Talk:Volume!

Sourcing

I will source, don't worry! Vvolume (talk) 02:06, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Here are the links to the quotes - you can see portions of the sentences (in French) here: http://www.cairn.info/resultats_recherche.php?searchTerm=%22%C3%A0+la+revue+Volume%22 and here: http://www.cairn.info/resultats_recherche.php?searchTerm=%22%2C+la+revue++interdisciplinaire+Copyright+Volume+!%22

Those with Cairn subscriptions can easily download the articles. Zamuse (talk) 11:08, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

WP:SYNTH conflict

Hi the refs are about the state of popular music studies in France, justifying the existence of Volume… Thanks Zamuse (talk) 14:52, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

• I understand that. However, as far as I see, this violates WP:SYNTH and does not belong in this article. --Crusio (talk) 14:53, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Je vous comprends très bien aussi, mais comme l'argument justifie l'existence d'une revue sur les musiques populaires en France (raison pour laquelle les créateurs de l'association qui publie la revue l'ont créée), ça semble correct, non ? Zamuse (talk) 16:57, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
    • No, unless the source says something like "because of the situation in France a journal was needed and that should be Volume!", you cannot conclude from the fact that the source says something about the situation in France that this means the journal was needed, even if this seems obvious to you. In WP you need independent reliable sources to support such kind of statements. I'll put a "welcome" template on your talk page with some links to useful guidelines and policies. --Crusio (talk) 17:04, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
  • But if that is what the journal's founders thought back then? Can't I combine what they say (we believed a specific scholarly space for popular music studies was necessary) and what other scholars said (that that space didn't exist)? According to WP, this is too far-fetched? Thanks for your patience. Zamuse (talk) 13:26, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
    • Yes, that is too far-fetched, see WP:SYNTH... --Crusio (talk) 13:53, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

J'avais bien compris cet argument. Il s'agit d'autre chose ici : la revue fut créée pour répondre à un manque. Or ce manque existait, comme le soutiennent certains universitaires. Ce n'est pas un argument tiers qui découle de A + B. Tout simplement A (pas de revue de recherche sur les musiques populaires au moment de la création de Volume !, attesté par des spécialistes) qui conditionne B (le désir de répondre à ce manque en créant Volume !). La chaîne logique n'est pas la même. L'objectif de la revue : répondre à un besoin par ailleurs attesté par des chercheurs. Il n'y a que deux chaînons logiques, pas trois. L'ajout de propos d'universitaires ne dit rien de Volume ! en soi, certes, mais pour que nous puissions dire que tels étaient nos objectifs, il faut "sourcer", comme on nous le demande systématiquement sur WP. Donc je ne vois guère ce que je peux faire, entre l'injonction de "sourcer" et votre position, qui me semble un peu abusive. Cordialement Zamuse (talk) 18:54, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Volume ! La Reprise dans les musiques populaires.jpeg Nominated for speedy Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:Volume ! La Reprise dans les musiques populaires.jpeg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do?
	Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Wikipedia, so there is no rush to respond. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 16:58, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

The image was designed, the file was created and uploaded by members of the journal…

File:Volume ! La revue des musiques populaires - 8-1 Peut-on parler de musique noire.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:Volume ! La revue des musiques populaires - 8-1 Peut-on parler de musique noire.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do?
	Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Wikipedia, so there is no rush to respond. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 18:29, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

A music magazine

The meager sources I could find on this publication (and translate) appear to indicate that this is a commercial publication, and not really a scholarly academic journal. It seems more like a music magazine or music-culture magazine. Maybe I can compare it to Rolling Stone magazine without the notability. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 06:23, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

