Talk:Pure Reason Revolution

Comment

This page, obviously edited by the band, is a pure vanity page and a vehicle of self-promotion, as are the individual members' pages. The band's level of fame and acheivement makes me of the opinion that it does not merit a Wikipedia entry —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.143.220.38 (talk) 11:03, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I love this band. Been to see them live twice and they were awesome. They are brilliant and I love them. Amazing!

Astral Folk? Astral, yes, folk, no. 86.137.158.221 22:28, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I think some citations would be good here...

I don't know who it is, but will who ever it is that keeps removing references to Jim Dobson please stop trying to rewrite verifiable history? I don't care if the band have fallen out with him, he met Jon at Westminster and was in the band etc etc etc.

An innovative band which deserves greater public recognition. If you stumble across this entry believe me go and see them with an open mind. Check out the album. Lots of influences from the past but this is fresh and exciting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.130.72.138 (talk) 21:20, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

hmmm... now i see it's my turn to protect PRR page in russian wiki. the same story(( Перцев Алексей (talk) 06:09, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Formatting

If anyone can advise how to stop Wiki formatting as it does, my previous entry then I would love to hear. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Justpassinby (talk • contribs) 15:31, 7 February 2008 (UTC) Justpassinby (talk) 18:23, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Further content removal

There is much on this page that remains unsourced, irrelevant or purely advertising. For instance, to compare either the sound of this band or its style with those of the Beach Boys is ludicrous. The Beach Boys used 4-part male voice harmonies based on a 'West Coast' production formula, whilst PRR use mainly 2-part mixed voice harmonies based on a 'industrial rock' production formula. They do not sound and look alike, and there is no real evidence of BB influence other than they both use notes from 12-note scale. To add a reference to the Beach Boys is therefore, to my mind, merely an attempt to advertise (falsely) the capabilities of this band.

• In the same vein, I see as purely promotional, references to other bands . PRR has no connection with, does not base its sound on, nor has toured with any of the bands mentioned. The 'shared appreciation' is irrelevant, and merely a device to put more famous names on the page.

• It is unneccessary to include a history of Sunset Sound, Gel and Period pains (SS may be an exception as there was some overlap). If these bands had notability enough to warrant their inclusion in Wiki, then a reference to them could be included on the PRR page. Their inclusion on the PRR page is falsely (IMO) bestowing notability (on Gel and Period pains)where there is none. I would bring your attention to Wiki "merely being true or informative does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia" and study the guidelines for notability which I will address in a later edit.

• In the meantime if anyone has any views on the above then please go ahead.--Justpassinby (talk) 15:27, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

To answer your formatting question, if you begin sentences with blank spaces, Wikipedia interprets that as a formatting instruction and leads to the effects you can see. Start each paragraph with text or you can use ":" or "*" to indent your message. More generally, it would be valuable if you could better familiarise yourself with Wikipedia mechanisms and policies. For example, when you are blocked, it is not considered acceptable to continue making edits without logging in. The question has also been raised as to whether you were responsible for the user account Joncourtney.

I get the impression that you have a particular bias towards Pure Reason Revolution given your recent vandalism of the page and given all your edits to Wikipedia are about this act. It might be valuable for you to look more at articles for other pop/rock bands. It is usual practice in these to include description of minor, predecessor bands (as with Sunset Sound here) and to include material on the band's musical influences (if appropriately cited, as here). You also raise the issue of the comparison made with the Beach Boys. I have added a citation-needed tag to that phrase. If no citations are found, I agree it would be reasonable to remove it. Bondegezou (talk) 16:46, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your editing tips. I have no particular bias towards this band. However I get the impression that you have a definite bias towards it, and I do not intend to enter into a war of "I've made more contributions than you so I must be right" words - everyone has to start somewhere. I accept your argument about quoting influences, however the names in the article are quoted as a 'shared appreciation' and show no similarities whatsoever. I contend that this band is neither notable nor influential in its genre, and that it's (mainly)self-penned pages are being used as promotion. It is almost ironic that Wikipedia does not allow Myspace to be used as a source and yet it is the only web presence that this band has in its present form.

