Talk:The Final Cut (album): Difference between revisions

User:Parrot of Doom has, three times in two hours, removed a quote cited to Uncut Magazine, June 2004. At first, he apparently (from his edit summary) believed that this was being cited to a website which caries a transcript of the article in question. Once this was error pointed out (in my edit summary) he changed his reasoning; and now seems to believe that FAC criteria prevent their inclusion - but does not specify which criterion, or how the quote breaches it. (The edits and edit summaries in question are: "please explain what makes 'pinkfloydz.com' a reliable source", "clearly you don't know what you're talking about", "try reading the Featured Article Criteria") I have asked him to take the matter to the talk page, but he has not done so and, given past experience and the current comments he makes on his own talk page, refusing a similar request, it sadly seems unlikely that he will comment here. The material should be restored. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:22, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't cited to Uncut, it's cited to pinkfloydz.com. Until we establish the reliability of that website, it cannot be included in a Featured Article. Parrot of Doom 11:51, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's simply not true. The citation was marked up as [http://www.pinkfloydz.com/intuncutjun04tfc.htm Roger Waters interview, ''Uncut'' Magazine, June 2004] - the archive URL is pinkfloydz.com, but the citation is unambiguously Uncut Magazine, June 2004, which is perfectly acceptable. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:29, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't care less what code is used. The citation is to the website. It is the website that cites Uncut. You must therefore demonstrate the reliability of the website. If you cannot do that then it cannot appear on this article. If you add the material but cite it to the magazine, that would be fine - but if you do it immediately following this discussion then don't expect me to believe that you have a copy of the original magazine, because I won't. Parrot of Doom 12:33, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You continue to tilt at windmills. The displayed citation was, in full "Roger Waters interview, Uncut Magazine, June 2004" (emboldening mine; italics in original). Your unfounded disbelief is of no import. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:47, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're clearly either ignorant or stupid. Parrot of Doom 13:08, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If it helps, I have a copy of this magazine. [1] The interview segment in question is on page 114. The transcript given on pinkfloydz.com is accurate, but a citation to this magazine would be more acceptable for an FA. (But I am not sure that it fully supports the text that has been added). Graham Colm (talk) 15:27, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's very helpful Graham, thanks, add whatever you feel is appropriate. I have no problem with the magazine content, at least I know I can trust you (I do not trust the website). Parrot of Doom 18:21, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the quotation from Roger Waters fully supports the proposed changes. To add " Gilmour refused to be listed as a co-producer yet insisted on receiving a cut of the production royalties", is too strong an interpretation of "The big argument was whether he'd (Gilmour) 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 made. He was disinterested. He did, however, insist on taking a point of the top." I think the original wording is better - "After months of poor relations, and following a final confrontation, Gilmour was removed from the credit list as producer, at his own insistence", which is cited to Mark Blake, a secondary source, which we prefer. I do not support this proposed change to the article. Graham Colm (talk) 19:38, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Parrot, since you know I'm with the civility police I'd prefer it if you didn't use those words. Andy, it seems pretty clear to me that on the matter of content PoD is absolutely correct. If a site reproduces material, than we should have to be able to trust that site to reproduce accurately. None of this would be necessary if the "original" publication were available, and--behold!--now it is, below. An accurate transcript is nice, as Graham says, but an FA should cite the real thing. Drmies (talk) 19:53, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And - as shown above - it did. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:58, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

PoD was right to not accept the edit; it was sourced to a fan cite that is riddled with copyright violations and adware cookies. I am surprised by the flack he has received for no more than maintaining a Featured Article to our standards. That the transcript was accurate is irrelevant; we had no proof of this until I dug into my collection. Graham Colm (talk) 21:09, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I have pointed out above, the citation was to "Roger Waters interview, Uncut Magazine, June 2004". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:14, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And as is pointed out by three editors now, the site you linked should not be cited. What the citation was is irrelevant, and that the text appears to be correct does not invalidate PoD's point. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 21:40, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Any number of people describing a straw man doesn't change the fact that it is a straw man; the citation was to "Roger Waters interview, Uncut Magazine, June 2004". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:52, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have said so a number of time, missing the point that this is not the point. I'm going to go with "deliberately obtuse". Drmies (talk) 22:20, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps Pigsonthewing presumes the person who inserted the text and citation read it from the magazine and used the pinkfloydz.com site as "proof". Experience tells me that the chance of that presumption proving correct is extremely low. It's far more likely the editor read the website and simply took it at face value, which obviously we don't do on FA's. Parrot of Doom 23:41, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, quite apart from the requirement to AGF, your presumption is incorrect. I have read the article, in the original magazine. But then, you've already declared that you won't believe that... Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:47, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is very much the point; the obtuseness is not mine. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:47, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]