Battle of Honey Springs

"Mastery" and "the artist"

There are two separate issues here, but let's see if we can discuss them in one thread. About the use of the word "mastery" to describe her playing, that is an evaluative assessment. It is indisputable that she sings and indisputable that she plays the piano, but as to whether she is a "master" of the piano, that is a professional assessment that would, at the very least, need a source. As for the use of the term "the artist", you might prefer it and think it is not pretentious, so on that score we just have a stalemate. However, it is certainly standard for people to be referred to by their last name and by a simple pronoun, but not at all standard to be referred to as "the artist". For example, neither the Bach nor the Schubert articles do anything other than use a surname or say "he". It would certainly seem very odd to repeatedly say "the plumber" in an article about a plumber, and "the artist" is the same. It just looks like a repeated attempt to say, "she's not just a singer/musician, she's an artist". That makes it an evaluative statement as well. "Amos" and "she" are not at all controversial to use, so it would be best to go with what is standard language. 99.192.84.245 (talk) 20:18, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Response

I can see your point regarding the use of the word "mastery". Still, it isn't such an overt declaration and I don't think it harms nor sways the reader when reading the entry. As for the use of the word "the artist" - your reasoning behind not using it has more of an argument as far as I'm concerned. But "mastery" stays. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.48.3.206 (talk) 01:15, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I still think "mastery" is a problem. You say you see my point and that it is not "overt", but that is just to say that it is an evaluative word. You previously wrote, "Amos is not merely 'playing the piano', she's showcasing the type of 'mastery' it takes to even be able to perform these classical compositions." But this is wrong. The most talented pianist who ever lived giving his or her greatest performance ever can truthfully be said to be "playing the piano". To use that phrase does not suggest a negative evaluation at all such as your "merely" indicates. Also, it does not take "mastery" of the piano to perform these or any other classical compositions. It only takes mastery to perform them well. That is the heart of why "mastery" is necessarily an evaluative word. A reviewer who says something like, "her performance shows her mastery of the piano" is not just stating a fact, but praising her performance. Words like "mastery" need to be left to sourced critical commentary. 99.192.89.246 (talk) 01:56, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Edits

To 99.192.89.246:

I want to start off by pointing out that you do not even have a Wikipedia username or, at the very least, you're opting not to "contribute" using your username, if you do have one. Something to consider. Regarding your suggestions, I did not want to edit out "mastery of" because I thought the work in question warranted such a description. However, because of your insistence, I thought it over and acquiesced to your request. I replaced "mastery of" with "skill with", which I don't think can be argued as a fact. You do have to have "skill" to "play the piano" - at least if you're going to record and sell an album. Still, you continue to undo my edits claiming "vandalism" and also that I haven't discussed these edits on the talk page. I don't recall you discussing your edits prior to making them so this claim has me puzzled.

