Talk:Simon Collins

Cleaner, more concise wording, etc.

Following Vuzor's edit-warring reversion to the wordier and less reader-friendly version of the article, I have restored the previous cleaner version. [note: not once in any of the edit summaries where he reworked references did Vuzor note he was also reverting content, i.e., edit warring]

The newer version has more concise wording absent of extraneous, stilted language and wordiness. Content not directly related to article subject as well as content that was fansite-like in nature has also been removed. Not one reference was touched. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 23:17, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Per your comment above, and since there's been such back and forth on the article, I think it would make a lot of sense that specific edits be suggested here – exactly what text should be added and where or existing text should be changed to what, or if a return of former content no longer present, again, exactly what or the diff of the removal suggested reversed – but can everyone please just comment on the merits of the particular edit, and not on each other's past conduct?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk)

Precisely what I was hoping to happen the last time I restored the pared down content and started a discussion on it. If there are still objections to the content in the article as it now stands, it seems prudent to me that specific content be looked at in a systematic and organized manner. And, as you stated Fuhg, without commenting on contributors and past behavior. Which is as it should be. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 01:18, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Apparently, Winkelvi has accused me of 'edit warring' for an edit made, I believe, at 5:20, 19 May, 2014. An accusation of edit warring was posted on my talk page earlier today (see: [1]). Did NinjaRobotPirate not just say "At this point, I think it's best that we discuss any removal of sources. There's been a bit too much unilateral action already. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:26, 19 May 2014 (UTC)" and "This edit seems to remove several sources, but for different reasons than before. I'm not 100% clear on what the reason is, and it seems that others are equally confused. Exactly what problems does this edit fix?... NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:54, 19 May 2014 (UTC)"? I provided you with all of the quotations in good faith yesterday, but it appears you still are accusatory of others. I ask that you stop so that we may proceed civilly.

The following information relates to the edits in question. This type of content removal has happened on many occasions before: the removal of material related to the article subject on the basis of it being "not directly related to article subject" and on the basis of, as you have termed it in the past, "fansite material/fancruft." These claims are, frankly, another example of a potential misunderstanding of what is and is not allowed on Wikipedia. The edits you have made to this article have included the removal of the material noted here: (see: [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], and [9]). This content is directly related to the subject's life. This type of content removal has happened on many occasions over the past year without any solid basis. It has progressed to the point of being a form of censorship. Meanwhile, in the edits currently being discussed, you have added to the article "By January 2014, Kerzner and Nordstrom had both left the group.[44]" in your revision, which, to me, seems less about the article subject than the content you removed. Your editing of these articles seems to suggest some form of editorial bias or personal opinion of the article subject, stripping lots of relevant content. Vuzor (talk) 01:28, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

I would like advice from some of the other editors involved in this discussion. Is an RfC required for each bit of content removed? How might we approach this in the future? This type of hostile dispute happens every time an addition is made to these pages. This is a dilemma that has plagued this article and its affiliated articles. Vuzor (talk) 01:28, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Vuzor, the only way I can see to move forward in a way that can actually result in fruitful collaboration is to do what I suggested above: make specific suggestions about specific content, noting what should go where/what should be returned and to stop commenting on who did what when. Maybe you're absolutely right, or maybe not or something in between, but I don't think the path above is likely to further the ultimate goal – that goal being making the article better. Your post above does contain two diffs and the context seems to indicate you want them returned but they're buried among something else entirely; they appear to be cited solely for the purpose proving a point about conduct, rather than article improvement. I really think the focus needs to shift. Do you think I'm wrong?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:38, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Comment: I think you're entirely correct, although I did wish to briefly mention the context of this dispute in my comment above, the point being that this scenario repeats itself quite frequently. I would like comments on the diffs posted above (re-posted here: [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], and [17]). On what grounds were they removed from the article? Is this content not related to the subject article and not deemed relevant to the subject's life? What is the purpose of these removals, and how does it benefit the article? Do the benefits of these removals outweigh the negatives (such as the loss of relevant information pertaining to the article subject)? I propose the return of the removed content featured in the diffs above.

Also, what is the purpose of this addition, relative to the rest of the article (see: [18]). The edit summary here says:

Revision as of 23:06, 19 May 2014 (edit) (undo) (thank)

Winkelvi (talk | contribs)

(restoring cleaner, more concise wording absent of extraneous, stilted language and wordiness, removing content not directly related to article subject and/or fan-site like in nature)

Yet its only change is the addition of "By January 2014, Kerzner and Nordstrom had both left the group", which has nothing to do with the article subject himself and has no known input from him. I propose its removal as it is irrelevant and only serves to infer that the subject article was directly involved in that process. We do not have any information to support what this passage might infer in the context of being in this article (i.e. the unsupported notion that they left directly because of Collins. Other sources state it was an amicable split, and we are unclear if Kelly Nordstrom ever left the band (he wrote/recorded in-studio with them and this may be a studio-only project for him)). The Sound of Contact article already features the content in that diff in a more appropriate place. Vuzor (talk) 01:48, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

The section is about Sound of Contact. Kerzner and Nordstrom leaving the band changed the dynamic of the band. Additionally, for it to happen within such a short time in the band's history, it's notable. Especially considering they were half of the band's first members. Both Kerzner and Nordstrom are mentioned prominently in the beginning of the section. For all those reasons, it should stay in. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 02:27, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

As mentioned, we are unclear if Nordstrom ever left the band. No announcement was ever made, and this post by Nordstrom on his Facebook on April 24, 2014 suggests he is still in contact with the band ([19]). He is listed on their Facebook page as part of their studio lineup. His status with the band is vague. The passage about Kerzner and Nordstrom has little to do with Collins himself personally and more to do with the band article, where the information is already present. By placing it in this article, we infer that Collins' reaction with the two members caused them to leave, something we have no evidence of. To have happened "within such in a short time" makes no difference to its relevance to Collins unless the point is to infer that he was the reason for their departure (which we have no proof of and in fact have contrary evidence against that suggestion. Kerzner's announcement was of an amicable split so he could concentrate on his company and other projects, and Nordstrom, whose status with the band is vague, states "It was my pleasure to have spent the evening with my fellow Dimensionauts Simon Collins and Matt Dorsey last night. I love you guys and will be eternally grateful for the magic Sound of Contact" in his Facebook post dated three weeks ago). The passage has no place in this particular article. I propose its removal. Vuzor (talk) 02:35, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

This, from the Sound of Contact webpage, makes it pretty clear Nordstrom is not a bandmember:

Band Members:

Simon Collins – Lead Vocals, Drums, Co-producer

Dave Kerzner – Keyboards, Acoustic Guitar, Backing Vocals, Co-producer

Matt Dorsey – Guitars, Bass, Backing Vocals

Studio Collaborators:

