Talk:Straight Outta Compton

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good articleStraight Outta Compton was one of the Music good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
November 14, 2007Good article nomineeListed
September 21, 2012Good article reassessmentDelisted
Current status: Delisted good article

GA delist - article unclear, and not following sources closely enough[edit]

There is a good deal of information in the article - however, some of the language is not clear, or assumes prior knowledge of the album, its genre, and the impact it made. Sentences like: " N.W.A always enjoyed a particular reputation with U.S. Senators" assumes that the reader will know what that reputation is. The quote: "positioned Straight Outta Compton as the sound of the West Coast firing on New York's Fort Sumpter in what would become '90s culture's biggest Uncivil War" is similarly clear only to those who already know what is going on. There are few solid sources used in the article - the article depends largely on internet review sites, even though there are a number of books such as Rap Music and Street Consciousness by Cheryl L. Keyes, Icons of Hip Hop: An Encyclopedia of the Movement, Music, and Culture by Mickey Hess, Droppin Science by William Perkins, The Making of the American School Crisis by Emily E. Straus, as well as Dr. Dre: A Biography, and other books.

The lead has statements that are not fully supported by sources, and which are not followed up in the main body. The lead does not follow the guidance in WP:Lead. And there are further challengeable statements and quotes that are not supported by citations. The prose is not always as concise and clear as it could be: "Critics of the album expressed their view that the record glamorized Black-on-Black crime" could be written as: "Critics felt that the album glamorized Black-on-Black crime". (Is it usually written as "Black-on-Black crime"?).

The article doesn't meet GA criteria at the moment. It's possible that the article has slipped over the years, or just that GA standards have tightened. I think the article needs to be improved to keep the GA listing. SilkTork ✔Tea time 08:53, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GA Reassessment[edit]

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Straight Outta Compton/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

Reassessing. SilkTork ✔Tea time 17:13, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

Comments on GA criteria[edit]

Pass
  • Image of cover is appropriately tagged. It doesn't need a caption. SilkTork ✔Tea time 17:45, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stable. There's been some inappropriate IP edits, but not enough to make the article unstable. SilkTork ✔Tea time 17:47, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref section. There is an appropriate reference section. SilkTork ✔Tea time 17:49, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Query
  • No original research and bias. Because some statements are not appropriately sourced it is unknown if these statements are original research or are biased. Once the article is securely sourced this query is likely to disappear. SilkTork ✔Tea time 17:58, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Major aspects. Though there is material on Critical response, and there are assertions of the album's importance in the lead, I don't feel the article has adequately or appropriately explained to the general reader, supported by reliable sources, the importance or relevance of the album. I have put it here as a query, though I feel this aspect is quite probably a fail. SilkTork ✔Tea time 18:03, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Focus. There is a lot of material on samples. The material does not explain the samples, merely lists them. This gives a feel of trivia or that the material has a low relevance. The material should either be removed or its relevance/importance explained to the general reader. SilkTork ✔Tea time 18:11, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fail
  • Valid fair use rationales. There are three media files, though one song, "Straight Outta Compton", is not discussed at all, and the other two are not discussed in relation to the media file - "Fuck tha Police" is mentioned as being responsible for NWA's fame, and that it doesn't appear on the "Clean" album - but the music is not discussed, which is the point of the media file. The lyrics can be discussed without use of a media file, though the delivery of the lyrics, if appropriate, would benefit from a media file. SilkTork ✔Tea time 17:27, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prose. Prose is not "clear and concise". Needs a copyedit. SilkTork ✔Tea time 17:50, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mos: Lead. To meet GA criteria 1(b), which relates to specific manual of style guidelines, the article needs to comply with the advice in WP:LEAD. That is, in addition to being an introduction, the lead needs to be an adequate overview of the whole of the article. As a rough guide, each major section in the article should be represented with an appropriate summary in the lead. Also, the article should provide further details on all the things mentioned in the lead. And, the first few sentences should mention the most notable features of the article's subject - the essential facts that every reader should know. In addition, the lead should not contain important statements which are not also in the main body. SilkTork ✔Tea time 17:52, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Citation to reliable sources. A number of statements need sourcing or better sourcing. SilkTork ✔Tea time 17:59, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

