Talk:Phish/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Reverting disamibiguation repair, eh?

In an edit an anon reverted my disambig repair for punk in the article. I'm I re-repairing this, if you have some reason why you think the reference should refer to the disambiguation article please say so here. If you are not familiar with disambiguation pages, please checkout Wikipedia:Disambiguation --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 23:58, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Major Overhaul

I made this new section in the hope that we can have a coherent discussion about how to clean up this article. There are a number of good ideas and observations above, but clearly no consensus on what (if anything) needs fixing. I think much of this article needs to be rewritten and/or deleted. There seems to be a real danger of an edit war though, not the least reason being that the author(s) of the bulk of the article obviously put a great deal of time and effort into their contributions. How can we respect their efforts and also raise this article to a higher standard of quality? I suggest that we:

• redo section headings to reflect chronology
• remove all pov and related ((i.e. superlatives, spurious claims (many consider Junta their masterpiece), arguable interpretations (Loaded was a prank), unsupported claims (biggest concert band in country), fan-biased review type material))
• put all analysis of the music itelf in a separate section
• delete celebrity list
• create section on taping/trading
• rename "dedicated following" to "fan culture", move it to the end, and flesh out the analysis of fan culture
• not take edits of our contributions personally :)

N.B. For this discussion to be coherent, please follow Wikipedia convention by not top posting, signing your name with four tildes to give name and date, and keeping it civil. Psora 15:58, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Additions to "Their Music" section / Growing length of article

Hello, everyone. I made some significant additions to the Their Music section because it looked a little thin to me. Most of the information came from resources available at phish.net or The Phish Companion, most notably interviews with band members, and commentary from other musicians. I tried to keep personal opinion to an absolute minimum. Feel free to make any changes, that should go without saying. I don't take it personally, no one should.

This article is getting too long. I couldn't see starting another article for "their music" since--well, what else are they about? My suggestion would be that some of the earlier sections (beginning, climb to top, cultural icon) be condensed solely into historical matter (dates, places, albums, personnel, so forth) because there is a lot of filler in there that would be more appropriate, IMHO, under the music analysis section. We could make a separate article about the phan culture (called "phan," maybe?). That's just my suggestion. But I did want to make the additions about their music because that section just seemed way too thin to me compared to the others. If nobody makes a stab at it or brings it up in discussion in the next week or two, I might give it a go and then you guys can do whatever you see fit.

Peace. :-)

POVs in this article

I also agree that this article has WAY too much POV. The narrative section--basically everything up to 'Their Music', but even some of that section--is rambling and reads like a fan site. The chronology is fuzzy and there is too much focus on individual shows for an encyclopedia article. Can we do better? You know the old saying, "less is more?" I don't want to disrespect unduly the hard work that has already gone into this article, but it just reeks and the style of the writing sucks in my POV.

Curtlindsay 09:14, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Suggestions

Okay. In retrospect I realize of my own accord that I shouldn't talk about how the article sucks without offering some suggestions for improvement. My bad. I will say my peace and then be silent.

• The detail of the band history is not a bad thing in and of itself; I find it selectively thorough and delightfully evocative. I just don't think it all belongs in an encyclopedia article. This article is long.

• There are grammatical errors in the writing that need to be remedied, no offense to anyone. It happens to all of us. I also take issue with the writing style, since and only since this is an encyclopedia and not a fan site, weblog, or promotional publication.

• There are some inaccuracies.
  • For instance, the article states that Phish concerts did not feature opening bands. Particularly in the early years, they sometimes did (Widespread Panic, for one.)
  • Also, the article seems to me to imply that the Oh Kee Pah was something of a weekly going-on. In reality, it happened only a few times over a great many years. Those are two pertinent examples.
  • Why must we play games about who was wasted at Coventry? No one onstage was any more wasted at Coventry than at any other show. The situation with the weather and the terrain and the police was terrible, the worst possible, and those four human beings and their infrastructure of fellow human beings must have been under incredible pressure. I'm not advocating writing that angle into the article by any means, I'm just countering the scorn with what I see as an equal likelihood. We should say the playing was under par and that there was a lot of visible emotion onstage and in the crowd. Those are facts.
  • Nothing is mentioned of the reasoning behind why Trey or any of the other members wanted to disband, to "prevent the band from becoming a caricature of itself, " etc.

• There are some omissions. Of course, this kind of thing will always be a question of opinion. I think the Rhombus should be mentioned. I would like to see less focus on the rigamaroar of Coventry and at least a mention that Phish ended with The Curtain With, and what Trey said about why that was so. Those are two pertinent examples.

Can we come up with a plan to improve this article?

