From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Siouxsie and the Banshees[edit]

That Quietus article mentions psychedelic music as an impetus for their experimentation but never as as their actual genre. This quote from the gothic rock article sum it up best: "Siouxsie and the Banshees and The Cure tended to play the flanging guitar effect, producing a brittle, cold, and harsh sound that contrasted with their psychedelic rock predecessors" Simon Reynolds, 2005, page 426 — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:07, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

You are right, these sources don't indicate that they were psychedelic. It would have helped if you had put something like "sources do not support this assertion" in your first edit summary. When an ip user just deletes material it is usually vandalism. Thanks for the catch.--SabreBD (talk) 08:01, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
What matters is what reliable sources call them psychedelic :
Source 1: Simon Reynolds from his book "Rip it up :Post punk". Page 428. He wrote : 1982's Dreamhouse marked the Banshees'plunge into full-on mordern psychedelia.
Source2 : Paul Morley wrote in the notes of 1984's Hyæna (universal 2009, Hyæna reissue) : a psychedelic vision of pop.
Source 3: The Quietus wrote about the reissues of A kiss in the Dreamhouse (1982) and Hyæna (1984) : Siouxsie & The Banshees were one of the great British psychedelic bands. link here. Woovee (talk) 16:58, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
I added the Reynolds cite and quoted Reynolds as I think that makes nature of the move to psychedelia clearer.--SabreBD (talk) 22:55, 30 March 2012 (UTC)


I'm not seeing why this band hasn't been included. The long, trippy guitar riffs that permeate and make up most of their songs definitely sound like a ton of the bands on this list from that same era.

Smashing Pumpkins[edit]

Their first two albums were most definitely psychedelic in nature, and they were always heavily influenced by such.

Edit warring / content dispute 2016[edit]

Ilovetopaint erased here two wp:reliable sources which are :

Paytress, Mark (November 2014), "Her Dark Materials", Mojo (252), p. 82 --> for Siouxsie and the Banshees and
"The Glove - Blue Sunshine". Entertainment weekly. 7 September 1990. Retrieved 5 October 2016. --> for The Glove

Both mention Neo-psychedelia for the groups Siouxsie and the Banshees and The Glove but their names were withdrawn once again from the article. Woovee (talk) 23:19, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

