Talk:Wishbone Ash

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.

Biography Portal

This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed biographical guide to musicians and musical groups on Wikipedia.

[edit] Refined?

Excerpt from History section: "... though this sound was later refined to the Judas Priest and Iron Maiden style harmonies by legendary hard rock band Thin Lizzy." From Wishbone Ash's intricate multiple harmonies and countermelodies to Thin Lizzy's harmonies based on thirds and fifths. Is that "refining" or is it simplifying/commercialising?

[edit] Long

Please consider splitting some parts of this page, e.g. the albums, as it is getting very long. Stifle (talk) 23:01, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

It's no longer than any other band pages featuring groups that have been around for 30 years or more. I don't see what the big deal is.

[edit] Bias?

I find the article a bit less than neutral. Informative, easy and pleasant to read, but a bit biased. 'stasis101 20:52 23 June 2006'

If you mean biased against Martin Turner then there have been some edits that seem now to have addressed some of the issues regarding the naming of the band,the reasons why Martin Turner was ousted from the band etc. It now seems a bit more balanced and informative.

The original added comments about martin Turner getting back to the stage was short, informative and neutral, just as you want it on Wiki. This seems to have triggered the need to prolongue the arguments between the websites on to wikipedia. very wrong IMHO. Nobody benefits, everybody loses.

I feel the exploitation remarks are a little overdone. Whomever wrote this article obviously has a bitter taste in their mouth about Andy Powell. I think instances of opinion should be left out considering its more of a viewpoint issue rather than naming facts like a informative piece. Whether or not you think a band members "motives" or "intentions" were this or that is not factual based and not needed. On a less formal and academic note, to put it bluntly: This article kisses Martin Turners ass in a lot of ways, if you want to write an editorial go get a blog.198.138.133.94 17:45, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Captions

Could someone please modify the image captions to identify the artists?--J Clear 01:10, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Been there, done that (in 6 October 2006).

[edit] Page semi-protected

I have semi-protected this page due to edit-warring by anonymous editors. Please discuss disputed edits here, and an established user will make them when everyone is in agreement. Thanks! --Aguerriero (talk) 19:05, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed paragraph on MTWA

An anonymous editor added a paragraph about the formation of "Martin Turner's Wishbone Ash" that started an edit war. I would like to propose a neutral version of this paragraph to see if everyone can agree to it - then we can unprotect the page and carry on. It seems relevant to mention that MTWA was formed, but it is inappropriate to make statements in the article about how various people feel about it without proper citations. Note that blogs, web forums, etc are not proper citations.

Proposed paragraph:

In the autumn of 2005, Martin Turner joined with guitarists Ray Hatfield and Keith Buck, and drummer Rob Hewins, to form Martin Turner's Wishbone Ash. MTWA have played many songs which have been rarely (or never) heard live, and a two-part live album (entitled "New Live Dates 1 & 2" ) is to be released late in 2006.

I think this represents the facts in a neutral way without saying anything that leans to one side or the other. If anyone has a reliable and neutral source that says there has been controversy over this, we can add that to the paragraph with proper citation. Please add a bullet below indicating whether you support or oppose, followed by your signature of four tildes (~~~~). Thanks --Aguerriero (talk) 15:10, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

OK I'll agree to that - it's better than what's there at the moment (I was the original "anonymous editor", BTW) 89.240.146.64 15:23, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

That proposed new paragraph seems fine. At least it is not as much of a commercial as the original one. As for the so called edit war, everything I typed was factual, and I did not erase anything from the original contributor, even though they continued to erase mine. I just wanted both sides of the coin to be represented. I am sorry if this upset some, but to have only one side represented seems a very unbalanced and biased article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.190.37.148 (talk • contribs)

Yes, the proposed short paragraph sounds great compared to the nonsense in the last paragraph as it stands now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.218.243.210 (talk • contribs)

