Talk:Whirlwind Recordings

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Initial cleanup[edit]

This page appears to have been created by JasonDCrane, paid for by Whirlwind Recordings. As such, it contains many errors and inconsistencies which I have attempted to clean up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 21:52, 18 March 2014‎

I'm stunned at your undoing of many hours of work. Why would you remove extensively sourced articles and the discography? All without even using your name. Jasondcrane (talk) 22:01, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
I'm stunned that you can describe your work as extensively sourced. For instance, this paragraph "Although Whirlwind Recordings' albums are generally sold under the genre names "jazz" or "world," WWR is not concerned with labeling and to date has primarily concerned itself with releasing music that is either completely original or creatively arranged, with a key emphasis on improvisation" bears no relation to any of the content in any of the citations that you give. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:16, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
I fail to see how "extensively sourced" even begins to apply here. I believe "unsourced" is descriptive, and as such I've trimmed it back the lists to notable entries. --Ronz (talk) 16:28, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Please detail the experience you have in this genre of music to demonstrate your ability to determine who is notable and who is not. Existence on Wikipedia does not equal notability, nor does the lack of page on Wikipedia mean the artist isn't notable. People exist in meaningful ways in the world without being included on Wikipedia. Jasondcrane (talk) 17:02, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, but you're missing the concerns here.
Please review WP:N, our general notability guidline, and WP:BIO, our notability guideline for people. --Ronz (talk) 19:02, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
As a paid editor, you need to be familiar with WP:NOT, especially WP:SOAP, and WP:NPOV. These policies address the problems with using Wikipedia inappropriately to promote interests in a non-neutral manner, such as using Wikipedia for adverting and promotion.
When it comes to "hype" WP:W2W and WP:PRIMARY are very useful.
As far as determining what is worthy to note within an article (rather than how we determine what is notable as the topic of an article itself), we follow WP:NPOV carefully, and rely upon independent, secondary-or-tertiary, reliable sources. So you are correct that someone could be worth noting without having their own Wikipedia article, but to demonstrate they are worth noting appropriate sources need to be provided. --Ronz (talk) 19:21, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Ronz, am I right in thinking, at this point, that you will never address the actual, detailed concerns I've asked about, and will instead constantly just post more and more links to Wikipedia guidelines? How do I bring a higher level editor into this process who might actually look at the content of the page and also have some knowledge of the subject matter? This is starting to feel a lot more like an emotional crusade and a lot less like people actually concerned about having good content on Wikipedia. Jasondcrane (talk) 10:41, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
See WP:DR. --Ronz (talk) 15:57, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
If you don't seem to be getting answers to your questions, best review what responses you received in case you overlooked answers, and then ask again in a manner that clarifies what you are asking and why you feel you've not received adequate responses yet.
In my experiences here at Wikipedia, most disputes can be quickly and easily resolved when appropriate sources are provided. That's why I've gone over in some detail what type of sources we need and why. --Ronz (talk) 19:31, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Ronz, I'm not getting answers because you're not giving them. But I'm done with this debate. Everything I want to know is clearly spelled out on this page. In the absence of any answers, and with the full disclosure of my status regarding this page, I'm just going to move forward on the assumption that this is a crusade against paid editing rather than a content issue with the page. That's a crusade with which I do not agree. So I'm going to continue to edit and to disclose my status. Jasondcrane (talk) 11:48, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Discography / list of artists[edit]

These lists seems to me to be excessive - they include a significant proportion of names that are not deemed notable enough to have their own wikipedia page, is wikipedia to become a list of every possible thing in the world? Is this wikipedia page to be a shop window for this record label? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 23:53, 18 March 2014

Dear Anonymous, No one has deemed or not deemed them notable enough to have a page. They just don't have one yet. The absence of a page is not a conscious decision on someone's part that the person isn't notable. As someone with 20 years of experience in the jazz world, I feel very comfortable with this list. If it needs more citations, then make that point, but not some broad, anonymous point about who's notable and who isn't. Signed, with my name, Jasondcrane (talk) 02:11, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Regarding the comment about excessive lists: This is a common practice for both record labels and artists on Wikipedia (example 1, example 2, example 3, example 4, example 5), example 6. However, the idea of the discography being a shop window is a valid criticism and I've removed those links.Jasondcrane (talk) 13:05, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Those are all poor-quality articles. The only examples of articles that matter are ones of high quality. The lists from WP:FA and WP:GA are where to look for high-quality articles. --Ronz (talk) 19:26, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Can I assume, then, that you will be bringing this same microscope to bear on all the examples I cited, rewriting and revising them to meet your standard of jazz notability? A standard, I might add, for which no evidence whatsoever has been provided. Jasondcrane (talk) 10:41, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
I'd like to, but am rather busy just now. --Ronz (talk) 16:09, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
It is not appropriate to expect one editor to fix all of Wikipedia, or to make that the requirement to fix something that they are dealing with. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:07, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi Nat. That's not really the point I'm making. Jasondcrane (talk) 18:30, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Conflict of anonymous critic?[edit]

According to this person's IP address, this critic is based in London. It could just be a coincidence that the person complaining about this page is based in the same city as the record label, but that seems unlikely. Is it possible to know the identity of this critic so we can know whether her/his criticisms are based on dispassionate concern for Wikipedia or on a personal issue with the label in question? Wikipedia's own Conflict Of Interest policy contains this line: "Wikipedia's policy against harassment takes precedence over the COI guideline."

