Talk:Yes (band)/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Schellen as member?

There is some dispute around Jay Schellen's role in the band. Shubopshadangalang has recently promoted him from "live musician" to "member". Is this right?

I approach this as follows: there is often ambiguity around who "counts" as a member with many bands and I think Schellen's position is ambiguous. I don't think there's necessarily a clear answer one way or the other here. However, I would characterise him as a touring member, not a full member. The band's official website here does not list Schellen as a member. The tour programme for the current tour, as previous tours, lists Schellen separately, not as a full member. In contrast, Shubopshadangalang notes that this page on the official website, promoting 50 Live, says, "much of the album was recorded in Philadelphia, a show where 10 members of Yes were on stage during the encore (current members) Steve Howe, Geoff Downes, Alan White, Billy Sherwood and Jon Davison, Jay Schellen, plus (former members) Tony Kaye, Patrick Moraz, Tom Brislin and Trevor Horn." He's also added a citation to the same text at the record label's website. Given different promo material, I think we go for the clearer list of members than the blurb for the new album that's somewhat awkwardly phrased (note the "and Jon Davison", then a comma, before Schellen's name).

Shubopshadangalang also added citations to some YouTube videos with Steve Howe introducing the band on stage. These do not satisfy RS, nor are we meant to link to material that breaks copyright. I don't think how Howe introduces Schellen on stage is clear enough to overrule the other evidence. Obviously Schellen is playing with them every night, as he has done for a while now.

All of the above is about WP:PRIMARY sources. We should really look to what secondary sources say for a clearer steer. Bondegezou (talk) 11:21, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

I fully agree with the above. The verified sources clearly hold much more weight and are more numerous which clearly indicate Schellen as a touring member compared to the extremely ambiguous and scant sources which might suggest he is an official member. Indeed the official written online and print sources from the band, itself, all indicate that Schellen is not an official member. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:8D30:18B0:7512:AFBB:D9D8:96E4 (talk) 11:56, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

So here's some secondary sources, which we are meant to pay more attention to. This marks Schellen as "additional drummer" and not as a member. Likewise, this has similar wording around Schellen. I think Shubop previously cited this, but I take it to be ambiguous. Bondegezou (talk) 12:39, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Agreed again. Nearly all sources state him as a touring but non official member. Also, the various sources from the band itself seem to loom quite large. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:8D30:18B0:419D:3B8A:4817:7782 (talk) 14:06, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

IP editor, I suggest you retract your comments about Shubopshadangalang's motives and read WP:AGF. Shubopshadangalang is a long-standing, hard-working editor. Bondegezou (talk) 18:30, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

I don't have much else to add here beyond the sources I previously referenced, which I think are self-explanatory. You can throw out all the secondary sources if you want, but if Steve Howe thinks it important enough, throughout the current tour (which I experienced in person two weeks ago) to explicitly express on the Yes stage that Jay Schellen is one of 6 people who "Yes are," then I don't know what else there is to discuss here that would contradict that. If the consensus of the other editors is that Steve Howe is wrong about who is a member of his own band, then I have nothing further to contribute to that discussion (TBH, I have little interest in debating further regardless). Imagine my motives all you want… though I do appreciate the defense, Bondegezou. And as always, I respect your particular expertise here. But… would suggest that you may be being overcautious here by relying on less-recently-updated sources which *appear* to contradict a more recent "from the horse's mouth" source.—Shada Ng (talk | contribs) 19:59, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

To Shada Ng, why are the official online and print publications FROM THE BAND (which are current) to be ignored? Further, there is a new live album from the band due within days, which will, no doubt, again, list Schellen as a non official member. I have never seen such a vast amount of verified evidence be so openly and vigorously ignored on WP at any point before.

As for future sources, I dare not debate with your crystal ball. Or your hyperbole for that matter. —Shada Ng (talk | contribs) 17:35, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

I'd break this down into three levels: what's true, what's verifiably true, and how should that be represented in the article.

So, what's true? Best I can tell, Schellen is in a liminal position: he's a sort of member, but he's sort of not a member. Everyone isn't equal: Howe and White own the band as a corporate identity, but then Howe, White and Downes own the touring company. Sherwood and Davison, as far as I know, are employees of the others, but are presented as co-equal members. Schellen is also an employee, but has a lesser status. That liminality plays out in different ways. Sometimes the band presents Schellen differently to the others, as with the very recently printed tour programme and the could-be-updated-at-any-time website, but then Howe on stage doesn't draw a distinction when he's introducing who's there (as you witnessed). I think picking what Howe says on stage and ignoring the other ways Schellen is presented does not fully capture that sort-of-in/sort-of-not status.

