Talk:Ayers Rock (band)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Challenge to Ayers Rock (band) for NPOV

The article Ayers Rock (band) is in breach of the guidelines relating to NPOV, and inline citations, both in the lead-in, and in the "History" section.

The problems are:—

• the use of the quote 'the members "were seen as 'musician's musicians'. The band issued a series of technically proficient recordings, but in the long run any quest for commercial acceptance was marred by the seriousness of the music".' This highly judgemental text is placed at the end of the lead-in, and at the end of the "History" section, in a deliberate attempt to influence the conclusion(s) that the reader would reach; which is pushing a POV.
• the use of the above quote twice in the one article is highly unusual. I can't remember seeing that in any other article.
• the use of 14 references in the "History" section which refer to one work by Mr. Ian McFarlane, and 19 references in total for the entire article. So, the reader is getting: Ayers Rock through the eyes of Mr. Ian McFarlane. In other words, they are getting one POV. This is diammetrically opposed to Wikipedia's guidelines! No article should rely so heavily on one author, even if he is highly esteemed.

I strongly believe that the policy WP:IMPARTIAL is extremely relevant here.

The phrase "the seriousness of the music" is rock music jargon for "these guys are as boring as hell", and is highly prejudicial. That phrase has no place in an encyclopedia.

This article is well written, and appears to contain a large amount of well researched material. Unfortunately, this is tainted by "partisan commentaries", and a lack of diversity of sources, and viewpoints.

The tag is back, my friends.CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 10:47, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

I disagree with your reasoning for the quote. The quote clearly describes a viewpoint made by a notable music journalist. Its purpose isn't to convince the reader to agree with that viewpoint; rather, it serves to show that the viewpoint exists for this topic. In other words, the article isn't directly asserting that "the band was seen as musician's musicians." Rather, it is clearly stating that it is Mr. McFarlane who thought that the band was seen as musician's musicians. Frankly, I think the phrase "the seriousness of the music" is a much more encyclopedic alternative to "boring as hell". I think the essence of your concerns is that the article relies too heavily on the McFarlane book. Per NPOV, we need to to take care that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in reliable sources are represented in the article in a balanced way. The McFarlane book is not the only source that is used to verify the history section; other sources are used as well. Per WP:V, in order to for us to include a viewpoint, the viewpoint must have appeared in reliable sources. The McFarlane book appears to be a reliable source for encyclopedic information, and it is used to verify a lot of neutral factual information about the band in addition to information about the band's reception. If there is a significant viewpoint independent from McFarlane's that is documented in reliable sources, then we should write about it in the article, but only if it has been documented in reliable sources. Avoid writing about your own opinions. Is there a significant POV that is not represented in the article? Regards, Mz7 (talk) 19:48, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

I also disagree with CaesarsPalaceDude. I have provided some 17 edits for this article from July 2012. I attempted to find a variety of online reliable sources for this article however these are not easy to find for Australian musical artists. The quote is clearly declared to be McFarlane's opinion, it is repeated in the article where the ref tab is applied: some editors prefer to have a ref tab for all direct quotes (and so they would have one in the Lead) but for a C-class article this is not a major breach of style. The Lead acts as a summary of the main text (including History) hence the quote is in both places.

Curiously CaesarsPalaceDude opines that the phrase the seriousness of the music is rock music jargon. This is a personal opinion, further more McFarlane's work is an encyclopaedia and as the phrase was from there it certainly does have a place in an encyclopedia provided it is cited accurately.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 04:38, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Thankyou Mz7 for your lenghthy contribution to the discussion. Thankyou, also for giving me both barrels, because that means that you are straight up. I strongly disagree with some of what you are saying. However, I would like to explore a different path.

Firstly, I agree completely with Mr. Ian McFarlane that the band were musician's musicians. Also, I would like to propose a course of action, which if agreed to by all parties, would involve those parties sharing the implementation.

Proposal 1:

That the contentious quote be modified to:

"According to Australian rock music historian, Ian McFarlane, the members "were seen as 'musician's musicians'."(citation) Even though Ayers Rock released three albums, six singles, and toured in support of the recordings, commercial success illuded them.

This wording avoids emasculating the article, retains part of the quote by McFarlane, and avoids coloured or loaded terminology. It also neatly concludes the lead-in. Accepting this proposal, on its own, would allow me to remove the tag. (I want it gone as much as everyone else.)

Proposal 2:

That User:Shaidar cuebiyar and User:Dan arndt replace some of the McFarlane references (without changing the text necessarily) in the "History" section with references from other reliable sources. They have a number of resources available to them, and hopefully it won't take too long. Please remember, that our work is consumed by readers, and new editors who could conclude "oh yeah, I can do that too", but without the skill of these two veterans.

The sooner we get this sorted out, the sooner they can get back to their important work, and I can concentrate on British bands.

Friends, please make your opinions known soon. Have a great day.CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 06:10, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

I find it curious that your 1st proposal is to reduce McFarlane's quote to the part you agree with! You then provide a summary of their output which gives no explanation as to why "commercial success eluded them". McFarlane's full quote provides his opinion as to why they did not achieve greater success: it is better than your proposal, which appears biased by your own opinion of the band. You don't like their work being described by a phrase such as "the seriousness of the music". If you can find another reliable source with a contrary opinion then add it to the article for greater consensus on their lack of commercial success.

Your 2nd proposal hardly qualifies as "parties sharing the implementation". I may get back to editing this article at some point but I am busy elsewhere for now. I don't agree with your contention that the article is PoV or that McFarlane shouldn't be used to verify information in this article.

Your recent deletion of the quote from the History section presents a further problem. How is the Lead now an accurate summary of the main text?

You say the article is well written but also tainted. You say it needs a greater diversity of sources and viewpoints. If you can find these in reliable sources then do so: I'm looking forward to seeing this article improved.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 09:07, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Up until now I haven't entered the debate as I personally prefer to just work on improving content on wikipedia rather than get drawn into petty arguments but seeing how CaesarsPalaceDude has specifically named me and directed me to make corrections to an article which I feel is well written and objective because in his 'opinion' it doesn't meet his 'standards' on what he feels the article should be I feel that I need to defend my position or at least express it in this forum. For many of the same reasons expressed by shaidar cuebiyar above I do not consider that the article is PoV - the editors, including myself, over a period of time have sourced a number of independently verifiable sources, which given the period when the band existed, is not easy to do so using the Internet. I think that the article clearly relies on a number of different sources including McFarlane and therefore is not biased. If CaesarsPalaceDude believes that the article could be improved by the inclusion of additional sources then why doesn't he do it himself as opposed to sitting back and demanding other editors do it so it can meet his 'percieved standards'. Dan arndt (talk) 14:34, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Let's clear up a few things. "Reduce quote to part you agree with." No, I just want the truth. "McFarlane shouldn't be used..." I never said that. I don't want that. I'm suggesting (not demanding) that the article would be better if more sources were included, replacing a few of the 14 McFarlane citations currently in the "History" section. A reply refers to "doesn't meet his standards..." My standards don't matter a damn! It's Wikipedia's standards that matter, first time, last time, all the time. If I wasn't sure that there was a problem with the latter, I wouldn't be still here typing.

I accept entirely that the three other respondents in this discussion sincerely believe that there is no POV problem at all. However, I believe that I can demonstrate that, without intending it to occur, there is one.

But, first let me go back to the beginning. I wrote the original passage in the evening. It got late, and I had to get up crazy early the next morning. So, I didn't include some information that I wanted to put in. My initial attempt to explain didn't go well. So, I tried to change tack with Proposals 1 & 2. That didn't seem any better. I will need to try again.

When I first read this article, I wanted know more about the band. My first reaction was "What the hell is this? Have they actually listened to the music?" Not the reaction you would want the readers to get. Now, it can be easily shown that some Australian bands had a mixture of progressive rock tracks, and more conventional rock. Madder Lake and Ayers Rock are two examples.

Let us call progressive rock, experimental & fusion 'serious music', and everything else 'non-serious music'. Then, we analyse all of the tracks on the three albums, and we get:

• Big Red Rock - 3 'serious music' tracks
• Beyond - 5 'serious music' tracks
• Hot Spell - 0 'serious music' tracks

Total 'serious music' - 8, total 'non-serious music' - 22, total album - 30

One strike against "the seriousness of the music". The majority of the music isn't serious.

I'm not trying to be smart here, this next bit is relevant. Have you heard Hot Spell? Many people haven't. I have the LP, and I'm fairly sure it was never released on CD. As the article clearly states, there was a line-up change before the recording of Hot Spell. That wasn't the only thing; the music changed as well, and the times had changed too. Prog was out. So, there wasn't any progressive rock, experimental or fusion. Instead, the band focused on soft rock with a sophisticated sound, and excellent production. In summary, the prog rock & other sound of the first two albums had achieved minor commercial success. The change in sound with Hot Spell had even less impact, and they "ran out of steam". The assertion by shaidar cuebiyar that "McFarlane's full quote provides his opinion as to why they did not achieve greater success", and that it is better than Proposal 1 is incorrect. They tried both. They did not gain commercial success either way! Therefore, Mr. McFarlane's quote is fatally flawed, and can't be used anyway.