The new paragraph seems acceptable enough; maybe a little short- but if it stops the nonsense that followed the original perfectly fine paragraph, that's to be welcomed. I'm happy to give my name; Keith Stoddart.Barnacle 18:34, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Echoing previous comments, the revised paragraph appears to cover the salient facts in a NPOV manner. Derek R Bullamore 19:10, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Ditto for me, the original added paragraph was fair and to the point. Willem de Bruijn Holland

Yes, the new paragraph would be acceptable, gives a clear summary of the actual facts in an unbiased way.Gilly

Thanks to Gilly-B for pointing me to this page. I hadn't realised it existed. These websites are almost endless in their variety and complexity. My main complaint would be that there is considerable hostility in the closing paragraphs and also verifiable lies. What is the point in stating comments as supposed 'facts' that are quite untrue? Many of us suspect we know who this individual is (could be one of about three people I reckon), and of course they are entitled to their opinion, as is everybody else. However, much of this stuff is just plain wrong especially the comments about Martin leaving 3 times of his own accord. He didn't...

He left the first time because his position was untenable. When a palace coup takes place around you, and you don't agree with the philosophy being suggested ... then what alternative is there? He left because he was told they wanted a new 'front-man' - a Robert Plant/Jon Sloman type of singer (and Martin could stay on bass if he wanted). In reality they never did this - so in effect he was pushed out of the band based upon a completely false premise. A less kind person might say he was lied to - stitched up like the proverbial kipper. What happened to this new 'fifth' member that was going to save the band and propel them into the big time? That period was quite shameful. Martin predicted the band would fail because of it and subsequently the record label dropped them - the British public lost interest - the albums became less frequent and went from poor (NTB) to bad (TBB) to complete tosh (RTTB).

The second and third times he was informed his services were no longer required by the then leader/controller of Wishbone Ash's destiny. He could have argued and fought - but he just isn't that kind of guy. However, Martin has always returned when asked - even though he would have been completely justifiable in declining. His devotion to the band he started and which meant (and still does mean) so much to him, has always meant he would do whatever was necessary to see that the band name never suffered - and the fans were never let down.

Anyway, it is just a name now. That is not the same as the real thing.

There are now two good successor bands each offering a slightly different take on Wishbone styles ... past and present. That is just fine with most Wishbone Ash fans.

Ghostmojo (Howard Johnston)

Passage replaced

Okay it seems that everyone is in basic agreement that we stick with a basic, neutral paragraph for now about MTWA. As I said, if anyone has a reliable, neutral citation that MTWA is controversial, feel free to add that statement. Something like, "The formation of MTWA is seen as controversial to some fans." or similar neutral language. I will unprotect - please be nice! --Aguerriero (talk) 20:19, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Length of Phoenix

The article says that the song Phoenix is nearly 13 minutes long, but the article for the album on which the song is featured, Wishbone_Ash_(album) it says 10:26, and that also the length of the track I have. Is it a misunderstanding/typo in the main band article, or is there another longer version somewhere? 83.145.61.81 10:03, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Main picture change

The main picture on this article lets the overall qulaity of the piece down terribly - a shot of some audience memb heads with a latter day Wishbone Ash in the background.

Recently the picture featured there was a good quality shot of the original band - the one that most fans recognise and the one which sold the most number of albums and had the greatest musical influence. Why has this been removed???

Presumably this article is supposed to be a neutral overview of the band's history, not a promo for (either of) the present bands? Or maybe one of the audience members featured in the pic particularly wanted a shot of the back of their head included?? Go to Rolling Stones page you see Brian Jones and Bill Wyman, not Ron Wood and Daryl Jones. Go to Pink Floyd page you see the FIVE key members, not the latter day distillation. Go to Jethro Tull you see Bunker and Cornick, not Perry and Pegg. Go to Uriah Heep you will see Hensley, Bryron and Thain, not lanzon, Shaw and Bolder. It is generally the original or best known line-up pictured. The same should apply to the Wishbone Ash article.

