Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Ayers Rock (band)
![]() | Mediation of this dispute has been completed. The case pages should not be edited.
|
Substantial progres made towards resolution; discussion continuing on Talk:Ayers Rock (band)
- This mediation case is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this case page.
![]() | This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
RfC meta
editRfC administration
|
---|
First, to reiterate, the above decision is my position as an editor (neither official nor binding), and is not made "as mediator". Second, RfC is probably the best venue. I suggest both parties write a concise explanation of their positions in 1–2 paragraphs. After agreeing on a neutral overview (draft begins below), we can open it for community input.
To CaesarsPalaceDude:
Feezo and CaesarsPalaceDude: are we right to go to RfC? I'm finally OK with my "For" case below, I have also combined my sig dates into a single one for easier view.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 21:13, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
shaidar cuebiyar, I wish to make a request. Shortly before the commencement of the RfC, you and Feezo discussed whether to keep the quote in the lead on a temporary basis. You will remember that I stayed out of that discussion, and did not oppose the outcome. Why did I do that? Because I believed that was the right thing to do at that time. Currently, there is a very different situation. I believe that the right thing to do now is that you move the quote from the lead to the body of the article on a temporary basis. Please remember that no change can be made permanent without the agreement of the parties. You may choose the position for this temporary home, and you may use the entire quote as it appeared before the mediation. I know that you have strong moral values, and I hope that you will agree that this is the right thing to do. I believe that to delay the move would be unfair to me. Please think carefully before making a decision. CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 08:27, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
|
RfC
editThe following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- The purpose of this RfC is to establish consensus on whether to include, in whole or part, the following quote in the lead and/or body of the article Ayers Rock (band):
For a period during the 1970s, the members of Ayers Rock 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.
- A mediation case yielded the following proposed text for the lead:
Although the band's musicianship received outstanding praise, rock music historians noted their dilemma over whether to opt for a commercial sound, or a more artistically adventurous, "serious" approach. According to Ian McFarlane, the members were "seen as musician's musicians", and long term commercial success was ultimately hampered by the "seriousness of the music".
- Discussions broke down over whether to include the phrase "seriousness of the music". Position statements follow. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 22:28, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Arguments
editFor
edit- Ian McFarlane is a widely acknowledged expert on Australian rock music and the partial quote as used in the Lead is from his entry on the group in his Encyclopedia of Australian Rock and Pop (1999). Specifically, McFarlane summarises their career in his own lead paragraph with that quote. That era of Australian music has few independent and reliable sources which adequately describe this group. The quote should be used according to WP:LEAD so as to provide a similar summary of the group's career via an expert's opinion. His contribution assists readers to better understand their place in Australia's music history. He gives his description as to why such a highly skilled group were unable to sustain a greater impact on the local rock music scene of the late 1970s and early 1980s. Other rock music historians have provided their opinions on the group but they are largely based on the first album and don't give a broader career perspective.
- To provide an inline citation for the quote, it would then be repeated in the History section, with a suitable cite template immediately after it (per WP:Verify). For a C-class article there is no need for cite 'plates to appear in the Lead as long as its material is adequately verified elsewhere in the article. McFarlane is already used in the article to support a number of historical facts about the group. However this quote is presented as his opinion on their career: it shows readers why he believed they did not achieve long term commercial success despite high quality musicians and some early chart success. If the quote is used in the last part of the History section and correctly attributed then readers will be in no doubt that this is his description and not the opinion of Wikipedia editors (avoiding WP:OR). Without his quote a balanced view would be distorted: the article would no longer be neutral by not representing a significant viewpoint expressed in an existing reliable source (see WP:NPOV). Without his quote the article would be an inferior product, there would be few independent expert commentaries on the group's entire career: it should be kept in the Lead and it has a place in the History section.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 21:13, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
I think it would fit. It's important to note critical and otherwise popular perceptions of an artist's sound and how it related to their success. In this case, it indicates that the band were specifically thought of as being too technical and this affected how they were perceived - some thought their music took itself too seriously or they took themselves too seriously as musicians, I think that's basically what it's trying to say. LazyBastardGuy 00:20, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Against
edit"Once Australia's hottest progressive rock band...." was how Luis Feliu described them in “The Canberra Times” on 7 July 1980. You wouldn't know that from reading the lead of the article on the same subject, nor from reading Mr. McFarlane's quote. WP:IMPARTIAL states "the tone of Wikipedia articles should be impartial, neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view." As we know the lead is required to encapsulate the essence of the subject, and the article as a whole. At the moment it is failing to do that.
