Talk:Midnight Syndicate/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

A modest proposal

A good part of the dispute here seems to focus on the role of Joseph Vargo. Based on the information I see in some versions he looks notable enough for his own Wikipedia page. So how about this compromise:

  • Start a biography for Vargo.
  • Make the Midnight Syndicate bigger and include more sections so that readers can reference both the current lineup and the group's history.
  • Use line citations!

Take a look at some of Wikipedia's featured music articles. Sex Pistols, Genesis (band), Marilyn Manson (band), Nirvana (band) - that's what you should be striving for. I'm going to be blunt here, so forgive me if this offends, but neither disputed version of this article is much good. If band members really edit this page then how about uploading some album covers and audio samples? Quote published reviews instead of liner notes. If former band members (or friends of former band members) edit here, then get out the scrapbook and cite some historical stuff. Some of you probably own rare archival material such as photographs from performances and early promotional flyers. Digitize and upload! The dispute at this page makes very little sense to me - it's like squabbling over crumbs while the loaf turns to mold on the table. I don't much care whether this band was better four years ago, but I'd be more likely to read it and maybe buy some releases if it made the good article list. Heck, I'm pretty sure I've listened to a lot of Midnight Syndicate while I was gaming. Go make this article better. Durova 03:44, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I think that proposal was already made but using Panic! at the Disco as reference. I agree that the others you mention are way better. I think it would be a fine idea for this article. Ororboros gave a very good summary of how best to organize the page and even started sections as you reference in the MM and other articles. But it would likely cause even more disruption at this point. Can you honestly see Skinny and friends not reverting the "controversial" section on an hourly basis? And to add an article on Vargo would mean we would have two entries to squabble over until this settles down. Looking back at last year it appears a Vargo article was removed because it was attacked. I think that if the band (or friends) would compromise and actually give credit for work performed--and not just to their friends--and not word things in such a way as to minimize other work or present a slanted version of history, the article could be cleaned up. Then we could look at making it great. The other option, as stated earlier is just to remove all the bloated statements (even MM doesn't have such puffy-chested boasts and his albums went Platinum). Just list the members roles (composer, engineer, producer, etc) and be done with. I would like to see the other credits listed here for film--the two horror films mentioned above are work they did and should be credited for, just as the games are credited--and they did not write scores for those games. And tone down what the band has posted for future projects. (ie: Warner-bros "based" means that SnapKick rents a stage on the WB lot, not that WB is producing or releasing). That is a marketing ploy and quite obviously misleading. On the other hand, the band actually did have cds being sold for several years in displays that said "official soundtracks for Halloween Horror Nights." Why Skinny said that wasn't true is beyond me. That fact was here for a long time. I see many instances of self-promotion that have been disallowed in other articles, yet for some reason are allowed to continue here. I would be interested to see what you, Durova, would edit in/out of this article yourself. Would you be willing to take some time and do some edits to open the door and show us how you would treat this fairly? As for photos, I don't have a clue about how to upload but I'll read about it. Would we be trampling on copyrights or need permission from the band? Thanks for taking time to suggest this.GuardianZ 14:59, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Durova, I began a search of all related artcicles this morning after your proposal. Since you had mentioned citing reviews (something we haven't yet referenced), my first stop was Amazon. I found this link posted after reviews for the latest Out of the Darkness cd. [1]. It seems that Wiki is not the only forum where history is being changed, and maybe Vargo has a point in his references to other press avenues being given alternate info. I just found this very curious. If we commence on this, it will have to be handled very carefully. We ought to reference both old and new press material and decide between plain fact and promotional double-speak. GuardianZ 15:36, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