I strongly recommend the original line-up picture be reinstated on the above grounds - one rule fits all.

The picture that is there now is free use, as opposed to your suggestion, which is fair use. Wikipedia states that a free use is to be used when applicable instead of a fair use image. -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 17:46, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

But, it would be possible to crop the picture to remove the heads of the audience. -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 17:48, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Martin Turner's WA

$I n s e r t f o r m u l a h e r e$

I believe the info on Martin Turners Wishbone Ash has been unfairly truncated.

A similar situation to the dual WA band scenario would be Barclay James Harvest, of which two incarnations presently exist. I note their Wiki article features both the John Lees and Les Hollroyd versions of the band equally.

I believe the personnel on the Wishbone Ash page should list both bands members, with the MTWA members being bracketed as such to avoid confusion.

Surely Martin Turner's activities under the MTs Wishbone Ash banner can be acknowledged while at the same time not detracting from the info on APs band. While the existence of two WA bands rankles a small minority of "fans", it is a FACT that at present both Martin Turner and Andy Powell front bands using the Wishbone Ash banner. I understand that Wiki articles are supposed to be based on FACT not opinion. THerefore the article should reflect the FACTS. So, unless/until there is any legal activity to change that, then both current WA bands should be acknowledged fairly and equally, with no bias either in the article content or in the personnel listings. Anything less is allowing the page to be influenced by opinion, not FACT, which is I understand against Wiki policy.

Agreed, MTWA info should appear within this article, as the dual BJH bands do in their article. Neither should be marginalised, they are both legitimate enterprises operating under the WA banner. (DiamondJack 12:22, 9 June 2007 (UTC)).

[edit] Poor show

Article has serious NPOV issues - it uses terms like "without question their creative peak". Badly referenced too.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 18:31, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

ALL SUCH COMMENTS NOW REMOVED!!!

[edit] Discography (merger)

A separate article Wishbone Ash discography exists. I don't see why this would warrant a separate article, and propose to merge the content into here.

Proposed as part of the Notability wikiproject. --B. Wolterding 17:18, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

NOW DONE!!!

[edit] Main Photo

Insert non-formatted text here

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE remove that appalling quality photo from the main box - and, no, cropping the audience heads is not the answer. Anyone other than the present band's publicist would have to agree that the page should feature a pic of the classic line up as its main picture, not a later distillation. See revious users analogy regarding entries on other heritage bands. Is this an encylopeadic entry or an Andy Powell press release.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.47.15.35 (talk • contribs)

DONE - the page looks better for it, and bias to any latter day line-up can be avoided. The move to a definitive era picture is fair. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.47.15.35 (talk • contribs)

The picture that is there now is free use, as opposed to your suggestion, which is fair use. Wikipedia states that a free use is to be used when applicable instead of a fair use image. But, it would be possible to crop the picture to remove the heads of the audience, if that is wished. -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 20:03, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unreasonable editing courteous of Andy Powell entourage

It is clear that a member of Andy Powell's team is on standby removing every piece of detailed info on martin Turner's Wishbone Ash activities that appears here, going way beyond merely editing to comply with Wikipedia policy, etc, etc.

This is part of an ongoing wrecking campaign by Mr. Andrew Powell to sabotage the legitimate Wishbone Ash business activities of Martin Turner. Knowing that Martin Turner has every legal right to perform under the Wishbone Ash name (with or without a prefix) and that he can do nothing legally to prevent Martin's activities, Andy Powell has tried several undercover means of attempting to halt Martin's activities. These include launching a nominet complaint about Martin's use of the www.wishboneash.co.uk domain, which was unsuccessful, and having members of his team hi-jack Martin's web guestbook.

The continual vandalism of the Wikipedia entry is just another attempt on Powell's part to undermine Martin's career. Knowing he has no legal grounds to conduct any dispute with Martin in the law courts, Powell is resorting to pathetic low-life stunts like this to make his point.

