Talk:Jazz (Queen album)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Queen, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.QueenWikipedia:WikiProject QueenTemplate:WikiProject QueenQueen articles

Albums

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.AlbumsWikipedia:WikiProject AlbumsTemplate:WikiProject AlbumsAlbum articles

The article mentions that the poster of the bicycle race was not available in the U.S. However, I purchased this back when it came out, and it had the poster. This was in Ohio. So I know this statement isn't true. I did not mail order this album, but bought it from a local music store (probably Peaches) - Tom

More inappropriate John Deacon comparisons[edit]

I request that the line about In Only Seven Days being a "son" of Spread Your Wings be removed. On the discussion for Queen's News Of The World album, I mentioned that Misfire and Who Needs You are distinctive songs. Ditto here. Someone assumes that all John Deacon's songs sound the same, but I consider that insulting to Deacon's artistry. 65.248.164.214 (talk) 17:12, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Genre[edit]

Added pop rock. Face it: It's still a whole lot of pop on this album.--Gustav Lindwall 20:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fat Bottomed Girls[edit]

How exactly do Mercury and May share lead vocals? To me it sounds like Freddie (of course with harmonies of Roger and Brian on the refrain) - BK

Fair use rationale for Image:Queen Jazz.png[edit]

Image:Queen Jazz.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 11:04, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mustapha[edit]

Mustapha utilizes more of the Farsi (Persian) language rather than Arabic for its 'nonsense'. I've seen this documented before, but the only credit I can give for this is the fact that I know Farsi speakers who understand a bit of what he's singing--Drowse (talk) 00:10, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This entry needs to be clarified. Are the lyrics actual language or improvised? The entry, as it stands, seems to say both... Elcalen (talk) 11:42, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fun It[edit]

"Taylor used a Syndrum pad and played most of the instruments." Does this include the guitar riff? 'Cause that's such a huge part of the track it may be worth mentioning. Elcalen (talk) 21:17, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dead on Time[edit]

I'm not sure if Dead on Time is one of the "few" metal songs in their catalogue. There are certainly at least a dozen heavier (or at least equally heavy) songs in their catalogue: Keep Yourself Alive, Great King Rat, Liar, Modern Times Rock and Roll, Son and Daughter, Ogre Battle, Stone Cold Crazy, Death on Two Legs, Sweet Lady, Tie Your Mother Down, I Want It All, Headlong, Hitman, etc. — Deckill er 09:17, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

About "Let Me Entertain You"...[edit]

... when Freddie sings "I'll pull you and I'll pill you/ I'll Cruella DeVil you", what exactly does he mean by "I'll Cruella Devil you"? That he'll skin us and use us for fur or something? I'm confused. 24.189.90.68 (talk) 04:08, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reviews[edit]

Do we really need the George Starostin review ? I mean, there are plenty of other reviews by professional reviewers whose reviews are actually published by reputable magazines and websites. On top of that, his reviews were written with the benefit of hindsight, which makes them far less interesting, because they don't exemplify the critical response at the time the record was released. Just because his reviews are long-winded and often disagree with popular opinion doesn't make them any more interesting than those of the next person with a website. Also, his scoring system goes up to 15, so showing the score here as "9 stars out of 10" is misleading. 84.198.246.199 (talk) 16:43, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

merging of song articles[edit]

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jealousy (Queen song).

