Jump to content

Talk:Mark Trombino

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Comment

[edit]

changed the stub, although he is a drummer he is much more notable as a producer. --Mr. Dude †@£К ║ Çøת†яĭβü†ĬŎИ 06:24, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

You may add the band "Silverstein" to the list of artists Mark Trombino has worked with as their new album "Arrivals&Departures" is a production of him.

Testimonial

[edit]

The testimonial from the Living End keeps getting removed, usually by unregistered users, and always without discussion. It's a perfectly reasonable piece of information, which is referenced, and comes from someone who has worked with Mark. I will keep restoring it until someone actually gives a decent reason for why it should be removed.

If the person is so keen to protect Mark's reputation, it would be far more balanced to add a testimonal from someone who has a higher opinion of Mark. But please stop removing it, I'm only going to revert to the previous version. --Mikenosilly 13:37, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I've removed the testimonial section a few times and here's why: This is Wikipedia, not Epinions, and as such is the wrong place for opinions of any kind. The testimonial in question is not the "reasonable piece of information" you claim it is, because it is impossible to either prove or disprove. It is simply one person's unsubstantiated account of what it was like working with Mark. The fact that it is "referenced" in an online source does not make it true. That fact that it is hearsay does make it unsuited for publication here, however.
For what its worth, I also believe adding positive testimonials to be equally inappropriate. Pvoc3000 (talk) 17:44, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Wikipedia's policy on neutrality clearly allows for opinions if they are sourced and attributed (see specifically: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Attributing_and_substantiating_biased_statements)

The source is also verifiable, and should be classed as a "reliable source" under the Wikipedia policy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability).

I will revert to include the testimonial as its inclusion does not go against any Wikipedia policy.Mikenosilly (talk) 08:53, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Does Wikipedia policy also allow for inclusion of statements that can not be substantiated or verified? Strachan's comment that Mark only works in the "easiest and quickest way possible" and that he refuses to allow a band to record together goes beyond the realm of opinion and is stated as fact. Unless there is another source that can corroborate his claim, I see its inclusion here as unwarranted and really nothing more than an attempt, by you, to damage the reputation and credibility of the subject.
Reliable sources, according to the Wikipedia page you sited, are "peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers." Furthermore, reliable sources must have "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Triple J, the source of the testimonial, is none of these thing and must therefore be considered questionable. With such a contentious statement, it is imperative that you site something more credible than Triple J for inclusion here. I will continue to remove your testimonial unless you can either prove its validity, corroborate the statement by someone else, or provide a more reliable source than Triple J. Pvoc3000 (talk) 23:00, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The Wikipedia policy on verification is concerned with providing accurate information. There can be no doubt that this is indeed the opinion of Strachan's, as there is also audio proof on the link. For this reason it is verifiable and accurate.

The Wikipedia policy specifically allows for biased opinions were they are accurately attributed and sourced. Including this quotation does not violate any Wikipedia policy, and should not be removed merely because one person disagrees with the opinion

I will continue to repost it until it can be shown that it violates a Wikipedia policy. In its present state, it clearly does not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikenosilly (talk • contribs) 12:14, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Opinion of a member of a band that worked with Trombino

[edit]

From Wikipedia:Verifiability: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth.

The quotation is verifiable and relevant. It is important that we keep our own opinions out of an article; not the opinions of relevant other persons. It is also important that opinions be attributed and this one is. I would leave it in and I would add other commentary if found.

To change the subject: I noted that the reference for this quote is the only reference or external link in the entire article. Are there no sources for all of the rest of the article? Is there no centralized database of info in the music industry? Sbowers3 (talk) 13:10, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


I appreciate you weighing on on this matter, Sbowers3. However, and with all due respect, I think that both you and Mikenosilly are missing the point. I am not disputing that the source exists. I am saying that the source is not reliable, that the quote contains hearsay and/or is opinion stated as fact, and to a lesser extent that the subject is outside the scope of this article.
True: The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is "verifiability, not truth". But unfortunately, the two of you are incorrectly interpreting what "verifiable" means. According to Wikipedia, information is verifiable if it comes from a reliable source.[1] A reliable source is one with a reputation for fact checking and accuracy.[2] It follows then that information is considered verifiable if it comes from a source with a reputation for fact checking and accuracy.
Information is not verifiable simply because it exists and can be cited. This is a gross oversimplification of Wikipedia guidelines and the source of our dispute.

