Talk:After Forever
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Concerning the departure of Mark Jansen. I edited the text to state that he not so much left on his own accord, rather was kicked out of the band. This was again replaced with him quitting. Is it perhaps not encyclopedia-worthy to designate the difference? Opinions? - DarknessThere
- Since I was the one who wrote the current version of the article and also made the revert, I will try to give a summarised explanation. In trying to keep a neutral point of view, I usually do not use terms such as "was fired" or "was kicked out" without a reliable reference with such wording; an interview with the band or the musician, for example, since the inclusion of such wording might create needless commotion. In case you have a realiable source for the information - no fan biographies and such - feel free to make the change and please reference the site. --Sn0wflake 23:38, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
It has no added value to mention that Mark has left Epica not on his own initiative, why would you spread these words? To put After Forever in a dark light? It's useless totally. It's a personal thing you should not interfere with (and you probably don't even know it's details of - if you want to put sth like "kicked out of the band" on a public forum you might also want to state it with the original reasons - and I'm sure that will damage Mark's reputation; so don't!), also the band announced that they split with Mark, so that is official and the only thing worth noting.
- It was not my intention to damage the reputation of Mark, Epica or After Forever. I'm looking at this from a neutral point of view, and I'm quite sure that he was fired from the band. I can't find a source for the moment though, so I guess I'll leave it at this. What I don't see, however, is why it shouldn't be stated that he was fired (supposing I did find the source). There's a big difference between leaving and being fired, in my opinion... I'll get back to you if I find the source... DarknessThere 20:24, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
- Simple. Because it creates discussions which add nothing to the article, such as this one. You have a source, do whatever you want. Otherwise. --Sn0wflake 20:55, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
- Okay, I guess we'll leave it at this then... There's no need to jump at my throat like this, I didn't mean harm or anything... DarknessThere 09:23, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
- Simple. Because it creates discussions which add nothing to the article, such as this one. You have a source, do whatever you want. Otherwise. --Sn0wflake 20:55, 11 September 2005 (UTC)