Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Ayers Rock (band)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Structure

Hello all, Feezo here. I will be your mediator in this case. To make sure we're on the same page, this means I will be working towards a consensus built among yourselves. I'm convinced that everyone here is acting in good faith: that is, you all genuinely want what is best for Wikipedia. I'm optimistic that we can make this case non-confrontational—perhaps even collegial.

To all the parties, I'd like to start by getting your input as to how to begin. I've reviewed the discussion at Talk:Ayers Rock (band), and am prepared to write up a summary of the salient points to cover in a structured manner. Alternatively, if you'd like to provide an opening statement describing your position, we can proceed from there. This might be preferable if your views have shifted substantially since the initial thread. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 05:54, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi Feezo, I would like to present an opening statement outlining my position, and my thoughts on a way forward. It will be ready in a few days. I agree with what you have stated re working in the best interests of Wikipedia, and in a collegial manner. RegardsCaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 07:14, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

• Hello Feezo, thank you for being our mediator. I look forward to your summary of my salient points: my views have not significantly changed since the start of this situation as outlined on the cited talkpage.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 07:03, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

• As a qualified mediator myself I look forward with interest as to how the process works for Wikipedia. I agree with your synopsis so far that everyone here is indeed working in good faith and wants to ensure that the article is as encyclopedic as possible. Dan arndt (talk) 08:01, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Nice to hear from all of you. Once CaesarsPalaceDude posts his outline, I'll put up my summary. We can then decide which points need to be addressed, and in what order. At this stage, I suggest we avoid debating the merits of particular points, and instead focus on which are most relevant. After we've agreed on a case outline, we can transition to discussing the individual points. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 19:18, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi guys, I am working on another Wikipedia project concurrently with this. I have completed about 60% of my opening statement, which will be ready tomorrow. RegardsCaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 10:54, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Opening statement by CaesarsPalaceDude

Hi everyone, by escalating this dispute to a formal mediation I am not attempting to create aggravation; I'm hoping the opposite will occur. Towards the end of the talk page discussion, I felt people were getting frustrated (in particular me!). I believe that a more structured environment will help shaidar cuebiyar and me to create the best cases we can produce, and avoid wasting time going round & round at the talk page.

shaidar cuebiyar's passion for his position is an excellent attribute, and we need more people like him at Wikipedia. Unfortunately, we disagree on a number of matters.

A problem which all parties have had to contend with, is the lack of reliable secondary sources for this subject, apart from the ones we are already using. Also, it has been virtually impossible to find good quality album reviews for this band. To make things worse, one of the albums disappeared almost without trace decades ago, and very few people have heard the music. These factors, and others, have made it more difficult to have a sensible discussion.

The key issue revolves around the quotation from Mr. Ian McFarlane in the Lead. I have argued, and will continue to argue, that a section of that quote is a false statement, and introduces an inappropriate tone.

Possible solutions

1. The disputed quote is left in the Lead in its current form.

In order for this to happen one or both of the counter-parties would have to:

• make a robust, germane, and logical argument that the quote is correct, and
• make a robust, germane, and logical argument that my criticism of the quote is without foundation.

The most compelling statement I have found in the guidelines, and essays is "You are allowed and encouraged to add material that is verifiable and true"Verifiability, not truth, and since the quote is from a source with impeccable credentials, the question to be answered becomes 'is the quote accurate in its assertions?'

So, gentlemen, give me reasons to believe. I won't criticise you if you can't back up everything with reliable sources, since we are having difficulty with sources. I will give reasons if I still can't agree.

The only other way to keep the quote is to provide a number of other sources, which directly support the ideas contained in the quote. This would indicate that Mr. McFarlane's view is shared by a majority of authors, rather than just one author. We need a majority view, because the quote is in the Lead, and therefore provides a summary of the history of the band.

2a. All of the quotes in the Lead are removed, and not replaced.

With this option we remove all the quotes containing opinion, and leave the undisputed facts. This option is acceptable to me.

2b. All of the quotes in the Lead are removed, and Mr. McFarlane's quote is placed in the body of the article.

This option was suggested by Dan arndt, and it is still worth considering. This option is acceptable to me.

2c. All of the quotes in the Lead are removed, and replaced by text sandboxed, and approved by all parties.

This option is acceptable to me.

3. Mr. McFarlane's quote is removed from the article entirely.

This is my preferred option.

Final Comment

A compromise where there are neither winners nor losers would be an excellent outcome.

Have a great day.CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 08:53, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Just a note, I've refactored your post into subsections to help keep the discussion organized. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 05:20, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Summary of issues

Here is the first part of my analysis—before we address the issues directly, we should take care to place our discussion in the context of the most relevant Wikipedia policies. As explained below, I think this is primarily WP:NPOV, rather than WP:V. Feel free to agree or disagree below. Once we have a consensus on context, I will summarize the other issues. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 05:20, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Contents of the quote

Parsing the McFarlane quote, I derive the following:

1. The band released technically proficient recordings.
2. The band members were seen as "musician's musicians".
3. The band was hindered in achieving long term commercial acceptance by a particular quality of their music, termed "seriousness".

These are primarily opinions—we cannot know for certain whether the band would have achieved greater success with less "serious" music, nor is there a way to quantify how "serious" their music was. Inclusion of the quoted material is thus guided more by WP:SUBJECTIVE and WP:WEIGHT than by WP:V. This raises the following questions: (Just to be clear, the check marks indicate that the item has been agreed on as a basis for discussion, and doesn't imply consensus about the answer.)

1. Is McFarlane a "prominent expert" such that his opinions are independently worthy of inclusion? Y
2. Does putting the quote in the lead introduce undue weight through "prominence of placement"? Even an expert can represent a minority view. Y
3. WP:WEIGHT suggests that prominent placement (e.g., in the lead) would be contingent on establishing that his opinion represents the majority view. Y
4. In the absence of sources offering opposing views, can McFarlane be said to be "speaking for the majority"? Does he have the standing to do this? Y
6. In counterpoint, McFarlane is making a fairly specific claim; we are unlikely to find an opposing view that is not responding to his particular opinions. Y

Responses

I agree that WP:NPOV is the most important guideline in this dispute. I ask that WP:LEAD is included in our deliberations, because it contains a number of pertinent sections. I agree with drawing distinctions between opinions and facts.

Yes, Mr. McFarlane is a preeminent expert in this subject, and his opinions are independently worthy of inclusion in the article.

Yes, putting the quote in the lead does introduce undue weight through "prominence of placement".CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 12:50, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

• I have numbered Feezo's parsing of McFarlane's quote for ease of referral. I'd modify point 3 to include a time frame, McFarlane says "but in the long run". i.e. something like:

3. The band was hindered in achieving long term commercial acceptance by a particular quality of their music, termed "seriousness".

• I agree that McFarlane is a notable expert on the topic and as such his opinion is worthy of inclusion in the Lead and main text.
• With few contemporaneous reliable sources of that era it is difficult to establish a majority view. However I find no conflict between McFarlane's quote and any sources currently used in the article.
• Feezo has not mentioned the Kimball et al. quotes. I assume this will be dealt with in a separate section.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 20:40, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

shaidar cuebiyar, we are in agreement except on this point: "McFarlane is a notable expert...and as such his opinion is worthy of inclusion in the Lead..." Nobody has proposed this, so it's not "agreeing" with any other party, nor the above summary. If you want to make the case that the relative lack of contemporaneous sources merits relaxing the standards on "majority view", you can certainly do so. However, I'd like to keep this section to interpreting WP:NPOV. We can, of course, discuss whether sources such as Kimball corroborate McFarlane. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 21:33, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

shaidar cuebiyar, as a matter of courtesy, could you, please refer to our moderator as "Feezo" rather than "Freezo"?CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 00:27, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

• Check, no slight intended – Feezo. I've doctored my previous entries to fix the inadvertent misspelling.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 02:06, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, no offense taken. I've added "long term" as suggested, and refactored and expanded the other open questions. Let me know your thoughts. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 10:13, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I have no problem with your open questions.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 06:59, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Responses:

• Question b: yes
• Question d: not sure I agree 100% on this one; I can tell you that I can't speak highly enough of his credentials. Is that sufficient?
• Question e: yes

I believe we can continue to the next stage.CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 12:42, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I have opened discussion below. I've also created a section below to propose additional items for discussion. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 22:08, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Discussion of items a–e

Now that we've agreed on several topics of discussion, we can discuss their merits individually—please feel free to make a case for or against any of points a–e. I will act as a neutral moderator. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 22:08, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Preliminary comment: there is considerable overlap between these points. I will consider the items collectively.

I have consistently argued that McFarlane's opinions are worthy of inclusion in the article and in its Lead. His expertise is widely acknowledged. This article is more informative with his opinions included.

Does anyone have any problems accepting McFarlane's points 1) and 2) as referred to by Feezo?

If other reliable source(s) referred to the "serious" music by Ayers Rock as contributing to their lack of long term commercial success would this lend weight to McFarlane's opinion at point 3)?

I have noticed that Kimball et al's quotes are prefaced by "As Vernon Joyson has noted, Ayers Rock's recordings suggest that there was" in the Milesago entry. Upon further investigation I believe this to refers to Vernon Joynson's (note spelling) book.

Joynson, Vernon (1999), Dreams, fantasies, and nightmares from far away lands : Canadian, Australasian, and Latin American rock and pop, 1963-75, Borderline Productions, ISBN 978-1-899855-10-0

According to an archived copy here, the Ayers Rock entry includes:

One of the first bands to record on the Mushroom label, the above album is an excellent example of jazz rock fusion Australian style. The musicianship is of high quality although it tends to become a little over-indulgent in places. The album kicks of though with the radio friendly Lady Montego but tracks such as Crazy Boys, Nostalgic Blues and Big Red Rock in particular are filled with fine virtuoso guitar and saxophone.

Although the band were quite a popular live act their recordings were hampered by a dilemma over whether to opt for a more serious pursuit of expanding the horizons or for a commercial sound, which perhaps never really saw the band reach its full potential on vinyl at least.

The later years saw many personnel changes and two more albums Beyond 1976 and Hotspell 1981.

If this is a reliable copy then this entry supports all of McFarlane's three points. Note that Kimball et al's rewording of the dilemma at the Milesago website is currently used in the article's Lead.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 00:37, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

• I perceive that the Joynson source supports the claim that McFarlane's quote provides a majority view. Joynson confines his detailed discussion to the first album, whereas McFarlane is giving a career retrospective.
• Feliu discusses the third album and does not conflict with McFarlane's quote (see talkpage for my discussion on Feliu).
• Kimball et all quotes are expanded from Joynson's comment re: the dilemma faced by the group; these quotes do not contradict McFarlane however they are too wordy in their current form.

From these I contend that McFarlane's quote does provide a majority view, he is a prominent expert in this field, putting it in the Lead is not giving him undue weight, McFarlane can 'speak for the majority' as his standing is sufficiently expert and contrary opinions where available from reliable sources can be quoted appropriately in the Lead too.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 03:31, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Additional discussion items

At this point we have five items relating to NPOV. I chose to focus on this first for two reasons. As a Wikipedia policy, it informs several potentially relevant guidelines, and is a useful touchstone in the event that they conflict. Whatever we decide will be an interpretation of policy, whereas we may agree on an exception to a guideline. The following seem relevant: feel free to expand or change this list. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 22:08, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

1. WP:LEAD
2. WP:JARGON—are we required to define terms like "musician's musician" and "seriousness"?
3. WP:IMPARTIAL

Responses

1. Other than NPoV issues discussed above. I believe the Lead statement "should not "tease" the reader by hinting at content that follows" is relevant. If there is a direct quote from an expert in the field in the Lead then it should also be in the main body of the text (in this case in the last paragraph of History) so that the Lead accurately reflects the content of the article. Other opinions from reliable sources could also be placed in that paragraph e.g. Feliu, Joynson &/or Kimball et al. where they summarise the group's career (or part thereof).
2. If the terms require definition, then note that we can compare McFarlane (M) with Joynson (J) / Kimball (K) to obtain:
   1. "musician's musicians" and "The band members had a wealth of experience in the industry" (M) cf "The musicianship is of high quality ... filled with fine virtuoso guitar and saxophone" (J) / "The band was built on world-class standards of playing and complex arrangements ... original members were all seasoned players, widely regarded as among the best musos in the country" (K)
   2. "seriousness of the music" cf "a more serious pursuit of expanding the horizons" (J) / "pursue a more expansive instrumental-based approach ... the emphasis had shifted to longer works that allowed the band to showcase its considerable improvisational skills" (K)
3. I don't believe the article is presenting only one side in a dispute between experts in relation to Ayers Rock nor is it unfairly ignoring any other side(s). I have not seen any reliable source saying that McFarlane is wrong in his opinions of Ayers Rock. If contradictory opinions exist in equally reliable sources I would welcome them. Currently WP:Impartial does not seem to apply.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 05:54, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

I think McFarlane and Joynson together give us the most to work with in looking for a majority (i.e., lead-worthy) summary. My interpretation of each:

• McFarlane: Their music was too "serious" to be acceptable to the commercial climate.
• Joynson: The commercial climate wasn't compatible with "serious" musical endeavors. The band was divided over which to pursue, and this prevented their recordings from reaching their full potential.

These are slightly different ideas, but Joynson appears to reinforce McFarlane in that "serious" music wasn't compatible with "commercial" music. If the band was divided over whether to pursue "serious" music, we can infer that a degree of "seriousness" was present in their recordings.