Wikipedia must see that it (like Nominet) is being used as a Kangaroo Court by a musician who does not want to spend money on pursuing his "no case" dispute through proper legal channels.

Does Wikipedia want to be used in this manner? If not, it needs to take action.

Powell's side seem not only to want to remove relevant factual details on Martin Turner's Wishbone Ash, but also important info relating to Martin Turner concerning the band;s history. i.e there is a concerted effort being made to downplay Martin's role in the Wishbone Ash history.

Powell should think about behaving honourably and call his hitmen off immediately. The edit wars are getting out of hand and doing evreyone a disservice. Of course each time Powells team remove key facts about Martin Turner, then Martin's fans will naturally resinstate. But as yet, none of Martin's fans have felt the need to remove key facts about Andy Powell. The pro-Martin edits are clearly only reactionary.

That could change. Two can play at this game. Things could then get nasty...VERY nasty.

Its certainly easy to see from where the initial trouble is starting - somehwere on the East Coast of the USA, Andy Powell territory.

I call for all fans and friends of Wishbone Ash (in all its incarnations) to start showing some respect for each other.

[edit] Can the edit wars now cease

Seems someone has at last done a decent job in editing the content so that it:

a) complies with Wiki policy in that no opinions are expressed. It just sticks to the facts.

b) The article gives to credit to both presently operating Wishbone Ash bands - whatever one's opinion, there ARE two bands performing under the name - just as there are two Barclay James Harvests (who both get full mention in the BJH article) and both should be fairly acknowledged within this article, without either version being marginalised. I believe this has been done in a way that is clear, not misleading and is dignified and respectful.

c) The main picture is restored to the original band picture. That way the most recognisable line-up of the band is dipicted and no accusations of bias towards either of the current versions of the band can be levelled.

I believe that this version should be final and that no further editing is needed, unless it adds any substantial facts to the article. I do not beleive there are any grounds on which anything can be removed from the present article. It satisfies all criteria.

Can Wishbone Ash fans now please leave this article to be. Wikipedia should not be used as a forum for fans to express their views on band politics - please take that to the fan forums that exist. I appeal to Wiki not to allow this now respectable article to be abused.

D.Jack (DiamondJack 12:19, 9 June 2007 (UTC)).

[edit] Agreed, this reads well now.

Agree with D.Jack - this page reads perfectly now and complies with policy. Please do not spoil it. Any vandalism will be doing Wishbone Ash and its fans a disservice.

[edit] Article is still in bad shape

Diamond Jack and his IP sockpuppet have made attempts to combine information about a separate band into this article which aren't required. The article is still strewn with poetic POV and needs more encyclopedic cleanup. 156.34.218.49 13:36, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Not required? In whose opinion? Only the opinion of Andy Powell and his lap-dogs presumably. Both bands are legally operating under the Wishbone Ash banner. I dont see info on either Barclay James Harvest band being removed from their article. The Wishbone Ash wiki page is being unfairly used us a forum for debating behind the scenes band matters, rather than presenting FACTS.

I am not saying the information can't be added to Wikipedia. The content certainly merits mentioning in the Martin Turner article. And, if Martin Turner's version passes certain Wikipedia Policies re: WP:NOTE and WP:BAND... a separate article can be created for it. Wikipedia's rules are very clear as far as what content goes where. They are 2 different bands with 2 different names. This article is titled Wishbone Ash plain and clear. Detailed information about other bands not req'd. 156.34.218.49 13:54, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Both bands have legal use of the Wishbone Ash name. Martin Turner uses the Martin Turner's prefix only to avoid confusion, as a goodwill gesture. There are two Barclay James Havesst - neither are called "just" BJH - you have BJF featuring Les Holrod, and BJH thru the eyes of John Lees - yet they both appear under the one BJH article. I do not see seperate entires for those bands, Why can the same not apply to Wishbone Ash - Surely Wiki does not practise double standards? It should be noted that most WA fans have been keen to embrace both acts as operating under the broad "Wishbone Ash" umbrella.

