![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Why are people persistently inserting a part of the album's history that the article already covers? Parrot of Doom 21:11, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Per WP:BRD, Parrot of Doom, please explain your edit summary, "That you fail to see what's rubbish about it isn't my problem" I fail to see why mentioning a video being made is "rubbish." Montanabw (talk) 20:50, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
"essentially a Roger Waters solo album" was not a representative selection from Loder's review, nor was it necessary, as this view has already been made plain by reporting the facts. My edit reflects the glowing nature of his review, whereas previously the article did NOT. Seriously.
-- Ben Culture ( talk) 10:21, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
"Bowdlerization is a pejorative term for the practice, particularly the expurgation of lewd material from books." --Wikipedia, Expurgation.
. . . The operative term here being "pejorative". Pejorative is not neutral. So I'm thinking about getting rid of that, too ("Not Now John" was released as a single and reached the UK Top 30, with its chorus of "Fuck all that" bowdlerised to "Stuff all that".)
It would be more interesting to quote David Gilmour saying how they just recorded "Stuff all that" on top of the master, so "Fuck all that" is still there, just muddied up with another word on top, instead of using the multitracks to replace "Fuck all that" altogether and then remaster the song for the single release.
I would do that myself this instant, but I'm in the process of moving, and all my books are packed up. Maybe some good-faith contributor knows where this is. I believe it's in the Schaffner book, but could be wrong.
-- Ben Culture ( talk) 10:32, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
You have not explained your reversion. What exactly do you have a problem with? Every change I made, I cited a source for. You know as well as I that the same set of sources can be quote-culled to provide either a negative, neutral, or positive impression. This article was heavily slanted towards the negative. I am trying to provide a balance.
The article you directed me to, WP:BRD, states clearly: "Consider reverting only when necessary. It is not the intention of this page to encourage reverting. When reverting, be specific about your reasons in the edit summary and use links if needed. Look at the article's edit history and its talk page to see if a discussion has begun."
Both you and Parrot of Doom have failed to provide any explanation why a revert was necessary. I have cleaned up this article a great deal; you should be working with my edit on areas you find objectionable, and explain why in clear English.
You have not provided one example of anything I've done wrong. Referring me to WP:BRD -- which you did not follow -- and WP:MOS was not an explanation. I have consulted the Manual of Style many times. There's not a thing wrong with any of my edits.
In the case of a critic (such as Kurt Loder) giving a glowing, praiseful review, the quotations must reflect that. Instead the quote was "... essentially a Roger Waters solo album ... a superlative achievement on several levels". That is not representative of his review (and the article has already belabored the point that it was Waters's work alone). Did you even bother to read the review, before you reverted my edit? User:Parrot of Doom didn't. He admitted he wasn't checking my sources. He was assuming me to be guilty (of something) before proven innocent. He did not assume good faith, and neither, it appears, do you. To quote Loder in that misleading way -- and, especially, to withhold the fact that he rated it a full five stars -- is deceptive. Why would you support that? People understand "five stars" a lot better than "superlative"!
Likewise, to refer to Roger Waters leaving the band, (and applying to the High Court to legally end Pink Floyd, no less), without mentioning the reason he HAD to resign -- he was threatened with a multi-million-dollar lawsuit from CBS Records, Gilmour and Mason -- shows an outrageous anti-Roger-Waters bias. It's right next door to lying. If you insist on taking that out, take out everything about Roger's legal maneuvers as well. Otherwise, it's a biased article -- a bad article.
Please explain your revision in clear English, and do so under the assumption than mine was a good-faith edit.
I am prepared to explain each and every change I've made, but I've noticed that longer comments get me nothing but disrespect, and go unread. So I will leave off with the two best examples of this article's anti-Waters bias, above.
-- Ben Culture ( talk) 07:20, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
This is a long comment because I don't have the facility of explaining myself in a handy, compressed little package. I can in a snappy prose style, but cannot seem to explain myself without going quite long. I apologize in advance. This is not a "screed" or "rant", nor is it "childish" or a "tantrum". (Those are all insulting terms which should not be used, though Parrot of Doom didn't hesitate.) This is me doing my best to present a compelling argument in favor of my edits, so that a discussion might actually happen. I'm trying to do what I'm supposed to do. If you cannot be bothered to read this, and respond to (at least some of) its content, I understand . . . but in that case, you should not be reverting my edits, because, as Parrot of Doom himself said, "the cycle is Bold, Revert, Discuss".
Regarding your revert of my edits, (rv: your explanation has not garnered consensus, and you should not restore your edit until it does):
Right. I have no intention of restoring my edits yet again at this point, even though each time I did it, I also polished the article up a little more, in little ways, as well. Did you compare my latest edit to the old Doom version? No insult is intended by asking you that.