@Woovee: 1) What is the exact text written in the Mojo article? 2) Why is it notable that those two bands played neo-psychedelia?--Ilovetopaint (talk) 23:23, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
I could ask you to discuss the same thing for Echo & the Bunnymen and My Bloody Valentine or any other bands included in the article. You asked that sources specifically using the term "Neo-psychedelia" and not just the "psychedelic" adjective, were used for this article when mentionning bands. I did. Woovee (talk) 23:29, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
True, I made a mistake there. Here are the differences between namedropping MBV and the Glove:
1) Shoegaze is referred to as a subgenre of neo-psychedelia [1]
2) MBV is referred to as the progenitor of shoegaze [2]
3) One of the sources writes that "countless bands [were] influenced by MBV's neo-psychedelic bliss-blast".
Given all that, we can see why MBV is significant to the topic. Likewise with Echo & the Bunnymen, AllMusic cites them as one of several "major figures" in neo-psychedelia. In contrast, the only thing Ira Robbins' review of Blue Sunshine tells us is that the Glove's Blue Sunshine "integrates ... individual styles and neo-psychedelic noodling with mixed success". There are innumerable artists who have recorded albums by that description that one could add to the article. I don't see why Glove/Siouxsie should be given preferential treatment.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 23:46, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
The main genre for the Bunnymen and MBV are respectively post-punk and shoegazing. Allmusic is a good site when the articles are signed. As I previously mentioned, their article about Neo-psychedelia is unsigned. Anyway, Mojo and EW are two very RSs. There is no justification to put an abusive tag such as "{elucidate|reason=Why these artists specifically? What makes them notable}" next to Siouxsie and the banshees and The Glove. I don't know any other well-known acts/musicians who have been described as neo-psychedelic. Someone mentioned that Television (band) was, I'm gonna check this too. Woovee (talk) 00:09, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
"The main genre" - what? Of course Mojo and EW are reliable, but verifiability does not guarantee inclusion (WP:ONUS). You have to be able to demonstrate how the content enhances our understanding of the subject before it can be added. If all you want is for S&tB and the Glove to be acknowledged as a neo-psychedelic act, then simply add them to the List of neo-psychedelia artists.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 13:07, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
You don't have any wp:consensus to put this abusive tag. This page is not your wp:OWN. Earlier in this talk in 2012, people already agreed to include Siouxsie and the Banshees for instance. Your lack of culture towards these bands is so patent that you shouldn't contribute to this article. You obviously have never listened to those records, you put a tag to just create a suspicion that is inapproriate and partial. Woovee (talk) 15:39, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
I asked you two perfectly reasonable questions. Until this issue is addressed, either the tag remains or the content is removed. I don't need WP:CONSENSUS to place a tag, I just need an arguable reason (WP:DRNC). That I (supposedly) "lack culture" demonstrates exactly why it's a problem to include the sentence; this article is supposed to be written for people with "lack of culture" (WP:POPE). If you can't elucidate why S&tB/Glove are notable, then maybe you aren't quite the specialist you think you are - and if you can't find sources that elucidate, then maybe these artists aren't as essential to neo-psychedelia as you think they are (WP:NAMEDROP).
To me, the sentence reads like someone is trying to get me to listen to their favorite bands. It slows the article down to include things like "Oh, by the way, these guys also played neo-psychedelia music, hope you thought that was interesting!" (WP:DETAIL). Taken by itself, "the Glove embraced neo-psychedelia" (or "X is Y") is a trivial mention, and is thus non-notable to the main topic (WP:SIGCOV).
As for a 2012 consensus, I see nothing of the sort.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 17:21, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
I'd rather see that you want to put a blanket upon certain types of bands. In case you haven't noticed, the content present on this page is a bit trivial because it is a litany of names and there ain't any explanation. What matters is wp:RS and no wp:OR. You're wasting your time because your point of view doesn't stand. You're not a judge, this is why one puts sources, to offer the reader different opinions from different sources. Woovee (talk) 19:56, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
"Litany of names and there ain't any explanation" — I've already discussed the rationale for other artists' namedrops. Which part of "verifiability does not guarantee inclusion" don't you understand? Please don't bother responding unless you intend to answer my questions from 23:23, 6 October 2016. It's the least you could do after I answered yours.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 16:14, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Woovee has asked me to look into this dispute. I've taken a look, and I'm giving you both a warning for edit warring. This is a content dispute. Resolve your disagreements here on the talkpage not by reverting each other. You both want the same thing for the article: to have it provide accurate, neutral, and helpful information about Neo-psychedelia. Work toward a solution through discussion, not through edit warring. If either of you are getting angry, take a break from this article for a day or two in order to restore some perspective. When discussing, stick to talking about improving the article; avoid comments on each other like "Which part of "verifiability does not guarantee inclusion" don't you understand?" and "Your lack of culture towards these bands is so patent that you shouldn't contribute to this article."

As regards the content dispute itself, I agree with Woovee that this article needs some improvement, though that is true for nearly all articles on Wikipedia. So while true it's actually not that important - We deal with that as and when we can. On the whole, the points made by Ilovetopaint are more valid, and the links to guidelines and essays to support those points are helpful. It is worth reading the guidelines and essays to get a deeper understanding of what Ilovetopaint is saying. I don't wish to get bogged down in details as that would involve time-consuming research, but on a cursory glance the inclusion of The Glove doesn't appear justified. If Severin and Smith's project is significant in the development of Neo-psychedelia rather than include some elements of it (which is what the source says) then better sourcing is required. On the other hand, there is a discussion on this page regarding Siouxsie and the Banshees which offers some sources which seem to indicate that the band are regarded as a significant Neo-psychedelia band - The Quietus article offers a good starting point with the statement that "Siouxsie & The Banshees were one of the great British psychedelic bands"[3]. There seems room for investigation rather than dismissal.