The quotes differ in that Joynson appears to be referring to their full artistic potential, as opposed to commercial success. (I may be wrong about this, depending on the context.) Still, it supports, by inference, the key points of McFarlane, so perhaps a fusion such as the following would be appropriate for the lead:

• Although the band's musicianship received outstanding praise from both contemporary critics and rock music historians, long term success of their recordings was limited, as the band's efforts were split between a commercial sound and a more artistically adventurous "serious", approach. [J, M]

Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 19:52, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I've modified the proposed wording to address the concerns below. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 10:28, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Alternative proposal

Thread closed as unproductive. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 08:12, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I would like to briefly break the flow to consider a completely different concept to achieving a satisfactory outcome for everyone. Feezo, would you wish to allow discussion of this idea? We could let go of directly quoting the sources, and in its place we could create our own text incorporating all of the concepts within Mr. McFarlane's quote, and the Kimball et al quote, but very little of the original wording. The first draft could be written by shaidar cuebiyar, or if he doesn't wish to, then Feezo could do it. If we try, and it doesn't work out, we can return to this thread and continue. Please consider this idea. Could Feezo respond first, please?CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 07:35, 4 June 2014 (UTC) We can consider it, with some reservations—if McFarlane's opinions are worth reporting (which seems to be the case), then the clearest way is to quote him. Aethetic judgements are inherently difficult to paraphrase. Nevertheless, if another source uses similar language, we could try something like: 'Music historians have opined that the band's music was too comparatively "serious" for long term commercial acceptance.[1][2]' This hinges, however, on the second source also using the term "serious". As I allude to in the "jargon" item we may difficulty precisely defining it. If the second source doesn't use this particular term, we'll need to cite a source defining it to avoid making an original research interpretation. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 21:03, 4 June 2014 (UTC) I don't see this as a "completely different concept". See Possible solutions 2c presented above, or Proposal 1 at the article's talkpage where CaesarsPalaceDude provided a modification of McFarlane's quote. One difference here is to incorporate the Kimball et al quotes into the mix which would make the task more difficult. We would have to paraphrase the judgements of two (or more) sources. I believe the best use of McFarlane's opinions is by a direct quote. Feezo, for a second source using "serious", read Joynson above.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 03:31, 5 June 2014 (UTC) shaidar cuebiyar is quite correct; this is Possible solutions 2c which has been presented, but hasn't been discussed at all. Can I share with you my thoughts on this article as a whole, and my rationale for this proposal? I have many, many reasons for disagreeing with the use of Mr. McFarlane's quote in this article. But, let's start at the beginning. The Australian music scene was almost completely devoid of jazz rock fusion before Ayers Rock arrived. However in 1973, the winds of change were blowing in Australian politics, and society in general (including music). The significance of Ayers Rock was that they were the most successful Australian jazz rock fusion band in the 70's, in a market where people had assumed that was impossible. Within that scene everybody knew what Ayers Rock did, some loved them (Tony Catterall, The Canberra Times), and some hated them. But everybody knew about them. They achieved this national profile due to moderate album sales, extensive touring, and loud spruiking by their manager, Michael Gudinski. Now, this is forty years ago, and this article is historical. What I don't get from the Lead in particular, and the article in general is the context, the significance, and the effect of the band on the music scene. The quote from Mr. McFarlane is ineffective as a summary of the life of the band, in my opinion (among other problems). One of my big problems is that the quote simply gets in the way of the lead doing what it is supposed to do! shaidar cuebiyar is incorrect in saying that this is not a "completely different concept", because I am proposing radical surgery on the second half of the Lead. Remembering that this is surgery that all of us will perform. I would like to draw your attention to Wikipedia:Lead#Comparison_to_news_style, where it discusses the concept of the Wikipedia Lead being longer than the journalistic equivalent. If we remove both of the quotes from the Lead, we could insert a whole paragraph as a summary of the band. I am aware that most of the above is OR/PoV, and I believe that I can find reliable sources for a lot of the historical information. As above, I think we could include all three concepts parsed by Feezo into the new draft. So, what do you think? shaidar cuebiyar, if you disagree, please say so. In that case, we would conclude this detour, and pick up the thread from before.CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 12:04, 5 June 2014 (UTC) This has become more confusing and distracting. You're moving the debate beyond its primary purpose. I have no problem with the Lead being improved but I disagree that removing McFarlane's quote would achieve this. I understand that you're trying to provide your idea of the historical context of the group in Australian music of the mid-1970s. You have previously claimed that the article was not neutral with McFarlane's quote included and with too many facts verified by his citations. Yet, here you provide a very biased description of the group while claiming to have "reliable sources for a lot of the historical information". If you do have these sources and they are directly relevant to Ayers Rock then include them in the article and summarise the group's historical impact in the Lead after you have done so. I have already understood that you are an ardent fan of the group, and that you don't like their description by McFarlane. However, nothing you've said above has convinced me that the quote should go.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 21:05, 5 June 2014 (UTC) CaesarsPalaceDude, would you be alright with closing this thread to focus on the preceding section? I think our best option at the moment is to focus on integrating McFarlane and Joynson. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 02:14, 6 June 2014 (UTC) I am a fan of Australian rock history, and Australian jazz rock history. Therefore, I would not want anything in the article that was not historically accurate. Clearly it is not worth my time to hunt down the sources, because this thread is dead. I had hoped that shaidar cuebiyar would find the idea attractive, but that also is history. Feezo, could you please guide us back to the preceding section to start over?CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 07:47, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Responses (contd.)

I don't have any concerns with McFarlane points 1) and 2) being factual, even if I might differ on the wording.

I agree with everything in the Joynson quote, however it may mislead readers, as it did with Feezo, into thinking that there was a disagreement within the band. I can find no evidence for this. Ayers Rock pursued a two prong strategy of shorter commercial tracks, and longer, more expansive material which a lot of people have called jazz rock fusion. Instead of this strategy playing out in their favour, it turned into more of a dilemma.

One of the problems with McFarlane's quote is that it cites one reason for the modest success, when in fact there are many (some of which are expressed in Kimball et al. One of the reasons for limited success, you are unlikely to find in any source: some of the songs they released simply weren't good enough. It's not in the sources, so I wouldn't want to use it. I raise it because Mr. McFarlane's quote fails close scrutiny, whilst it appears to be sophisticated to some readers, it turns out to have much less substance.

Also it expresses its concepts in a sub-standard manner, and in a way that communicates better to readers who have consumed many rock music magazines, books, blogs etc. If a reader in Nairobi saw 'musician's musician', perhaps he would think that in Australia it is possible for one musician to own another musician, just as 'Feezo's car' means the car that belongs to Feezo. If a reader in Japan saw 'the seriousness of the music', perhaps he would think the band was less successful because they didn't smile enough.

In the original context Mr. McFarlane's quote appeared in his encyclopedia, which was a book published in Australia, and most often read by Australians. This is a completely different context to English Wikipedia, which is read all around the world, by people of diverse cultural backgrounds, and for many of them English is a second, or third language. WP:LEAD states that " the lead should be written in a clear, accessible style with a neutral point of view". The quote is not clear, it's not accessible, and it's no good.

In conclusion, Mr.McFarlane's quote communicates more effectively to a relatively narrow audience, fails to communicate clearly to a large section of the readership, and could for a minority of readers be demonstrably misleading. The second half of the quote is completely unacceptable, as a matter of principle.CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 03:04, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Shaidar cuebiyar, I think CaesarsPalaceDude makes some valid points: in particular, the requirements of WP:LEAD. To continue this line of reasoning, an unclear or inaccessible quote does not belong in the lead even if it is supported by additional sources. In that case, we could place it in the body of the article, where we can add appropriate context. The other option, proposed above, is to rewrite the quote in a clear way that we all agree is supported by the sources. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 06:01, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

• I dispute some of CaesarsPalaceDude's contentions in this section:

1. CaesarsPalaceDude agrees with everything in Joynson's entry. However does Joynson's entry support McFarlane's quote and all three summary points that Feezo provided?
2. CaesarsPalaceDude contends that Feezo was misled by Joynson's quote into believing there were disagreements within the band over two main strategies. However I believe this is a reasonable conclusion based on various sources, different members had different musical preferences:
   1. Kimball tells us their first album's "material was a good balance between the more commercial song-based material of McGuire and Brown and the more adventurous instrumentals" whereas the second album showed "the emphasis had shifted to longer works that allowed the band to showcase its considerable improvisational skills". Note that Kimball has "Many thanks to Ray Burton and Col Loughnan" at the end of his article (that's the reason I cited them as co-authors) for the Milesago article.
   2. The group left Mushroom and effectively disbanded for "about three years".
   3. They reconvened with a new line-up which went on to record the third and final album.
   4. Kimball's detailed descriptions support the view that the two strategies were supported by different band members.
   5. Joynson's entry deals primarily with the first album but does support the belief that there were disagreements between band members: there was a high turnover rate of members with only Loughnan remaining from the founders by the second album.
3. CaesarsPalaceDude criticises McFarlane for giving only one reason for their lack of latter day success. If other reasons are available from other reliable sources they can be added to the Lead as well.
4. Earlier the CaesarsPalaceDude agreed that McFarlane was "a preeminent expert in this subject, and his opinions are independently worthy of inclusion in the article".
5. CaesarsPalaceDude now attacks McFarlane's writing style: "appears to be sophisticated" but "have much less substance"; "expresses its concepts in a sub-standard manner"; and ends with McFarlane having a narrow context as his work is "most often read by Australians". I have many issues with these attacks but suffice to say I do not support the conclusion that McFarlane's quote is unclear or inaccessible.
6. This wikipedia article was viewed some 676 times in March this year – before CaesarsPalaceDude placed an NPOV 'plate on it. This is an average of some 20 or so readers a day. I have no statistics on the English reading standard of the typical viewer of this article nor any indication of where these readers are from. Nevertheless I am confident that most of them found the article's Lead to be informative, clear and accessible.
7. Back in August 2012 I assessed this article as C-class, I understand the standards and believe that the Lead in its form of March this year was up to C-class.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 23:25, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Shaidar cuebiyar, can you explain your conclusion to point 6? What is your basis for being "confident that most of them found the article's Lead to be informative, clear and accessible", in light of the contention that terms such as "musician's musicians" and "seriousness" are Australian rock music jargon? Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 01:14, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't have any hard data, merely an observation of page histories. Until CaesarsPalaceDude placed his NPoV 'plate on the article there had been no concerns raised by readers with regards to its clarity or accessibility. In April this year, CaesarsPalaceDude had a specific problem with "seriousness of the music" as being code for "these guys are as boring as hell" and claimed that it was "highly prejudicial" and "has no place in an encyclopedia". In the two months since, no other editor has supported his concerns. I disagreed with his interpretation and have supplied my reasons over that time.

I disagree that "musician's musicians" or "seriousness of the music" are 'Australian rock music jargon' which would not be understood by typical wp readers. I believe even people from Nairobi or Japan who are reading an article on an Australian rock music group would understand these terms. If you believe they require further definition/explanation then you can use the suggestions above.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 07:55, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I was not attacking Mr. McFarlane or his encyclopedia; I was commenting specifically about the second half of the quote, and only that.CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 03:51, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Actually you did. You described his overall work as "a book published in Australia, and most often read by Australians" stressing that it had limited accessibility due to its Australian context. You then compared it unfavourably with "Wikipedia, which is read all around the world, by people of diverse cultural backgrounds, and for many of them English is a second, or third language". This is hardly a fair comparison with WP being a work in progress authored by millions of editors and tailored for its audiences. It has the opportunity of being continuously improved. I believe McFarlane is appropriately used in an Australian rock music article from that era as it helps readers develop a greater understanding of the topic from a pre-eminent expert in the field.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 07:55, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I had no intention of comparing them favourably or unfavourably; instead I was trying to say that the quote was more suitably placed in its original context, than in the Lead. My focus is on the quote; I have nothing but praise for Mr. McFarlane, and his encyclopedia.CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 17:49, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry shaidar cuebiyar, neither Joynson or Kimball state that there was disagreement within the band about strategy, only that there appeared to be a dilemma because there seem to be two different types of tracks. Kimball implies that he is drawing an inference by his wording: "Ayers Rock's recordings suggest that there was some dilemma about whether they ...." My interpretation of their writings is entirely valid.CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 04:26, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

It may be a matter of interpretation. I see a high turn over rate of members in a band where some write "commercial song-based material" and others write "more adventurous instrumentals". After some members leave the next album has "shifted to longer works ... [with] considerable improvisational skills". I have no problem with the dilemma being described as "the band was divided over whether to pursue 'serious' music" as Feezo did. Maybe that's why quoting expert authors directly is sometimes better than supplying one's own opinions. I believe McFarlane has nailed it best and that he effectively summarises the band's total career with good expression. I further recommend the enhanced use of Joynson and Feliu in the History section's last paragraph to add to the overall strength of the article.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 07:55, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

shaidar cuebiyar has not properly addressed Feezo's question re point 6. There is no additional information or reasoning to back up his assertion that he was "confident that most of them found the article's Lead to be informative, clear and accessible". The thing is, we need more than "I disagree".CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 09:15, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Actually it is more than just 'I disagree'. Consider one of CaesarsPalaceDude's previous statements "I accept entirely that the three other respondents in this discussion sincerely believe that there is no POV problem at all" One of the disagreeing parties was me but there are two others.