I think that Mustapha and Bicycle_Race could be merged here too. They are short enough and they don't have sources to pass WP:NSONGS. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:37, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The AfD has closed now. Can I merge them now, or do I need to set up separate AfDs for each one? --Enric Naval (talk) 09:13, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bicycle race poster[edit]

The article states "A bicycle race with nude women was held to promote the album". While I know about the event in question (and May saying several times since that it wasn't big or clever), my copy of the album (EMA 788, gatefold sleeve, probably early 80s pressing) doesn't have it. It is possible that the previous owner kept the poster for his own, er, devices. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:38, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I won't remove it (for now) so as not to upset any tender, sensitive Wikipedians - but the business about the poster not being in US copies of the LP is incorrect. I bought it, new, a few weeks after release, in the US, on Elektra, and it most definitely did have the poster in it. So somebody with a better line on confirmation should look into that and officialy amend it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.224.73.237 (talk) 16:21, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Queen's official site, which is cited for this fact, is quite clear: "..... but the poster was deemed to risquÃ© for the American public and instead of issuing it with the LP, Elektra Records avoided causing offence to retailers by instead included a coupon with which people could apply for their free poster."[1]

This only demonstrates that even so-called "reliable sources" can be wrong — and that we must use intelligence in weeding out wrong information even from ostensibly "safe" sources of information. Carrite (talk) 21:56, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You will, of course, need to discuss the issue, given that you are making a controversial change contrary to the apparently reliable source cited. Rather than carrying on this discussion in two places on the same talk page, please keep further comments threaded at the end. - SummerPhD^v2.0 01:37, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Should you tenderly wish to sensitively amend it officially, you'll need to find a reliable source. - SummerPhD^v2.0 18:58, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have no wish to engage in some silly war on this topic. The Queen site, official or no, is wrong. Here's one source. I'll let you decide whether or not it's "official" enough for you. Scroll down and look under "Notes" :

https://www.discogs.com/Queen-Jazz/release/4159122

You might also notice that there is another listing, for the US version, which does mention the coupon. I would guess that there were possibly copies with the poster, and copies with the coupon, with an attempt to target where each went. Not an outlandish thought, actually. And mine was purchased in NYC, for whatever that's worth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.224.73.237 (talk) 03:32, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reason for a "war" -- silly or otherwise -- of any kind. Wikipedia reports what reliable sources say about a topic.

Queen's official website is likely a reliable source for uncontroversial information about their albums. Discogs, however, is a user created and edited database.[2] Anyone can edit Discogs, much like Wikipedia. Other than for uncontroversial information about Discogs in Discogs, it should not be cited for much of anything on Wikipedia. (Similarly, Wikipedia should not be cited for much of anything on Wikipedia, other than non-controversial information about Wikipedia in Wikipedia.)

If you can locate a reliable source disputing the claim from Queen, we will need to find a way to discuss the conflicting information. Otherwise, we simply have nothing to say other than the official story. - SummerPhD^v2.0 04:44, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The most cursory of looks at your Talk page indicates quite clearly that you (not "we", you) have your own agendas and views on things like this. "Queen's official website is likely a reliable source." Why? Oh, right, because you said it is. "We will need to find a way to discuss the conflicting information". Once again, there is no "we" here. There is only you choosing to believe who and what you wish to believe as far as "conflicting information" from sources go on an actual fact that you obviously have no personal knowledge of yourself. Like I said - tender and sensitive. Leave it wrong. I don't really care, and you'll get to put another notch on your passive/aggressive chewtoy. Everybody wins. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.104.195.43 (talk) 18:05, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to have upset you. Unfortunately, because anyone can edit Wikipedia, everyone does edit Wikipedia. While most editors are well-intentioned, Wikipedia often becomes a dumping ground for what people remember, think they remember, saw, wish they had seen, believe and would like others to believe, along with a good deal of outright vandalism.

While I do not doubt what you are saying, there is no way to cite what you remember. What Queen's official website reports is verifiable, so long as it is a reliable source for that information.

The fact cited doesn't seem in any way controversial, so I would think that Queen's official website would be a reliable source, barring any sourced indication that there was/is some kind of controversy about it. For clarification, I've raised the question at the Reliable sources/Noticeboard. If you believe that Discogs is a reliable source, we (you, me, anybody) can raise the question there as well, but I'm not sure that your interpretation of what the differing listing might mean would be helpful in sorting this out in any case.

