Jump to content

User talk:SilkTork/Archive2/Archive 45

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
← Archive 44 Archive 45 Archive 46 →


I Am the Walrus Genesis Sample

@SilkTork: Hello! Firstly, I want to thank you for posting your challenge to the claim of "Walrus" being sampled in the Genesis song "Looking For Someone". -- I'm a total wiki novice and am finding it difficult to learn the curve of protocol in getting things done. ––– I've been trying to understand how consensus works and to use it in having that claim (as cited by Paul Stump's book "The Music's All That Matters" pg 175) removed. It's unfortunate that one cannot read the alleged reference to call the citation to question.

My personal journey on this is that I saw the claim, listened to the track, heard nothing of the sort and moved to remove the claim. Novice mistake, I needed a reliable source proof that "Walrus" is not used. How does one find that? - It seems you may have. - In failing that, what I did was write to the author, Paul Stump on Facebook, and I told him of the claim using his book as reference, as well as my view that it was in error. He agreed with me. –– Before receiving his reply, I had gone to the website of engineer/producer Nick Davis, the man who remastered the Traspass album (and other Genesis remastered reissues) and told him the whole account, and not only did he reply via email declaring that it was an errant claim, but he also wrote to Genesis' composer/keyboardist Tony Banks who exclaimed "Complete fiction!". ––– But I knew I was in a dilemma, since emails aren't counted as reliable sources. Nevertheless, I posted all of this in Talk regarding this claim, just to show that even outside of wiki, in the real world, that the immediate people involved Paul Stump, Nick Davis and Tony Banks confirm the error as false. - But I was told that it means nothing, since anyone can say they were in contact and got the answer they wanted. - I did provide Nick Davis's website and email address in hopes that someone might fact-check, but for nought. - My main hope was to get the other two contributing editors of experience, who both weighed in on my attempted edit and my Talk posts, to consider that an error exists. I also mentioned and linked to a Genesis fan forum to show that several other people have seen the errant claim and also protest it. (But, of course, fan sites are also not reliable sources.)

I'm currently hoping to get a copy of the text from page 175 from Paul Stumps book to see if the claim even holds up. Misters Davis and Banks noted that sampling didn't even exist (as we know it today) during the recording of Trespass, and Mr Stump - who hasn't revisited the book in years it seems, was a little put off in wondering if he actually wrote the word "sampled" - agreeing it to be anachronistic.

I'm writing to you in hope that you may know how to circumvent or move through the process of consensus in a way that I, as a novice, am finding unfathomable. Try as I might, I seem to get more scolding so far - though not meaning to rile anyone.

Lastly, I'm curious about how you posted your opposite claim against the sample. What I noticed was that you cite the WhoSampled website as your reliable source, which links to the wikipedia page for WhoSampled, which has their website listed. –– What's peculiar to me is that, I attempted to add a performance to the "Cover Versions" section with the American group 'Crack The Sky' having done 'Walrus' on their "Live Sky" album. I inserted that info with the same type of link to the wikipedia page that already exists for "Live Sky", which includes their track listings showing the presence of "I Am the Walrus". The page also has all the other needed "reliable source" references. –– My addition was booted, nixed, removed on the grounds that a wikipedia link is (ironically) not a reliable source. –– Phewww.

So, as a novice wiki editor, I am flummoxed and my hands are tied. All of this here is yet another attempt at seeking editor consensus - not so much to add anything, though the Crack The Sky "Walrus" is worthy of adding; but to get the errant sample claim removed, because it's the factual thing to do. And if not in any other way, I would be happy to submit a challenge to someone to post and scrutinize the original Paul Stump page 175 citation to prove that it is reliable. So far, no one is stirred over such a trivial edit. Except for you ^_^

Forgive the length, but it's been a journey. To see the Talk page comments on this would be helpful perhaps, they include the exact text of my Nick Davis email and Mr Stumps initial comment agreeing that there's an error.

Last question: Is this at all a proper way of building consensus? –– Thanks for your time reading & Cheers Count_Gracula (talk) 11:58, 24 May 2017 (UTC) Count_Gracula Count_Gracula (talk) 11:58, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for getting in touch. I don't recall making any challenge regarding that statement in the article; anyway, I have looked into the situation for you, and responded on the talkpage. In essence it appears Paul Stump was misquoted. I have adjusted the wording, and moved it to the Trespass (album) article where it is more appropriately placed. SilkTork ✔Tea time 21:47, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@SilkTork: You're very welcome SilkTork, and thanks for finally getting the "sample" claim dropped from "Walrus". – When I mentioned about your challenging it, I was referring to a post that briefly appeared next to the Stump claim in question that linked to a web page "WhoSampled" that keeps track of samples used in music (it linked to the wiki page, which had the web site's url). - Your name was attributed to that post, which is how i came to find you. But that's what I meant by your "challenge". I assumed that you searched the WhoSampled site and found no evidence of Genesis sampling the Beatles.