In 1986 an album was released calld 7th Star by "Black Sabbath Featuring Tony Iommi" - note, not "plain and clear" BLACK SABBATH. It featured only one original black Sabbath member (guess who?). Yet this album is listed and detailed on the Black Sabbath article and discography, not as a seperate "BS feat TO" article. This is absolutely no different to "Martin Turner's Wishbone Ash", either in name branding or concept. Information on a Black Sabbath spin off "Heaven & Hell" band (note, not even using the name Black Sabbath in any form) is included in the Black Sabbath page. Let's be reasonable here. Wiki has strict rules, for sure, and rightly so. But it has been demonstrated that these rules can be flexible and reasonable to a certain degree when we are dealing with a situation that is not "clear cut" - eg BJH x2, Black Sabbath feat Iommi, etc, etc. Granted, I would not expect to see a Stones album listed under The Who's article, but let's get things into perspective and be REASONABLE here, instead of causing trouble just for the sake of it. Any fair individual can see that the Wishbone Ash article as it presently stands 13:58, 9 June 2007 is fair and unbiased - all opinionated comment has been removed as far as I can tell, and fair credit is given to participants in both current Wishbone Ash bands, each clearly defined to avoid confusion. Let it rest people...please!

[edit] Page protected

... due to rampant edit-warring and sock-puppetry. Please - this has been going on for months now. It's time to discuss this here and try to work out whatever's going on and come to some compromise - Alison ☺ 04:49, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, lets dicusss before ANY further edits but please lets be reasonable. Read back over the discussions....are there not some valid points being made? Some good work has been done by all contributors removing uneccesary POVs etc. Good move. But the MTWA info HAS to remain in the interests of this article being unbiased - see comments made in discussion. I belive it would not be difficult to arrive at a text which can be satisfactory to all....so lets as the reasonable Alison suggest, discuss this as adults not children playing tit for tat. The POV issue...fine, whatever is considered reasonable. No complaints. The Martin Turner's Wishbone Ash matter - read back over previous edits and/or discussion. This matter will not be laid to rest until both bands are accepted wihin Wiki as being of merit for documentation within the wiki article. This could be a very LONG debate unless both sides are prepared to compromise. On that note, I accept some of the recent weasel/POV/peacock edits have been rightful and fair. Now a bit of consideration for my point in return...please....until it can be proven legally otherwise, lets have Martin Turner's Wishbone Ash recognised as an integral part of the WA legacy. Either that or lets have Black Sabbath ft Tony Iommi, BJH ft LH and BJH thru the yes of JL margnalised as per WA. No double standards here please. I am negotiable to arrive at a fair solution if others are....lets talk.

My prediction is it aint gonna be long before someone comes and wipes the lot - result no WA on wiki - so lets be reasonable, lets all consider the other man's POV not just our own and sort this mess out between us.

Are my sentiments reasonable? Is the pope Catholic? —Preceding unsigned comment added by DiamondJack (talk • contribs)

By the way, that main photo is still the mosy embarrasing pic to ever feature in a rock biog. But Im sure the fans are pleased to have the backs of their balding heads featured on wiki. Sad that the issue of a photo is considered more important than sensitive biographical edits... :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by DiamondJack (talk • contribs)

I don't know much about these guys or this article, but I can give you some very general advice. If you want something in an article on Wikipedia, it has to be verifiable through secondary sources. So it has to satisfy WP:REF and WP:Notability. Another issue is WP:Image. If you can work these out, your contributions will very likely stick. Another thing, if you are using multiple accounts (and I'm not saying right now that you are), it won't matter if you satisfy those policies, you'll eventually be blocked and your contributions removed regardless. That's how seriously we take that policy. --Fire Star 火星 05:33, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I have the perfect solution -- REMOVE THE ARTICLE COMPLETELY - then there are no winners or losers. NEITHER LOST, NEITHER WON> Just remove WA from wiki and then everybody suffers...or be adults and be prepated to give and take. D.Jack has been prepared to do this, the other user hasnt. Lets have a sense of REASON here please.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.139.109.69 (talk • contribs)

