Talk:Spring Hill Fair

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Australia / Music (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject iconSpring Hill Fair is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Australian music (marked as Low-importance).
 
Note icon
Need help improving this article? Ask a LibrarianWhat's this? at the National Library of Australia.
Note icon
The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to help@wikimedia.org.au for other than editorial assistance.
WikiProject Albums (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Albums, an attempt at building a useful resource on recordings from a variety of genres. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Writer credits[edit]

I have fixed a contradiction in the songwriter credits by changing the "writer" parameter of the track listing to "lyrics" per the LP credits. (The record label credits "all songs by R. Forster and G. McLennan"). I have taken a punt on the 2002 bonus CD (which I don't have), assuming that Forster and McLennan would have similarly credited every song to them both, but again altered the "writer" credit to "lyrics". BlackCab (TALK) 00:07, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Lindy Morrison / Jon Brand claims[edit]

There seems to be some dispute over the claims made by Lindy regarding producer Brand. The offending line is, "Morrison claimed the relationship had also soured after Brand attempted to seduce her and was rebuffed on their first day in the studio." Now, while this is only a claim from one person, it is well sourced and relevant to the article. I believe the information should remain.

Further muddying the waters, the person trying to remove the information claims to be the son of Brand. They have now breached WP:4RR and have self-professed WP:COI.

Anyone think this info should be removed? Doctorhawkes (talk) 10:52, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

The information is a lie. It is not well sourced. Whilst the source may be referenced correctly to a book, it is a "claim" made by the author, with evidence, not even as a quote from Lindy Morrison. It is therefore slanderous and defamation of character as Brand has not been given any opportunity to publicly respond to the "claim". Wikipedia's Conflict of Interest page states, "An exception to editing an article about yourself or someone you know is made if the article contains defamation or a serious error that needs to be corrected quickly". Clearly this is a case of defamation and the line must be removed. If the "claim" is well sourced, please provide evidence from elsewhere. Mr Brand (talk) 11:15, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

With no evidence, sorry.* Mr Brand (talk) 11:16, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Mr Brand, in order to establish that claim is slanderous a person must prove that 1) the statement was false, 2) caused harm, and 3) was made without adequate research into the truthfulness of the statement. In this case all we have is your statements that you are the son of Jon Brand and that he [your father] feels his character has been defamed - however there is no evidence to verify either claim. On the opposite side we have a published book from a recognised author, which is based on research and detailed interviews with band members & people associated with the band. Finally when the book was published, and in deed since that time Jon Brand has never taken any action against the author or the publisher in relation to this matter. In summary there is no verifiable evidence to counter the claim provided by Morrison - which until supplied means to the the information is relevant to the state of the band at the time of the recording and should be retained, for the time being. Dan arndt (talk) 13:08, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
The book was published in 1997; the statement is in the 2003 updated version. I don't know if it was in the 1997 edition. Persistent edit-warring is not the way to resolve this and the editor certainly has a COI problem. I have reported him for edit-warring. BlackCab (TALK) 06:03, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

I have full-protected this article for 24 hours so you can stop reverting each other and come to an agreement. If this is not possible, I may be forced to block editors to avoid disruption, but I'd rather not as this makes the dispute difficult to resolve. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:58, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

So, what should we do to return the WP:RIGHTVERSION? Roxy the dog. bark 10:31, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