Feezo has indicated that despite slightly different ideas Joynson is usable to McFarlane's three main points. I believe Feliu, who also focuses on a different aspect, has no conflict with McFarlane's points. I believe that CaesarsPalaceDude, as an ardent fan of the subject, is unable to deal with his perception that "seriousness of the music" means "these guys are as boring as hell". Hence it is one person's misperception of the quote that is the problem not the average reader of the article.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 22:59, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps we should take a moment to look at this from another angle. Shaidar cuebiyar, could you define, in one to two sentences, the term "serious" as used by McFarlane? Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 23:05, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

I would rather use McFarlane's own words:

In his entry on an Australian progressive rock group, Tully: "[its] members were serious musicians, willing to experiment and explore sound through intellectual stimulus and emotional feedback. Improvisation and the mood of the moment were the keys to expanded consciousness".

This supports my view above that "seriousness of the music" cf "a more serious pursuit of expanding the horizons" (J) / "pursue a more expansive instrumental-based approach ... the emphasis had shifted to longer works that allowed the band to showcase its considerable improvisational skills" (K). It refutes CaesarsPalaceDude's misperception that the phrase means "these guys are as boring as hell". If Feezo believes it is required, McFarlane's definition of "serous musicians" can be added in a note at the end of McFarlane's reference:

<ref name="McFarlane">McFarlane, [http://web.archive.org/web/20040803083436/www.whammo.com.au/encyclopedia.asp?articleid=57 'Ayers Rock'] entry. Archived from [http://www.whammo.com.au/encyclopedia.asp?articleid=57 the original] on 3 August 2004. Retrieved 31 July 2012. Note: elsewhere McFarlane has described "serious musicians" as "willing to experiment and explore sound through intellectual stimulus and emotional feedback. Improvisation and the mood of the moment were the keys to expanded consciousness" see [http://web.archive.org/web/20040807054636/http://www.whammo.com.au/encyclopedia.asp?articleid=740 'Tully' entry]</ref>

McFarlane does not say that all, or even most, of Ayers Rock's music was "serious" nor that they did not achieve any commercial success but that on-going success was thwarted by the "seriousness of the music". Feliu agrees that by the final album Ayers Rock were out dated, in that the "popular climate for that sort of progressive music has given way to the 60s beat and three-minute hit sound" and that "power pop-oriented sounds of today eclipse this laid-back style into commercial obscurity in Australia".(source cited in main article).shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 01:49, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

CaesarsPalaceDude, in your view is there a difference in meaning between "serious musicians" and "seriousness of the music"? Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 02:36, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I repeat,shaidar cuebiyar has written nothing which is relevant regarding Feezo's question: 'What is your basis for being "confident that most of them found the article's Lead to be informative, clear and accessible"?' I will keep raising this matter until he answers the question, or concedes that he doesn't have an answer.

I am aware that I have not answered every question asked in this discussion, and I intend to go through past posts to find them, and answer them as part of future discussions.

With regard to recent posts, it should be remembered that the issues we have been discussing, the content of the article, and even the template used to denote that there is a discussion have all changed since the first time I tagged the article. Originally, I tagged the whole article as being NPOV. As the discussion progressed, edits were made to the article by all of the current parties to this mediation. Thus, the character and tone of the article changed, and the discussion changed my views on certain points not related to the quote, to the point where a negotiation took place to change the template to its current form.

In a recent post we have "I accept entirely that the three other respondents in this discussion sincerely believe that there is no POV problem at all". The three other respondents referred to are Mz7, Dan Arndt, and shaidar cuebiyar. The "POV problem" was my concern, at that time, that the entire article was POV. Also, we have "these guys are as boring as hell" which was from my first post at the talk page. Since then I have not repeated that statement, but shaidar cuebiyar has repeated it at least six times. It has not been part of my argument for a very long time. I would ask that shaidar cuebiyar only include in the discussion matters that are relevant to this mediation.

We also have Caesar "is unable to deal with his perception... ". This is mildly insulting language, and it is the second time he has done this, the first being at the end of the aborted "Alternative proposal". I would ask that shaidar cuebiyar desist from using insulting or mildly insulting language.

Please answer the question: 'What is your basis for being "confident that most of them found the article's Lead to be informative, clear and accessible"?'CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 12:20, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree this needs to be addressed. Our debate over the quote's meaning suggests that it does not, barring other evidence, meet these requirements. Perhaps we should gather data with a poll at a suitable wikiproject? Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 20:05, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

To CaesarsPalaceDude: I have given an answer to Feezo's question re: my point 6. My confidence is based on zero reader/editor comments on McFarlane's quote from the article's history. I added the McFarlane quote in July 2012 see here, and as I've said earlier up to April this year there were no complaints about the Lead's lack of clarity, its misinformation or inaccessibility. Since the NPoV 'plate was added further editors/readers have looked at the quote due to CaesarsPalaceDude highlighting it. None have said that they agree with his interpretation. As for any 'mildly insulting language' and focusing on your earlier interpretation of "seriousness of the music": I apologise I did not see where your interpretation of this phrase has altered. I would ask you the same question Feezo asked me: "could you define, in one to two sentences, the term "serious" as used by McFarlane?"shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 04:37, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

To Feezo: do you believe that together with Joynson, Feliu and Kimball's material added in the main History section that McFarlane's quote has support in its three areas and that by adding the note indicated above it increases its usability in the Lead?shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 04:37, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi shaidar cuebiyar, and Feezo, this post will be in two parts. Shaidar cuebiyar, I accept completely that you have tried to answer Feezo's question. Unfortunately, your argument would not hold up in a court of law, or in an academic context, such as a thesis, and I doubt whether it will do so here. I will try to explain why.

If I stated that there had not been a fire in a particular area or environment, that would have little or no relevance to any potential fire risk now, or in the future. In a similar way, your statements that you have not received any comments or complaints, don't mean that nobody has noticed, or felt disgruntled, or felt absolutely furious. Some people are not motivated enough to put up a post. Some people don't realise that it is possible to put something on a talk page. The biggest problem is that the people who are going to have the most trouble with clarity, and accessibility are the ones who are least able to complain. Also, they might worry about looking foolish. Shaidar cuebiyar, please feel free to reply here.

I wish to close discussion on this point, for the time being. Its status is unresolved.

1. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it". If the article had not received any feedback on its lack of clarity/accessibility then why would anyone believe it was unclear or inaccessible? The default position is to assume good faith: I did not write the Lead to make it unclear or inaccessible. Until the matter is raised I am justified in believing the Lead was acceptable to a typically reader of this article.
2. Once CaesarsPalaceDude made the allegations about the article's lack of NPoV, other interested editors considered the article including McFarlane's quote in the Lead. No other editor has agreed that the quote is unclear or inaccessible. CaesarsPalaceDude has failed to convince me that the quote is at fault.
3. I have asked Feezo whether the additional note in the McFarlane ref would improve its usefulness in the Lead.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 03:48, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Responses continue to continue

(This heading is brought to you by your friendly neighbourhood Caesar to show we are starting a new topic, and to make it easier for us to edit.)

Shaidar cuebiyar, please do not edit in comments from this point to my sign-off.

Everybody has biases, that's just human. I have biases; shaidar cuebiyar has biases, and so on. I wish to explain my biases, to try to help other parties to understand where I come from. I have a large CD and LP collection; a lot of which is progressive rock, jazz rock fusion, or jazz. A significant proportion of my music is from the 70's and early 80's. That alone would make me unusual, but there's more.

In the 70's I listened to AM commercial radio, and bought LP's like everyone else. Even then, I had heard the name Ayers Rock, though I had no idea what they did. By the early 80's, my tastes had become more sophisticated, and I was old enough to go to jazz, and jazz rock fusion gigs in minor technical roles (more often than as an audience member). Unfortunately, I didn't work with Ayers Rock, or attend any of their gigs. However, you can see that I was there, on the fringes of the Australian jazz/jazz rock scene.

So, when I look at the Lead as it is today, (and it's better than it used to be) I am disturbed a little by what I see, but I am very disturbed by what I don't see! I don't see:

• the situation of the Australian rock and jazz rock scene
• analysis of the relationship between the band and that music scene
• discussion of the artistic aims of the band, and whether they achieved them
• the influence they had on jazz rock fusion, and prog bands that followed

What I do see is a lot of material which deals in one way or another with their commercial success or lack of it.

Question: What on earth are we doing here at Wikipedia? Well, one of the things we are doing with historical articles is that we take the readers back to when and where it happened. If a Vietnam veteran reads Wikipedia and says: "Yeah, I remember when we held the Vietcong at that pass", then we have gone a long way to doing the job. If he says "Bloody Wikipedia got it wrong again!" then we have a problem. The fact of the matter is that this article isn't doing it for me; it's not transporting me back to when it all happened. The biggest problems are in the Lead. Yes, I know that's a very personal view.

Next, I would like to do an exercise:

Could everyone please read the entire Lead, and only the Lead?

Ayers Rock (band)

Now, please read all of this:

"The band members had a wealth of experience in the industry" (M) "The musicianship is of high quality ... filled with fine virtuoso guitar and saxophone" (J) "The band was built on world-class standards of playing and complex arrangements ... original members were all seasoned players, widely regarded as among the best musos in the country" (K) "a more serious pursuit of expanding the horizons" (J) "pursue a more expansive instrumental-based approach ... the emphasis had shifted to longer works that allowed the band to showcase its considerable improvisational skills" (K)

To me the difference in tone is breath-taking!

This is one of the reasons I have been writing about inappropriate tone often at the talk page, and as an issue at the Project page for this mediation. The worst example is Mr. McFarlane's quote. The section "The band issued a series of technically proficient recordings" is a case study in how to damn with faint praise. The words 'series', 'technically', and 'proficient' are all very cold sounding words, which would be completely at home in a laboratory or a coroner's office. The next word is 'but'. It's always 'but' in that position in a sentence when somebody is criticising. We all do it in writing, and verbally. Then we have "was marred by the seriousness of the music". The word 'marred' has very negative connotations. The word 'seriousness' has a very heavy, burdensome feel. It's all cold, heavy and negative.

Now, compare that with: "The band was built on world-class standards of playing and complex arrangements ... original members were all seasoned players, widely regarded as among the best musos in the country"

It's chalk, and cheese, my friends. At the time Mr. Ian McFarlane wrote the quote he had more than 20 years experience as a journalist, and author. He is a wordsmith par excellence, and he knew precisely what he was doing.

Shaidar cuebiyar said in his post time coded 20:40, 31 May 2014 (UTC) "I find no conflict between McFarlane's quote and any sources currently used in the article." I'm sorry, shaidar cuebiyar, I like you a lot, however that statement is wrong. There is a massive conflict between the McFarlane quote, and the sources that you have quoted in this mediation. And, it's all about tone.

Shaidar cuebiyar, please place discussion, and comments below this line only.CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 07:11, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

I will have limited internet access from Tuesday, 17 June to Thursday, 19 June, and will be unable to post lengthy responses.CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 10:08, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

1. "Everyone has biases" part: I respect that your preferences in music entitle you to an opinion on artists in the jazz rock & progressive rock genres. I may not have the same collection of CDs/LPs as you, I may not have lived through that era or attended jazz rock etc gigs or even provided technical support for artists. However, I have my own opinions on artists in this genre. I try not to have my opinions influence how I write about those artists, thats why I look for reliable sources and pre-eminent experts on the subject. Thats why a direct quote from such an expert does not show my biases and this is what makes it so good for a wp article: it makes it more NPoV.
2. I have read the Lead numerous times and this includes McFarlane's quote. I believe it improves the Lead more concisely than Kimball's wordy quotes. I believe the latter should be trimmed per suggestion on talk page. Other than the Kimball quotes, the Lead is clear, accessible and provides a good summary of the band's career.
3. "breath taking" part: The fragments you now quote do not explain why the group were not more influential/widely known after 1981.
4. Is there any negative phrase that you do agree with? Are all descriptions of the group to be glowing positive endorsements? This is hardly NPoV. If an expert has provided an opinion it can be quoted in the Lead, especially where it is backed by other reliable sources in the way McFarlane's quote has been supported. Additional experts can also be quoted appropriately.
5. "cold, heavy and negative" part: this is your interpretation. I dispute your point of view.
6. You now look at a different part of the quote. I find this section of McFarlane's quote to be informative, intelligent and concise. McFarlane is giving his opinion of the band's lack of continued success. You're an ardent fan of the group but does this mean that they can not be criticised by an expert?
7. You have slipped over the analyses of the additional quotes and whether they support McFarlane's view. Do they support all three points according to Feezo's analysis above?
8. You have not answered Feezo's question: "is there a difference in meaning between "serious musicians" and "seriousness of the music"?"
9. You have not given any definition of what you currently believe "seriousness of the music" means.
10. Does the note at the end of the McFarlane ref improve the situation?
11. "He is a wordsmith par excellence, and he knew precisely what he was doing" part: Could you spell out what you think McFarlane was doing here?
12. Consider: "The band was built on world-class standards of playing and complex arrangements ... original members were all seasoned players, widely regarded as among the best musos in the country". If all this is true then why did the group not become more famous/popular beyond their heyday of 1974 to 1976? McFarlane gives the best explanation as to why they did not achieve sustained long-term success. Feliu and Joynson can be used, in the main text, to support his quote.shaidar cuebiyar (talk)