I suggest you folks bury the hatchet, and agree to work to improve the article rather than snipe at each other and edit war. You both have something to offer. Share what you have and listen with respect to each other. I would say to Ilovetopaint to look more into the claim that Siouxsie and the Banshees are significant. And I would say to Woovee to look more closely at the guidelines and essays that have been offered. SilkTork ✔Tea time 18:35, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. The problem with the Quietus source is that it never uses the term "neo-psychedelia" (or "acid punk"). I've tried my best looking for sources that directly and explicitly speak about the genre. Many bands are given those labels, but little is said about what they actually contributed. Sometimes people write about post-1980s psychedelic rock revivals, but that's content that belongs to the Psychedelic rock article. Just like we can't mix up "new prog", "neo-prog", and "post-prog", we can't mix up "psychedelic rock" with "neo-psychedelia".
I would love to add more info about Siouxsie and their role in neo-psychedelia, but it's hard when I don't know exactly what I'm looking for. That is why I beg the question: why are they notable?--Ilovetopaint (talk) 19:30, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
I agree to compromise and to withdraw the quote about The Glove as it has been suggested although the album is entirely psychedelic. The band was on LSD when recording. But I haven't found yet a better source. Maybe this sentence about TG would have more its place on psychedelic music? Woovee (talk) 23:41, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
wp:NAMEDROP is not a Wikipedia policy or guideline. Woovee (talk) 19:24, 10 October 2016 (UT
It's not, but consensus says that self-sourcing examples are to be avoided, which is the same thing.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 20:50, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
I mentioned this, because you cared to drop this litany of WPs. There ain't any wp:OR in the David Stubbs'quote and no wp:OR is the wikipedia policy per excellence, sorry. Woovee (talk) 21:11, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
The issue was never about WP:OR, it was about WP:ONUS.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 21:15, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your help, it is appreciated.Woovee (talk) 23:28, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

As EdJohnston has protected the article, and MSGJ has got involved I am taking the article off my watch-list. I don't have much spare time these days, and as there are two other admins now involved, you don't need me as well. I wish you both well in resolving this dispute. SilkTork ✔Tea time 08:35, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