General comments[edit]

On hold[edit]

  • Significant contributors and WikiProjects will be informed. GAR on hold for seven days to allow issues listed above to be addressed. SilkTork ✔Tea time 18:12, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that is should be demoted. My only contributions were mostly to the reviews part, so I couldnt really address these issues as I have little grasp on the topic. Dan56 (talk) 18:53, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delist[edit]

Release date[edit]

A citation for the August 1988 release date, preferably a primary source from 1988, would be desirable. Ice Cube in a 2013 interview discussing Eazy E's EZ-Duz-It album said, "Yeah, that to me is, I think some release dates are not right...... Eazy came out '88, N.W.A came out early '89. That's how I remember it." Available reviews and mentions of Straight Outta Compton from 1988 seem to be scarce or non-existent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.149.120.54 (talk) 20:16, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A 1989 release date makes sense, because in this documentary I watched, Eazy mentioned an N.W.A album coming out in January, which clearly means that Straight Outta Compton was released in 1989. In another interview, Ice Cube said it dropped in 1989. 2602:306:BDA9:8610:C000:26FE:DFED:BDB2 (talk) 03:58, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Google image search "Straight Outta Compton back album cover". Vinyl [1], cassettes [2], and CDs [3] read copyright 1988 Priority Records.HENDAWG229 (talk) 00:13, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article says it first charted in 1989 not 1988 which means something is up... I don't think it was down to when it's last single Express Yourself was released in 1989. Naue7 (talk) 05:40, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The copyright registration and the RIAA certification both state a release date of January 25, 1989. PatConolly (talk) 04:54, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A press kit put out by Priority mentions that it will be released in February 1989. [1] The album debuted on the Billboard 200 and Top Black Albums chart on March 4, 1989. [2] While Saturday, March 4, 1989 was the issue date of the magazine, it was post-dated and probably hit newstands several days prior. The chart would also be tracking the sales from the previous week. That would mean the album came out probably around February 14, 1989 (new releases came out on Tuesdays in the US in 1989), and sales would've been tracked from 2/14 to 2/21/1989 for the chart published in that issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kanno1ae (talk • contribs) 05:01, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.hiphopnostalgia.com/2021/08/nwa-straight-outta-compton-press-kit.html
  2. ^ https://www.worldradiohistory.com/Archive-All-Music/Billboard/80s/1989/BB-1989-03-04.pdf

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Straight Outta Compton. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:54, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 27 January 2016[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No move. We have strong consensus the film is too RECENT to usurp the album. This may be worth revisiting in the future. Cúchullain t/c 21:37, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]