Mediator's view

Here are my thoughts on the evolving discussion—

• First, to answer shaidar cuebiyar's question: yes, the sources generally, if indirectly, support McFarlane's hypothesis. However...
• The full McFarlane quote in the lead does not appropriately summarize the corroborating sources. The key issues are accessibility, majority view, and tone.
  • Accessibility: I fail to be convinced that "musician's musicians" and "seriousness of the music" are anything but obtuse jargon that stand in sharp contrast to clear, meaningful phrases such as "technically proficient". Absence of complaints is not evidence either way: how many readers contested the template? If this becomes a pivot point, we could organize a poll of the wider community. However, I see a more pressing issue with...
  • Majority view: CaesarsPalaceDude has persuasively argued that "The band issued a series of technically proficient recordings" does not accurately reflect the majority view of citable sources required by WP:WEIGHT. Opinions such as "fine virtuoso guitar and saxophone", "world-class standards of playing and complex arrangements", and "among the best musos in the country" are not accurately summarized by a quote that attributes mere technical proficiency—a necessary but insufficient trait. McFarlane's opinion is still relevant to the article, but "technically proficient recordings" simply does not belong in the lead.
  • Tone: I'm more with shaidar cuebiyar on this one. Neutral prose may well look "cold", especially to someone with a deep familiarity with the subject. A series of quotes only in praise of the band probably would not be NPOV either. However, a representative quote, or summary, along with an explanation for their lack of "long term commercial success" (quoting McFarlane or carefully synthesized, depending on what we decide regarding accessibility) would, I think, resolve the issue.
• Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 03:02, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

1. From my understanding of the above the biggest problem with McFarlane's quote is that "technically proficient recordings" is insufficient to cover the opinions provided by other sources. If Kimball's quotes are combined and shortened this would provide the Lead with sufficient wp:weight to overcome the lack when using McFarlane's quote on its own. I have no problem with a précis of Kimball's quotes being used in the Lead after McFarlane's quote. Or would a Joynson quote work better than Kimball? Either would be acceptable to me.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 05:34, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

"Technically proficient" isn't just insufficient: it's misleading. McFarlane's wording deliberately contrasts the "good/successful" and "bad/unsuccessful" traits of the recordings. Placing "technically proficient" in the lead suggests, falsely, that this is the sum total of expert opinion on the band's positive characteristics. We could, it's true, follow or precede it with another quote; but how likely is it that "(some of) the best musos in the country" with "world-class standards of playing" produced non-proficient recordings? The first half of McFarlane adds nothing. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 12:37, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi shaidar cuebiyar, and Feezo. Thankyou, Feezo, for your analysis of our position. I was very interested in your comments about my argument relating to tone. It is certainly very difficult to establish a convincing case regarding tone, and incorporating so much subjective opinion, it is easy to fall short.

Detailed response to shaidar cuebiyar

1. I repeat, everyone has biases. Your biases, shaidar cuebiyar, strongly influence your choice of content, quoted or otherwise.
2. My current thinking is that, after Mr. McFarlane's quote is moved out of the Lead, we should parse Joynson, and Kimball into text of our own. I'm not keen on chopping Kimball into tiny pieces.
3. Those quotes were copy-and-pasted from your post which was time-coded 05:54, 5 June 2014 (UTC). That was an exercise in linguistics, designed to show that there is a marked difference in the language being used in McFarlane's quote relative to these other quotes, which you brought to the discussion. It wasn't meant to imply that I wanted to use them in the article, although we might use one later. Mr. McFarlane's quote does not adequately "explain why the group were not more influential/widely known after 1981."
4. I agree with every negative statement about the band which is accurate, and expresses such information in an unbiased manner. I agree that: ... Hot Spell (1980) failed to chart ... they released six singles, none of which broke into the singles charts ... the band was short-lived ... "a few comments of dissatisfaction, like 'boring', were heard" (which I edited into the article myself)
5. Yes, that is my interpretation.
6. I am not an "ardent fan" of this group! I am an ardent fan of only two or three bands in the whole of contemporary music, and unfortunately none of them are Australian.
7. Feezo described it best: "The full McFarlane quote in the lead does not appropriately summarize the corroborating sources."
8. There isn't a need at this point to answer that because other issues with the same phrase are so much bigger.
9. You're right. I have been meaning to do that. A detailed answer will appear later in this post.
10. I assume you mean an embedded link to a footnote. I am not keen on footnotes which are referenced from the Lead. WP:LEAD says: "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview." I know that some articles have no other option. We have many options.
11. If my argument about tone is not going to stand, then I have no need to spell it out.
12. Look, to be honest, it's just the passage of time. Australian 60's sensations "The Seekers" had several international No. 1 singles, however many Aussies are not aware of it. Judith Durham, in an interview on the ABC, said that in one particular year the group sold more records than the Beatles. How many bands can say that? By the way, there's a very useful quote from a certain Ian McFarlane in the Wikipedia article, but you already knew that. Considering the fact that Ayers Rock failed to get any singles into the charts, they made a disproportionate impact on the music scene. Another reason that their fame didn't last was that they were so short-lived. This band turned up at the right time, when the music scene had a window of opportunity wherein there was a groundswell of interest in more adventurous music. Ayers Rock had a unique combination of musicians, at a unique time, and a unique sound for the Australian music scene. By the early 80's, the wheel of fashion had turned, and everything had changed. After that, only old dinosaurs like me remained interested. Mr. McFarlane's quote fails to correctly explain the limited commercial success of the band. Also, we haven't at any stage discussed how important commercial success was in the minds of the band members.

Consider the McFarlane quote in The Seekers: it also has specialist terms e.g. "bright, uptempo sound"; the quote employs a similar structure contrasting their styles separated by "although", which is similar to his use of "but" in the Ayers Rock quote; readers of limited English language skills (e.g your person from Nairobi or Japan) might have trouble with this quote too; and finally the quote is deployed in both the Lead and main text so that it accurately reflects the structure of the article. I'm glad that you think that The Seekers quote from McFarlane is very useful because I believe the same to be true of both The Seekers and Ayers Rock quotes.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 03:50, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

The Serious Subject of seriousness

The key problem with the phrase "the seriousness of the music" is that it could mean a number of things, and that it means different things to different readers. For some lovers of classical music, the only serious music comes from the classical repertoire. So, they might disagree that the music is serious. For pub rockers and punk rockers they would substitute "pretentious" or "elitist" instead of "serious". Some readers might take it too literally, while another section may have no idea whatsoever.

From a musicological perspective, "serious music" is generally equated with "art music", and we have a Wikipedia article which describes both. In the section headed "Definition" we see that even among musicologists there is a spectrum of definitions. For people who are well informed about modern music "seriousness" is most likely to be defined as "artiness".

I fail to see how we could define "the seriousness of the music" in an encyclopedic manner, that would be readable, even if the quote was in the body of the article. This is one of the main reasons why my preferred position is that Mr. McFarlane's quote should be excluded from the article.

In the guideline Wikipedia:MTAA#Write_one_level_down, it says "the lead section should be particularly understandable, but the advice to write one level down can be applied to the entire article, increasing the overall accessibility." Having a phrase in the article with so many possible meanings is equivalent to it being meaningless. Therefore, "the seriousness of the music" is not only jargon, it is meaningless jargon. CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 12:39, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

1. If the wp article on Art music is unable to define what serious music is then why is the article still in existence? I think the article accurately reflects the generally accepted meaning of the phrase. I have no problem with "[[Art music|seriousness of the music]]" being used to improve accessibility of the quote.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 03:50, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
2. I disagree that McFarlane's 'seriousness of the music' is meaningless jargon. The note supplied in the reference adequately explains his use of a similar term, which improves the accessibility of the quote. Hence he has defined it in an encyclopaedic manner.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 00:54, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

It is not true that the Wikipedia article on Art music is unable to define serious music. That article does what Wikipedia is supposed to do: in the absence of one absolute meaning, it gives encyclopedic coverage to each of the significant viewpoints, without placing undue weight on any particular viewpoint. In my opinion, placing links to other articles, and notes on what "seriousness of the music" really means, doesn't solve the problems, and just complicates matters.

If you were able to prove that "musician's musicians" and "seriousness of the music" are not obtuse jargon, they would still be technical jargon, and therefore they would need to be moved out of the Lead. This is the best scenario that you could hope for. My opinion continues to be that the quote should be removed from the article. CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 12:45, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

If we're changing gears, per below, do we have a consensus to not quote McFarlane in the lead? Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 08:39, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Pardon me, Feezo, but I can't remember agreeing to remove the McFarlane quote from the Lead! I have not been convinced of its lack of worth to the Lead. All I do below is to focus attention on another of the issues I raised on the Request for mediation page. This does not mean I believe that the matter above has been satisfactorily settled. I still believe McFarlane's quote should be used in the Lead but with the reference expanded per sample above and then followed by the quote(s) being discussed below. I have modified my original position inasmuch as expanding the ref to address the perceived issue of inaccessibility and clarity, but which I do not agree exists. The quote itself can have wikilinks to deal with perceived ideas of jargon terms. In summary, McFarlane's quote shouId stay in the Lead and also be in the main text. Remember that he is a pre-eminent expert in the field, and is a "wordsmith par excellence, and he knew precisely what he was doing".shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 22:59, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

The most pressing problem with the McFarlane quote is that it doesn't reflect majority expert opinion. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 02:09, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

That is why tackling a second or third expert's opinion(s) would be a good idea. If we get the next section agreed to it will improve the Lead overall.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 03:22, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Kimball et al quotes in Lead

One of the other additional issues is the form of the two quotes by Kimball et al which currently reside in the Lead. These have been discussed above in various places but not in a focussed manner. There may be more than one way to deal with these quotes but I will start with two proposals:

1. Shortened version, I believe the quotes are too long for concision in the Lead and should be combined/shortened:

Duncan Kimball of Milesago website observed that the group had "some dilemma" between "more expansive instrumental-based approach or ... more song-based commercial sound", which given their "relatively short lifespan and small catalogue meant" they did not "reach their full potential".[K]

2. Synth with Joynson's material. Since Kimball et al's observations are partly based on Joynson's discussion then some synthesis of the two is justifiable:

Other rock music historians also praised the group's musicianship and noted the group had a dilemma between a commercial sound and a more artistically adventurous or serious approach.[J] [K]

I'm not sure whether quotes marks would be required in there.

3. I would welcome other proposals.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 03:17, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi User:Shaidar cuebiyar, and Feezo. Not Surprisingly, I agree with the notion of not including the contentious quote from Mr. McFarlane in the Lead. A more suitable quote from him is always welcome.

I believe that discussion is more appropriately held in the relevant section(s) above.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 22:59, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm not keen on option 1, however option 2 is very attractive. I suggest that we could leave out quotation marks, and employ inline citations at appropriate point(s) in the text. shaidar cuebiyar is most welcome to write a proposed text, and thereby have a greater influence on the outcome. CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 09:25, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

I thought that I had already proffered a suggestion. See point 2 above.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 22:59, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

It is now over two weeks since I focussed on this issue. You indicated that "option 2 is very attractive". I've already provided a suggestion for the wording of a J/K synthesis. I have received no reply as to whether it is acceptable to replace the existing K quotes in the Lead.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 09:10, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Comparative analysis of McFarlane quote versus other sources

I will compare the statement: "The band issued a series of technically proficient recordings, but in the long run any quest for commercial acceptance was marred by the seriousness of the music" with reliable sources, and established facts from the article.

1. Ayers Rock released three albums, two of which were moderately successful (Kent Music Report)
2. Some of the tracks on those two albums were "jazz rock fusion" or "serious music" (from the first sentence of the article)
3. The band released six singles, none of which made it onto the charts (Kent Music Report)
4. The singles contained virtually no "serious music" (exception: the last minute of "Song for Darwin")
5. Synthesizing 1. to 4.: the two albums containing some "serious music" were moderately commercially successful, whereas the singles containing virtually no "serious music" failed
6. Comparing 5. with Mr. McFarlane's sentence quoted above, we see that, in fact, the "serious music" was responsible for the band's commercial acceptance, such as it was. This is completely contrary to Mr. McFarlane's sentence which blames the "seriousness of the music" for the band's lack of success.
7. "From the evidence of Big Red Rock, its (sic) arguable that its the instrumental tracks -- "Crazy Boys", "Big Red Rock" and the brilliant cover of "Boogie Woogie Waltz(")-- that stand up best today" (Kimball et al)
8. "Crazy Boys", "Big Red Rock" and "Boogie Woogie Waltz" are all "jazz rock fusion" or "serious music"
9. Comparing 7. & 8. with Mr. McFarlane's sentence, Kimball states that the "serious music" is the band's most enduring work (artistically), whereas McFarlane is running counter to that

Conclusion 1.

Mr. McFarlane's sentence quoted above is the exact antithesis of the facts which are also present in the Lead. Therefore, it is a false statement.

Conclusion 2.

It runs counter to the above quote from Kimball, which is further evidence that the quote does not represent a majority view.