The question why are they notable about S&TB is incongruous. It is said in the lead of the article, "Neo-psychedelia is a diverse subgenre of alternative/indie rock that originated in the 1970s as an outgrowth of the British post-punk scene", or S&TB are one of the pioneers of post-punk and as they went psychedelic in the early 1980s, a few years after their debut, they logically should be mentioned in this article.
The Uncut (magazine) source by David Stubbs clearly mentions "Neo-psychedelic" about them:
Journalist David Stubbs remarked that Siouxsie and the Banshees's music in 1982 had got "neo-psychedelic flourishes" with "pan-like flutes" and "treated loops".[8] Woovee (talk) 23:27, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
"S&TB are one of the pioneers of post-punk" — according to whom? {{st|And don't you mean post-punk?}}--Ilovetopaint (talk) 20:58, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
I wrote, "S&TB are one of the pioneers of post-punk". Do you have problems of attention ? Woovee (talk) 21:09, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, you did, sorry, I misread again. My point still stands. Where's your citation? You could mention that S&TB pioneered post-punk in the article and then place the specific album in a footnote.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 21:12, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
Wouldn't it be wp:SYNTH. This shouldn't be repeated in this article when its already included and well sourced at Post-punk, Siouxsie and the banshees and The Scream (album), where it's actually relevant to begin with? I'm pondering.
Anyway, following your suggestion:
Siouxsie and the Banshees were one of the pioneers of post-punk[7] : journalist David Stubbs remarked that their music in 1982 had got "neo-psychedelic flourishes" with "pan-like flutes" and "treated loops".[8]
  • source [7] Nigel Williamson (27 November 2004). "Siouxsie & the Banshees (subscription required)". The Times.
  • source [8]Stubbs, David (June 2004), "Siouxsie and the Banshees - A Kiss in the Dreamhouse album reissue, Uncut. ["Neo-Psychedelia" was used for their 1982's album 'A Kiss in the Dreamhouse]
Woovee (talk) 00:15, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
Another point, this quote from Chrome's singer here is not from a music historian or a professional journalist. Had it been a quote and the opinion of the journalist, it would have been relevant but it is not. Namedropping bands like Devo who has never been tagged neo-psychedelic or even psychedelic, well at least not on wikipedia and at Devo, is something to be avoid. Woovee (talk) Woovee (talk) 19:24, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure what your point is. He is technically a "historian" of sorts — he was there when it was happening. By virtue of that fact alone, he has somewhat more credibility than most other journalists. And he's not talking about neo-psychedelia, he's talking about acid punk, which is within the scope of neo-psychedelia. Of course, nobody today considers Devo "psychedelic", or most new wave for that matter, but that didn't seem to be the case in 1977.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 20:50, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
This quote is then out of subject. Woovee (talk) 21:07, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
But it's... not? Acid punk = neo-psychedelia.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 21:09, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
"Acid-punk"(coming from a US Billboard source of 1978) is an obsolete term today: music Historians such as Paul Morley, Clinton Heylin, Simon Reynolds, have never used it in their recent books about the music of the late 1970s early1980s. This is why the 'Acid-punk' term shouldn't appear in the lead anymore, it would be better to mention it in the first section. Woovee (talk) 21:41, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
  1. The fact is that Acid punk redirects to Neo-psychedelia because of that Billboard source. So readers who look up "acid punk" will expect to find the subject discussed here in some detail (WP:SCOPE).
  2. "Acid punk" might be "an obsolete term" simply because Morley, Heylin, and Reynolds preferred "neo-psychedelia". In any case, "acid punk" being used for Devo and Pere Ubu is no more obsolete than "neo-psychedelia" being used exclusively for post-punk acts, which is precisely what the term denoted until the early 1990s.
  3. Your claim that "music historians have never used 'acid punk' in their recent books" is demonstrably false. I can find one mention in Rip It Up.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 02:15, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