You know, until I read this most recent post by GuardianZ, I was feeling pretty good about our progress. I have been working diligently since last night on a revised article. I have been very careful to try to come up with a version we can both agree on. Based on what you've just posted, I don't even know if that's possible. To say I'm disheartened would be an understatement. But I will forge ahead and get something up today. - Skinny McGee 16:05, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
I'd have a couple of problems trying to edit here. First is that I'm an administrator and my volunteer hours are spread pretty thin. Second, with my peculiar knowledge of music I could probably contribute more to Josquin Des Prez and Cannonball Adderley than to this article. I can make a few comments, though. Articles don't get deleted because of vandalism - and in the rare case where that might happen the article ought to be recreated. I thought one of the main bones of contention was a disagreement over how much space this page ought to devote to someone who's no longer in the group. If that's the problem then a summary here that links to a bio article ought to solve the problem. On another matter, discussion boards aren't suitable for citation at Wikipedia. Per WP:NOR Wikipedia really can't do investigative reporting. This article might present contradictory evidence in a neutral manner, but unless some music journalist has published a study of Midnight Syndicate's history then this article can't attempt to draw conclusions. Most of all, what the editors here ought to do to make their positions robust is to use line citations. Article text that's unreferenced is much more open to challenge than article text that quotes or paraphrases a reliable source. Best wishes, Durova 02:51, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

New Look

So, I've made some changes, but not too many. I thought we were pretty close to a starting point yesterday, so I didn't mess with the content too much. I figured we could get something to agree on and go from there. I added the box and a few CD covers to spice it up a bit. I did my best to take all recent comments into account in deciding what to keep and what to discard. - Skinny McGee 16:45, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I should point out that this article is intentionally bland. I just want to stop all these edits. We can add more once we have a starting point. - Skinny McGee 17:12, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

The text content is not all that different and needs work, but Wiki editing is a non-stop process. Bland is not what to strive for. Facts and good grammar, concise and accurate information is what is needed. It is still reading like a press release for the films and is missing the other film work. I think saying that Douglas and Goszka are composers is enough. That bit about writing music just comes off sounding redundant. I also wonder how you got permission for the images so quickly. Sorry bout that Amazon thing but I just found that and was like wow, so I thought it best to mention in case we cover the controversy thing like the MM articles and others. Good job on the layout though. GuardianZ 05:37, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Skinny. I guess I have a problem with "the standard" because it is based on what the band states prior to the Haunted Attraction article, and is not a true fact. I am sure that the article used a good deal of content from the band's own PR and that statement is not exclusive to that publication. Popular is true, but haunted attractions use music from many different groups (Dee Snyder, Iron Maiden, Ozzy, Nox Arcana, Blue Oyster Cult...) I think "standard" implies that only Midnight Syndicate music is used. I agree that the band makes it very publicized that their music is used, but it is not the only music being played. Also, my edits previously brought the 2 paragraphs relating to the 13th Hour together, as the info was separated before by the other album. GuardianZ 21:45, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, I moved mention of future music in theme parks to ending paragraph that also gives kudos to tv and film use. (Read before you edit it again). It clunked up the first paragraph, and seemed just tossed in, out of chronological order. Also, the Born of the Night and Realm of Shadows cds were listed as "official soundtracks," in 1999 and 2000 so I didn't want to confuse the issue. I am thinking of adding footnotes for the paragraphs, but only if you are going to contest the statements. Frankly, I think footnoting is somewhat visually disruptive to the reading process, but if it is required, I will do so. It would also mean reorganizing the Print References into a numbered and chronological order, as ref tags are counted from top to bottom on the page. GuardianZ 23:02, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

OK. Footnotes it is then. I might recommend doing the same for your references, but make sure to remove the duplicate instances if you do. I would also compare the earlier quotes with the newer ones to get a good idea of what is reliable per WP:RS GuardianZ 05:25, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