I will quote the guidelines, as I have done previously: "Never quote a false statement without immediately saying the statement is false." "There is no difference between quoting a falsehood without saying it's false and inserting falsehoods into articles."WP:QUOTE

The sentence quoted from Mr. McFarlane above is a false statement, and does not represent a majority view. Therefore, it should be excluded from the article completely. CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 01:29, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Once again I dispute both your analysis and conclusions. Specifically:

2. First sentence of the Lead literally has "Ayers Rock were an Australian jazz fusion, progressive rock band which formed in 1973". It does not mention the first two albums here nor the proportion of their work which is jazz fusion, it does not mention serious music at all.
4. Que? Where in the article is this fact established? I can't see where the style of the singles is described.
5. Your synthesis fails due to two of the four points not being supported within the article.
6. I see no such thing, once again you're misinterpreting McFarlane: he specifies "in the long run any quest for commercial acceptance" for which Feezo adjusted the third point being made by McFarlane's quote way back at the start of this mediation.
7. , 8 & 9 Kimball et al acknowledge that the opinions about what is the group's best work is arguable and prefer their instrumental tracks from 1974. They (remember Burton and Loughnan are thanked for their assistance) are clearly considering their own musical legacy at ca. 2007, not any lack of commercial acceptance by the early 1980s. They doesn't dwell on the third album except to say it "was not successful and the band broke up in 1981". As far as I can tell, Burton left in 1974 and Loughnan was gone by 1976 (note that the article [and Kimball et al] has a problem with his timeline). Nevertheless Kimball et al agree with Joynson's sentiment re: the dilemma that the group faced.

Conclusions 1 and 2:

Your first conclusion is based on disputed analysis as specified above.

Your second conclusion is also faulty. Kimball's et al's quotes in the Lead are at least partly based on Joynson's earlier work. After the start of this mediation, I found the Joynson source which only gives detailed discussion on the group's first album and early singles up to 1975. He found their long term success was hampered by "whether to opt for a more serious pursuit of expanding the horizons or for a commercial sound"[J]. He noted that their dilemma "which perhaps never really saw the band reach its full potential on vinyl at least".[J] This source is not yet in the article but it should be. However it generally agrees with McFarlane's quote.

Now consider Feliu's review of their final album. He found that by July 1980 they were playing "jazzy chords and extended instrumental[s]" reminiscent of "Weather Report, Return to Forever, a bit of Steely Dan, Doobies" with his conclusion being "you need a lot of class to sound like those acts, and this album has it, however the power pop-oriented sounds of today eclipse this laid-back style into commercial obscurity in Australia". You have argued that jazz fusion and progressive rock were referred to as "serious music" by Australian journalists of that era. Feliu felt that they were no longer commercially acceptable due to the style of music they were playing. This generally agrees with McFarlane's quote.

I have never argued that the Lead should only have the McFarlane quote. I have encouraged the use of other reliable points of view even if they disagree with McFarlane. I only disputed the wordiness of Kimball et al's quotes in the Lead but did not argue for its removal.

As detailed above in this section and in numerous other places, McFarlane's quote is not false, it is generally supported by musical historians and contemporary sources. As a a pre-eminent expert in the field, who is a "wordsmith par excellence, and he knew precisely what he was doing", his opinion should be retained in the Lead with wikilinks added, where deemed necessary and the ref modified per suggestion above. The Lead should then continue with the Kimball et al quotes or the J/K synthesis.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 13:31, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Comments about your responses to:

• 4. I didn’t say that this point was supported in the article. It is not in the article because it is not in the sources. It is not in the sources because they are paid to write text which is interesting, rather than state the blindingly obvious. It is basic knowledge that Ayers Rock released radio-friendly pop/rock tracks as singles. In general, these singles did not have any jazz rock fusion or progressive rock. Kimball describes Big Red Rock as follows: “the material was a good balance between the more commercial song-based material of McGuire and Brown and the more adventurous instrumentals.” These are the singles, and album tracks described in 2. & 4. Kimball also talks about “a more expansive instrumental-based approach” This implies material to expand from (the singles), and somewhere to expand to (the jazz rock fusion found in the mostly longer album tracks). This pattern of choice of repertoire is seen in many other bands, and solo artists such as Pink Floyd, Al di Meola, Renaissance and Camel.
• 5. & 6. flow on logically, and Conclusion 1 stands as written.
• 7., 8. & 9. Your responses aren’t dealing with my points at all, but instead fly off at a tangent.

The paragraph beginning “Your second conclusion is also faulty…” fails to show how it is “faulty”. You continue to assert that Joynson “generally agrees with McFarlane's quote” but you haven’t at any stage proved it. I remind you that Feezo stated “The most pressing problem with the McFarlane quote is that it doesn't reflect majority expert opinion.”

The next paragraph starts with a misquote. Feliu does not state that Ayers Rock’s music is similar to "Weather Report, Return to Forever, etc.” Feliu writes ‘The "new-sounding" Ayers Rock reminded a friend of Weather Report, Return to Forever, a bit of Steely Dan, Doobies etc.’ So, when faced with the challenge of describing the band’s music, he opts to “phone a friend”. Also, it is entirely unclear whether Feliu is writing about the Ayers Rock concert or the album Hot Spell reminding a friend of Weather Report etc. etc. Immediately before that quote he is writing about the concert, and immediately after he is writing about the album. The whole of your paragraph is errant nonsense.

The paragraph beginning “I have never argued…” is entirely irrelevant to the arguments and conclusions above, and it doesn’t solve any of the problems with Mr. McFarlane’s quote.

Final paragraph: placing wikilinks and notes within references, isn’t going to help. For a start, most people don’t read them; they just read the text, and form an impression in their minds, regardless of whether it is correct or incorrect. Furthermore, the proliferation of smart phones exacerbates the tendency to not look at links, and references for a number of reasons. This is not clear and unambiguous communication.

Your responses fail to counter my arguments, and conclusions, which stand as written.CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 21:53, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Your comments did not address:

2. Do you now accept that the Lead's first sentence does not mention "serious music", it does not mention the first two albums, it does not give any indication of how much of their music is "jazz fusion"?

Another totally irrelevant comment.CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 08:39, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Other replies:

4. You claim your analysis is based on "reliable sources, and established facts from the article". Now you say that the sources don't say that the singles are "pop/rock" tracks. You now say that the singles "In general ... did not have any jazz rock fusion or progressive rock". Earlier you specify that "The singles contained virtually no 'serious music'" (except for part of "Song for Darwin"). This shows that your analysis is based on your own opinions, and hence is original research and not based on reliable sources and established facts from the article.
   1. Curiously, in this whole subsection, you have no problem using "serious music" and by implication you define it as "jazz rock fusion or progressive rock".
5. & 6. You've totally ignored album 3. Was it commercially acceptable? Was is "serious music"? Since it was a later release it bears on McFarlane's quote re: "long run any quest". Consequently Conclusion 1 is not supported.

No it wasn't "serious music" or "jazz rock fusion or progressive rock". And since you've never heard it, you will have to accept my view.CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 01:51, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Where did I say that I've never heard it? Furthermore, I don't have to accept your view, which is OR. I accept Feliu's description where he reports on their final album/related live performance as being comparable to the listed bands. He describes their work as "jazz-rock", "progressive music" and "laid-back style".shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 02:56, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Feliu is not an expert on jazz rock fusion. Mr. McFarlane, Joynson, Kimball; these are experts. You are wrong. You are arguing for the sake of arguing. I will write more on Hot Spell later.CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 08:46, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

As for Conclusion 2 discussions:

• While quoting Feezo check '3.1.1 Responses' and '6.1 Mediator's view' sections above.
• Feliu review: he is reporting the comparison with those bands. He notes that he "had the advantage that I'd already heard 'Hot Spell' several times so could appreciate the live performance a wee bit more". This implies that the live performance includes material from that album. You have conveniently ignored Feliu's statement "however the power pop-oriented sounds of today eclipse this laid-back style into commercial obscurity in Australia". From the context of his article the 'laid-back style' relates to his earlier statements "funky, jazz-rock" and "popular climate for that sort of progressive music has given way to the 60s beat and three-minute hit sound". I see that this supports McFarlane's quote and I disagree that my paragraph is "errant nonsense".
• Final paragraph:
  • A good Lead section often contains numerous wikilinks: not all readers will access them but they are still useful for those who do. Citations can also include wikilinks: this idea was presented to counter the claim(s) that the quote was inaccessible. Some readers will choose to click/hover on the link(s) and obtain additional information. This does help those readers.
  • Refs with annotations are allowable, many readers find them helpful. Once again the note idea is provided to improve accessibility.
  • Your argument implies a whole policy change is required at WP:LEAD. According to you: due to smart phones the Lead should not have any wikilinks nor any references! Use of WLs/refs "is not clear and unambiguous communication". You'll have to remember who placed the reference into the Lead after McFarlane's quote was erased from the main text.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 01:14, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Anybody is allowed to do anything which is allowed in the guidelines. In this particular case, your ideas are OK, however they will have almost no effect on the accessibility issues. Adding wikilinks, and notes is not solving the problems, and at best, is fiddling at the margins.CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 01:31, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Again, that is your opinion and again I disagree.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 02:56, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Using a quote in the Lead and body of an article

In my first post to the talk page I stated: "the use of the above quote twice in the one article is highly unusual." Recently, I found that the matter is directly dealt with in WP:QUOTE.

"Where the same quotation has been used elsewhere in the article, avoid duplicating it, which is regarded as poor style."

Considering that the English Wikipedia is estimated to reach a quarter of a billion readers, it should be a paragon of style. In light of this, it is appropriate that you remove one of the quotes from "The Seekers", and any other article where you have duplicated a quotation.CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 18:15, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Check WP:LEADCITE "The verifiability policy advises that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and quotations, should be supported by an inline citation"

Check WP:UNSOURCED "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution"

Check WP:LEAD "Apart from trivial basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article"

From my reading of WP:QUOTE This is a guidance essay but not wp policy nor guideline. Furthermore the duplication of a quotations, I believe, deals with two or more appearances in the main text (in this case History) of the article.

I have successfully submitted articles to GAN with direct quotes both in the Lead and in the body of the article but have not been asked to remove either. When putting an article to FAC I was advised to add a ref tab right next to the Lead's quotes (I usually try to avoid having too many ref tabs in the Lead for >B standard articles so as to improve their readability) but the quotes also occurred in the main text where they had been attributed. The quotes were not required to be removed from either place.

All up, your point here is not supported by actual guidelines at WP:Lead or WP:V nor by actual practice in articles being assessed by third parties as exemplars of "paragon of style".

I don't agree with your interpretation of WP:QUOTE re:repeating quotations.

For an article which is (self-)assessed as C-class the stringent rules at FA don't apply, so ref tabs after quotes don't need to be used in Ayers Rock's Lead.

As I've repeatedly said, the quote should also be in the History section to adhere to the guidelines given above.

Your point for The Seekers' article, which is (self-)assessed as B-class, also doesn't apply. Once again, the quotation is the Lead (but not ref tabbed there) and in main text (Discovery in the United Kingdom) where it is reffed. That article's Lead accurately reflects content from the main text. Sadly, Ayers Rock's article does not due to your removal of it from the History section.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 09:03, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Are you placing yourself above the guideline essays? This is almost as bad as the clanger you dropped at the talk page when you stated: “Don't worry about the article being right or wrong, if it is verifiable.” (timecoded 09:26, 3 May 2014 (UTC)) These inappropriate attitudes to the guidelines, and essays are extremely disturbing. The situation which existed at the time I first read this article was likewise extremely disturbing. Mr. McFarlane’s quote was at the end of the Lead, thereby summarising the Lead. The same wording exactly was placed at the end of the “History” section, summarising that section as well. The effect of this double quoting was such that Mr. McFarlane’s opinion appeared to be endorsed by Wikipedia, which contravenes the guidelines.

Consider the following quotes:

• McFarlane “According to Australian rock music historian, Ian McFarlane, the members "were seen as 'musician's musicians'. The band issued a series of technically proficient recordings, but in the long run any quest for commercial acceptance was marred by the seriousness of the music"
• Joynson "The musicianship is of high quality ... filled with fine virtuoso guitar and saxophone"
• Kimball "The band was built on world-class standards of playing and complex arrangements ... original members were all seasoned players, widely regarded as among the best musos in the country"
• Feliu “Once Australia's hottest progressive rock band (written in 1980)”
• Catterall “When I first came across the band, with its debut album, 'Big Red Rock', I had no hesitation in declaring it one of the best in Australia” (20 Oct 1975, Canberra Times)

If one was starting from scratch to work out which quote to use as a summary of Ayers Rock, one would remove those on the margins first. That is, knock out Feliu and Catterall (very positive, not specific enough), and then knock out McFarlane (very negative, doesn’t say anything about artistic merit). Then one would choose between Joynson and Kimball (or use both).