– Hate to say it but the box-office success of Straight Outta Compton (film) means no one super-dominant topic now. the film now gets 4x the page views of the album, not enough to be Primary Topic, but enough to say that there no longer is any primary topic. In ictu oculi (talk) 20:51, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose per WP:RECENTISM unless you think Thor should also be a disambiguation page given the success of the 2011 film and the popularity of the Marvel character it stars. Calidum T|C 21:51, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Under normal circumstances anything that remotely smacks of WP:RECENTISM would be the last thing I'd propose. But just look at Straight_Outta_Compton_(film)#Box_office compared to the 1998 album reaching No.37 on the Billboard album chart. The 1998 album is unlikely to ever recover the absolute majority of page views given the success of the film. (a Norse god is more encylopedically notable than a film, an album is just another popular media product, hence the comparison between a deity and an album doesn't help). In ictu oculi (talk) 08:12, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's not about recovering the majority of the page views. The film is derivative of the album, which in the music world has long-term significance. From what I've seen poking around, it established gangsta rap as a musical genre and inspired many. It also established the West Coast on the rap scene. There are articles about this album on its anniversaries talking about its influence. I think that grants it the credibility to be the primary topic going forward. The movie was well-received, but its long-term significance is doubtful and certainly won't be established six months from now. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 07:11, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose since the album is the primary topic. To call it "just another popular media product" is to vastly undermine its long-term significance. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 19:13, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Along with WP:RECENTISM it should be noted that without the album the film would not exist. MarnetteD|Talk 22:33, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The film would still exist if the makers had gone with alternative title The N.W.A. Story and would still be getting 4x the hits of the album. But sure we can revisit this in 6 months to get past the recent. In ictu oculi (talk) 19:15, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - the album is still the obvious primary topic. Unreal7 (talk) 15:52, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - a premature request likely triggered by this.--Retrohead (talk) 18:55, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – The film is not some easily forgotten blip. It is the all-time highest grossing music biopic and the all-time highest domestic grossing film from a black director in the United States, was #1 at the box office for several weeks running, received good reviews from critics, and has received numerous awards. It's not going away anytime soon. —BarrelProof (talk) 23:22, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    No one is denying all that, but its long-term significance has yet to be established. The album has been around a lot longer, and its influence and legacy is reliably sourced. It is too soon to say anything like that for this film. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 00:40, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - The film is hugely successful and clearly more people are looking for the film article than the album, as shown above. — Film Fan 20:51, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    What about the album's long-term significance? Why should the usage of the article for a film, one that came out last year and just got released on disc the past month, override that criterion of the album's significance? Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 20:57, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Straight Outta Compton. 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) 17:31, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Straight Outta Compton. 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) 13:51, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 22 March 2018[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: consensus not to move the pages at this time, per the discussion below. Overall, there is a rough consensus that the album is and remains the primary topic for the search term, despite the discrepancy with page views. Dekimasuよ! 13:52, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