Kelly Nordstrom – Guitars, Bass

Hannah Stobart – Guest vocals on “Beyond Illumination”

You can see it yourself here: [20]. Nordstrom is no more a member of the band anymore than Hannah Stobart is. We know Kerzner left the band, it's all over the internet, so his name still being listed as a band member isn't an issue. Whether Kerzner leaving was amicable or not doesn't matter as far as the content stating he left the band is concerned. There's nothing in what it says in the article about them leaving that even implies their departure was anything other than amicable. It's a very neutral statement of fact. Which is what NPOV encyclopedic content is supposed to be. Again, the section is about SOC. That two of the original four band members have left the band is notable in the history of the band and the history of Collins' association with both of them as original, founding members. Both men are mentioned prominently in the section on SOC prior to the mention of their departure. There is no undue weight ascribed to the mention of them leaving, and it's very appropriate. The content should stay. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 02:57, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

I propose a compromise. The primary issue regarding that passage is that readers may take it out of context or that it may be misconstrued, as relating it to Collins as it does currently, suggests he was directly involved in their departure from the band or was a primary influence. The compromise: We expand that sentence to describe the context behind the departure of both members. On the Sound of Contact page, a passage describing the same information reads: "In early January 2014, Kerzner announced his departure from the band, expressing a desire to concentrate on his company Sonic Reality and pursue his own music projects.[8]" That sentence very clearly defines the reasons in order to avoid any misunderstanding on the part of the reader. I propose we use that sentence or a slight variation of it in place of the current passage. In addition, we may use the source you provided (the band's members page) to identify Nordstrom as remaining a studio collaborator. He certainly was identified as a band member in all reports until just recently, when his status appears to have changed to "studio collaborator." Nothing states that he actually left the band. As such, he may not in fact have even left the band and may be considered a studio collaborator. The situation appears to be unique. Revising that sentence to contextualize their departures is a reasonable compromise. Agree? Vuzor (talk) 03:18, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

No, I don't agree. It's adding undue weight. I'm confused: first you wanted it completely gone, now you want to expand it? That makes no sense to me. I don't see how anyone reading the simple, matter-of-fact, concise statement that Kerzner and Nordstrom left the band means anything other than they left the band. If people want to know more, they can go to the SOC article or Kerzner's article or the SOC website. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 03:32, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

The sentence can be misconstrued. That is the point I am getting at. The sentence is not "In January 2014, Kerzner had left the band while Dorsey and Collins remained full-time members." The sentence is "By January 2014, Kerzner and Nordstrom had both left the group", which infers a reason related to the article subject. It is irrelevant to Collins himself because there is no evidence of his participation or influence leading to the actions of those two individuals. I gave us a second option, though, assuming your reasons to keep the sentence in have merit. If we are to include that information about Kerzner and Nordstrom in this article, it must be supplemented with a small bit of brief contextual information to prevent a misunderstanding on behalf of the reader. Both options are still open, and I ask that others comment on this as well as the diffs mentioned above in this discussion. Vuzor (talk) 04:41, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Such a sentence, with only the facts contained within and no editorializing or POV, can only be misconstrued by someone reading into it and adding what isn't there. Which is true for any content with only facts stated, no editorializing or POV. We can't predict or control what people will read into any content in Wikipedia even when it's written as plainly and and facts-only and unbiased as the content in question is. It's not irrelevant to Collins when it comes to the section it's in. The content is about Sound of Contact in a section specifically about Sound of Contact. I've already stated my reasons for keeping it, and I stand by that reasoning. It doesn't need anything else other than what it is, it's plain, simple, and self-explanatory, and adding anything else along the lines of what you want to add would be undue weight. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 04:46, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

I disagree that the proposed rephrasing of the sentence would be considered "undue weight" (see: WP:BALASPS). From the section on undue weight: It is very important to place all critical material in the proper context, and ensure that an overall balanced view is provided. Context is the key word there. Context is as key as the fact itself; without context, we can not understand what that statement means and the very point of the policy (neutrality) is ignored. Context prevents misunderstandings. Wikipedia:Neutral point of view's summary states: "This page in a nutshell: Articles must not take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without bias. This applies to both what you say and how you say it." I would like other editors to discuss (1) whether the passage should be removed; (2) if the passage is to remain, if rephrasing of the sentence to something akin to "In January 2014, Kerzner left the band to pursue other projects" should occur to provide greater context. Mention of Nordstrom is unnecessary, as there is no actual source to confirm if he ever left the band (the safest, most reliable title for him since opting out of being a full-time member is "studio collaborator"). Vuzor (talk) 05:14, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Other editors are welcome to comment, of course. But why can't this be worked out between just us two? What if no one else comments? Then what?

My bet is that there are editors/administrators watching this and are waiting to see what happens. They may even have popcorn and a soft-drink by their side as they watching this unfold, intentionally not commenting in order to see if something positive can come of interactions between you and I. That's my bet, but that's just me. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 05:24, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Pardon? We have nowhere else to go with this discussion because we've both given our opinions and we both stand firmly behind our beliefs (although I proposed a compromise; I suppose that was my shot at working this out between us independently; we have a third option now). I don't think we can go any further between just the two of us. There isn't much room to negotiate because we only have a limited number of possible options. I recommend that we wait to hear their comments before we continue this discussion. Vuzor (talk) 05:39, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Fine then. We will wait for others to comment. As long as you realize that what's disputed and being discussed can't be reverted or changed while the dispute/discussion is still occurring. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 05:51, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

This is true. Hopefully we both understand this. The process should be as follows: we wait for outside comments, an agreement is reached, then we make the required alterations to conform to the conclusion. Vuzor (talk) 06:13, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Outside view

Well, I see a few outstanding issues here. The biggest one seems to be whether it's proper to discuss the history of the band in Collins' bio. I don't think that's especially important. Unless these events directly tie in to Collins himself, I don't really see how it's important whether founding members are in the band or out. For example, if Collins was directly responsible for their departure, then I'd say that it should be included. Otherwise, it's best covered in more appropriate articles.

After I saw the LGBT banner above, I went to the article to search for why it was added. I didn't see any mention of sexual orientation in the article except for an unsourced claim of bisexuality in the categories. This needs to be fixed. Labeling people without a source is quite contentious. I did a cursory search myself, but I didn't see anything obvious in the first few pages of Google results. Normally, I'd do a more extensive search, but I really don't think it should be my job to locate sources for unsourced claims in a BLP.

Somewhat unrelated to the above debate, I think the quotations could be trimmed down substantially. An ellipsis can be used to indicate missing text. For example, instead of writing, "Collins, who moved here from London, England with his mother when he was eight, has been far more influenced by the punk revival and the grunge explosion than by his father's solo music.", you might write, "Collins [...] has been far more influenced by the punk revival and the grunge explosion than by his father's solo music."