If you (or anyone else) finds a reliable source contrary to other reliable sources we (those of us working on this article, including me and you) would have to figure out how to address that. There have been other instances I have run across where reliable sources have disagreed. Typically, we (Wikipedia editors) have simply stated that source A says X and source B says Y.

Should you prefer to simply storm off and ignore it, that's your choice. Boo hoo. - SummerPhD^v2.0 22:14, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I almost just responded to all that drivel point by point - then I remembered - I actually have a life outside of this website. See ya. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.224.73.237 (talk) 22:38, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I know you will continue your record of not caring and not getting into it, but I'll summarize the RS/N opinion later in an effort to fill my otherwise empty life. - SummerPhD^v2.0 23:32, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So far,the feedback at the noticeboard is resounding: yes, it's reliable; is this a serious question?[3] Unless there's a dramatic twist, we're done here. Not that you care. - SummerPhD^v2.0 04:19, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No one at the noticeboard disputes the source is reliable.[4] The original poster's repeated complaints (while asserting they don't care) seem to have ended. I guess we're done here. - SummerPhD^v2.0 14:05, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

....but someone at the noticeboard did say that they personally remember the situation about the poster differently than the incorrect version that the website maintains. You forget to mention that. Carrite (talk) 22:00, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I said that on the noticeboard, referring to your comments here. Queen's official website verifiably states one thing. A random, anonymous person says something else. When an independent reliable source says something, that is verifiable information. If some anonymous person on the Internet says soemthing, that is, quite frankly, nothing. There are random anonymous people editing articles right now claiming that there absolutely will be a new season of (insert name of long-dead show) starting in 2020. Some of them read something somewhere and are misremembering it. Some read something somewhere that was simply wrong or a joke. Others are simply making things up. - SummerPhD^v2.0 01:48, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is absolutely NOT resolved. I know the first US pressing came with the poster enclosed because I was a huge Queen fan and I bought it as such. First press had an oval sticker which touted the poster enclosed inside. See THIS on ebay, click the image of the sticker. Later pressings had a round sticker with an OFFER for a free poster. See THIS for an example of that. I have changed text to reflect this reality. Wrong is wrong, no matter the source. We are here to be accurate. Carrite (talk) 21:49, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To make a change to the article, you will need to find an independent reliable source supporting the change. At that point, we will have two independent reliable sources that disagree and will need to figure out how to present it. Not that you care. - SummerPhD^v2.0 01:48, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So let me get this straight - you now seem to have caved on the fact that you (and the Queen website) are wrong. But instead of doing something about it - like maybe pointing to one of the (several) examples given to you - hell, you could even put the picture of the sticker ON the page here - you'd rather add a pouty little footnote to the effect of "well, it's not saying it right." If you're that invested in this place (and don't even try to discuss that one - your user page says it all), make it right. But to just sort of footstomp off after your entirely disingenuous slinging around of the term "good faith" on other people's edits is pretty preposterous. All you really want is for things to be right...but for somebody else to do the actual work. This is why "we" don't have, and never had, an issue here. You do. Best of luck with that. Not that I care... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.104.195.43 (talk) 20:10, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes, let's get this straight.

I have not "caved" on anything.

No, we cannot add some random person on ebay's photo to the article. No, we cannot assume that random people saying something on ebay to sell their used LPs are reliable sources. No, we cannot assume that one possible interpretation of those postings is correct.

Incidentally, I didn't "footstomp off" anywhere and yes, I am assuming you are editing in good faith.

I have not been able to find any reliable sources discussing this issue, other than Queen's official website. If you manage to find one, please bring it to the discussion. Changing the article to agree with your recollections while leaving a source that directly contradicts that claim does not solve things.

As the source cited (with is reliable) directly contradicts the claim, I have added a failed verification tag. You seem to feel the links to ebay sales of the album are reliable sources which state that the poster originally came with the album, there was an uproar and later copies replaced the poster with a mail in offer.

Random people posting on ebay are not reliable sources and they do not say that.