But Wikipedia very explicitly isn't about just truth. It's about verifiable truth, as per WP:V. If Steve Howe rang me up right now and said Schellen is an equal member of the band to everyone else, I would excitedly tell people about this conversation. I would put something on my website about Yes. But I wouldn't update Wikipedia with that news, because Wikipedia has chosen a way of working that sacrifices being super up-to-date for a high evidential standard. We shouldn't put wrong things just because reliable sources say them, but we do have to hold off of saying true things until we can satisfy WP:V/WP:RS. Likewise, you hearing Howe say something from the stage cannot be used to justify edits. We have to reflect (reliable) sources, preferably secondary, although we can also use primary. On that basis, most sources, as far as I can see, have Schellen as an "additional drummer" or the like, although some of them treat him more equally.

Having decided what's true and verifiably so, we still have the final task of representing that in an article. In the main prose of the article, one can explain discrepancies, discuss different sides of an account, but when we come to a list of members or the infobox, we're often left with a more binary choice. Is this person in or out. I sometimes avoid lists or infoboxes precisely because they can't cope with any subtleties.

In conclusion, I think listing Schellen as a member just like Howe, White etc. is misleading. Also, I think it cannot be justified with respect to Wikipedia's policy on sourcing. Therefore, I think how Schellen was represented before, Shubopshadangalang, your recent edits was better. However, we don't have to choose between the old edit and your version. We can come up with something else. Maybe there's a form of words or an arrangement of the list that can better demonstrate Schellen's position? I've already tweaked your version to the current one, which I think is better, although I don't think it's still quite right. Will think further of variations, or happy to discuss ideas. Bondegezou (talk) 20:45, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

This page from the current tour book could perhaps be useful: Schellen is listed ambiguously under the heading of Yes but with "with" before his name. This could be interpreted in numerous ways, but if you want to take it at face value, the article could follow suit and list "with" before his name for now. Note that this would have been finalized weeks or even months before the start of the tour, and that references made during the tour would be more recent. It's worth noting that among the subtleties you mention of membership, we're trying to artificially force sources of a reality into Wikipedia's existing structure, and "member" isn't always a word that's used by the band, while the meaning is the same. Who "Yes are" is composed of the members thereof. —Shada Ng (talk | contribs) 01:21, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Also, in reference to what Howe said from the stage, I don't reference it simply because *I* heard him say it (though that was when I became aware of it), but because *thousands* of people witnessed him say it, in as official a capacity and forum as one could imagine. The fact that this was accessibly documented multiple times, and that the straightforward statement requires zero interpretation, means to me that it seemed sufficient without needing a secondary source. I understand being cautious about YouTube videos, but in this case, it's *not* some dude in his basement with a YouTube channel. In fact, the video itself isn't the reference, exactly; the live event witnessed by thousands on a recurring basis is the reference, and the YouTube video is accessible documentation of that event. I don't recall in my many years of WP editing ever coming across a precedent for this, but my position is that it's worthwhile, and more current than the website that hasn't been updated in nearly a year. I understand if others disagree, and I'm happy to yield to consensus as usual.—Shada Ng (talk | contribs) 01:41, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

I would note that that website page could be updated at any time, and the site overall clearly is currently active with news stories being added. Ergo, I don't see the website as being a year old. I see it as current.

As far as I know, Wikipedia would put very little weight on something said on stage and only recorded in unofficial YouTube videos. (WP:RSN could give you an answer if you wish to investigate there.) Bondegezou (talk) 08:36, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm ok with the current edit to the Personnel section based on the currently available sources & the results of this discussion. My point about the website was misstated, what I meant was that the "We Are Yes" page was last updated September 2018. —Shada Ng (talk | contribs) 15:39, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

I think Jay Schellen should be removed from the current members list. He's with the current members, but he's not one of them, in a similar way to the special guests Kaye and Moraz. --L'Eremita (Il Romitorio) 08:11, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Noted. Mr. Howe is of a different opinion, however.—Shada Ng (talk | contribs) 00:48, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

IMHO Howe didn't say that explicitly, so it's just a speculation. --L'Eremita (Il Romitorio) 07:10, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