  1. No, you distort the events: "acid punk" appears in a quote from a member of Chrome (band). Reynolds didn't ever qualify this band as such in his book, he has just reproduced a quote from one of their musicians. So , Reynolds has never associated 'acid-punk' with 'neo-psychedelia'. It looks like Chrome's guitarist Helios Creed tried to create a scene, trying to bombard this term in interviews, but as no other group recognized this banner, it fell flat. There was never a scene called "acid punk". Journalists and music historians analyse the events, musicians play. Musicians never invent labels, it comes from critics. "acid punk" should not be mentioned in the lead, it is wp:undue weight. BTW, is it you who wrote "acid punk" on the article of Chrome (band), I see that you also contributed to this article. So it is probably you who made "acid punk" redirect to "neo-psychedelia". Woovee (talk) 12:37, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
  2. @ Ilovetopaint the issue hasn't been resolved. wp:edit war is not finished. you are making wp:PUSH. I strongly disagree to include Devo in the article. The journalist wrote "To an extent" at the begining of his sentence, he ponders if Devo might be uncluded in it. And you haven't replied to my other request about SATB yet. Woovee (talk) 13:01, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
You're backpedaling. First you said Reynolds never uses the term "acid punk" in recent books, and now you say "well he was only using it in reference to Chrome". You make an interesting case in that Chrome seems to be the only group who pushed for the term. So let's assume they're the only people to use the label, and that Greg Shaw knew about them. Why would he be writing that "acid punk" is British term? Worth mulling over, I think.
"Musicians never invent labels"? Rockism and Rock in Opposition come to mind as huge examples...
I'm sorry, I don't know what you requested for S&TB. I can only recall asking you for a source that says they're among the progenitors of post-punk.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 00:10, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Let's be specific then, #'acid punk' appears in Reynolds' book, only in the middle of one quote from a musician, doesn't it ?.
  1. If one music historian had recognized a genre named 'acid punk', the source would have surfaced by now, wouldn't it ?
  2. This 1978 quote from billboard appears to be pure speculation from this journalist and you give it too much importance in this article. It is wp:undue weight. You can cite him mentioning the band Devo as nep-psychedelic as it is pure a non-sense, historically and musically. Question, if a journalist says an historical ineptitude, do we have to mention it? No the only reason you mention acid punk is because you merge "acid punk" with neo psychedelia and you are an user of Chrome (band), which is the only band that you qualified acid punk on wikipidia. The name of Devo has to disappear, I maintain, you can keep a small part of this quote but naming Devo as it is out of subject. Woovee (talk) 01:24, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
There are no "historical ineptitudes", only "history". Music genre categorizations are opinions (WP:SUBJECTIVE). You can't take out the Billboard source just because you disagree with the definition Shaw held in 1978. We have one source saying "[BAND] was thought by critics to be one of the top ten acid punk bands" and another saying "[BAND] is, to an extent, one of the first major indications of neo-psychedelia". It's fine if you don't think Devo is psychedelic. But at one point in time, it seems there were a number of people who thought they were. Attempts to "correct" that history is a misrepresentation of sources (WP:CHERRYPICKING).
You're supposedly an expert in these scenes, so you shouldn't be unfamiliar with the fact that many terms related to "punk" and "new wave" were used with little consistency in the late 1970s. Check out New wave#Etymology and usage. Maybe we could work some of that section into a footnote?--Ilovetopaint (talk) 20:44, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
It's an editorial decision as to what information to include, and Devo has never been tagged psychedelic by any critic recognized as such by his peers. Naming them here is a big mistake. Why can't you just withdraw them from the quote and simply saying that Billboard in 1978, talked about a resurgence of psychedelic music in the UK , briefly called acid punk. You don't have to cite all the text of the source each time. One user has to read the text of the source before editing and then rewriting it with his own words without distorting the original idea.
"Neo-psychedelia" = post-punk bands who went psychedelic at one moment or another. This is what the reader must read in the article. Why specifically mentioning this quote of Jon Savage, does he qualify Throbbing Gristle as neo-psychedelic in it?. Woovee (talk) 22:41, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Before removing sourced content, could you explain on talk what specifically you have a problem with? (WP:BURDEN) I added the Jon Savage quote because it lets the reader know how loose the definition was at that point in time, which is exactly what your issue was, wasn't it? --Ilovetopaint (talk) 23:03, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

