Talk:Kurt Harland

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Famicom style controller This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the assessment scale.
Low This article is on a subject of low priority within gaming for inclusion in Wikipedia 1.0.
VG To-do:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

[edit] Bands Reunited

To MFNickster: If you disagree with one of my edits, you should clarify it and/or modify it - simply reverting it is both rude and unethical. As for the disputed content, if I have to I'll site the episode itself, where he is clearly shown agreeing to and signing the album cover on-camera. --Bri 22:42, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Bri - sorry about the revert, but that's the simplest way to correct uncited additions - I don't want to try to re-interpret what you wrote. I'm sorry if you find that rude. It certainly isn't unethical, it's how Wikipedia works.
I did provide justification for it, which is Kurt's own words. It would be great if you could provide a quote directly from the interview, because on Insoc.org he says his first answer was "no," which was actually aired by VH1. His second answer was "I have to talk to Paul before I agree to anything," and his third answer was a sarcastic "yeah, whatever!" with the caveat that he wasn't agreeing that day to do anything. They still acted like they expected him to show, even though they knew more than a week before taping that he wouldn't be participating.
If you have a direct source that contradicts Kurt's version, then we should include it, but it has to be worded in a NPOV way that shows there's a difference of opinion on it. I would like to see the episode myself if I can. In the meantime, the article should include only undisputed facts, i.e. that Kurt refused to participate (however and whenever) and the other 3 did the interview. MFNickster 00:40, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough. I've elaborated on the incident a bit more, representing both sides of the story and citing sources for each. --Bri 12:51, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the time to re-edit. That looks pretty good, but you still include the claim that he "signed an unofficial agreement on-camera." What exactly did Kurt say about this while signing it? Are you sure it was an agreement to the reunion? Because Kurt is pretty clear in his account that he only signed an album cover and a release to air his solo interview. MFNickster 13:34, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, in the episode the "voice-talent guy" tells him when he hands him the album to sign it if he agrees to the show (at that point it already had the signatures of Paul, James and Amanda.) As Kurt signs the album cover, he says, "OK OK - I'll do it." His account on insoc.org doesn't go along with what is shown on VH1... I know he blames it on editing, but the discrepencies appear to go beyond that. --Bri 08:26, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
But how does signing an album cover signify an agreement? That's just an autograph, not an 'unofficial document'. MFNickster 13:11, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Saying he withdrew his acceptance is certainly not POV, as this is what happened according to the show, and the proper citation has been noted; Harland's disagreement to the depiction of events has also been noted, so I don't understand what the problem is... --Bri 09:20, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
The reason it's POV is because Kurt says he didn't accept. It doesn't matter if VH1 says signing an album cover means you're joining the Peace Corps., it has no legal weight, so at most Kurt offered a verbal agreement. Even if that's the case, according to his account he told them that day that he wasn't agreeing to anything before talking to Paul, and the email trail shows that VH1 had plenty of warning that he wasn't going to do the concert.
It's not up to us to judge whether Kurt is telling the truth, or whether VH1 selectively edited Kurt's reply. Factually speaking, there is disagreement about whether Kurt accepted the invitation, and we should report the disagreement without trying to judge who is telling the truth.
If we say "Kurt initially agreed, but ultimately did not participate," that is only slightly POV (because for all we know, VH1 also shot footage of Kurt changing his mind on the spot and shouting "NO! Get out of my office!" If you want to say "Kurt withdrew his agreement" you have to have some sort of evidence to back it up, because otherwise you're taking VH1's word as gospel and dismissing Kurt's published account. Make sense now? MFNickster 12:40, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Placing undue weight on whatever Kurt claims on his website after the fact is POV and not fact. This is not a he said/she said issue. The VH-1 video footage (not counting post-production voice-over) should stand as the official documented record of events and MUST be given much greater weight than Kurt's buyer's remorse. Kurt's revisionist history account of events should be mentioned in passing only and not as an equal challenge to VH-1's "side" of things. Bulbous 13:05, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Kurt's story accounts well enough for all the video & audio that went in, out of order. The VH-1 footage was heavily edited, with cuts every couple of seconds. VH-1 accepted that he wouldn't be there days before the "reunion" - see the last email - & they still shot it as if waiting for him to show up at any minute. That doesn't suggest credibility. - Pronoiac 02:07, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