Two strikes against "the seriousness of the music".

We have a combination of:

• a quote which is factually incorrect
• that incorrect quote appeared twice at the time I placed the tag
• the incorrect quote was in a section summary, in both places, compounding the issues
• having 14 citations to Mr. McFarlane in between the two, in normal circumstances might be acceptable, but in this case, it's a really awful look!

Three strikes against "the seriousness of the music".

According to WP:IMPARTIAL, "even where a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinions, inappropriate tone can be introduced through the way in which facts are selected, presented, or organized." This becomes a big problem when, unknowingly, incorrect information is included.

The legacy of Ayers Rock has been misrepresented in this article.

It does not bring me joy, to confirm that there is a POV. Please, please accept Proposal 1, or devise another acceptable solution. Until then the tag stays.

PS. Keith Casey is actually Keith Caisey. Check out [| Keith @ Google]. If you ever need help with this or any other progressive rock article, by all means, get on the blower. I will try to help if, and when I can. I've been really impressed with other articles of yours that I have seen. Have a great day.CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 02:35, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Other than Caisey's spelling, do you have any reliable sources for your discussions above? Otherwise it is largely your own opinions, once again I prefer to use McFarlane's opinion to yours. How is your search for contrary opinion(s) from reliable sources going? The article is not PoV and the NPoV template should be removed.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 03:11, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Have you actually ever in your life heard the album Hot Spell? If you have never heard the music, how can you know you are right? I am interested that the truth be told about this band. Not some Wikipedia game!

You're entitled to your opinion but wikipedia wants Verifiabiility, not truth, which is one of its core policies. No where do I claim that I am right, I merely state that I prefer to see wikipedia use McFarlane's opinion which is from a reliable source over yours. User:Mz7 warned you above to Avoid writing about your own opinions. Likewise, my opinion(s) of their music are irrelevant to this article.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 06:14, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

I haven't had time to gather sources. I've been too busy writing on this talk page. Talk to you when I have something. Regards.CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 03:57, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi, shaidar cuebiyar. I accept the usefulness of reliable sources, and I will do my best. Including a contrary opinion is not my preferred option, because I think it will create a mish-mash. I will keep it in mind though.

Do you realise that in this whole process you haven't compromised one inch? Also, you didn't thank me for Keith Caisey, or for offering you help. There's a human being on the other end of these messages.

I've had an idea. I would like to offer a temporary arrangement (and I mean strictly temporary). The time I propose would be exactly one month (till 13 May 2014). I would implement Proposal 1 on a temporary basis, remove the NPoV template, and I will attempt to provide reliable evidence before 14 May. If you don't hear from me again, or I can't come up with the goods, you can change it to the way you like. We both gain something from this. What do you think? Regards.CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 05:34, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

My counter arrangement is to leave the quote alone, remove the NPoV template. Look for reliable sources and come back to edit the article when you can find some to back up your opinion(s). I wish you the best in improving this article.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 06:14, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

We should leave the quote alone, remove the NPoV template, and put an inline template (not necessarily NPoV) at the disputed quote. This would indicate that the quote, rather than the article is being challenged. You can choose which type of inline template you think is appropriate. Why not? Have a great day.CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 07:06, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

With the {{Disputed-inline|text=disputed content|Challenge to Ayers Rock (band) for NPOV|date=April 2014}} template a contrary opinion from a reliable source is required, could you supply one here? Prior to placing the template in the article.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 13:31, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

The agreed changes have been implemented. Well done, everyone. I'm on my way to do some research; if I find any citations or content for the history section, I'll put them in too. Have a great day.CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 18:21, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi shaidar cuebiyar, we are agreeing that the article is not PoV (although I still think it is a bit too close for comfort). The discussion now centres on the quote which has been tagged. The section being challenged is: "The band issued a series of technically proficient recordings, but in the long run any quest for commercial acceptance was marred by the seriousness of the music." This will be referred to as "the quote".

I will present arguments, and reliable sources to prove the quote is factually incorrect, misleading, and introduces an inappropriate tone, and therefore is PoV.

I will provide an alternate view.

1. Is McFarlane's quote from a RS? It comes from his Encyclopedia which is considered an RS by numerous editors.
2. Is the quote cited accurately? Check the on-line version, it occurs in the first paragraph.
3. Is the quote representative of McFarlane's view? As it is from his summary of the band's career it represents his PoV.
4. Hence the quote is reliable, verifiable and representative of the author's PoV.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 22:06, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Argument 1

• Luis Feliu writes "once Australia's hottest progressive rock bands (sic)" Hot Spell review (he means 'band', singular).

  This is a good source, maybe he means "one of ..."? In any case the part you quote supports McFarlane's assertion that they are "musician's musicians". Feliu further agrees that they are "technically proficient" when he says the members "develop its musicianship and skill diligently". His main contention for their lack of commercial success is that "popular climate for that sort of progressive music has given way to the 60s beat and three-minute hit sound" or that "power pop-oriented sounds of today eclipse this laid-back style into commercial obscurity in Australia".

  You state above Let us call progressive rock, experimental & fusion 'serious music', and everything else 'non-serious music'. (Note, this is an example of your OR and PoV) However this means that according to you, Feliu's quote agrees with McFarlane: where "that sort of progressive music" equates to "seriousness of the music".

  In conclusion I see no conflict between McFarlane's opinion and Feliu's. The latter can provide a good review of Hot Spell in the main text.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 22:06, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

• Susan Moore refers to " Mushroom's '70s sensations - such as Madder Lake, Ol'55, Chain and Ayers Rock." Moore on Pop

  This adds little to the argument. It reinforces McFarlane's claim of "musician's musicians". Moore adds that Michael Gudinski was managing Ayers Rock (and two other bands) and that "Local bands found it hard to get their big break". Provides tangential support for McFarlane's statement about commercial acceptance.

  Can be used to add information in the article but does not conflict with McFarlane.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 22:06, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

• The first two albums peaked at No. 32, and No. 50.

  Thanks, see here.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 22:06, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

• Tony Catterall observes that they "exuded the confidence given by a highly successful US tour" a world-class band, which they had recently completed (25 October 1975)

  McFarlane agrees with their successful US tour: "Ayers Rock was the first Australian band to play to massive crowds on the USA touring circuit ... In the long run, however, the band only achieved limited success overseas".

  I've used Catterall in the main text. I don't see any conflict with McFarlane's quote.

Conclusion: The quote is misleading because it manifestly understates the success of Ayers Rock, and concentrates too much on their failures.

• Some of these sources can be used to improve the article: well done. However, I don't see any major conflict with 'the quote', if you do then provide a summary/quote from one of these (probably Feliu) to give an alternate view in addition to McFarlane's.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 22:06, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Argument 2

In my post on this page of 13 April 2014, I stated that the phrase "the seriousness of the music" was incorrect because less than half of the tracks they recorded were serious music. This argument includes what I wrote there, and it will be expanded, and supported.

• As indicated earlier much of what you wrote up there was OR: your opinion/judgement as to what "seriousness of the music" means, what constitutes "serious music" and a track-by-track analysis of your PoV re:serious vs non-serious. I don't accept your analysis: its PoV, not reliable nor verifiable.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 22:06, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

• At the Milesago page, we have: "Loughnan's power-jam "Crazy Boys" is also worth hearing for its hilarious intro; dedicated to an unnamed Sydney hamburger joint, it includes a sly reference to a "Gudinski burger" and very funny joke about "Dr Hopontopovus, the Greek gynaecologist".Kimball et al With its ridiculous rantings from yobbo's (red-necks), its insane music, and its politically incorrect jokes, this track is anything but serious.

  One track?

  I've used Kimball in the article: its tabbed some seven times.

  Kimball gives his opinion for their lack of long-term commercial success: "there was some dilemma about whether they should pursue a more expansive instrumental-based approach or opt for a more song-based commercial sound", "the demands of radio airplay and gigging meant that this dilemma was never satisfactorily resolved, and the group's relatively short lifespan and small catalogue meant that they never really got the chance to reach their full potential". A bit wordy but a short summary style could be used in addition to McFarlane.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 22:06, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

• On the 13th of April, I was discussing the change in musical direction with the release of Hot Spell. Luis Feliu, in The Canberra Times, refers to 'the "new-sounding" Ayers Rock',Hot Spell review and refers obliquely to "funky, jazz-rock", and generally left me unsure what he was saying about the music. Perversely, a much better quality review is found at the completely unreliable ProgArchives. I include it for your interest (if you have any left). Including the three reviews, and my opinion (above), the one thing in common is that the music has changed. RobyB and I are saying that the band had abandoned progressive styles of music altogether. I'm sorry, that was all I could find. It's up to you, whether you accept the Luis Feliu review as evidence on this point. I am contending that Hot Spell is not serious music, and the quote is incorrect.