"Devo has never been tagged psychedelic by any critic" ... lol. Again with the blatant revisionism.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 23:00, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

did Reynolds say that Devo were psychedelic ? Frankly, this has been going for more than one week. You are not ready to compromise. You don't want any consensus.Woovee (talk) 23:47, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Why mentioning post-punk bands like Wire, The Slits and Magazine whereas they never went psychedelic, this is out of subject.
And why do you keep on withdrawing Siouxsie and the Banshees from the article; they were one of the neo-psychedelic bands of the early 80's. Woovee (talk) 23:45, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Because you still haven't provided a source that says they contributed anything to neo-psychedelia, let alone a source that calls them a neo-psychedelic band.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 02:09, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

18 October 2016[edit]

SilkTork, Dan56, Indopug, Binksternet and GentleCollapse16, could you help us resolving these issues, please? To make it short, "neo-psychedelia" is a genre that began in the late 1970's, designating at the beginning post-punk bands that produced psychedelic music.
The A version currently online is this one (click on the link to see the changes):
In 1978, journalist Greg Shaw categorized a subset of new wave music as "neo-psychedelia", citing Devo, "to an extent ... [its] first major indication ... [they are] the new darling of the new wave press and opion-makers, yet nothing about it is remotely 'punk'".[7] Shaw wrote that in England, neo-psychedelia was known as "acid punk", noting "self-advertised 'psychedelic punk' band, the Soft Boys, [are] being hotly pursued by several major labels."[7][nb 1] By 1978–79, new wave was considered independent from punk and post-punk (the latter was initially known as "new musick").[13][nb 2] Author Clinton Heylin marks the year 1978 as the "true starting-point for English post-punk".[15][nb 3] Some bands of this decade-ending post-punk scene, including the Soft Boys, the Teardrop Explodes, and Echo & the Bunnymen, became major figures of neo-psychedelia.[1][nb 4] According to critic Simon Reynolds, Echo & the Bunnymen were heralded as the harbingers of "new psychedelia", he writes, "despite the fact that in those days they never ingested anything more deranging than pints of ale".[17][nb 5]
This is the B version that looks to me more apt.
In 1978, journalist Greg Shaw categorized a subset of new wave music as "neo-psychedelia", then momentarily known as "acid punk", noting "self-advertised 'psychedelic punk' band, the Soft Boys, [are] being hotly pursued by several major labels."[7][nb 1] Some bands of this decade-ending post-punk scene, including the Soft Boys, the Teardrop Explodes, and Echo & the Bunnymen, became major figures of neo-psychedelia.[1][nb 2] According to critic Simon Reynolds, Echo & the Bunnymen were heralded as the harbingers of "new psychedelia", he writes, "despite the fact that in those days they never ingested anything more deranging than pints of ale".[13][nb 3] Siouxsie and the Banshees, who had been one of the pioneers of post-punk,[14] went "neo-psychedelic" in 1982 with the use of "pan-like flutes" and "treated loops".[15]
1) I withdrew the band Devo from the text as they never produced any psychedelic music.
2) I specified that Siouxsie and the Banshees went neo-psychedelic in 1982, there is one wp:RS that supports this.
3) I withdrew Magazine (band), The Slits and Wire (band) from the text as none of them did any psychedelic record at any moment in their career. Woovee (talk) 00:16, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Support A
1) is merely your opinion – one that is contradicted by Greg Shaw (WP:!TRUTHFINDERS)
2) is a self-sourcing example and doesn't belong in the main article text. it barely even works as a footnote
3) those artists were listed in a footnote that serves only to clarify the origins of post-punk (WP:INDIRECTRELEVANCE)
3.1) the terms "punk", "new wave", and "psychedelic" are historically ill-defined. when neo-psychedelia is defined as an "outgrowth" of the post-punk scene [4], we have to allocate some space to what post-punk was in the late 1970s (WP:SURPRISE).
2/3) the only reason Magazine and Wire are mentioned in that footnote is because you wanted S&TB to be namedropped in the article as one of the progenitors of post-punk. as it happens, leaving Magazine and Wire out violates WP:NPOV (see also WP:CHERRYPICKING).
tl;dr: Greg Shaw could have written that Devo pioneered neo-psychedelic-proto-punk-minimal-nu-chillwave. If that's what was written in Billboard in 1978, you'd better believe it'd be worth including. Removing the Heylin comments on post-punk removes the context behind the Siouxsie & the Banshee namedrop.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 02:07, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Suggestion@Woovee: Maybe instead of copy and pasting two nearly-identical paragraphs, could you simply highlight the content that you want added/removed?--Ilovetopaint (talk) 02:13, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Ilovetopaint wrote here "Because you still haven't provided a source that says they [Siouxsie and the Banshees] contributed anything to neo-psychedelia, let alone a source that calls them a neo-psychedelic band." Really ?!?!? Is Uncut (magazine) peanuts? Seriously, what about your source... One sees that you haven't mentioned anything concerning Echo & the Bunnymen or Teardrop Explodes, what did these two bands provide to neo-psychedelia? Is it mentioned in the article? If one follows the logic, "neo-psychedelia= post-punk bands who did psychedelic music", then SATB have to be mentioned too. "The Quietus" wrote in the lead of this A Kiss in the Dreamhouse- album review that they were "one of the great British psychedelic bands." Meanwhile, you keep on mentioning things such as wp:cherrypicking which "is not a Wikipedia policy or guideline". This article is not your wp:own. Woovee (talk) 10:29, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
This is the last time I will respond to this point.
  • Uncut says that S&TB recorded an album with "neo-psychedelic flourishes". That doesn't mean they're a neo-psychedelic band.
  • The Quietus says that they're a "psychedelic band". That doesn't mean they're a neo-psychedelic band.
As for your other inquiries into E&tBM and Teardrop Explodes: Reynolds mentions them as one of the "leading" groups of post-punk. He even calls TE a "neopsychedelic outfit". It's in a footnote because it doesn't necessarily relate to neo-psychedelia, but is still helpful in understanding the relation between it and post-punk.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 00:45, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
@EdJohnston: Do you understand why Uncut's source associating Siouxsie and the Banshees with the neo-psychedelic term, can not be cited in this article ? Woovee (talk) 00:04, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
1) This source by Greg Shaw namedropping Devo is from 1978, this journalist made a mistake and this is not the first time that one notices this.
  • Suggestion Find one recent music historian saying that Devo's music was psychedelic. Make your research in Mojo, Rolling Stone, or in the books by Jon Savage, Paul Morley, Reynolds etc, authorities recognized as such by their peers. Woovee (talk) 10:48, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Are you really saying that a subjective opinion can be objectively wrong?--Ilovetopaint (talk) 00:45, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Sorry guys, you'll need to ask User:EdJohnston to help you sort this out. I don't have the time to be sorting out disputes when other admins are also getting involved. It tends to be better when one person handles a dispute. SilkTork ✔Tea time 12:17, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