That's seeming less and less likely. I made a call for discussion above and have gotten no reponse. (Mostly I was hoping for some arguments in favor of the way it is now.) I'm going to give it two weeks from my original request and then I think bold and merciless edits are fair game. Psora 14:47, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Neutrality of Article

Who added the tag at the top of the article? Have you even read the entire article or are you basing your assumptions on the opinions of others. I will give you 2 days to respond before its removed.

I didn't put it there, but I think it's appropriate. I mean, the neutrality of the article is in dispute, as is obvious from this talk page. The tag is simply a call for people to weigh in on the discussion, which has been paltry so far, so I think the tag is a good idea. And please sign your posts (four tildes in a row). Psora 00:19, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Neutrality tag = bullshit

Get rid of that crap.......it's a factual bio. It'd be different if there were outlandish claims, but it immediately ruins the impression of people reading the article. So obnoxious and annoying. Ridiculous.

Did you even consider what I said above? Have you read the rest of this talk page? The NPOV of this article is in dispute. You may disagree that the article is full of POV. I, and others, think it is. That's what makes it a dispute. The template doesn't say the article is non-neutral -- It says the neutrality is currently in dispute. And what's with the anger? We are all just trying to make the article (and in a broad sense, all of Wikipedia) as good as we can. To that end, don't just call something bullshit -- that's not very productive -- instead, defend your position! Now, if you will read the rest of this talk page, you'll find some specific criticisms. Disagree with any of them? Good! Tell us why. Discussion, intelligent debate, collaboration -- these are the things that, when they're present, make Wikipedia work, and when they are not, make for stupid flame wars. Psora 16:32, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

• These pages may help clarify the situation. Wikipedia:NPOV_dispute (what the template means) Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (the official policy) Psora 16:46, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree, this neutrality tag is bullshit. The information is not in dispute, its the context of the content. Two entirely different things. Its not like the article is just mindless babbling and bullshit, someone put a lot of time to write this orig. article, and it gets cleaned up and fixed, thats the point of Wiki you fuck tards.

The POV of some of the information is in dispute. I am disputing it, and I'm not the only one. Have you read the rest of the talk page? No one is claiming that it's "mindless babbling and bullshit," only that there's some POV issues and unsubstantiated claims. And what do you mean by "the context of the content"? Psora 03:34, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree this article has POV issues. My contribution to improving it would be to read every sentence that is an opinion (non verifiable facts), and either objectify it or delete it. Next I would look at every hyperbole and reduce or eliminate its assertion. Experienced wikipedians have done this a million times for articles they don't even know much about, and even fans of Phish (objective ones who are in agreement with the goals of Wikipedia) would probably have little complaint.--Esprit15d 21:01, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Yep: agreed also. If it were up to me, I'd say put the whole article in italics as dubious/unsourced, and de-italicize it, sentence by sentence, as/when verification and sourcing is provided. Tearlach 00:47, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Templates

Okay, so I just put the POV template back, and I added the Cleanup template too. It sucks that these things seem to offend some people. The point is not to insult or belittle anyone's work. It's obvious that a great deal of effort has gone into this article. That effort will continue to be the backbone of the article. But look, the templates put a call out to Wiki-space in general so that the article will become even better. In the end, we get a really high quality article that preserves much of the original work. Everyone wins. Psora 04:56, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Comment via Cleanup page. Agreed. Having seen similar recently with Bob Dylan, I think this is a common problem with topics with a fan following. Fans tend to see a gee-whiz tone as neutral, and see attempts to achieve genuine neutrality as hostile.

This is a good article - for somewhere like NME. But it's not up the standards demanded for Wikipedia in the way it intermingles fact and opinion. For example, it's full of peacock terms ("one of the most incredible stories in rock music"); subjective descriptions, especially in the Their Music section ("a brilliant texturist and a winsome soloist"); and unattributed claims (eg "Stires is widely lauded in certain musical circles as a stunningly unique composer of art music". What circles? Who says so?).

It's fair to ask that everything in the article be subjected to the basic tests for Wikipedia content: neutrality, verifiability (everything stated should have "already been published by a reputable publisher") and citation of sources.

I've posted a Request for Comment, which might bring in a few more views. Tearlach 13:05, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

I came in response to the RFC. I don't think the article is terminally POV, as band articles go. It's quite wordy and could use some serious copyediting, reorganizing, and condensing. But I'd advise that the various parties avoid thinking of it as a "dispute" and focus on cleaning up the various minor quibbles above, with a particular eye to verifiability. —Wahoofive (talk) 15:54, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

POV guy is Type-A and talks too much in real life

Quit being an e-tattle tale. ONE HUMAN BEING disputes an otherwise great article. Your tag is arrogant and obnoxious. Please move on with life. The tag is being taken down as often and as quickly possible. Get used to it.