  Feliu compares Hot Spell with work by "Weather Report, Return to Forever, a bit of Steely Dan, Doobies".

  Once again You defined serious music above and did not restrict it to progressive rock. Whichever style Feliu (progressive or jazz-fusion) is describing it is still "serious" according to you. McFarlane gives their genres as "Rock, jazz" and does not mention progressive rock. He describes Big Red Rock" as being more "jazz-rock".shaidar cuebiyar (talk)

  As for ProgArchives, you admit it is unreliable. It doesn't add any weight to your argument, in fact it weakens it.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 23:00, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Argument 3

• Luis Feliu opens his review with "it is a shame Ayers Rock didn't get an album like this together several years ago, when funky, jazz-rock was selling heaps." Hot Spell review He continues "the popular climate for that sort of progressive music has given way to the 60s beat and three-minute hit sound." He is clearly saying that the timing was wrong with the release of Hot Spell.

As indicated above, Feliu can be used to provide a second opinion as to lack of success for Hot Spell.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 23:00, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

• Listening again to Little Kings (1975), the band offered a short, funky, Pop-rock song as a single, and the radio stations simply didn't play it (and it's a good song). The sources aren't telling us anything at all on this one.

Again, your 1st sentence here is OR and PoV. McFarlane calls it one of "two unsuccessful singles".

• In fact Ayers Rock should be given credit for being one of the few Australian bands of the 70's to create a significant national profile from album sales, and touring alone.

Conclusion: "any quest for commercial acceptance was marred by the seriousness of the music" assigns a reason why Ayers Rock were not as successful as they could have been, but it ignores other factors like bad timing.

As indicated above, Feliu can be used to provide a second opinion as to lack of success for Hot Spell but leave McFarlane's quote alone.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 23:00, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Argument 4

In the 70's and early 80's, in Australia, the term "serious music" was used so often by some rock music journalists to describe various sub-genres of progressive music that it became a journalistic cliché. I don't know if this was the case in other countries. The repeated use of this cliché reinforces perceived barriers between "high" and "low" art. It is, also, extremely poorly defined. A lover of classical music would take prog rock and pub rock, and classify it all as 'rock', and then dismiss the whole lot as not being "serious music".

This is all OR/PoV and is not a useful argument in support of your contention.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 23:00, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Conclusion: the quote contains an ill-defined journalistic cliché which doesn't belong in Wikipedia or in Mr. McFarlane's encyclopedia. As such, it introduces an improper tone.

Drawing all the elements together. The quote is factually incorrect, misleading, and introduces an inappropriate tone, and therefore is PoV.

Actions

The quote is PoV, and should be removed. I offer to make a number of relatively small edits to fix the PoV, replace everything I take out with a new version, add citations, and introduce new content. All edits will be done one at a time, so that if you don't like anything it can be undone or changed. Do you accept my offer? Have a great day.CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 20:40, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

I disagree, as detailed above, my advice still is "find another reliable source with a contrary opinion then add it to the article for greater consensus on their lack of commercial success". You've found some good sources and looked at some that I had already used. Feliu can be used as indicated above to describe Hot Spell and its lack of commercial acceptance. Or use Kimball with a concise summary of his PoV. However leave McFarlane's quote in the Lead and put it back in the main text so that the Lead acts as a good summary of the rest of the article.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 23:00, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

As you can see, I have put my summary at the end of the "History" section. Please, do not put Mr. McFarlane's quote back in there, because that's not negotiable, and would result in both of us doing "overtime" in dispute resolution.

The quote can stay as it is in the lead (seeing I do most of the compromising in this dispute). I will do a number of small edits in the lead, and in the main text, soon.

Also coming soon, more detailed response to your last post, 'cos there is a lot I disagree with.CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 08:31, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

• I will disagree with the inclusion of a summary section as outlined by User:CaesarsPalaceDude as it is highly unusual for an encyclopedic article to include a summary at the end of the article. The lead section should effectively encapsulate the summary of what the article is about. Given the preceding debate I feel that that the McFarlane quote should be taken out of the lead and should be included in the body of the article, as a qualified opinion about the band written at the time of the band's existence. The lead should include details about the band's recordings, both their successes and failures - as these are factual not opinions. Dan arndt (talk) 13:42, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi Dan arndt, I view this as a positive development. What specifically can I do to help?CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 17:51, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

I disagree with the use of a separately titled summary section at the end of the article. The Lead is already the summary section for the article. The last paragraph of the History section should be the place for quotes/paraphrasing related to their career by reliable sources. As the phrase "Australia's hottest progressive rock" is a direct quote it should be properly ascribed to Feliu within the body of the text.

I don't see Moore supporting the claim of Australia-wide profile.

I also strongly disagree with the removal of McFarlane's quote from the Lead: my reasons have been given above. If the McFarlane quote is in the main text it should be in the Lead too: the quote is McFarlane's summary/encapsulation of what the band did and why they did not gain long term "commercial acceptance". Removal of it from the Lead decreases the usefulness of the article. The Lead should have more than just albums and charting. Opinions from reliable sources which summarise the band's career should be present too.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 07:52, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi shaidar cuebiyar, the "separately titled summary section" has already been removed by Dan arndt. I have made an edit in response to your concern about attribution to Feliu; hope you like it. My line of logic re Moore is that she uses the term "70's sensations" to describe Ayers Rock, and did so in The Australian Women's Weekly, which strongly implies an "Australia-wide profile", because they rarely mention prog rock bands. That claim is completely negotiable, so we will keep talking if necessary.

I agree with Dan arndt when he says "I feel that the McFarlane quote should be taken out of the lead and should be included in the body of the article". This is a logical, and appropriate response to everything which has happened so far. I am giving up something that I care about by allowing Mr. McFarlane's quote to remain intact in the article. Likewise, you are giving up something that you care about by allowing the quote to appear only in the body of the article. Hoping to resolve this issue in the coming days, regardsCaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 09:36, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Changed your position once again? Just a day earlier you write "The quote can stay as it is in the lead" now you want it removed? What happened to all the reasoned discussion above? All is totally ignored and swept away. I still believe the quote should stay, as is, and should be repeated in the main text alongside Feliu's review comments. Moore briefly mentions Ayers Rock in talking about Mushroom Records, this is hardly a ringing endorsement for their having an Australia-wide profile.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 22:59, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I have changed my mind; that statement was too generous! Also, I haven't retreated from reasoned discussion in any way.

In the MOS, it states "the lead should be written in a clear, accessible style with a neutral point of view; it should ideally contain no more than four paragraphs and be carefully sourced as appropriate." I have mounted a robust challenge against part of Mr. McFarlane's quote, including logical arguments, and reliable sources (which I will defend, and extend), showing that it fails the test of a neutral point of view, and is factually incorrect.

I find your constant insistence on retaining Mr. McFarlane's quote in the lead illogical, and a distraction from the main point, which is whether the words "but in the long run any quest for commercial acceptance was marred by the seriousness of the music" should appear in the article at all. Furthermore, your insistence on keeping these words is against one of the most basic precepts, which Wikipedians are taught when they are just beginning: "when in doubt, leave it out."

A much more appropriate course, would be to replace the disputed quote altogether, in the lead. The Kimball quote you cited above, or the quote from Mr. McFarlane that you cited at time-code 22:06, 19 April 2014 (UTC) would be welcomed as such a replacement. As would any other summary of the band which is correct, and balanced.

The idea of keeping "but in the long run any quest for commercial acceptance was marred by the seriousness of the music" in the lead is completely unacceptable to me, and if you keep insisting on this point, it will eventually lead to dispute resolution, and possibly arbitration. Be in no doubt, that I will stay the course. RegardsCaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 06:21, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

I have consistently argued with your interpretation of the phase "seriousness of the music", you say it is:

1. rock music jargon
2. "these guys are as boring as hell"
3. highly prejudicial
4. phrase has no place in an encyclopedia

Where are your reliable sources for your claims? You have not provided any. Without such sources most of your arguments above are OR and your own PoV.

The Kimball quotes are too wordy: they would need to be summarised effectively. The summary could be used in addition to McFarlane's quote in the Lead. I see no conflict with having the two points of view. The second McFarlane quote you refer to is only in regards to their US tour, it is not a career retrospective. It can be used in the main text but is not as good as the quote being used in the Lead.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 04:59, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi shaidar cuebiyar, let's start on a positive note. The lead has improved relative to when we started this discussion, due to edits we have made. However, those same changes have shone a spotlight on the problems that still exist in the lead. That is, that the quote from Mr. McFarlane is contradicting the information earlier in the lead.