No indeed, a scholarly journal

Compare with Rolling Stone without the notability ??? There are SCHOLARS, among which Prof. David Looseley, pioneer of popular music studies, who wrote about Volume !. In the editorial board, which is online and in every single issue (16 of them up to now) of the paper version of the journal, there are scholars such as H. Becker, S. Frith, B. Lebrun, S. Lacasse, A. Hennion, B. Péquignot : these are MAJOR popular music studies scholars. Prof. Lebrun directed an issue f Volume ! on French Popular music. Prof. Sheila Whiteley, leading British scholar on the sixties, will be directing an issue on music and countercultures - the CFP is online all over the place. In France, Philippe Le Guern directed an issue, and he published a book with Simon Frith, one of the founders of PMS. We published a comparative sociology of popular music in France and Britain, which was published by Ashgate in England, by Hugh Dauncey and Ph. Le Guern. These are serious academics, who support the journal, some have directed issues, others have published articles in it, all have accepted to figure in our journal as members of the editorial board. It is not known enough, yet, in the US and the UK, because we are based in France and publish mainly in French. We will soon be on two major francophone portals, Cairn and revues.org (announced here : http://www.openedition.org/9173). Our publications are announced on the websites of the IASPM international, Canada (http://iaspm.ca/2010/08/volume-la-revue-des-musiques-populaires-la-reprise-covers/), France obviously (we publish articles they reward). We organized a conference a year ago in Bordeaux (cf. here: http://www.ades.cnrs.fr/IMG/pdf/Appel_journee_d_etude_musiques_noires.pdf, or here: http://www.cean.sciencespobordeaux.fr/lettre52.pdf). How much do you need?

Can't you just go beyond your certainties, and try and do some other type of research than just the good old googling? This is such an insult! You can find 18 scholarly articles online here: http://www.seteun.net/spip.php?article5

Did you even just check out our website? Who, Steve Quinn, do you think you are, to just write off things, with such contempt, in three lines and two minutes spent on Google? Best, Zamuse (talk) 19:57, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

PS : please, if someone is going to judge the relevance of Volume!'s presence on WP, please, let it be someone who knows something about popular music studies! And who does not ask Google for help in such matters! Thank you!Zamuse (talk) 20:14, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I did briefly check out your website. The layout seems to be very confusing for someone who does not read in the French language. I have now taken a more in-depth look at this journal's web site using English translations (see below).

Perusing (searching) Google scholar and Google was meant to help this journal's situation on Wikipedia. Using Google I found something very helpful [1], so please come down off the high pedestal. This link is briefly discussed below, even though it probably cannot be considered a reliable source.

HNET is an important online source (based at Michigan State University) for scholarly calls for papers, academic announcements etc. "H-Net is an international interdisciplinary organization of scholars and teachers dedicated to developing the enormous educational potential of the Internet and the World Wide Web" (cf. here: http://www.h-net.org/) - this means that to publish information on their site, you submit for instance a CFP, they judge if it is relevant and so forth, then publish it.

The CFP is also on the IASPM site: http://www.iaspm.net/?p=486

And if we published the proceedings of an IASPM conference, although you say that this is "circular", isn't that proof of our recognition, by a major international institution?

In the future please don't change section titles created by other editors on talk pages. There is no problem with creating an original section title, and then comment, reply, or whatever is desired. I took the liberty of creating two section titles. I am assuming good faith WP:AGF and will say no more about that - thank you.

OK.

Is it possible to find out what indexing services index this journal? Take a look at this page: [2].

On this specific page, the "metal studies bibliography" was actually done by K. Kahn-Harris and French scholar Fabien Hein, and first published in Volume ! n°5-2 (on metal music). If you follow the link, we are quoted on his site : http://www.keithkahnharris.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/metalstudies.htm ("I am indebted to Fabien Hein for alerting me to a number of these items. Together we published a version of this bibliography in Hein, F. and Kahn-Harris K. ‘Études Metal: Metal Studies: Une Bibliographe’ in Copyright Volume! 5/2 2006 19-32") - Copyright Volume ! being the first title of the publication, before it became simply "Volume !" in 2010 (issue n°7-1).

And we are on Philip Tagg's database (just type "volume !" in the research bar) - we actually published a new translation of an important letter he wrote, organized a conference about that letter, and just published the selected papers of the conference in our 8-1 issue on "Black Music". :Cf. here: http://www.mollat.com/rendez-vous/en_presence_de_philip_tagg_et_denis_constant_martin-37124.html,

here: http://calenda.revues.org/nouvelle12949.html, or here http://www.sudouest.fr/2010/04/13/musiques-de-couleur-64504-2780.php)

We have been accepted by two major French and Belgian online portals: Revues.org (http://www.openedition.org/9173) and Cairn.info (they work together). This means a committee of experts looked at the journal, asked specialists to judge its quality etc. before accepting it on the portals. Articles will be online in September. These are two major portals of the French-speaking world - and it's too bad the American databases don't even consider anything in any other language than English as important.