And I think one of the biggest reasons why nobody else is posting is because every time a discussion begins on this talk page, it quickly spirals into back-and-forth accusations and insults. We're all quite aware of how you both feel. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:16, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

All good points, NRP. First, I also did a search for a reliable source that mentions Collins' sexuality. Nothing. Because this is a BLP, and nothing definitive exists that is readily available to support such a label, it needs to go immediately. I will be removing the LGBT banner right after I'm done with commenting here. Obviously, if a reliable source is ever found, it can be added back in the article with suitable and appropriate content to match.

Next, I TOTALLY agree about the quotations. Personally, I hate them and as they are, the references list is horribly cluttered and unreadable. Who would want to read that wall of text?

Last, as far as the SOC section, I have no problem with it being cut down considerably. Like you, I'm a minimalist in articles. That's a big part of the reason why I have been diligent about cutting out extraneous language, content, and the like that just isn't necessary in this article (and the others associated with Collins). I recall a line from the film Amadeus that I've always loved (as spoken by Jeffrey Jones who was portraying the emperor of Austria): "And there are simply too many notes, that's all. Just cut a few and it will be perfect". In the case of this article, there have been too many words. And too many words is not (usually) a good thing. My suggestion for trimming the section down is this:

"In late 2009, Collins, Kerzner, bassist Matt Dorsey, and guitarist Kelly Nordstrom decided to form a new band, Sound of Contact. The band's first album, Dimensionaut, was released in May 2013."

Simple, to the point. Nothing about the history other than when they started and with whom. As pertinent events occur to SOC, it can be added later if appropriate.

Thanks for taking the time to thoughtfully comment, NinjaRobotPirate. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 00:30, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

The LGBT information, I believe, was added a really long time ago when the article was in its very early stages (several years ago?). I recall seeing a source confirming it, but I suppose it had been removed at some point. A quick Google search for "simon collins bisexual" brings up this page as its first result: [21]. It appears to be an article about Collins in an online newspaper catered to an LGBT demographic called Xtra. I recall seeing it around here, but it must have disappeared for whatever reason. One quotation from it reads: "Collins, who is bisexual, hinted at his sexual identity on his single, "Pride," on his debut album All of Who You Are, released five years ago." Another reads, ""I've always been pretty open about my sexuality. I have a girlfriend right now. Before that, I had a boyfriend," he adds." I think that's a worthwhile source to legitimate the existence of the LGBT banner.

Bebb Studios, a Vancouver wedding photography company, has a video slideshow on their official YouTube page detailing Collins' marriage to a woman named Britta Dansereau (see: [22]). If there is a section about his recent personal life, his sexual orientation and marriage information may be relevant.

The quotations in the references list don't appear to be necessary, as some editors have expressed. They were added as a courtesy for those wanting confirmation about their reliability, at the suggestion of another editor, but if the consensus is that they are excessive, feel free to remove them.

In terms of the Sound of Contact section, I think any of the major events Collins was directly involved in with the band are relevant to the article: the band's formation, Collins' contributions to the band, what Collins was doing at the time of the band's existence, the chronological events involving him. Without that, we erase about five years of Collins' life from the article (and presumably more, since it looks like Collins will be a member of the band for a while). I think the basic chronological events involving Simon require mention in the article; i.e. a concise summary of the contents in the main articles for Sound of Contact and Dimensionaut. Information about Kerzner leaving doesn't have anything to do with Collins directly. I thought the previous version of the section was sufficient. If we trim the section down to two sentences, it isn't much of a section at all. Feel free to comment. Vuzor (talk) 03:47, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Also, not only are we discussing the addition of that sentence and what content to include/remove from the Sound of Contact section. The diffs regarding other areas of the article are also available above. Comments are requested for those as well. Vuzor (talk) 04:21, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Sexuality: The LGBT newspaper you provided a link to seems to be a reliable source, so something can be said about Collins' sexuality and the LGBT project page banner can be left on this page.

Quotations: No one said they weren't necessary, it was suggested to pare them down. Which is a great idea.

SOC section: My feeling is that either the SOC section should be pared down as NRP suggested (and I provided an example of) or leave it as it is now. But definitely NOT adding to it.

-- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 04:24, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Quotations: In my previous comment in the discussion above at 05:28, 19 May 2014 (UTC), I asked if quotations in the newspaper references were necessary. NinjaRobotPirate stated, "I don't think it's ever necessary. Some people appreciate it, though... NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:26, 19 May 2014 (UTC)". If the consensus is to pare them down, though, that's a possible option as well.

SOC section: The SOC section should include all content involving Collins (including his involvement with the band, events he participates in during this time, contributions to the band, etc). I think the only content that should be removed is the information about Kerzner leaving the band, as it is not relevant to Collins himself and has no verifiable connection to him (there is no evidence that he was responsible for Kerzner's departure; in fact, we have evidence of the contrary). NRP's comment specifically states, "Unless these events directly tie in to Collins himself, I don't really see how it's important whether founding members are in the band or out. For example, if Collins was directly responsible for their departure, then I'd say that it should be included... NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:16, 20 May 2014 (UTC)" The comment was directed specifically at the scope of information that should be included in the article. I believe information pertaining to Collins should be kept (the section as it is now sans the last sentence about Kerzner's departure). Vuzor (talk) 04:58, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

It's really quite unnecessary for you to keep copying and pasting other people's comments. Unnecessary and a waste of bandwidth. I note you are taking what NRP said and suggesting he agrees with you, as if there is now a consensus. Wikilawyering can be fun, but it's really a waste of time. And a waster of more bandwidth. How about we just worry about what each of us thinks individually rather than taking the words of others and trying to make them fit an agenda?

• NRP said that the section is heavy on what's pertinent to others rather than what's pertinent to Collins. I agree with that and provided a new version of that section as a proposal for changing it to what NRP suggested.
• If that isn't to your liking, I propose we keep the section as it is and not add to the content on Kerzner and Nordstrom leaving the band. Considering the points NRP brought up about the section, adding to it as it is would be a digression and not an improvement. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 05:26, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Pardon? You stated nobody has said in our discussion that 'quotations in the references were unnecessary.' I posted the quotation in case you missed that, as it was indeed mentioned. That's just stating a fact. Considering it appears we interpret NinjaRobotPirate's comments differently, quotations help. I'm surprised you take offense to it. I don't think a miniscule amount of bandwidth is of concern to anybody when we factor in all of the other discussions happening on Wikipedia on a constant basis. The quotations are meant to clarify any confusion and make the relevant points in our discussion more accessible. It's offensive to accuse someone of "trying to make them fit an agenda" and of "Wikilawyering." This discussion should not be hostile, yet you appear to be trying to provoke a reaction. That is Wikipedia:Assume bad faith.

