Talk:The Final Cut (album)/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

"Movie version"

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)

Ah, but it is

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)

The article already mentions that a short film was made (not video). It does so clearly and concisely. The changes you made read as though they were written by a 10-year-old child. In short, they were utter rubbish and do not belong here. Parrot of Doom 08:55, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

The film is mentioned, but the analysis you removed was sourced, and though I see the need to eliminate redundancy, I think adding the sourced material that expanded on it would do no harm. However, your snotnosed attitude, insulting anyone who disagrees with you, really needs a serious adjustment. Your revert comments failed to draw any attention to potential redundancy, and you consistently reverted to your own version (with a couple of dab and link fixes by others) For one thing, the material you are criticizing as "mine" wasn't written by me, I restored the material with a minor copyedit or two because it appeared to be on point and relevant. For another, the tone may not have been copperplate prose, but by the time the section was rewritten several times by at least three different editors, including the anon IP who first created it (it appears there have been roughly 45 edits about this), it was better and the sourcing improved. Thus, your snotty crack about the prose of a 10 year old is also rude and inappropriate. What I find most unhelpful and unclear is your comment that the content is "rubbish" (which is, by the way, the equivalent of "bullshit', so really a rather inflammatory thing to say). To me, a bit of review and analysis is useful. The edit also added the name of Barry Matthews, which you omitted, and you fail to note Waters authorship of the script. The analysis that McAvoy's character is "believed that his role in this video is a more thorough look at his character in the film version of The Wall" is an interesting point. Is any of this information incorrect or irrelevant in your view? Montanabw^(talk) 16:43, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Don't make the mistake of presuming I care what you think or whether you're upset or not. I only care about the article and my point stands. If you think the information is relevant, add it to whatever article exists about the film. By the way, I have no idea who "believed that his role..." refers to, and neither does the reader. Another reason to remove such edits. Parrot of Doom 17:29, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Um, the D in BRD means "discuss." A film was made that was released with the album, thus it is relevant to this article. You have a small paragraph that acknowledges this. My view is that another sentence or two would not destroy your efforts. I am not particularly bound to what was inserted, as I did not create it, but there appear to be two glaring omissions and one bit of relevant analysis. If this is incorrect, say so. The point in THIS article is simple: If it is correct, then it should be added, though details as to form are open to discussion. If you wish to do otherwise, It would then appear that you have WP:OWNERSHIP issues here and your outward actions suggest that you choose to viciously attack anyone who disagrees with you. I was asked to stop by because you were bullying other users who were making good faith attempts to improve the article. My neutral view is that it wouldn't kill you to add a couple of minor elements. So show a little good faith on the issue or explain why this material is incorrect. Montanabw^(talk) 22:19, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with ownership and everything to do with preventing people adding irrelevant badly-written barely-relevant factoids to articles that don't need them. It's called good editorial sense, something which some people here clearly don't have. And you talk about good faith? As if writing the article in the first place isn't good faith. It's no wonder people like myself get sick of being spoken to this way by people who don't have the first clue what they're talking about, and leave the site. Good day sir. Parrot of Doom 10:46, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I've been a part of 13 FACs, some solo, have started 179 articles and have taken over 30 to DYK so far, so don't lecture me about good faith. Get over yourself and grow up; this is wikipedia, it's like that around here. that's why we have BRD. Here, it seems like author and co-producer is not "barely-relevant." The original material submitted has had its sourcing improved and was rewritten, the review of the film's content may not be completely relevant here, but thus it seems like we are really now just down to a very minor rewrite to add some additional details about authorship and production. Without objection, I believe these two items would benefit the article by their addition. Note I have not made further edits to the article at this point. Won't kill you to allow someone else to add one sentence, and nothing stops you from editing that sentence once it is in. Montanabw^(talk) 17:39, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

First, I have not "declined to discuss anything at all" or "refused to discuss anything"; I have simply been at work all day. And second, I haven't got the time to read all this, but the length of your discourse leads me to believe that you have an agenda that lies deeper than improving the article. Please discuss and reach a consensus for any changes to the article on this page first. Graham Colm (talk) 21:39, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

It's too bad you're not paying attention. I addressed a much shorter comment to you, above. This comment was addressed to User:Nikkimaria, who describes herself as a voracious reader who "will read anything", and has been quite civil and helpful to me. I don't need you to read, much less respond to, this particular comment, while leaving the one addressed to you by name ignored.

You say "[T]he length of your discourse leads me to believe that you have an agenda that lies deeper than improving the article." Please explain the logic of that to me. What is the correlation between length and sincerity? Exactly what agenda would that be?

I am ONLY interested in balancing the significant biases the article had when I found it.

