Jump to content

Talk:David Gilmour

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 189.124.217.111 (talk) at 01:50, 14 June 2014. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

"100% accurate"

This claim is subjective and unverifiable. It is not and can never be claimed to be 100% accurate. Unless you have a survey of a representative sample of the world's population in which they were asked what they know David Gilmour for, then any claim about what he is "best known" for is an assumption. The claim contains no information of any use. Why say "X is best known for being Y" when you can just say "X is Y"? The principles of NPOV and verifiability must be adhered to. 200.120.158.78 (talk) 11:39, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Left a message on your talkpage. Murry1975 (talk) 11:47, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You left a snotty message bragging about how you'd block any changes I try to make to this article. I am sure you enjoyed leaving it very much. Now, discuss the issue here, if you have anything to contribute. 200.120.158.78 (talk) 12:21, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NPA thats 2. Murry1975 (talk) 12:34, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've been looking at the first sentence of several famous guitarist's articles here, and some of them actually say, "best known for" (i.e. Eddie Van Halen) or "gained worldwide fame as" (Paul McCartney) or even "featured his melodic, blues-based guitar lines" (Carlos Santana). As always, if the claim is based on a cited reference it can stay, even if the reference simply verifies fame by indicating number of records sold, which is the case here. Therefore I think the phrase "[Gilmour] is best known for" can stay. BTW, it appears that neither editor in this edit war are assuming good faith or behaving reasonably to each other. Cheers. Prhartcom (talk) 13:16, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't reviewed the sources in use in this article, but my impression is that we use a phrase like this to encapsulate what most sources would say is the thing people would know the subject for, or has lent the most to the subject's notability. As such, this statement about Gilmour seems reasonable. IP, are you arguing that Gilmour is best known for something other than being in Pink Floyd, or that we just shouldn't be making any such statement? It seems useful to guide the reader right away into "How would I know this person?" --Spike Wilbury (talk) 13:46, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The WP:LEAD section is a summary; the phrase "best known for... Pink Floyd" is a reasonable summary of Gilmour's career. That is, Gilmour's solo work, and work with other groups, has not risen above his work with Pink Floyd in terms of record sales, and column inches devoted to him in the literature. Binksternet (talk) 15:14, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's really not a hard concept. "best known for" is a subjective claim. I don't "best know" David Gilmour for anything. Don't know his solo stuff, don't know much Pink Floyd. Many people in non-English speaking countries most likely haven't even heard of him. Making the claim adds no useful information whatsoever.

  • Prhartcom: "blues-based guitar lines" is an objective fact. Number of records sold is an objective fact. "best known for" is not. Nor is "worldwide fame". "Success" would be a better word than "fame", in that instance. Reproducing opinions as if they are facts is specifically proscribed.
  • Spike Wilbury: "what most sources would say is the thing people would know the subject for" is really not what we are trying to get across here. We guide the reader into "how would I know this person" by stating what they did. We don't need the verbose and subjective "is best known for" formulation to do that. What exactly is wrong with "X did Y" that "X is best known for doing Y" would somehow improve upon?
  • Binksternet: what you say about record sales and column inches may be true, but it does not translate into a useful claim that he is "best known" for anything. We deal in objective facts, not subjective claims, and there's no escaping from the fact that "best known for" is a subjective, unverifiable claim. 200.120.158.78 (talk) 22:29, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi 200.120.158.78: I understand what you are saying, truly. I am a little like you; I don't want to write anything in this encyclopedia that is not backed up by reliable sources. I was really torn on this one before I made a decision. But for me, my decision is made, and I am relieved to see that others agree with me. I know it must be hard for you to see that no one agrees with you on this, but it is the case. Gilmour is simply best known for being in that one band. It helps readers to know they found the right David Gilmour. And really, is this such a big deal worth fighting over? I've had discussions over more interesting matters than this, as I believe you would too if you were a frequent contributor here. Let's all put this energy in what we should be doing: Improving the encyclopedia. Cheers. Prhartcom (talk) 23:12, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you're going to insist on missing the point, don't be so patronising while doing so. 200.120.158.78 (talk) 00:00, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some examples based on popular topics that show how absurd it is to make this kind of subjective claim. Do you really think any of the right hand column examples would "help the reader to know they found the right article"?