The ebay listings demonstrate 1) two people are trying to sell copies of the album and 2) one has a the poster 3) one has a mail in offer. The random people posting on ebay do not state which of their particular holdings came out first, neither states where or when they bought theirs, neither has anything to say about any change.

If we could somehow make both of these reliable sources, change what they say and make them into one source (to avoid the synthesis), cite it in the article and find a reason to assume the obviously reliable source we have is some how not reliable, we'd have this solved.

I'll let this sit for a couple of days. If no one addresses the issue, I'll change it back.

What the reliable source says belongs in the article. Any material that disagrees with that source cannot cite that source. I will remove unsourced material and unreliable sources. - SummerPhD^v2.0 20:46, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The photo - regardless of who or where it is from - is - once more, with feeling - is A PHOTO OF THE ORIGINAL LP STICKER - INCLUDING THE ELEKTRA CATALOG # - THAT CLEARLY STATES THERE IS A POSTER INCLUDED. So you have two points to address : 1. Why is that not evidence for you? (Let me guess - you think the guy printed it up himself?) 2. What makes some (unknown) persons comments on a website - regardless of it's seeming legitimacy - any different from your own anti-"I read it on the web" stance? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.104.195.43 (talk) 20:58, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Though I do not intend to denigrate the highly regarded reputation for fact-checking and accuracy of random people selling LPs on ebay and your interpretation of what their various photos might mean, they are not reliable sources and do not say what you want them to say.

Queen's official website says the American release did not include the poster, but did include an order form for it. That is verifiable and cited. If you can find a reliable source which says otherwise, there will be something to discuss here. - SummerPhD^v2.0 21:47, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Summer, you quite clearly are an individual incapable of constructive conversation. You removed a lengthy post of mine, which was laced with humor, and you have repeatedly - though carefully - called people liars and worse here. (Although undoubtedly the main reason your removed it was it made far too many pertinent points which you have no answer to.) Rest easy, however - I have no wish to ever engage with you again. You give Wikipedians a truly bad name. Hearty handshake for you. Remove this comment, and I'll make sure the matter is taken up with the proper people here. I can let silliness go - but I will not be censored by someone such as yourself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.224.73.109 (talk) 00:13, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Consistent with Wikipedia policy, I removed your post which was laden with personal attacks and ask that you discuss the issue, not editors. I neither said nor meant to imply that anyone here was lying about anything. - SummerPhD^v2.0 00:22, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Whether you meant to imply such or not - that is how I construed it. Surely just as valid as your perception of my "personal attacks" on you, yes? But since personal attacks seem to be the issue here, let's just make sure the facts stand : here they are again, nice and businesslike, all personal references removed. No problem with that, right? Sorry you didn't enjoy my attempts at humor. It happens.

The image found on eBay - also an image that can be found elsewhere on the web - is of an original promotional sticker, created by the label. On it is printed, along with the label # of the record, the name of the current single from it that is being promoted. In addition, in this case, it bears the phrase (after the word contains) "and a four color poster of the start of the nude bicycle race." This constitutes proof that copies WERE available WITH the poster.

There are also instances of Freddie Mercury mentioning in interviews at the time that certain sellers were not carrying the record because of the poster. On the web can also be found too numerous to mention instances on fansites, forums etc of people talking about their memories of buying the album and the poster. The possibility that all of these people are either making this up, or are somehow mistaken, is highly unlikely. The possibility of the Queen website containing information of a second-hand nature about something that occurred almost 40 years ago, however, is in no way diminished merely by it being an "official" source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.224.73.109 (talk) 00:35, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The personal attacks were quite clear. Thank you for agreeing to stop.

Yes, there is a sticker stating that a poster was included in copies of the album somewhere at some time. That is not what you are saying.