I don't believe your interpretation of NinjaRobotPirate's comment is what was actually said. NRP commented on the type of content that should be included in the SOC section (in no place above does NinjaRobotPirate discuss or even mention the overall balance of the content in the section). I think NRP should speak about this and clarify, since it appears one of us does not understand. Vuzor (talk) 05:40, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

He said history of the band in an article on Collins isn't "especially important". I take that as him saying he would get rid of it. He said that Kerzner and Nordstrom's departure isn't necessary as it isn't directly related to Collins. I take that as him saying he would get rid of that, too. Without those elements, what's left is what I proposed. If anyone wants to read/know more about SoC, they can easily click on the internal link and read the SoC article. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 05:49, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

"Unless these events directly tie in to Collins himself, I don't really see how it's important whether founding members are in the band or out. For example, if Collins was directly responsible for their departure, then I'd say that it should be included... NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:16, 20 May 2014 (UTC)". Any information about the band pertaining to Collins should be kept (including (but not limited to): the band's formation (to provide the section context), the development of the project (of which he was involved and an active participant in), the events he participated in (tours, performances), recognition and awards he (along with the band) may receive). Any noteworthy chronological event (with the band) involving Collins documents what he was doing at that time; that is relevant information. For example, if he was on tour with the band, that is a part of his life. If he (along with the band) released an album, that is a part of his life. The information about Kerzner's departure is not directly related to Collins (i.e. Kerzner could have hypothetically packed up and left without ever saying a word to Collins and without influence from Collins) -- so why keep it in the article? Vuzor (talk) 05:54, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Look at the article on the band Spock's Beard. Comparable to SoC musically. Then look at the articles on each of the band's members. Do you see anything as overwritten as the Simon Collins article is at the articles on those band members? Do you see anything at those articles that has anything more than a few words regarding Spock's Beard? I sure don't. Quod erat demonstratum. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 06:19, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Suddenly, the conversation has shifted to being about an allegedly "overdeveloped" section of the article? You've cited the Spock's Beard band member articles, which are severely underdeveloped (for example, the Dave Meros article uses bullet points. The Ryo Okumoto article is a stub). I don't see the point in comparing this article to poorly-developed ones when the objective is to develop it into a more complete article. A top-importance musician biography, Bono, features a significant section on U2. An FA-class article, Roger Waters, features a large section on Pink Floyd. Carlos Santana features a large section on his band, Santana (band). FA-class article Paul McCartney has large sections on The Beatles and Wings (band). These articles contain all relevant information about the musicians' band projects. A minimalistic approach would have stripped away a lot of the material required to make Roger Waters and Paul McCartney FA-class articles; if the content pertains to Collins or involves him, it should stay. You are introducing a completely new issue to this discussion by discussing levels of development. We are deviating from the original point of this discussion: the diffs. Levels of development and types of appropriate content, however, are some of the overarching themes of our disputes. Vuzor (talk) 07:22, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Yeesh, you two need to take a break for a while. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:02, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Discussions like this have gone on for over a year about a lot of different content. There is a complete lack of progress. I wish a break would help, but breaks have been tried in the past also. Everything is disputed on these articles. I've discussed this already in this and previous discussions; this isn't something a break can fix. Vuzor (talk) 07:28, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

I can't believe you're comparing Simon Collins and SoC with the HUGE names and ICONIC bands of classic rock you listed. Thanks for the laugh. It's clear you totally missed the point of why I chose Spock's Beard and its musicians to compare to Collins and SoC. It's because the band's music is in the same genre and all musicians similar in their newness and their lack of significant history. Hence, my "overwritten" comment.

NRP, I have no problem taking a break from this. I am leaving tomorrow to travel across the country to be with family and attend my mother-in-law's funeral. I may make an appearance or two here if I have time, but will definitely have no time for this "discussion" or wading through Vuzor's walls of text and Wikilawyering until some time next week. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 09:04, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Such descriptions of the discussion (i.e. "walls of text") are only meant to provoke. If you are unwilling to hear the justifications from the explanations I have provided, it will be difficult to proceed. There is no basis for choosing the Spock's Beard articles unless you are suggesting new articles have a content limit and need to be underdeveloped. The Dave Meros article has multiple flags; surely that is not your ideal example of what "new" articles should look like, is it? If it is, then "minimalistic" must mean to reduce to nothing, which is what you have attempted to do on many occasions. The Spock's Beard article itself says that band was formed in 1992, so your point about newness is invalid. You are simply comparing this article with some very poorly-developed ones to justify that it should be more similar to them. That is laughable. We are trying to improve the article, not worsen it. Are you an extreme minimalist? FA-articles demonstrate the qualities of a good article. They show all of the important building blocks of a good article. We should be moving in that direction, not in the direction of the Dave Meros, Ryo Okumoto, and Jimmy Keegan articles. I'm seriously starting to think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what makes a good biographical article. Vuzor (talk) 09:24, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

TLDR -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 13:20, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, let's try to stay focused on one minor thing at a time for now like Fug suggested. If we can solve minor controversies first, then maybe we can work on the bigger ones. I picked on topic – band line-up changes – and suggested that we either tie to Collins or leave it to the band's article. If we can't tie a topic back to Collins, then it's probably not appropriate, but there's no reason to go around gutting he article. This really isn't a very large, detailed, or poorly written article. Look at Babylon 5 influences for something that needs to be gutted. I've been meaning to get around to that for a year now, but I can't bring myself to wade into that mass of original research and poor writing. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:32, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree. How do you suggest we proceed? Do we require any further steps before acting upon this conclusion? Vuzor (talk) 05:29, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

We need a consensus. I don't see one yet. And in all fairness, the right thing to do would be to wait to make any changes until I return mid-next week from my trip to my mother in law's funeral. I am just as invested in this article as you are, Vuzor. There is no deadline and waiting for those truly invested to thoughtfully comment toward consensus will not hurt anything. It would be the deceng thing to do as well as show a cooperative editing spirit and good faith. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 09:41, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Is an RfC required?

"Is an RfC required for each bit of content removed?" No. Just talk about it and discuss. And leave personalities and talking about editors out of it. As Fuhg already stated below. STOP talking about editors, talk about edits. Talking about edits is what improves the encyclopedia. Talking about editors does not.