Compared with the other quotes from reliable sources Mr. McFarlane’s quote looks like partisan commentary. When given the extreme weight conferred by placing it at the end of both of the important sections of the article, the result was to push a partisan opinion down the readers’ throats. For this reader that was a very uncomfortable sensation. Don’t expect me to apologise for removing the second quote: I was doing Wikipedia a favour! CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 20:55, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

1. "Are you placing yourself above the guideline essays?": Ahem, this is not what I said. I write "This is a guidance essay but not wp policy nor guideline". This means WP rates guidelines ahead of essays, at WP:QUOTE it tells us "It is not a Wikipedia policy or guideline, though it may be consulted for assistance..." Whereas WP:LEAD is a guideline and herein above you asked for it to included in this mediation. Meanwhile WP:V is a policy and is also mentioned above. Hence, my contention is that guidelines and policies outweigh essays that "may be consulted for assistance". I did not place myself above essays: that's your misrepresentation of my position.
2. "the clanger you dropped": Since you like essays so much, re-read Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth, consider "Wikipedia editors are not indifferent to truth, but as a collaborative project, its editors are not making judgments as to what is true and what is false, but what can be verified in a reliable source and otherwise belongs in Wikipedia."[my stress added] My comment on the talkpage was in the spirit of this statement. I saw that you were unnecessarily concentrating on what you believed to be true without supplying any RS, the discussion should have moved away from WP:OR and steered towards WP:V. You sounded very much like a truth finder declaring "But I know the truth!" without adequate V. You were cautioned about this on the same talkpage by Mz7 to "Avoid writing about your own opinions". WP is better when content is verified not when editors express their own version of the truth without any RS.
3. "which contravenes the guidelines": I have yet to see this established. I dispute your objection to the quote appearing in the Lead and in the History section per my arguments above based on WP:LEAD and WP:V. The same wording is used in the direct quote to maintain V, the latter appearance is where I chose to apply the citation and so avoided clutter in the Lead. Other information in the Lead have no citations and that same information (generally with the same wording) also have their citations in the main text. This all agrees with WP guidelines/policies.
4. By selectively quoting sources other than McFarlane you focus only on positive statements about the band. Did J, K, F or C say anything neutral or even negative about the group? These four, on their own, defy NPOV. Further you breach the WP:QUOTE essay yourself here: "The quotation should be representative of the whole source document; editors should be very careful to avoid misrepresentation of the argument in the source". Specifically:
   1. At J you have skilfully avoided "...although it tends to become a little over-indulgent in places". Meanwhile the latter part refers to 3 tracks of the 1 album but it is made to appear to refer to their whole career. J also describes their dilemma as being related to "serious pursuit" vs "commercial sound". Remember that J relates almost entirely to album 1.
   2. At K's website we have him agreeing with J re:dilemma but there is no indication of any problems with the group from your quote. Why did they have such a greater turnover? Did they disband after album 2 for 3 years? The quote is not representative of K's overall view. Furthermore, K is hardly entirely neutral as early members Burton and Loughnan are acknowledged as sources. He also tends to concentrate on album 1, a little on album 2 but almost nil on album 3. As far as I can tell neither Burton nor Loughnan were on album 3.
   3. At F we have a contemporaneous report on their third album and an associated live gig. F also says "popular climate for that sort of progressive music has given way to the 60s beat and three-minute hit sound". You have misrepresented F's overall description of the group with this quote, again re:read the final ¶ of F's report. F's report is important as it gives a view of the latter day group: few other RS in the article do so. Additionally:
      1. F's use of "funky, jazz rock", "that sort of progressive music" and "laid back style" align with M's use of "seriousness of the music".
      2. The article goes on to give another quote including "'boring'" according to those "at the bar up the back". F makes the point that these dissatisfied people are not actual audience members [who "showed hearty approval during and after the set, probably old allegiance"] but merely incidental bar attendees. Although I didn't pick it up at the time it was put in, I now believe that the article doesn't quite get this right.
   4. Thank you for reminding me about C, I haven't looked here (6 January 1975) for awhile. Notice his opening ¶ where he says "I'm still being amazed by the quality of serious rock coming out of Australia". This supports M's use of the phrase "seriousness of the music". This report by C is in the article. As for C's report of 20 October: is there a link so that other people can check that article to determine whether this quote is representative? Otherwise one could be confused that it is in the 6 Jan article.

1. 1. Is this the C2 article you ref to?shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 07:40, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
   2. Yep, that's the ref for the Catterall quote, thanks. Working on a lengthy reply to your lengthy response. CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 17:58, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

"starting from scratch":

1. You'd exclude F & C as being "on the margins". Does the bracketed comment relate to both F & C or just C's quote which you've given here? I would still use F as a summary (but not your quote) for the latter part of their career. F can be used with M and J/K synthesis. This should be placed at the bottom of the History section.
2. I agree that C's existing material in the History section should be left where C describes their first album. It is not as useful in summarising the group's whole career: M does it much better.
3. KO M's quote: "very negative, doesn't say anything about artistic merit" You've totally ignored where M says the members "were seen as 'musician's musicians'. The band issued a series of technically proficient recordings" This part is neither negative nor ignoring their artistic merit. You are misrepresenting his opinion, again.
4. "choose between Joynson and Kimball (or use both)": I've asked for your opinion on the synthesis of J/K, in a section above, but have had no response.
5. "partisan commentary": who's party does M represent? Earlier you said "He is a wordsmith par excellence, and he knew precisely what he was doing". Almost a month ago I asked "Could you spell out what you think McFarlane was doing here?" Do you have any RS for your claim that M is working for a particular partisan group? Elsewhere you state M "is a preeminent expert in this subject, and his opinions are independently worthy of inclusion in the article". How does he now provide "partisan commentary"? Could you also specify what you meant by "he knew precisely what he was doing"?shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 04:48, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

A very lengthy response to a lengthy response to...

Let’s start with the more important aspects.

I would like to remind CaesarsPalaceDude of the introductory statement: "by escalating this dispute to a formal mediation I am not attempting to create aggravation; I'm hoping the opposite will occur" and "I felt people were getting frustrated (in particular me!). I believe that a more structured environment will help shaidar cuebiyar and me to create the best cases we can produce, and avoid wasting time going round & round at the talk page". It is now almost two months later and I see little progress towards a result that will be acceptable to all parties.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 03:26, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

There doesn’t have to be a “party” to have “partisan commentary”. One could have a number of people who have never met or spoken to each other, who hold a particular view. In a Wikipedia sense “partisan commentary” represents one-sided minority views, which do not present a majority view. My use of “partisan commentary” in regard to Mr. McFarlane is confined strictly to the sentence “the band issued a series of technically proficient recordings, but in the long run any quest for commercial acceptance was marred by the seriousness of the music", not to anything else that he has written. I understand Mr.McFarlane’s opinion perfectly well, thankyou, and I am not misrepresenting it in any way, nor would I want to.

You specifically cited all of M's quote and did not indicate that "partisan commentary" was only referring to a section of it. Furthermore the common usage of "partisan commentary" does relate to person(s) writing for a specific group with a vested interest in a dispute. WP:NPOV, specifically IMPARTIAL, cautions editors against using "partisan commentaries" in relation to articles which describe such disputes.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 03:26, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

At no point did I “claim that M is working for a particular partisan group”, nor did I claim that he was working for anyone except himself. To respond in the way you have is simply obfuscation.

On the contrary, you said his quote is "partisan commentary" which explicitly suggests he worked for a particular faction in a dispute about the artists. Now you say he is only working for himself. I sought clarification: the antithesis of obfuscation. The Lead's quote contains M's opinion which is found is his summary statement of the band's career. The Lead does not misrepresent M's opinion. I have welcomed the addition of other RS quote/synthesis to provide additional POVs to adhere to WP:NPOV except where that material is too wordy or misrepresentative of the source.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 03:26, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

With regard to Joynson and Kimball I simply copied the quotes exactly the way that you introduced them to the mediation at timecode 05:54, 5 June 2014 (UTC). So, if you want to criticise the selection of quotes try talking to your mirror (joking). With regard to Feliu and Catterall, it’s easy to find positive quotes because they are so generally positive. Catterall is so completely in love with Ayers Rock that we need to be careful using him in the article. I believe, in regard to Catterall, you already have a very good balance.

You specifically asked us to consider those five quotes, then wrote "If one was starting from scratch to work out which quote to use as a summary of Ayers Rock". I criticised the selections you provided from the basis of them not being a summary of the group's career &/or not representative of the author's view(s). The fact that you used quotes that I previously used for a different purpose is not my fault.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 03:26, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

The whole point of my post was that Catterall, and McFarlane are on the extremes of the spectrum of reliable opinion, and that we can’t use either quote in the Lead. Rather, we need to use something from writers like Joynson and/or Kimball, OR a completely different quote from Mr. McFarlane. The point is not that I want to use those particular quotes, but they are examples to show why this particular quote from Mr. McFarlane can’t possibly be used in the Lead, and that the best outcome is to leave it out all together. “When in doubt, leave it out.”

I disagree that M is not usable in the Lead, provided that he is cited correctly; specifically his summary view of the group is the best quote from his entry. Any highly esteemed RS can be used in the Lead in a similar manner. Your quotes from J or K are deficient according to the reasons above.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 03:26, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I apologise for not responding re J/K synthesis; I thought I had. I have a positive view on this, however I would like it to go into the Lead to replace McFarlane. Please feel free to put forward a text that you like. If you don’t like the “boring etc” part, propose an amendment.

You're talking about three different matters here:

1. J/K synthesis: see above for your statement "[shaidar] is most welcome to write a proposed text, and thereby have a greater influence on the outcome". Which you wrote nearly a month ago. I asked whether the proposed text I had written was acceptable but I have received no reply.
2. "I would like it to go into the Lead to replace McFarlane" this matter is still in dispute and no consensus exists for such a change.
3. "If you don’t like the “boring etc” part, propose an amendment" this relates to F's quote in the final ¶ of History. I may get around to that matter after this mediation is resolved.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 03:26, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I haven’t skilfully avoided "...although it tends to become a little over-indulgent in places". You can put it in the article, as long as you make it clear that it is a minority view. It is historically accurate that some people (writers and gen. public) held that opinion.

I was pointing out that your alternative candidates for quotes which you would "use as a summary of Ayers Rock" were deficient and not representative: you only cited the positive part of J's quote to provide a counter example to M's quote making the dichotomy appear greater than it actually is. I didn't suggest you should actually use this in the Lead as J only deals with their first album and does not provide a career summary. It should be used in the History section when discussing that album.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 03:26, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I can’t be bothered writing a long tract on the third album, ‘’Hot Spell’’, and it’s not that relevant anyway. Different band, different lead singer, different music, different viewpoint (lyrically), different record label, different outcome (sales), different era, same name. Almost nobody has heard it, except me and Feliu. If that was the only album they released, there wouldn’t be an article. The Ayers Rock which is notable from Wikipedia’s viewpoint broke up in 1976. Even Feliu gets it right when he talks about “the new sounding Ayers Rock”.

"Almost nobody has heard it, except me and Feliu" Is your opinion on its relative merits given in a RS? Do you think that M or K have heard Hot Spell? I still believe F's view should remain in the History section but rewritten to better reflect his overall opinion.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 03:26, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

What I meant by “he knew exactly what he is doing” is that the lasting impression that the quote leaves in the readers’ minds is exactly that which Mr. McFarlane intended, and should not be regarded as accidental, or an unintended consequence.

Specify: what do you believe M intended with this quote?shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 03:26, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Your misuse and abuse of “Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth” at the talk page is a sin for which you should be excoriated. You not only misquoted that very important ESSAY, you also took it out of its original context. You seem to be unaware, or simply don’t care, that Wikipedia has enemies who have open access to the talk pages, and love to take things out of context. Instead, you do it for them. “Don't worry about the article being right or wrong, if it is verifiable” could easily be misquoted as “Don't worry about the article being right or wrong.” Then, it could be transmitted all around the globe! It’s still a “clanger”, and it’s still reverberating.

Surely this is counter to your introductory statement. When you talk of my "sin for which you should be excoriated": this is meant to not be aggravating? Likewise by saying my statement "could be transmitted all around the globe! It’s still a “clanger”, and it’s still reverberating". Is this you making your best case? Your tone here reflects poorly on your acceptance of the mediation process and your upholding of these stated aims.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 03:26, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Another aspect is that you are quite happy to bash me over the head with material from one essay, while you blithely ignore another essay (WP:QUOTE). It is all so convenient.

I did not blithely ignore WP:QUOTE. I differ from you in my interpretation of its advice. I hold that guidelines and policies hold a higher status than essays.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 03:26, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

On the other hand, I am aware that I waited much too long at the talk page before I started employing content from reliable sources. I have resolved to do things differently, if the situation comes up in the future.

We established at the start of this mediation that including Mr. McFarlane’s quote in the Lead gives it undue weight. Placing it at the end of the Lead as a summary gave it even more prominence. Such was the situation before the dispute started. Since then I have incontrovertibly shown that the quote is a minority view. Therefore, Mr. McFarlane’s quote was, and is breeching WP:WEIGHT, which says: “undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements.”(emphasis mine) You wish to further exacerbate this imbalance of weight by placing the quote at the end of the History section to summarise that section as well.

"We established ... gives it undue weight" we established no such consensus! Feezo proposed areas for consideration: and cautioned that "check marks indicate that the item has been agreed on as a basis for discussion, and doesn't imply consensus about the answer". You have not incontrovertibly shown that the quote is a minority view: I dispute your presumption. As an eminent expert in these matters M's opinion is independently worthy of inclusion in both the Lead; and in the History section for verification purposes.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 03:26, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

The situation before I removed the second use of the quote was so extreme (weight), that Mr. McFarlane’s quote appeared to be the official line being promulgated by Wikipedia. This is totally unacceptable. Before this dispute the article was NPOV because it excessively used a minority view to summarise Ayers Rock’s career.