Also one question appears to have been answered, and that is: the peer review is probably done by the editorial board. This is common in the humanities journals (I think). Is there anywhere on the web site that discusses the peer review process? I read a in a discussion thread that says this is a peer reviewed publication, but that is not a reliable source [3]. It gives a very brief over view of how the peer review process works for this publication. First the submission is vetted by the editorial board. "Then it is blindly peer-reviewed by specialists".

A first review of all articles submitted is first done by the editors of the journal, then articles deemed receivable are sent to reviewers. The reviewers are either members of the editorial board (http://www.seteun.net/spip.php?article4) or other scholars, with at least a PhD in the subject / field treated by the article.

What is "Seteun editions since 1998" [4]? This is linked to the main page of the journal web site. It appears to be important. You will have to forgive that my unfamiliarity with French culture leads to such questions.

Éditions Mélanie Seteun is the name of the publisher: an associative publisher, in charge of Volume ! and a collection of books dedicated to the sociology of popular music.

This page [5] appears to give a brief description of the types of articles submitted to this publication, including that these are original research endeavors.

Indeed, the English version is below the French text.

What is the Scientific committee? [6]. Is this simply the editorial board? ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 21:38, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes.

Thank you for your time, and sorry about the previous tone, but sometimes, when you have been working hard on something that is starting to get some serious recognition, it's tough to accept certain comments, especially on a place like WP. Zamuse (talk) 23:36, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

This has been a very interesting discovery process. I will need time to read through the information you provided from (top to bottom). I will ask around to see if HNET (based at Michigan State University) can be used as a source, since you say there is a vetting process. It gives a really good summation.

I apologize for my comments as well. I didn't realize that you people have been working hard for serious recognition. Hopefully, you can understand that Wikipedia has to maintain a certain level of standards or it becomes trivial, and not an encyclopedia. Please understand that it is nothing personal. Other people do try to add marginal and trivial content, while being contentious. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 03:16, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I understand that. But, well, I guess that if there are a few dozen Pokemon pages, one on a scholarly journal - the only one in France dedicated to popular music studies - may not be a total fraud, at least relatively. Once again, we're on Tagg's popular musis studies database, on revues.org and cairn.info soon, have a prestigious international editorial board etc., submit articles to the classic peer-review process etc.

Best, Zamuse (talk) 10:42, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

News items

• Here is one current news item (July11, 2011) in "Le Devoir" [7]. Maybe this is useful. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 03:26, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Other items

• Here is a call for papers dated in the month of June on Revue.org. This does give insight into the process of this publication. [8].
• From this page [9] I found the "Calenda" call for papers above. I am not sure what this page is. If there is any more pertaining to Volume! on this page perhaps someone who reads in French can find it more efficiently than me. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 04:35, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
• IASPM 16th International Conference (June 22, 2011) Call for papers.
• About Revues.org Cleo. CNRS. France.
• The professional activities of Gérôme Guibert
• Place des Revues
• Volume! French Wikipedia Article
• IF Journals
• Copyright Volume! Contemporary music and visual problems
• Overview of the journal in an interview with Emmanuel Parent.

A few things I - Zamuse (talk) 14:01, 18 July 2011 (UTC)- add:

• Link to the ADES laboratory page mentioning the 2009 Bordeaux conference co-organized by Volume ! - another one here mentioning the round table with Philip Tagg the day before the conference.
• IASPM website announcing our listening CFP.
• Leeds Popular Cultures Research Network newsletter mentioning the countercultures CFP.
• Neosphères site reviewing the latest issues of Volume. This site is edited by Eric Deshayes, a rock critic, who published several books on rock, the underground in France.
• Place des revues the main French online catalogue of academic journals, summarizes our editorial process etc.
• Volume on Open Edition the site which hosts Revues.org
• A link on the Music and Politics online academic journal.
• A review on the Monde Diplomatique website. Prominent monthly newspaper on geopolitics. Belongs to the group Le Monde.
• Philippe Le Guern's CV mentioning the Volume ! issues he edited etc.
• RAMA presentation of Volume ! The RAMA is a regional network dedicated to promoting popular music in Aquitaine. It supports Volume ! and the Ed. Mélanie Seteun. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zamuse (talk • contribs) 13:45, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Editorial board