If there are reliable sources discussing this, please cite them. If fansites and forums "too numerous to mention" discuss these interviews, certainly at least one of them will give us the information we need to track down that interview. A fansite saying "Mercury said X" is not a reliable source, but if it says "Mercury said X in Rolling Stone that year", we can find it, verify what it says and figure out how to handle any conflict between sources. Without a reliable source, we are wasting our time. Anything you, me or anyone else adds that dows not cite a reliable source can be removed at any time. - SummerPhD^v2.0 00:52, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Summer - and this is meant quite civilly, I assure you - it is obvious your only real interest is to argue for the sake of arguing now. What you have at stake in that, I cannot begin to guess anymore. I have shown you multiple examples, in multiple locations, of the original packaging. I explained to you how the original packaging worked. Your response is to say "we don't know that". I and others have told you that we PERSONALLY bought it with the poster. "Not good enough. We might have made it up." (And whether you like it or not, by extension, you ARE calling us liars by doing so.) The only thing you have to back anything up with is a similar "story" on a website - which quotes no sources itself, and has nothinhg to back up ITS veracity other than its being on an "official" website.

Someone with more time than me (because I really have spent enough on it now) is going to eventually give you the proof you need. What you will have won by holding out that long by that point is, again, beyond me. Why you value a flawed system of verification from a website over actual proof, or why and how that system prevents you from processing or believing said proof - mysteries to me. But you do what you gotta do, I suppose. Hope it all works out. Ta ta. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.224.73.109 (talk) 01:08, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have neither said nor implied that you made anything up. You cannot extend what I did not say.

You have said there are fansites and forums "too numerous to mention". I have asked for one. One with a direct quote or saying where the interview was would likely give us everything we need to resolve this issue. Now that you've mentioned that there are too many, I am merely asking for one. Failing that, I will restore the verifiable material from the reliable source. - SummerPhD^v2.0 01:49, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you can extend "personal attacks" out of my obviously over the top humor, I can extend whatever I want to from your statements. So let's just leave that one there, shall we?

And one more time - what is it that's preventing YOU from looking for anything? Why should I, or anybody, go to the trouble of looking for and providing links for something I or they know to be true just because you don't believe it? And given your general unyielding, arms-crossed dismissal of everything to this point, what exactly would be my motivation for doing so? I found most of what I mentioned a few weeks ago after my first go around with you - not because I "needed" to, but because I was curious how easy it would be. It took about 5 minutes to find around 8 or 9 things. The images, the interviews, several people talking about their personal experiences. If you can't be bothered to do that, and want to keep hugging those "verifiable sources" - so be it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.224.73.109 (talk) 02:06, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your personal attacks were quite clear.

I haven't been able to find anything. You have said you found too many to mention, but can't be bothered to cite any. If you have no motivation to do so, it's time for you to walk away again, I guess. - SummerPhD^v2.0 02:12, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're quite over sensitive, and also in the realm of calling me a liar again. Now it's your turn to stop.

You haven't been able to find "anything", or anything that you can apply your "verifiable source" criteria to? Since you've already rejected the primary one of those, I'm going to guess the latter. In which case I'm afraid I can't help you. Sorry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.224.73.109 (talk) 02:31, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You won't or can't provide a source. I guess we're done here. Again. - SummerPhD^v2.0 02:38, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK - enough already. The YouTube vid was going to be pointless anyway. (Which I knew.) Here. I would do it myself, but I have no idea how to actually physically do all that citation business. (And, yes, that's right, wait for it.....don't care to know how.) But there's a page, from a more than reputable source, which explicitly backs up everything I have written there now. So fix it up if you really want to show us all you're about accurate information. Don't bother apologizing. Way too late at this point anyway. Good night and good luck.

https://books.google.com/books?id=1cNDDgAAQBAJ&pg=PA561&dq=queen+jazz+album+poster+1978&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiSy-vD3tDVAhVMyoMKHTe_DD8Q6AEILDAB#v=onepage&q=queen%20jazz%20album%20poster%201978&f=false

I've already accepted your apology for the personal attacks. Let it go.