I count approximately 8 (hard to tell because people here don't like to sign their posts) people on this talk page who think there are problems with the article. Adding the two who came in re. the cleanup template makes 10. The fact that so many people see problems indicates that it it extremely likely that there are actually problems. Your attitude seems very non-Wikipedian to me. Why are you taking this so personally? The question of whether or not the article is "great" has not come up at all in this discussion. What has come up is that the article does not conform to Wikipedia standards. There are in fact things that Wikipedia is not and things that we strive to make Wikipedia be. One of the most important of these things is neutrality. And don't forget love.

Acknowledging that cleanup is needed could be taken as a form of humility, while refusing to acknowledge it, in the face of evidence, arguments, and examples, could be taken as arrogance.

Why are we bickering when we could be working together? While this arguing about templates has been going on, notice what has not been happening. No one has been editing. I would have been, but I don't want to start a revert war. That means the article is stagnating. This is not how community works; this is not how Wikipedia works; this is how people get driven away. Psora 23:19, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

another response to the RfC

When I tried to read the article I couldn't understand how anyone could read it and not see the bias. It is not biased in an offensive way. But it is biased. Wikipedia doesn't distinguish between "good" bias and "bad" bias. But it's there. I made some changes up to the heading "Climb to the Top". Nothing drastic, just toning down the language.

In a weird way I think a big problem here is verb tense. There's a lot of these weird perfect future tense constructions, like "Phish would become xyz" and "the group would toss beach balls". Excise that and it will probably sound a whole lot more encyclopedia, even with all the "dazzling"s and "jamming"s. 69.205.169.113 14:38, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Another Revert

User:68.210.202.227, your reverts and your "this is my article, no one can improve it" attitude are entirely unjustified. This is Wikipedia, not your soapbox. For the love of Jesus, Buddha, or... puppies, whatever, would you please in the name of all that's not stupid, join the collaborative effort that is Wikipedia?? Psora 01:06, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Removing Neutrality Tag

I am taking the liberty of removing the neutrality tag. Also, lets quit f***ing around and start cleaning up this article. I am sick of all this back and forth bickering, he said she said bullshit. Lets take some action, fix what needs fixing and be done with disputing this article. To many people are wasting to much time. I am going to start a header labeled "Urgent things that need to get done" and lets start a list of the most important things that we need to clean this article up to conform to standards. Then, we can waste time bickering about the little shit. --Gephart 03:04, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Urgent Things that need to get done

This is for all you cock-eyed pussy rednecks who complain about shit. Here is your chance to put down what needs to get done. Now lets go out and do it. Paz! Also, for those of you who know nothing about Phish, stop wasting our time trying and just stay away. Your making this article very difficult because you dispute everything because you know nothing. unsigned comment by Gephart (talk · contribs)

This is common fallacious argument. It takes no specialist knowledge to spot problems of style, bias and lack of verifiability. Since facts have to be verifiable against external sources available to all, anyone with an interest can do fact-checking. Tearlach 11:14, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Response to the RfC

OK, I have taken the time to read the entire Talk and Article pages in response to the RfC posted about this entry. Let me say that first of all I am a huge music fan, but I am not a Phish fan in particular, and I have no interest in editing this article. I also found the article very enjoyable in many aspects - including its passion and boldness (always a great quality for Wiki entry). However, there are certainly some POV issues in this article. I will quote directly from the article in explaining these. As a preface, it is very important to note that this article contains no citations whatsoever and for an article of this length and specificty that is simply unacceptable. There are certain pieces of data that are referenced with regard to widely available Phish literature, and that is great. Unfortunately there are also statements like these:

• "The band was peaking musically, thus completely rewriting the rules of improvisational rock."
  • How are the band peaking musically and rewriting the rules of improvisational rock related? Can this be supported with citations of available bootlegs or even fan commentary at least? Otherwise this is just unqualified hyperbole that does not take into account other improvisational rock groups and their "rules"

• "The concert, which began at 7 PM, ended at 3:20 AM. It would become a tradition that other bands would copy in years to come."
  • It is unclear whether this is claiming that Phish began the tradition of late night concerts on New Year's Eve or that they began the tradition of all-night or marathon concerts in general. Regardless, either statement is explicit POV and must be researched and cited.