This article has now been reverted to Parrot of Doom's last edit by three people (twice by Doom himself), and none of them have given a single example of what is wrong with any of my changes. I have attempted to open discussion with Doom, GrahamColm, and now you. You can see that. I've explained some of my major changes in detail. The only response I've had was a personal insult and repeated unclear question from Doom. He did not address anything I said or asked (I even boiled it down to "What do you want from me?"), in my attempt to have a real dialogue with him. He appears not to have read the comments he responded to. He even admitted that he did not check my sources, saying it was "a waste of my time", so he's assuming me guilty until proven innocent ... of something, damned if I know what. It appears he is reverting strictly on the basis of personal preference.
Everything I added came from a reliable source, usually the same sources that were already in use, and I made sure to use inline citations. The article was biased in its choices of which quotes to pull from the sources, and in its presentation (two separate paragraphs quoting three reviews in a negative/positive/negative pattern, and the "positive" reviews were poorly represented, with lukewarm fragments from overall-glowing reviews). The last paragraph of the "Legacy" section, which I didn't edit, is the worst example of that. If neutrality is the goal, both sides should be given equal time, not two against one, twice in the same article. It is not biased to report representative quotes from a positive review. Furthermore, all Pink Floyd's classic albums initially received "mixed reviews", from Dark Side of the Moon onward, but only this article belabors that point.
GrahamColm declined to discuss anything at all -- his Edit Summary was merely a referral to WP:BRD, an essay (which is not a set of policies or guidelines) called "Bold, Revert, Discuss". It also referred to WP:MOS, which is hardly specific. Do you agree that Edit Summaries are supposed to be specific, and in plain English whenever possible? That's why we have so much room for them, right? Yours was clear and I appreciate that!
I've consulted the Manual of Style enough to know I did my edits to this article right. GrahamColm didn't follow the WP:BRD suggestions himself. He made no attempt to discuss anything. I have started every topic currently on this Talk page, and have explained my edits in detail, in an effort to avoid an edit war. That, as far as I'm aware, is what WP:BRD is really about:
Consider reverting only when necessary. It is not the intention of this page to encourage reverting. When reverting, be specific about your reasons in the edit summary and use links if needed. Look at the article's edit history and its talk page to see if a discussion has begun. If not, you may begin one (see this list for a glossary of common abbreviations you might see). Discuss the edit, and the reasons for the edit, on the article's talk page. Do not continue to revert, which is the beginning of edit-warring.
Parrot of Doom was the first to revert the article to the same state (his own latest edit) for a second time. So I reverted as well -- though, as mentioned, each "revert" also included me polishing up the article in other small ways. (There's a lot wrong with this article, which is why it's so hard to be brief here.)
The WP:BRD essay is being used here as an excuse to be lazy (Doom didn't check my sources, or read my explanations, and I doubt GrahamColm did either), and just revert to one's own work, or to a personal preference. The "D" part has gone ignored. WP:BRD is not policy, and I prefer WP:ONLYREVERT, as in "Revert Only When Necessary" (though it isn't policy either):
Revert vandalism upon sight but revert an edit made in good faith only after careful consideration. It is usually preferable to make an edit that retains at least some elements of a prior edit than to revert the prior edit. Furthermore, your bias should be toward keeping the entire edit [Emphasis added] . . . In the case of a good faith edit, a reversion is appropriate when the reverter believes that the edit makes the article clearly worse and there is no element of the edit that is an improvement. . . . Don't revert an edit because it is unnecessary — because it does not improve the article. For a reversion to be appropriate, the reverted edit must actually make the article worse. . . . Even if you find an article was slightly better before an edit, in an area where opinions could differ, you should not revert that edit, especially if you are the author of the prior text.
Can you honestly say my edits made the article "clearly worse" and had "no element" of improvement? I don't think an unbiased person can say that. The article was heavily slanted against the album and against Roger Waters. My aim was to balance that. The article needs a lot of work, which is why all of my "reverts" included new changes.
Have you recently read Kurt Loder's review in Rolling Stone? Can you honestly say the excerpt in Doom's version is as representative of Loder's unqualified gushing as mine was? You really don't think it minimizes a glowing review to withhold the fact that he rated it a full five stars?
Do you really think it's fair to talk about Roger Waters's legal threats to Mason and Gilmour without mentioning that they threatened him with a multi-million-dollar lawsuit FIRST? Don't you think it's relevant and interesting that, after not participating much in the making of The Final Cut, and slagging it off in public, Gilmour and Mason still tried to legally compell Roger Waters to return to the band and make another Pink Floyd album?
This is sourced -- from the horse's mouth (Roger's), to Uncut magazine (June 2004), to Glenn Povey's Echoes (2007), which is a reliable source used in many Pink Floyd articles. This is the reason Roger Waters had to officially resign from Pink Floyd when he did. Why would anyone insist on withholding that information from this article?