According to several sources, this statement is not true, and is only self-promotional in nature: "Unable to gain the support of a major record label or distributor initially..." According to many sources, Monolith Graphics was the label and financial supporter for Midnight Syndicate. There is no indication that Midnight Syndicate was ever on anyother label and certainly no indication that it stated this prior to 2003. I think that your reluctancy to credit Vargo for his work and then promote Edward Douglas for "distribution" is really lame. This site is not a promotional platform for your business. It is also not your personal platform for smearing the name of a former business partner (which you seem VERY intent on doing). The article is about a band, how they formed, their influences, line-up, and line-up changes as appropriate, what albums were successful and why, things like that. Maybe even a trivia section. It is not about your business, how you do business, what your complaints are about your former business partner, etc. I suggest you take that problem of yours elsewhere. GuardianZ 05:49, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I’m curious how you could possible object to that. Many, many sources indicate that Edward Douglas contacted every distributor he could think of and no one was interested. Douglas then started making cold calls and built his own distribution network. I certainly think it’s valid to include that the CDs that have become so successful in the $4.2 billion Halloween retail industry are self-distributed. I know Joseph Vargo doesn’t like to hear it, but Midnight Syndicate and Entity Productions, Inc. are highly respected in the industry. Finally, Monolith Graphics was never the label. - Skinny McGee 19:20, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

The statement that "Edward Douglas contacted every distributor he could think of and no one was interested. Douglas then started making cold calls and built his own distribution network." is in his words and is not verifiable. It sounds like Original Research coming from you. If so, that is not allowable per Wiki guidelines. It is also stated that Monolith Graphics completely financed the band from 1998 to 2000, so they would be the label. (Read what the definition of a record label or publisher is). Also, how do you explain the Monolith logo on the cds? According to Vargo (who I believe, given the huge amount of evidence presented on his site) Monolith Graphics was indeed the label in the traditional sense (paying for production, doing promotion, etc), and that Entity was along for the ride or at best given a leg-up by Monolith and only became sucessful much later, then after Vargo left they began making false statements and misleading the industry, as has been shown on the Legion of the Night website. I have no doubt that it is continuing, and that your actions on this Wiki are part of that effort. Maybe it is Edward Douglas who does not want to admit that he had a lot of help, and was (and still is) greatly influenced by his past business partner. No matter what is going on now, however, the FACT remains that Vargo was a member of the band and that he DID do the things for which I footnoted, and they ARE relevant... It is MUCH more relevant and important in this venue as to what made a cd popular, the number of times a song was re-released, band influences and so forth—much moreso than how cds are sold or by whom they were sold. If there were no Born of the Night cds to sell this would not even be an issue. I seriously doubt anyone would even know of this band if it were not for that album. This is not a business article. It is about an entertainment group, and your business focus seems to be to deprive a former and valuable member of this group his due credit while making a boast about how great a businessman Edward Douglas is. If he is such a great businessman, then he must have put all of his energy into that and less into the music. That's what it seems to me after reading your comments (and after listening to the latest cd). GuardianZ 02:06, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Line Citations