Let me respond to each point in turn. (1) "you do not even have a Wikipedia username or, at the very least, you're opting not to "contribute" using your username, if you do have one". This is irrelevant. Wikipedia does not require editors to have or use a username. Edits from people who have usernames are not given any special status. Wikipedia is open to any and all people to contribute. There is not "special status" for those editing with usernames, so such comments are irrelevant to the issue. (2) "I did not want to edit out "mastery of" because I thought the work in question warranted such a description". Yes. I know. You are a big fan and so want to lavish praise on Amos. That's understandable. But Wikipedia is not the place to do it. On a personal blog, fine. But Wikipedia is about neutrality of content. You have even conceded that "mastery" is not neutral, you you insisted on keeping it. That's a problem. "I replaced "mastery of" with "skill with", which I don't think can be argued as a fact". Yes it can. Everyone who plays an instrument plays it with the skill they have, no matter how great or small. A beginner piano player horribly plunking their way through the "Moonlight Sonata" is playing with the skill they have. To specifically use the word "skill", then, is either redundant or used to try to give the impression that one means "great skill". As such, it is also an evaluative term and should be left out. As I said before, "piano playing" is not a dismissive or critical phrase. It is simply a description. "at least if you're going to record and sell an album". Have you heard William Hung sing? Rebecca Black sing? ANYONE can record and try to sell an album. Whether they are any good at it is up to reviewers to say, not Wikipedia editors. (3) "you continue to undo my edits claiming "vandalism" and also that I haven't discussed these edits on the talk page". Yes, because once you said on this talk page that you "see my point" about "mastery" and continue to re-insert it, then you are admitting that you are making an edit against Wikipedia policy. That is the definition of "vandalism". "I don't recall you discussing your edits prior to making them" As you well know, most edits made by most editors (look at the ones "Pisceandreams" has made, for example) are made without a prior discussion on the talk page. It is when a change is made, then reversed, and then a disagreement with editors occurs that it needs to be sorted out on the talk page. We did start a discussion here and you just bailed out and decided to insist on your version of the page without reaching any consensus. That is not good faith Wikipedia editing. (4) One last point. One of the changes you keep reverting is the change of "efforts" to "albums". We can discuss it if you like, but if you check the edit history you will see that Pisceandreams made one of those changes and I made the other. That means that TWO different editors think "albums" is better. So unless you want to discuss your preference for "efforts" you should defer on this point. 99.192.87.117 (talk) 16:45, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for being courteous and thorough in your response. I also want to thank you for your suggestions on formatting both articles and talk entries. Admittedly, you are more versed in Wikipedia policy than I am. I've worked hard on creating and editing this page so as not to make it sound like a "fan praise" page. When you made your edits, in addition to feeling annoyed, which I honestly shouldn't have felt, I also felt the page did not flow better. It seemed choppy. Nonetheless, I should've cooperated per the Wikipedia policies you continued pointing out to me and I didn't. I became obstinate. In reality, I've done the work I set out to do, which was to inform people about the particulars of this release, however they are phrased in the end. I still don't agree with some of the edits you have made, i.e. "acoustic instruments", as they seem intent on minimizing Ms. Amos' strengths as a musician. It's one thing being neutral about a subject and it's another thing minimizing the point of it being a "subject" to begin with. Ms. Amos was not approached by Deutsche Grammophon because she "plays the piano", but because she plays it with skill. In the midst of my writing this, I've decided that I will be undoing you edit once again.MarkAlexisGabriel (talk) 17:20, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, I think we will get a lot more done discussing edits here, so I am glad you have decided to talk about them. I should also point out that should we in the end not be able to come to an agreement, that Wikipedia has a mechanism for asking a neutral third party for an opinion to resolve disagreements. I previously dropped a note for Pisceandreams hoping s/he would be able to offer a third opinion, but it seems s/he has declined to do so. But since we are talking now, I am hopefull we can work it out between us.

Secondly, you wrote: "I've worked hard on creating and editing this page so as not to make it sound like a "fan praise" page." Well, when I first read this article I thought that 98% of it was neutral in tone and informative, so if you wrote most of it you did a good job. It was only a couple of things I thought were problems.

Thirdly, you wrote, "I still don't agree with some of the edits you have made, i.e. "acoustic instruments", as they seem intent on minimizing Ms. Amos' strengths as a musician." I really don't understand this. I don't see why saying that she used "acoustic instruments" says anything at all about the quality of the work. Just about every symphony orchestra is composed entirely of acoustic instruments, yet no one thinks that makes them less skilled. Especially with classical music, as this album is, piano playing, string quartets, and woodwind sections are all examples of acoustic instruments, yet that is to say nothing of their quality. So I don't understand the concern. Additionally, I should note that your previously stated concern was different. You had claimed that acoustic instruments do not exist, which clearly is not true. Either way, saying "acoustic instruments" is more clear than "recorded entirely through acoustic means". Using this wording seems to say something about the recording equipment (how it was recorded) than the type of instruments used.

Fourthly, "Ms. Amos was not approached by Deutsche Grammophon because she "plays the piano", but because she plays it with skill". I agree, but to say so is to say that "skill" is a word that is evaluative, not neutral. Also, the fact that you think she is a skillful player and the fact that I think she is a skillful player is neither here nor there. Wikipedia articles should not reflect the assessments of the editors. Find a quote that says she was approached by them because of her skill as a pianist and then you can include it in the article. Short of that, it is just a violation of Wikipedia's point of view policy.99.192.87.117 (talk) 17:50, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "Well, when I first read this article I thought that 98% of it was neutral in tone and informative, so if you wrote most of it you did a good job. It was only a couple of things I thought were problems." Thank you for the compliment. I did write most of this entry with helpful edits by Pisceandreams involving punctuation and some shifting of words. If you check the history of this page, you'll see how many times I've edited myself so as not to make this page sound like a fan page. It took a lot of work and merciless self-editing. I'll agree to cooperate with you in discussing further "conflicting edits" on this page. Also, again, I apologize for obstinance. Some of it has to do with what we've discussed, and some of it has to do with my own personal matters.

