Talk:Nash the Slash

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

/Archive 1 - commentary/dispute

RFC summary[edit]

This RFC pertains to the ongoing dispute (see article history) about whether the article should or should not give the artist's real name.

The user who introduced the current uncertainty did so only after being advised that the "Jeff Plewman" name could only be removed if it were factually wrong (and after this RfC was launched); prior to that, his own edits and e-mails on the subject clearly stated that the name was correct but Wikipedia's use of it was a personal inconvenience for Nash.

The following question has been posted to Wikipedia:Requests for comment: Does the subject of an article (or the president of his fan club) have the right to insist that Wikipedia cannot give his real name, if his real name is already publicly available on other websites? Nobody's claiming that the information is wrong; the claim is that the artist doesn't want it publicized (even though it already has been elsewhere).

My points are as follows:

  1. The information is already out there, and nobody disputed its accuracy until after I made clear that Wikipedia would only remove it on factual grounds. Previously, the user's own words communicated the exact opposite position of what he chooses to communicate now.
  2. The subject of a Wikipedia article does not have the right to dictate what Wikipedia can or cannot write about him unless the information is objectively false.

Comments? Bearcat 17:29, 3 October 2005 (UTC)


This isn't exactly neutral now, is it?

due to poor distribution and management it never got the proper exposure it deserved. it's an opinion.

Nash's real identity was revealed in a 1996 edition of the Gary Numan Digest ([1]), and is now available to anyone with Google access. I can respect the artist (and/or his fan club president) for wanting to preserve the "invisible man" mystique, but this information has been in the public domain for some time.
Bearcat is correct on both points. Unless there are questions of accuracy (and I don't believe this is the case), the information should be retained. CJCurrie 18:17, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Agreed This information should be retained. This information is available through other accessible sources (i.e., the public domain); as well to my knowledge, there are no outstanding legal issues challenging this. There's no need or basis to 'slash' this information. :) E Pluribus Anthony 18:26, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Agreed. The name is a fact, therefore, not slander, therefore, there is no reason ont to include it. Zhatt 19:58, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Agree. The real name of a performer is encyclopedic information. So long as this is verifiable (which it appears to be) there is no legitimate reason to remove it. Nash/Plewman seeks publicity. Unfortunately, it is not possible in this world to demand attention yet control what people say. -Willmcw 20:59, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Agree for exactly the same reasons as I would oppose anyone else who wanted to suppress inconvenient facts about themselves. DJ Clayworth 21:05, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Nash's real identity was revealed in a 1996 edition of the Gary Numan Digest.[2], and is now available to anyone with Google access. I can respect the artist (and/or his fan club president) for wanting to preserve the "invisible man" mystique, but this information has been in the public domain for some time. - How accurate is this fanzine !!, and what are its sources.' Nashferatu'
Disagree User:Nashferatu - This is laughable because on many web pages he is identified as 'Ben Mink', so its up to you lot to reveal his true identity, and until that time the edit should be removed. ...
Agree If the name were not in fact correct it would likely have already been proven so and removed. The suggestion that Nash is in fact Ben Mink is positively untrue. I have seen both Ben Mink (Live with FM, 1980, Holiday Inn, Winnipeg, and in many photos) and Nash the Slash (twice on TV Ontario, Nightmusic Concert, 1977 or 78 (NO BANDAGES) and photo on the original Black Noise album sleeve (NO BANDAGES)). Clearly two different people.--DLWay 07:42, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
A belated addition to this argument: I've met Nash personally many times and have seen him without his bandages each time. He is definately not Ben Mink. As for a source for "Jeff Plewman", I would like to point out that the Encyclopedia of Music in Canada (which exists as a paper book; I have a copy myself bought 2nd-hand) clearly gives a name. Here is the article online from it about the band FM, which Nash was in. Tabercil 23:13, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

