Talk:Ray of Light

User:Jeremiah has continuously reverted content from the article's lead section calling them unsourced. I had reverted him saying that WP:LEAD it does not require source if its mentioned in the article body, but the user chose to ignore it. Let's explain each and every one of those lines and show the sources.

• Critics and scholars have noted the album's influence on popular music, especially how it widely introduced electronica music into mainstream pop culture.^[1][2][3][4]
• They have also noted the way in which Madonna was able to re-invent herself and remain contemporary among the teenage artists of the period.^[5][6][7]
• Ray of Light has been frequently ranked among the greatest albums of all time.^[8][9]

So Jeremiah, which part exactly do you see as unsourced? Note I pulled all the sources from the article's Legacy section only —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 11:08, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I have been attempting to reduce the appearance of bias in the lead by removing and requesting early references. The previous lead contains claims that appear to fall under WP:FANCRUFT. To avoid such accusations I suggest adding references to these specific claims or using more subdued language to make the lead appear more neutral. references may not be *required* in the lead but they certainly will help allay concerns of editorial bias.  Jeremiah (talk·cont) 11:49, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@IndianBio and Jeremiah: For transparency, I was asked to comment here but have been watching the WP:AN/EW report unfold. I have the following observations:

• Both IB and Jeremiah have edit warred over content in the lead. The content is not pure vandalism, and is not exempt from WP:3RR
• WP:LEAD (specifically WP:LEADCITE) states "Because the lead will usually repeat information [...], editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material"
• The content is not controversial and has a number of demonstrated reliable sources

I would reccomend both IB and Jeremiah take the time to talk through the pros and cons on having this claim cited, and attempt to work with other editors to determine a consensus before making any further edits to this article. I would also reccomend that IB closes their WP:AN/EW report as I believe they have also fallen afoul of the 3RR, and that both take the time to cool off before coming back to this dispute. Thank you both for your continued contributions to the project -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 11:26, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Samtar. Yes I guess my err was ultimately edit warring, so yeah backing from that. The report will be closed I guess automatically. So now Jeremiah, as Samtar pointed out also, "The content is not controversial and has a number of demonstrated reliable sources", so what do you believe is violating WP:OR here? —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 11:32, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