Current text How you would apparently prefer it
Niagara Falls is the collective name for three waterfalls that straddle the international border between Canada and the United States Niagara Falls is best known for being the collective name for three waterfalls that straddle the international border between Canada and the United States
The Beatles were an English rock band that formed in Liverpool, in 1960. The Beatles are best known for having been an English rock band that formed in Liverpool, in 1960.
London is the capital city of England and the United Kingdom London is best known for being the capital city of England and the United Kingdom
Nelson Rolihlahla Mandela (18 July 1918 – 5 December 2013) was a South African anti-apartheid revolutionary, politician and philanthropist who served as President of South Africa from 1994 to 1999. Nelson Rolihlahla Mandela (18 July 1918 – 5 December 2013) was best known for being a South African anti-apartheid revolutionary, politician and philanthropist who served as President of South Africa from 1994 to 1999.

As an independent party, who noticed this IP editing WP:OWN page, I have to agree here with him. Per WP:PEACOCK and WP:CITE, you cannot put in wikipedia claims, such as fastest, bestest and belovest without proper references.. This is the fundamental wikipedia policy. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:54, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My point is broader than that - even if you find a reference that says "best known for X", it's still an opinion, which cannot be reproduced as if it is fact. That it is subjective is shown by some random pages I found in a quick google search. "David Gilmour, best known as a lead vocalist and guitarist for Pink Floyd", "best known for being a Strat player by choice", "Gilmour is best known for his lead guitar work", "David Gilmour is best known among fans for his characteristically atmospheric guitar work". Some people mention Pink Floyd, others don't; some say vocalist, some say guitarist, some say both. It's not useful to try to guess what people think of objective facts. It is simpler and obviously better to simply state the objective facts. 200.120.158.78 (talk) 02:56, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This formulation is the widely accepted WP:CONSENSUS at present. If you disagree, you will need to find wide support for such a change throughout the project. I would suggest starting at the Villiage Pump. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:53, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No consensus can violate requirements for citations (WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, if you like wikilawyering). I don't need to look for support for WP:CITE, this is the fundamental policy of wikipedia. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:31, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am not talking about a consensus on this page. I am talking about a consensus distributed throughout the project. Various infoboxes include "known for". "Best known for" is a slight extension of this. What is Gilmour known for? While individuals may or may not know of him, he is best known for his involvement in Pink Floyd. How do we know this? Every source that discusses him connects him with Pink Floyd (with the possible of narrowly focused publications where every reader is very familiar with Gilmour. Take a look at the "Sources" section. All but one of them has "Pink Floyd" in the title. The lone exception starts with "As a producer and songwriter, Pink Floyd's David Gilmour..." Not "David Gilmour", "Pink Floyd's David Gilmour". How do we know Gilmour is "best known" for his work with Pink Floyd? How could we possibly not know? This is not original research, this is summarizing what the article says. How do we know that an article violates WP:BLP1E?
We have reliable sources discussing that Mark David Chapman did several things. How did we "choose" one thing for the lead? Why doesn't it start with "...is a guy who read The Catcher in the Rye"? How do we know murdering John Lennon is what he is notable for? No, the first sentence doesn't use the phrase "best known for", but to not figure out that that is exactly what we are saying you would have to be half asleep.
Pedantically, we could "write around" the problem by saying what Gilmour is best known for without directly saying the words. Is that what you are hoping for? - SummerPhD (talk) 02:42, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a citation... but I still can't figure out if folks are actually arguing that he isn't best known for his work in Pink Floyd, or what's going on here. Every scholarly publication I found frames him as Pink Floyd's lead guitarist, even when the purpose of the work is to discuss his solo projects or other things. Is this citation enough, or do we have to have an unsightly string of footnotes in the first sentence of the lead? --Spike Wilbury (talk) 10:07, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The IP editor who started this pedantically insisted that the phrase is original research and repeatedly removed it from numerous articles. The IP's reverts included every personal attack they could dream up. Their explanations weren't very enlightening. Most of the IP's changes have been reverted during their block. A few have resulted in discussions like the one here with two camps: those who seem to believe it should be removed as unsourced (with arguments that we can't know what David Gilmour and Syd Barrett are best known for... yeah, Syd Barrett might be best known as a painter I guess). The other camp is of the opinion that we are being forced to pedantically source that water is wet.