Additionally, on my own personal talk page, this critic has quoted tweets from my account and the WWR account. The only other updates from this IP address are on the entry for "nut" in 2007. This makes this look even more like harassment rather than concern for the integrity of Wikipedia. Integrity that is not in any way being degraded by my contributions. Jasondcrane (talk) 13:25, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

You have a conflict of interest.
The editing and comments from the ips suggest someone with a great deal of knowledge about Wikipedia and the topic of this article. Both are greatly desired. Please WP:FOC and follow WP:COI. --Ronz (talk) 16:41, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Could you please include detail? I've already agreed that I'm happy to disclose the paid nature of my contribution. You use words like "advertisement" and "hype" with no proof whatsoever, and no description of what you object to, and no reference to your own experience with the subject or to the way this subject is treated elsewhere on Wikipedia. It's not enough for you to personally object. Please document and provide evidence. Also, in what way does the ips appear to have a "great deal of knowledge about Wikipedia and the topic of this article"? Please provide some actual facts. I have clearly provided my credentials. I know nothing of yours as regards the topic of this article, and even less about the ips, who hasn't even provided a name and clearly appears to have an axe to grind. Thank you. Jasondcrane (talk) 17:00, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Best not to take this discussion off on such a tangent, nor duplicate discussions. We're discussing these matters in the section above, "Initial cleanup". --Ronz (talk) 19:04, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Rather than hiding behind "a tangent," could you actually address the clear, detailed, factual statements I've made? Jasondcrane (talk) 10:41, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the page author, Jason Crane[edit]

I've spent the past 20 years as an advocate for, and participant in, the jazz world. For the past seven years I've hosted The Jazz Session, a free podcast with more than 400 episodes and 2.5 million downloads. You can learn more about the show and my history here.

Yes, I've taken money to create these entries, but I also have an expert-level knowledge of this subject and a deep understanding of which labels and which artists are notable in the jazz world. The people commenting on these entries may also have that level of knowledge, and I'd very much like to know that. But this is such a niche music that the average Wikipedia editor can't be expected to bring an extensive knowledge of jazz to the table. That's not a criticism, just a reality.

I'm completely willing to disclose the paid nature of my contributions. I'm making Wikipedia a better place, and writing dispassionately and with extensive sourcing about music most people don't know much about. I think people like me, who have these skills, should be able to use them. And if someone who doesn't have the time or skills wants to hire me to do that, I think that's completely fine. If anything I've written is deemed questionable, then I'll happily hear the criticism, accept it where merited, and defend my writing when appropriate.

Thanks for the chance to discuss this. I care deeply about this music and its inclusion in the world's best information source. Jasondcrane (talk) 12:33, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

What is the purpose of this talk page[edit]

Can someone please read ANY of the text I've written above and help me solve this issue? Jasondcrane (talk) 13:47, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks to JNW for helping resolve this issue. Jasondcrane (talk) 15:24, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure which issue you're discussing, Jason. If you mean the questioning of your edits, that is an appropriate use for the talk page. Your defense of your edits seems to be that you are an expert, but even if we accept that description, using your expertise for objective facts runs us into the problem of verifiability. For subjective matters such as proclaiming who is notable, your being paid by the label for creating this and related articles makes your judgment inherently unacceptable; you are not a third-party source. If it's the question about the IP editor, then no, we cannot force him to reveal his identity. You may have a case regarding WP:OUTING, but as this is a page to discuss the editing of the article, it is not a place to make that case in any way that will have an impact. (That he discovered some information about you is not inappropriate; doing a quick Google search is a reasonable reaction to someone doing questionable edits; that he found out something about you does not inherently make his edits problematic.) That people are claiming this article is not well sourced goes well with it having completely unsourced sections.
Are there further questions I can answer for you? --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:55, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Restoring the COI tag[edit]

I am restoring the template:COI tag that was deleted today. The article, edited by an admitted paid editor apparently in the employ of the label, lists various artists and albums as "notable" without any sourcing, including ones for which the articles were created by the same paid editor. Whether or not said editor is the expert that he portrays himself to be, his COI in this matter makes any subjective judgments that serve those paying him inherently untrustworthy. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:38, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