– The same suggestion was rejected two years ago, based on the idea that the film was too recent. At that time, the film had been out for less than six months. But now it is more than two years later, and the 90-day page view count for the film is still more than three times that of the album, despite the album being at the base name title. The film is also extremely notable. It won was nominated for an Academy Award and won or was nominated for many other major awards. The fame of that film is not going to fade away anytime soon. It should be very clear by now that the album is not a proper WP:primary topic for "Straight Outta Compton". —BarrelProof (talk) 19:46, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It may also be worth noting that the N.W.A album and the film are not the only topics involved in the question. Please see Straight Outta Compton (disambiguation) for additional topics. —BarrelProof (talk) 20:30, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose because the album still has greater long-term significance than the film (which was only nominated for an Academy Award for Best Original Screenplay, by the way). The album's continued significance is reflected recently here, here. There is no indication that the film was immediately influential or since its release, compared to the album's impact. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 19:56, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the error about the Academy Award – corrected with strikethrough above. —BarrelProof (talk) 20:02, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Album is still the primary subject and its fame has not been superseded. MarnetteD|Talk 20:06, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support by definition with the film having 3x page views of the album there is no longer a primarytopic. In ictu oculi (talk) 20:09, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Why are you ignoring the album's long-term significance per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC? Do you dispute that it has that over this film? Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 20:58, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Erik: I'm not. BarrelProof is not proposing the film as PT either. We have here a classic split case where one article gets PT1, the other PT2. In that case neither is PT. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:54, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: I added "N.W.A" to the suggested disambiguation in the proposal after noticing the other albums Straight Outta Compton: Music from the Motion Picture and Compton: A Soundtrack by Dr. Dre and Straight Outta Compton: N.W.A 10th Anniversary Tribute. I doubt that will change the minds of anyone who has commented so far. —BarrelProof (talk) 20:17, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Evidence of album's long-term significance:
    • Los Angeles Times in 2017: "Of the many big bangs that have transformed rap over the decades, N.W.A’s 'Straight Outta Compton' is one of the loudest... With 'Straight Outta Compton,' N.W.A didn’t just manage to put its hood on the map, the group forced the world to pay attention to the rap sounds coming out of the West Coast. It’s an album that provided the soundtrack for agitated and restless black youth across America with its rough and raunchy tales of violent life in the inner city, expressed through razor-sharp lyrics."
    • CBC in 2017: "First it became the basis for an Oscar-nominated movie. Now, Straight Outta Compton — the groundbreaking album from rap group N.W.A. and a one-time flashpoint in the nation's culture wars — has been selected for the prestigious U.S. National Recording Registry... Released in 1988, Straight Outta Compton influenced a generation of rappers with its raw lyrics about gang violence and the drug trade in south central Los Angeles.... It achieved platinum sales without radio airplay and captured the attention of white America. The incendiary track F--k tha Police was denounced by right-wing politicians and prompted a warning letter from the FBI to the group's record label... (more)."
    • Grammy Hall of Fame in 2016: Album added
Thanks, Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 21:07, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think nobody's saying the album doesn't have long-term significance – it clearly does. The question is whether it is overwhelmingly much more notable than the film and the other topics for disambiguation purposes. The film is also highly notable. —BarrelProof (talk) 21:25, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what you mean by "notable" here, considering the way Wikipedia uses it. Do you just mean "popular"? I find that long-term significance trumps popularity here, especially when the film is derived from the album itself. The film has done well, but there's no indication that it outdoes the album in terms of enduring notability. A hundred years later, which topic matters more for the primary-topic slot? The evidence continues to point to the album. It won't be a surprise to anyone to arrive at the album's article. That's why I don't see the need for any rearrangement. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 22:10, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - no primary topic, although the film gets the most page views. — Film Fan 22:59, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The album's longterm significance is greater, and of course the film was named after the album (as were all the other topics listed). The two topics are obviously closely intertwined as well, so I really don't think anyone will be stunned when they land on the album page, it did come first after all. Nohomersryan (talk) 00:06, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per above - the album's significance is far greater than the film, As the film was named after the album the album should still be the PRIMARYTOPIC here, This is an open & shut case tbh. –Davey2010Talk 14:22, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Seminal album, barely notable film. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 14:25, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
However seminal we think the album is, to me it seems rather presumptuous of us to decide that something that gets less than 25% of the page views (and has remained that way for two and a half years) is a dominant WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. —BarrelProof (talk) 22:57, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Sorry bro, but in the big picture it was the album that got N.W.A. in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame and made great impact on the rap genre. I don't think the hype about the biopic should be a reason to change the article's title.--Retrohead (talk) 10:30, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The title of the movie is lifted straight from the album. It has already been proven here that the album is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC with respect to long-term significance, and I doubt the movie has primary usage over the album. Waterco4 (talk) 16:13, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The album is still the most famous, by far. Binksternet (talk) 17:20, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The album is more important and more culturally significant. The amount of views is unimportant. Artix Kreiger (talk) 15:16, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – Disambiguation makes more sense here; no primarytopic. Dicklyon (talk) 04:39, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Single ??[edit]

I've edited it out like three years ago, but now it's back again: "Singles from Straight Outta Compton 1. "Straight Outta Compton" Released: July 10, 1988". Moreover on the songs page: "It was released on July 10, 1988 as the lead single from their debut album of the same name. Format 7" 12" " Anyone seen such a single ??? I guess it would show up by now, after 20+ years of the internets? --SuccessBrandOil (talk) 13:02, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Possible correct release date[edit]