This shouldn't even be that big a deal. His identity is in the public domain. You can go to the ASCAP searchable database and find (for example) that Black Noise was written by "George Cameron Hawkins" and "James Plewman".[3] Given that he probably wants to receive his royalty cheques, this source can therefore be assumed to give his correct legal name. And, having seen him live and played with him, he doesn't go out of his way to hide from the general public before he goes on stage - he sets up his gear in his civvies. It's fine if he wants to maintain a public image, but Wikipedia is here to report facts and not to conform to an artist's promotional methods. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 16:42, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Is there room for one more belated addition? Probably the first publicly released record Nash appeared on, even before that 500-print-run FM CBC album, was Nocturnal Earthworm Stew by David Pritchard. On that album there is a track titled "Nash Metropolitan" which is a short unaccompanied violin solo by Nash the Slash, and its composer credit reads "Plewman". This is followed by a longer improvised piece by the trio of Pritchard, Nash, and (FM drummer) Martin Deller, and its composer credit reads "Pritchard, Plewman & Deller".
In the near future I hope to correct the problem of a near-absence, anywhere on the web, of references to Nash's involvement on records by Slasher/Breathless, Drastic Measures, and the 102.1 Band, all of which I have in my hot little hands... :) --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 23:03, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Nash the Slash's full birth name is James Jeffery Plewman. Source: he told me directly —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:38, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, being told directly is not a citable source, and cannot be used on WP. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 01:51, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Robert Plant music video cameo?[edit]

Does Nash the Slash make a cameo appearance in the music video for Robert Plant's song Burning Down One Side (from Plant's debut solo record Pictures at Eleven)? (talk) 18:05, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


Nice addition to the article; thanks to Tabercil for contributing it. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 21:36, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the compliment. I'd taken one at an earlier concert (which can be seen here) but chose not to upload it as it's not too flattering. I also took a bunch of photos of him before that concert without his bandages but I won't be putting them up... at least not while Nash is still alive. Tabercil (talk) 00:03, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Realizing this is against WP policy[edit]

That photo alone gives me the utter creeps, even if he has a million of them, and perusing Flickr, that's true. Brrrr. Just a comment, not trying to make any changes, I'm just gonna avoid this article. --leahtwosaints (talk) 06:33, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Virgin Records[edit]

I couldn't find a source that said he was signed by Virgin. What is the source that says so? Dlabtot (talk) 04:31, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

His album "Children of the Night" was released in Canada on Virgin, and in England on Dindisc. Prior to the album's release Nash discussed his new contract with Virgin in a radio interview (which I have on tape), where he praised Virgin for signing up several Canadian artists to release their records in England and Canada (Martha and the Muffins being another). Dindisc wasn't mentioned at that point, and I wonder if Nash realized the UK releases were going to come out on Dindisc instead of Virgin! The Canadian label actually lists 3 names: Virgin, Dindisc and Cut-throat, but Dindisc did not really exist as a company in Canada, it was just part of Virgin, and used Virgin's catalogue numbering (unlike in the UK where they were separate). --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 13:34, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
I didn't ask for an argument, I asked for a source. I'll ask again: Do you have a reliable, published source that states that he was signed by Virgin? If not, the assertion that he was must be removed from this article, as per WP:V. Dlabtot (talk) 16:36, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Just so you understand, I'm not disputing that fact that the DinDisc label was distributed by Virgin. In other words, an artist who had a contract with DinDisc, would have their records distributed by Virgin. That's not the same thing as having a contract with Virgin. Dlabtot (talk) 17:21, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Well since he was signed by the Canadian arm of the combined company (whether it says "Dindisc" or "VIrgin" on the contract is something only the people involved would be able to verify), and since he said "Virgin" in interviews in 1980, I'm thinking the contract was with Virgin Canada. You are right that the infobox instructions say "label" refers to the company the artist was contracted with, rather than the name on the record label itself, and that makes sense because companies often license rights to other companies, and the latter are not really the artist's label. So since there is a dispute over this, I'll agree to its being omitted from the infobox. Now I see you have also removed mention of the actual names that appeared on the label from the body of the article, and I'm mystified about that, because it has nothing to do with contracts. Can we have that bit restored, since it's a matter of record? (ha ha, sorry) --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 13:23, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

File:Virgin label 2212.JPG

Nash's website explicitly said that "Children Of The Night" was released by Virgin and that they still own the rights to the album, making Nash's own CD release of the album technically a pirated edition (which again was openly admitted on the website) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:12, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

That's not the way I read the website note, but I believe the details have been removed, so I don't think we can reference it in the article. From what I recall, Nash did not say Virgin still owned the album (and probably never owned it exclusively, since the Cut-Throat logo's appearance suggests Cut-Throat co-owned it, and that label is still active, and presumably owned entirely by Nash), but rather, that other companies that had nothing to do with the labels involved (not only the three that appear on the label, but also distributor Polygram, AND still more companies which bought out those companies over the years)* claimed to have inherited the rights through cross-company acquisitions, and some went as far as to claim 100% ownership, which Nash regarded as bogus. I never saw him claim his edition is a "pirate", but did state he was unable to resolve the co-ownership disputes, and after concluding it was impossible to do so, issued his own edition, leaving to the other companies (rather than him) to issue legal challenges, if they felt so inclined (which presumably never happened)*. If anyone thinks they can find citations to put this in the article, it would be welcome, but we need to get the facts right because of the legal implications, and I don't know if that can be done, or if Nash's own version of the story (being the view from one side)* could be considered reliable. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 22:26, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
* these bits expanded --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 07:43, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

