Talk:Joshua Breakstone

Discography source

I added a sourced discography yesterday, but an an experienced "editor" reverted my edits. As it stands at the moment, the discography includes albums in the AllMusic citation which I didn't claim existed there, thus making me a liar. Where did the two albums The Compositions of the Beatles vol. 1 and vol. 2 come from? There must be a source, yes, even for discographies. It's a simple question and ought to be simple to correct: Where did the information come from? Now let's see if I get an answer.
Vmavanti (talk) 16:21, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Two more points. One: Per documentation, the convention is to link and pipe the label once, the first time it appears. Thus when linked "(Columbia Records, 1984) becomes "(Columbia, 1985)". There is no need to link the label again, esp. in a short list. Words such as "Records", "Music", or "Productions" need not appear. Two, although the documentation doesn't state this, it is a convenient, logical, helpful convention to list co-leaders after the name. In jazz this isn't always clear, not even on the album cover as sideman often are listed. That's why readers could use some help. Don't list sideman on the same line as the album title in the discography. It becomes confusing who is a sideman and who is a co-leader, the entry gets cluttered, it invites IP editors to treat Wikipedia like a wall awaiting grafitti, and information piles up indiscriminately ad nauseam. I would think after ten years of editing someone would have learned this.
Vmavanti (talk) 16:31, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with the linking and piping, but it's not germane to the edits here. I had mistakenly thought Sid Simmons was a co-leader on that release; I see he his not, and so I will not object if you remove him again (though it might be nice to add his name to the prose of the biography). That leaves us the single issue of the two Beatles releases, which you have removed a third time. The discography should include a complete listing of Breakstone's albums as a leader; this is the very least we should provide readers interested in a musician's discography. Albums are published works; they do not require a third-party reference to verify their existence or the simple publication data on the spine or back cover. That's like demanding a third-party source for the author name and release date of a book (all you need is the title page) or a third-party source for the main, credited cast of a film (all you need is the credits roll). Technically, we could put footnotes in every line of the discography, with citations to each album release, but this would be rather blatantly superfluous, to the point where no one has ever demanded it of me before, and I can't imagine why they would or should. Is it your claim that the Allmusic discography is exhaustive, and that the two Beatles releases do not exist? (Do you want me to buy a copy of them and take a picture for you?) Chubbles (talk) 04:07, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Because jazz is improvisational, every recording is potentially unique. That is why you see people obsessing about jazz discographies, researching them, and publishing books about them. You often have wild discrepancies between recording dates and release dates. Record labels come and go, jazz musicians often work with a different group of people from album to album, and even record in a different country for a different label.

My understanding is Wikipedia wants no one adding unsourced information.
Vmavanti (talk) 19:04, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

The record is the reliable source itself. It is a published work that provides basic cataloging data about itself...we don't need an external source vetting its existence and its publication information unless those are disputed (and we have no reason to think Breakstone or his label were incorrect, or lying, about the label and year of release). It would be silly to add a footnote, because the footnote would just duplicate the text added; why would we do that? Pinging @78.26:, @DISEman:, and @EddieHugh: since obviously we need other voices here (I'm not interested in writing another 10,000 word essay about a minor formatting dispute). Chubbles (talk) 01:07, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

WP:SKYISBLUE. These types of references don't help establish notability, of course, but they meet WP:V, and it is not unsourced. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 05:29, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Some editors add sourcing tags to discographies, eg here. Maybe it's because there's more than just the title and label on such pages. Title, label, personnel and sometimes recording dates are what we can get from the physical object itself. We could blur things and say that the copyright or other year mentioned on an album gives us the year of release, but that's an assumption that could be wrong. I've started adding sources to discographies recently because I sense a growing trend for everything to be sourced (that's policy, of course, but even old Featured Articles had poor sourcing, so reality is still catching up).

