Talk:Hearts of Space

There is lots of good history and other stuff on the offical website which I put int the external links. But integrating it all without any copyright violations will take a bit of work so for now I just stubbed the article. Dalf | Talk 06:49, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

2006 cessation of terrestrial airplay

Is there any evidence in support of this claim? The HOS website continues to list hundreds of stations carrying the show as at October 2007. --Gene_poole 13:10, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

It's nonsense and I've reverted it. —Viriditas | Talk 20:33, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Tendentious editing

Editors should note I have privately contacted Steve Davis to request his and Steven Hill's comments on, and contributions to this article, in an attempt to prevent the sort of tendentious edit-warring that has affected space music recurring here.

I would request that contributors refrain from making controversial edits or attempting to impose non-mainstream definitions of terminology relating to this subject onto this article until such time as we have the benefits of Mr Hill's and Davis' firsthand opinions to draw upon. --Gene_poole 22:58, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

So long as they draw upon cited comments they have already made on the subject. Wikipedia discussion cannot serve as an interview, as the conversations here cannot be cited for use. make sure you tell them that they'll need to back up anything they wish to have added (if it hasn't been cited before) with references.

as an aside, kudos on getting their participation. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:56, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Of course that's understood. I've asked them to supply details of any other media reports on the subject that we can reference to that end. --Gene_poole 23:59, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Awesome job, Gene! That's really cool! - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 03:30, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Steve Davis of HOS has responded positively to my communication. He advises that Stephen Hill may have a file of media clippings concerning the show, and will confirm that shortly. I've asked him to send it to me if he does, and have also suggested that I conduct an interview with he and Stephen Hill for Wikimedia, so we can use the transcript as a reliable third party source. That should give us plenty of material to work with and stop the tendentious editing problems on this and related subjects once and for all.

If any interested editor has a genuine, succinct, plain English, non-leading question/s they think we'd benefit from having answers to, should such an interview proceed, please post them below. --Gene_poole 03:06, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Gene, the media clippings will really help this article. If you do decide to do the interview for Wikinews, we can easily link to it from this article ("Wikinews has related news...") however, Wikinews is a primary source composed of 1) synthesis articles that combine different secondary sources, and 2) original reporting (See this link for information about original reporting) which includes interviews. At the moment, it is not considered reliable enough to be cited as a source on Wikipedia, although I have seen it used as such in some articles, so this may be a bit of a grey area. It would be good to get a second opinion from a Wikinews expert. Ideally, you should publish the interview in a reliable, secondary source if you want to include the information in this article. —Viriditas | Talk 11:05, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

That's easily enough done. If Wikinews is considered a primary source, I can simply record it as a UT interview and publish it on the UT site, so that can be quoted as a reliable third party source. --Gene_poole 23:25, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

It's not a "third party source" when the Wikipedia editor who quotes the interview is the same person who conducts the interview. That's two parties, not three: a Wikipedia-editor and a primary source. It's original reporting, as Viriditas pointed out.

Regarding WP:RS reliability, if an author publishes a report on their personally-controlled radio show, that's a self-published source. Vetting by an uninvolved fact-checking publisher is missing.

Also, there appears to be at least a couple kinds of conflict-of-interest in this plan. You stated your intention to interview your business associates to create references you plan to quote in the Wikipedia articles you edit regularly (about your radio business, Ultima Thule Ambient Music, and related topics such as the music genres you program, and related radio show articles where you've added wikilinks to the article about your radio show). You've acknowedged your business connections with the interviewees on Talk:Space music: you stated that you've each programmed music productions by the other on your respective radio shows. Though you stated your radio show makes no profit, various forms of "interest" other than profit can cause WP:COI divergence from NPOV. You did not previously plan to interview them for your show and decided to publish it there only after Viriditas expressed his concern about original reporting.

The interviewees also have a natural conflict-of-interest, even if they do not edit Wikipedia, as you've told them your purpose for the interview is to provide references for your editing of the Wikipedia article about their income-producing organization.

Would the interview be interesting? Yes. Would your self-published original reporting be a "reliable third party source"? Not so much. The Wikinews approach Viriditas suggested seems like a better solution. --Parsifal _Hello 07:40, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing your reinterpretation of reality and WP policy with us. Unfortunately for you, your long-term attempt to impose your POV on this and related subjects by deliberately excluding anyone with specialist knowledge from contributing any content that you personally do not sanction by engaging in tendentious, high-level wikilawyering and system gaming is fast drawing to a close. Your activities are presently under forensic review by multiple external parties, and will be dealt with via the appropriate channels in due course. If you wish to correct your past behaviour by engaging in true consensus building you are welcome to do so by posting any questions you'd like to see answers to in the section below. If not, kindly refrain from further attempts to disrupt the process of improving the content of WP on this subject. --Gene_poole 21:57, 5 November 2007 (UTC)