In Doom's preferred edit, Waters simply quits for no specified reason other than characteristic misery (what a party pooper!) and goes to the High Court in an attempt to legally end Pink Floyd's career. Y'know, 'cause he's just such a villian. And Nick and Dave, why, they're just a couple of nice guys you could have a beer with, and they just want to play you all your favorite Floyd tunes, and show you a really neat laser show!
If this article reports on Waters's leaving the band, and initiating legal manuevers, the threatened lawsuits from CBS Records, Gilmour, and Mason must be mentioned in the interest of simple balance and completing the story.
I know, it's OH so heroic, Gilmour's oft-quoted "Roger is a dog in the manger and I'm going to fight him." It's not nearly as inspiring to see Roger whinging that "They forced me to resign from the band because, if I hadn't, the financial repercussions would have wiped me out completely." That is the essence of what is going on here. Gilmour and Mason's dishonest presentation of the Pink Floyd story won in the court of public opinion, so it's seeped into the subconscious of the majority, and thus an editor can write a biased article about "the Floyd Wars" without even knowing they're doing it. I believe that is why Doom and GrahamColm have refused to discuss anything. They don't know what is wrong with my edit -- they just know it FEELS wrong.
That's what I'm guessing. What else can I do but guess? There can be no consensus without discussion. I'm the only one talking. So who's trying to do this the right way, here?
(Again: sorry about the length. I actually cut out a lot out of this comment.)
-- Ben Culture ( talk) 16:45, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
It doesn't matter who said that. It was one of my reverters. The important thing is, that isn't how it's done. As one reverter said "The cycle is Be Bold, Revert, Discuss" You can't be BOLD in editing an article if you have to reach a consensus first. The two are diametrically opposed.
Furthermore, WP:BRD isn't a policy or a guideline. It says: This essay ... is intended to supplement the Wikipedia:Consensus and Wikipedia:Be bold pages, to which editors should defer in case of inconsistency between that page and this one.
In other words, the quotation I used for the title of this section simply is not policy.
-- Ben Culture ( talk) 05:20, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
With no plans to tour the album, [1] Waters and Gilmour instead turned to separate solo projects. Gilmour recorded and toured About Face in 1984, and used it to express his feelings on a range of topics, from the murder of musician John Lennon, to his relationship with Waters — who also began touring his new solo album, The Pros and Cons of Hitch Hiking. [2] Mason released his second solo album Profiles in August 1985. [3]
Why is Gilmour's solo album described with its "range of topics" and Waters's album is simply named? It has an equal range of topics gathered under a loose concept. How is this not biased?
Why is it not reported that Gilmour and Mason were really the first Floyds to threaten another with a lawsuit? They threatened to join CBS records in suing Roger Waters for "lost earnings", because he refused to return to the fold and make another Pink Floyd album fo-- excuse me, with them? (See A Momentary Lapse of Reason) Instead we go straight to Waters's lawsuit as if it were the first strike in the "Floyd Wars". How is that not biased? If it's in the Momentary article, it's relevant to this one as well.
The lawsuit left Waters with only one other option: to formally resign from Pink Floyd in order to protect himself from a lawsuit that "would have wiped me out completely", according to Waters.
Yes, I think that's pretty relevant.
Finally, the last paragraph of the Legacy section, I don't think the contributors who crafted it even realized how biased it was, because the distorted Gilmour/Mason view of the facts has won in the court of popular opinion. It begins by establishing that it's primarily Roger Waters's work (as if no other PF album was), and it concludes with, once again, a negative/positive/negative round of review quotations, ending on a VERY dismissive note. It's BADLY biased! This is a highly successful and popular album!
-- Ben Culture ( talk) 10:56, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Newer reponse: I DID. For one example, I presented the reason why Roger Waters was forced to resign from Pink Floyd -- because CBS Records, David Gilmour, and Nick Mason were all threatening to sue him for millions in "lost earnings", plus all legal expenses, which would have "wiped [Waters] out completely", so his only choices were: (a) Start a new album with Gilmour & Mason (after they were so dismissive of The Final Cut), or (b) Officially resign from Pink Floyd. This is significant. I had the quote and cited a reliable source. It was reverted without explanation. But you didn't do that one (it was reverted to your last edit, but not by you). Do you agree that omitting this information, while reporting on Waters's legal maneuvers to legally end the band, is biased? If not, please explain why.
They threatened me with the fact that we had a contract with CBS Records and that part of the contract could be construed to mean that we had a product commitment with CBS and if we didn't go on producing product, they could a) sue us and b) withhold royalties if we didn't make any more records. So they said, 'that's what the record company are going to do and the rest of the band are going to sue you for all their legal expenses and any loss of earnings because you're the one that's preventing the band from making any more records.' They forced me to resign from the band because, if I hadn't, the financial repercussions would have wiped me out completely. --Roger Waters, Uncut (June 2004), explaining why in 1985 he left the band
The following discussion 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.