Per Durova's suggestion to use line citations, I have do this in support of my statements and other statements made previously in this article. For some reason they keep getting removed and the article is being reverted. I don't believe that anyone doing the reverts is actually checking the footnotes. It was brought up by Skinny who keeps removing the notes, that the content promotes Vargo, yet they are the same references used previously. Plus, Vargo was in th band at the time. So, why should he not be mentioned? Many items have just been footnoted to support specific statements, and most are about albums, not people, and one quotes Douglas, not Vargo. Also, the mention of album kudos such as which album "established MS's sound" does not mention Vargo. It simply states what Douglas had stated earlier. I don't know why Skinny has a problem with this. Frankly, I don't know why he has a problem with the previous statement that all the songs on the 2nd and 3rd albums take their names from Vargo paintings. That's an interesting bit of fact that has been stated in several earlier interviews. Goszka states that he used Vargo's artwork as reference when writing some of the music. That information does not harm this article, it does not detract from any of the work that Douglas and Goszka have done, and it's interesting and shows what influence that member had on the rest of the group. I think Skinny is just really biased against Vargo. I have tried to also footnote newer items (such as Skinny's claim that Douglas started his oun "distribution network in 1999" but can find no reliable sources... most are contradicted by older sources, and that one in particular is very highly contested by Vargo's website and also doesn't jive with the other company credits on the Born of the Night cd packaging. As for the rundown of re-released music on the Out of the Darkness cd, I had a hell of a time figuring that out. I think it's very important to make it clear that there is only one track from 1994 (though it is listed in the copyrights as 1996). I am assuming that it was written in 1994 otherwise why would the band put 1994 in the title. In any case, it's really interesting how many times other songs were re-released. Some appear 3 or 4 times depending on the release format. One other bit of info bugs me, but I left it for now... the first paragraph states that Douglas founded MS in 1996, but in all of the other sources, it states 1997. One source states 1991 as a time when Douglas met the guys in the first line-up, but that is contradicted later by several other sources. I suppose one could argue that he "founded" something a year earlier than when they became active as a musical group. Anyway, it's a bit questionable. Skinny, I really do suggest you back up your statements with footnotes. I'm not crazy about it, but I think this article needs it. Like, I said though, you need to make sure your references aren't contradicted by other references. That is why I adhered to only the earlier sources, as I believe that those were at least created with some degree of fairness before the band members were at odds with one another. GuardianZ 17:39, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Skinny, I added your new print reference as a line citation. It's really not much different than what all the other PR is saying but it does support that Douglas branched out in 2001, not 1999 as you previously stated. That also fits with Vargo leaving in 2000/2001. But you are still not supporting your reverting of my additions, and I am losing patience. As you can see, I am TRYING to be fair but you are making it very difficult for me to hold my tongue. You have been warned about being civil and I am trying my best to also adhere to that rule. GuardianZ 03:09, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I have been removing your footnotes because I find them completely unnecessary. The footnoting is so sporadic that it’s very distracting (e.g., footnoting Cedar Point, but not Busch Gardens or Thorpe Park). And anyway, the article as it currently reads is just so innocuous that we don’t need them. You’re still promoting Joseph Vargo with everything you do and you are trying to nit-pick this article to pieces and discredit Midnight Syndicate in the process. I will do what I can to keep that from happening. That includes deleting any reference to defamatory sites run by Joseph Vargo. I’ve left the link to the Dark Realms Magazine interview in, even though it’s Joseph Vargo’s magazine and thus it is of questionable neutrality in terms of this article. - Skinny McGee 19:20, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I will just reiterate: The footnoted information does not harm this article, it does not detract or discredit anyone, and it's interesting and shows what influence that one member (Vargo) had on the rest of the group. I think Skinny is just really biased against Vargo. My footnoting barely even mentioned him. Most of the notes refer to albums, songs, a quote from Edward Douglas, a radio interview that mainly features Edward Douglas, and events or focus (yes, that bit influenced by Vargo) that lead to the band's success, all of which you, Skinny, called into question. Therfore since you question it, I footnoted it! First you call my edits rediculous and untrue, then when I place footnotes to prove my points, you edit them out and claim they are "unneccessary." You're amazingly hypocritical! You seem fixated on trying to remove ANYTHING on Vargo but you will play up something really insignificant like a graphic designer that no one ever heard of or some award that the band nominated itself for, or who distributed cds or who supposedly made phone calls, or who the label may have been. I just think it's rather suspicious how what you are doing here mirrors exactly what Vargo claims that Edward Douglas was trying to do elsewhere in the Press and in the haunted industry. Very interesting indeed! As for Dark Realms, it's totally reliable. In fact, that's probably the only time Edward Douglas ever told the truth. I imagine Vargo must've been sitting there in the same room being interviewed TOGETHER, (as in the radio interview you keep removing reference to). I don't see but maybe one short story or two by Vargo in Dark Realms, plus advertising, but that's it. The rest of the magazine is all written by other writers and features lots of bands and artists. My guess is his company finances it like he did albums for Midnight Syndicate, but in any case, I'd believe Dark Realms before I'd bank on anything coming from Edward Douglas' mouth, certainly after how he has changed his tune from old interviews to new. GuardianZ 02:48, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's been busy around here. But it's like taking one step forward and two back. I like the new look and have added a few citations of my own. Skinny is wrong on the label info. It plainly shows Monolith Graphics on the Born of the Night cd, and that was a title applied to Vargo's product line from 1992 to present. I have one of his 1992 calendars called Born of the Night and his company has published one every year since. Check Amazon.com if anything else. Skinny, why can't you just admit the truth? It would really be much better to admit to the truth than to keep trying to make things up or bury the facts with obscuration and deceptive editing. You're just making it look even worse for this band. PS. off-topic Panic! at the Disco was on Letterman last night. I wonder how their lawsuit is going? Oroboros 1 07:11, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, well. Skinny seems to be confused about the term defamation. He seems to view any promotion of a past band member as defamation. Likewise he seems to think that just because that person is defending his rights on a public website that it constitutes defamation. Rather, I think that the actions that Skinny and MS have taken are defamatory. To make a FALSE statement that is harmful is defamatory. To make a TRUE statement is NOT defamatory, even if it is not favorable. To say, for example, that "OJ Simpson is a murderer" would be defamatory. To say that "OJ Simpson was tried for murdering his wife, found 'not guilty', yet is still widely believed to be guilty." is not defamatory. All of the statements made in the editing I have done to this article are TRUE. The facts and statements in regard to the dispute that Oroboros posted (and which I further edited and cited) are TRUE. The citations are valid. If Midnight Syndicate does not like the truth being published, that's just too bad. Perhaps they should not have defamed Vargo to begin with, and tried so hard to hide the truth. Skinny, my advice, if you will take it, is to accept the reality of the situation. The band is in the public eye and some of the members have done some things that may be regrettable but are true just the same. There are many bands on Wiki that have done worse, drugs, sex tapes, ect. I wouldn't lose too much sleep over this. GuardianZ 03:07, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Corrected inaccuracies per Skinny's ref to Akron Journal. The news article plainly states that the year was 2001. Taking into consideration the label issue, I thought it best to simply credit both companies (Monolith Graphics and Entity Productions). According to the cd booklet both company logos and addresses are listed, Monolith being first. Skinny, please be more careful about making deceptive edits in the future. Oroboros 1 23:11, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