Thanks also for posting some of Paul Stump's quote that was misused. I've been trying to find the exact and full context of it since seeing the first reference - it's not readable online. I asked Paul to copy and send it, but it seemed a bit of a bother, as he said I'd need to pester him to do it. -- I also asked a friend who may have the book, but no reply yet.

Seeing that you have put that Stump page 175 reference on the Genesis "Trespass" page -- that little bit of Stump's statement does have me a tad wondering. ––– Again, without seeing full context, it seems a very loose bit of info to cite as proof of Genesis intentionally quoting "Walrus".

"Paul Stump wrote in 1997 that there is "the barefaced presence of a riff" from "I Am the Walrus" in "Looking for Someone"

"the barefaced presence of a riff" leaves an odd impression on me as a writer/composer/musician. "Barefaced" implies an intention of ripping off something (as in the common phrase "barefaced" or "boldfaced" lie). - Without asking Tony Banks and Peter Gabriel, who likely "wrote" that vocal melody, to confirm intention, Stump seems to be jumping to a conclusion. I'd have to know what his source was for writing the comment. - Was it his own opinion/assumption or some more reliable source? –– Point being, in western music we only have 12 notes, and when a lyric is written, it often has it's own hints of rhythm and pitch built into the intrinsic character of the words when spoken (I believe you mentioned "trying to find a needle in a haystack" as the "riff" relative to "Walrus".) - If one just speaks it, its meter is revealed. That's how a lot of people write music when based on lyrics. ––– Observing the character, egos and aims at originality that Genesis embodied, methinks that it's coincidence. –– And surely, as a riff, for anyone to charge that it was an intentional lift from "Walrus" would be hard fought to stand up in a court of law for copyright infringement.

I suspect if I put that newer spin on "Looking" as intentionally borrowing a riff from "Walrus" to Nick Davis, and especially Tony Banks, their answer would be the same "Total fantasy" - since I highly doubt it was intentional. Both of their email comments strongly implied that they had no intentional connection at all to "Walrus".

I've heard "Walrus" and "Looking" both for 40 years and never made the connection. I'm not even sure which part of "Walrus" the "needle in a haystack" line is supposedly derivative of. My suspicion is that, at best, the lyrical meter has a similar cadence - something the words themselves can dictate more so than the composer of melody. It's something songwriters tend to do when melody is the result of poetry, as opposed to the other way around.

All of this said, could Genesis have been fans, or at least aware, of "Walrus" and had some subliminal influence show up in "Looking"? Sure. The Beatles were hard to miss. - A huge quantity of musicians, riffers and writers, betray influences in every new creation. But it's not so easy a claim from Paul Stump's printed point of view, that Genesis intentionally used any part of "Walrus" as a melodic riff template. Unless someone in Genesis told him so, it's only his drawing a personal conclusion. If he's a big Beatles fan and made that leap based on "I think" recognition, it's not noteworthy as a reliable source (in my opinion). No disrespect intended.

"barefaced presence of a riff" - Even more than this has been contested with the group Spirit and Randy California claiming that Led Zeppelin stole the "Stairway" opening section from him, and the courts ruled against him. Yet his case actuall had more legs with Spirit having done early shows with Zeppelin during the era of the Spirit song in question. - Then "Stairway" came out after. - And, of course, there's the famous "My Sweet Lord" / "He's So Fine" case, where George H. probably didn't mean to do it, but the parallels were too strong to let slide.

I suppose I'm just saying that the claim is still controversial that Genesis intentionally quoted the Beatles, and Stump's quote out of full context doesn't show anything more than his personal conclusion at the time of writing his book. I'm not at all sure that it's a claim to post as factual proof. –– Reading assorted reviews on Stump's book "The Music's All That Matter's" has some people questioning how much he even liked progressive rock when he wrote it. Other people saw it as a fair overview of the genre. - But for as astute an overview as it may be - does that qualify the "barefaced riff" thought as factual? And as a bit of iffy trivia, is it worth including on that tenuous basis? I'm just wondering about how strong the foundation of that statement is as proof of anything.