• Thank you for your reply; I will continue to add to my knowledge of Wikipedia, at the same time creating a case for deletion of this astoundingly misleading article. Please remember -, "Wiki is NOT a dictionary"Justpassinby (talk) 18:23, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

The phrase "shared appreciation" means that the members of the band share an appreciation of the acts listed, not that the acts listed are similar, so I do not see any problem with that phrase. Wikipedia is skeptical of MySpace links, but they are not outright banned. An examination of the article's history makes it clear that it was not mainly self-penned. There is little in the article that seems misleading to me. If you feel Wikipedia should not have an article on Pure Reason Revolution, then I suggest you follow the process described in WP:AFD. However, the article went through this process before and the consensus was to keep it. Bondegezou (talk) 10:36, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Headline text

1. Quoting the acts that the members of this band 'appreciate' is about as relevant as saying they all like toast for breakfast (or that a heart surgeon really knows a lot about toenails). I completely fail to see your logic in saying that it is important to know who someone 'appreciates' in order to bestow credibility on them (which is what is happening here). Maybe the fact that there is just two people contributing to this debate is a reflection of the lack of notability?
2. However, we have debated this page ad nausem and still haven't got past the first paragraph. You appear to have a vested interest in this band ( maybe you are related?) as you firmly believe that it deserves an entry in Wiki. I, however believe otherwise, so, having given you the opportunity to change the page, will go through the deletion process.193.132.159.169 Justpassinby (talk) 14:21, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

The band members' influences tells you about the band. Many articles on bands have such information. The information given is cited. I see no inherent problem with it. Many people have edited this page, so I don't think it particularly tells us anything that no-one else has yet joined in this discussion. I have no conflict of interest concerning this band: I like their music and have seen them play twice. If you wish to put this page up for deletion through the WP:AFD process, then you are free to do that. I will argue the page is notable for the reasons I gave in the last AFD. It seems to me that the article satisfies the criteria at WP:BAND with ease. Bondegezou (talk) 15:59, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Ongoing changes

1. I have removed the wording which leads us to believe that this band is endorsed or recommended by Rick Wakeman, which it clearly is not. I have also asked for a clearer cite for a link which is either broken or was made up in the first place

Further citations requested

1. I have asked for citations where the article quotes supposedly published material which I am unable to find. These are necessary to support the credibility of the articleJustpassinby (talk) 18:15, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I have given a URL for The Independent article. The article was easily found online. There is no reason to remove citations given, so please stop doing so. This article has been written by multiple different people and there is no evidence that edits by anyone other than yourself have involved fabricated material. Bondegezou (talk) 15:30, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Content removal

A point of contact regarding this article:

• Any material that is challenged and for which no source is provided may be removed by any editor.
• Material must be attributed to a reliable, published source.
• Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought, nor a forum for promoting one's own point of view; all material must be verifiable.

In this capacity, I'm challenging all unsourced material in this article per the above three core Wikipedia value policies to be either sourced, or removed. I do intend to remove unsourced content within the next few days; the period until that time to be used by contributors here to look at improving the content by then, ensuring that as much as possible is attributable and neutral. -- Jza84 · (talk) 02:15, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Citations

This page is still in need of verifiable references. I propose to delete the items needing references in accordance with Wikipedia policyJustpassinby (talk) 21:30, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Jon Courtney

Editors of this article might be interested to know that an article for Jon Courtney has been created and is currently the subject of a deletion discussion. Bondegezou (talk) 11:10, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Content removal

I have removed content for which no sound references were given although they have been requested. The reference to the 'Reading weekender' is actually a reference to Velocity recordings promo blurb, and I cannot find any reference (other than the band themselves saying so) to the band GEL ever having been signed to Sire records. sire records do not show them as a back catalogue artist, nor was any record ever released by Sire

Please do not rever these alterations without discussion; this article is misleading.Justpassinby (talk) 21:29, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Part of your last edit makes an unreferenced and erroneous claim of plagiarism. This clearly violates Wikipedia's policy on the biographies of living people and so I have removed it. Other parts of your edit removed cited material without explanation (your explanation above about the Reading Weekender citation is unproven). If you feel other parts of your edit are justified, might I suggest you make them separately. Bondegezou (talk) 14:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

The words "A million bright ambassadors of morning" were copied from Pink Floyd's 'Meddle' album. Not plagiarised, as you rightly point out, so I will make that point in the article.