IB, if you could leave a line on the report retracting it, I'll make sure it gets closed. As per Jeremiah's comment below I have renamed this section to be more neutral -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 11:36, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Samtar I did already in the result section. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 11:38, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I will not discuss this in this section. The title is clearly baiting. This user is a child. I have begun a new section at the bottom of the page. Grow up.  Jeremiah (talk·cont) 11:33, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Jeremiah: I've renamed the section - please do continue to discuss this so that we can resolve the dispute -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 11:43, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Jeremiah: time and time again you are calling the content as WP:FANCRUFT and relegating as WP:OR, when I have clearly demonstrated above that the content is adequately and highly reliable sourced. You are calling the content as bias but have you read the section or the sources? Yes, references are not required in the lead since it is sourced. As WP:LEAD says "editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material". So that's what should be done. As for the lines, do you have any suggestion which you feel will make it more neutral? —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 11:53, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Critics and scholars have noted the album's influence on popular music, especially how it widely introduced electronica music into mainstream pop culture. They have also noted the way in which Madonna was able to re-invent herself and remain contemporary among the teenage artists of the period. Ray of Light has been frequently ranked among the greatest albums of all time. --> Academics have noted the album's influence on popular music, and how it introduced electronica into mainstream pop culture. They also noted Madonna's musical re-invention with the album, which helped her remain contemporary among the teenage artists of the period. Ray of Light has been ranked among lists of greatest albums of all time. How does this look @Jeremiah: and @Samtar:? —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 11:57, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@IndianBio: I don't think that ping worked - anyway, I prefer this re-write to the current text. Would it be possible to add a citation? Although lead items don't need one, a single cite at the end of that would help our readers know exactly where to do to read more about this. What do you think @Jeremiah:? -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 12:34, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just to add to the above, I think we can all sometimes forget who we're writing this content for - the readers of the encyclopedia! Try to put yourself in the shoes of someone who knows nothing about Madonna's musical re-invention (which would be an awesome tribute act name) -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 12:36, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• • The rewrite is good if it contains with a single terminal citation. This will certainly help the reader and immediately lead someone to help establish a claim of the record being "best ever" material. (On my mobile. Editing is friggin hard on a mobile...) @Samtar: and @IndianBio:  Jeremiah (talk·cont) 12:41, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Great to hear Jeremiah - @IndianBio: do you think you can track down a source for that, I know you've got a couple and you're pretty great at finding new ones - just a single cite which supports the overall sentence would suffice. Thank you both for working together and coming to an agreement -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 12:47, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Samtar: sorry sometimes the ping thing does not work. Yes we can add one citaion for each of the assertion as I gave above. Or can we internally redirect the reader to the legacy section for more details? In terms of reader's perspective only I would say redirecting to the legacy section seems like a plausible thing to do. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 12:45, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See above edit conflict! -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 12:48, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Samtar: the best source to explain all of this is from Taraborrelli's book Madonna: An Intimate Biography with the lines ... "Ray of Light as another calculated ruse on the part of the artist to exploit rave-inspired electronica music, which was mostly off mainstream pop's radar until Madonna got hold of it. The same page also talks about how Britney and Christina were releasing bubblegum music while Madonna maintained autonomy, as well as the Rolling Stone list. Will that do? —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 12:51, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Works for me, go for it -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 12:53, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Jeremiah and samtar, I implemented it with this edit. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 13:04, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have been attempting to reduce the appearance of bias in the lead by removing and requesting early references. The previous lead contains claims that appear to fall under WP:FANCRUFT. To avoid such accusations I suggest adding references to these specific claims or using more subdued language to make the lead appear more neutral. references may not be *required* in the lead but they certainly will help allay concerns of editorial bias.  Jeremiah (talk·cont) 11:30, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please add your theory above section where there is already discussion. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 11:34, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremiah, the lead section does not require citations when it summarizes article body text which is fully supported with cites, as in this case. People have been asking you to read WP:LEAD; have you done so? Nothing in the guideline says that bias belongs in the lead section, cited or not. Personally, I thought the wording was quite accurate and neutral before you came along. Nothing at all like fancruft. Binksternet (talk) 12:25, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware of WP:LEAD and the point it is trying to make but this encyclopedia is written for readers not Wiki beurocratcs. Quoting Wiki standards is not going to help a reader that thinks the article was written by a PR firm when loaded language like "best album of all time" is tossed about. The fact that I was not even the first person to bring up WP:FANCRUFT —it was actually Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi in WP:AN/EW—should be enough to substantiate that.  Jeremiah (talk·cont) 13:05, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremiah can you please stop the negative attacking language like "you should be ashamed for using it"? Its extremely incivil and does not contribute in the discussion because none of us here actually added the content. Binskternet has a point which I also believe and Fortuna Imeratrix Mundi is not above all. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 13:11, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@IndianBio: "Is not above all": Is that your version of WP:AGF or respecting other editors? I hope not, as you know how that story ends. Cheers, _Muffled ^Pocketed 17:13, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to be admonished by a teenager that had such a huge temper tantrum he labeled an entire section of this discussion using "uncivil" language. Tried to start a report for a 3RR violation he himself committed and then deleted my comments on his talk page when I tried to bring this up. Your tone set this discussion, IndianBio, you can own it. I'm absolutely dissinterested in Madonna, her music, and her discography and you both are clearly NOT. You both should take a step back and consider your bias and fancruft. I'm not responding to any further of your personal attacks or non-relevant comments. Have your childish last words if you must. Hopefully you'll grow into someone that sets the tone for further dissagrements using more diplomatic means.  Jeremiah (talk·cont) 13:21, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In the section "Suggest a rephrase" both IndianBio and Jeremiah agreed to the alteration of the lead. I would welcome any other interested editors to provide their comments below, so that a consensus can be made and this discussion closed. My thanks to IB for boldly closing the discussion earlier, however I agree with Binksternet that you are too involved. I propose keeping this discussion open for a couple more days -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 12:40, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Binksternet: Given the recent decline in usefullness of the discussion, the creeping incivility and the semi-involvement I've had in mediating this, would you be willing to close this? -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 13:47, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]