User:Parrot of Doom has, three times in two hours, removed a quote cited to Uncut Magazine, June 2004. At first, he apparently (from his edit summary) believed that this was being cited to a website which caries a transcript of the article in question. Once this was error pointed out (in my edit summary) he changed his reasoning; and now seems to believe that FAC criteria prevent their inclusion - but does not specify which criterion, or how the quote breaches it. (The edits and edit summaries in question are: "please explain what makes 'pinkfloydz.com' a reliable source", "clearly you don't know what you're talking about", "try reading the Featured Article Criteria") I have asked him to take the matter to the talk page, but he has not done so and, given past experience and the current comments he makes on his own talk page, refusing a similar request, it sadly seems unlikely that he will comment here. The material should be restored. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:22, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
[http://www.pinkfloydz.com/intuncutjun04tfc.htm Roger Waters interview, ''Uncut'' Magazine, June 2004]
- the archive URL is pinkfloydz.com, but the citation is unambiguously Uncut Magazine, June 2004
, which is perfectly acceptable.
Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing);
Talk to Andy;
Andy's edits
12:29, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion was closed, by
User:Betafive, with a summary of "Uncut Magazine is a solid source, and the article is reproduced accurately on pinkfloydz.com. As said website is disreputable, it should not be linked in the citation."
, so I restored the material, with the citation to Uncut, but without the URL. I have been
reverted again, with an edit summary of "the 'talk' in your mind?"
.
Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing);
Talk to Andy;
Andy's edits
23:23, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
I've protected this because of the ongoing edit war. Can you guys come up with a better solution in a week? -- John ( talk) 17:38, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Parrot of Doom: I know you're not a stupid man, so how did you fail to notice that I cited Nicholas Schaffner's Saucerful of Secrets: The Pink Floyd Odyssey? The Uncut magazine interview with Roger Waters that is reproduced, as you complain, at pinkfloydz.com, is a secondary source. You asked me to explain how pinkfloydz.com is a reliable source. My answer to that is: I don't have to!
Why do I say that?
Because the exact same information is in the Nicholas Schaffner book we've been citing, as if it were holy scripture, for "years, absolutely years!" I cited it properly, with a page number . . . and you need not dust off your copy and thumb through the book, because HERE'S A LINK to books.google.com. From page 257 of Saucerful of Secrets:
http://books.google.com/books?id=xfqremepxrkC&pg=PA257#v=onepage&q&f=false
Fourth paragraph, second to last:
"Dave did finally agree to relinquish his position—but not his final cut of the producers' royalties."
Is there something wrong with Schaffner, now? Explain that one to me. Because as it is, it looks like your reversion was intellectually dishonest, reverting the whole edit because you didn't like the back-up citation.
Schaffner's book has been out since late 1990. Why is there any uncertainty in your mind? Did you read it only once? Or is it just that you oppose any edit that casts David Gilmour in a less-than-flattering light?? That kinda seems to be the case.
If you don't like the cited source of Uncut Magazine's interview with Roger Waters, that's not a problem. Other statements in this article use Schaffner as their sole source; there's no reason this one can't do that, too. If you don't want to link to pinkfloydz.com, we can remove the link and leave the citation as Roger Waters interview, Uncut Magazine, June 2004.
I do realize the pinkfloydz.com site LOOKS a bit dodgy, but I believe they transcribed the interview accurately (despite a lack of proper formatting and some questionable punctuation). For your edification, this is what was said:
WATERS: The big argument [with Gilmour] was whether he’d be getting a production credit and a point off the top for producing the record. He didn’t produce it. He didn’t want it to be made. He was disinterested in the album. He didn’t get the production credit. He did, however, insist on taking the point off the top.
UNCUT: How did he manage that? [I always wondered about this myself!]
WATERS: Just by being obdurate. That was when we really fell out, over all that. He and I faced off about it, and Nick... I had this one telephone conversation with Nick about that. He said “I think you’re completely right about this, but I’m going to side with Dave cos that’s where my bread’s buttered.”
You really don't trust a web site that managed to transcribe a word like "obdurate" correctly? Well, that's you. That's not me. I really couldn't care less that this was a Featured Article, 'cause it's still a pretty bad, biased article. You've fought my every attempt to balance it out, and it seems your reverts are oriented towards protecting public perceptions of David Gilmour.
Hopefully, you have no arguments left to make. Schaffner is reliable and so is the Uncut article, but if you object to the pinkfloydz.com link, I have no problem whatsoever with de-linking it. The information, however, STAYS!