Mr. McFarlane’s quote:
- fails to express "a clear, accessible style" as required by WP:LEAD
- does not establish context, as required by WP:LEAD
- presents a view which is not a valid summary of majority expert opinion
- presents a view which is at the extreme margin of reliable opinion
- contains "the band issued a series of technically proficient recordings…" which is damning with faint praise, and also does not represent a majority view of reliable sources
- uses "the seriousness of the music" and "musician's musician" which are jargon (WP:JARGON)
- fails to discuss the artistic achievements of the band
- gives one reason for the supposed lack of commercial success, when it is quite likely that there are several others
(Please note: the lead has changed since this argument summary was written, by mutual consent, without any need to change the argument). Mr. McFarlane's quote should be discussed in the context of the whole of the lead, and the whole of the article. With the small number of reliable sources at our disposal at the moment, any additional RS that new participants bring to the discussion would be greatly appreciated. Given the number of serious issues with the quote, it should be removed from the lead, and possibly the article. CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 01:06, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
- (Responding to a request on my talk page, and noting that I've never heard of this band before). I don't agree with this wording as it is clearly not encyclopaedic language: we shouldn't use Wikipedia's 'voice' to make statements such at this. It could be said that "X described the band as musicians' musicians" or whatever if this is a notable comment on them and reflects the consensus (or if not, differing views should also be noted), but it shouldn't be presented as a fact as is being proposed. In regards to the "seriousness of the music" what this means is entirely unclear, and isn't likely to be of much use to readers - if this is a commonly held assessment of the band, it should be translated into a layman's term. Nick-D (talk) 08:56, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
- (Also responding to an invitation to take part here.) I'd be against including the quote or even a paraphrased version in the Lead, simply because I can't see it adds anything useful or informative to the previous statement. But if I was working on the article, I would include the whole quote in the main text. McFarlane's wording is fairly innocuous (as critics go), although the phrase "the seriousness of the music" does make one pause briefly when reading the Lead – I can't help having an Oh, I see …-type moment there. In other words, the statement seems pretty loaded, perhaps because of the treatment it's given – words pulled out and quoted.
- I've certainly heard of the band, and was hoping to bring another source or two to the party. Can't say I've come across anything so far, I'm afraid. JG66 (talk) 08:22, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Other
edit- (Responding to request, heard of band, never listened to them) Include the first half of the mediated result. The rest contains quotes that are essentially meaningless or can have a number of meanings depending on your musical experiences in life. I don't think any of it belongs in the lede, would be undue weight to a single reviewer, however notable he may be. - Floydian τ ¢ 17:41, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Closure
editIn examining the six opinions above, I find the following consensus:
- Irrespective of McFarlane's authority on the subject, this particular quote is too technical, vague, and/or unencyclopedic in tone to be used in the lead.
- 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.
- 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. Critical opinions are useful for providing a balanced view; including every possible quote about the subject is not. Even experts can occasionally be unclear, and this should inform our decision to include a particular quote.
Questions may be posted in a new section below; I will close the mediation case shortly afterward. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 04:49, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
After the RfC
editI accept entirely that the closing statement is an accurate summary of the consensus view of the RfC. User:Feezo, from your comment re the "seriousness of the music", will it be necessary for us to agree on an alternate wording to use the quote in the body of the article? Do you have something else in mind? CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 15:07, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
- Some kind of consensus will need to be reached; the RfC's results make possible a number of different outcomes, and may be used as the basis for continued discussion. At this point, I'm thinking: should I close the mediation, and join the discussion at Talk:Ayers Rock (band) as a regular editor? Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 19:16, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
- That is an offer which I would describe as the epitome of generosity. What I want for the article is relatively simple: a very professional result. I am willing to roll my sleeves up, and pitch in as well. There is already a significant body of very good content in the article, and most of the credit must go to shaidar cuebiyar, and Dan arndt. Your participation as a colleague would be greatly appreciated. I think you are right in assuming that faster progress would be achieved by closing the mediation, and having you join the team. "Go ahead, make my day" CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 05:11, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
- Feezo, I intend to re-write the second half of the lead; other editors will be able to suggest concepts to be covered, but I would like to write the text. The whole process will be completely transparent, and I have created a sandbox called User:CaesarsPalaceDude/sandbox/Ayers Rock so that you, and others can observe the evolution of the new lead. I intend to ask other editors to stay at a distance from the sandbox in the periods where they are not invited. You will be invited to check at least one draft for compliance with guidelines/essays before it reaches the article. If the plan above seems like a bad idea, you should tell me sometime soon. CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 23:09, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
- Feezo, work continues on the article, and at the sandbox. The article needs a re-structure, and an editor who is less familiar with the material who has a sharp red pencil. Perhaps you might agree. I am brainstorming at the sandbox, and the rules of engagement are that there are no bad ideas, and if something is OR it is clearly shown as the source. I will sort out the issues with OR later in the process. CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 23:54, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
- Feezo, I intend to re-write the second half of the lead; other editors will be able to suggest concepts to be covered, but I would like to write the text. The whole process will be completely transparent, and I have created a sandbox called User:CaesarsPalaceDude/sandbox/Ayers Rock so that you, and others can observe the evolution of the new lead. I intend to ask other editors to stay at a distance from the sandbox in the periods where they are not invited. You will be invited to check at least one draft for compliance with guidelines/essays before it reaches the article. If the plan above seems like a bad idea, you should tell me sometime soon. CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 23:09, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
- That is an offer which I would describe as the epitome of generosity. What I want for the article is relatively simple: a very professional result. I am willing to roll my sleeves up, and pitch in as well. There is already a significant body of very good content in the article, and most of the credit must go to shaidar cuebiyar, and Dan arndt. Your participation as a colleague would be greatly appreciated. I think you are right in assuming that faster progress would be achieved by closing the mediation, and having you join the team. "Go ahead, make my day" CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 05:11, 31 October 2014 (UTC)