RfC: Should the Nash the Slash article state that he was signed to Virgin Records?[edit]

In 1980, Nash the Slash was signed to DinDisc, a subsidiary of Virgin Records. Should the Nash the Slash article state that he was signed to Virgin Records? 15:16, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Correction to the question, it is an over-simplification of the situation, and ignores:
  1. The issue under debate is what the "label" field in the infobox should say, not the article itself.
  2. DinDisc was a subsidiary of Virgin in Canada, but not in the UK, and the question has been raised about not only which company did he sign with, but which office (i.e. in which country) of that company, all of which is not something anyone discussing this article claims to know. (Elaboration: this RfC itself states "NtS was signed to Dindisc", and edit summaries say "he was never signed to Virgin", but these claims are not cited any more than the claim that he was signed to Virgin.)
  3. A related question recently asked (by me) is why some content about the actual record labels was removed from the article,[4] and how is this related to the separate contract debate, a question which hasn't been answered yet, although I notice the person who did the removal of that content also initiated this RfC, and could have given an answer to clear up this part of it before making the RfC (and is still invited to explain).
--A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 15:16, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
I think the article should be based on what is published in reliable sources. By no means did I intend for the RfC question to be limited to discussion of the infobox only. I look forward to the RfC responses. Dlabtot (talk) 15:40, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
With all due respect to the citations rules (which I highly respect), I've never heard of disallowing mention of the record label name that appears right on the label, with the reason being that it's not explicitly mentioned in citations, unless there is a situation where someone expresses doubt about this info, which you aren't. (And you if you were doubtful before, you shouldn't be now, since I posted the picture.) --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 15:48, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
I restored the part about the label the record appeared on, since it's not covered by the RfC title ("Should the Nash the Slash article state that he was signed to Virgin Records?"), and there has been no discussion about why you want it removed. You have taken it out again, saying to wait for RfC reponses. I doubt we're going to see any by this point, and I still don't see why the RfC was posted, since I consented to the removal of the item under discussion, even though I don't agree with the removal. Why are you removing the label info, and what is objectionable about it? --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 01:27, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Well, it's not true that there's been no discussion, it's just that you keep insisting that what I am saying means not what I want it to mean but what you want it to mean. First you said that the RfC question only applied to the infobox. No, that's not true. The question was never meant to apply only to the infobox. Now you've said the edits are "unrelated to "contracts" issue being discussed on talk page" = simply a false characterization of this discussion. How about a compromise, we simply say "he was signed to DinDisc, a subsidiary of Virgin Records", or "These records were distributed by Virgin Records".  ?? Dlabtot (talk) 02:56, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm not trying to be difficult, but maybe I don't understand it from your viewpoint. This discussion started when you removed "Virgin" from the "labels" field of the infobox, stating bluntly in your edit summary that "he was never signed to Virgin". I'm still not sure if that's true, and have yet to see why you are certain it's true, BUT... if it were true, then it would be correct to remove it from the infobox, because its instructions state that this field is for labels that the artist was contracted to, rather than labels his record appears on (which is not what many editors would presume). At the time you opened the RfC, this was what the whole discussion was about; I don't believe you removed anything from the body of the article about contracts.
After opening the RfC, you removed a statement from the body of the article about the labels his records appeared on, and said this removal was connected to the RfC. I don't see why that should be, nor do I see why this should be an issue at all, because I don't think you're disputing which label names were used, after I posted the picture. (If you're disputing what label names were used in the UK, "Dindisc / Cutthroat", I can post a picture of that, too!) Assuming that's true, I didn't think it was fair to lump the "labels" issue together with "contracts" when we're only in disagreement over the latter, and only the latter was referred to in the RfC title.
I had always presumed your reason for objecting in the first place, is that there is often a misunderstanding about the relationship between Dindisc and Virgin in the UK. I have seen mention of Dindisc being a subsidiary of Virgin, but in 1981 that wasn't true. Richard Branson set up Dindisc as a separate independent company which issued mostly obscure artists. He owned both companies, but there was no corporate connection between them. Later in the mid 1980s, when Dindisc mainly had one artist left (OMD), they became a subsidiary of Virgin, and older Dindisc albums were reissued on CD by Virgin. So I presumed that when you saw "Virgin" in the infobox, you said to yourself, "Aha, that's a mistake people often make, thinking Virgin and Dindisc were connected from the beginning, but it wasn't so in 1981", and your claim that Nash wasn't signed to Virgin was made from that basis. My response was, "Aha, that's a mistake one would make if one only saw a UK release, and didn't realize the situation was different in Canada."