The last email IN NO WAY acknowledges that Kurt would NOT BE THERE! It does indicate that he "made his position very clear" without specifying what that position was. It also states that the sender of the email regrets that she couldn't meet Kurt or see him perform. To suggest that this email PROVES that VH-1 knew he wasn't coming is to assume Kurt's position without seeing it. Where is the preceeding email? He *could* have been talking about wanting to be paid, for example. Until a proper citation is given, I am re-adding the "claims" wording. Bulbous 01:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Where is the preceding e-mail? It's here. MFNickster 01:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
If that's the preceeding email, please note the date is after the "final" one. Also note that he goes to great lengths to state that he never agreed to participate, but never clearly says, "I WILL NOT BE THERE". Maybe that's in another email? Bulbous 01:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
[1]: Kurt: "It's just something I'm not going to do." I think you're trolling, & this is boring. - Pronoiac 02:12, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, but this is a "he said/she said" issue for the reasons I pointed out above. We can't take a side based on what VH-1 decided to show, because we don't know what footage they decided not to show. I don't believe I've placed "undue weight" on Kurt's account, just equal weight. VH-1's footage is no more an "official documented record" than Kurt's account. MFNickster 14:24, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure you understand the difference between documentation and testimony. The video, whether edited or not, is only only documentation of that event. The fact that it might be incomplete is unfortunate, but we cannot consider what MIGHT have been in the video. For all we know Osama Bin Laden may have been present. Kurt's testimony is in no way equal to the video documentation, as it is completely unsubstantiated. I'm sorry, but the video still stands as the official record. Kurt's position should be noted, but not given equal mention to the video. Bulbous 01:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Just out of curiosity, on what do you base the claim that Kurt's version is "revisionist"? That assertion is certainly POV. MFNickster 01:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Absolutely, it's POV, which is why it's on the talk page. The claim is based on nothing more than I have already said; Kurt's unsubstantiated claims vs. the video documentation. The video captures Kurt saying "Yeah" in response to the pressure, but it doesn't sound like he is saying "Yeah, whatever" in a dismissive tone. I believe that Kurt changed his mind after the fact. Bulbous 01:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
The video "documentation" also captures Kurt saying a very deliberate "no." I don't see any particular reason to doubt Kurt's version, because it doesn't contradict anything that's on the tape. Whether he changed his mind or not, the facts are that 1. Kurt did sign the album cover "contract," 2. he did not sign any formal, binding, legal commitment to be there, 3. he claims he told them he was not committing to anything, and that he later informed them he would not participate, and 4. no one involved has disputed Kurt's e-mail trail. You can doubt Kurt's version if it makes you happy, but there is no factual basis for reporting that he "backed out at the last minute." MFNickster 04:11, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
I think Bulbous is trolling. I trust the primary source more than the edited video. That's the gist, isn't it? - Pronoiac 04:54, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Pronoiac: I am discussing the article. Accusing someone of trolling IS trolling. If you cannot grasp the inherent problem with uncorroborated commentary that was made after the fact, and recorded dialogue of the event itself (even if incomplete), then I can do nothing to reason with you any further.
MFNickster: I don't think anyone suggested that signing the album cover was anything but symbolic of an intent to participate. There is one email statement cited in which Kurt indicates mildly that he is "not going to do" it (presumably the gig). The response to the email didn't seem to acknowledge that statement in any way. I think Kurt could have saved everyone a great deal of hassle if he had unequivocally stated in no uncertain terms that he was not participating. Maybe that's just his way, but it sure didn't help to ease the confusion, and kept the company trying to change his mind.
In the end, after reading more of the email thread, I have to think, "Is it fair to say that Kurt indicated his refusal after the fact"? Possibly. Because of that I will drop my challenge to the article. "Is it fair to say that he did so clearly enough that VH-1 got the message"? It doesn't look that way to me. Bulbous 05:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, VH-1 was evidently in regular communication with Kurt, and beyond the tentative agreement they got on tape, I don't think they had anything to indicate he would participate. Kurt may be cynical and somewhat of a curmudgeon (read: "pain in the butt"), but I don't think he's a liar. If anything, he's typically brutally honest about his feelings. FWIW, I don't think your change is objectionable (the addition of "claims to...") because it's factual, but I disagree that the video must be given much more weight than Kurt's testimony. Video can lie, and I think VH-1 was dishonest to present the exchange the way they did. MFNickster 14:28, 29 November 2006 (UTC)