Sorry to be long winded on the eyes, brevity is a horrible weakness, but thanks for reading. –– If this is a misuse of the Talk feature here, I do apologize. Wiki has a complex way of working to the novice, so do feel free to correct me for the errant use. Just wanted to make that last statement. THANK YOU for the item's removal from the "Walrus" page. Count_Gracula (talk) 13:03, 31 May 2017 (UTC) Count_Gracula (talk)[reply]

I understand your ongoing concern, though it is not Wikipedia who is saying "barefaced presence of a riff", it is Paul Stump. We build up articles by using information from other writers. If the information is basic and/or fairly widespread, we simply give the information as fact, and cite the source. Where such information may be challenged or appears non-standard, we make clear who said it, as well as citing the source, and that is what has been done. The purpose of Wikipedia is to collect together the published information on a topic, including non-standard views. We are at all times non-partisan and neutral. It is not our place to make judgements on what the published experts say. We may personally agree or disagree, but that should not influence our decisions. If we find that we are getting too personally involved or judgemental then the best thing is to refrain from editing that topic, otherwise our own bias will start to influence the article. Paul Stump in a published work felt he heard a connection between two pieces of music. He felt this connection was important or interesting enough to mention. We don't choose to agree with him or disagree, we simply record that piece of information: 'Paul Stump wrote in 1997 that there is "the barefaced presence of a riff" from "I Am the Walrus" in "Looking for Someone"'. Now, if you really do feel that he was wrong, then you could write an article or book in which you mention what he said, and refute him. Wikipedia would then say that 'Paul Stump wrote in 1997 that there is "the barefaced presence of a riff" from "I Am the Walrus" in "Looking for Someone"; this was challenged in 2017 by Count Gracula who felt that "at best, the lyrical meter has a similar cadence".'
Wikipedia:Core content policies gives some background to this, with helpful links. WP:ANALYSIS is perhaps helpful in its language as it indicates that Wikipedia articles do make "analytic, evaluative, interpretive, or synthetic claim[s]" where they have been "published by a reliable secondary source". Pretty much all articles on music and art contain "analytic, evaluative, interpretive, or synthetic claim[s]", some of which you may or may not agree with. If we remove all claims that you or I or anyone else doesn't agree with, we will be left with very little content, and absolutely no critical commentary. While I can't pretend to know exactly what Stump was talking about, I can hear the similarity to "I Am the Walrus" in "Looking for Someone", something I hadn't noticed before he pointed it out. So, I welcome his comment, and all such similar comments, which nudge me into looking at something in a new or different way. Like you, I doubt if the similarity was deliberate, and certainly not "barefaced"; and I also agree that a claim of copyright theft would be unlikely to stand up in a court of law; however, there is a similarity for folks to ponder on. SilkTork ✔Tea time 07:34, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:AIAssessment

Template:AIAssessment has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 01:41, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to Wikipedia:Article Incubator/AIAssessment. SilkTork ✔Tea time 19:39, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DUP

Hi SilkTork

Please could you reopen the discussion at Talk:DUP and allow the primary topic discussion to be resolved. The discussion was relisted by Anarchyte just two days ago with the intention of resolving that question. Also, this is not within the purview of Ireland collaborations or ArbCom rulings concerning NI - the ArbCom ruling concerns the titles of actual articles, which this is not. It is not an article name, it is a simple issue of whether the redirect itself is primary for the Northern Irish DUP. This is not controversial politically, it's just something we need to work out in the RM. I personally think that it is the primary topic. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 17:21, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, on second thoughts, don't worry. I'll just open a fresh RM on the matter. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 17:22, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for getting in touch. Yes, a fresh discussion on the redirect issue is what is needed, as I said in my close; and you would be advised to inform Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration of the discussion, because it does relate to Northern Ireland and the politics there, so a collaborative input from folks who understand these matters would be helpful, and would head off any potential problems. If they decide this is not a controversial redirect, then fine, no harm done letting them know. But if does turn out to be controversial, then by not informing them, you could be creating problems. It's simply a precautionary heads up. SilkTork ✔Tea time 19:37, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work on Neil Young.