Now if I'm right about your reasons for objecting in the first place, then the 2 statements you propose adding, are surely adding to the confusion. I don't want to force a compromise that is factually incorrect. In the UK, Dindisc was not a subsidiary of Virgin in 1981, so it would be misleading to say it was. Furthermore, in Canada, the records were not just distributed by Virgin, they were released on the Virgin and Dindisc labels. So "Dindisc, distributed by Virgin" is not accurate in either Canada or the UK, for different reasons!
Getting back to the contracts question (assuming you don't have some inside information about this), here is my reason for believing Nash signed directly with Virgin Canada: In nearly every country in the world, except the USA and UK, there is always controversy about "foreign" record companies setting up shop to sell and promote American and British artists almost exclusively, ignoring local artists. Big record companies in every country are pressured to sign up local artists, which the companies are often reluctant to do, partly because it doesn't bring them in as much money, and partly because this isn't the reason they came to the country to do business. In Canada, this has led to "Canadian content" regulations for radio stations, who must broadcast a certain percent of Canadian music. This has led to rules defining what is "Canadian" music, and if you look again at the label picture I posted, you can see markings which indicate the "Canadian-ness" of each track: the circles with "MAPL" logo (music, artist, producer, lyrics); a song with a logo that is "half highligted" counts as a "half Canadian" song for radio airplay obligations. Unfortunately there are no obligations for the record companies themselves. I have seen the "playlist" CDs big companies distribute to radio stations on a weekly, bi-weekly, or monthly basis, and been surprised to see comp CDs with 15 tracks, and not one of them is a Canadian artist.
So in the radio interview with Nash that I was mentioning, he was praising Virgin for taking the initiative to sign up Canadian artists, including himself. Now if he had signed up with Dindisc in the UK, and Dindisc had merely licensed the recordings to Virgin Canada for Canadian release, I wonder why Nash would be praising Virgin. It wouldn't make sense. And as I said before, he only mentioned Virgin in the interview. Dindisc was not mentioned at all, and this leads me to think the Dindisc contract/arrangement came later.
Hope this goes further to explain how I see it. I'm really not trying to be difficult, and don't agree that I've misrepresented you. I do want to get this right, and not put things in the article that are either misleading or factually incorrect, and I know you feel the same way. I would like to hear why you believe what you do (about why Nash could not have been signed to Virgin, or why you feel it's not appropriate to be explicit about the labels his records were released on), and when I've asked this before, you said you prefer to wait for comments from others, which don't appear to be coming. Please feel free to state your thoughts, if you have a different perspective from what I've written. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 08:45, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
I think the article should be based on what the reliable sources say. Since he was never signed by Virgin, and no reliable sources say that he was signed by Virgin, I think the article should reflect that. I look forward to the responses to the RfC by uninvolved editors. Also, my comments mean what they appear to mean; I don't have any difficulty expressing myself, and I don't feel any obligation to repeatedly explain that I meant what I said, not what you say I meant. Dlabtot (talk) 15:46, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Well then I'll be more blunt. You keep saying "he was never signed to Virgin", but have never provided the slightest explanation for that opinion. Nash said he was signed to Virgin in 1980, and his records appeared in Canada in his native country, so that should be the end of it, unless you can give a reason why you suspect what you say is true. Citations from reliable sources are not needed for things that are self-evident. A fact like this would require citation if there is an unusual circumstance that needs to be explained, or if it is challenged, but "I don't believe it" with no explanation is not a challenge. Enough time has passed for RfC responses, it's been several weeks now. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 16:22, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia content must be verifiable to reliable sources. Your assertions that Jeff Plewman made self-serving comments that he was signed to Virgin Records are totally irrelevant to the discussion. For all we know, you may very well be Jeff Plewman. added: please don't misinterpret this as me actually accusing you of acting in bad faith. I'm simply pointing out one of the many reasons that Wikipedia requires that content must be verifiable to published reliable sources. Look - it is completely understandable why he would want to pad his resume - but Wikipedia is not the place to do it. Dlabtot (talk) 03:57, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Good Christ Almighty, I hope you people eventually found lives. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:13, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Nash the Slash external links[edit]

Is there a reason why the external website additions for this page, ie my own fansite, the Official UK fansite, the Official MySpace page, the Official Two Artists page, the FM fansite and the two Facebook pages, have all been removed?