On the specifics of The Compositions of the Beatles vol. 1 and vol. 2. Being boring about it: if their existence has been questioned, then a source is required (WP:BURDEN). And the article has had an inline citations template on it for nearly 2 years, showing that... more inline citations are advisable. So, finding an RS is preferable in this instance. And adding these albums in the middle of an otherwise (independently) sourced section shouldn't be done: if they need to go in, then the AllMusic source will have to be added pedantically after each item except these Beatles ones. This is all the more reason, I suggest, to use a citation for everything: the article is less likely to attract tags&templates, so less editor time will be spent on cleaning up. EddieHugh (talk) 13:05, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

As a P.S.: I don't have doubts that the albums exist, [1] blog sources. On Paddle Wheel Records, which is part of King. EddieHugh (talk) 13:31, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Now found in the The Penguin Guide to Jazz, vol. 3, page 173. Details are largely as in the blog linked to above. As they've been challenged, I suggest adding this source to them in the article. On the broader matter of what principles to apply to sourcing... we don't have a consensus. If, however, some editors are spending lots of time finding and adding sources for information that others added but didn't include a source for (even when they had one), then it's natural to conclude that including a citation (preferably inline) for everything when we add information is the more efficient way of building an encyclopedia. EddieHugh (talk) 13:46, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't think the existence of these albums has been questioned in good faith. No plausible reason has been advanced for why their existence would be in doubt, other than that they were not in the single source Vmavanti consulted, and that he holds me in open contempt as an editor and dislikes it when I challenge his edits. It smacks of WP:POINTiness. If we had good reason to question the information - say, a statement from a musician who played on it that the liner notes were incorrect, or a dispute between discographical resources about a recording date - this would make sense. If it were a bootleg or an unofficial release, it would make sense. It doesn't make sense here. (Note that the albums are still mentioned in the prose of the biography.)

Can we step back for a second and imagine how unreadable and cluttered discographies would get if we cited them line by line? What is the value of such pedantry? Certainly, it seems plainly silly to have a line in a discography saying "album title, record label, 19XX" and have an inline citation for it saying "liner notes, Joe Blow, album title, record label, 19XX." And adding vetted, third-party references for even the most uncontroversial catalog information would be a level of overkill only Wikipedia could aspire to; even professional librarians are willing to take such information at face value, unless there is cause to treat it suspect. I've no qualm with our rigorously sourcing the content of articles, especially biographical information, but the horse's mouth is right in front of us for published full-length album releases. Chubbles (talk) 15:16, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

You are making a pragmatic argument. Practically speaking, you can source all information without having to put a citation on every line. You can put a citation at the end of a block of text or at the bottom or top of a table. Or you can write "All information comes from...".
Vmavanti (talk) 19:32, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Sourcing standards and expectations are on the way up. At Wikipedia:WikiProject Discographies there's a list of Featured Lists. I've looked at the first five. Overwhelmingly, each entry has a citation. Having a small number in brackets at the end of a line/somewhere in a table doesn't make the page unreadable, really, does it? I agree that common sense points to, for instance, not needing a citation for something that has its own sourced article (although even that's not what current sourcing standards technically require). And I agree that putting the thing itself as the only source wouldn't achieve much. But if everything else in a list is sourced (from AllMusic in this case) and an editor wants to add more that aren't in the source(s), then we have to have some way of highlighting that fact. And the simplest way is to include a source for the added information. Hopefully a source that's not the object can be found, as has now been achieved for the Beatles stuff for this page. What's the value? The value is that anyone can check the information (basic WP:V). And then we, others, and future editors wouldn't spend their time on this sort of discussion. Maybe we can agree that that, at least, would be preferable... EddieHugh (talk) 17:06, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Another valuable thing is that the source gives a starting point for anyone looking for more information (including to start a new article or expand a current one). Take this Brian Kellock one that I did recently as an example. A reader looking for info on Hollywood Portraits would find no source in the Herb Geller discography: dead end. At Brian Kellock, they'd find an inline link to the AllMusic review: fantastic! I know which I'd prefer, as a reader. EddieHugh (talk) 17:19, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

The documentation repeatedly says all information must be sourced.
Vmavanti (talk) 19:26, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

That is a mis-characterization of my statement. The question is if albums source themselves. If enough information is given regarding issuing company and catalog number, then some statements are self-sourcing, such as the name of the album, and the tracks contained therein. If there is merely a listing such as "Round Midnight by Betty Carter", that is not enough information to source that she recorded "I Wonder", and this becomes obvious when you notice she recorded two albums called "Round Midnight". But when publisher and catalog are included, it then becomes self-referential. That of course does not help establish notability, but it does meet WP:V. Funny thing, 'Round Midnight (1963 Betty Carter album) does not include the catalog number anywhere in the article, so no information in that article should be considered referenced by the original issue or any subsequent reissues. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 23:09, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