→ Ben Culture ( talk) 17:58, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on The Final Cut (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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:29, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Why are people persistently inserting a part of the album's history that the article already covers? Parrot of Doom 21:11, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Per WP:BRD, Parrot of Doom, please explain your edit summary, "That you fail to see what's rubbish about it isn't my problem" I fail to see why mentioning a video being made is "rubbish." Montanabw (talk) 20:50, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
"essentially a Roger Waters solo album" was not a representative selection from Loder's review, nor was it necessary, as this view has already been made plain by reporting the facts. My edit reflects the glowing nature of his review, whereas previously the article did NOT. Seriously.
-- Ben Culture ( talk) 10:21, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
"Bowdlerization is a pejorative term for the practice, particularly the expurgation of lewd material from books." --Wikipedia, Expurgation.
. . . The operative term here being "pejorative". Pejorative is not neutral. So I'm thinking about getting rid of that, too ("Not Now John" was released as a single and reached the UK Top 30, with its chorus of "Fuck all that" bowdlerised to "Stuff all that".)
It would be more interesting to quote David Gilmour saying how they just recorded "Stuff all that" on top of the master, so "Fuck all that" is still there, just muddied up with another word on top, instead of using the multitracks to replace "Fuck all that" altogether and then remaster the song for the single release.
I would do that myself this instant, but I'm in the process of moving, and all my books are packed up. Maybe some good-faith contributor knows where this is. I believe it's in the Schaffner book, but could be wrong.
-- Ben Culture ( talk) 10:32, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
You have not explained your reversion. What exactly do you have a problem with? Every change I made, I cited a source for. You know as well as I that the same set of sources can be quote-culled to provide either a negative, neutral, or positive impression. This article was heavily slanted towards the negative. I am trying to provide a balance.
The article you directed me to, WP:BRD, states clearly: "Consider reverting only when necessary. It is not the intention of this page to encourage reverting. When reverting, be specific about your reasons in the edit summary and use links if needed. Look at the article's edit history and its talk page to see if a discussion has begun."
Both you and Parrot of Doom have failed to provide any explanation why a revert was necessary. I have cleaned up this article a great deal; you should be working with my edit on areas you find objectionable, and explain why in clear English.
You have not provided one example of anything I've done wrong. Referring me to WP:BRD -- which you did not follow -- and WP:MOS was not an explanation. I have consulted the Manual of Style many times. There's not a thing wrong with any of my edits.
In the case of a critic (such as Kurt Loder) giving a glowing, praiseful review, the quotations must reflect that. Instead the quote was "... essentially a Roger Waters solo album ... a superlative achievement on several levels". That is not representative of his review (and the article has already belabored the point that it was Waters's work alone). Did you even bother to read the review, before you reverted my edit? User:Parrot of Doom didn't. He admitted he wasn't checking my sources. He was assuming me to be guilty (of something) before proven innocent. He did not assume good faith, and neither, it appears, do you. To quote Loder in that misleading way -- and, especially, to withhold the fact that he rated it a full five stars -- is deceptive. Why would you support that? People understand "five stars" a lot better than "superlative"!
Likewise, to refer to Roger Waters leaving the band, (and applying to the High Court to legally end Pink Floyd, no less), without mentioning the reason he HAD to resign -- he was threatened with a multi-million-dollar lawsuit from CBS Records, Gilmour and Mason -- shows an outrageous anti-Roger-Waters bias. It's right next door to lying. If you insist on taking that out, take out everything about Roger's legal maneuvers as well. Otherwise, it's a biased article -- a bad article.
Please explain your revision in clear English, and do so under the assumption than mine was a good-faith edit.
I am prepared to explain each and every change I've made, but I've noticed that longer comments get me nothing but disrespect, and go unread. So I will leave off with the two best examples of this article's anti-Waters bias, above.
-- Ben Culture ( talk) 07:20, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
This is a long comment because I don't have the facility of explaining myself in a handy, compressed little package. I can in a snappy prose style, but cannot seem to explain myself without going quite long. I apologize in advance. This is not a "screed" or "rant", nor is it "childish" or a "tantrum". (Those are all insulting terms which should not be used, though Parrot of Doom didn't hesitate.) This is me doing my best to present a compelling argument in favor of my edits, so that a discussion might actually happen. I'm trying to do what I'm supposed to do. If you cannot be bothered to read this, and respond to (at least some of) its content, I understand . . . but in that case, you should not be reverting my edits, because, as Parrot of Doom himself said, "the cycle is Bold, Revert, Discuss".
Regarding your revert of my edits, (rv: your explanation has not garnered consensus, and you should not restore your edit until it does):
Right. I have no intention of restoring my edits yet again at this point, even though each time I did it, I also polished the article up a little more, in little ways, as well. Did you compare my latest edit to the old Doom version? No insult is intended by asking you that.