• Doing a search of the Reading Chronicle on "Sunset Sound" yields no results, so the bit about 'sugary sweet guitars' cannot be verified or admitted. The reference you have given is to a Velocity Recordings PROMOTIONAL page which in turn claims the Reading Chronicle as a source, however this is unverifiable. A reference to an invalid reference???
• The section about being signed to Sire records is referenced back to baldyslaphead's fan page, where it is, in turn unreferenced. In actual fact, the only web reference I can find to this claim is by Jon Courtney in an interview. Now, seeing as NO records were ever issued by Sire Records on behalf of Sunset Sound, and Sire records themselves cannot (or will not) verify this, then it seems that this cannot be independantly verified. Unless the reference is "It must be true because Jon Courtney once said it in a promotional interview"
• So, I will again make the changes. Please do not revert them without providing valid references or discussing on this page. Justpassinby (talk) 16:56, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I've put The Independent article (clearly a reliable source) as a citation for Gel being signed to Sire. Bondegezou (talk) 10:54, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I have also restored two citations that you removed without explanation. As before, do not remove citations without an explanation. Bondegezou (talk) 11:04, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

The citations were removed in error. Whilst I agree that that the source of the citation is reliable, I dispute that it is independent or unbiased as the interviewee was a band member. I will continue to monitor this article for dodgy references.Justpassinby (talk) 13:13, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Will Bondegezou please stop vandalising my changes. This is getting beyond a joke. All I have done is simply remove unreferenced material and will continue to do so.Justpassinby (talk) 17:31, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

You have, yet again, removed cited material. You have also recently vandalised the Jon Courtney page. Your behaviour does not appear to me consistent with a desire to improve Wikipedia. I find it difficult to take your edits seriously while this pattern of editing behaviour continues. Bondegezou (talk) 17:37, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I think you'll find that I have removed only uncited material, and have added cited material. What Wiki policy does advertising the next release come under?Justpassinby (talk) 17:47, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

You have clearly removed cited material. For example, news of the "Victorious Cupid" EP has a reference given. Comments about the new album had some citation information given to the band's MySpace page. Describing that a band is releasing a single is appropriate content for a Wikipedia article about the band and not advertising. You have also, yet again, signed the article page inappropriately. Bondegezou (talk) 17:52, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

In that case, reference the Myspace Page. You are simply modifying this Wiki directory as this band sees fit to tell you. There is no new album and the next release will be on an 'underground' label as opposed to the major label that wiki guidelines suggest for notability. It will also not be available on general release and will be a limited run. This is blatant advertising and promotion. Please stop itJustpassinby (talk) 18:01, 18 March 2008 (UTC) (Name signed. Happy?)

The band do not tell me to do anything. I have never met the band. Wiki notability guidelines apply to the existence of the article as a whole: the article has survived an AfD and been judged to be notable. After that, any further releases the band make, on whatever label, constitute legitimate content for the article. It is not advertising or promotion for an article about a band to state they are releasing something. Bondegezou (talk) 18:07, 18 March 2008 (UTC).

This is an encyclopaedia, not an almanac. Please keep the article to what has happened and is verifiable, not what MAY happen. You have already been bitten once with the non-release of an album (Oct/Nov 2007). I' would hate to see that happen again.Justpassinby (talk) 08:53, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I did not add the information about the band's delayed next album to which you refer. (However, I will be restoring material about that you removed to provide context.) There is also a clear difference between a vague report of a release and clear citations to an imminent release. The suggestion that describing the band's activities—in terms of new releases and live shows—is advertising or inappropriate for an encyclopaedia is, frankly, risible. I am restoring that material with additional citations. Bondegezou (talk) 11:44, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Nobody suggested you did add the material to which you refer. Listen, this page has almost reached an acceptable Wiki standard. There is little evidence that any persons other than me and you ever look at it. Why don't we just agree to leave it factual? Once the gig has been played and the album released, by all means put it inJustpassinby (talk) 22:33, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