Please don't hide behind an IP (It can be easily checked who, IP and username alike, uses a certain range). As for the page, I have cropped the image and will be reuploading it to the commons. -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 05:45, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, the image has been cropped and re-uploaded to the Commons. If/when an admin wants, they need to add "|landscape = yes" to the infobox in order for the picture to look alright. Cheers! -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 06:06, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

STILL ONE OF THE MOST AWFUL PIECES OF BAND PHOTOGRAPHY EVER AND OF A NON DEFINITIVE LINE UP. NOTE STONES PAGE HAS BILL WYMAN/BRYAN JONES LINE UP, NOT DARYL JONES/RON WOOD.

THIS ARTICLE IS A TOTAL ABOMINATION> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.139.109.69 (talk • contribs)

Thanks for pointing out the Rolling Stones picture. It has been changed to comply with policy to a picture from the commons. Cheers! -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 17:24, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

GREAT! Two articles with crap pictures now...

{{Editprotected}} I think it might be useful redirecting John Wetton's musical origin to UK instead of UK.--Menrathu 09:36, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

done. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:08, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!--Menrathu 19:49, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I think it's fine to have MTWA mentioned here. It should be where it is in the main section, and have a small paragraph of it's own lower down which can be expanded if and when the band does anything interesting (e.g. more live albums - SARCASM IS LOWEST FORM OF WIT). However it can't go as a lineup for Wishbone Ash within the lineup table. It's a different band. It's Martin Turner's Wishbone Ash. It might be A wishbone ash but it isn't THE wishbone ash. If we give it it's own paragraph we can mention the lineup there. Having it on the table of members just doesn't seem right.

Bold textThere are two Barclay James Harvests, niether called "just" BJH or "the" BJH. Their page does not list the members of either current band but includes the original members ONLY in the listing - certainly more concise than listing all the "also rans". Maybe this example should be followed for Wishbone Ash.--212.139.199.105 10:42, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Look at Saxon - two of their members split off and formed their own version of Saxon and it hasn't produced such arguments.

While a picture of the band would be cool, I think rather than debate over what lineup to show etc. lets get more photos of different lineups on the page. We have 69-73 and 74-80...other lineups that survived a good while should be included. How about the 1987-90 reunion lineup? The 98-01 lineup is another one that lasted four years. I think it would be useful to have images of both.(The Elfoid 08:41, 4 July 2007 (UTC))

[edit] A fair solution???

I think all will agree the wars over this article have gone on for too long.

Can we agree the key points here are:

1) Martin Turner's Wishbone Ash is considered by many to be a spin-off associated project, rather than a continuation of the existing band. 2) Martin Turner's Wishbone Ash personnel to be or not to be listed in personnel 3) Main photo

Any points about the contents of the main text or the article are, I think we should agree, comparitvely of minor concern and can be dealt with later. In fact the text now reads well, it is factual with no opinionated comment. Just as it should be.

So can we stick to the three key points at this time.

My suggested solution to the key matters above would be as per the latest update I have made (15;34 10 July 07), which I feel satsfies all criteria, and should both sides happy (with a little not unreasonable compromise required by both sides), etc, etc.