As previously, I think the best approach here is not to try to answer a false binary question of whether Schellen is a member or not, but instead recognise that he sort of is and sort of isn't, and find ways of expressing that ambiguous status. We should also keep an eye on sources should something turn up that provides clarity or, at least, some form of words. Bondegezou (talk) 10:10, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

I don't know what your definition of "explicit" is, if Howe saying "Yes are:" and listing the names of people doesn't qualify. He did so consistently (and unambiguously) throughout the tour.—Shada Ng (talk | contribs) 13:42, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Shada Ng: It would seem every piece of printed and online publication by the band which mentions the subject should qualify as explicit. All such publications, so far, are extremely clear as far as Schellen having not gained official member status. this is verified fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.139.154.132 (talk) 19:52, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Following up on this, as I see that recent changes have designated the "member" status upon Jay Schellen. I would suggest that this change either (A) conflicts with the above standards and should be reverted, or that (B) his status as a member is misdated as beginning in 2021. Here's what we know:

• 2021: As stated above, it's still the case that "the band's official website here does not list Schellen as a member."

• 2021: The Quest press & album packaging refer to him as part of the "lineup" and among the "personnel" but doesn't explicitly call him a "member"

• 2021: The YesWorld homepage graphics prominently display the Roger-Dean-i-fied names Howe, White, Downes, Davison, and Sherwood above the fold, excluding Schellen.

• 2020: Arc of Life promotions from Frontiers Records called him a "member" last year: "ARC OF LIFE is a new progressive rock supergroup which features three members of the current YES line-up, vocalist Jon Davison, bassist/vocalist Billy Sherwood, and drummer Jay Schellen."

• 2019: As reiterated above, I had previously referenced where he was listed in official Yes materials as one of the "current members": "this page on the official website, promoting 50 Live, says, "much of the album was recorded in Philadelphia, a show where 10 members of Yes were on stage during the encore (current members) Steve Howe, Geoff Downes, Alan White, Billy Sherwood and Jon Davison, Jay Schellen, plus (former members) Tony Kaye, Patrick Moraz, Tom Brislin and Trevor Horn."

• 2019: Steve Howe says "I'd just like to say that Yes are…" on stage during the finale of the Royal Affair tour, listing Schellen second, after Downes: [1] (see: 1h 37m). As discussed previously, this source doesn't meet the standards for article inclusion; I've included this here as a reference point as this "from the horse's mouth" statement was the impetus for the original discussion on this topic.

• 2019: Yes' official social media refers to him as "YES Drummer Jay Schellen".

• 2019: As noted above: "This page" from the 2019 "tour book could perhaps be useful: Schellen is listed ambiguously under the heading of Yes but with "with" before his name."

So, either it's necessary for him to be explicitly called a "member" … or it's not. But if is, this is not something that's occurred uniquely (or at all) in 2021, whereas it has been explicit in previous years. Thanks to the rest of you for you hard work in keeping this article updated, while I… haven't. :) —Shada Ng (talk | contribs) 22:13, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

With a Yessology hat on... I think the truth is complicated and that listing Schellen under one sub-heading or another struggles to capture the subtleties of the situation. Schellen is getting represented more as a member at times by Yes and their management, but still inconsistently. I don't know whether that indicates a real change in his status, or is just a function of promotional activity being around a studio album rather than touring. I would guess that Schellen remains in a different contractual situation to the others, but then Davison and Sherwood have a different contractual status to Howe, White and Downes, and we don't make that distinction here.

With a Wikipedian hat on... Wikipedia privileges secondary reliable sources. Shubopshadangalang, all your examples are primary sources. It would help to focus on what secondary sources say.

Overall, I agree with Shubopshadangalang's concern. I think saying Schellen became a member in 2021 is not supportable. Given a choice between saying he is not a member (yet) or saying he became a member earlier, I favour the former, but can see arguments either way. Bondegezou (talk) 13:31, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

One thing we can do in situations like is a liberal use of footnotes. Wherever we put Schellen, we can have a footnote noting that source A says this, source B says that. We shouldn't be scared of showing our working to the reader, so to speak. Bondegezou (talk) 13:34, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

If Schellen's status in the band is still dubious, I think is more suitable saying he's not a full member yet. --Tenebra Blu (talk) 15:16, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

To go into more detail, The Quest in many locations came with a sticker on the front of the album that lists the band as Howe, White, Downes, Davison and Sherwood (and not Schellen), as does some promo material. Indeed, the electronic press kit and the press release for "Dare to Know" do not mention Schellen at all. However, other packaging (e.g., the artbook for The Quest) and promo give Schellen equal prominence. But that's all primary source stuff.