For information, Justpassinby has now been indefinitely blocked for multiple abuses (see User_talk:Justpassinby) and his recent edits reverted. Bondegezou (talk) 16:01, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Justpassinby is Jim Dobson - former member of Pure Reason Revolution —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.196.241.113 (talk) 10:29, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I guess you got that information from Jonathan Cooke? As usual, it couldn't be further from the truth. Also, Nippy from Southampton, don't forget to log in before writing such accusatory tosh.Purereasonrevolution (talk) 11:21, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Haha! No, unlike some people rouond here I don't make comments without logging in, neither do I use sockpuppets...this is the first time I've noticed this comment actually. Congratulations for being able to read the forum threads! I do love the idea of you thumbing through a Southampton phone directory for some mystical "Nippy"....very nice. Anyways, I have heard the Jim theory before, not from Jonathan actually. To be honest I'm not sure it entirely holds up. Jim was a nice guy and a friend of the band, as far as I'm aware he didn't show any signs of insanity before leaving the band. More likely you're some friend of his or someone else who felt outraged by his departure. I think it does have to be linked to him in some way, since a) you only started posting after his departure, b) it is the only possible motive I can think of for such a bizzare hatred and c) it is certainly true that there was a lot of trouble caused for the band by the legal shinanigans he kicked up. There is also evidence that suggests there is more than one person involved (much as this seems untterly incredible), since in some places, for example the brownfingers dude on DiS, the culprit seems to have very little knowledge of PRR, whereas in others, they know details they couldn't possibly have known without inside info. Also, where does the Sceptic Clit persona fit in? Are they the/one of the sad people responsible? To be honest the whole thing doesn't bother me much (it's kinda fizzed out anyway), though it is quite amusing. Some poor bloke is wasting his life away in a clearly pathetic endeavour to bring a minor rock band to ruin...life goes on, yes?Thedarkfourth (talk) 22:11, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Sales figures

I recently asked for verification of sales figure which wasn't forthcoming so I have removed a small line. If verification can be provided then by all means revert, otherwise it is misleading (I had heard that sales figures for "the dark Third is , in fact, significantly higher than quoted) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mynameisalf (talk • contribs) 20:47, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

forthcoming release references

I think the references to nearfest and the forthcoming album should be left in as the do not appear to me to be vandalism. The entries were made by an 'anonymous' IP address and by user 'Chutch'. I believe these to be one and the same, the ip address resolvng to a Bethlehem PA isp and the handle being that of Chad Hutchinson, the nearfest organiser from PA. If anyone should know then he should. By all means, if you know different then please revert. I used the 'undo' as a means of notifying you - I have no intention of spoiling your piece.Mynameisalf (talk) 07:52, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Coming from the same city as the organiser is hardly grounds for inclusion; the city has 70,000 inhabitants, and anyone can put what they like as a username. I recommend getting an admin to check if Chutch is going from the same IP, instead of just the same city. You could have just left a message on my talk page to notify me, btw :P Ironholds (talk) 00:42, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Quick feeler

I was thinking of expanding the article to include information on individual songs; the tunings, lyrical content, etc. Would this be worthwhile or likely to be deleted? Ironholds (talk) 00:42, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi. :) This sounds like the kind of information that would usually be incorporated in the related album articles. See WP:ALBUM, for instance. The complication is doing it in such a way that it isn't taken as WP:OR. Lyrical content is easy to incorporate (though, of course, we're limited in the amount of lyrics we can incorporate), but we have to be careful to avoid too much analysis. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:53, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response! what do you mean by "related album articles"? Ironholds (talk) 01:04, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I mean in the album articles that are related to a band, like The Dark Third or Cautionary Tales for the Brave. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:09, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah, ok, i get you. I was planning to do so anyway, but i thought i'd get a faster response here than on the individual albums talk pages. Thanks a bunch! Ironholds (talk) 01:14, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

from the official PRR site: "Tuesday, August 9, 2011 - 23:12

• BREAKING NEWS* For all of us PRR has been a labour of love for many years, but our individual changing circumstances necessitate it's time to finish(...) we want to say a huge thanks to you all for the support you’ve given."