Hello there. Before we decide on changing the release date or leaving it the way it is, I did some research on what might be the most accurate release date for Straight Outta Compton. Even though some copies of the album have 1988 printed as the date of copyright, one article from Cash Box (dated May 27, 1989) says "Less than six weeks after its release under the agreement, N.W.A.'s Straight Outta Compton album was certified gold..." and RIAA's website claims the album was certified gold on April 13, 1989, and released on January 25th of that year. Another reason 1989 could be the correct year of release is there are no press articles from 1988 I could find mentioning the album, and Ice Cube even said in one interview that Eazy-E's solo album Eazy-Duz-It was released first and then the N.W.A. album came out second. It's a mystery why and how it took over six-to-eight months (between August 1988 and April 1989) for Straight Outta Compton to be recognized when they already had one album (N.W.A and the Posse) that enjoyed some chatting success in at least 1988 on the Billboard charts. The fact Straight Outta Compton was released independently or had at least one track that gained controversy (Fuck Tha Police) probably had to do with this. Feel free to leave a response. 172.58.38.240 (talk) 19:02, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If it helps any, in the book The History of Gangsta Rap by Soren Baker, the album is stated to have been "released in its original form" on August 8, 1988. I had similar issues with confirming release information on Eazy-E's debut album. You have to remember that these were all kind of album that just surprisingly went big from relatively underground groups in a very new form of music. There wasn't a big song and dance for these albums initially. Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:43, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This queer Andrez will give anyone trouble over the release date regarding Eazy Duz It. However, the release date of SOC is correct. The original 1988 release of SOC were in cassette and vinyl. The CD release was released months later. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.147.70.139 (talk) 20:36, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's 2022, and Wikipedia still has an incorrect release date for Straight Outta Compton despite copious evidence confirming it was released in 1989. When will this finally be fixed? Infamous30 (talk) 15:43, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In this interview, Ice Cube confirms that Straight Outta Compton came out in "early 1989." Let's finally fix this date this year. https://www.complex.com/music/2013/09/ice-cube-interview-easy-e Infamous30 (talk) 16:05, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Let's do this. A few years earlier I couldn't dig up any contemporary evidence of this album in 1988, just the Gangsta, Gangsta maxi single. One thing's for sure - it came out/was the second project after Eazy-E's debut and that contradicts its release date. Which makes sense since Eazy was the star at first with Boyz in the Hood, and follow ups, while NWA was groomed off of that. SuccessBrandOil (talk) 07:23, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I agree with Infamous30 and SuccessBrandOil, the release date of August 1988 is clearly wrong. Not only has decades of fan community activity failed to produce any concrete evidence of the album being released in August 1988, but the reason this release date could be wrong is the fact that Gangsta Gangsta's Wikipedia article says it was released in September of that year yet a copy on the back of its 12" single says "Stolen from the upcomin' album Straight Outta Compton", and even N.W.A's Discogs page indicates no physical release of Straight Outta Compton as a single ever existed in 1988 contrary to its Wikipedia article. Based on all these facts, it's possible that the album wasn't released until late 1988 or early 1989, though do I believe Ice Cube was correct when he said the latter. So my suggestion is, until any concrete evidence about the August 1988 release date surfaces, it's probably safe to change it to 1989. 