This article has now been reverted to Parrot of Doom's last edit by three people (twice by Doom himself), and none of them have given a single example of what is wrong with any of my changes. I have attempted to open discussion with Doom, GrahamColm, and now you. You can see that. I've explained some of my major changes in detail. The only response I've had was a personal insult and repeated unclear question from Doom. He did not address anything I said or asked (I even boiled it down to "What do you want from me?"), in my attempt to have a real dialogue with him. He appears not to have read the comments he responded to. He even admitted that he did not check my sources, saying it was "a waste of my time", so he's assuming me guilty until proven innocent ... of something, damned if I know what. It appears he is reverting strictly on the basis of personal preference.
Everything I added came from a reliable source, usually the same sources that were already in use, and I made sure to use inline citations. The article was biased in its choices of which quotes to pull from the sources, and in its presentation (two separate paragraphs quoting three reviews in a negative/positive/negative pattern, and the "positive" reviews were poorly represented, with lukewarm fragments from overall-glowing reviews). The last paragraph of the "Legacy" section, which I didn't edit, is the worst example of that. If neutrality is the goal, both sides should be given equal time, not two against one, twice in the same article. It is not biased to report representative quotes from a positive review. Furthermore, all Pink Floyd's classic albums initially received "mixed reviews", from Dark Side of the Moon onward, but only this article belabors that point.
GrahamColm declined to discuss anything at all -- his Edit Summary was merely a referral to WP:BRD, an essay (which is not a set of policies or guidelines) called "Bold, Revert, Discuss". It also referred to WP:MOS, which is hardly specific. Do you agree that Edit Summaries are supposed to be specific, and in plain English whenever possible? That's why we have so much room for them, right? Yours was clear and I appreciate that!
I've consulted the Manual of Style enough to know I did my edits to this article right. GrahamColm didn't follow the WP:BRD suggestions himself. He made no attempt to discuss anything. I have started every topic currently on this Talk page, and have explained my edits in detail, in an effort to avoid an edit war. That, as far as I'm aware, is what WP:BRD is really about:
Consider reverting only when necessary. It is not the intention of this page to encourage reverting. When reverting, be specific about your reasons in the edit summary and use links if needed. Look at the article's edit history and its talk page to see if a discussion has begun. If not, you may begin one (see this list for a glossary of common abbreviations you might see). Discuss the edit, and the reasons for the edit, on the article's talk page. Do not continue to revert, which is the beginning of edit-warring.
Parrot of Doom was the first to revert the article to the same state (his own latest edit) for a second time. So I reverted as well -- though, as mentioned, each "revert" also included me polishing up the article in other small ways. (There's a lot wrong with this article, which is why it's so hard to be brief here.)
The WP:BRD essay is being used here as an excuse to be lazy (Doom didn't check my sources, or read my explanations, and I doubt GrahamColm did either), and just revert to one's own work, or to a personal preference. The "D" part has gone ignored. WP:BRD is not policy, and I prefer WP:ONLYREVERT, as in "Revert Only When Necessary" (though it isn't policy either):
Revert vandalism upon sight but revert an edit made in good faith only after careful consideration. It is usually preferable to make an edit that retains at least some elements of a prior edit than to revert the prior edit. Furthermore, your bias should be toward keeping the entire edit [Emphasis added] . . . In the case of a good faith edit, a reversion is appropriate when the reverter believes that the edit makes the article clearly worse and there is no element of the edit that is an improvement. . . . Don't revert an edit because it is unnecessary — because it does not improve the article. For a reversion to be appropriate, the reverted edit must actually make the article worse. . . . Even if you find an article was slightly better before an edit, in an area where opinions could differ, you should not revert that edit, especially if you are the author of the prior text.
Can you honestly say my edits made the article "clearly worse" and had "no element" of improvement? I don't think an unbiased person can say that. The article was heavily slanted against the album and against Roger Waters. My aim was to balance that. The article needs a lot of work, which is why all of my "reverts" included new changes.
Have you recently read Kurt Loder's review in Rolling Stone? Can you honestly say the excerpt in Doom's version is as representative of Loder's unqualified gushing as mine was? You really don't think it minimizes a glowing review to withhold the fact that he rated it a full five stars?
Do you really think it's fair to talk about Roger Waters's legal threats to Mason and Gilmour without mentioning that they threatened him with a multi-million-dollar lawsuit FIRST? Don't you think it's relevant and interesting that, after not participating much in the making of The Final Cut, and slagging it off in public, Gilmour and Mason still tried to legally compell Roger Waters to return to the band and make another Pink Floyd album?
This is sourced -- from the horse's mouth (Roger's), to Uncut magazine (June 2004), to Glenn Povey's Echoes (2007), which is a reliable source used in many Pink Floyd articles. This is the reason Roger Waters had to officially resign from Pink Floyd when he did. Why would anyone insist on withholding that information from this article?
