Talk:The Final Cut (album)

Kurt Loder quote

"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)

"Bowlderised"

"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)

Legacy: solo albums, lawsuits, and more criticism

With no plans to tour the album, 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. Mason released his second solo album Profiles in August 1985.

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)

If you have source material that demonstrates this article is biased, then please present it. Parrot of Doom 11:47, 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.

[Older response]: Every change I made was appropriately sourced. It simply wasn't necessary to bring new sources in.

I know your work enough to know you're not a stupid man. We both know sourced facts can be arranged to mis-direct the reader from the essential truth. And we both know you reverted my edits primarily because you didn't like them. There were no new, unsourced statements in my edits. They all used the same sources.

I have an extremely good history with Pink Floyd articles; you could look and see for yourself. I'm an auto-confirmed user who can edit semi-protected articles. I have never engaged in serious edit warring.

Notice that my first comment on this page, that "essentially a Roger Waters solo album", is not, not, NOT representative of the nature of Kurt Loder's review! That concept -- that Roger did all the work -- has already been presented in the previous sections. Between that and the two paragraphs of critic quotations (twice, the negative/positive/negative quote-culling trick), it's just fucking overkill.

This article as a whole can be summarized as "The Final Cut was solely Roger Waters's work, which he forced upon the band, and it was a well-deserved failure". (The boldface indicating the lies.) It manages to slant that way even while coughing up the fact that it went to #1 in the UK (and treats hitting #6 in the US Billboard charts as a failure!) It's a misleading article. We can use the *exact same sources* to tell the truth! That's what I did. I know what's what. I would think my history would lend me some credibility when I say my re-writes come from the exact same sources already cited. Certainly, Kurt Loder's review is still available online and I pulled more REPRESENTATIVE quotes. What had been quoted minimized the glowing nature of his review.

For God's sakes, everybody understands the significance of "a full five stars"; that absolutely HAS to be mentioned.

Do you have a problem that I increased the excerpt from Loder's review, representing its enthusiastic praise? Why? It follows two negative reviews (in my edit -- instead of being stuffed between two negatives and quote-culled to sound neutral instead of a rave), so why should it not be given equal time? Only if you're trying to prove the album sucks, or failed, should you have a problem with that.

This album was a critical and commercial success (by any normal standard, if not Pink Floyd standards), and the article treats it like a failure, best avoided. If you can't see that for yourself, with your intelligence level, then my first guess is that you personally dislike the album, or the circumstances surrounding it, a great deal. 'Cause I didn't really break any Wikipedia guidelines. You haven't shown that.

You've apparently reverted every change since your last edit. This suggests to me that you have become possessive of this article. Well, it isn't your article, and the article isn't right. It isn't neutral. Saying Roger "issued a vague threat" to make the album solo isn't at all neutral, or even logical, when it's established that Gilmour and Mason did not like the material. That's an established fact. So, what? Roger "threatened" to take away an album they didn't like in the first place? THAT is biased. It was an offer. I would be content with something like "Roger offered -- or threatened -- to release the album as his own ...." Nothing wrong with that. My problem with you is that you just completely reverted all my work, when the majority of it isn't even arguable. And this comment of yours doesn't fit my idea of an "explanation".

(For the record, I have no idea what "the cycle is Bold, Revert, Discuss" means.)

I don't need a new source to prove that negative and non-representative quotes have been culled from the sources. The existing sources can be used to balance the article, particularly after I bring in the information from A Momentary Lapse of Reason. You've offered no justification for wiping out my work entirely, and I'm going to do something I've never done before: I'm going to undo your reversion, because all my edits were sourced from the exact same, pre-existing sources, and there's not a damn thing wrong with them. Nevertheless, I will alter some of them (such as the "offered or threatened" example above), in the hopes that you will like them better, and stop crouching atop this article like a vulture rather than a Parrot.

But I shouldn't have to concern myself with pleasing the idiosyncracies of one particular user.

--Ben Culture (talk) 19:25, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

You sound like a child having a tantrum. There should be nothing in this article that isn't in the sources used to build it. I'm not going to go through it line by line, checking each citation, because that would be a waste of my time.

Now I'll ask for the last time, do you have anything reliable that suggests that this article presents a biassed view of this album, its production and subsequent release? Or are you just a fan who's annoyed that his favourite album isn't viewed quite as favourably as he thinks it should be? Parrot of Doom 20:57, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

What on Earth are you asking for? A publication that reviews Wikipedia articles for their neutrality? I thought I made it pretty clear: My sources are your sources. Or, since I added some new material, they're sources accepted on the A Momentary Lapse of Reason article. Povey. Schaffner. Blake. etc. I don't need a second set of sources to justify which quotations I pull from the primary sources!

As I said, "We both know sourced facts can be arranged to mis-direct the reader from the essential truth."

You say, "I'm not going to go through it line by line, checking each citation, because that would be a waste of my time." Then I should be innocent until proven guilty, Mr. Doom, don't you think? And you should stop reverting my edits on the assumption that I'm doing something wrong, wouldn't you say?

What is needed now is consensus. Stop Edit-Warring me. Let's wait for some others to weigh in. Two Wikipedia editors bashing heads is not the way to produce a Good Article.

Also, you still haven't explained "the cycle is Bold, Revert, Discuss". But I can tell you this: Repeating an unclear question is not "having a discussion". What do you want from me?

--Ben Culture (talk) 22:18, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Undid revision 614468695 by GrahamColm. WP:ONLYREVERT (when necessary). As for WP:BRD, you have failed to Discuss (explain your reversion). I have explained my edits.

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)

Dear Nikkimaria

This is a long comment because I don't have the facility of explaining myself in a handy, compressed little package. I can edit 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)