User talk:Lasciviousgoth

Bon Scott
Hi, WP:SPS is very clear about self-published sources, and that blog is self-published. It's Fink's own blog. He wrote and published it. Scott may no longer be with us, but Johnson is still around, and this matter concerns him as well because his claims are being directly called into question by this blog. SPS literally says "Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer." That is Wikipedia policy, which means this blog will never be allowed to stand as a source for what you keep adding. It really won't matter how often you try to re-add it. Eventually an admin will see it and that will be that.

The other thing is that Fink's theory is already mentioned and referenced in the text. There's no need to keep adding more about what he says. This is called undue weight. However much accuracy there might be in his theory, it's a fringe theory because he's the only one writing about it. It's been mentioned very clearly (Young's admission, Lovegrove's clarification etc), and that's about where it ends. Then there's Johnson's rebuttal. Unnecessarily repeating either of those points of view is too much bias for an encyclopedia.

Also this stuff is more relevant to the Back in Black article, since that's the album in question. It's all mentioned there already, including Young's quote, which needs to be sourced properly from the original source, i.e. whatever issue of Kerrang first published the interview, not a self-published blog. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:39, 26 July 2023 (UTC)


 * This is not an issue of "theory". It is a direct rebuttal of what Johnson said. It seems to me that you're more interested in protecting Johnson – "Johnson is still around, and this matter concerns him as well because his claims are being directly called into question by this blog" – than actually having a full, well-rounded coverage of the lyrics issue as it pertains to Johnson/Scott. Fink is a published author of two books on the subject of Bon Scott and AC/DC. It seems pretty clear to me the purpose of Johnson's comments are to discredit arguments made in Fink's Scott biography that Scott actually was a contributor of lyrics to the Back in Black album. The relevant point in the mention of Fink's blog is his quoting of Angus Young in Kerrang! magazine in 1991 that directly contradicts what Brian Johnson said: that Scott did write some lyrics for the Back in Black album. How is that not relevant? Lasciviousgoth (talk) 11:18, 27 July 2023 (UTC)