Merci! Nice to see somebody writing on rock stars who isn't a fanboy/critic wannabee. PaulCHebert (talk) 06:08, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I know what you mean. There is a lot of attention on Wikipedia given to paid contributors, but in my experience we actually have very little problem with them. They generally write very well, use sources, and on the whole write in a neutral and informative fashion. Our main problem is from fans who don't use sources (or use inappropriate ones) and write from a fan perspective. But its not just music articles, fan writing runs through the full range of subjects, and gets especially problematic on national, ethnic, political, and religious subjects. But that is the dilemma at the heart of Wikipedia. People want to write about the stuff they are interested in. When people have an interest in a topic, it can be difficult to be objective, and it can be difficult to know when to cite that the sky is blue, because, after all, everyone knows that Pink Floyd were formed in Cambridge. SilkTork ✔Tea time 11:22, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Movement Strategy reminder

Hi. You contributed in a previous part of the discussion, so this is just a reminder to you (and any interested talkpagewatchers), that it's the second week of our Movement Strategy Cycle 3 discussion. There's a new topic each week in July, and this week's is: How could we capture the sum of all knowledge when much of it cannot be verified in traditional ways? You can see more details, and suggest solutions or respond to other people's thoughts (from this week and last week) at Wikipedia:Wikimedia Strategy 2017. You can also read a summary of discussions that took place in the past week. Cheers. Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 03:10, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting topic. I may well drop in. SilkTork ✔Tea time 09:30, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Amisom violating 0RR restriction. (in this case the notice is purely for information) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:24, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:New York (state)/New Jersey Hitmen

I don't think this page was supposed to be moved. The article is New York/New Jersey Hitmen. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 19:53, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think I agree with you. The history page shows that this has got caught up in previous moves regarding the New York naming issue: [1]. I think that's because such moves are automated, and the software is reading Talk:New York (state)/New Jersey Hitmen as a sub page of Talk:New York (state) because of the /. I will manually move it so it matches the article. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. SilkTork ✔Tea time 23:07, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed now. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 20:15, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RfA

Thanks for supporting my run for administrator. I am honored and grateful. ) Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:09, 24 July 2017 (UTC) [reply]
Nice one. SilkTork ✔Tea time 09:32, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Editor assistance

Hi SilkTork I have been editing the wikipedia page on White Privilege. I have been accused of bludgeoning on the talk page.

I have concerns that the habitual editors of this page are not neutral. That they are editing in a way to avoid or neutralise criticism by engaging in original research, denying RS and are not interested in improving the article by including legitimate criticism of the theory. Given the controversy surrounding the topic I need to absolutely keep on the right side of the rules, perhaps I can take your advice and you can advise if I am maintaining my objectivity? Keith Johnston (talk) 22:06, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for getting in touch. I have looked over the article, and the discussions on the talkpage. I can understand your frustrations. However, the rationales and explanations on the talkpage regarding what you have done and continue to want to do are in line with Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and have been presented to you in a collegiate manner. I can understand the thinking in your argument for wanting to use the YouTube piece, that the video shows a notable figure, Jordan Peterson, speaking on the topic of white privilege. However we use "verifiability, not truth" on Wikipedia, which means that it doesn't matter if Jordan Peterson spoke to you in person (or via a video on YouTube), what we require is the material has been published by a reliable source. The idea is that Wikipedia summarises the most notable pieces of information, and we use reliable sources to decide what is notable, rather than the opinion of an individual editor. If a reliable source prints and comments on what Peterson said, then we can use that. But what we can't do is have an editor, such as you or me, listen to what he says, and decide that it is important. I suspect that there will be sources out there which will have commented on that video, but you would need to take care to check the reliability of those sources. For example, while the Daily Mail is a well known British newspaper, we don't regard it as a reliable source.
As regards wanting to put a criticism section in the article. As has been pointed out, we do discourage those. And I am unsure why you wish to have one, when the article is already well balanced with criticism. Have you noticed that it's there in the lead, and in the Contrasting concepts sections. It appears to me that the article is currently doing a good job of presenting all aspects of the topic. I had not heard of the concept prior to you getting in touch with me, and I find the article has given me a fair, balanced, and helpful overview of the topic, including the criticisms it has received. SilkTork ✔Tea time 23:15, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for giving me an independent view. I appreciate this and will use it to refine my approach.Keith Johnston (talk) 05:55, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming of New York categories

Please don't rename New York-related categories before I do, because I want to do it my way. If you're in any rush to get specific categories renamed, please use WP:CFDS to list them, where they will generally be processed 48-72 hours later; if you have no rush for a specific category, please wait until I get around to doing it. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:36, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

O cool. Thanks. I was tidying up after the New York move discussion, but if you're happy to do it, then go for it. Just so I know what still needs to be done (because moves like this often have scraps here and there that need sorting out, and can get left if nobody is picking it up) are you following up on all the residual aspects of the New York move, such as the links in Template:New York (state) for example? Or is there someone else who does that? I don't wish to tread on toes and get a "Please don't" message from anyone else! So, if you could let me know what you are and are not doing, I'm less likely to offend. SilkTork ✔Tea time 17:46, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SilkTork/Archive2/Archive_45&oldid=1077612250"