What 'ref to Akron Journal'? I have no idea what you're talking about. - Skinny McGee 23:32, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I guess it's the "Star Beacon Journal" that you added reference to. I thought it was Akron. In any case, It states in speaking of Born of the Night sales... "It was really overwhelming," Douglas says of the response. Then the writier states: "Encouraged by "Born of the Night" sales, Douglas and Goszka produced and released three more Halloween CDs.. It was a part-time venture for both men... Douglas went full time in 2001 and Gavin recently joined him." You added the reference. I am just citing it. You really should remember what you say, "Skinny." Oroboros_1 23:47, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I guess I was just confused because the fact that Ed Douglas quit his other job in 2001 and started doing Midnight Syndicate full time has nothing to do with the distribution. I enjoy the fact that you are quoting the article out of order and thus changing the meaning to suit your own purpose. After discussing how the success of Born of the Night was overwhelming, the article goes immediately to say "Nevertheless, its creators couldn't convince record labels or distributors of this fresh genres economic potential.... Goszka and Douglas decided to build their own distribution network." Then it talks about how Douglas made cold calls across the country and then it states "It was a part-time venture for both men." To summarize, while working part time at another job, Douglas built a national distribution network for Midnight Syndicate's CDs. - Skinny McGee 23:59, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

How are you coming up with "the fact that Ed Douglas quit his other job in 2001." (sounds like you are getting this from personal experience). And as for "Nevertheless, its creators couldn't convince record labels or distributors of this fresh genres economic potential." Show me a reference where Edward Douglas or the other creators (Vargo and Goszka) approached other major labels and that they rejected him. If you can produce a rejection letter, for example, from a major record label, or any piece of verifiable evidence, I will accept it. An interview with yourself is not verifiable. Oroboros_1

That's what you said when you quoted the article. "Douglas went full time in 2001" - implying that he must have quit some other job. I think you're trying to deflect attention from the real issue: You rearraged the reference to suit your needs. If you feel you can use the article as a reference, then I don't understand why I should have to provide outside evidence when correcting your misstatements.