Vuzor, be sure you know and understand this: Any past (or near-present) behavior of mine you bring up, anything that is a quotation from something I said previously, anything that is about me as an editor or in any other form, I will NOT respond to. It will be ignored as it has nothing to do with editing this article. Fuhg has already asked that you not engage in such, he's asked that edits and content be discussed - nothing else. I see no reason why anything else needs to be talked about other than content and edits, obviously Fuhg feels the same way. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 01:31, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

We have tried that in the past. It ends up becoming two editors disagreeing entirely about the MOS and what type of content is appropriate. Any edit by me, as proven already, is reverted promptly by you and no conclusion can be reached. Clearly, we very much disagree and, as was the case in our discussion about unverifiable content, outside mediation was absolutely required to reach any form of civil agreement. This happens very often -- as frequently as article revisions occur on regularly-maintained articles. As mentioned, an unnecessary, unwarranted edit war notice has been posted on my talk page for a revision that, as a courtesy for you, included all of the quotations from each article reference. Vuzor (talk) 01:36, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Agreed that an echo chamber of two people (who've disagreed a lot) probably requires outside input. I will try to look at the diffs you posted above, as at least a third voice but I hope some others will also. I have an article at FAC right now, and another that I absolutely must work on because it's got some real problems and will be going to DYK soon and I must fix it (and I've not been able to be online consistently the last few days which is going to continue for a while).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:29, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Not trivia but how astronomy affected themes in Collin's Music

"Collins enjoys astronomy and has an interest in social issues. These themes have found their way into his music. "He was born in London but moved to Vancouver when he was eight with his sister, Gemini-winning actress Joely, and mother Andrea, his father's first wife. It was there that Collins developed a passion for astronomy and social issues – themes that dominate his website, lyrics and liner notes for Time For Truth."[29]"

This quoted section from the article is not "trivia about a hobby" but an explanation about how things he enjoyed in his early life have affected the themes that are now found in his music.

" These themes have found their way into his music."

The following quote and cited inline citation give referral to the source.

Cheers! WordSeventeen (talk) 16:34, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

The content doesn't belong in the early life section, yet you are edit warring over inappropriately placed content and disruptively revert it back in? Why? Cited or not, it's in the wrong place. Continuing to put it back in is plainly disruptive and does nothing to improve the article. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:02, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Gee Winkelvi your responses to matters are somewhat predictable. Why don't you comment on the reason that was listed here for why the cited and referenced information is relevant to Collin's music rather than try to stir up drama as is your usual modus operandi.

I note than rather than come to the talk page, you were more interested in edit warring than coming here to comment on the issue at hand. That is clearly evidenced by your comment on the talk page which was. "The content doesn't belong in the early life section" then drama drama drama, edit war edit war edit war, blah, blah, blah...

Please stick to commenting on the content and not your apparent hatred toward the editor.

Cheers! WordSeventeen (talk) 17:16, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on edits and content, not editors. I will ask again, why edit war over replacing content in a section where it doesn't belong? How is the presence of such content improving the article, the encyclopedia? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:12, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

WordSeventeen, this is my last call for you to give evidence as to how and why that bit of trivia belongs in a section unrelated to it. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:12, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

I have stated above why the passages about his love for astronomy affected the themes in his music. The source, url, and reference are right in the article as it stands today. I am going to gather some other views from other editors on this matter. As for your "last call remark" We are not on a timetable, and there is no reason to make any implied threats. I will be setting up an RFC regarding this matter shortly. I am seeking a consensus on the matter in form of a RFC. Cheers! WordSeventeen (talk) 01:56, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

You didn't answer the questions: how and why does that bit of trivia belong in a section unrelated to it; why did you continually revert something back in that is out of place? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:59, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

RFC regarding a passage

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Since the support is unanimous, consensus is clear. I am just archiving it since it was worked out. AlbinoFerret 21:23, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

---

Should the following passage be in the Simon Collins article? WordSeventeen (talk) 02:23, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

• Note: a little birdie told me that I should have considered letting this run longer. IMO consensus was overwhelming and I prefer not to let RfCs linger, but we can let this ride for a bit. I'll leave my original closing comment in here (hidden). PBS, you're pretty smart--please see if I did this correctly. Drmies (talk) 14:23, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
  • WordSeventeen and Winkelvi, I should have pinged you here. Drmies (talk) 18:02, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Passage is as follows:

Collins enjoys astronomy and has an interest in social issues. These themes have found their way into his music. "He was born in London but moved to Vancouver when he was eight with his sister, Gemini-winning actress Joely, and mother Andrea, his father's first wife. It was there that Collins developed a passion for astronomy and social issues – themes that dominate his website, lyrics and liner notes for Time For Truth".

Cheers! WordSeventeen (talk) 02:23, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

non-procedural comments

And by the way Winkelvi, your statements in your "dishonest bad faith" posting here at this RFC borders on a personal attack. Cheers! WordSeventeen (talk) WordSeventeen -- You started a discussion, but you're not discussing. Why not? An RfC isn't discussing (as I have tried to do with you several times above). -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:25, 24 April 2015 (UTC) Malformed, dishonest RfC borne out of bad faith -- RfC originator is misrepresenting what's happening here. He was edit warring over content that was removed yesterday because it no longer fit the section it was contained within. His edit warring put the content back into the "Early life" section, when the content is clearly not related to Collins' early life, but his current life activities as an adult. The content no longer belongs in the section from where it was removed -- end of story. Rather than try to edit responsibly (since he feels the content is so necessary and belongs in the article), he just kept reverting it back in where it is inappropriate and has no contextual ties. Such actions give the appearance of wanting to WP:WIN rather than actually improving the article and enhancing the encyclopedia as a whole. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:31, 24 April 2015 (UTC) It is not appropriate to comment on the editor that established the RFC. Your statement that you have posted here shows that you Winkelvi are not assuming good faith. Please see WP:AGF. Comment on the RFC contents and issue presented, not the editor who initiated the RFC. Your opinion is not the standard here. I will wait for other editors to weigh in, so that we may reach a consensus regarding this matter. Cheers! WordSeventeen (talk) 02:57, 24 April 2015 (UTC) And by the way Winkelvi, your "dishonest bad faith" posting here in this RFC borders on a personal attack on a specific editor, that being the initiator of this RFC. Please comment on the issue at hand in the RFC, and do not personally attack a specific editor. Cheers! WordSeventeen (talk) 03:18, 24 April 2015 (UTC) Don't know if this RfC is malformed, but it is part of an ongoing pattern of one editor trying to screw with another. Drmies (talk) 03:28, 24 April 2015 (UTC) I've putting on my administrator's hat: @user:WordSeventeen I have reformatted the RfC so that it is clearer. The quotes in quotes was very confusing. @user:Winkelvi The RFC process guidance makes it clear how to deal with a non-neutral Rfc and they do not include your approach above: If you feel an RfC is improperly worded, ask the originator to improve the wording, or add an alternative unbiased statement immediately below the RfC question template. I am hatting the initial part exchange. Winkelvi, WordSeventeen's RfC properly constructed (see the example at WP:RFC). Your opinions on WordSeventeen's motives for starting this RfC are irrelevant, and a neutrally worded RfC is part of the dispute resolution process and a legitimate method of bringing more editors into a conversation to help reach a consensus. Please limit yourself to supporting or opposing the RfC and if you think it is in the wrong section but ought to be in the article then discuss the alternatives in the Discussion section. Both of you Assume Good Faith and limit the conversation to the content of the article. -- PBS (talk) 19:35, 24 April 2015 (UTC) Sorry, but no - the admin who posted here saw this for what it is and didn't hat it, therefore, hiding the true nature of this is not appropriate. Those commenting here need to know what this is really about. Drmies' assessment is spot on. This RfC is bogus and contrived, intended to screw with another editor, and totally not done in good faith. Look at the edits history of this article starting a few days ago, then look at the "discussion" just above this section. all that, plus this [23] should give you a clearer picture. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:57, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Survey