From the lead, we know that Ayers Rock's first two albums "both reached the top 50", and that "they released six singles, none of which broke into the singles charts." We know that some of the tracks on those albums (Big Red Rock and Beyond) contained jazz-rock fusion or progressive rock, and that "the seriousness of the music" refers to those tracks. By contrast, the singles did not contain jazz-rock fusion or progressive rock; they were just rock songs aimed at the commercial market. This is in agreement with Kimball, (from above) that "there was some dilemma about whether they should pursue a more expansive instrumental-based approach or opt for a more song-based commercial sound".

So, we see that the albums with the "serious music" were moderately commercially successful, and that the rock songs which were released as singles were not successful. Therefore, the part of the quote which states "in the long run any quest for commercial acceptance was marred by the seriousness of the music" is wrong!

You provide no new arguments here, once again I remind you that Wikipedia is about Verifiability, not Truth. McFarlane's comments are verifiable, reliably sourced and provide his opinion on their career and why they had no long term commercial success. You disagree with him: this has been amply noted. Your interpretations of his quote are OR/PoV. I have consistently disagreed with replacing or removing his quote. I see no conflict between the earlier part of the current Lead and McFarlane's quote but you do.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 09:26, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

You have written often that a quote from another reliable source should be included with Mr. McFarlane's quote. Wikipedia does not include content which is wrong; Wikipedia excludes information which is wrong!

If you want to provide another PoV from another reliable source, it can be quoted or suitably summarised but it does not make either McFarlane or Kimball (or other) as being right or wrong. Two different PoVs can both be Verifiable and used in the article.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 09:26, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

I am not saying that part of the quote is biased, but I am saying that it is the complete antithesis of the facts put into the lead by Dan arndt. The Kimball quote needs to replace the McFarlane quote because the Kimball quote is not in conflict with the rest of the article.

I disagree, I see no conflict between Kimball and McFarlane or with the rest of the article, merely differences in emphasis on factors leading to their later lack of commercial success by the group.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 09:26, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

The second aspect of my challenge to the quote is that it employs journalistic clichés, ill-defined concepts, and that these combine to produce an improper tone. It is not possible to find reliable sources for this aspect, and I haven't tried.

The phrase "musician's musicians" is a journalistic cliché, which appears all round the English speaking world. It's even been used by bands about themselves. The guidelines urge us to avoid using such phrases.

The phrase "the seriousness of the music" is a journalistic cliché, which has been used often in the Australian rock music press (I don't know about overseas). It is also largely undefined; one man's "serious music" is another man's "simply excellent music". I would not use that phrase in any learned work that I wrote, and I wish that Mr. McFarlane had not used it in his encyclopedia.

Once again this is more of the same OR/PoV. I don't doubt that you hold these ideas, you've repeated them enough times. However, you have not provided reliable sources to substantiate your PoV/OR.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 09:26, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

In the first section of this post, no further support from reliable sources is needed because the argument is based on content which is already in the article.

I demand that Mr. McFarlane's quote be removed from the article, on the basis that it is wrong. Instead we should use the Kimball quote (or a precis), or just leave it without any quote!CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 08:44, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

My suggestion is to leave McFarlane's quote in the Lead, add a precis from Kimball if you wish. Don't worry about the article being right or wrong, if it is verifiable.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 09:26, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi shaidar cuebiyar, I am very worried about the article being right or wrong. That is what this whole thing has been about.

I have removed Mr. McFarlane's quote in the Lead, and replaced it with the Kimball quote. I have done that on the following basis:

"Never quote a false statement without immediately saying the statement is false." "There is no difference between quoting a falsehood without saying it's false and inserting falsehoods into articles." WP:QUOTE

The Kimball quote is accurate, balanced and neither praises the band to the heavens nor damns it to hell. I wish you all the very best in life, and in particular with your work at Wikipedia. Kind regardsCaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 20:45, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

You have made this change without reaching consensus. The Kimball quotes are far too large: they take up too much of the Lead giving them unwarranted prominence.

I have consistently disputed your interpretation of McFarlane's quote.

I disagree with your heavy-handed presumption of superiority by discarding his quote. You are deliberately provoking an escalation in this dispute.

If you believe McFarlane is false then why not give a counter statement from a reliable source saying it is false? You have not done so, we just have your OR/PoV on its veracity. His quote is verifiable, he believed it was true, it is from a reliable source, it should stay.

I will return his quote. I ask you to leave it in position until you can provide a reliable source which counters his statement. I will leave Kimball in there but suggest you provide a summary statement for his quotes.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 22:08, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi shaidar cuebiyar, I strongly disagree the way you reverted my edit which had removed Mr. McFarlane's quote. I understand you had the right to do it. I disagree with the way you did it.

You keep waving the PoV/OR flag around like it is Luke Skywalker's laser. Every post from you has been pure PoV, with not one quoted source bearing any relevance to the points that I was raising. Also, in the preceding discussions, you have on three occasions deliberately misrepresented my arguments by reiterating them in a significantly different way to that which I wrote.

There is more than one way to prove that a statement is not accurate. Most challengers present contrary views by reliable sources. Another way is to show that a statement cannot possibly be true because it is 180° in opposition to the basic facts which are already in the article, and are already supported by inline citations to reliable sources. Do you really want me to quote your own sources back to you? I have applied logic to the content which is in the article, and has not been disputed, and never will be.

Please, allow me to contrast two threads from the guidelines and essays:

1. "Wikipedia values accuracy, but it requires verifiability. You are allowed and encouraged to add material that is verifiable and true; you are absolutely prohibited from adding any material that is un-verifiable, with zero exceptions". Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth
2. "Never quote a false statement without immediately saying the statement is false." Wikipedia:Quotations

Putting the two together, we get:

• If a statement is un-verifiable but true, it must not be included.
• If a statement is verifiable but false, it must not be included unless it is clearly explained that the statement is false immediately before, or immediately after.

I have already shown that the part which says "but in the long run any quest for commercial acceptance was marred by the seriousness of the music" is a false statement. You have repeatedly said that you see no conflict between the disputed quote, and anything else which is presented.

Therefore, because you will never agree to exclude Mr. McFarlane's quote, and because you have reverted my edit, I will escalate this challenge to Dispute Resolution. Please, do not change the Lead from its current form until the process is concluded. Kimball can stay too long and wordy for the time being. For my part, I won't start an edit-war because that would be futile. Have a great day.CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 11:29, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

A Request for Mediation has been filed.CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 12:17, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

I believe that I should explain why I filed a Request for Mediation. We have had a robust discussion over four weeks, yet in reality we have made virtually no progress on the key issues. Some changes have been made to the article by each of us, which has improved the article. It hasn't been an Ayers Rock "love-fest", because text which is both positive and negative has been incorporated. That's good. The conduct of the participants has, on balance, been very good.

At the same time, if you look at the case page you see the same issues from the same protagonists as the first week. I took the decision to request formal mediation. After a day or two of thinking about it, I still think it was the right decision. I very much doubt that a post to the dispute resolution noticeboard, or a request for comment would have been successful. It would have taken up a lot of time, with no result.

I wish to reassure you that I regard you as very good, and experienced editors, who happen to disagree with me on certain issues. Have a great day.CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 05:14, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Kimball quotes

Currently the article's Lead has:

Duncan Kimball observed "Ayers Rock's recordings suggest that there was some dilemma about whether they should pursue a more expansive instrumental-based approach or opt for a more song-based commercial sound." "This dilemma was never satifactorily [sic] resolved, and the group's relatively short lifespan and small catalogue meant that they never really got the chance to reach their full potential."

I believe these quotes are over-long and should be summarised more concisely and clearly. My suggestion is:

Duncan Kimball of Milesago website observed that the group had "some dilemma" between "more expansive instrumental-based approach or ... more song-based commercial sound", which given their "relatively short lifespan and small catalogue meant" they did not "reach their full potential".

If a better summary is possible, go for it.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 01:09, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Please leave the Kimball quotes as they are for the time being. We certainly can negotiate on this. I do not have a fixed long term opinion on its length. RegardsCaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 11:15, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

October 2014: New problems

New problems have been introduced by User:CaesarsPalaceDude:

1. Used a new McFarlane quote in the Lead, which does not accurately reflect that author's overall opinion of the band: it is highly selective and is a distortion of his position. The Lead should give a summary of his opinion not a POV which does not agree with the overall tone of the source. Furthermore, McFarlane is not given any status in the Lead: for a general reader who/what authority is McFarlane? Why is he being cited? Thirdly, the quoted material is Itself overly repetitive in that both Australia and US/USA are mentioned in adjacent sentences.
2. Has left the disputed 'plate with the Lead's previously used McFarlane quote when transferring content to the main text: surely that dispute has now finally been resolved?
3. Has added new material to the main text: the first time McFarlane is mentioned his status should be provided there, for later appearances only his last name is needed (not full name and status).shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 21:48, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that's just the start! However, I will talk about that later, and answer your post first.

Point 3: OK. Who's going to fix it, you or me? Look, I'll fix it now. Done.