You say "Please discuss and reach a consensus for any changes to the article on this page first." What on Earth do you think I've been trying to do on this Talk page?

I have no disrespect for a working man, but I suggest that maybe 15 minutes before you have to leave the house is not the time to engage in radical Wiki-moves such as complete reversion. It's been said in Wiki essays before: If you revert a good-faith edit, and especially if you don't provide a specific, plain-English explanation, you better be prepared, because the editor is extremely likely to expect an explanation.

Finally, A common mis-citation of (WP:TLDR) is to ignore the reasoned and actually quite clear arguments and requests for response presented by an unnecessarily wordy editor with a flippant "TL;DR" in an attempt to discredit and refuse to address their strongly-presented ideas and/or their criticism of one's own position. This is a four-fold fallacy: ad hominem, appeal to ridicule, thought-terminating cliché, and simple failure to actually engage in the debate because one is supposedly too pressed for time to bother . . . .

Please don't forget to read the much-shorter comment addressed to you at your earliest convenience! Have a good evening!

--Ben Culture (talk) 01:00, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Hey Ben Culture, I'm happy to discuss the issue with you, but it does get a bit confusing to all involved when conversations start to overlap across different pages. Generally if you want to discuss something with just one editor you would usually post to their talk page, as you have done with me at User talk:Nikkimaria#The Final Cut (album). On article talk pages, on the other hand, we usually organize by topic rather than by editor addressed. If you haven't already, take a read through WP:TPG; I've found it helpful in approaching discussions, even if (sometimes especially if) others don't follow all of its guidance. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:20, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

So . . . What now? You want me to re-post my long comment to your User talk page before you'll address anything I said in it?

--Ben Culture (talk) 08:16, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

"Please discuss and reach a consensus for any changes to the article on this page first."

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)

Have you issued a RfC? It seems like things are centralized over few editors who are all involved, so some uninvolved input from a request could do everyone some good. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 19:08, 12 July 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)

have you read the source material, or have you simply copied text from one article to another? Parrot of Doom 19:14, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

WOW! A real, useful question that I can actually answer!

The answer is: YES! Of course. I collect just about every worthwhile PF-related publication. (In fact, I'm awaiting delivery of the first biography of Roger Waters alone, Dave Thompson's Roger Waters: The Man Behind the Wall. It didn't get great reviews, but I must have it, nonetheless.) Schaffner, Mabbett, Mason, Watkinson, Povey ... Everything in this article's Biblography except Mark Blake's Comfortably Numb — The Inside Story of Pink Floyd, which I have read but do not own. I have also read PF books not cited here, as well.

The edit I am most interested in seeing in this article is the real reason Roger Waters resigned from Pink Floyd. Waters told it to Uncut (magazine) in 2004, and Glenn Povey's book Echoes verfies it:

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

This Final Cut article refers to Roger Waters resigning from the band, but without reason (we are left to assume "characteristic misery" was the sole reason), and next thing you know, he's going to the High Court in an attempt to end Pink Floyd's career. Without the above information, we are again left to make assumptions -- that he tried to destroy them out of sheer vanity and villiany. The effect is an anti-Waters bias. Including the above information can only bring balance to the article. It isn't a pro-Waters spin; I am not requesting anything currently in the article be taken out, although I do think some passages could be worded better.

I know, it's much more "heroic" and fun to quote Gilmour's "Roger is a dog in the manger, and I'm going to fight him," instead of Waters's complaint, "They forced me to resign from the band because, if I hadn't, the financial repercussions would have wiped me out completely." If I had a pro-Gilmour bias, I would be very happy with the article as it is.

I'm only interested in balance. Believe it or not. While I would like to select more representative quotes from Kurt Loder's glowing, five-star review, I wouldn't hesitate to quote his one-star TRASHING of The Pros and Cons of Hitch Hiking, in its article, as well.

Thank you for taking my efforts seriously enough to ask a straight question.

--Ben Culture (talk) 04:49, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm back in the country for a day or so, and can now answer. I think that's fine and I can handle it on my return next week. Parrot of Doom 08:13, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate your civility. So is this consensus? I think it's as close as we're going to get. Nobody else who did a reversion replied on the topic of The Final Cut; either their concerns were all about the process: referring to essays, guidelines, and policies, or not replying at all. Well, it's been said that silence implies consent.