To repeat, I have NEVER said anyone here was lying. You've repeatedly said that I have. I'm guessing you think that means I just said you have repeatedly lied. I did not. Figure it out.

No, I do not need to explain that your interpretation of a photo of a sticker on an ebay posting is not a reliable source supporting something it does not say.

I've repeatedly said we need a reliable source and linked to WP:V/WP:IRS. I've repeatedly said we need a source that directly states what you are trying to add and linked to WP:NOR. While I am certainly enthralled by every word that comes out of Scotty's mouth, he is not a reliable source and he does not directly state anything relevant here. If you feel he is a reliable source, you'll need to explain. If you think he did directly state that the poster originally came with the US LP, then was removed (or, your new statement, that the LP came in two versions; one with and one without) you'll need to explain. If you can't be bothered to read what Wikipedia considers to be a reliable source and figure out why Scotty doesn't make the cut or why what he's saying doesn't clearly state what you are trying to add, you need not bother to respond.

You've said there are interviews discussing it. Please provide any one source for the interview(s) clarifying this situation. - SummerPhD^v2.0 03:42, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hit your refresh button and keep current, dear. None of that was relevant anymore. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.224.73.109 (talk) 03:57, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, my mistake. You did see it, apparently. Sorry, I missed it in the middle of all the rest of your frothing about Scotty (which I myself had already dismissed as a source. Maybe you missed that too. Sorry for dragging you into it, Scotty.) My statement about two versions is also not "new" - I said it way back on July 20. You didn't listen then, either. And it HAPPENED back in 1978, as per the reference I gave you. Are you going to insert it as a citation, or are you going to wait for somebody else to do that for you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.224.73.109 (talk) 04:03, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Another image - not one on sale, but from a Queen site - of the original US pressing and sticker :

http://www.queenpedia.com/images/1/1c/Jazzusa.jpg

Google keywords : Freddie Mercury Jazz Poster 1978 interview. Guess you couldn't handle that one yourself. You're welcome.

http://www.queenarchives.com/index.php?title=Freddie_Mercury_-_12-12-1978_-_Circus_Magazine

What else can I do for you? Floors? Windows? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.224.73.109 (talk) 04:11, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Several mentions on this page - note the US locations, and the phrase "came with", not "that you had to mail order" "

http://forums.stevehoffman.tv/threads/lp-posters-that-should-be-framed.311320/page-2

(US) Blog post - "Anyone who bought Queen Jazz knows that the image on the “Fat Bottomed Girls” single was nothing compared the “Bicycle Race” poster that came inside the album..."

Dishes? Laundry covered? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.224.73.109 (talk) 04:25, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oops - forgot the link - http://hardrockdaddy.com/2013/03/06/hard-rock-music-time-machine-1978-queen-fat-bottomed-girls/

Remind me again how I found all these and you couldn't find "anything"? Or do none of these meet your strict standards? And if not, when does sheer volume of mentions outweigh your one, extremely sketchy one? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.224.73.109 (talk) 04:28, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The blogs and fansites you have now listed are not reliable sources and don't support either one of your versions directly. Rather than offering to help with the windows and such, please spend a few moments reading what a reliable source is at WP:IRS.

When two sources directly disagree on facts at least one is wrong. When a reliable source says something, it may or may not be right, but it is verifiable.

You made two distinct claims: The poster originally came with the album in America, later versions did not, due to a "furor".[5] Your other claim was that some retailers didn't want to stock the poster, so there were two versions available, one with the poster and one without.[6] You did not provide a source for either claim.

The fansite copyright violation of the interview in Circus would have been a good place to start, if it said what you need it to say. It doesn't.

One possible exception is the link to Goldmine which says, "Some copies had a sticker with an address at which the poster was available free." While that doesn't directly contradict either of your two versions, it doesn't directly support either one. Further, the earlier ebay sources you were pushing had a sticker that doesn't fit that discription.[7] Instead of a sticker with an address, it shows an insert.

