Talk:Jon Courtney/Archive 1

I have nominated this page fore speedy deletion for the reasons given. Justpassinby (talk) 13:41, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interview

Possibly some useful stuff for the article in this recent interview. Bondegezou (talk) 11:25, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Courtney

"Courtney's song writing is notable for the references to and similarities with various, often obscure, sources" Have asked for citation re this statement. 'Notable' could be replaced by 'defined' or similar. I think the statement as it stands requires some indication of peer recognition other that a fan's opinion.Justpassinby (talk) 15:30, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"He is also credited with the ability to write well for contrasting male and female lead vocals[citation needed], and the harmonies that this produces." Reference needed —Preceding unsigned comment added by Justpassinby (talk • contribs) 13:59, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I couldn't find one, so I have removed it. Everything in the article now can, I believe, be traced to a source. I've joined you in watching it to make sure that it remains adequately sourced. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:13, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Septic Clit"

Click on show to view the contents of this section

I'm not entirely sure about the journalistic value of Septic Clit, who seems to be a user reviewer as described at Drowned in Sound rather than a vetted staff writer. We can explore how it falls into Wikipedia:V#Self-published_sources_.28online_and_paper.29, whether or not this particular contributor qualifies as "acceptable as sources" ("so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control", in this case webzine's) if need be. Regardless, statements about the marketability of the band are appropriate in the band article. Statements about the songwriting, given that Jon Courtney is credited as the band's primary songwriter, are probably appropriate in his individual article as well. Speculation about the source of individual lyrics constitutes original research unless published elsewhere. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:58, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Another reviewer both praised and criticized the song composition, noting that with regards to the claims that the band possesses "Hendrix and Floyd qualities with a bit of synth thrown in there somewhere". This does not make sense, so I have deleted it. 78.105.130.169 (talk) 22:01, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As it didn't make sense to you, I have gladly revised it. Please note that your deletion removed the reference and be careful to avoid that in the future. We need to make sure to retain sourcing for material, especially for direct quotes. Good find on the review, by the way. When I was searching for reliable sources for this article, I searched only for the singer's name, not for the band. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:19, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jimi Hendrix and Pink Floyd references: As usual, Moonriddengirl has put her own spin on what is a clearly stated reference and deduced the opposite meaning. The reference reports :"catch a glimpse of the band who are said to possess .....". This is not a reference to the band possessing these qualities. Who said it?...I don't know. Not allowable, poor sourcing, she,as an administrator, should know better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Justpassinby (talk • contribs) 08:30, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I had the actual quote from the interview, but the IP editor above couldn't understand it. Regardless, what the article says now is quite accurate. With regards to the bands possessing those qualities, the interviewer says "I won't deny that". How much more clear can he be? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:35, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The IP editor above is Justpassinby (see first sockpuppet case). Bondegezou (talk) 11:50, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nowhere in the referenced page is any credit given to Jon Courtney for writing the tune to 'The Prisoner'

The reference to having attributes to Pink Floyd and Jimi Hendrix is not only sacriligeous, it is hearsay —Preceding unsigned comment added by Justpassinby (talk • contribs) 17:00, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed material from this article that is unreliably sourced WP:SOURCES and therefore does not support WP:BLP17:51, 20 March 2008 (UTC)Justpassinby (talk)

I see by your notes here and here that you no longer intend to attempt to express you own opinion in these articles or disrupt process. I'm glad to hear it. If you have problems with some of the text, it's best to attempt to work out your differences as set out in WP:Consensus. Our purpose here is to attempt to create a neutral and sourced article. Meanwhile, as I've mentioned to you before, the reference that you've removed wherein the reviewer discusses attributes of Pink Floyd and Jimi Hendrix cannot be deleted from the article as long as the quoted text remains. Moreover, it is in the source. Also sourced is mention of Jon Courtney's involvement in a project scoring new music for "The Prisoner." The article did not say that this material was utilized in "The Prisoner" (which would presumably require some sort of time travel :)). In case it helps address your concerns with that text, I have clarified that this was a "university project" to prevent anyone inadvertently thinking it was officially related to the show. And my mouse is losing connectivity, so I'd better save this comment before I wind up having to reboot the computer. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:14, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have you ever heard this piece of music for the prisoner? You know, I once sang 'Ave Maria' for the Queen. I was having a dump and she was 200 miles away at the time and had never heard of me, but still, that's who I sang it for. Guess that makes me pretty notable? Must start my own wiki page soon.Justpassinby (talk) 23:11, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This project is claimed to be directly influential on Courtney's notability in a reliable source, in that it is said to have influenced the sound of a band found to be notable at AfD. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:32, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Use of harmony as a trademark