As editors, we are not free to include any information we want just because it is published somewhere. Like it or not, the burden of proof is ultimately on the editor or anyone who submits material for inclusion in an article - especially when that article is about a living person:
The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia, but especially for edits about living persons, rests firmly on the shoulders of the person who adds or restores the material.[3]
We are allowed, however, to shift that burden elsewhere if, and only if, we use what the Wikipedia guidelines refer to as "reputable sources" - sources that themselves are peer reviewed, or at least have a reputation for fact checking or accuracy. By citing reliable sources, ultimately we are verifying that someone, somewhere, has bothered to check if what we are quoting has any semblance of truthfulness to it or that it has at the very least passed some sort of peer review. It does NOT mean that we are verifying that the source simply exists. Because we are talking about the methods the subject uses while recording, how he chooses to work, a reputable source might be Mix Magazine, or EQ Magazine, or something of that nature - not an interview in a obscure webzine. Reputable sources are also places where, if in the event something published is later proven false, there are mechanisms for correction, for retractions, for remedies so that in the end the truth prevails.
The issue of verifiability in this context is particularly cloudy because we are talking about an interview and not an article in an established trade magazine. Unless the person being interviewed is an expert on the subject being discussed, then whatever they have to say about it is irrelevant because, again, it is unverifiable - that is, we can not verify that what they are saying is in fact true, and that because they are not an expert, we can not just assume it is true. Having worked with Mark on one occasion does not qualify Strachan as an expert on the methods Mark uses to make records and as such renders his comments irrelevant.
In conclusion, the reasons the testimonial is inappropriate for inclusion in this article are:
• The source used for this quote is unreliable because it not an established trade magazine, peer-reviewed publication, and does not have a reputation for accuracy or provide any type of fact checking.
• The quote itself is unverifiable because its is an interview by a person who is not an expert on the subject in which they are speaking.
• The statement by Strachen is irrelevant because having worked with Mark on one specific occasion does not allow him to speak in generalizations about how Mark makes records.
• The quote offers very little in the way of actual opinion - "It was a pain, it was difficult" is about all you could call opinion. Everything else is hearsay.
• No where in the quote does Strachan use the word "inflexible." To use it as a summary for his statement is editorializing and not permitted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pvoc3000 (talk • contribs) 08:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• The only argument presented in favor of including the testimonial is that the quote exists, and that the person attributed to the quote has worked with Mark. This is not enough.
• This article is about a living person, and as such you need to take special precautions:
Wikipedia articles that present material about living people can affect their subjects' lives. Wikipedia editors who deal with these articles have a responsibility to consider the legal and ethical implications of their actions when doing so. An important rule of thumb when writing biographical material about living persons is "do no harm". Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid.[4]
• Including unsubstantiated, slanderous and potentially damaging statements without doing due diligence to make sure the statements have some sort of basis in fact is libelous and puts Wikipedia and the editor involved at undue risk of potential lawsuits:
Material that may adversely affect a person's reputation should be treated with special care. In the laws of many countries, simply repeating the defamatory claims of another is illegal, and there are special protections for people who are not public figures.[5]
I will therefore once again remove the testimonial in question and ask you to please, please stop and think about what I've written before doing anything further. I feel I have made my point many times over, and that my arguments for deletion are sound and grounded firmly in Wikipedia guidelines. If, after all of this, you still feel that the testimonial has a place in the article, then the only conclusion that one can make is that you have some sort of personal vendetta against the subject, and I would beg you please, for the good of Wikipedia, just drop it. Pvoc3000 (talk) 07:45, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]