I never said anything about notability. Neither did Chubbles or EddieHugh.This is a discussion about sourcing. All information in Wikipedia must be sourced. There's no such thing as "it sources itself". Credits to a film: a discography does not have the same relationship to an article as credits to a film. Film credits list who made the film. A discography doesn't tell who made (wrote) the Wikipedia article. The references tell who made the article.
Vmavanti (talk) 01:00, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Pedantry is an excessive concern with minor details. On the contrary, sourcing is one of the pillars of Wikipedia.
Vmavanti (talk) 01:08, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

EddieHugh, do you understand the argument being made for "discographies source themselves"?
Vmavanti (talk) 17:52, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

It's safer to fall back on policy&guidelines. "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge" (WP:PRIMARY); "Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them" (WP:PRIMARY); "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source" (WP:BURDEN). We all know this, but it can be useful to restate it. My interpretation is: an album is a primary source for itself; it's better not to base an entire discography on such sourcing; find a better source if possible. So, technically, a discography might source itself, but there are almost certain to be better ways of sourcing it, and showing those to other readers can only be a positive thing. EddieHugh (talk) 18:46, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

I am truly astonished that the community would come to a consensus that external sourcing is required to verify publication information about published works - this is a standard higher than any academic journal or publisher, library cataloger, or historian would require, and it seems to me to speak to a fundamental and tragic misunderstanding of the whole point of the policy of verifiability. I think it is an incredible waste of Wikipedia's human resources, but I can't fight city hall, so if you believe your abundant time is best spent on this activity...Godspeed you. Chubbles (talk) 23:14, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Not exactly required, Chubbles, but preferable, if available. Why not provide a source for readers if it's available? EddieHugh (talk) 00:25, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

It's been required here. Vmavanti has reverted my additions thrice, and you've backed the consensus; it's been made quite clear to me that, if I wish to restore the two albums he removed to the discography, I may not do so unless I provide a vetted and independent third-party source. As to your general question...Because it is a request for increasing amounts of red tape in order to include uncontroversial, reliable, easily verifiable information. It is taking empiricism - the epistemological principle on which Wikipedia is built, and a philosophy I am, as an editor here, committed to - to a cartoonishly absurd extreme. I agree that a citation should be provided if there is a credible reason to think the information is suspect. If there is a discrepancy between information sources, then a source would be needed; if the publication data on the published work is incomplete (say, it is missing sideman credits), a source would be needed; if it is a bootleg or an unofficial release, a source would be needed. But it is simply unnecessary to do so for artist, title, and label of a published commercial recording, just as it is unnecessary to cite a third-party source to substantiate author and publisher of a published book (the author of Primary Colors, yes; the author of War and Peace...no.), or credited cast and director of a studio film. If we do so a priori for every discographical addition, we do so only because of hidebound devotion to a rule, even though it doesn't actually contribute to that rule and perhaps actively frustrates it (by claiming that we must be natively suspect of sources that are, in fact, generally most of the time just fine, and by wasting editors' time furiously adding footnote after footnote for things no one is actually asking, in good faith, for sources to clarify or verify). Chubbles (talk) 02:51, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Reverted tag

Hooookay, so it looks like we'll have to start another 10,000-word essay contest. I thought I was done here, added a tag to indicate to readers that the discography is incomplete, and looked forward to doing anything else on Wikipedia. Vmavanti has reverted the incomplete-list tag, stating, "need proof that this list is incomplete". Does this request even make sense? Eddie, can we get a ruling on this? Have we not provided evidence in spades, in the preceding discussion, that the discography list of full-length albums is incomplete? (Am I supposed to put a citation proving the absence next to the maintenance tag?) Chubbles (talk) 02:51, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with asking why the tag is there. When information is added to an article, I want to know where that information came from.
Vmavanti (talk) 11:23, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

The tag's there because the Beatles stuff isn't included, but I've provided a source for them above, so.... We're all digging deeper into our own positions here, which isn't helping. I'll fill out the discography with what info & sources I can find. EddieHugh (talk) 12:31, 5 February 2019 (UTC)\

Are you calling your fellow editors lazy and deceptive? 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:12, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

No.Vmavanti (talk) 19:13, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

You'll be happy to note that I have humbled my userpage as a direct response to this subtweet (and a previous, more direct one). I had thought of the babel infoboxes as useful for communicating with editors from other Wikipedias, and the degree infoboxes as pointers to areas of expertise where I could help. But you are, in fact, the first person to ever make use of them, and so have helpfully pointed out that they are more trouble than they are worth. Who says we never make a difference in this world? Anyway, back to "work".... Chubbles (talk) 22:21, 5 February 2019 (UTC)