In terms of secondary sources, there's examples like this, this and this that list the band as the 5 without Schellen. Or you've got this that describes "the core group — Howe, drummer Alan White, vocalist Jon Davison, keyboardist Geoff Downes and bassist Billy Sherwood — augmented by guest percussionist Jay Schellen." Or this writes of "the current YES line-up of Jon Davison (Vocals) Steve Howe (Guitars), Billy Sherwood (Bass), Geoff Downes (Keyboards) and Alan White (Drums), with aadditional percussion provided by guest Jay Schellen". Those two seem to support a distinction between Schellen and the others.

There are examples like this in Rolling Stone magazine that mentions Schellen among the others, but doesn't explicitly talk in terms of who is a Full Member and who isn't. This has "The current Yes line-up of Steve Howe (guitars), Alan White (drums), Geoff Downes (keyboards), vocalist Jon Davison, Billy Sherwood (bass guitar and backing vocals) with additional drums and percussion by Jay Schellen", which still somewhat marks out Schellen as being in a different role, but could be read as saying he is part of the line-up. There is an earlier article in the same publication, about Arc of Life, that does explicitly refer to "Yes members Billy Sherwood (bass guitar and vocals), Jon Davison (vocals) and drummer Jay Schellen". Stereoboard describes a "touring line-up" of all 6, including Schellen, with no indication that Schellen has a different position.

So, I think that supports Schellen not being listed as a full member along side Howe, Downes, White, Sherwood and Davison. Bondegezou (talk) 12:08, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

If we all agree, we can remove Schellen from the "full member" list, until new sources clarify the matter. --Tenebra Blu (talk) 09:40, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm good with not listing him as a member for now based on the secondary sources (and I fully support the use of footnotes to "show our work to the reader"). —Shada Ng (talk | contribs) 23:49, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Also, just chiming back in to mention that this is some excellent research above from Bondegezou - as always. Setting aside my opinion (and ostensibly Howe's), I yield to the WP-directed focus on secondary sources. If there's an effort at all to establish Schellen as a member in the public eye, it's a half-handed one, at best, thus far. Perhaps that will change, especially if White decides to take a bigger step back at some point in the future. No point in speculating beyond that. —Shada Ng (talk | contribs) 19:45, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

I did wonder if there was a deliberate attempt to push Schellen forward because White was thinking of stepping back, but this interview has White dismissing talk of retiring soon. Bondegezou (talk) 08:36, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Well, it's 2022 and White has, sadly, taken pretty much the biggest possible "step back". I see an anonymous IP (not me) has added Schellen again. Has there been any official announcement to that effect, or does he remain a touring member with one foot in and one out of the band proper? No source was cited. 50.72.9.214 (talk) 01:16, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

I have reverted. I’ve seen no announcement or change in promotion to support a change of status for Schellen. Bondegezou (talk) 06:04, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

GA nomination?

This is an excellent article with years of history and hard work put into it, and in my opinion, worthy of GA. I'm just wondering if there is any history I should understand before nominating it using Template:GAN. Have there been past nominations and where can I view them? Caleb Stanford (talk) 22:49, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Lee Pomeroy

Fans of Yes might want to help with Draft:Lee Pomeroy. Bondegezou (talk) 21:23, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Yes (band)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Duonaut (talk · contribs) 23:43, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Duonaut and will be conducting this review. First, a check against the "immediate failure" criteria.

Y not a long way from meeting GA Criteria

Y no obvious copyvio

Y no cleanup tags

Y stable

Y N/A; first review

With this I will proceed onto reviewing against the main criteria. Duonaut ^{(talk | contribs)} 23:43, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

@Caleb Stanford: Just checked against criteria 1. Article passed all requirements; very well written and the timeline format is par for the course for band articles. There were two statements which may need citation I found:

"Almost the entire band have openly stated their dislike of Union." (if not verified by a later ref, I didn't check)

"The following Yes studio album, as with Union, was masterminded by a record company, rather than by the band itself."