In Doom's preferred edit, Waters simply quits for no specified reason other than characteristic misery (what a party pooper!) and goes to the High Court in an attempt to legally end Pink Floyd's career. Y'know, 'cause he's just such a villian. And Nick and Dave, why, they're just a couple of nice guys you could have a beer with, and they just want to play you all your favorite Floyd tunes, and show you a really neat laser show!
If this article reports on Waters's leaving the band, and initiating legal manuevers, the threatened lawsuits from CBS Records, Gilmour, and Mason must be mentioned in the interest of simple balance and completing the story.
I know, it's OH so heroic, Gilmour's oft-quoted "Roger is a dog in the manger and I'm going to fight him." It's not nearly as inspiring to see Roger whinging that "They forced me to resign from the band because, if I hadn't, the financial repercussions would have wiped me out completely." That is the essence of what is going on here. Gilmour and Mason's dishonest presentation of the Pink Floyd story won in the court of public opinion, so it's seeped into the subconscious of the majority, and thus an editor can write a biased article about "the Floyd Wars" without even knowing they're doing it. I believe that is why Doom and GrahamColm have refused to discuss anything. They don't know what is wrong with my edit -- they just know it FEELS wrong.
That's what I'm guessing. What else can I do but guess? There can be no consensus without discussion. I'm the only one talking. So who's trying to do this the right way, here?
(Again: sorry about the length. I actually cut out a lot out of this comment.)
-- Ben Culture ( talk) 16:45, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
It doesn't matter who said that. It was one of my reverters. The important thing is, that isn't how it's done. As one reverter said "The cycle is Be Bold, Revert, Discuss" You can't be BOLD in editing an article if you have to reach a consensus first. The two are diametrically opposed.
Furthermore, WP:BRD isn't a policy or a guideline. It says: This essay ... is intended to supplement the Wikipedia:Consensus and Wikipedia:Be bold pages, to which editors should defer in case of inconsistency between that page and this one.
In other words, the quotation I used for the title of this section simply is not policy.
-- Ben Culture ( talk) 05:20, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
With no plans to tour the album, [1] Waters and Gilmour instead turned to separate solo projects. Gilmour recorded and toured About Face in 1984, and used it to express his feelings on a range of topics, from the murder of musician John Lennon, to his relationship with Waters — who also began touring his new solo album, The Pros and Cons of Hitch Hiking. [2] Mason released his second solo album Profiles in August 1985. [3]
Why is Gilmour's solo album described with its "range of topics" and Waters's album is simply named? It has an equal range of topics gathered under a loose concept. How is this not biased?
Why is it not reported that Gilmour and Mason were really the first Floyds to threaten another with a lawsuit? They threatened to join CBS records in suing Roger Waters for "lost earnings", because he refused to return to the fold and make another Pink Floyd album fo-- excuse me, with them? (See A Momentary Lapse of Reason) Instead we go straight to Waters's lawsuit as if it were the first strike in the "Floyd Wars". How is that not biased? If it's in the Momentary article, it's relevant to this one as well.
The lawsuit left Waters with only one other option: to formally resign from Pink Floyd in order to protect himself from a lawsuit that "would have wiped me out completely", according to Waters.
Yes, I think that's pretty relevant.
Finally, the last paragraph of the Legacy section, I don't think the contributors who crafted it even realized how biased it was, because the distorted Gilmour/Mason view of the facts has won in the court of popular opinion. It begins by establishing that it's primarily Roger Waters's work (as if no other PF album was), and it concludes with, once again, a negative/positive/negative round of review quotations, ending on a VERY dismissive note. It's BADLY biased! This is a highly successful and popular album!
-- Ben Culture ( talk) 10:56, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Newer reponse: I DID. For one example, I presented the reason why Roger Waters was forced to resign from Pink Floyd -- because CBS Records, David Gilmour, and Nick Mason were all threatening to sue him for millions in "lost earnings", plus all legal expenses, which would have "wiped [Waters] out completely", so his only choices were: (a) Start a new album with Gilmour & Mason (after they were so dismissive of The Final Cut), or (b) Officially resign from Pink Floyd. This is significant. I had the quote and cited a reliable source. It was reverted without explanation. But you didn't do that one (it was reverted to your last edit, but not by you). Do you agree that omitting this information, while reporting on Waters's legal maneuvers to legally end the band, is biased? If not, please explain why.
They threatened me with the fact that we had a contract with CBS Records and that part of the contract could be construed to mean that we had a product commitment with CBS and if we didn't go on producing product, they could a) sue us and b) withhold royalties if we didn't make any more records. So they said, 'that's what the record company are going to do and the rest of the band are going to sue you for all their legal expenses and any loss of earnings because you're the one that's preventing the band from making any more records.' They forced me to resign from the band because, if I hadn't, the financial repercussions would have wiped me out completely. --Roger Waters, Uncut (June 2004), explaining why in 1985 he left the band
The following discussion 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.