• Support, with modifications. Interests that impact, and show up in, his music are obviously relevant. However, need to lose the unattributed quotation in the body text (and possibly also add that he developed these interests after his move to Vancouver). As to where the information belongs in the article, right now this seems to be in the appropriate place per the citation, as there is currently no section analyzing his music/lyrics/style, personal interests, etc. If a section of that nature were added (or even a Personal Life section), it could be placed there. Softlavender (talk) 07:01, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
• Remove from where it is currently and Integrate into the article where it would be germane and appropriate. Where the content is now (Early life) is inappropriate as it is relating to Collins' current, adult life. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 15:37, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Support rewrite of content per Cool Hand Luke (see just below) and include in Early life section. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 14:08, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

• Support including at least first sentence. The quotation can go into the footnote though; seems like a lot of detail for the proposition. I'm a little puzzled by this RFC. WV says it's bad faith, but why was there a revert war on this issue if the parties agree that some form of this detail belong in the article? Rather than revert, suggesting WV be bold and write it as he would write it, where he believes it should be placed. If this is the consensus, please do it and RFC can be closed, I think. Cool Hand Luke 22:02, 27 April 2015 (UTC) Addition: I agree the "early life" section makes sense, as suggested below. Cool Hand Luke 17:11, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

• Support the inclusion of the first sentence with modifications, everything after being included in the footnote. I have cited a new source, here [24] where Collins himself says on camera that he developed his interest in astronomy in his late teens. I agree with Cool Hand Luke's suggestion of using the first sentence and including the remainder of the passage in the footnote. I believe it should be reworded, however, to reflect the development of his interest in his late teens. Softlavender's message at 19:09, 25 April 2015 (UTC) in the discussion section of this RfC provides a great example: "He also developed a passion for astronomy and social issues during his youth, and later used these themes in his music." This RfC appears to be about the proper placement of the passage. It belongs in the early life section as it had a profound impact on Collins in his early life and provided a foundation for his philosophical approach to life itself in addition to his own work. Vuzor (talk) 07:23, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
• Approved I don't see any reason why it should not be included with suitable references. BiologistBabe (talk) 15:53, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
• Support - summoned by bot. This information seems perfectly relevant to me. —Мандичка^YO 😜 00:44, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Discussion and possible alternative compromise proposals

• Bad faith RfC Commenced without any discussion taking place, even though it was attempted more than once (see section directly above this one). Looking at the previous section, it is easy to see that the entire premise of the RfC is anti-AGF and BRD. As for the disputed content, it was aggressively reverted repeatedly by the originator of the RfC even though it is out of place where it is currently ("Early life"). It was removed originally because the content addresses the article subject's current life, not his early life prior to adulthood and his career, seems trivial in nature as it is (out of context). It should either be removed completely or integrated into the article where it would be germane and appropriate. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:38, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
• History of the material. I've looked up the origin of the material into the article, and it was added, with the current citation, by Vuzor on April 19, 2014 [25], as "He also developed a passion for astronomy and social issues during his youth, themes he would later revisit in his music." This was modified by Winkelvi on May 1, 2014 [26] to "Collins has a love of astronomy and interest in social issues, themes that are now present in his music." Vuzor and Winkelvi proceeded to edit war over the wording [27], [28], [29], [30], until Vuzor ceased editing the article for a while (took a break from the article from May 1, 2014 to May 15, 2014). Vuzor changed the words "has a love of" to "has a particular fascination with" on May 15, 2014 [31]; Winkelvi changed that to "enjoys" on May 15, 2014 [32]. Fuhghettaboutit restored the original wording (and the original section title, which Winkelvi had changed from "Early life" to "Biography") on May 16, 2014 [33], and Winkevli reverted [34]. Vuzor restored the original version on May 18, 2014 [35]; Winkelvi reverted and also changed the section title to "Biography" again [36]; Vuzor reverted [37]; Winkelvi reverted that [38]. Following a year-long break from the article, Vuzor returned to editing it on April 22, 2015. After disagreements that day over the title of the section (Winkelvi changed it from "Biography" to "Early life to present day" [39]; Vuzor shortened that to the original "Early life" [40]), Winkelvi removed the content entirely on April 22, 2015 [41]. WordSeventeen began editing the article that day and added the current lengthy version [42]. Winkelvi reverted [43], and edit-warring ensued between the two of them [44], [45], [46], [47], [48]. (By the way, in case it warrants being consulted or referred to, here is the archive of the Talk page from 2008 to May 19, 2014 [49].) Softlavender (talk) 08:39, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
• Wording and placement: I recommend going back to something closer to the original wording, which was "He also developed a passion for astronomy and social issues during his youth, themes he would later revisit in his music." Except I would remove the awkward future-in-past construction and re-word it something like "He also developed a passion for astronomy and social issues during his youth, and later used these themes in his music." I've found a citation that confirms that Collins became an astronomy buff at the age of 17 [50], so I think this belongs in the "Early life" section, especially since there is no other existing section it can go into right now, and especially since we are talking about his teenage years. Softlavender (talk) 19:09, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Having a fairly good knowledge of Collins' career and his current band Sound of Contact along with the group's album Dimensionaut, I believe it could be integrated into the career section in conjunction with the theme of Dimensionaut, the album. If not done that way, then the rewording would work in the Early life section. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:26, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Since these interests developed in his teens/youth, and the relevant passages in the sources are about his youth, in my opinion it needs to stay in the "Early life" section. There is no reason to mention astronomy and/or social causes again in the Career section unless either comes up vis-a-vis particular eras, albums, or songs -- in which case, information on that/those will be added from whatever additional source(s) is used/cited in those instances. No need to move the info. Softlavender (talk) 03:59, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