I disputed you then and I dispute you now. Other editors also disputed your claim that the article was non-NPOV. But this is again rehashing another old debate which does not help bring this mediation to a resolution. Although you claimed to want to "avoid wasting time going round & round at the talk page" you continue to bring up matters from that page: again you have failed in your stated aims.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 03:26, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Use of quotes from Mr. McFarlane in the Lead

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Content used in the Lead of articles is important for many reasons; one of those is that the Lead creates a crucial first impression of the subject. The following are some examples of my personal first impressions his quotes: Article: Ayers Rock (band), Text: already quoted, My reaction: Wrong on so many levels! Article: The Seekers, Text: Ian McFarlane described their style as "concentrated on a bright, uptempo sound, although they were too pop to be considered strictly folk and too folk to be rock." My reaction: Interesting insight. I’ve never thought about it in those terms Article: Hunters and Collectors, Text: according to musicologist, Ian McFarlane, their "great achievement was to lay bare human emotions in the intensely ritualistic milieu of the pub-rock gig". My reaction: Beautifully written. Not accessible with regard to “intensely ritualistic milieu” Conclusions: You can see that I am not opposed to Mr. McFarlane as an author; I am opposed to the way you use the quotations at Wikipedia. Recommendations: The Ayers Rock quote should be removed from Wikipedia, never to return. The Seekers quote should remain in the Lead, however the second quote in the body of the article should be removed. It interrupts the flow of the surrounding text anyway. The Hunters and Collectors quote should be moved to the body of the article. By the way, the second sentence of Hunters and Collectors contains a grammatical error. Tut, tut, tut! CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 07:36, 19 July 2014 (UTC) The second two articles are irrelevant to this mediation process on the basis that other stuff exists (yes, its another essay). For Feezo or any others reading this mediation the two other articles have been edited by myself and have examples of where M is cited in the Lead and in another section of an article. CaesarsPalaceDude is not making a new point here, we discussed this style of editing earlier. Once again, this is hardly helping us reach a consensus in this mediation. This is hardly CaesarsPalaceDude "not attempting to create aggravation". As for point scoring about a grammatical error and Tuts... This pettiness is not worthy of you, CaesarsPalaceDude. Overall, in both of these recent sections your line of argument is disputed. Furthermore, the mediation process is not the place for you to personally attack me because I disagree with you or I don't believe your arguments. I ask for the mediator, Feezo, to step in and provide another summary of any perceived progress in this situation. Specifically is there a positive way forward for the article to be better than it is? I await Feezo's response.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 03:26, 21 July 2014 (UTC) Sir, your ramblings are a waste of kilobytes on the server! CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 17:23, 21 July 2014 (UTC) I await Feezo's response.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 22:52, 21 July 2014 (UTC) Shaidar cuebiyar, while you are waiting, you can answer some questions: Are you related to Mr. Ian McFarlane by blood-lines or marriage? Do you know Mr. Ian McFarlane personally? Have you ever met him? Have you ever spoken to him, corresponded with him (on-line or mail), or communicated with him in any way? Do you know or have you ever communicated with an associate of Mr. Ian McFarlane (professional or personal)? Have you ever worked with Mr. Ian McFarlane, been in business with him, or shared an office with him? Is there any factor which could influence your judgement with regard to Mr. Ian McFarlane or his works that the administrators of Wikipedia should be aware of, but are not currently aware of? CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 09:03, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Mediator's view

I'm seeing a lot of discussion about the term "seriousness", and Wikipedia's style guidelines. This is burying the issue. The central problem is that placing the "technically proficient" quote in the lead creates, at best, a clutter of quotes explaining and contradicting each other; at worst, we misrepresent the consensus of expert commentators.

CaesarsPalaceDude summarizes this in "Consider the following quotes:" within this section; also see my summary here. Unless this issue is addressed, all other discussion is moot.

There is a common thread in the following favorable descriptions of the band: "high quality musicianship", "world-class standards of playing", and "fine virtuoso guitar and saxophone" are similar enough in meaning that a single one could adequately summarize them all.

The common negative elements are what, exactly? Over-indulgence? Seriousness? Simple mediocrity? None of these views, as far as I can tell, is espoused by more than one expert. If we have three experts who agree that something is wrong with the band, but can't agree on what, this belongs in the body of the article, and not the lead.

In light of the above, it is my position that dropping the "technically proficient" McFarlane quote from the lead is a prerequisite for further discussion. Note that doing so would apply only to this case, and would not be binding in future dispute resolutions. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 22:26, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

1. For the sake of clarification. Do you suggest that the related portion of the Lead would be changed to:

According to Australian rock music historian, Ian McFarlane, the members "were seen as 'musician's musicians' ... but in the long run any quest for commercial acceptance was marred by the seriousness of the music".

Thereby excising the "technically proficient" segment but leaving the rest of McFarlane's quote. Or do you intend some other outcome?

2. As for CaesersPalaceDude's summarising quotes: I disputed their worthiness for use in the Lead as claimed for summarising the group's career. Some are unrepresentative of the respective authors' POVs – generally only positive comments about the group are shown when the authors also made negative statements or raised other matters which were ignored. It is hardly fair to compare M's quote with these. Some of those quotes refer to a limited part of the group's career e.g. J related to album 1, K to albums 1 & 2, and F to album 3.
   1. "common negative elements" I don't know whether you consider "seriousness of the music" or "serious music" to be a negative comments (I don't), but both M and J refer to them, F refers to their styles as "funky, jazz rock", "that sort of progressive music" and "laid back style", which I contend are related to M's use of "seriousness of the music" and is reinforced by his Tully entry supplied above. Hence we have three sources that align on this matter.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 00:17, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
      1. I think we're getting somehwere now. I don't consider "seriousness" to be a negative comment (interpretations vary between "artistic" and "boring"). With Joynson and Tully also using the term "serious", I think it does belong in the lead. If we finish off with a quote that summarizes the positive consensus ("high quality musicianship?"), I think we'll have summarized expert opinion in a fairly neutral way. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 10:56, 23 July 2014 (UTC) (edited 16:51, 23 July 2014 (UTC))
         1. So the latter part of the Lead would be replaced with:

According to Australian rock music historian, Ian McFarlane, the members "were seen as 'musician's musicians' ... but in the long run any quest for commercial acceptance was marred by the seriousness of the music".[M] Other rock music historians also praised the group's musicianship and noted they had a dilemma between a commercial sound and a more artistically adventurous or serious approach.[J] [K]

Or do you have some other idea in mind?shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 21:15, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

This is totally, and utterly unacceptable for the Lead for many reasons, and I will explain in detail in a new section, after Feezo has given his view. CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 21:41, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Shaidar cuebiyar, could you expand the ellipsis to your full proposed text? I'd like to add that while I did say "finish off with a quote that summarizes", I didn't mean that it should necessarily come last. To my way of thinking, this point of view has the clearest expert consensus, and so logically should be given the most prominence. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 08:09, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure exactly what you mean here. Just above you indicated that we should drop the "technically proficient" part. The ellipsis here is where that part has been dropped. As for re-ordering of the sentences, consider:

Australian rock music historians praised the group's musicianship and noted they had a dilemma between a commercial sound and a more artistically adventurous or serious approach.[J] [K] Ian McFarlane felt that the members "were seen as 'musician's musicians' ... but in the long run any quest for commercial acceptance was marred by the seriousness of the music".[M]

Is this what you had in mind?shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 09:23, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Pretty much! Here is a version based off of that, and my earlier proposed text:

Although the band's musicianship received outstanding praise, rock music historians noted their dilemma over whether to opt for a commercial sound, or a more artistically adventurous, "serious" approach.[J] [K] According to Ian McFarlane, the members were "seen as musician's musicians", and long term commercial success was ultimately hampered by the "seriousness of the music".[M]

Reasons:

1. Adequately expresses the praise the band received for its musicianship.
2. Establishes a contrast between this praise and their struggle for identity.
3. Builds off of that struggle using "musician's musicians" and "seriousness" to explain their later problems.
4. Avoids the judgement-laden word "marred" while still expressing McFarlane's key point.

What do you all think? Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 22:22, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Whilst I prefer my version, I can live with this and generally agree with your reasons. Specifically, I see a fine distinction between 'hampered' and 'marred', but this is not sufficient for me to disagree with using this compromise.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 22:57, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Feezo, a slight error in your paragraph: check the talking marks.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 01:03, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, fixed. I left "were" out of the "musician's musicians" quote because I think it's slightly easier to read this way. I also reworded the first part to make it more grammatical. (Intended to be non-controversial—feel free to change it back.) Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 02:19, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

I have no problems with these touch-ups, except I re-added [M].shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 05:44, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Extended content

As mediator do you have any comment to make about CaesersPalaceDude's recent edits here? Specifically using language such as "a sin for which you should be excoriated" and "Sir, your ramblings are a waste of kilobytes on the server!". Also this. Note, I will not be responding to any of the latter's queries.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 23:57, 22 July 2014 (UTC) Without ruling on these particular comments, I will issue a general statement that parties interested in continuing the mediation are strongly advised to withdraw (by striking or collapsing) any edits they have made to this page that violate Wikipedia's civility policy. Regarding CaesarsPalaceDude's list of questions, perhaps I could rephrase it: "Do you have a conflict of interest on this topic that contravenes WP:COI?" To CaesarsPalaceDude, I make the same inquiry. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 00:39, 23 July 2014 (UTC) I apologise unreservedly to shaidar cuebiyar for my outburst claiming that his posts were a waste of space. It was written in anger and was inappropriate. I have no conflict of interest in relation to Mr. Ian McFarlane. I have not had the privilege of meeting him to my knowledge. We are very fortunate to have a significant store of content from him. I knew an associate of his about 30 years ago. However I disagree in the strongest possible terms with one sentence that he has written (that's all). CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 07:55, 23 July 2014 (UTC) I have no WP:COI, neither with Ayers Rock nor McFarlane.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 00:56, 24 July 2014 (UTC) Feezo, would it be acceptable, and relevant to ask (again) the following question? Does shaidar cuebiyar know Mr. Ian McFarlane personally? Has he ever met him? Has he ever spoken to him, corresponded with him (on-line or mail), or communicated with him in any way? I understand that having met or communicated with someone does not automatically confer a WP:COI status, and I believe shaidar cuebiyar when he says that he does not have a COI issue. However, I regard this question as relevant, and I would like to know who I am debating with. I don't intend to pursue the matter further, even if the answer is positive (unless the answer is dynamite, which is very unlikely). CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 19:07, 25 July 2014 (UTC) While not outright barring this line of inquiry, I would like to gently direct attention back to the next thread up, which I think is more likely to yield productive discussion. 07:57, 30 July 2014 (UTC) I agree with returning to the more productive line of discussion above.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 09:23, 30 July 2014 (UTC) shaidar cuebiyar, do you wish to answer the questions in my last post? Feezo, I will start working on a response to that thread tomorrow. CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 08:17, 30 July 2014 (UTC) Notwithstanding that I still take umbrage at your threat that I should be excoriated, I will answer your overly intrusive questions: I don't know him personally, I have never met him, I have never spoken to him. I believe I wrote a set of emails to him once, maybe three or four years ago. To the best of my recollection I was trying to find information for an article on Australian pop music awards or for one of the ARIA Music Awards of XXXX (where the latter is a year from 1987 to 2007). However, I don't have a copy of that set of communications and my former account has long since been superseded. I have not communicated with him since, and certainly not in connection with this article or the mediation process.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 11:01, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Excuse me Feezo, I had one more very positive post that I wished to write in the collapsed section. Is that possible, please? CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 05:19, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

OK. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 07:13, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

shaidar cuebiyar, there appears to be a misunderstanding. When I used the term "excoriated", I meant that you had already been "excoriated" (by me) in a previous post. I didn't mean it as a threat at that time, and I don't mean that now. I take full responsibility for any misunderstanding created. I should have written in a clearer style. My point was that we need to be very careful what we write at the talk pages. History has shown that I was the one most in need of that advice.

Thankyou for your full and frank disclosure, and for walking the extra mile to help me understand you better. It has removed all doubt on that front. I hope this is a turning point towards better communication. CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 13:33, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Alternative proposal re draft text

shaidar cuebiyar and Feezo, you have made some progress, however there are still some problems.

The main underlying problem is that the band’s ultimate success is being framed in terms of the commercial aspect. I would argue that this is inappropriate for this particular ensemble. With their second album, Beyond, they nailed their colours to the mast, and decided to live or die based on jazz rock fusion. Having said that, I came to Wikipedia to be a team player, and I will work with you on the draft text.

And there is a lot of good news:

• Although the band's musicianship received outstanding praise, Y
• Rock music historians noted their dilemma over whether to opt for a commercial sound, or a more artistically adventurous, "serious" approach. [J] [K] Y
• According to Ian McFarlane, the members were "seen as musician's musicians" Y
• Long term commercial success was ultimately hampered by the "seriousness of the music". [M] N

You can see that I have a very positive view of the JK synthesis. Also, I have changed my mind re “musician’s musicians”; it seems that this expression or variations of it is quite common these days. Somehow this had not penetrated my Jurassic skull.

I started this dispute with the highest priority being the removal of the "seriousness of the music" from the article, and guess what: I’m still breathing! There was never any need to include it, and there still isn’t. The concept can be expressed without it, and become more clear and precise as well. The section above which justifies its inclusion (00:17, 23 July 2014 (UTC)) because other sources use the word “serious” is in no way a sustainable argument. (More discussion below) Do not underestimate my resolve on this point.

The current ideas for the article do not include discussion of the historical context. I propose that I research, and write a paragraph for the body of the article. This would be strongly supported by citations to reliable sources, would need the approval of shaidar cuebiyar, and would include analysis of the dominance of pub rock in the rock music scene in Australia in the 70’s. (We might not need to make this part of the mediation process.)

I propose the following draft for your scrutiny:

The band's musicianship received outstanding praise, and the members were "seen as musician's musicians." (M) Rock music historians noted Ayers Rock’s dilemma over whether to opt for a commercial sound, or a more artistically adventurous or serious approach.[J] [K] Long term commercial success was ultimately limited by the challenges of marketing jazz rock fusion to an audience more in tune with pub rock.