As for the cite clutter, keep in mind the lead section is meant to summarize the rest of the article and generally shouldn't have cites. I'd say restate the obvious "best known as" later in the article with the source and kill the cite in the lead. - SummerPhD (talk) 12:55, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious? You might think it is. What about to the millions of people around the world who've never even heard of him? What do they "best know" him for? What about his wife and children, what do they "best know" him for? What about people who like his solo material more than they like Pink Floyd? What about the fact that I found four different statements of what he is best known for? Two things should be obvious to anyone with half a brain:
  1. The claim that anyone is "best known" for anything is a subjective assumption
  2. There is no possible advantage to writing "X is best known for Y", where you can just write "X is Y".
Someone almost got the point with the Mark Chapman example. How do we know murdering John Lennon is what he is notable for? No, the first sentence doesn't use the phrase "best known for", but to not figure out that that is exactly what we are saying you would have to be half asleep. Indeed. We simply present objective facts in objective ways. Making explicit guesses about what some unspecified demographic thinks about the objective facts is absurd. 200.120.158.78 (talk) 13:52, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So what "objective fact" puts murdering John Lennon in the first sentence of the Chapman article? How about the simple fact that it is plainly obvious that Chapman is best known for killing Lennon? Uh oh, that's original research. Perhaps the first sentence of that article should be "Mark David Chapman was born May 10, 1955 in Fort Worth, Texas." Then, to avoid original research, we'll need to detail everything he did over the next 25 years before mentioning the thing he is best known for: killing John Lennon. - SummerPhD (talk) 14:19, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The article about Mark Chapman makes no explicit claims about who might know him for what. It simply states the objective facts. Are you arguing that there, too, the article should say he is "best known" for shooting John Lennon, rather than simply stating that he shot John Lennon? I do not know how many times I've asked this without anyone attempting to answer it: what is lacking in "X did Y" that is somehow improved upon by saying "X is best known for doing Y"? 200".120.158.78 (talk) 14:33, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Best known as guitarist, vocalist and writer with Pink Floyd,..."[1] "...most famous for his work as the guitarist and and co-lead vocalist of the rock band Pink Floyd."[2] "Best known for his distinctively atmospheric lead guitar work for Pink Floyd..."[3] This is verifiable. - SummerPhD (talk) 14:38, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The difference between an opinion and a fact is clearly beyond you. The fact that these three claims are all slightly different doesn't seem to bother you at all. And still, you are unable to explain what the problem is with simply saying "X is Y", and why you feel it necessary to claim that "X is best known for being Y". Two simple questions for you:
  1. Do you think it would be useful to change the article to say that he is "best known for his distinctively atmospheric lead guitar work"?
  2. If not, why not? 200.120.158.78 (talk) 14:42, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, because that's not what's stated in the preponderance of sources. We summarize what is stated in the preponderance of reliable sources. If most reliable sources are of the opinion that he's best known for some thing, that's what we state. The "best known for" construction is a rhetorical device that guides the reader to an explicit point of reference. This helps reading comprehension, and helps the reader frame further discussion and reading about the topic. If they get in a conversation about David Gilmour at a pub tonight, they can confidently say, "Oh yeah, he's the lead guitarist for Pink Floyd" and be confident that's the more important defining characteristic of Gilmour. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 14:52, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We are not in the business of providing trivia for morons to regurgitate down the pub. Do you really consider the reader so stupid that they would not understand from "David Gilmour is the lead guitarist in Pink Floyd" that David Gilmour is the lead guitarist in Pink Floyd? How exactly would adding the words "best known for being" aid anyone's comprehension of anything? 189.124.217.111 (talk) 01:50, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome back, 200.120.158.78. You make an interesting point. You make it in the most stubbornly offensive distasteful way, but you do make an interesting point and I do see your point. As a sort of thought experiment, I started wondering about a hypothetical scenario in which the phrase that you wish removed from this article is banned by some future policy from all articles and must be removed immediately. Using WP:AWB, I ran an unscientific experiment: From a small subset of all articles, the list of all male guitarists with articles on Wikipedia, how many of those contain the phrase "best known" in one of their introductory paragraphs? Out of a list of 1137, there were 323 that did, or about a third.