1. The main text's paraphrase of M's current Lead quote by CPD now attributes M as implying that AR were the first Oz band to tour US and attract large crowds as opposed to the first to attract large crowds while on their US tour. There is a difference in meaning here.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 04:06, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Point 2: I did that deliberately (no surprise there). That dispute is not over because User:Feezo wrote "Opinions from notable figures that have not been shown to reflect majority view are valid for inclusion in the body of the article; however, the meaning of the phrase "seriousness of the music" is exceptionally ambiguous, and hence is not a useful opinion to include". I submit that you actually have a problem with him rather than me. Also, could you, please, read my last post at RfC meta (late yesterday)? Sorry, if I wrote it in the wrong place.

1. More on the meaning of "seriousness of the music"? See also CPD's later commentary.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 04:06, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Point 1: Status: Again, I am following Feezo's lead. When Feezo re-worded Mr. McFarlane's quote he omitted the status, and simply put "Ian McFarlane" in text which was intended at the time to go into the lead. Repetition: I don't see a problem, there.

1. In Feezo's proposed compromise at the RfM: M was introduced in the context of "rock music historians" from the previous sentence. In CPD's version of the current Lead that phrase occurs two sentences after M is first mentioned: Feezo does it better.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 04:06, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Point 1: Content: I don't agree with your position on reliable sources in the lead, and I never have done so. I am interpreting the guidelines, and essays from a different perspective to you. The guidelines tell us that we cannot misrepresent a source when we quote them. Mr. McFarlane has many things to say about Ayers Rock; some positive, and some negative. I suggest that you ask Feezo to give you a quick personal opinion (not that he owes us anything, quite the reverse). My opinion is that you are barking up the wrong tree, if you will pardon the expression. The real question is: what do the readers want to read about Australian music? Do they want to know which band was the first to play to massive crowds in the U.S.? Remember, a significant attribute of the lead is to "entice" the reader to continue reading the article.

1. Has CPD done a survey to see what readers want? I'm a reader, I want an unbiased representation of M's PoV.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 04:06, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

I'll have to break this into two posts. Please don't reply immediately, you will cause an edit conflict. CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 02:49, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

shaidar cuebiyar, as I was editing last night, I noticed two things; each of which would be a problem, but combined together become a real problem.

Firstly, you have double quoted the same source (Joynson) with the "dilemma between a ..." type material. I'm pretty sure you stated this at the mediation, but my head-space was dealing with other matters at the time. Essentially, the same material is covered in the mutually agreed J/K synthesis in the lead. Even so, it's a small problem.

1. I agree that this is a small problem.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 04:06, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Secondly, I had a look at the Kilby's Rare Collections page (Citation 7), and I noticed that I could play the audio of the program. Partly because I wanted to hear some music from the Sun 1972 album, I listened to the program. The segment on Ayers Rock was jaw-dropping! They had edited excerpts from an interview with Col Loughnan. Among other things, he talked about Michael Gudinski sending copies of albums from a range of Mushroom artists to record companies in the states. He also talked about some of those artists playing pop or rock, and Ayers Rock were more jazz; "we were a bit of both". He said "we were a bit of both" in that very relaxed Aussie way. He continued that out of all the artists, A&M Records were most impressed with Ayers Rock, and signed them based on listening to Big Red Rock. Subsequently, the band spent the advance on recording their second album in one of the best recording studios in the world, creating an album which had pop/rock, and jazz/rock tracks just like the first one. I interpret the audio as saying that A&M were very relaxed about the mix of styles. What "dilemma"?

1. J is largely talking about the first album and any singles up to 1975 (before their US tour and 2nd album): he perceives the dilemma from their output. The Kilby interview is about 35 years later.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 04:06, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

The "dilemma" is inside Joynson's head. He's not Australian. He didn't do the research. He assumed that he knew what was true. He didn't know. Kimball assumed that Joynson knew what he was talking about. You assumed, as you are supposed to under the guidelines, that they both knew what they were talking about.

1. J's nationality is not important, he wrote about the debut album and early singles: his opinion is that they had a dilemma. I don't presume to speak for K but from his article I believe that he also has heard their material (at least their first two albums), when it was first released, and he had reached his own conclusions with regards to the existence of a dilemma.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 04:06, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Somewhere deep inside, it hurts me to break bad news to people. The combination of having the same basic content in three places in the article, and my strong suspicion that it is inaccurate: that's a BIG problem.

shaidar cuebiyar, User:Feezo, I think it would be an enormous help if you both listened to the audio at Rare Collections. I clicked on "Download this mp3 file" under the heading "Audio" in the middle of the page. Ayers Rock is the second artist featured. CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 04:45, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

shaidar cuebiyar, "some thought their music took itself too seriously or they took themselves too seriously as musicians" LazyBastardGuy September 4, 2014. The essence of this comment must, in some form, make its way into the lead. We need to summarise all major groups of opinion in our own words for the lead. A lead which is simply a glowing endorsement of the band does not sit comfortably with me in any way! We need to give the readers a balanced overview of how the band were perceived within the era they existed. LazyBastardGuy's view was around in the 70s, and he has made a contribution to our understanding. shaidar cuebiyar, we can produce a lead which you will be proud of. It's OR if other Wikipedians accuse us of OR. If we include a balanced overview of opinion, they won't do that. We can do it! CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 16:02, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Here are my thoughts on the new version:

• "...first Australian band to play to massive crowds on the USA touring circuit" doesn't substantiate the preceding statement that they "toured Australia and the United States extensively". Additionally, "massive crowds" is vague—there isn't enough material in the quote to provide a clear context.

• Lead sections aren't supposed to "entice" the reader, but should stand on their own as a concise, neutral overview (WP:LEAD). "Massive crowds" could create a misleading impression of the band's overall success.

• "Noted" is a word to watch (that is, if we use it, we must do so deliberately). Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 01:36, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Great to have you on board, Feezo. The text in the lead at the moment is not the new version. I'm starting from scratch to re-write the second half of the lead at User:CaesarsPalaceDude/sandbox/Ayers Rock, where I am currently brainstorming. Could you, please read my last couple of posts at the bottom of the old RfC? That's important.

• "Noted" is not a 'word to watch' as a verb; it is a word to watch as an adjective, such as: "Noted scholar Professor Cedric Flaskstirrer". My use is 100% OK.

• There is a section of the guidelines or essays which talks about the lead "enticing the reader to continue reading the article". That's not my idea, originally.

• In the early 70s the Australian pop and rock scene was obsessed with the fact that so few of our bands had been successful overseas, and absolutely none in the U.S. For local readers who remember those days, the fact that Ayers Rock was the first to have success with live audiences stateside is the most important single piece of information in the whole article, and one of the least known. Not only that, but they beat the other bands by approx. two years! Even so, my Aussie friend left it out of the article despite the fact that the content was right there in his favourite RS. That says a lot about his particular mindset.

• Whether the wording contains "massive crowds", or not, is something that I am much more relaxed about.

• That quote is not there to substantiate the preceding statement, but as a complementary extension of the previous concept. We can discuss further when I have more time. CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 06:26, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

1. CPD now writes that LazyBastardGuy's interpretation of M's quote "must, in some form, make its way into the lead".
2. CPD now argues that M's PoV is a significant extant opinion and should be included in the Lead!
3. CPD now says that "We need to give the readers a balanced overview of how the band were perceived within the era they existed" but disagrees with the way M provided his opinion.
4. Can CPD clarify or substantial claim "absolutely none in the U.S"? By the early 1970s, had Bee Gees or The Seekers had any commercial success in the US?
5. Finally, I find CPD's negative attitude towards me incongrous while he is actually asking for my opinions or assistance.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 04:06, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

shaidar cuebiyar, I don't have a negative attitude towards you. You are a very valuable Wikipedian. There are two types of article on Australian rock. There are the articles where you have done a significant number of edits, and they are very good. There are articles where you haven't done any edits; I can usually tell which ones they are because they usually have very few citations to reliable sources.

1. Recent examples of negative attitude by CPD:
   1. "I submit that you actually have a problem with him rather than me" I have no problem with Feezo, that's CPD's perception.
   2. "I suggest that you ask Feezo to give you a quick personal opinion" Implies I need to be educated on usage of guidelines: I dispute the impugning of my editing style.

No, you don't need educating from anyone. I was suggesting that you obtain a second opinion from a friend. CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 17:19, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

1. 1. "you are barking up the wrong tree" I take this colloquialism to mean, CPD believes I am completely wrong, I dispute that interpretation.
   2. "my Aussie friend left it out of the article despite the fact that the content was right there in his favourite RS. That says a lot about his particular mindset" I don't believe CPD has any right to refer to me as a friend. CPD should not presume to know my mindset nor imply that it is deficient in some way. Furthermore the tone here appears to me to be one of dark sarcasm: I don't like it.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 00:36, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

No dark sarcasm; why did you leave it out? You certainly knew it was there. CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 17:19, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

I have stated numerous times in the past that a different quote from Mr. McFarlane to the one which was disputed would be welcome in the lead. I am arguing that there is a significant extant opinion which was held at that time by some people, and which is probably more widely held now. At this point I will remind you that the RfC disagreed with the way Mr. McFarlane provided his opinion. The context above was regarding Australian bands playing in large venues in the U.S., and achieving success at said venues. The Bee Gees were not an Australian band. The English claim that they were English! I couldn't find an instance where The Seekers toured the states. Skyhooks did tour, but were considered to be mostly unsuccessful.