In my view this version reads better, uses the neutral “limited” instead of the judgement-laden “marred”, and states precisely why “success was limited”. Also, it avoids the form of writing (mildly positive statement), followed by the word “but”, followed by (negative statement). This form of writing is often used to dismiss the subject or to pigeon-hole. For example:

“You’re work at this company has been about average, but you will never be anything more than a ….”

This form of writing is never acceptable as a summary of any subject, in any Lead. It is not Wikipedia’s job to elevate or dismiss a subject. We present the facts, and let the readers decide. Wisely, Feezo’s last draft used “and” instead of “but”.

Mr. Ian McFarlane has a strong tendency to write one-level-up, as shown by the quotation from the Lead of “Hunters and Collectors”, and this suits me extremely well (personal taste). However the Lead of an article in Wikipedia should not, and must not be dictated by the style that I like. I believe that every Lead should be written one-level-down so that even if some readers have trouble reading the body of the article, they have a chance to understand the essence of it from the Lead.

As for the part “was marred by the seriousness of the music”; that was a bad few minutes at Mr. McFarlane’s office. Then again, nobody’s perfect. The language is too high level, which is OK for shaidar cuebiyar and me to understand, but doesn’t communicate to the diversity of our readership.

1. Consider the end of the sentence which starts "With their second album…". Can you give us the source(s) who deliver these analyses?
2. It is difficult to understand your line of argument when you change back and forth: whilst I welcome your current acceptance of the phrase "musician’s musicians" (Note that from M's quote in the current Lead the only portion you keep is "seen as musician's musicians"). Which you now believe "it seems that this expression or variations of it is quite common these days". Whereas earlier you delivered a whole subsection devoted to "The Serious Subject of seriousness"! What is your "reader in Nairobi" to do now? What happened to the phrase's lack of accessibility or clarity?
3. Your statement "I propose that I research, and write a paragraph for the body of the article…" Be bold: go ahead research, find reliable sources, and add relevant material to the body of the article. Be careful not to foist ownership onto me though: I don't need to approve any such added material. Furthermore, such considerations are outside the agreed to terms of this mediation.
4. What's the problem with Feezo's suggested compromise? You say that the "main underlying problem is that the band’s ultimate success is being framed in terms of the commercial aspect". One wonders why you then write: "Long term commercial success was ultimately limited by the challenges of marketing jazz rock fusion" in your suggested solution. Can you sort out this apparent dichotomy?
5. Your proposed text ends with "to an audience more in tune with pub rock" Which of the current RS have dealt with pub rock? I see no mention in J, K or M. The closest is in F who discusses "60s beat and three-minute hit sound" and "power pop-oriented sounds of today". Is this what you mean by 'pub rock'. The text you propose is hardly Lead-worthy in summarising the current RS.
6. "This form of writing is never acceptable as a summary of any subject, in any Lead" (I've de-stressed the word 'never'). Consider Australian music FA-class articles. Your contention is not sustained in practice: the Leads of various high quality articles do use that form of writing.
7. You believe that "every Lead should be written one-level-down" but propose to add a complex argument "ultimately limited by the challenges of marketing jazz rock fusion to an audience more in tune with pub rock". I don't see your submission as better than "ultimately hampered by the "seriousness of the music".[M] Feezo's is less complex than yours.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 14:35, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

More ideas for the body or the lead

The reasons for the band breaking up in 1976 are highly relevant to our readers. How did such a talented group of musicians end up only producing two albums? Here are some facts which might be useful:

• recording the second album cost a small fortune (K)
• they extensively toured Australia and parts of the U.S. (fatigue)
• "only achieved limited success overseas" (M)
• the singles were unsuccessful

After the U.S. tour of May-July 1976 Loughnan, McGuire, and Dunlop left the band. Loughnan had written most of the jazz rock fusion for the two albums, so the creative heart left with them, as well as the ability to write new jazz rock fusion. In the same period they left Mushroom Records.

Can we combine these facts for use in the body and/or the Lead of the article? This appears to be a pivotal period in their career.

p.s. What about using this quote: “Ayers Rock was the first Australian band to play to massive crowds on the USA touring circuit” from Mr. McFarlane in the article? CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 23:53, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

1. "only producing two albums" I assume you refer to a hypothetical pundit providing reasons for their break-up at some interim point in time, c. 1977? Since they reformed by 1978 and delivered more material, including a third album.
2. "so the creative heart left with them". This is more of your own opinion, I dispute that Dunlop had any major contribution to the group's recorded material. Meanwhile, you ignore Brown and Doyle, surely they were part of the group's "creative heart"? Did they write any of the serious music for the first two albums? Also, F praises the group's musicianship and claims they still use "jazzy chords and extended instrumentals" on the third album.
3. I would reword your suggested p.s. by melding it with the relevant sentence in the main body and expanding it:

In 1976 from May to July they toured the US again and were the "first Australian band to play to massive crowds" there, according to Ian McFarlane.[M] He felt that "in the long run" they "only achieved limited success overseas".[M]

4. M tells us the break-up occurred in August 1976 and Brown and Doyle recruited new members a year later. K tells us "the band broke up for about three years" and reformed in 1979. This is a difficult problem to resolve in the article. K also tells us that Loughnan was a member until 1981.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 15:23, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Dazed and confused

Feezo, I am disappointed in the extreme at shaidar cuebiyar's continued combative style. Is there anything in his most recent post which contravenes your recent warning to all participants? Is his response at point 2 (musician's musician) acceptable, or is it taunting?

I believe that I have turned over a new leaf, and heeded your warning. When you and shaidar cuebiyar were discussing various matters recently, everything was rosy in the garden. Why am I treated differently? Am I a dog with fleas?

Could you, please, tell me which parts of his post are relevant, and that I need to answer? I am having trouble sorting out the important bits from the noise.

Could you, please, give your view on my section titled "Alternative proposal re draft text"? CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 03:42, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Before we get into the details, am I correct in understanding that no version using the word "serious" or variations thereof would be acceptable to you? Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky)

I have no particular problem with the use of the term "serious music" as a musicological term. I doubt whether it is the best description of progressive rock, when some music listeners tend to associate "serious music" with a classical music setting. (It should be noted that jazz rock fusion is a sub-genre of progressive rock.) There is no doubt that in Australia the term "serious music" has been used to describe progressive rock, and jazz rock fusion. Whether this is the case in other parts of the world, I do not know. The other problem with "serious music" is that the experts don't seem to be able to agree on what it means.

I do have a strong objection to the phrase "the seriousness of the music" as used by Mr. McFarlane in the context of the sentence in the quote. The context is critical. That's why the discussion recently which cited various instances where the word "serious" is used, with each one taken out of context, was fatally flawed. For me, the use of "the seriousness of the music" as used by Mr. McFarlane is completely unacceptable. That part of the sentence summarises Ayers Rock as a failed venture by defining success in commercial terms, when there was actually much more going on. If the term "seriousness" is referring to "jazz rock fusion", then it will be clearer if it says "jazz rock fusion".

My modified version tries to get rid of the terms with multiple meanings, and provide a more accurate, more specific statement which places the band's commercial situation in its historical context. CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 10:45, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

shaidar cuebiyar, do you agree that "seriousness" as used by McFarlane can be taken to mean "jazz rock fusion"? Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 16:41, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Earlier you asked me to give a definition of "serious music" or "seriousness of the music" as used by M. I provided M's own description of the former term. If we leave M's quote in the Lead it will be up to readers to make their own decision as to what M meant: it is better if I don't act as his interpreter. Whilst CaesarsPalaceDude argues that the phrase has "multiple meanings" this ignores the connection built up in the previous sentence by you with your proposed compromise above. Neither you nor I see "seriousness of the music" as negative commentary by M. Whereas CaesarsPalaceDude sees that M "summarises Ayers Rock as a failed venture by defining success in commercial terms". As far as I understand "seriousness" and "jazz rock fusion" are not equivalent nor interchangeable but we should leave M to speak for himself: his quote should be kept.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 21:49, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Would you be willing to consider any other option? Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 22:51, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Options, that I have considered:

1. Keep M's quote in its entirety both in the Lead and in the History section. This is my preferred option.
2. Remove "technically proficient" from M's quote in the Lead. Put M's entire quote in the History section. Next best scenario.
3. Your compromise version in 'Mediator's view' section, immediately above. This is the third best option. Here we have removed most of M's content and provided a re-interpretation of his words, including dropping 'marred' for 'hampered'. This version is a significant shift from option 1. Put it in the Lead, have M's entire quote in the History section.
4. 'Alternative proposal re draft text' by CaesarsPalaceDude. I have rejected this version, it retains only "seen as musician's musician" from M's quote. The last sentence of that proposal contains material not sustained by any RS or content currently in the article. It can hardly be used in the Lead to summarise its History section.
5. 'Counter proposal':

Although the band's musicianship received outstanding praise, rock music historians noted their dilemma over whether to opt for a commercial sound, or a more artistically adventurous, "serious" approach.[J][K] According to Ian McFarlane, the group's long term commercial success was ultimately limited by the "seriousness of the music".[M] In June 1980 The Canberra Times' Luis Feliu considered their third album and opined that "power pop-oriented sounds of today eclipse [the group's] laid-back style into commercial obscurity".[F]

This provides an alternate point of view for the band's lack of commercial success for its third album.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 07:16, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

CaesarsPalaceDude has indicated that "seriousness of the music" ("as used by Mr. McFarlane") is not acceptable. Is it absolutely necessary to your counter proposal? Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 08:51, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

CaesarsPalaceDude also indicated that the mediation process could "provide a number of other sources, which directly support the ideas contained in the quote". I believe the mediation process has done this but clearly CaesarsPalaceDude does not. According to your compromise above, a version of M's quote is seen as being supported by ideas from a variety of sources both by myself and by you, but not by CaesarsPalaceDude. The phrase "seriousness of the music" delineates M's reason as to why they did not achieve long term commercial success. If "seriousness of the music" is removed per 'Alternative proposal re draft text' then there is no quote from M except "seen as musician's musician". Thus M, an eminent authority on Australian rock music history, would be side-lined as his summary of their career would be largely ignored. This weakens the article's Lead. I indicated above my preferred options, none have the phrase "seriousness of the music" removed. As for CaesarsPalaceDude's proposal neither M nor any RS currently in the article consider pub rock as being the cause of the group's limited long-term commercial success.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 14:51, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Can I take this to mean you consider the phrase "seriousness of the music" essential to the article's lead? Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 20:07, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 22:03, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Excuse me, Feezo, I feel compelled to interject at this point. My proposed text does not say that pub rock caused “the group's limited long-term commercial success.”

Are you aware that there is an article entitled Pub rock (Australia)? Are you aware that at 08:25, 15 July 2013 shaidar cuebiyar made an edit to this article adding 2559 bytes, and noted it was ‘’more refs’’? Are you aware shaidar cuebiyar added 7933 bytes to that article on 15 July 2013, (it had 7171 bytes before)? So, he has written more than half of the article Pub rock (Australia), and provided more than half the RS.

Does it seem disingenuous to you that he then wishes to criticise the fact that I haven’t yet provided any RS? Yes, I know it is my task to provide RS for my argument. Is this the type of mediation that you want? CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 22:21, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Closure

We seem, unfortunately, to have run out of road. Although progress has been made on some fronts, the central issue—"seriousness of the music" in the article's lead— remains unresolved. Unless a new approach is proposed in the next few days, I will close the mediation. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 01:52, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

1. I agree that regrettably issues remain unresolved. I have no new approach.
2. If the mediation closes in its current unresolved form does status quo ante bellum apply?
3. My understanding is that under such a result, in the Lead, we would leave M's quote & the dispute 'plate alone.
4. Equally, without consensus for its removal, M's quote should be returned to the History section where it was before CaesarsPalaceDude deleted it during our disagreement (beginning in April this year).
5. Can we use CaesarsPalaceDude agreement with my proposal about the J-K synthesis to change that part of the Lead which uses two quotes from K et al? I see this as at least one positive outcome from the mediation process.
6. Similarly, we can add J's quote to the History section, where it would be referenced to support the J-K synthesis in the Lead.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 21:56, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

The current version has no particular weight over the pre-dispute version, so it would be equally plausible to remove the controversial statements. I will post my recommendation at the time of closure. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 22:22, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Feezo, thankyou so much for being our mediator. I am completely confident that you will make wise decisions regarding this mediation, whether they favour my position or not. I wish you all the very best for the future. CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 18:17, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Where to go from here

During the mediation, I echoed CaesarsPalaceDude's concern that the McFarlane quote did not meet WP:LEAD's requirement of "a clear, accessible style" due in part to the varied interpretations of "seriousness". As an editor (rather than a mediator) I maintain this position. Treating this as a third opinion, a reasonable course of action would be to remove the quote for the time being until a wider consensus can emerge; perhaps through an WP:RfC. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 19:25, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

I am disappointed in the decision to remove the quote, even if temporarily. Nonetheless, I congratulate CaesarsPalaceDude on achieving this victory: well done, it seems your arguments held greater sway with our mediator than mine.

Queries for Feezo:

1. When you say "remove the quote" do you mean only from the Lead or from the article entirely i.e. no appearance of M's quote in the History section either?
2. How does this "remove the quote" affect K's two quotes? What of the J-K synthesis?shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 00:00, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

I will leave the case open for the moment as a forum for discussing how best to seek community input. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 20:39, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Archive 1