The more I have thought about it, I now feel it needs to be incorporated into the section on his career, specifically Sound of Contact and their album Dimensionaut, and how his interest in astronomy played into the creation of the album, with its undeniable theme of space travel. More importantly, Softlavender, Collins left Vancouver when he was 26, not a youth. The source states he developed his appreciation for astronomy when he was living in Vancouver, it doesn't say the interest in astronomy happened when he was a teenager. Since we can't draw a conclusion (WP:SYNTH) and nothing gives his age in the reference, it's better that the content goes in a different section. Or is deleted altogether (unless a personal life section is created). -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:05, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Certainly you can add whatever relevant info belongs there, but the info about the two interests beginning in his youth needs to stay in the "Early life" section. Softlavender (talk) 04:25, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

The source doesn't say those interests began in his youth. You're reaching a conclusion that has no basis in fact. He lived in Vancouver until he was 26. Do the math and it's easy to see: the content does not belong in Early life. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:34, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I've already provided a citation above where Collins states that his strong interest in astronomy began at age 17. Also, he left Vancouver for Frankfurt in 1999/2000 (release of album), when he was 22/23; that's still Early Life. Softlavender (talk) 04:38, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Sorry, I calculated his age from 1974, not 1976. Regardless, he would have been 24, maybe 23. not early life no matter how you stretch it. Early life pretty much universally ends at age 18. Even so, I find the reference dubious - it's a blog. We don't use blogs as sources, remember? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:51, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Softlavender is correct on this particular point. The cited source talks about his interest in astronomy beginning at 17. The content needs to stay in the early life section. Cheers! WordSeventeen (talk) 04:49, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

There is no stricture on what "Early life" refers to on Wikipedia. We are talking about his teenage years and possibly up to at the very latest age 22/23, which is when many people graduate from college, and which falls under Early Life in many if not most wiki bios. The Prince George Citizen and Astronomy are not blogs, and although the posting on the latter site is a curated blog post, there is no reason to doubt its correctness, especially since it includes direct interview quotes from him talking about his teenage interest in astronomy, and it is simply a confirmation of the The Prince George Citizen information. Softlavender (talk) 05:02, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

The source you linked to is a blog within astronomy magazine online. Still a blog. And, if there is no stricture on early life, then why are you saying the cutoff is the mid-20s? Regardless, you're trying to use WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS as a rationale, which isn't a valid argument. The PG Citizen article doesn't give an age, nor does it say it happened in his teens. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 05:12, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

The Prince George Citizen and Astronomy are not blogs...Cheers! WordSeventeen (talk) 05:22, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

It's an interview entry, complete with direct interview quotes, by a former associate editor of Astronomy, on the curated site of the largest national monthly astronomy magazine. There is no reason to doubt its accuracy in that Collins developed a self-stated interest in astronomy in his teens. There is other online confirmation out there of Collins' teenage interest in astronomy in addition to those two sources. There is no reason to doubt either of them. We have two sources backing each other up; if you can find some RSs that disproves them, then submit that for evidence. I never said nor implied that there is any stricture or cut-off on "Early life". Softlavender (talk) 05:27, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

The PG Citizen article doesn't back up age 17 stated in the blog post, it only backs up his interest in astronomy and social issues beginning when he was living in Vancouver before he relocated to Germany. Early life isn't 23 or 24 years of age, no matter how you slice it. I think at this point the best compromise here is moving the content to the section on SOC and Dimensionaut. Or possibly the music career section. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 05:37, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

No winkelvi. Early life section is where the passage belongs. Softlavender and I agree on that. The two sources backing each other up. Cheers! WordSeventeen (talk) 05:48, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

You were told by an administrator to let this RfC "play out". In other words, he was telling you to drop your involvement. That was after you had been told by at least one admin to stop WP:HOUNDING me. You came to this article because you were hounding me. Which is what you're doing now, once more. Do we need to get admins involved again, or are you going to stop? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 05:53, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

There is no need to use the precise "age 17" in the wiki article; however it is undeniable that Collins developed his interest in astronomy in his teens. 23/24 is not the age we are talking about -- we are talking about teenage years. Also, note that Collins left Vancouver at 22/23 (not 23/24). If you believe there is an age cut-off on what "Early life" refers to, you need to cite a policy. One way that the material could be worded is "While living in Vancouver, Collins also developed a passion for astronomy and social issues, and later used these themes in his music."— Preceding unsigned comment added by Softlavender (talk • contribs) 06:37, 28 April 2015‎

I don't think it's undeniable. We go by reliable references, online blogs are not considered reliable (as journalistic oversight is typically lacking). The PG Citizen doesn't mention an age. Using WP:COMMON SENSE, it's pretty obvious early life means pre-adulthood. The year 2000 is when he left Vancouver (read the article), that would make him 24, possibly 23. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 06:05, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I began this RFC and I am certainly allowed to participate in the RFC. Please comment on the issue at hand and do not attack any specific editor winkelvi. Cheers! WordSeventeen (talk) 06:01, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Collins recorded tracks in Frankfurt prior to July 1999 [51], this would make him 22 at that time since he was born in September; also, the album was released in September 1999 [52]. Even if he waited till 2000 to completely move, since he was born September 14 it's most likely he was no more than 23 when he moved. The Astronomy article is an interview entry and curated blog post, by a former associate editor of Astronomy, on the curated site of the largest national monthly astronomy magazine. It contains direct interview quotes from Collins about his teenage interest in astronomy, complete with giddy childhood enthusiasm. There is no reason to doubt its accuracy in that Collins developed a self-stated interest in astronomy in his teens, especially when there are additional sources besides the two provided that confirm this. If you believe there is an age cut-off on what "Early life" refers to, you need to cite a policy. Softlavender (talk) 06:37, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

No, I don't need to cite a policy if you can't cite a policy that supports early life going into an article subject's early to mid-20s. Even so, I cited WP:COMMON SENSE which makes sense in situations such as this. So, in the spirit of common sense, I will give in to keeping the content where it is. It should be rewritten, though. Having it included as the entire quote is inappropriate (and really not MOS). This doesn't mean I agree with you about any of the points you raised, I still don't. But, it just doesn't make sense to keep going round and round on this. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 06:44, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

A possible wording could be "While living in Vancouver, Collins also developed a passion for astronomy and social issues, and later used these themes in his music." Softlavender (talk) 06:49, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

"Interest", rather than "passion". With that change, yes. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 06:58, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi everyone. I took a break from editing for a few days, so I apologize for the absence. It looks like this is a divisive issue. With regards to whether Collins' interest in astronomy developed in his early life or not, I did a bit of digging around online to find another source that would definitively answer our question. It looks like I've found one. Collins did a video interview in 2014 with Drum Talk TV during last year's NAMM Show where he says (at 4:12 of the video), "Personally speaking, I'm a massive Carl Sagan fan. He introduced me to the cosmos when I was in my late teens, and absolutely blew my mind [with] what was out there. One of my favorite quotes of all time has got to be Carl Sagan's quote, 'we are a way for the cosmos to know it self.'... We're trying to inspire people to take a look at things from a different perspective, from a universal perspective: the fact that our home planet -- that everything we know, and have ever known -- has existed on this tiny speck."