@EdJohnston Woovee (talk) 12:26, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Is the only question remaining whether Devo was psychedelic? It looks like there are arguments on both sides. Is it impossible to create a sentence that explains the exact degree to which Devo was or was not psychedelic? If this question is important, you could cite some of the controversy and quote the opinions of critics. The argument that Devo was psychedelic seems indirect. I don't think we are required to defer equally to all music critics' opinions regardless of what decade they are from. If this was a historical dispute we would expect to trust the later historians more. EdJohnston (talk) 15:49, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
@EdJohnston: That is a good suggestion, and one I've already implemented. I added a 2011 book that discusses how terms like "new wave" and "punk" were loosely defined in the late 1970s. This is juxtaposed with two sources that relate the 1970s new wave movement to the 1960s psychedelia movement, specifically that they "challenged the rock music establishment". I placed the relevant 1978 text in a quotebox. Note this line:
"... While this may seem a paradox, since punk was largely a backlash against '60s drug culture, in fact acid rock in the '60s was originally a spinoff of that decade's "punk rock" scene.."
There's nothing questionable about that claim, all you have to do is check Acid rock#Garage rock and punk. Most people (both today and in 1978) would not say that Devo played psychedelic music, only new wave, but there are clear historical links between the two genres. The 1978 article is basically saying "yeah, Devo is not really psychedelic, but in the context of this neo-psychedelia thing that's been coming out recently, they should be given due credit". Which I happen to agree with.
Proto-punk led to vintage psychedelia in the same way that post-punk led to neo-psychedelia. Take the Velvet Underground for example: many label them a punk band and a psychedelic band, even though others say that the group rejected psychedelia. There is no difference between that and this Devo dispute. I don't think either bands are particularly psychedelic. But the fact that some think they could be is interesting to look into. Shaw excellently makes his case while doing so from a broad perspective. He is not simply analyzing the music of Devo without discussing the greater neo-psychedelic movement, which is what Woovee's Uncut source does, but for Siouxsie and the Banshees.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 00:45, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
@EdJohnston:The question is not important because any music historian has tagged Devo as Psychedelic in the last 20 years. One journalist, only one wrote this in 1978, but this didn't make any sense. BTW, Neo-psychedelic is not mentioned at the article of DevoWoovee (talk) 00:10, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Are my explanations too difficult to understand? Here's every point simplified to its core: art = subjective; source = reliable; information = significant; context = clarified.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 05:47, 27 October 2016