It's too late to just revert to my last edit, and it will probably be a few days more before I get to it, but I don't mind adding some of my material from it manually (I'm willing to concede on "Bowlderised/Altered"). Some time this week. Anything in it that you truly think makes the article worse, remove it, but please try to leave some of my material in place. Does that work for you? --Ben Culture (talk) 17:33, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

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)

Nice work. Unprotecting. --John (talk) 19:13, 20 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 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)

(edit conflict) We should stick with the Mark Blake citation as it is a secondary source as opposed to the Uncut interview, which is a primary one. It is also more recent (2011) than Schaffner (1992). Blake writes; ...the absence of Gilmour's name (was) the result of a later disagreement during the final sessions for the album, (p. 296) and "the upshot of the argument was that Gilmour's name as producer was removed from the final credits, although it was agreed that he would still be paid". (p. 298). I suggest that the sentence in question is changed to:

"After months of poor relations, and following a final confrontation, Gilmour was removed from the credit list as producer, but would still be paid his production royalties.<ref>{{Harvnb|Blake|2008|p=298}}</ref>

Graham Colm (talk) 18:15, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

I certaintly have no problem with either of those wordings. The point gets made. Thank you for being a voice of reason!

→Ben Culture (talk) 19:17, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Fine with me. BTW, your statement "You asked me to explain how pinkfloydz.com is a reliable source. My answer to that is: I don't have to!" is absolutely incorrect and I suggest you learn why before you make damaging changes to articles that meet the FA criteria. Parrot of Doom 12:14, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

You have a point. But do you understand that the Uncut Magazine interview, transcribed at pinkfloydz.com, was a secondary or back-up source to the first citation of Schaffner's Saucerful of Secrets?

That is why I said "I don't have to", even though that probably is, as you said, wrong. I said it because it backed up the primary source. I don't realy believe in double-standards for sources; they should ALL be good sources, but then, I'm not as mistrustful of pinkfloydz.com as you are, in the first place. It looks like they transcribed a good interview faithfully, albeit with little regard for format or punctuation.

The "Featured Article" thing: I get it; it's a point of pride. But let's not allow it hold back progress. Surely the article can be made better after having been a FA, right?

I'm perfectly content with this aspect of the article now. I know you put a lot of your own time and effort into it, and I promise you I'm not trying to fuck it all up. That is not what I'm here on Wikipedia to do. I operated unregistered for years. That thing on your User Talk page? "I'm here to write articles, nothing else"? That was my attitude. Only I didn't create articles from the ground up. But I did improve many articles on a wide scale, and I didn't engage in much conflict-resolution about it.

I would like to think you're so protective of this article because of the topic itself. The topic album is important to me, too. So, if I screw up in the future, I would hope you'll just tell me clearly what the problem is, and don't question if I'm being patronizing (that's just me trying to be nice), or if you are (neither of is stupid; we should be able to communicate). I would like you to think of me as someone who respects The Final Cut, and believes it deserves the best article possible. Whether that's about selling three million copies, or buying three pounds of potatoes.

In all sincerity,

→Ben Culture (talk) 13:55, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

"The "Featured Article" thing: I get it; it's a point of pride." - you don't appear to get anything. You'll excuse me for paying the rest of your post absolutely no attention whatsoever, since it's all similarly full of bullshit. Parrot of Doom 19:24, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

That was the absolute last time I will make any effort to reach out and find common ground with you. Your behavior is absolutely inappropriate. This is not over.

And the whole point of your hostility is to cover up your own inadequacy, because you have to know I'm right about using Schaffner as a source. You know I'm right.

--Ben Culture (talk) 08:45, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

If you have such a good insight into the workings of my mind then I'm sure you already know what my response will be. And for the first time in any discussions we've had, you'd be absolutely on the nail. Parrot of Doom 18:28, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Oh, yes, of course. But, see, I've got this problem: I'd rather be HAPPY than RIGHT.

I probably do know what you're thinking now, or what you've been thinking all along, and it doesn't interest me at all. I don't care enough about winning. All I care about is the way you speak to me. All I want is the respect I've earned. I have never sought decorations or special privileges, because I don't believe in all that. My views on Wikipedia are quite austere. But I have an edit history which is easily accessed. And more often than not, I know exactly what I'm talking about from the moment I hit that "Edit" function, and more often than not, my sources are perfectly fine.

I admit I'm impressed that you've politicked yourself up into a position where you get to verbally abuse people as you please, and all your admin buddies let you slide on it. But it signifies the death of Wikipedia. You embody that death. Non-Wikipedians consider the site to be personality-driven rather than fact-driven or consensus-driven. You have become Exhibit A of that argument.

→Ben Culture (talk) 06:43, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://pitchfork.com/reviews/albums/6308-the-final-cut
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070626050454/http://www.riaa.com/goldandplatinumdata.php?table=SEARCH to http://www.riaa.com/goldandplatinumdata.php?table=SEARCH

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).

• 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) 20:29, 20 May 2017 (UTC)