The link to the video, which is posted officially on to Drum Talk TV's official Vimeo channel, is here: [53]

I think, regardless of the earlier conversation, this new source gives us reason to include the development of his love for astronomy in the "Early life" section. The man here says it himself: late teens. Vuzor (talk) 07:10, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Carl Sagan appreciation is science, not specifically astronomy and certainly not social issues. Using this as a source to support would be use of WP:SYNTH. Regardless, a consensus was already reached before you posted here, User:Vuzor. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 07:26, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Carl Sagan is an astronomer, Winkelvi. The passage is specifically about astronomy, Sagan's quotation about astronomy, and Collins' view of the Earth and humanity as they pertain to astronomy. His mind was blown by "what was out there." That's astronomy. It's the same topic that the other sources refer to, except this one verifies when he developed that interest. Just cite all three sources. Vuzor (talk) 07:33, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Vuzor for finding an additional source regarding this matter. Cheers! WordSeventeen (talk) 07:15, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Sagan is an astronomer, and the video quote backs up exactly what is said in Astronomy, which includes multiple references to Sagan; plus his interest in Sagan followed his newly discovered passion for telescopes and astronomy. Sagan inspired Collins to try to "capture the sounds of the cosmos". [54] Softlavender (talk) 07:50, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm well aware of who Sagan was (who isn't?). But, because he was most well known among the public as the host of the PBS series, Nova, which featured a number of things scientific, he was seen also as a television show host and general scientist. We can't and shouldn't assume what Simon Collins saw him as, it's not specified. You seem to be making a number of assumptions, Softlavender, which is fine on your own time, but not when it relates to editing Wikipedia articles. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 13:53, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Collins indeed specifies what Sagan introduced him to. From the video interview: "Personally speaking, I'm a massive Carl Sagan fan. He introduced me to the cosmos when I was in my late teens, and absolutely blew my mind [with] what was out there." That very plainly states he was introduced to the cosmos in his late teens by Carl Sagan.

WP:FACEBOOK says that Facebook can be used as a reliable source sometimes, so I'll use Collins' personal Facebook page to supplement this evidence. [55] Collins lists two books as his favorite books. One of them is Carl Sagan's Cosmos (book). It's pretty clear Cosmos (in one or more of its published forms) is what Collins relates to from Sagan. Plus, the passage refers specifically to astronomy and space.

Also, here's a passage from the Astronomy article that makes it pretty clear it was the TV series Cosmos that enhanced his love of astronomy. He developed an interest in astronomy in his teens. From: [56]

"Despite his academic aloofness, his parents gave him a telescope. At first, he let it languish. But one day when he was 17, the telescope, like a Toy Story character exhumed from the bottom of the toy chest, became part of his everyday life. “I just decided to take the telescope out one clear night,” he says. “I just pointed the telescope at the brightest object.”

Before he focused the eyepiece, he didn’t know what that object was. But once he adjusted the knobs, Saturn — and its almost-too-perfect-to-look-real rings — popped into view. “It just blew my mind,” he says. “There it is; it’s really out there; it’s not just a picture in a textbook.

Sagan’s television show, Cosmos, similarly tweaked his brain. “I was at my uncle’s house, and I slipped in his Cosmos VHS, thinking, ‘This looks kind of cool,’” he recalls. “It blew my mind. I had no idea. It’s amazing when something like that all of a sudden reflects back and means something to you personally and existentially.

Collins, no longer a teenager, continues his astronomical adventures, at least when Sound of Contact isn’t touring or recording. “In Los Angeles, you can see the Moon if you’re lucky,” he says. But his home is near Stonehenge in the UK, which, as you can imagine, is plenty dark. The history of that semi-creepy place and its black skies lead Collins to deep thoughts about space and time, and they come out in his music."

Collins developed his love for astronomy in his teens and the themes show up in his work. This information belongs in the "Early life" section. Softlavender explains above at the post marked 06:37, 28 April 2015 (UTC) why this Astronomy article is appropriate for use: it's from a reputable source. As for rewording, I have explained my thoughts in the survey section of this RfC.Vuzor (talk) 07:41, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you again for your input Vuzor. Contrary to what some user may have posted here, no consensus has been reached because this is an ongoing RFC discussion at which any editor may share ideas, additional sources or new arguments. I do hope that a consensus can be reached upon the closing of this RFC discussion. Cheers! WordSeventeen (talk) 08:00, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

As of this moment, it appears all votes cast in the survey read "Support." I believe that means we've reached a consensus here to keep the information in the "Early life" section. As for the wording, all members who voted in the survey support a rewording that includes the first line of the passage but removes the direct quotation, which can instead be included in the footnote.

Softlavender has provided a very good suggestion for what the passage should be modified to: "He also developed a passion for astronomy and social issues during his youth, and later used these themes in his music." I suggest, with that as a basis, the modification to "He also developed a passion for astronomy and social issues during his youth, and frequently revisits these themes in his music." This rewording gives the statement even more relevance as these are major themes in Collins' work. We can go all the way back to Collins' debut album and the song "Money Maker," which is very explicitly about capitalism and environmental concerns. Dana Gee's 1999 review of Collins' debut album in The Province refers to this. Sound of Contact's latest single, "Pale Blue Dot," is about both environmental concerns and space. Collins states in this interview [57] that there is a tribute to Sagan's work on every one of his albums. I think stating that these are recurring themes in his work gives the passage even more weight. Vuzor (talk) 08:47, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm good with that wording -- I like the word "frequently". I think it's clear he developed these interests in his early life; he wrote "Money Maker" before or by age 22, so he had clearly developed these strong interests beforehand. Also, despite the erroneous information on Collins' site and elsewhere, the album was recorded and initially released in 1999, not 2000; this needs to be changed in the article. Softlavender (talk) 09:01, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

• Support inclusion of this content in the "Early life" section. Pinged here by Legobot. Arguing that a teenager, who according to a reliable source owned a telescope and was influenced by Carl Sagan's "Cosmos", was not interested in astronomy but just science more broadly, and arguing that events of his early 20s do not fall into "Early life"? Well, that's just classic hairsplitting from my perspective as a 63 year old. It ought to stop quickly. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:03, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Simon Collins. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130512163037/http://top40.about.com/b/2008/09/04/simon-collins-follows-his-father-phil-into-the-pop-charts.htm to http://top40.about.com/b/2008/09/04/simon-collins-follows-his-father-phil-into-the-pop-charts.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130625200732/http://www.soundofcontact.com/bio/ to http://www.soundofcontact.com/bio/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:24, 4 January 2018 (UTC)