I don't have a problem with keeping the "Editorial board" section in this particular article. It is a very small list of names and two of these have articles (one in the French Wikipedia). It may be these people are notable in this area. Comments? ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 07:08, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

• We don't have listings of editorial boards in any journal article, so I don't see why we should make an exception here. That the board members are notable is not surprising, no journal will ask non-notable people to sit on their board... But the usual arguments hold: board members rarely are more than figureheads and so they should only be mentioned in an article if there are independent sources that discuss their activities in relation to the journal. (Such as when some editorial boards of Elsevier journals resigned en masse, for example). --Guillaume2303 (talk) 07:23, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

The idea of a peer-review process is that it is anonymous: we cannot reveal that this or that academic has reviewed an article. You won't find any scholar who puts on his personal page "reviewed this article for volume". Our board members publish articles in our journal (cf here. http://volume.revues.org/1637 the links + the fact that S. Whiteley, A. Bennett, I. Inglis will be publishing shortly, in our "countercultures" issue coming in September 2012, Michael Bull, Theodore Gracyk, Mark Duffett in our "listening" issue (Dec. 2012), H. Dauncey in our "nostalgia" issue coming in Sept. 2013 - http://h-net.msu.edu/cgi-bin/logbrowse.pl?trx=vx&list=H-PCAACA&month=1205&week=b&msg=L2iaZU33%2BQdQKDcGmK0%2BsA) etc. You can actually, if you want to judge us seriously, check the list of our published authors here: http://volume.revues.org/33 and "google" them to see if they are relevant or not, within the field of popular music studies. Or find a popular music studies wikischolar to judge, if you aren't an expert. For the moment, none of the members of our editorial board have… refused to be part of it after having enthusiastically accepted, nor have they resigned "en masse" (for that matter?). Until then, please keep ab absurdo reasoning for yourself. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zamuse (talk • contribs) 23:03, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Zamuse, I think you need to read my above comment again. The Elsevier boards story is an example of a case where an editorial board did something notable and should be mentioned in an article on a journal, not a suggestion that the board of Volume was on the verge of resigning en masse. I understand that you cannot reveal whether a board member has reviewed a particular article, but that is irrelevant anyway. Many researchers review many articles for many journals, that does not mean that their names should be listed in the articles on those journals. In my above comment I have not said any of the things that you are commenting about... Please read more carefully. Thanks. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 02:25, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Problems with this article

Lack of reliable sources, length of article suggests undue weight, dubious notability, unsourced content and possible original research, appearance of promotion and advertising and possible conflict of interest given perusal of talk page and comments on the COI special interest board. General inability to check sources in the English language; there was no mention of this publication on the English-version of the leading French news site France 24 given a search I did on July 23rd 2012. Contributors at the French Wikipedia may be better able to judge its merits although there are low pageview counts at the French Wikipedia] which suggests it is not significant in the French speaking world; some contributors work on both French & English versions.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:58, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

ALL of these questions have been addressed on this page, how can you just pretend the journal lacks notability, when I gave dozens of refs and links? I feel like Sisyphus…

People visit the websites more than the Wikipedia page, I have stats for that. How can you pretend Wikipedia stats reveal anything about the significance of a journal? I don't understand this fetichism.

France24 never quotes ANY scholarly journal, why would you look there for information?

Best, Zamuse (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:42, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Zamuse, the article can have 100 references and still not be notable. OlYeller21^Talktome 12:07, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Indexes

One month after the whole debate, Volume! is indexed on two major, international, specific databases: IIMP (as of Sept. 2012) and RILM (as of Oct. 2012). Zamuse (talk) 00:46, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Discussion at COI board

FYI here.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:43, 23 July 2012 (UTC)