Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 08:45, 6 September 2014

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The Final Cut (album) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 15 days

	The Final Cut (album) is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Misplaced Pages community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Article milestones Date Process Result October 4, 2009 Good article nominee Listed November 26, 2009 Featured article candidate Promoted April 27, 2010 Featured topic candidate Not promoted
Current status: Featured article

Pink Floyd FA‑class High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pink Floyd, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pink Floyd on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Pink FloydWikipedia:WikiProject Pink FloydTemplate:WikiProject Pink FloydPink Floyd FA This article has been rated as FA-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article was a past project collaboration. To-do list: Fair use Add fair use rationale to all images and sound samples (all except images already labeled free use). Re-size large images around to 300 pixels (all "fair use" images), other than album covers (already done). Articles Expand all articles to at least Start class. Some song stubs can't be expanded and should be redirected to the relevant album article. Use the "Interstellar Overdrive" article as an example when editing a song stub. Expand all of the Floyd's studio album articles to at least GA status. See COTM for monthly collabs. Project building Add WikiProject Pink Floyd banner {{WPFloyd}} to all appropriate Talk pages. Personally invite quality editors working on Pink Floyd articles to join the project. If you complete one of these tasks, please remove it from the list. This article does not yet have a related to do list. If you can think of any ways to improve the article, why not create one?

Recording: Gilmour receives co-producer's royalties on The Final Cut.

Parrot of Doom: I know you're not a stupid man, so how did you fail to notice that I cited Nicholas Schaffner's Saucerful of Secrets: The Pink Floyd Odyssey? The Uncut magazine interview with Roger Waters that is reproduced, as you complain, at pinkfloydz.com, is a secondary source. You asked me to explain how pinkfloydz.com is a reliable source. My answer to that is: I don't have to!

Why do I say that?

Because the exact same information is in the Nicholas Schaffner book we've been citing, as if it were holy scripture, for "years, absolutely years!" I cited it properly, with a page number . . . and you need not dust off your copy and thumb through the book, because HERE'S A LINK to books.google.com. From page 257 of Saucerful of Secrets:

http://books.google.com/books?id=xfqremepxrkC&pg=PA257#v=onepage&q&f=false

Fourth paragraph, second to last:

"Dave did finally agree to relinquish his position—but not his final cut of the producers' royalties."

Is there something wrong with Schaffner, now? Explain that one to me. Because as it is, it looks like your reversion was intellectually dishonest, reverting the whole edit because you didn't like the back-up citation.

Schaffner's book has been out since late 1990. Why is there any uncertainty in your mind? Did you read it only once? Or is it just that you oppose any edit that casts David Gilmour in a less-than-flattering light?? That kinda seems to be the case.

If you don't like the cited source of Uncut Magazine's interview with Roger Waters, that's not a problem. Other statements in this article use Schaffner as their sole source; there's no reason this one can't do that, too. If you don't want to link to pinkfloydz.com, we can remove the link and leave the citation as Roger Waters interview, Uncut Magazine, June 2004.

I do realize the pinkfloydz.com site LOOKS a bit dodgy, but I believe they transcribed the interview accurately (despite a lack of proper formatting and some questionable punctuation). For your edification, this is what was said:

WATERS: The big argument was whether he’d be getting a production credit and a point off the top for producing the record. He didn’t produce it. He didn’t want it to be made. He was disinterested in the album. He didn’t get the production credit. He did, however, insist on taking the point off the top.

UNCUT: How did he manage that?

WATERS: Just by being obdurate. That was when we really fell out, over all that. He and I faced off about it, and Nick... I had this one telephone conversation with Nick about that. He said “I think you’re completely right about this, but I’m going to side with Dave cos that’s where my bread’s buttered.”

You really don't trust a web site that managed to transcribe a word like "obdurate" correctly? Well, that's you. That's not me. I really couldn't care less that this was a Featured Article, 'cause it's still a pretty bad, biased article. You've fought my every attempt to balance it out, and it seems your reverts are oriented towards protecting public perceptions of David Gilmour.

Hopefully, you have no arguments left to make. Schaffner is reliable and so is the Uncut article, but if you object to the pinkfloydz.com link, I have no problem whatsoever with de-linking it. The information, however, STAYS!

→Ben Culture (talk) 17:58, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In all sincerity,

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

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

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

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

• Misplaced Pages featured articles
• Featured articles that have not appeared on the main page
• FA-Class Pink Floyd articles
• High-importance Pink Floyd articles
• WikiProject Pink Floyd articles