If you could spare me this condescending tone, that would help ! None of your arguements has been convincing so far, E&TB main genre is post-punk, they didn't take any acid while recording. SATB did. Now, I'm gonna make shortcuts like you do, explain us why SATB = post-punk = recording under LSD = psychedelic .... doesn't mean SATB = neo-psychedelic. If you confirm your point of view, fine I will add them along with Cure and Glove on Psychedelic music/rock. Other point, I maintain, putting one journalist on a pedestal doing shorcuts for Devo is a mistake. Try to add this at Devo just by curiosity... Woovee (talk) 22:32, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
EdJohnston, we keep on treading here. Woovee (talk) 22:38, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
Our opinions don't matter. We note what reliable sources say. Only in cases of WP:EXTRAORDINARY do we need multiple citations. Greg Shaw writing in 1978 that Devo might be considered one of the major indications of neo-psychedelic is not an extraordinary claim, it's just his opinion. And Shaw's opinion is unquestionably more valuable than yours or mine. He's not just some fanzine guy, his writings about punk were important and helped codify the genre (see here). As for SATB, I don't know what you have an issue with. Do you want the "neo-psychedelic flourishes" quote to be removed now?--Ilovetopaint (talk) 17:09, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 9 October 2016[edit]

  1. Undo this edit.
    Rationale: The content talks about the origins of the term "acid punk", which is an alternative name for "neo-psychedelia". The rationale for removal implies that the source is self-published, which is false ("this guy is a musician he is not a professional journalist"). The source is actually a 1993 interview conducted by Stuart Barr for the magazine Convulsion, which is perfectly within the bounds of WP:RS. The interview is available to read online.
  2. Restore <ref name=AllMusicNeoP/> to the end of this claim: Towards the end of the late 1970s, bands of the post-punk scene, including the Teardrop Explodes, Echo & the Bunnymen, The Soft Boys, became major figures of neo-psychedelia."

Thanks! Ilovetopaint (talk) 19:09, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

As you have been an active participant in the recent edit war, I will not action any requests without support from other editors. If you are struggling to find others to weigh in, you could try Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music. Regards — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:24, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
@MSGJ, I only agree to add <ref name=AllMusicNeoP/> to the end of this claim: Towards the end of the late 1970s, bands of the post-punk scene, including the Teardrop Explodes, Echo & the Bunnymen, The Soft Boys, became major figures of neo-psychedelia." as it has been reverted by accident. Woovee (talk) 23:46, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:08, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
@EdJohnston, there isn't any consensus yet... but when one takes a look at the article... Woovee (talk) 13:28, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
@MSGJ, I'm tired of dealing with an user who considers this article his own. Look at the history of these recent days. Woovee (talk) 11:33, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Acid punk is certainly not a synonym of neo-psychedelia. Chilton (talk) 11:36, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Edit warring, content forks, and coatrack issues[edit]

I removed additions about Madchester, Jam band, Stoner rock that were haphazardly copied-and-pasted from their respective articles because they infringed on WP:SYNTH and WP:COATRACK. The sources themselves say nothing about the genre known as "neo-psychedelia". What some of them do mention is psychedelic rock — information that is better suited for the article Psychedelic rock (WP:CFORK). Besides that, other issues in this revision have to do with removing sourced content (such as "acid rock" as a genre synonym). ili (talk) 03:10, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

If understand you well, you are arguing that "neo-psychedelia" is not rock music. The current version of the article which can be assumed is the one you support includes within "neo-psychedelia" these bands: "the Church, Nick Saloman's Bevis Frond, Spacemen 3, Robyn Hitchcock, Mercury Rev, the Flaming Lips, and Super Furry Animal". With the possible exception of Spacemen 3, which can be said to be post-rock or drone music or indie electronic, ALL of those other bands are clearly rock music. Also all the other bands mentioned in this article. Their music is played with electric guitars, bass and drum set and so all of their articles say they are rock music and outside sources such as Allmusic say they are rock bands. They tend to be seen as part of a subgenre of Rock music which is Indie rock which is included in the main Rock music article. On the other hand this version of the article does not deal with non-rock psychedelic music such as psychedelic trance or goa trance or acid house. Allmusic itself classifies neo-psychedelia within rock music in this way: "Pop/Rock » Alternative/Indie Rock » Neo-Psychedelia". Also it clarifies that "for the most part, it has been chiefly the domain of alternative and indie-rock bands". As such neo-psychedelia is mainly rock music and should be seen as a subgenre of rock music and as mostly a section of the subgenre of rock music known as indie rock.--Eduen (talk) 19:32, 9 September 2020 (UTC)