1. 1. CPD's statement was categorical: "so few of our bands had been successful overseas, and absolutely none in the U.S." The success mentioned here is not restricted only in relation to touring and performing in large venues. As for whether Bee Gees are Australian, English or American, I remind CPD that ARIA believes Bee Gees were Australian when they were inducted into their Hall of Fame. A similar argument re:nationality could be put for AC/DC which CPD does acknowledge is Australian where some other people believe are English, too. As for The Seekers: they had a minor tour of US college venues in 1967 but I was referring to their commercial/chart success in the US not their touring success.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 00:36, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

I say yet again: this is an historical article! Big Red Rock was released forty years ago. If the articles on Frederich Chopin, and Claude Debussy focused mainly on today's perception of how good or bad their music was, there would be outrage in classical music circles. In a similar way, this article needs to focus mainly on the way Ayers Rock was received at the time. The way they are regarded now is relevant but secondary. CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 10:38, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

1. That is problematic for Australian bands of that era as there are very few contemporaneous RSes. M's work is from 1999, J's about the same time, and K's from slightly later (and updated in 2006). Kilby's interview is from 2011. As for contemporaneous sources the article has Catterall (1975) and Feliu (1980) but little else. Could CPD supply other contemporary sources which describe AR's music styles, their various successes and for historical context the reasons for their disbandments (first in late 1976, the second in late 1981).shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 00:36, 6 November 2014 (UTC)03:20, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it is problematic. I will try to get some more reliable sources. Someone must have newspaper or magazine clippings. CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 17:28, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Use of Feliu's gig quote

The article currently has "However not all audience members at the Sydney performance agreed with the band's direction, Feliu reported that "a few comments of dissatisfaction, like 'boring', were heard, then that was at the bar up the back".[9]"

At a particular previous discussion (I'm not sure which one) I indicated that this statement is misrepresentative of the group's gig. I submit that the people at the bar up the back were not there as audience members. Feliu writes "The capacity audience showed hearty approval during and after the set, probably old allegiance" before talking of the negative comments by bar attendees.

A more representative quote by Feliu is needed.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 00:36, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

It is true that I cherry-picked that quote. Feel free to improve it. CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 16:53, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

When did McGuire die?

When did McGuire die? Contenders:

1. 1986 per this article, which cites Kimball reference: "Duncan died in 1986 from a brain tumour"
2. July 1987 per [Ed Nimmervoll: "Duncan McGuire, former Ayers Rock bassist who produced the first Inxs album and died in July 1987"
3. July 1989 per McFarlane reference: "McGuire initially joined Windchase and then concentrated on production. He died in July 1989 after a long battle with cancer".
4. According to Big Beat Music website, McGuire is still producing/engineering in late 1988 and early 1989, see here and here.

Given the latter two points: I went for July 1989, when I edited his individual article but I didn't get around to fixing the possible error in this one.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 02:32, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

That's a very good point. Could I suggest that you look up the register of births, deaths, and marriages? I will ask around. CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 17:35, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Re: cause of death. You have RS for cancer and a brain tumor. The answer I am getting is not either/or but both, poor man. Apparently, at the time of his death, he had lung cancer, and a brain tumor. Seeing you have RS for both, are we allowed to include this? CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 23:54, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

1. Does the RS specify the type of cancer? If so, go for it. Note that some folks see: cancer = brain tumour. However, more specific details should be in his own article, not here.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 21:30, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Re: when Duncan McGuire died. This one is pure OR. I talked to someone, who talked to Duncan's brother. The answer is July 10, 1989. I believe that Beat Magazine, and Mr. McFarlane are correct (no surprise that McFarlane has his facts right). Yes, it's OR but it's from an impeccable source, and it agrees with two of your RS. CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 09:50, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

1. I wonder why there were no newspaper articles on his death? In any case, as above, specific details should be transferred to his own article. Exact date of death can go there: July 1989 can stay here, if other editors have better RS for his details they can fix it up at his article. Thank you for confirming these details.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 21:30, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

More RS's

I have been informed that I will receive a tranche of new (to us) reliable sources in the form of scans of press clippings. I am told that they are contemporary to the working life of the band, and from Australia & the U.S. More on this within the next week .... I hope. CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 17:15, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Minor clash between sources

shaidar cuebiyar, there is a difference between Kimball & McFarlane with regard to exactly when they changed their name to Ayers Rock. I have two OR sources saying that Kimball is accurate in this regard. They say that the band changed their name at the time Loughnan joined, and that they never performed as Ayers Rock before he joined. Can we change to the Kimball version on this point? What do you think? CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 09:36, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure. K is rather imprecise and seems less logical: "In 1973 the above-named four took the logical step and formed their own band, McGuire Kennedy Burton. Later in the year, they added another player, multi-intrumentalist Col Loughnan."1 Why were the four (Kennedy, McGuire, Doyle, Burton) named as a trio? Why is Doyle snubbed, if they were founded when he joined? Furthermore, there's a disagreement between K & M in the name order of the trio. Also, K doesn't give any particular month for the changeover process. M is more precise and logical: "Ayers Rock evolved out of the trio Burton McGuire and Kennedy. The three musicians had all been members of the final version of Friends. ... they formed the eponymous trio in June 1973. With the arrival of Jimmy Doyle in August, Ayers Rock was born. Col Loughnan ... accepted the band's offer to join in October 1973." The nature of your two OR sources would need to be clarified for me to be convinced that M's version is inconsistent.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 21:46, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Into the mire, I'll throw in a gig guide (may not be RS): Ayers Rock performed on 22 Sep 1973 2, Burton McGuire & Kennedy performed on 23 Aug 1973 3. Hence name changed in August/September? There's no band member list for either gig. To me, this agrees with M, but casts doubt on K.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 21:56, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Touché, you play a fine game, good sir. I'll relay the above to the brains trust, and see if they can come up with something more substantial. Let's just say they are incredibly close to the band. Also, there's not a lot of difference between the 22 Sep 1973 and Oct 1973. The default scenario is that we leave it as it is. CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 07:07, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

My sources are adamant that Ayers Rock didn't play under that name before Loughnan joined. They say that there was a period where only rehearsals took place. They say that Ray Burton had a large input into Kimball's account, which I believe you know, and back the Kimball version. I have had no contact with Burton to date. Can we re-word it to favour the Kimball view, please? If you would like me to submit a proposed text for discussion, just let me know. CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 17:27, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

shaidar cuebiyar, from Ray Burton's website comes this quote on how it felt to be forming Ayers Rock:

"You're home and it feels good, real good. So good you invite another one of your best mates to join, Jimmy Doyle out of Sydney. Then you convince a buddy who’s on his way back from studying in the UK Col Loughnan to climb on board. Together you change the name of the band to AYERS ROCK. You launch the band ...."

The information I have received is that Kennedy and Loughnan have been contacted recently in response to my question, and have both backed the Burton/Kimball version re the order that the events occurred. They cannot resolve the conflict between various dates (OR or reliable). It would be inappropriate to use OR to simply over-rule an RS, however when two RS disagree in the first place, OR can be used to guide us on the weighting to give each RS. There are only three members still alive from the original line-up, and they agree with Burton's statement above. If you haven't responded by Thursday, 27 November, I will make an edit to try to improve the article. This doesn't mean that the matter would be closed, but once that edit is made you will have to convince me that it needs to be altered. Discussion can continue. CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 09:24, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Problems

How close?

CPD has revealed:

1. "I talked to someone, who talked to Duncan's brother." 9 November 2014.
2. "I have two OR sources saying that Kimball is accurate in this regard." 19 November 2014.
3. "I'll relay the above to the brains trust, and see if they can come up with something more substantial. Let's just say they are incredibly close to the band." 20 November 2014.
4. "My sources are adamant that Ayers Rock didn't play under that name before Loughnan joined. They say that there was a period where only rehearsals took place. They say that Ray Burton had a large input into Kimball's account," 20 November 2014.
5. "The information I have received is that Kennedy and Loughnan have been contacted recently in response to my question, and have both backed the Burton/Kimball version." 25 November 2014.

At the RfM/Ayers Rock archive, CPD and I were both asked by the mediator: "'Do you have a conflict of interest on this topic that contravenes WP:COI?'" I answered: "I have no WP:COI, neither with Ayers Rock nor McFarlane." 24 July 2014. I still abide by this declaration.