2600:1700:46B0:3CC0:3492:CB7:ABE0:8F6D (talk) 05:13, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The reason why so many music books now cite 1988 as the release year, including Soren Baker's book, is because of Wikipedia. I have yet to find any independent citations listing a 1988 release date. Infamous30 (talk) 12:03, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The reason for the 1988 date is the copyright year give on the record itself. I've also seen a Ruthless ad in a music magazine of the period, congratulating itself for the record going gold, if I'm not mistaken, with the 1988 year. So the false date started early on. The RIAA also lists the 8/8/88 date (which in itself looks made up).
But what's so puzzling is that for such a groundbreaking record, why so many people won't remember if they blasted it during the greatest hip-hop summer of all time for album releases - 1988, or only in the winter of 1989..
The Straight Outta Compton single wikipedia page is a parody - stating in the lead paragraph that it was released on July 10, 1988, but further down that the photo for its cover was taken nearly a year later, on March 14, 1989. At one point wikipedia also stated that Fuck The Police was one of SOC singles, which of course could never happen. SuccessBrandOil (talk) 08:19, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was wrong about RIAA having it as a 1988 release, but at some point in time I remember it giving the same false date as everyone else. SuccessBrandOil (talk) 08:24, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I did as much research as possible regarding whether or not the August 1988 release date is true and from what I can tell it's apparently been used because of this Wikipedia article. Ice Cube's memory/claim that Eazy-Duz-It was released first (late 1988) and Straight Outta Compton next (early 1989) may not be the most reliable source, but there were a few sources I found that could lead to one of us finally correcting the release date as 1989. While I'm aware that most copies of Straight Outta Compton say 1988 as its publishing and copyright date, it's more than likely that its release date was delayed into early 1989, not because of lack evidence of the August 1988 date (or my earlier comments where I said Straight Outta Compton never existed as a single and Gangsta Gangsta was released in September 1988 while the back of the 12" is referring to Straight Outta Compton as an upcoming album), but N.W.A's RIAA page and two books, Somebody Scream! and 1989, all claim the album came out on January 25, 1989 while one press kit from 1988 says "Straight Outta Compton, N.W.A.'s debut album, due for release in February 1989". Infamous30 or SuccessBrandOil, any thoughts? 2600:1700:46B0:3CC0:8C79:A282:3EE1:480C (talk) 22:13, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Jeff Chang's Can't Stop Won't Stop also gives the date as January 25. Infamous30 (talk) 09:06, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It could be changed to early 1989 until norrowed down to a more precise date. That would at least stop spreading the false year and possibly stir some interest in this topic. But given the gazillion 1988 citations it will be a tough battle. SuccessBrandOil (talk) 16:24, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 1 April 2021[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not Moved - whilst a simple count of the !votes puts this one on the borderline between no consensus and consensus not to move, the arguments of the opposers are - just barely - better founded in policy enough to put this one over the line for "not moved". WP:PRIMARYTOPIC #1 and #2 are of equal validity but ultimately the opposers made a better case, reliant on what reliable sources say about the significance of the album, that in the long term the album was likely to win out over the film or other things that might be referred to by this name. I considered a re-list but the sparse voting in the past week - one oppose !vote - makes it unlikely that this would change anything.