 * It is a theory. Anything that is not proven fact is a theory, and this is unlikely ever to be proven one way or the other. What Young said is not a rebuttal of what Johnson said, because Young said it first. Simple chronology. That needs to be addressed in the article text, because it's ass about face. First, Young's quote in 1991. Also his other quotes and any other quotes from the Youngs on the subject, then Fink's book, then Johnson's rebuttal of Fink's theory. I see you've had a guess at what my motives might be, well, don't guess. It isn't a question of protecting Johnson. It's about how Wikipedia works. I've been doing this for over 17 years and I know that WP:BLP is one of the most important tenets of this whole show. Using dubious sources (in this case, self-published) to say anything negative about a living person is not allowed. This is obviously because Wikipedia does not want to get sued. Fink's blog could easily get him sued, and no publisher would publish that blog for him for that reason, but the fact that neither AC/DC nor Johnson has sued him suggests to me that there's some truth in what he says.
 * Obviously what is required here is what you've said: a full, well-rounded, balanced section on the lyrics controversy. Obviously Johnson's aim is to discredit Fink, why wouldn't he? He fundamentally disagrees. Fink has then gone on to his blog and (rather angrily) had a go back. He says that Johnson has a book to sell. Well, every time Fink opens his mouth, it's because he has a book to sell. But never mind. Fink is a journalist. He is not a purveyor of fact. His books are great – I've got them right here. He's a published author on the subject and his books are totally valid as sources. But they're not official biographies and nobody currently in the band contributed to them. So they're not gospel truth. On the one side we've got a journalist who has done a lot of work unearthing people and facts relevant to the story, and he's woven it all together into two books. Then we've got Johnson, who has his own side of the argument (the "official" side, if you like). Neither is more relevant than the other, nor should be promoted as such in any article. Our job is just to give both sides and let the reader sort it out for him/herself. In between, we've got Angus, who said in '91 that Scott wrote some of the stuff. Then there's the Elissa Blake interview in '98. At multiple other times, he's said Scott's ideas weren't used or that they hadn't got round to writing lyrics before he died (Fink, p.319). Why not quote those? In 2021, Young said Scott did nothing but play drums on a couple of demos. So which is it? Answer: we put any quotes we've got, and let the reader make his own judgement. We can't imply that Fink is right and Johnson is a liar. Equally we can't just give the "official" story and ignore or discredit Fink. What you've done with the article is a lot better but it could have more in it, plus more sources, and the chronology needs to be corrected. We can't just cherry-pick Young's quotes to suit what we might think.
 * Sorry if this is long, but if you want we can get into it. My own feeling is that the truth is somewhere between Fink and Johnson. Did Scott's notebooks go missing after his death? No doubt. Who ended up with them? No doubt it was the Youngs. Did they go through them and borrow words, lines, ideas, couplets, titles, whatever was in there? Very likely. Did Malcolm toss out any of Scott's ideas in lyric writing sessions, give them to Johnson and tell him to use them? Likely. Did Johnson even know they were Scott's? Who knows. Johnson was the new kid on the block and was very much an extra in the band, like Williams and Rudd, and everyone else whose surname wasn't Young. So he did what he was told, like he's done ever since. Did Scott have complete lyrics in his books ready to go into songs that hadn't been written yet? Less likely. My gut feeling is that Johnson put plenty of his own work into the lyrics for Back in Black, but that there are also bits from the Youngs, Mutt Lange, anyone else who was there at the time, and a dose of Scott's notebooks. Johnson would then have put it all together into a form which he could sing. In any band, that's often how it goes, that one guy ties it all together. He often gets the songwriting credit, not every person who added a line or a title, regardless of how Fink thinks it should work. So it's fair to say that Fink's theory is credible, and likely true at least in some part. But it isn't fair to say Fink's theory is entirely correct, because we just don't know that. He wasn't there, after all. It's important to look at Fink's sources individually as well. Are Scott's drug-addled ex-girlfriends good, reliable sources (one of whom openly admitted to never listening to the album)? Probably not. An engineer in the studio at the time? Yeah. Phil Carson? Yeah. Vince Lovegrove? Yeah, he was a very genuine guy, and what he said about Scott's parents getting royalties is entirely credible. But he openly hated Johnson, so he might well have been biased. In a complicated story like this one, with no "truth", we have to sit on the fence. We are not journalists like Fink, and we don't make judgements or draw conclusions. We just put it all out there and let the reader figure it out.
 * Lastly, I didn't say this wasn't relevant: I said it's more relevant at Back in Black, which it is. There isn't any point in repeating the entire story across two articles. Just give a brief summary at Bon's page, and link Bon's page to Back in Black, which is the better one to use to tell this story. Bretonbanquet (talk) 16:24, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

June 2024
This kind of crap will be reported next time. With regard to the article, I've asked for a balance in that section. You don't just get to remove tags because you don't like them. Bretonbanquet (talk) 15:02, 9 June 2024 (UTC)


 * The only crap going on here is your determination to censor a line of argument you don't want to read or agree with. The addition to this section is sourced. Lasciviousgoth (talk) 12:31, 10 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Censor a line of argument? Show me where I did that. Show me where I removed anything. I never removed your addition. I added a tag because you either don't know how to write a balanced argument, or you think over-promoting the only source which backs up your argument, while providing one sentence to counter it, constitutes a fair balance. I added a tag, which you removed repeatedly without addressing the issue. Bring an admin in if you think you're in the right. I'll wait. Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:39, 11 June 2024 (UTC)


 * It's interesting how both you and the IP who also reverted me made the same mistake. You both claim I removed the statement you added about the album credits, which I never did. That is, I guess, because you and the IP are the same person. Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:48, 11 June 2024 (UTC)