1) a statement at the top of the main text stating that WA currently operates under Andy Powell leadership, while MT has his own outfit - this is a factual statement that clarifies the position clearly from the outset (DONE) 2) Martin Turner's band listed as an "associated act" on the info box - again further clarfication that MTs band is a spin-off, linked to the past band, but not exactly a continuation (DONE) 3) A seperate article for MTsWA linked to from the WA article (DONE - awaiting Wiki APPROVAL) 4) Info box to feature original and current personnel - thus paying full respect to the originators of this band, while acknowledging Andy Powell's continuation with the current band. All other personnel listed within the article. (DONE) 5) Main photo - outstanding issue. Can we arrive at a mutually agreeable main picture to replace the extemely poor quality pic which exists and lowers the quality of the article considerably. Then perhaps pics of different line-ups scattered throughout the piece, as others have suggested.

Its time for both sides in this matter to compromise and meet in the middle somewhere.

Can any sensible Wishbone Ash fan (and/or Wiki moderator) not see that the above solution makes perffect sense???

I believe that this is a fair solution that pays total respect to all parties and clarifies very clearly the WA-MTWA situation.

Can we now move on, calm down, talk sensibly and agree a way forwards - without an amicable agreement, this article WILL remain a mess for eternity. That will not do Wishbone Ash, Andy Powell, Martin Turner or their fans any credit whatsoever.

--212.139.254.63 15:52, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry I think I'm missing soemthing here - you say above that "[a] seperate article for MTsWA linked to from the WA article" is "DONE" though I see Martin Turner's Wishbone Ash as a red link still. Was it created somewhere else?--Alf ^melmac 16:25, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

It says "done, awaiting Wiki approval" - eg when the article is approved it will, presumably, appear live...

Ah right - you've proposed it on Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Today, ok I think I've caught up now.--Alf ^melmac 16:47, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] At last...a fair article

At last we appear to have reached a point where we have an article that is fair to all parties concerned. Can we now leave it as it is and move on. Martin Turner's supporters have clearly backed down on a number of key points, so the other side should reciprocate. There should now be no need for any changes to be made, only new events added as they occur. Right??—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.43.154.160 (talk • contribs) 15:27, 11 July 2007.

It's interesting how you and DiamondJack both mentioned how it's a "fair article". Are you the same person? My curiosity is lit like a bonfire. Scarian ^Talk 15:30, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Who is who is hardly important now. The main thing is the article is in a satisfactory state. Time to move on for everyone, surely...—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.43.143.216 (talk • contribs) 15:33, 11 July 2007.

Please sign your comments with the four tildes (Hold down shift and press the key with the hash sign, if you have a qwerty keyboard) in the future. Articles, as they are in the public domain, can be edited at any point. The article itself needs vast improvements on, including but not limited to;

Citations
POV
General cleaning and up-keeping etc. Scarian ^Talk 17:44, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Some people clearly have WAY too much time on their hands....--80.47.205.97 17:35, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Equally important is writing a good lead section, the current one is substandard and needs someone's attention.--Alf ^melmac 18:10, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Legal Release Versus Bootlegs

The recent addition (August 20th) to the Live Albums list: "Runaway (1994)" is a bootleg. Is the Live Albums list meant to have a mix of legal and illegal releases? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.156.213.97 (talk) 16:15, August 20, 2007 (UTC)

[edit] better photo

Really needed. And given the current state of the band, it might be better to just have a photo of Andy Powell on his own. (The Elfoid (talk) 19:00, 6 February 2008 (UTC))

[edit] Martin Turners Wishbone Ash

In other instances where two line-ups of one band presently co-exists: ie. Asia / Asia featuring John Payne Barclay James Harvest - Les Holroyd and John Lees versions both bands are listed under one page in these instances. To that end it would now be appropriate for Martin Turner's Wishbone Ash to be legitimately acknowledged on the Wishbone Ash page, with a secondary info box as per Asia? In the past, the listing of MTWA personnel on the WA page was considered inappropriate, but as it now seems this is commonplace on other dual-line-up bands pages, this needs to be reconsidered. If it is not considered appropriate then the same needs to apply to Asia and BJH pages. One rule for all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.75.106.166 (talk) 15:53, 18 April 2008 (UTC)