I suggest that any further move proposals should be based on new argumentation that goes beyond simple page views and takes in e.g., what is said about the relative prominence of the film and the album in reliable independent sources. This is the third "Not Moved" decision in five years and per WP:NOTMOVED this indicates that they "should probably not propose this move in the future until and unless circumstances change. There is a positive consensus found, and that consensus is for the page to stay exactly where it is". (non-admin closure) FOARP (talk) 10:34, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]


– Three years after the last time I proposed the same thing, and five years after In ictu oculi noticed the problem, it seems hard to continue claiming that readers are almost certain to be seeking information about the album, when the pageview statistics clearly show they are more than twice as likely to be looking for the film. So here we go again. — BarrelProof (talk) 15:04, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Haha - "Seminal album, barely notable film" - Still applies. -Roxy the sycamore. wooF 17:53, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as before. The album is still more significant. BTW using page views on wikiP as a reason to move is a statistical bit of sophistry. One websites viewing patterns (even one as popular as Wikipedia) are not a good way to extrapolate a wider body of knowledge. MarnetteD|Talk 17:37, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per this. It's this simple. In ictu oculi (talk) 19:43, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as per last RFC - Album is far more significant and is still PRIMARYTOPIC here. –Davey2010Talk 21:21, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – Disambiguation is best when there's no clear primary topic, as there's not here. Dicklyon (talk) 22:20, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC since my arguments with previous RM discussions still apply:
  • "The film is derivative of the album, which in the music world has long-term significance. From what I've seen poking around, it established gangsta rap as a musical genre and inspired many. It also established the West Coast on the rap scene. There are articles about this album on its anniversaries talking about its influence. I think that grants it the credibility to be the primary topic going forward. The movie was well-received, but its long-term significance is doubtful and certainly won't be established six months from now."
  • "The album has been around a lot longer, and its influence and legacy is reliably sourced. It is too soon to say anything like that for this film."
Evidence of album's long-term significance:
  • Los Angeles Times in 2017: "Of the many big bangs that have transformed rap over the decades, N.W.A’s 'Straight Outta Compton' is one of the loudest... With 'Straight Outta Compton,' N.W.A didn’t just manage to put its hood on the map, the group forced the world to pay attention to the rap sounds coming out of the West Coast. It’s an album that provided the soundtrack for agitated and restless black youth across America with its rough and raunchy tales of violent life in the inner city, expressed through razor-sharp lyrics."
  • CBC in 2017: "First it became the basis for an Oscar-nominated movie. Now, Straight Outta Compton — the groundbreaking album from rap group N.W.A. and a one-time flashpoint in the nation's culture wars — has been selected for the prestigious U.S. National Recording Registry... Released in 1988, Straight Outta Compton influenced a generation of rappers with its raw lyrics about gang violence and the drug trade in south central Los Angeles.... It achieved platinum sales without radio airplay and captured the attention of white America. The incendiary track F--k tha Police was denounced by right-wing politicians and prompted a warning letter from the FBI to the group's record label... (more)."
  • Grammy Hall of Fame in 2016: Album added
To examine the long-term significance of the film, it wasn't considered one of the best films of the 2010s as seen here. In academic coverage, this covers the film, but I am not seeing much else. I see no evidence that the film having twice as many page views as the album outweighs the evidence that the album has much more long-term significance than the film. Hard to quantify a factor, but let's say even 10 or 15 puts the album way ahead of the film in this regard. It does not violate WP:ASTONISH for a reader looking for the film to arrive at the album's article; the album is what the film is about. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 23:16, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The album will always be the primary topic. It's a foundational expression of gangsta, a massive turning point in rap. The other articles are derivative of the album. Binksternet (talk) 01:11, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unfortunately, Wikipedia's readers do not seem to be cooperating. — BarrelProof (talk) 16:02, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Is it necessary to disambiguate by saying it's an NWA album? Are there any other notable albums by that title? HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 11:10, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Surely those other works are disambiguated by their subtitles and are not the primary topic. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 15:44, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Especially for the soundtrack, it is arguable that those unfamiliar with the details could refer to the subject without including the subtitle. Once some disambiguation is applied, we get into the WP:INCOMPLETEDAB / WP:PDAB question (a.k.a., the Thriller (album) question). — BarrelProof (talk) 15:57, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Page views are one way to determine a primary topic, but not the way to do so. The album is still more significant in the long run, as others have pointed out. -- Calidum 19:33, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Page views may not be very good for determining that something is a primary topic, but they seem pretty good for determining when something is not a primary topic. — BarrelProof (talk) 23:19, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Good thing the musical wasn't called Alexander Hamilton, otherwise this logic would mean Alexander Hamilton should not be a primary topic based on page views. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 13:48, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • In that case the older topic has been around for about 70 times as long as the more recent hypothetical one. In this case the time ratio is less than 6. It's also less obvious in this case whether the subject of the newer creative work is the other creative work, versus that other case where a hypothetical creative work would have been named after a person. Anyhow, it's a purely hypothetical question. Jethro Tull is disambiguated. — BarrelProof (talk) 19:07, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Not the primary topic in reliable sources[4] (t · c) buidhe 06:38, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a lazy vote based on a lazy look at Google Scholar results. It is inappropriate to take the search results at face value, especially when it has non-reliable sources (like students' theses are mixed in) or passing mentions of either the album or the film. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 13:48, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Erik (talk · contribs) ThadeusOfNazerethTalk to Me! 19:49, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Straight_Outta_Compton&oldid=1219143130"