I have no idea of what sort of person John Brand is. I'd assume most blokes, however, if embarrassed by a biographer's claim that they once tried to hit on a woman, would deny it to their son, regardless of whether it was true or not. It's a stretch then to say that "clearly this is a case of defamation". However WP:BLP does urge a conservative approach to "contentious" material, which this claim is. Robert Forster, in his book Grant and I doesn't repeat the same claim and it's not essential to discussion of the album. On balance, and given the depth of feeling expressed here by the son, I'd have no objection to its deletion. BlackCab (TALK) 10:42, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
Hmmm. I hadn't thought about the pertinence of this to the album and hence the article. Assuming this really is Brand junior, It wouldn't surprise me if this was a real event that senior simply has forgotten as trivial. It is trivial btw, and as previously stated well sourced. I think Blackcab's approach the right one, and now I'll go away. -Roxy the dog. bark 10:51, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
The usual approach I have is to do what journalists do, and get two sources for a contentious claim. The prose in question does seem like a "he said, she said" sort of gossip which doesn't seem directly relevant to the album's production. Brand could have just said "compared to Neil Peart, you suck, I'm programming this" which would have side-stepped the harassment issue. Anyway, if it is pertinent to the album's background, there'll be another source bouncing around - does anyone have it? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:13, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
I believe that the comments are relevant as it shows the discord that members of the band had with John Brand when undertaking the recording of the album, right from the outset upon entering the recording studio. This is reflected in the subsequent reviews of the album. I acknowledge that this is only Morrison's claim on what happened and if MrBrand where able to provide a quote cited in a verifiable independent source that stated his father refuted Morrison's claim then I would happily include that as a balanced approach but to delete a properly referenced and relevant comment on the basis that he and his father don't like it is very one sided. Dan arndt (talk) 14:21, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
It's hard to argue that the situation is not pertinent to the album. Obviously, it effected at least one member of the band. The statement, while not a direct quote, comes from the best source of information on the band, and I can't imagine it was included frivolously. It's worth noting that while certain comments were removed in the long gap between editions of the book, this comment remained. On the other hand, I would prefer a 2nd source.
I'm not particularly fond of removing information just because of the "depth of feeling expressed" by a complainant. I don't see the contested comments as defamatory, but others here would know BLP better than me. Doctorhawkes (talk) 06:43, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
Brand's son says the claim that Brand Snr tried to hit on Morrison is a lie and defamatory. I find that a bit hard to swallow: only Brand Snr and Morrison know who's telling the truth, but I would say that at best it is probably embarrassing to Brand Snr. Still, WP:BLP says the burden of evidence lies with the person reinstating a contentious claim once it has been removed. The source in this case is of a high standard but the claim has not been corroborated and in any case is not crucial to the article in explaining the tensions during recording. If there's a majority view that it should stay though, Brand Jnr can take it to the appropriate noticeboard. BlackCab (TALK) 07:45, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your little bits of advise in how to go about getting this nonsense removed. My father has been in contact with the Go Betweens manager about this and will be in touch with you all regarding the matter in due course. I have to say that I am absolutely appalled at the sheer ignorance and the arrogance of Wikipedia editors, if this is an example of how you behave. I certainly hope that none of you are professional researchers, as this would be an extreme case of incompetence on your behalf if that is what you would claim yourselves to be. That you would rather the website keep questionable at best, an inaccurate lie at worst, information for the sake of posterity, simply because it was printed in a single book by it's author and not even given as a direct quote from anyone involved, proves why Wikipedia cannot be trusted by anyone in the academic research field. This is exactly why students are told not to use Wikipedia for referencing in their studies. You should be ashamed of yourselves that you insist on keeping a piece of information live that has been accused of being slanderous and libellous, without giving an opportunity to investigate the truth of the matter. I can accept that simply because someone says that it's a lie, also can't be taken as proof. However, if the truth of an allegation is brought into question, then surely it would be appropriate for the allegation to be removed to establish the reliability and truth of said allegation for the duration of an investigation. This is a great misgiving of Wikipedia and it's editors, as is only using one source as proof of a serious allegation. As I have said, someone that has further authority to speak on this matter will be in touch soon to have this ridiculous statement removed permanently. Mr Brand (talk) 15:13, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Ritchie333, it's ironic that you use Neil Peart in your comment, as my father also worked with Rush a number of times too! Mr Brand (talk) 15:17, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Dan Ardnt, why are you adamant that it's relevant to the discourse within the band? I don't know what your understanding of a music producer is, but he / she is not actually part of the band they're producing. If a claim like that was true and relevant to the problems in the studio at the time, all they would have had to do is fire him! The discourse, as my father has said and is corroborated elsewhere, was due to the song writing power struggle within the band and that the drummer was incapable of playing to a click track. The reason they took issue with my father was due to their resistance to technological advancement and his approach to recording a commercially successful album. Mr Brand (talk) 15:42, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

I have to say that I am absolutely appalled at the sheer ignorance and the arrogance of Wikipedia editors Mr Brand, if this is an example of how you behave. Roxy the dog. bark 17:49, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Very mature "Roxy the dog". Mr Brand (talk) 18:50, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

You are welcome. I was just pointing out that your behaviour here is rather rude for somebody trying to influence people your way. I have hardened in my attitude towards your unsupported request because of it, and am opposed to removing what wikipedia considers to be a perfectly well sourced part of the history of the album. -Roxy the dog. bark 18:56, 16 August 2017 (UTC)