Interestingly, I found quotes by the band the seem to contradict Strachan's statement. On the the Living End's blog Tabloid Magazine, at the time that they were recording, Chris Cheney thought that the record they were making was "the best thing we've done thus far."[6] Likewise, Scott Owen described a very positive experience working with Mark:
"We relate to him well and visa-versa and see it as a real plus that he has played in bands most of his life and see's the music biz in a similar way to us - music first, no bullshit. He wants the band to happy, so it should be too."[7]
This sort of makes Strachan's comments, which occur several years after the fact, seem rather dubious. At the time of recording the band seemed happy with working with Mark. Perhaps because the record didn't do well in the States their views soured, or perhaps it was an attempt to hype the new record by putting the old one down. Whatever the reason, the fact that there are contradictory statements from the band calls into question the validity of Strachan's statement and makes one wonder his motives. The statement could be interpreted as slander, and reprinting them here could be grounds for libel. Pvoc3000 (talk) 08:19, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


You're missing the point about verifiability. It is verifiable that Andy Strachan made those comments. That does not mean that Mark Trombino is in fact a pain to work with. Andy Strachan is not a reliable source as to the facts of Mark Trombino but Triple K Unearthed is (apparently) a reliable source as to what Strachan said - and what Strachan said is relevant to the article. It likely won't carry much weight with readers because it is just one man's opinion. The article is not saying that Trombino is difficult to work with, etc.; the article is simply quoting what Strachan said that about him. You should add those other quotations to balance out what Strachan said. Sbowers3 (talk) 13:15, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Seriously... think about what you are saying: Anybody can say anything about another person, and as long as the quote is printed somewhere, and as long as the editor cites that quote here, then its perfectly fine to reprint on Wikipedia. If true, that is ridiculous and absurd and opens up Wikipedia to all kinds of abuse and misinformation. No, there has to be higher standards than this.
I'm sure that in 99 out of 100 disputes here on Wikipedia you would be correct - but this is a special case about a living person and about someone who only worked with that person one time making sweeping generalizations about him. He says "Mark always does X" not "Mark did Y" which are entirely different. The latter is the persons single experience and would be fine to print here, but the former is hearsay, over generalized and damaging to someone's career. Newspapers and magazines would not be free to reprint that quote without being sued for libel - Wikipedia should be held to the same standards. Pvoc3000 (talk) 18:00, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Newspaper and magazines certainly would be free to - and usually do - reprint quotes like that. It is not libel because it is clearly an opinion, not a statement of fact, and because they would print it as a quote, not as the paper's own opinion. On the particular point of libel, you could ask at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. Sbowers3 (talk) 18:31, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But saying someone always does something is a statement of fact, not opinion. For example, if on one occasion I witnessed you park your car into a handicapped parking space, even though you are not yourself handicapped, would I be free to say in an interview, and would it be okay to reprint on your wiki page: "Sbowers3 is a jerk. He always parks in handicapped spaces even though he is not handicapped"? Saying that you are a jerk would clearly be my opinion and would be fine to reprint here based on my limited experience. However, saying that you always park in handicapped spaces is a statement of fact that generalizes your behavior way beyond my limited experience of watching you park your car that one time, and would be, at the very least, ethically wrong to reprint here. This is exactly what I find so contentious about the Strachan testimonial. Very little of it is opinion - most of it is statement of fact he has no right to talk about, and should therefore not be reprinted here. Had he said "Mark did X" rather than "Mark always does Y" I would not have a problem - but this is clearly not the case. Pvoc3000 (talk) 18:53, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(outdenting) You don't have to take my recommendation but you - the two of you - do have to stop fighting about it. There is a multi-step process for resolving disputes. Among other things you could request an RFC on the question, or you could officially request a third-party opinion (I just unofficially stepped in), or you could ask at an appropriate WikiProject. Sbowers3 (talk) 13:15, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


I do appreciate you stepping in and trying to help. I've tried to resolve this dispute amicably here without involving anyone else, but you're right - if this continues it will be time to look elsewhere for help. Pvoc3000 (talk) 18:00, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's look elsewhere. I can't believe this quote continues to be removed. Pvoc, please add in that other quote you found, it looks perfect for this testimonials section. I think the article would be far more interesting, and more informative, if it contained a range of views. And I think views from the actual artists he worked with are the most important.