I will go ahead and draw a conclusion from that. The use of the phrase is fairly common and widespread on Wikipedia, and probably elsewhere in print media around the world. If you wish the phrase removed from this article, shouldn't you also be making the claim it should be removed from all 323 of those articles? And those were just a representative sample of all Wikipedia articles; what about every other performer that ever lived, shouldn't you be willing to convince hundreds and hundreds of Wikipedia editors and administrators that the phrase should be removed from the thousands and thousands of those articles? Well then, in that case, can't the phrase stay? The phrase reminds me of some of the prose I write in articles here that might possibly come close to the line, but which I realize is ultimately harmless because of the obviousness of the phrase written. As SummerPhD observed, it is the statement "water is wet" and it is pedantic. That is my humble conclusion. Would you please, in a thoughtful way, consider that could be the case here? Thanks for that, and cheers. Prhartcom (talk) 15:02, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the phrase should be removed from all articles in which it appears. It is subjective and contains no information. No-one has yet been able to tell me the implied demographic who is doing the knowing, nor who has polled them to verifiably determine their opinion on all the articles that claim to know it. Do you know why no-one's been able to do so? 189.124.217.111 (talk) 01:50, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(Some of the male guitarists in the experiment above that contain the phrase "best known" in one of their introductory paragraphs include Aaron Fincke, Ace Frehley, Adam Darski, Adam Gaynor, Adam Granduciel, Adam Jones, Adrian Belew, Adrian Smith, , Adrian Vandenberg, Aljoša Buha, Allan Holdsworth, Alvin Lee, Andy LaRocque, Andy Powell, Angus Young, Art Alexakis ...)
A few of the articles that contained the phrase above actually said "perhaps best known". Possible compromise? Cheers. Prhartcom (talk) 15:31, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, that is not a good compromise. It explicitly acknowledges that you don't know the truth about what you're trying to claim. We do not need to include any vague guesses as to what people's opinions might be, when we can simply state the facts objectively. 189.124.217.111 (talk) 01:50, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fact vs. opinion is not "beyond" me. It is a quantifiable fact that Gilmour is widely known. That there are people who have never heard of him and never will is immaterial. Of the hundreds of thousands of people who have recorded in the past 50 years, there are people who would fit into any operational definition of "widely known". Elvis is best known for his music. That he is best known for his work with Pink Floyd is similarly quantifiable, but we go with "verifiable" instead. It is verifiable that Gilmour is best known for his work with Pink Floyd. Vocals? Guitar? Writing? All of the above? That's a separate question. How do we describe the guitar work? Again, a separate question (and probably doesn't belong in the first paragraph). You are clouding the issue. You've made numerous claims as to why you don't want this here. It's a bit hard to track. - SummerPhD (talk) 15:09, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
He is best known for Pink Floyd, is nearly a WP:BLUE. Is he equally known for producing others materials (Kate Bush for example), or playing with MacCartney, Jokers Wild or The Orb, or giving to charity? The IP seems to think its POV. That we cant qaulify it like such. As far as I can tell, best shouldnt be used if it is alleging a POV, the best guitarist, the best band from a polytechnic or the best wearer of white tee-shirts in the business. That would be POV, using it as it is in the article lets the reader know why Gilmour is primarily famous, and may just boil down to a usage of a common English phrase that IP doesnt understand (geo-locates to Chile), or maybe a limited vocabulrary or maybe it is just us in this end of the world that use this phrase. Is it really as simple as a misunderstanding of a common phrase in a regional variety of English? Murry1975 (talk) 16:30, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you're going to accuse someone of not understanding English, it would be better not to litter your idiotic screed with spelling and grammar mistakes. 189.124.217.111 (talk) 01:50, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:David_Gilmour&oldid=612839238"