Talk:The Final Cut (album)

Quote from Uncut

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)

It isn't cited to Uncut, it's cited to pinkfloydz.com. Until we establish the reliability of that website, it cannot be included in a Featured Article. Parrot of Doom 11:51, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

That's simply not true. The citation was marked up as [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)

I couldn't care less what code is used. The citation is to the website. It is the website that cites Uncut. You must therefore demonstrate the reliability of the website. If you cannot do that then it cannot appear on this article. If you add the material but cite it to the magazine, that would be fine - but if you do it immediately following this discussion then don't expect me to believe that you have a copy of the original magazine, because I won't. Parrot of Doom 12:33, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

You continue to tilt at windmills. The displayed citation was, in full "Roger Waters interview, Uncut Magazine, June 2004" (emboldening mine; italics in original). Your unfounded disbelief is of no import. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:47, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

You're clearly either ignorant or stupid. Parrot of Doom 13:08, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

If it helps, I have a copy of this magazine. [1] The interview segment in question is on page 114. The transcript given on pinkfloydz.com is accurate, but a citation to this magazine would be more acceptable for an FA. (But I am not sure that it fully supports the text that has been added). Graham Colm (talk) 15:27, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

That's very helpful Graham, thanks, add whatever you feel is appropriate. I have no problem with the magazine content, at least I know I can trust you (I do not trust the website). Parrot of Doom 18:21, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't think the quotation from Roger Waters fully supports the proposed changes. To add " Gilmour refused to be listed as a co-producer yet insisted on receiving a cut of the production royalties", is too strong an interpretation of "The big argument was whether he'd (Gilmour) 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 made. He was disinterested. He did, however, insist on taking a point of the top." I think the original wording is better - "After months of poor relations, and following a final confrontation, Gilmour was removed from the credit list as producer, at his own insistence", which is cited to Mark Blake, a secondary source, which we prefer. I do not support this proposed change to the article. Graham Colm (talk) 19:38, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Parrot, since you know I'm with the civility police I'd prefer it if you didn't use those words. Andy, it seems pretty clear to me that on the matter of content PoD is absolutely correct. If a site reproduces material, than we should have to be able to trust that site to reproduce accurately. None of this would be necessary if the "original" publication were available, and--behold!--now it is, below. An accurate transcript is nice, as Graham says, but an FA should cite the real thing. Drmies (talk) 19:53, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

And - as shown above - it did. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:58, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

PoD was right to not accept the edit; it was sourced to a fan cite that is riddled with copyright violations and adware cookies. I am surprised by the flack he has received for no more than maintaining a Featured Article to our standards. That the transcript was accurate is irrelevant; we had no proof of this until I dug into my collection. Graham Colm (talk) 21:09, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

As I have pointed out above, the citation was to "Roger Waters interview, Uncut Magazine, June 2004". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:14, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

And as is pointed out by three editors now, the site you linked should not be cited. What the citation was is irrelevant, and that the text appears to be correct does not invalidate PoD's point. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 21:40, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Any number of people describing a straw man doesn't change the fact that it is a straw man; the citation was to "Roger Waters interview, Uncut Magazine, June 2004". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:52, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

You have said so a number of time, missing the point that this is not the point. I'm going to go with "deliberately obtuse". Drmies (talk) 22:20, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps Pigsonthewing presumes the person who inserted the text and citation read it from the magazine and used the pinkfloydz.com site as "proof". Experience tells me that the chance of that presumption proving correct is extremely low. It's far more likely the editor read the website and simply took it at face value, which obviously we don't do on FA's. Parrot of Doom 23:41, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, quite apart from the requirement to AGF, your presumption is incorrect. I have read the article, in the original magazine. But then, you've already declared that you won't believe that... Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:47, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

It is very much the point; the obtuseness is not mine. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:47, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

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.

Ongoing

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)

Perhaps you didn't see the comment by Graham Colm, which I happen to agree with. Parrot of Doom 23:27, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

It's a reliable source. The fact that it appears on an disreputable website is irrelevant. Stop edit warring. betafive 01:14, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

You've completely missed the point. Parrot of Doom 07:27, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Protected

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)

Recording: Gilmour receives co-producer's royalties on The Final Cut.

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 fucking 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 only read it 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, well, that's entirely irrelevant. 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)