I will remove the word "inflexible" that was my paraphrasing, not Strachan's words.Mikenosilly (talk) 00:44, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just an update, I put this issue on the "Editor Assistance" page a few days ago, but no one has responded on there. But Sbowers3 has basically given us the assistance I was looking for, and confirmed that having that quote there did not go against any Wiki policy.
I have also added this to the page Sbowers recommended that is specifically related to biographies of living persons: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard Let's see if we can get any more guidance on this one. Though I still haven't seen Pvoc point out anything about this page that goes against a Wiki policy, and seems to be basing his constant vandalism of this page on his or her gut feeling.Mikenosilly (talk) 01:28, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've done nothing but point out how the quote goes against several Wiki policies, or at least how I understand them, and all you've done is point me to the same Wiki pages I've read over and over again. If my understanding is flawed, it should be trivial for someone as knowledgeable as yourself to point out where and how I'm wrong, perhaps by providing examples or analogies or something other than to keep repeating, basically, "Strachan said it, so it can be reprinted here".

While it is true that initially my reason for deleting the quote was based on gut feeling, the more I've learned about Wiki guidelines, the more convinced I have become that the quote is bogus. Yes, my argument has evolved over time as I have learned Wiki policy on these matters, and no doubt it will continue to evolve. But I am more convinced today than I was when I started that the quote has no place in an encyclopedia, and I will continue to argue against its inclusion for as long as I possibly can.

All the while I've maintained my cool and avoided any personal attacks. I would appreciate it if you would do the same, Mike. Calling me a vandal when all I'm trying to do is protect the integrity of an innocent person as well as that of Wikipedia is definitely out of line. Pvoc3000 (talk) 04:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since I can't get you to stop reverting my changes, I thought I'd try a compromise and remove only the hearsay, leaving strictly Strachan's opinion. Lets hope that sticks. Pvoc3000 (talk) 04:46, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pvoc, "Strachan said it, so it can be reprinted here" is the perfect explanation for why this quote should be included: read this link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Attributing_and_substantiating_biased_statements
I'm guessing OTRS means that more important people than us are looking at this issue which is good. I can't believe such an interesting fact relating to Trombino can't be added, it's truly beyond me. It doesn't go against a Wiki Policy, in fact, Wiki CLEARLY allows for this kind of opinion information, and above all, it's quite newsworthy! Mikenosilly (talk) 03:47, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We should not be using primary sources for controversial material, and we don't include stuff just because it's "interesting" if it is controversial and we don't have reliable independent secondary sources to establish context. Guy (Help!) 09:13, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But we DO have a "reliable independent secondary source", AND we have the primary source. Why aren't primary sources allowed? Why rely on hearsay when you have proof that something was said? Regardless of that, Triple J is indeed a reliable and independent secondary source. They publish a magazine (J-Mag) which includes articles from the site linked (I don't buy the magazine so I can't confirm if this particular interview was included).

What more proof is needed apart from audio evidence, and publication on the website of a very well respected music radio station? This article is very sparse, surely well sourced information like this from artists who have worked with Trombino adds to the quality of the entry?

Guy, can you confirm that this is being looked at my someone else (are we able to see the progress of OTRS)?Mikenosilly (talk) 11:03, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Somebody once said something. Here's a recording of them doing it. Where's the independent evidence of significance? None, that I can see. If you can find a reliable independent secondary source that discusses what he's like to work with in general, then feel free to cite it. Guy (Help!) 12:54, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Where's the independent evidence of significance?" Are questioning whether the opinion of an artist is relevant to the producer's page? Surely there is no doubt that this is significant.
Guy, the listing of the interview on the triple j website is a secondary source. The link to the interview audio is primary evidence. How much more evidence is required? Surely you can't get much better than a recording, and the backing of a legitimate and independant source of music news?Mikenosilly (talk) 09:22, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Am I questioning whether the opinion of one artist is relevant to the producer's page? Absolutely. This might be one artist who had a personality clash. We would need a reliable independent secondary source saying that this is representative of the opinion of people who have worked with him. Guy (Help!) 13:11, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Guy, it doesn't have to be representative, it doesn't even have to be true, it merely has to be shown to have been said. You clearly do not understand this policy, please read it specifically about opinions: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Attributing_and_substantiating_biased_statements Mikenosilly (talk) 02:38, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mike, both the audio interview and the transcript of the interview are considered primary sources.[8] Your assertion that the audio is the primary source and that the transcript is the secondary source is simply wrong. Secondary sources include comments on, interpretations of, or discussions about the original material, so a secondary source in this case would be an article that discusses that triple j interview.
Even so, if you had bothered to listen to the audio file, you would have realized that it doesn't even include the contentious quote from Strachan. Not that it matters - the transcript would still have been a primary source.
I'll say it again: the quote is not opinion, but an substantiated statement of fact that has the potential to defame the character of a living person and to cause harm to their career. You are fighting for the right to cause harm to someone, Mike.
People who enjoy reading hearsay and shit talking can troll the forums at Absolute Punk - that kind of vitriol has no place here. Pvoc3000 (talk) 23:13, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pvoc, you might need to do a bit more research on primary and secondary sources! My categorisation is perfectly reasonable. As you say yoruself, secondary sources "include comments on etc". INCLUDE! They do not need to include such things to besecondary soruces of information. In a situation where there is a BETTER source of the same information, it is generally accepted that this would be called the primary source, and other replications of that information would be secondary. But this is a debate for another time.