• "That summer, they completely revolutionized the concert experience and set the stage for Bonnaroo and other future festivals"
• "the now legendary Bonnaroo Music Festival,"
  • The first quotation does go on to show how Phish revolutionized the concert experience by building their own city of fans. Although they did it on a scale that was certainly unique, bands creating their own communities/towns and constructing physical spaces for their music to be performed and received in is a concept that certainly pre-dates Phish. The second quotation is explicit POV. There are many serious music fans, maybe even Phish fans, who would consider Bonnaroo at best mediocre, and at worst an example of everything that, from a certain POV, Phish's music and culture was *not* about.

• "Throughout their career, Phish showed magnanimous sensitivity to their audience in stunts like this one."
  • This is explicit POV for one. More importantly, it contradicts itself as the prior sentences explained how upset many of Phish's loyal fans were that they missed out on the Pink Floyd cover show because it was performed right after the usually climactic Halloween shows. "magnanimous sensitivity" and "you snooze, you lose" are two attitudes that cannot be reconciled. Perhaps this was intended as ironic comment, but just based on context that is incredibly unclear.

Those are my specific comments. I understand this thread has become very controversial. I would like to say that a huge fan of music of all genres, Phish can have, and indeed deserve, and exemplary Wiki article. Clearly there is enough passion in the community for this, unfortunately there doesn't seem to be a lot of collaboration or communication. I hope to one day see this as a Feature. Powers of i 04:18, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Proposed order of operations

• 1. Rephrase/remove glaring POV, particularly in the form of hyperbole, and including elaborate descriptions. This has already begun/is ongoing.

• 2. Rename/reorganize section headings and text. As it is, there's history and analysis of the music scattered throughout. Possibly "Early Period," "Middle Period," "Late Period," "Musical Style," "Taping," "Fan Culture." Then reorganize text to fit under the headings.

• 3. Verifiability. This is especially difficult here, as much discussion of any art is subjective, especially when the art in question is primarily live music, which is experiential. Even if claims are cited, the references I'm aware of are all also POV. It's also probably undesirable to fill the page with weasel-esq "some think..." statements. If anyone has ideas about how to deal with verifiability, please comment.

Once these things are more or less accomplished, we can focus on,

• 4. General refinement, including copyediting, condensing, and citations.

Is this an acceptable strategy to all/most? Psora 03:17, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Nirvana is a band that is likewise both beloved and critically lauded to an almost frenzied degree, and yet the article there, while truly reflecting the grand impact his band had on music and the world, is a paragon of NPOV, and ::gasp:: a featured article. And though the talk page is exhaustive, it's civil and productive. Maybe some things used there can be applied here.--Esprit15d 18:54, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Yep: good article. And it's assiduous in citing its sources. Tearlach 19:51, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Before you edit this article...

...please check to make sure you are working on the current version. The cleanup effort is being disrupted by blanket reverts to an old version. A look at the history page should clarify which version is live. The blanket reverts have been coming from anon users (possible sock puppets). If necessary, please revert to the last "legit" version before editing. Psora 03:05, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

I've requested page protection. It's about time this person that keeps reverting the article was stamped on. Tearlach 01:18, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Protected

I've protected this page in the hopes that it will encourage the anon user to come discuss the changes he's seeking here in the talk page. If he does, and I hope he does, please try to keep it civil. · Katefan0^(scribble) 01:35, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Trey Wasted?

I have heard that rumor. I was at Coventry, though I was only able to see the first set due to circumstances beyond my control. However, I can safely say that the set was very, very bad. The sound system was not loud enough, many people were looking very depressed about the weather and 8 inches of mud, and the music, well...compared to the Mansfield shows just prior (and to the Camden show, although I only heard it on the Phish Radio on the highway), the music was terrible. The guys were simply not on their game, most noticeably Trey. Don't know if it was because he was tripping balls or if there were other factors. Either way, many of us were unimpressed. I think the article is right to mention the rumor and anti-climactic nature of the show, but keep in mind that when thinking about Phish, we remember best the shows that rocked, not the shows that sucked.

He wasn't wasted. He was depressed about the state of the band. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.189.111.138 (talk • contribs)

I have copied this bit of discussion from the top of the page to the bottom in the hopes that others will better see it. You'll note that our anon has started posting. · Katefan0^(scribble) 03:16, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

No, trey was definitally wasted. Where you backstage? Did you talk with him at all? Didnt think so, so such the F**K UP!!!!!--Gephart 08:36, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Personal experience of shows is original research. Tearlach 10:07, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, Tearlach is right. Additionally, throwing around invective like STFU is against Wikipedia's policies regarding civility and personal attacks. You can be banned from editing Wikipedia if you can't debate without attacking people. · Katefan0^(scribble) 15:13, 19 November 2005 (UTC)