Off hand, if the book is a reliable source (I haven't looked into it at all), I'd say it challenges the statement of the reliable source (Queen's official site), but doesn't allow us to completely endorse either of your statements. If that's the best source you have, I'll look at it a bit closer and see if I think it's reliable (or you could certainly explain how it meets WP:IRS...) and what I can put together from the sources. If you have anything clearer, of course, that would be better. - SummerPhD^v2.0 16:12, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Last one. No fooling.

1. "please spend a few moments reading what a reliable source is" - Do not tell me what to do. Your passive/aggressive schtick is not useful in any way.

2. "When two sources directly disagree on facts at least one is wrong. When a reliable source says something, it may or may not be right, but it is verifiable" - Whoopee. The point I was making with the fansite links - and all of my comments, regardless of how you see their provenance - is that there is ample evidence to be investigated that shows your quoted reliable source is in this case, in fact, wrong.

3. "You made two distinct claims: The poster originally came with the album in America, later versions did not, due to a "furor"." - That comment was added by someone else to the page previously, not by me. I replaced that wording yesterday. Please try to pay attention and attribute comments correctly.

4. "the earlier ebay sources you were pushing" - I don't know how many times I've said it, but I'll say it one more time, no doubt to no effect. I am not "pushing" an eBay source. I am pushing the IMAGE that is contained ON the eBay page OF the ITEM we are talking about - and an image which can ALSO be found in OTHER locations which are NOT related to the selling of the item. For whatever reason, you simply cannot seem to grasp or make this distinction. I do not know why. (And a PS to this - what (very) little I did peruse of the "guidelines" here showed "publisher" to be a recognized primary source. Which is what a label sticker containing information about the contents of an album package would most certainly qualify as. Perhaps you should do a little re-reading yourself.)

5. You can "look into" whatever you want. Again, the "furor" part was never mine, The only point I am making - and which I have sourced for you, in numerous places, is that there were two versions - one WITH the poster, and one without, which was obtainable by mail. That's what it should say in the article. It DOES say that now. And though you're not swayed by anything other than your dogged hanging on to your original source, this has been commented on by more than one person here. One would think that after hearing and seeing this opinion pointed out as many times as it has, that someone might eventually say, "Hey - you know, if there's this many people that have these stories and images that seem to match up, maybe there's something to this." But, clearly, that's not how you're approaching it. So be it.

So as I said before - whether it's you, or somebody else, the conclusion I mentioned above - since it's the FACT of the matter - IS going to be proven eventually. (Or rather, will be with a reliable source that makes you happy.) And you will have gone through all of this for....well, as I also said previously, for I have no idea what. Now if you'll excuse me, the only reason I've had this kind of time to spend on this for the past day is because I've been sick as a dog, and I'm feeling much better now. So it's back to the real world for me. If I think about it, I'll check back in a few months or so - probably the next time I listen to the album - to see how you finally "resolved" it all. No hard feelings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.224.73.109 (talk) 19:07, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1) If you continue trying to use sources that fail WP:IRS, you will continue to waste your time.

2) Wikipedia is built on verifiable information, even if it runs counter to your interpretation of snippits from various sources.

3) By restoring the claim (repeatedly), you made the claim, per WP:V. I'm not sure why you would prefer an unsourced version you think is wrong to a well-sourced version you think is wrong.

4) Let's try it again: The image that you were pushing (the one from the ebay posting) disagrees with the Goldmine source you have now provided.

