Talk:Tribe (Queensrÿche album)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Tribe (Queensrÿche album). 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:
 * Added archive {newarchive} to http://www.officialcharts.de/album.asp?artist=Queensr%FFche&title=Tribe&country=de

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 15:51, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Proposed change to contents
"DeGarmo showed up for recording and was ready to tour again with the band in support of the album, but ultimately left due to clashes with singer Geoff Tate in the studio.[5]"

I would like to propose the removal of this section of the article for the reasons i will state below i did not wish to just remove it myself as i was unsure if the reasons i have are valid enough to do so.

The first of which being the way the sentence is worded first of all contradicts the previous sentence somewhat which i can only assume was there beforehand. Secondly i cannot tell from the edits quite where it was added but it seems to have been specifically added after the messy split and everything that went on, which alone i wouldn't have said to be all that biased. However the reference given isn't like a newspaper article site it is a site where users submit their own articles and the article on question i would say could not even be called an article as it is 99% testimony of wiltson from the supposed official leaked court documents. They may be fully legal for all i know but i find it suspicious they were released during the ongoing court case (bear in mind i am from the UK so i Donnie know laws on this over there.) and also this is a third party view on the matter and not only that even though it was in court he could have easily been making it up. Without some solid reference to something from either Chris De Garmo himself or Geoff Tate on the matter i say it is not a solid enough reference.

If i am wrong in my assumptions of my reasons being grounded for removal of this statement and reference i would like to know, thank you. Rachend (talk) 15:50, 3 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Thank you for spotting/raising this matter. I have checked and found it was added in this edit by an anonymous IP in July 2012, so indeed shortly after the legal battle commenced. The contributions of this IP address were made between June 2012 and May 2013 and all revolved, directly or indirectly, around the split. So your assumptions seem to me to be quite right.


 * Additionally, reading the sentence, it does not sit well with me; the first half of the sentence being quite popularly written. What I propose is that I will see into fitting in some of the text from Chris DeGarmo, which has been written with more nuance and actually provides some information not shown here.
 * --Eddyspeeder (talk) 12:12, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. I am glad I was not in the wrong and it does looks as though quite a bit has changed there tonal wise too between those edits. I agree with your idea completely. Thank you.