I'm sorry I didn't chime in sooner. I can see both of your points, and I'm glad to see that you guys are smoothing things over. In the event that I'd like to make any significant changes, I'll bring them here first. We have the start to a great article here, and with all of our cooperation, we can continue with it. =) --Pisceandreams (talk) 20:43, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RE: "Critical Reception" Edits

I liked the intro that you added to the critical reception section, but the inclusion of a reviewers name seemed a bit odd - name's of reviewers aren't usually included in the review section. Also, reviews should be organized (roughly) by the clout of the reviewing publication, i.e. well-known publications come first and continue in decreasing order of popularity. I also think it's important for the opinion of the reviewer to be easily readable, i.e. if a reviewer deems the record "her best work since [insert album title], it should be included in the summary, not lumped together and simply referenced. If you have any questions/disputes with my reversion, let me know.

Organizing reviews according to a publication's prestige is a good idea, and perhaps I wasn't aware of that just yet since Spin is the biggest name thus far to review the album. I will keep this outline in mind with future edits to the section.--Pisceandreams (talk) 12:37, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I just added a quote from NPR, and placed it near the top, as I felt NPR is more notable than the publications it precedes in the paragraph. --Pisceandreams (talk) 11:56, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Release Date

The article state that the release of "Night of Hunters" shall be September, 20th. Well, at least in Germany (that's where "Deutsche Grammophon" comes from) the album was relased on September, 16th, both as CD and as digital media via iTunes.

The iTunes release comes with two videos ("Carry" and "Nautical Twilight") and the album artwork as "iTunes LP".

Does anyone know why there's that mixup on relase dates?87.123.127.184 (talk) 17:50, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no mix-up, the German release date simply had not been included. As for the release date in the intro, it now reads "released on September 20, 2011, in the United States". Also, a release history section has been included in the article, which includes the release date in Germany. If anyone has the catalogue number for the physical CDs released in Germany (or in any country, for that matter), please feel free to add them to the release history table.--Pisceandreams (talk) 13:32, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Critical Response

This section of the article is heinously long. There is no need to quote every single review of this album. Just quote reviews that give the general idea of the overall critical response. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.37.189.13 (talk) 11:04, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is long, I agree. As the reviews stop coming in, the section will be condensed to include the most pertinent quotes and views. --Pisceandreams (talk) 13:24, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, of the 15 reviews included in the the critical review template, only 12 reviews are displayed. Considering that some of the more prominent publications have yet to review the album, some of the lesser-known publications (i.e. The Daily Mail) will need to be removed for more prominent publications.--Pisceandreams (talk) 13:29, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This section will be paired down, as I do all critical response sections for Amos' albums. For now, I've organized ALL of the reviews I could so that they're easily accessible for later editing, but also for their informative value. In other words, this section won't remain this way, but for now is a good source of reviews for the album. (talk)

There are many great quotes in this section, many of which you have taken the time to unearth and include in the article (yay!), but how does the following quote from Uncut really add anything to the article? "If the aim was to out-bonkers Joanna Newsom and Kate Bush while creating a compelling album, Amos has more than succeeded." I'm not discrediting the publication itself, I just don't think the quote is worthwhile. Why do we need to include a quote that only further perpetuates the comparisons between Tori Amos and Kate Bush? It's far from original and in 2011, the comparisons are unfounded. I feel that there are far better quotes out there to include that would make this a stronger article.--Pisceandreams (talk) 17:08, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the trepidation in including a review that compares Amos to Bush and Newsom (yet again), but it is done so to highlight Amos' skills and the beauty of this album. The reviewer also calls the album "compelling", aside from the comparisons. I'm actually pleased that he compares Amos to two renowned artists that are just as respected and admired as Amos. Also, for those who decide to read this page and who have not heard Ms. Amos' music, I think these sorts of comparisons help give the reader an idea of the kind of artist, i.e the type of music she produces, Amos is.MarkAlexisGabriel (talk)

Just wanted to point out that our "critical response" section for Night of Hunters is in no way too long. Check out Joanna Newsom's page for Have One On Me. That entry is twice the size of ours. 174.48.3.206 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:59, 23 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]

I think that so long as information is pertinent, it can be kept. Perhaps the section could be split into 2 (or even 3?) paragraphs so as not to have one long, meandering paragraph loaded with quotes. There are still a few major publications that have yet to weigh in on the album, so I'd say leave it as is for now and whenever we have everything we can start re-arranging and what not. Sound good? =) --Pisceandreams (talk) 20:03, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the Entertainment Weekly review of NOH, could you provide the issue #, issue date, and page # where the review appears? We'll need to convert the citation type since it's not an on-line review. You can provide the info here in this talk page. --Pisceandreams (talk) 12:48, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Night of Hunters. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:34, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:21, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]