The inclusion of these external links is important, as my own fansite ‘stats’ show……… Wikipedia can get users to these sites in a way that few other Wikipedia-type sites can.

By including these external links you create a ‘chain’ of events – for instance, a user might visit a fansite, from there get directed to a Facebook group and from there they might get linked up with like-minded people – ‘networking’ in short. By including only the official Canadian site (good though it is) this ‘chain’ never gets started.

I often get emails from people here in the UK who were absolutely gutted because they didn’t know about his 2008 tour. For a minor act like Nash, every person who buys a ticket to a show is important. So, you could ask “Why didn’t they just look at the official site”? The reason is that these are not the ‘hardcore’ fans we are talking about here – they are the people who saw the Gary Numan gigs in the early 80s and were impressed enough to have bought a 2008 tour ticket had they known about it; and how would they have know about it? …… browsing through Wikepedia, Facebook, fansites etc and entering the ‘chain’.

Poppet34 (talk) 13:16, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:ELNO #11 Dlabtot (talk) 15:48, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

You deleted the links to three OFFICIAL websites!

OK, deleting the link to the MySpace site - I can understand this as it violates the Wikipedia rules (and I note that you have moved Two Artists into 'References'), but to delete Nash's Official UK site - this is pedanticity for it's own sake.

Poppet34 (talk) 09:23, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree that Wikipedia is often overzealous in its removal of "fan" sites which often have a lot of information relevant to the article. (Or at least, some editors' interpretation of the rules is overzealous.) As the "external links" policy (link posted above) says, these sites can be relevant if they contain information (images, interviews, detailed credits, etc.) which cannot be used at Wikipedia, but are not in themselves copyright violations. (The sites could be authorized to publish the info, if it's an interview, for example. Also keep in mind that Wikipedia's rules as to what content is allowed, is more narrow than general copyright rules. So, for example, Wikipedia may disallow multiple pictures of cover art with minor variations because it's considered redundant for our purposes, but this does not mean to say that it violates copyright rules when used in another website's context.)
On the other hand, we do have to keep out links that exist mainly to promote fansites. The question is, does the site contain specific information that is helpful to the article? If so, it can be used for citation. A general link to the fansite is not needed for Wikipedia's purposes, but links to back up, or provide more information on specific facts, in the form of a citation, are useful. I think you will find most of these sites removed from the "external links" section are still linked from Wikipedia in other ways.
As for the removal of the "Two Artists" site, it is an official site, and I was surprised to see its removal. But then, that site didn't have any real information to supplement the article, so even though it's official, it didn't seem to be serving any purpose here. I wouldn't be against either its inclusion or removal. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 22:47, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Hmm... some of the links could certainly be restored. Besides the Two Artists page, I'd say his MySpace link is safe to return, and I've done just that. Tabercil (talk) 23:06, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

The Not-So-Silent Film Collection (2008)[edit]

This should be listed in the works section, as I remember seeing it on Nash's site and wishing to buy it myself. Couldn't afford it and it was a limited run item, thus no current listing for it on his site. And I've checked the Wayback Machine - it looks like their most recent page is late 2007. Tabercil (talk) 12:44, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

If it were ever avaliable, it should be available now. Maybe it was a planned forthcoming release? Or a "wish list" item on a fansite? I would like to see such a release, but there would be a lot of copyright work involved, and if it had happened, it would surely have been a big event, and would not have disappeareared in under a year. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 16:26, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
This was issued last year and was a limited edition of 100. Poppet34 (talk) 20:24, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
There is now a section for vidoes in the Cut-throat Records article. If anyone has full information about this release (films included / label / cat # would be nice, but not mandatory), please feel free to update. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 07:31, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

File:Nash the Slash in concert.jpg Nominated for Deletion[edit]

Image-x-generic.svg An image used in this article, File:Nash the Slash in concert.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests February 2012
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Nash the Slash in concert.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 21:37, 13 February 2012 (UTC)