This is stated in the article, however it is patent nonsense. It has also been derived from an unreliable source. The use of harmony cannot be patented (otherwise every singer in the world would be in breach). Harmonies within a composition can be copyrighted. So, unless anyone objects, then I will remove this piece of gibberishJustpassinby (talk) 23:03, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a direct quote from a WP:RS. For that reason, I object. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:24, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Equipment

Where did you find that stuff out? It's pretty cool actually...now I see how they manage to play Deus Ex Machina in D#! Who'd have thought they used a drop-B???Thedarkfourth (talk) 17:57, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A conversation i had with jamie a few weeks back. He uses the same string set and layout, but he doesnt yet have a page. I've sent him a message about the rest of the equpiment they use, and expect to hear back in a couple of days (hence the "under construction" tag. Ironho lds 19:33, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BLPsources tag

A source here was asked about on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. There are accusations that sources are being used for POV and that keeping some unreliable is required to offset POV problems (my apologies if I misinterpreted that statement). Bottom line here is that we cannot use sources that are unreliable in general, not to puh a POV or offset some other POV, or for any other reason, and especially not on articles about living people. I don't even want to dip into the POV thing, so I don't care at this point who is right or who is wrong because there's a bigger problem right now. You need to start by getting rid of all the unreliable sources, which looks to be most of them on the article at this point. DreamGuy (talk) 14:31, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"most of them"? I count 12 sources. two are by the band (exempted from RS rules on sourcing), two are direct interviews (again, exempt, in many situations, from rules on where the interview came from), one is from The Independent, the rest are various reviews from noted sites like Gigwise.com. The dodgy ones are the Good Morning Band (which can easily be replaced, I'll do it when I get home) and Drownedinsound. Ironholds (talk) 15:27, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, no... sites by the band are NOT exempted by RS rules, as they are explicitly of only limited use and not considered reliable. The progsheet one is just somebody's personal page. A Google image search result is about as far away from reliable as you can get. Gigwise.com has not been demonstrated reliable or particularly noteworthy, and that's the one there that has the best chance. All that on top of the ones you agree aren't good. DreamGuy (talk) 20:25, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

←Band sites may not be always reliable, however, they are not considered unreliable by default. To quote WP:RS, "while primary or tertiary sources can be used to support specific statements, the bulk of the article should rely on secondary sources" and "While they can be reliable in many situations, they must be used with caution in order to avoid original research." More detail is set out at WP:SELFPUB. However, BLP requires that "contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous or harmful." Accordingly, I have removed the negative review from drownedinsound.com, as other contributors have confirmed my opinion above that the source is unreliable at WP:RSN. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:39, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My removal was reverted with a note at my userpage as follows:

Hi, I have reverted your edit to this page, I hope you don't mind. If you recall, you "approved" the original article on the grounds of balance. You did not find anything wrong with the sources then, but you now seem to have changed your opinion., which everyone is entitled to do. Could I therefore ask that you, as a senior administrator, check the remainig sources as the page banner requests, and further delete any poorly sourced material, of which there is lots. I agree that this is a case of poorly sourced material being used to balance equally poorly sourced material, but that is the nature of this article.Rightphone (talk) 11:35, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

My response:

You are remembering the conversation incorrectly, I'm afraid. As the talk page indicates, I said, "I'm not entirely sure about the journalistic value of Septic Clit, who seems to be a user reviewer as described at Drowned in Sound rather than a vetted staff writer. We can explore how it falls into Wikipedia:V#Self-published_sources_.28online_and_paper.29, whether or not this particular contributor qualifies as "acceptable as sources" ("so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control", in this case webzine's) if need be." It was explored at RSN, and consensus is that the source is unreliable. Balance is only valid when reflecting the viewpoints of reliable sources. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:42, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the quote again. If the source is not reliable, it is forbidden by WP:BLP. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:45, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Totally agree; same goes for all the unreliable sources on this page. As they have not been made reliable will you delete those also?Rightphone (talk) 16:39, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BLP mandates the immediate removal of "unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material". It does not require removal of material "written by the subject of the BLP". This would include interviews and official Myspace material. If there are sources you find concerning, feel free to bring them up. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:15, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User is fairly obviously a sock - why not just block and move on? Ironholds (talk) 12:01, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The question is open at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Justpassinby. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:06, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To go back to the reliable sources issue, I'm sorry but I still don't understand why any of the sources are considered unreliable. Could somebody please make an explicit list of the unreliable ones (with reasons why they are unreliable) so I know which ones I should be looking for subsititues for. I totally want to make this page as reliable as possible, but right now I'm looking through the list of sources and they all look fine to me. It's ridiculous to leave that banner at the top of the page when I'm happy to do the work and fix it...if I knew what was wrong. ThanksThedarkfourth (talk) 16:57, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]