Given CPD's access to McGuire's brother, to Kennedy, and to Loughnan, through intermediaries, I respectfully ask CPD to declare his interests in these former band members (or their relatives) while writing content for this article.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 14:20, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I had no contact with any person related in any way to Ayers Rock prior to the conclusion of the RfM. Since then, I have made no secret of the fact that I have a very fruitful working relationship with a person who is either a) very close to an ex-member of the band or b) is actually an ex-member of the band.

In reply, the best thing I can offer is to suggest that you read my user page, which tells you my position, and was written a long time ago. What I want is the truth about this band to be available to the world (and you can't prove anything at all unless you verify it as well). Therefore, promoting this band would be to give an untrue version of history, which is against my beliefs. I can reassure you that advancing the aims of Wikipedia has an extremely high priority in my life. CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 11:15, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

1. In light of the above comments should CPD apply an appropriate template, i.e. Template:COI or Template:Connected contributor, to this page?shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 08:47, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

1. I have asked Feezo to determine whether a COI now exists, see here for the note.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 23:45, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Here are my observations on the above:

1. Access to sources does not itself constitute a conflict of interest. Although the two may be correlated, it doesn't, by itself, demonstrate a conflict.
2. That said, an editor's access to sources should have no bearing on article content, beyond what those sources have published in citable source material. If information can't be publicly verified, it can't be used.

Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 05:53, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Feezo, thankyou for your observations. I am aware of the guidelines regarding conflict of interest, and original research. These issues have been evaluated by me, on a case by case basis on dozens of occasions recently. I have received at least 30 scans of newspaper, and magazine articles from my collaborator, which were collected by members of the band at that time. There have been a large number of benefits to Wikipedia, and to our knowledge of this subject. The good news is that I hope to receive another batch of scans soon relating to the period 1978 to 1981. This is important because we currently have virtually none.

I have already made my collaborator aware of the relevant guidelines, and he understands that I can't include any content which is not supported by citations to reliable sources, and I can't leave out relevant information once I am aware of it. I will request that he reads your observations, and my response. I am aware that I have a lot of work to do in order to knock the recent citations into shape. This occurred because many of the articles were trimmed too tightly, removing the publication, date, page number and even headlines. I draw your attention to the fact that the article has almost doubled in size in the last three months, due to my efforts, and the scans that have come into my possession. Also, the reference list has more than doubled in this time. If there are any other concerns, you are most welcome to ask. CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 06:53, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

1. Feezo, thank you for your interpretation. I have a further query regarding "If information can't be publicly verified, it can't be used". In this article, CPD has supplied new information and cited a number of sources with scant description for other editors to be able to verify, often with "Unknown publication" / "Unknown author". About a month ago, CPD wrote "it's going to get worse before it gets better". Should such information, especially direct quotes, which can not be publicly verified, be removed by CPD until they can be verified. Should any new information/quotes be verifiable before they are placed in the article by CPD rather than the situation made worse?
2. Since CPD is in possession of a "tranche" of "press clippings" and is due to receive "another batch" the problem I perceive is one of possible unbiased selection of material and its representation both by the source and then by CPD. CPD's source is someone "either a) very close to an ex-member of the band or b) is actually an ex-member of the band". How likely are they to have kept negative reviews/opinions? Is their selection going to be representative of how the group were perceived by contemporaneous sources? Once CPD has the material how likely is he to select material which paints the group in a poor light given his access to otherwise unverified material via his source?
3. CPD, the article has certainly been expanded both in content and in its use of sources. Much of that expansion is good – well done. However, I perceive that some of the expansion is padding out with little direct relevance to the group. Some of the new material is redundant: it covers the same ground over. This has made the article less concise and less clear: hence more difficult for average readers to access.
4. I have already provided my opinions on some of the recently added material which exceeds detail required &/or is written in a style which is not appropriate.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 00:29, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

• Point one — absolutely justified concern. Draft edits and outlining should take place on a sandbox page. Unverifiable sources shouldn't be used in an article, even if they're only intended to be temporary.
• Point two — valid concern, but I don't see what we can really do about it. I would encourage CaesarsPalaceDude to make available (to you or other editors) the full quantity of available press clippings, if practical, to help ensure unbiased selection. We shouldn't discount citable source material simply due to potential bias in collecting it.

Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 08:35, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

• Point one: Thankyou Feezo, for highlighting your concern regarding unverifiable sources, which is a big problem for me too. As a sign of good faith, I have already removed some citations, and one quote from the article. I will work to rectify the issues pertaining to the remaining unverifiable sources starting today. I would ask you to suggest to me a timeframe within which I can make good on these undertakings. I had in mind something like two or three weeks.
• Point two: I can only re-iterate my abiding commitment to truth, verifiability, and advancing the aims of Wikipedia. CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 09:45, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

1. There remain, at least, two sources that are difficult to verify. One of these is used to back the claim in the Lead of the group "supporting major international artists in front of crowds of up to 35,000", and a similar claim in History section "which included playing to 35,000 people at a stadium concert supporting Bachman–Turner Overdrive." The reference is an Unknown publication. Since these claims can not presently be verified, it (and any other inadequately supported statements or direct quotes) should be removed per Feezo's advice above.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 23:27, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

On 17 January, I deleted four references which were not up to standard, on 24 January, I included a publication for another one, and on 25 January I included a publication and a date for a sixth reference. Obviously, this shows that I am working hard to resolve this issue. I will be in the library (again) tomorrow. As soon as I have something, it will be edited into the article.

If you had an objection to the timetable which I outlined above, you should have expressed that concern much sooner. On the basis that I am achieving results, and that Feezo seemed to accept my timeframe for working through the problems, I ask you to be patient while I finish the job. CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 10:39, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

McFarlane in the Lead

1. At RfM/Ayers Rock Closure, the mediator concluded "Opinions referenced in the lead must represent the majority view. The burden of proof is on the editor adding new material, especially for a topic with relatively few sources."
2. CPD has introduced a new quote by M without establishing that it represents the majority view. Does CPD have any other RS for the claim by M? Furthermore M is named but not wikilinked in the Lead and his status is not given to improve access for any casual reader. CPD has not shown that this quote is representative of M's opinion about the group. I contend that it misrepresents M's overall opinion about the group.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 14:20, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Mr. McFarlane's quote has been removed from the lead. The fact that Ayers Rock were the first Australian band to tour successfully in front of massive crowds in the U.S. only requires one RS. It's a fact, not an opinion, and therefore the only way you can remove it from the lead (not that you should want to) is to prove that another band which Wikipedia recognizes as Australian achieved the same milestone earlier. So, don't worry about the Bee Gees 'cos WP doesn't state that they are Australian. CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 09:24, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Whether WP (or CPD) recognises Bee Gees as Australian is not sufficient to ignore the fact that ARIA has recognised them: its awards website is a reliable source. They claim the group as Australian when inducted into their Hall of Fame (1997). It is demonstrable that Bee Gees toured the US years before Ayers Rock were even formed.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 10:46, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

ARIA's emotional decision to induct the Bee Gee's into their hall of fame is irrelevant to our encyclopedia. We must write our articles from an international perspective, not an Australian one. I repeat, the folk in England do not accept that the Bee Gee's were Australian. Are you placing yourself above the Wikipedia community consensus? That would be brave, Minister. CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 11:31, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Feliu

This problem has still not been addressed, the use of F's quote re: 'boring' is a misrepresentation of the source. Most of the audience actually appreciated and enjoyed the group's performance: the comments at the bar at the back lack relevance to the band.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 14:20, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

My OR collaborator agrees with you on this one. (You might find that amusing!) Also it's an edit which has never been quite right, somehow. I think the best solution is that you change it to resolve the issues, if you have a clear vision of how it should be. Either remove it, or modify it. Second best is to tell me what you think should happen. CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 09:39, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I have made an edit, in light of other's input, to present a fuller, and more representative quotation. Hopefully, this will improve source-text integrity. At no stage, did I intend to disrespect the 2nd era band, who were very good musicians. The intention was to show that some people didn't share the enthusiasm for that style of music, and to highlight a change in the music community's attitude to the nature of rock music itself. I am informed that patrons calling out "boring" never happened at Ayers Rock gigs in the mid 70s. Please let me know if this edit has improved the situation. CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 19:56, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Illness

Consider the subsection Ayers Rock (band)#Illness: I believe that McGuire's illness is significant enough for a sentence or two but it does not require a whole subsection. Most of the later material should be condensed and written as prose not dot pointed. It probably should be moved to the individual's article.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 14:20, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I completely disagree with you. Duncan's illness affected the sound of Ayers Rock both live (briefly), and on record (permanently). It appears that Duncan had some sort of temporary mental illness, and it is necessary to take sufficient time to describe, in his own words, what was happening. I have removed a small sentence which wasn't all that relevant. CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 09:54, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

shaidar cuebiyar, I have had another look at this aspect, to give a fuller answer. In addition to the reply above, I would like to say that I prefer the bullet point method in this case. I find it highly organized, easy to read, and gives better comprehension than plain prose. I understand that editors rarely present material in this manner, but then again, perhaps they should consider it. Two of the bullet points were guaranteed to be in this article somewhere. I submit that the section should stay as it is, and a condensed version should be edited into the "Duncan McGuire" article. CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 00:55, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