  • I'd removed the template following discussions with the editor and removal of some non notables. If there's still questionable content please remove it; I do find the COI issues problematic, and am not yet convinced that the editor who created this and related articles is intent on working within guidelines. JNW (talk) 15:46, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
    • I don't have time at the moment to go through all of the dozens of artists and recordings for whom notability is claimed here to judge whether they are all notable (much less whether the artists have all done material for the label as claimed). I need go no deeper than the first album in the supposedly-"Notable discography" to find one that hasn't even been released yet, and that's enough to cast doubt on all the content, hence the restoration of the tag. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:04, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
    • NAT- I have done the work for you. Each of the albums in the current notable discography are listed and are sourced by leading newspaper critics in the field of jazz music. I find it odd that many other record labels do not require such sourcing in their discography. I have removed the album that was yet unreleased. Since I have yet to figure out how to create a useID, I am a london-based jazz photographer and avid supporter of the London scene for over thirty years, and I have come across this page and have watched this saga unfold, and whilst there have been a few valid arguments put forth by some of the editors and IP, the article as it stands now reads as a non-biased, adequately sourced WIKI article, especially having just read all of the pages recommended on notable and verified sources. I am curious to see if the editors will now have an issue with sources I've added such as The Guardian and New York Times. What I see most here is a reputable jazz writer and a professional label getting bullied by editors and IPs who seem to only have a problem with paid editing, spurred on by the first IP, who does appear to have a problem with this particular label as well, based on his comments and editing behavior. While I am no expert on WIKI, and this is the first article I have attempted to edit, I certainly see no issue with paid editing so long as they follow the rules as the creator of this article clearly has. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:28, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Hmm. It's simplifying the issue to say that the editor or the label have been bullied, when other editors have sought to remove improperly sourced and promotional content. The COI tag was appropriate; the history at this article is such that a consensus probably ought to be reached before it's removed. The issues with paid editing are valid, ever present, and have been the subject of discussion, with some editors believing that policy should disallow any such contributions altogether. We will not settle or rewrite that policy here, but the fact that it is a problem is not debatable. Witness this article's history, which the creator already magnanimously acknowledged at his talk page. JNW (talk) 22:45, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
  • (I now have a user id). I currently see an unbiased, well-sourced page. It seems to have been cleaned up, but it sounds as if you're saying the content matters not- the fact it was a paid creator means it will be forever suspect. If that is the case there is no option but to remove it. However, I personally feel that is daft, especially as the page is fine as is, after being 'cleaned up.' This is all I can say. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tjcam (talkcontribs) 22:57, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
  • The sourcing of the discography section is indeed a vast improvement to that section. Good work. As for content not mattering. I have no idea where you're getting that from. The history of the editing of this article is pretty clearly an attempt by a number of editors to get the material in line with Wikipedia standards despite its very problematic beginnings. (Doing a quick scan of the history, I note no attempts at all to have the article deleted, not via WP:SPEEDY, WP:PROD, nor WP:AFD.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:38, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Thank you NAT, I have been doing quite a bit of reading on notability and the like, and I have also cleaned up a few things in this article by researching the label's future catalogue. Some of the musicians had not yet appeared as the albums have not been released. Having looked over the history, most of the original albums (and artists) that were added without any sources indeed have plenty of sources and I aim to add to this article in the coming weeks when I have time. Thank you for your input. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tjcam (talkcontribs) 20:06, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Perhaps you can help me NAT. As I was confirming the various artists mentioned in the 'notable artists who appear....' section, I clicked on Greg Osby and have noticed that his article simply states 'Discography', and not one of those albums are sourced. Why has this not been flagged? Why does this Whirlwind article require the title 'notable albums'. Now that they are sourced, can it not be changed to 'Discography'? Also, on Greg's article, this quote appears:
  • "The Village Voice critic Francis Davis wrote of his contribution to their double album Upriver, "Greg Osby superimposes his own brand of rhythmic complexity (one fully worthy of Wayne Shorter) on the rhythm section's static vamps every time he steps forward." There is no source for this. Is this not 'hype'? According to the discussions on this page, two quotes that were added to the original article on this page were taken off (by myself) after I read they were hype. Indeed I agreed after reading the definitions on hype; however, at least they were sourced (and the sources were independent). How, then, is this article on Greg Osby allowed to get away with a quote that could be read as hype and not having one independent source? To me, it still seems that different rules are applying to this article compared to other articles on WIKI, and my guess is because the creator was paid. Some clarification here would be great, as my impulse is to edit the Greg Osby article to the same standard that is being applied to this article.
  • If it is as you state, likely that article has not had enough attention from editors. Wikipedia is far from perfect, far from done. If you want to put some effort into clearing up problems with that article, you are certainly encouraged to. I don't know that anyone has required this article to use the title a section "notable discography"... but it should also not automatically include every album they put out, as it is not a goal to be a publisher catalogue (that would be unwieldy for publishers of signfigant size.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:01, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Removal of the COI[edit]

Some good time has passed since the initial uproar occurred on this page when created by Jason Crane (a paid editor) above and since then this page has been completely cleaned up of any hype, advert tone, and furthermore Jason seems to not be editing this page anymore. As it's a well sourced page and completely neutral in tone and it seems no one is having any objections as the content has sat for some time, the COI no longer needs to be here. If Jason starts editing the page again as he was before, then the COI should be put back on, but otherwise, it's fine now according to Wiki standards as I can see it. Correct me if I'm wrong of course. Tjcam (talk) 20:23, 10 May 2014 (UTC)