Bush Empire London oooo9 The Independent (London); Jan 1, 2004; Silvia Diaz; p. 17
17. The Guide: PREVIEW music: Simon Price finds the beauty of synth in the city of steel The Guardian (Manchester); Apr 24, 2004; Simon Price; p. 23 "The main players, however, weren't fond of the new romantic tag. "We thought we were the punkiest band in Sheffield", says the Human League's Phil Oakey in his enjoyably dogmatic manner."

• Added some news sources. Hiding T 17:23, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

• This was done here:Talk:The_Human_League/Archive_2#New_Romantic_References after an edit war over using the term New Romantic in this article. It was clear that Human League fans will not accept the label on this article and using it just causes unnecessary disruption/edit warring to an otherwise stable article. The bottom line and the main reason it should be avoided is that the band themselves say they weren’t at the time and have regularly since; Oakey goes further to actualy say he despised the whole New Romantic movement. Third party comment by journalists is therefore just opinion and irrelevant to the band. The only reason they get labeled New Romantic by most journos is because of Oakey's personal style in 1981, which predates the whole Blitz stuff. This argument is also going on with Duran Duran, who have said similar about being labeled New Romantic.Archivey (talk) 18:59, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

• I've read the archives. I've also read what the band have said. However, Wikipedia's job is to summarise sources and write from a neutral point of view, not to write an article from a given point of view, for example that of the fans or of the band. And I'm unclear what you mean when you say "Third party comment by journalists is therefore just opinion and irrelevant to the band." Could you clarify that staement for me please. Woiuld you mind if I also pointed you to the neutral point of view policy? Hiding T 20:59, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

The major obstacle is that the group - either individually or collectively - did not then and do not now self-identify as New Romatics. When it actually happened (as opposed to people retrospectively applying the label later), New Romaticism was a product of a specific small scene centred around one nightclub in London that the Sheffield-based League were never part of. Some non-London groups did aspire/gravitate to it, but the League simply never did. Looking at the Nottingham Evening Post quote ([1]), it's clear Oakey is taking about the name being applied to the group by others, not themselves. He doesn't deny it, but he doesn't explicitly agree with it, either (as opposed to the many times when he has denied it). Nick Cooper (talk) 14:29, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

You seem to be implying that the article be written from the band's point of view rather than from a neutral point of view. I can't see how that is in keeping with the neutral point of view policy. As to Oakey's comment, he also states something to the effect that Rick Sky coined the term in The Star in relation to the band. Given that, it's worrying that the article avoids all mention of the term. Hiding T 16:33, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

No, as Archivey suggests, the issue is that people who label the League as NR are simply wrong. Nick Cooper (talk) 20:23, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm unclear how you can take that stance considering the policy on writing from a neutral point of view. Could you clarify exactly what your stance is please. Hiding T 20:59, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

You seem to be ignoring the points I have made above, namely:

• The Sheffield-based Human League were not part of the New Romatic Scene centred around the Blitz nightclub in London
• The group members actively rejected the "New Romantic" label at the time, and continue to do so now
• Just because some people - no matter how many - retrospectively call them "New Romantic" doesn't make it true

As Archivey has noted, the mis-label is largely down to Oakey's personal styling, which pre-dated the whole Blitz Club scene in the first place. Nick Cooper (talk) 19:52, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I'm not ignoring them and haven't meant to. I was instead asking you how your p[oints were valid in relation to writing from a neutral point of view. I'll take them one by one to hopefiully move things on so we can at least understand what each of us is working towards.

• Given that Rick Sky reportedly coined the term "New Romantics" when discussing the Human League, I'm not clear that it is a fact as opposed to a point of view that the New Romantic scene centred around the Blitz nightclub.
• Even though the group members actively reject the "New ROmantic" label, a point some of the sources I've turned up call in to question, this article cannot be edited from the band's point of view or preferences, but rather from a neutral point of view.
• Whether something is "true" or not has no bearing on Wikipedia, per the neutral point of view.

To address Archivey's point, would there be a general agreement that the band have been described as "New Romantic"? And, if we can get general agreement on that point, can we then get general agreement on describing the state of affairs in the article. I'm not asking for the article to state that they are New Romantic, but I think it is adopting a point of view and misleading readers to not even refer to the fact that they have been considered a New ROmantic band, although this is a lable that the band rejects and so on. I think that better informs readers and is also required by our policy on maintaining a neutral point of view. Appreciate your thoughts, Hiding T 08:20, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Presenting views does not extend to repeating falsehoods. A good comparison is the politician George Galloway. There are plenty of sources that say he is a "communist," but they are not given credence on Wikipedia, because Galloway himself says he isn't one. Oakey doesn't confirm that Rick Sky "coined" the term, since he goes on to say that the manager of Spandau Ballet also claims to be the originator. We also don't know if Oakey's reference is to a claim made by Sky in the 1980s or retropectively. Bear in mind that New Romanticism mentions neither Sky nor SB's manager in this conetxt. To me, it looks more like Oakey's comments are mild sarcasm on his part as to the origins of the term. Nick Cooper (talk) 13:04, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

<outdent>George Galloway is one example, but another is Édouard Manet, who is linked to Impressionism. I mean we can trade these points all day, but I don't see the Galloway comparison as relevant nor the idea that we're discussing "falsehoods" as opposed to sourced information. If one source says 1984 is a science fiction work and another says it isn't, which one do we believe? We don't get to choose, per WP:NPOV. Realistically, as I said above, I'm mainly looking at adding something like:

• Although the Human League have latterly been identified with the New Romantic movement of this period, according to Dave Rimmer, author of New Romantics: The Look, "at the time [they] were no such thing." The band themselves have also rejected the label. The Sheffield scene in which The Human League formed took more influence from Kraftwork, and have also been referred to Futurists, although Oakey himself has said: "We thought we were the punkiest band in Sheffield".

Thoughts? Hiding T 14:09, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

That would probably be acceptable, but would substitute "latterly" with "retrospectively," as that would more adequately convey the fact that much of it post-dates the time period by at least a decade. Also, "The band themselves have also consistently and strenuously rejected the label." Lastly, "The Sheffield scene in which The Human League formed pre-dated New Romanticism and took more influence from Kraftwork, etc." Nick Cooper (talk) 15:24, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

• Works for me. Hiding T 15:42, 5 May 2009 (UTC)