1. Once again, I believe this article has too much detail on McGuire's illness. The content can be covered more precisely and clearly here in far fewer sentences. Greater detail should be placed in his own article.
2. The direct quote is still OR with the use of unsatisfactory "unknown publication". It can't be verified.
3. CPD's claim of McGuire having "some sort of temporary mental illness" above is not substantiated in the section quoted. If the article has more information on this claim it can't be checked for verification with the current description.
4. CPD's use of dot points, in this subsection, runs counter to the main style used throughout the rest, i.e., prose.
5. Such dot points are more useful in List-type articles. I also don't believe that an embedded list in this article is preferable to prose (see WP:embedded lists) for the information being conveyed.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 10:10, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Once again, you pick the guidelines that suit you, rather than the ones that actually apply. This guideline shows that my use is completely acceptable. I stand by the content, and the reply above. Furthermore, the claim of McGuire having "some sort of temporary mental illness" is OR, and is, therefore, not in the article, and if it isn't in the article it doesn't need to be substantiated (but you can take my word for it). I mentioned that so that you might show some compassion for the man (Duncan). Then again, that's not going to happen because you don't have any. CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 22:41, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

1. I disagree with CPD's interpretation of the relevant guideline: embedded list use is not applicable in this situation as it is not in the style used elsewhere in the article. Prose conveys the information better, according to the guideline: "Prose is preferred in articles as prose allows the presentation of detail and clarification of context, in a way that a simple list may not. Prose flows, like one person speaking to another. It is best suited to articles, because their purpose is to explain". Whilst appropriate use of embedded lists does occur in some article none of the sub-sections applies in this situation.
2. CPD's claim of "some sort of temporary mental illness" should not be made about a person without substantiation even if it is on a talkpage. The fact that McGuire is dead does not mean his reputation should be tarnished.
3. CPD suggests I "might show some compassion for [McGuire]". I believe I do: as I challenged the claim that McGuire had "mental illness" according to CPD. Other interpretations are possible from McGuire's words in the supposed direct quote supplied (we can't tell where the full source is not available and verification is not possible).
4. CPD should apply his comments to my arguments and not attack my personality.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 08:44, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Your arguments are so poor that in the main I have no intention of replying. Except that I received today information that Duncan did have a mental illness, even though it appears to have been mild and temporary. There are other factors that I have been made aware of, but I am not able to reveal here. Everything that I have edited into the article, and this talk page is public domain information, or has been in the past. As far as I am concerned, this discussion is closed. CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 09:31, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Vague, unspecified sources

CPD has provided sources from "unknown publication"s these are unreliable and should not be used to verify contentious material nor to support direct quotes.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 14:20, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

To me, Truth and Verification are both very important. I am, therefore, very unhappy with the number of references which contain the words "Unknown Publication". And, it's going to get worse before it gets better. I apologise in advance. I promise to work very hard to resolve these issues in the near future. CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 10:06, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Beyond artwork

Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria#3a guideline specifies "Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information." CPD uses the same album cover image twice for an article about the band, not the album itself, he provides a written description of the latter image which conveys the equivalent significant information. Consequently, the second image should be removed.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 14:20, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

This particular album cover is, I believe, unique in the world, and the method I have used is appropriate and necessary to convey this feature to the readers. Please remember that not all readers are as intelligent as you and me, and not all of them are fluent in English (this article is only published on the English Wikipedia). I will fight to keep the Beyond artwork the way it is now. CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 10:25, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Further discussion should occur on the deletion page, see Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2014 December 18#File:Ayers Rock Beyond.28US.29 rotated.jpg–shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 12:09, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Countdown: Do Yourself a Favour

CPD contends that "Writer, producer, and director, Jeremy Boylen used Ayers Rock as the prime example of what the documentary claimed was wrong with Australian pop and rock music before the advent of Countdown." This interpretation is not found in the source cited. I suggest that we let the viewers of the clip make their own conclusions as to what Mannix intended in his statement and/or whether Boylen, in using file footage of a band, was making such a specific claim about Ayers Rock, itself or just a generic group.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 14:20, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

After a great deal of thought, and discussion I have decided to remove the "Countdown" text completely for reasons which are different to everything that has been put to me here, and elsewhere. I disagree with your assertions above, and continue to believe that my content was a faithful rendering of the facts. I am more confident than ever that the treatment handed out to Ayers Rock in that documentary was a put-down. By the way, the OR on that is an absolute hoot. Having effectively claimed that Ayers Rock was part of what was wrong with Australian rock before Countdown, their researchers failed to notice that Ayers Rock had actually appeared on Countdown! ... more than once!! (ho, ho, ho)

The reason that I have pulled the text is that it was a bit too sophisticated, and complicated as a line of reasoning. Even though you have understood clearly the text, and the issues pertaining to it, some readers may have been confused, or misled. Given the limited relevance of that section anyway, I have decided that we are probably better off without it. Thankyou for raising your concerns, which were given due consideration. CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 19:31, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

New claim re Mushroom Records

shaidar cuebiyar, and other interested editors, I wish to include in the article a new claim: "Ayers Rock were the first Mushroom Records artists to sign a recording contract with an international record label".

We know that Mushroom announced that Ayers Rock had signed with A&M Records just after New Year in January 1975 (Meldrum, Ian (January 1975). "'Big Red Rock' Shock" Listener In-TV Herald & Weekly Times (Melbourne).) According to 25 years of Mushroom Records (Warner, Dave (1998). 25 years of Mushroom Records Harper Collins Publishers (Sydney). ISBN 0 7322 6432 4.), the early Mushroom acts were:

• Madder Lake: Not signed internationally
• Mackenzie Theory: Not signed internationally
• Matt Taylor: Not signed internationally
• The Dingoes: Signed to A&M Records in 1976
• Sid Rumpo: Not signed internationally
• Ayers Rock: Signed to A&M Records in January 1975
• Skyhooks: Signed to Mercury Records/Phonogram Records in early 1976
• Renee Geyer: Signed to Polydor Records. WP article is very vague about the date. It appears to be late 1975

I invite discussion on this subject stating reasons for agreeing/disagreeing with a view to including all important information in the article. No reply within 5 days will be taken as assent. CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 09:38, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

1. Support for this claim in Billboard (30 January 1982) article: Gudinski describes his initial trip to USA and working with Jerry Moss of A&M: "Jerry had time for me on my very first trip over and the relationship that started with Ayers Rock and The Dingoes..." Article includes a photo of Gudinski and Moss holding up an Ayers Rock album after the signing of that band. Good work CPD.
2. Geyer recorded the Liberal party theme for the federal election held in December 1975. She used that money to get over to the US and record with Polydor. I don't have a page number from her biography to clarify exact timeline. I agree that it looks likely to be late 1975 for her signing but this remains inconclusive.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 10:28, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

shaidar cuebiyar, thankyou for your prompt reply; does this mean that I am good to go, or do we need to do more research on the Renee Geyer aspect? CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 10:51, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

1. You're good to go, use Meldrum, Walker and Baker (Billboard 1982 ref above). Geyer said she used the money from the jingle to travel over to US. Her signing to Polydor isn't likely to be any earlier than 11 November 1975 as the Dismissal hadn't occurred, election not yet called and no Liberal Party theme could have been recorded. Mike Brady probably didn't even write the theme before that date. The theme was premiered on 26 November (see here).shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 11:18, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, will do. CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 11:39, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Boy from the Stars

In the section "Afterwards" we discuss the album The Boy from the Stars by Jim Keays. According to this website:

http://www.discogs.com/Jim-Keays-The-Boy-From-The-Stars/release/2983277

Col Loughnan is credited for his contribution on sax on two tracks: "Urantia" and "Reason To Be Living". Is this sufficient evidence to include Loughnan as a member of Ayers Rock who played on this album.

Draft of proposed new lead

shaidar cuebiyar, Dan arndt, Feezo, and any other interested editors, I have written a first draft of a new version of the lead for this article. The proposed new lead can be viewed at this sandbox, and discussion can take place at the sandbox talk page or this talk page. Please, do not edit the sandbox; I will give your comments a great deal of thought, and make the necessary changes. CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 16:17, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Given that their has been no response to the above post, I felt it was appropriate to edit the new version of the lead into the article. CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 12:56, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Ayers Rock (band)/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

stub: basic info supplied; needs: in-line refs, infobox, more details (e.g. any chart positns? what did members do after Ayres Rock);Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 09:36, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Last edited at 09:36, 27 July 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 20:06, 2 May 2016 (UTC)