5) The latest version you added to the article does not say "there were two versions - one WITH the poster, and one without, which was obtainable by mail". It says "In the US, in response to some retailers not wishing to stock the poster, a coupon was included in some copies so the poster could be ordered via mail instead." You have not provided a reliable source which supports either claim. (It would likely help if you understood WP:IRS.) As I have already stated, I will resolve it by restoring the verifiable version directly stated by the reliable source. - SummerPhD^v2.0 19:46, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored the verifiable version with the reliable source. - SummerPhD^v2.0 19:24, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

...and as another person in America who purchased my own copy in the United States (with poster, released by EMI), and being one who will not bother to have a lengthy discussion with you here since I already know Wikipedia's "reliable source" doctrine is frequently "authoritatively wrong", I'd like to ask: isn't it possible the original release by EMI in the US had the poster, and the re-mastered re-release by Universal did not? Especially since I also purchased the universal release and there was no poster in it? I know I'm not an "authoritative source", but I also know that there were a few years and contract negotiations between the 2 releases, and the Queen site seems to be a memoir of one of the members, subject to error as memory fades (Brian May plays a mean guitar, and has a doctorate, but is still human).

simply for consideration... sincerely, Maxnort (talk) 15:33, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of things are possible. It's possible that you randomly appeared here with an account that sat unused for a decade and it just happened to be 3 days after the IP editor earned a one month block for personal attacks. That's possible.

It's also possible that your recollection is wrong, along with your assumption that the site is the work on one member writing from memory and getting it wrong.

I know you don't care to have a discussion. So we'll just have to leave it at that. - SummerPhD^v2.0 18:41, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I didn't read the "talk" section first, and thought I was improving the article by pointing out that the poster was in fact in on US albums. Yes, you can count me as another person living in America who got this poster. But SummerPhD immediately reverted back. I've tried to read some of this thread on this subject, but I didn't realize the significant back and forth on this topic. I, too, don't like to edit war, as life is far too short, and in the end, while I love Wikipedia, it's not curing cancer. Suffice to say, I don't agree with the reliance on an "official site" that is clearly wrong, as we have given multiple examples of this not being true. Are we all vandals conspiring to mess up the "Jazz" article on Wikipedia? Obviously not. Keeping a clear error in is absurd, as others have pointed out. Asc85 (talk) 01:35, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the options as I see them:

1) We follow Wikipedia's policies. In this case, a clearly reliable source -- the band's official site -- says the poster was not included in the U.S. with a postcard included to send for it. We say that currently ("The American release did not include the poster, but did include an order form for it.") and cite the reliable source.

2) We remove the statement about the poster's availability in the U.S. and say nothing about it. This, of course, would leave the implication that the poster was at all times and in all cases included, which I don't think anyone is claiming is the case. Additionally, it is highly likely that someone at some point in the future will add in their version of the postcard (unsourced, poorly sourced or with a source we haven't found), which would likely slide in without objection as it's not replacing anything sourced.

3) Ignore the silly pillar. Guess that it was originally included in the U.S., then removed. Possibly include a guess as to how and why this happened. Use the cite that disagrees or leave it uncited. Wait for someone to change it to match the source or remove it as unsourced and wonder why it happened.

4) Ignore the silly pillar. Guess that it was included in some, but not all copies in the U.S. Possibly include a guess as to how and why this happened. Use the cite that disagrees or leave it uncited. Wait for someone to change it to match the source or remove it as unsourced and wonder why it happened.

Other solutions? - SummerPhD^v2.0 01:57, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm here to say that my copy of Jazz bought in New Jersey in the early 1980s indeed included the full poster. KJRehberg (talk) 19:19, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I also got the poster with my copy when I bought it in 1978 in the Los Angeles area. I still have it and the poster. I wasn't cool enough to get a foreign version, or even know that such things were available in the U.S. Tighelander (talk) 03:48, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Jazz (Queen album). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:16, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jazz (Queen album). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110930145815/http://www.queenzone.com/news/queen-win-top-gears-best-driving-song-ever-poll.aspx to http://www.queenzone.com/news/queen-win-top-gears-best-driving-song-ever-poll.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:03, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Genre again[edit]

I have a whole lot of references for the album's genre (since the current genre, rock, is not referenced) but I just wanted to know if anybody has any problem with me changing it. UndoubtedlyMe (talk) 18:05, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]