User:Parrot of Doom has, three times in two hours, removed a quote cited to Uncut Magazine, June 2004. At first, he apparently (from his edit summary) believed that this was being cited to a website which caries a transcript of the article in question. Once this was error pointed out (in my edit summary) he changed his reasoning; and now seems to believe that FAC criteria prevent their inclusion - but does not specify which criterion, or how the quote breaches it. (The edits and edit summaries in question are: "please explain what makes 'pinkfloydz.com' a reliable source", "clearly you don't know what you're talking about", "try reading the Featured Article Criteria") I have asked him to take the matter to the talk page, but he has not done so and, given past experience and the current comments he makes on his own talk page, refusing a similar request, it sadly seems unlikely that he will comment here. The material should be restored. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:22, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
[http://www.pinkfloydz.com/intuncutjun04tfc.htm Roger Waters interview, ''Uncut'' Magazine, June 2004]
- the archive URL is pinkfloydz.com, but the citation is unambiguously Uncut Magazine, June 2004
, which is perfectly acceptable.
Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing);
Talk to Andy;
Andy's edits
12:29, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion was closed, by
User:Betafive, with a summary of "Uncut Magazine is a solid source, and the article is reproduced accurately on pinkfloydz.com. As said website is disreputable, it should not be linked in the citation."
, so I restored the material, with the citation to Uncut, but without the URL. I have been
reverted again, with an edit summary of "the 'talk' in your mind?"
.
Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing);
Talk to Andy;
Andy's edits
23:23, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
I've protected this because of the ongoing edit war. Can you guys come up with a better solution in a week? -- John ( talk) 17:38, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Parrot of Doom: I know you're not a stupid man, so how did you fail to notice that I cited Nicholas Schaffner's Saucerful of Secrets: The Pink Floyd Odyssey? The Uncut magazine interview with Roger Waters that is reproduced, as you complain, at pinkfloydz.com, is a secondary source. You asked me to explain how pinkfloydz.com is a reliable source. My answer to that is: I don't have to!
Why do I say that?
Because the exact same information is in the Nicholas Schaffner book we've been citing, as if it were holy scripture, for "years, absolutely years!" I cited it properly, with a page number . . . and you need not dust off your copy and thumb through the book, because HERE'S A LINK to books.google.com. From page 257 of Saucerful of Secrets:
http://books.google.com/books?id=xfqremepxrkC&pg=PA257#v=onepage&q&f=false
Fourth paragraph, second to last:
"Dave did finally agree to relinquish his position—but not his final cut of the producers' royalties."
Is there something wrong with Schaffner, now? Explain that one to me. Because as it is, it looks like your reversion was intellectually dishonest, reverting the whole edit because you didn't like the back-up citation.
Schaffner's book has been out since late 1990. Why is there any uncertainty in your mind? Did you read it only once? Or is it just that you oppose any edit that casts David Gilmour in a less-than-flattering light?? That kinda seems to be the case.
If you don't like the cited source of Uncut Magazine's interview with Roger Waters, that's not a problem. Other statements in this article use Schaffner as their sole source; there's no reason this one can't do that, too. If you don't want to link to pinkfloydz.com, we can remove the link and leave the citation as Roger Waters interview, Uncut Magazine, June 2004.
I do realize the pinkfloydz.com site LOOKS a bit dodgy, but I believe they transcribed the interview accurately (despite a lack of proper formatting and some questionable punctuation). For your edification, this is what was said:
WATERS: The big argument [with Gilmour] was whether he’d be getting a production credit and a point off the top for producing the record. He didn’t produce it. He didn’t want it to be made. He was disinterested in the album. He didn’t get the production credit. He did, however, insist on taking the point off the top.
UNCUT: How did he manage that? [I always wondered about this myself!]
WATERS: Just by being obdurate. That was when we really fell out, over all that. He and I faced off about it, and Nick... I had this one telephone conversation with Nick about that. He said “I think you’re completely right about this, but I’m going to side with Dave cos that’s where my bread’s buttered.”
You really don't trust a web site that managed to transcribe a word like "obdurate" correctly? Well, that's you. That's not me. I really couldn't care less that this was a Featured Article, 'cause it's still a pretty bad, biased article. You've fought my every attempt to balance it out, and it seems your reverts are oriented towards protecting public perceptions of David Gilmour.
Hopefully, you have no arguments left to make. Schaffner is reliable and so is the Uncut article, but if you object to the pinkfloydz.com link, I have no problem whatsoever with de-linking it. The information, however, STAYS!
→ Ben Culture ( talk) 17:58, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on The Final Cut (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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:29, 20 May 2017 (UTC)