They've disbanded, shouldn't the article be in the past tense? They were a band, it's over.GrandBrand (talk) 09:09, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

The band has forthcoming dates: they are still active and in the present tense. When they've finished this series of farewell dates, then the tenses in the article can be changed. Bondegezou (talk) 21:13, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Right

I've created full-fledged articles for all the singles, rewritten part of the Live at NEARfest page to be more neutral, linked everything together and created a PRR category. Anyone got any suggestions/comments on anything i've done wrong? if not i'm going to work on the "quick feeler" detailed above and expand the band-members pages; their drummer, for example, does other work and might be worth a page. Ironholds (talk) 02:54, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Before doing that,you'd probably want to read through the AfD to see why some of the band articles were deleted in the first place. (I'm not familiar with this band; this page and Jon Courtney are still on my watchlist in case there's a resurgence of the situation that led to my involvement at Jon Courtney a few months ago.) It doesn't look like there was ever a page on their drummer, so there wouldn't be a question of WP:CSD#G4 here. If he is notable beyond the band or outstanding in relation to it, then he might well warrant a page.

As far as the articles, my suggestion would be to incorporate reliable, independent sources to help establish notability. As WP:MUSIC says, "Individual articles on albums should include independent coverage." Reviews, of course, are ideal for this. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:54, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Yup, thanks. I was going to search for reviews next; most of the ones wikipedia normally use dont have anything, but i think i saw a Drowned in Sound one. I'm also planning on creating a little template box for the bottom of each page. Ironholds (talk) 12:24, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

They can be hard to find sometimes. As a contributor to Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles, I do a lot of older albums. If it weren't for reference books, I'd sometimes be lucky to get anything outside of AMG. :/ --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:27, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Ahh ok. I'll use my good friend google, and hope something wonderful turns up there. I've got a favourable quote from Q magazine, but no way of verifying if it's a album review/live review/general comment. Ironholds (talk) 12:36, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Erm I had considerable difficulty getting the Jon Courtney past an AfD (even though he clearly deserves an article). Admittely that was when Justpassinby was still operating and as vindictive as ever, but even so I expect that a claim of "he also works with Mr. Fogg" (or whatever his name is) wouldn't be enough to get Mr. Glover's article through wikipedia's watchful eye...though by all means have a go.Thedarkfourth (talk) 17:50, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

He's a musician with a band good enough to be included, he's been there for years, has previous history. I can get up a full bio and equipment list too, so i'll try in a few days when i have more time. Ironholds 19:34, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Just do it if you have the time; If it gets afd'd there's enough positives on here to create a concensus. I'd like to see it for sureMynameisalf (talk) 12:26, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll get straight on to it when i have the time, in about 2 weeks when my exams are over. Positive consensus from a group of fans isn't really what i'd like, though, although it is appreciated. I'd rather the article went through under its own merit; I know he's notable, you know he's notable, but i dont feel comfortable with creating the article unless the article can show that he's notable. Ironholds 12:55, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

You could have a look at the old AfD, where Willcox and Dobson's pages were deleted but Alper's and PRR's were kept: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pure Reason Revolution. Also, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jon Courtney.Thedarkfourth (talk) 19:20, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Grammar

They're a British band, so I've changed some of the grammar to British English accordingly. 81.23.56.53 (talk) 00:32, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Yar, thanks for that. You might get some flak over the is/are change, but the British English "favour" was a good call :). Sorry I didn't see it myself, actually. Ironholds (talk) 00:33, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Pure Reason Revolution. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070627001754/http://www.wessexscene.co.uk/article.php?sid=1319 to http://www.wessexscene.co.uk/article.php?sid=1319

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:12, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Pure Reason Revolution. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090209040324/http://www.smalltownamerica.co.uk:80/shows.php/30/Jetplane+Landing to http://www.smalltownamerica.co.uk/shows.php/30/Jetplane+Landing

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:10, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Sources for future cleanup

• https://www.loudersound.com/features/far-above-the-clouds-pure-reason-revolution-and-above-cirrus Sergecross73 msg me 21:09, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
• https://www.bbc.co.uk/berkshire/content/articles/2009/03/23/pure_reason_revolution_2009_interview_feature.shtml Sergecross73 msg me 13:30, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
• https://progreport.com/jon-courtney-from-pure-reason-revolution-on-the-making-of-above-cirrus/ Sergecross73 msg me 13:33, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
• https://rocknrolljournalist.com/2020/06/pure-reason-revolution-interview-2020.html Sergecross73 msg me 14:29, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
• https://www.musicconnection.com/pure-reason-revolution-are-back/
• https://www.metal.de/interviews/pure-reason-revolution-interview-zu-above-cirrus-mit-jon-courtney-440144/ Sergecross73 msg me 14:35, 7 September 2023 (UTC)