These are maybe not likely to be challenged so if they aren't fixed by the time I'm finished I may pass regardless, but ideally they would be sourced. Onto criteria 2; (a) is already an obvious pass so I'm down to (b)–(d). Duonaut ^{(talk | contribs)} 22:48, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

@Duonaut: thanks for the initial review! I just took a look at these now. I fixed the citation for the first one. For the second, I did add one citation to a supporting article, but I haven't been able to trace down the original source for this material -- I suspect it may come from Rick Wakeman: The Caped Crusader, which I don't have a copy of (I'm referencing Welch 2008, primarily). Anyway, just let me know what you recommend I do further about this. Thanks, Caleb Stanford (talk) 06:52, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

P.S. I also fixed two of the citation needed templates. One left. Caleb Stanford (talk) 07:34, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

fixed the remaining CN. Caleb Stanford (talk) 00:47, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

@Caleb Stanford: I have checked through all the requirements now. Regarding 2(b) I have some notes:

References to "Bruford" lead to nothing. I presume this is Bill Bruford's book in the further reading, and if this is the case it should be in Bibliography.

Fixed! I checked a couple of the citations in the book to verify this is indeed the source that is being referred to. Caleb Stanford (talk) 00:23, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Some of the citations to AllMusic now don't back up what they say. I changed one of these, but you might want to go through and change them to archived versions that do back up what they say, particularly as I believe the stat guideline for good articles requires this.

Done Caleb Stanford (talk) 03:45, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

The article states at one point 'He felt sections were "bled to death"', which must be cited as a direct quotation.

Found it! Chambers page 233 Caleb Stanford (talk) 00:47, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

The citation at "stated publicly that he was unhappy" should probably be moved to the comma. Just my opinion, though, rather than a requirement.

Done. Caleb Stanford (talk) 00:23, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Citation 111 does not cite Hawkins' recommendation, only Davison's joining of the band. It should be moved or replaced accordingly.

Apart from this the article is good. Great overview of the band's history and reception, and while it's long this is to be expected for a band that's 50 years old and has changed its lineup so much, so I don't believe this is against summary style. It is neutral, no undue weight I can tell and all opinions are cited save the above that I saw. Media seems good for the subject and stability as before is an obvious pass.

Done Caleb Stanford (talk) 00:59, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

Pending these minor fixes it is a pass. Good work on this. Duonaut ^{(talk | contribs)} 08:03, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Those are good catches, thank you for the review! I will get to these over the next few days. Caleb Stanford (talk) 16:12, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

@Duonaut: I think I've gone through and addressed all the required fixes. Let me know what the next steps are. Thanks! Caleb Stanford (talk) 03:45, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Well, assuming I haven't missed anything, you now pass. If I have missed something and it remains unfixed it will come up on later review. I'll do a quick look-over before I pass this, just to be sure. Duonaut ^{(talk | contribs)} 22:15, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

@Caleb Stanford: Citations were needed for UK charting as allmusic doesn't verify this. Otherwise I believe everything is fine and ready to pass. All the occurrences of UK charts that need sourcing should be marked with {{cn}}. Duonaut ^{(talk | contribs)} 22:31, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

@Duonaut: You are absolutely right. I've added the UK charts reference everywhere it is needed! Also added an archive URL and fixed a few other things. Caleb Stanford (talk) 05:08, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Then with this it should be good to go. I'll close this review in a few seconds. Duonaut ^{(talk | contribs)} 21:25, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Other appearances?

I split off the other appearances to its own article as the list of appearances was quite bloated, and I'm not sure it belongs here given that discography is its own article. However, I wasn't sure if it would be better to have it as part of Yes discography instead of List of Yes appearances. Thoughts? Thanks Caleb Stanford (talk) 20:55, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

I think it's good to move it… somewhere. Discography might be better. But wherever it is, it needs to be retitled, as "Yes appearances" is misleading (it suggests other albums Yes appears on, as a guest artist or something). "Yes member collaborations" would seem appropriate, and in that case, maybe it could have a home on List of Yes band members. —Shada Ng (talk | contribs) 21:30, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Should the band members section be shortened?

As the Yes band members have their own article, it seems superfluous to include the timeline and live members in the main article's subsection. Should these parts be removed for simplicity? Miklogfeather (talk) 18:38, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Shortening the list to the current and maybe any "major" members might be good (or removing the live members). Removing entirely would be going against the grain of virtually every other band article, so I think that would be unwise. At a minimum the timeline graph should probably be kept Duonaut ^{(talk | contribs)} 00:10, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

I think both subsections should be kept. Given Yes's long history, this section may be unusually important compared to other band articles. Caleb Stanford (talk) 01:49, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

I agree that we should… (sorry in advance)… "Leave it." —Shada Ng (talk | contribs) 21:32, 17 October 2022 (UTC)