I would repeat, this is not hearsay. There is no doubt that these are the words of Strachan, and that they are attributed, and do truly represent his opinion. To be clear, it would be hearsay if it were used to prove that Trombino was inflexible. But it is not, it is merely presented as proof that Strachan found Trombino inflexible, which is 100% factually accurate, and is supported by primary and secondary sources. And again, this type of opinion is explicitly permitted by this policy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Attributing_and_substantiating_biased_statements

Can someone please, explicitly, explain why this policy doesn't apply, when it clearly allows for precisely this kind of information to be included.Mikenosilly (talk) 02:31, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think I have a pretty solid understanding of what constitutes a primary and secondary source, Mike.
According to Wikipedia, "secondary sources are generally regarded as those sources that summarize or add commentary to primary sources in the context of the particular information or idea under study".[9] Doesn't get much more simple than that. Pvoc3000 (talk) 07:03, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keyword: "generally". And if you read that article you would have seen this line: "the distinction between primary and secondary sources is subjective and contextual, so that precise definitions are difficult to make." Doesn't sound very "simple" now, does it?Mikenosilly (talk) 11:23, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it still sounds very simple, and it worries me that you're having such a difficult time with it. If you haven't already, I encourage you to read the source I cited above, because you'll find a very concrete example: "An interview in the Rolling Stone with Chris Robinson of the Black Crowes would be a primary source, but a review of the latest Black Crowes album would be a secondary source." check it: http://www.ithaca.edu/library/course/primary.html
This discussion has become ridiculous and boring. The quote has been shown many, many times over to be in violation of Wikipedia policies and guidelines and yet you're still asking for people to show you why its not. Either you can not comprehend what people are saying, or you refuse to. To me, its blatantly obvious that you are pushing an agenda here, that you have some sort of personal vendetta against the subject, and that no matter how much evidence is presented to the contrary, you are going to continue to insist that the quote is permissible and ask for proof that it is not. My contribution is not making any difference, and one could argue that I'm just feeding the beast by continuing to respond to you, so I am going to stop. Peace. Pvoc3000 (talk) 18:14, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This says it all really: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Attributing_and_substantiating_biased_statements Mikenosilly (talk) 10:35, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So including a better range of opinions from artists would better satisfy WP:UNDUE. I will work on finding more. Mikenosilly (talk) 11:56, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You need a reliable independent secondary source which says what people generally think he is like to work with, yes. Guy (Help!) 13:01, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Then what is the point of the biased statements policy? It clearly says, and Sbowers3 above confirms, that truth is not important, as long as the quote is accurate and can be attributed. Could you please explain that?Mikenosilly (talk) 00:30, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability
  2. ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources
  3. ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons
  4. ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons
  5. ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons
  6. ^ Tabloid Magazine: http://www11.asphost4free.com/tabloidmagazine/diar.htm
  7. ^ Tabloid Magazine: http://www11.asphost4free.com/tabloidmagazine/diar.htm
  8. ^ http://www.ithaca.edu/library/course/primary.html
  9. ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secondary_source
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Mark Trombino. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:26, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mark_Trombino&oldid=1205766700"