Nooooo. I only paraphrased the article and placed the part that you wroye into consecutive order. YOU, Skinny, are the one who likes to reconstruct things to be misleading (just like Edward is). I am only editing them to be clearer and not deceptive. Oroboros 1 18:53, 19 November 2006 (UTC).

On another note, while I've suspected it for quite some time, I'm pleased to finally have proof that you (Oroboros_1) and Guardianz are the same person. You have just completed two edits here under the same IP address that GuardianZ used to revert the article on November 11th. If you smell a rat, as you state in your edit summary, I think it's probably you. You have no intention of elevating this Wikipedia article. Every edit you have made serves either to promote Joseph Vargo or to discredit or diminish Midnight Syndicate's accomplishments. This is remarkably similar to the tactic Joseph Vargo himself has used on the sites you reference. That's obvious to anyone who reviews your edit history. - Skinny McGee 01:44, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

No. I have only edited under my own login. And I might point out that while you and GuardianZ were banned I was still able to edit. Therefore I do not have the same IP. You might also know that thousands of people can have the same IP. It is not just one per person, you know. But, you and all your other login names were blocked, which proves that you are Edward Douglas. I suspect that Pumkinhead is Mr. Gozska, or it is just you logging back in on a different computer. Really pathetic. In any case, how is what I have written belittling your accomplishments? Did Vargo finance the Born of the Night and Realm of Shadows cds? Answer: YES. Did he promote and distribute them through Monolith Graphics (before Entity Productions). YES. Did he conceive, write, narrate, arrange, direct the album. YES. Did he introduce the band to his audience and clients. YES. (I was among those at The Realm art gallery. I came from Pittsburgh. So I was there well before I got put on the MS mailing list). Did you then claim that Vargo never produced your albums? YES. Did you then rerelease the Born of the Night album and remove all of Vargo's writing. YES. Ditto for Realm of Shadows. You used two exact phrases to me at a convention last year that you typed in different entires above, so I know you to be Edward Douglas. It is you who have consistently tried to discredit and diminish Mr. Vargo. I have clearly stated only VERIFIABLE FACTS in my editing. You are just making things up! You have not ONCE cited or verified anything you edited. I was trying to compromise and allow you some room to add your self-promotional crap, but you are only here to promote yourself and to dimish the work that Vargo did in forming this band. I will not allow you to do that. I will allow a fair amount of self-promotion, but NOT at the expense of discrediting another person. I will be letting Mr. Vargo know what your groupie promotion person told me and some others at the Horrorfind convention. Oroboros 1 04:31, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

You're wrong on every account, so I'm not going to waste my time arguing with you anymore. I'm not Edward Douglas, but I'm flattered that you think I am since I'm a huge fan of his music. - Skinny McGee 15:01, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, well if you're NOT Edward Douglas but you are a "huge" fan of "his" music, then I think you are a little too POV to be editing here. This is about a band, and that involves more that ONE person. It also involves everything else about their public lives. Stop reverting. If you want to edit what I have written, fine. But you are just reverting and removing everything, and that is not how this works. I intend to add some writing about Gavin too. (But got all caught up in this crap with you, Skinny.) Though I can't find very much on Gavin. He seems to prefer keeping a low profile. So far, all I do know is he like ghost hunting and has another musical side project too. But Edward doesn't say what it is. Hmmm. Wonder why he didn't mention more about that. Probably the same reason he downplays Vargo's roles. Oroboros 1 18:48, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Skinny McGee, I have welcomed your added promotional content and only moved it to be in order of when the event happened, but you chose to make it misleading and to use it to demean Mr. Vargo. You are doing exactly what you or this Edward Douglas has been accused of elsewhere. I think you need a reality check. So far you have made no significant contributions to this article. Your only agenda is to hide the name of Vargo and to spin an entirely different history. How that benefits anyone, I don't know, but it just feels wrong to sit by and let it happen. Oroboros 1 04:45, 20 November 2006 (UTC)