Talk:Jerry Hahn

Discographies redux
Hello, everyone: ; ; ;. Welcome to the latest installment of problems with jazz discographies. Here we have an article where Vmavanti has removed a number of albums released by Jerry Hahn. I have restored them; Vmavanti has removed them once again. This follows a similar issue at Bruce Forman and a short and seemingly unproductive discussion on my talk page. I would like, in general, to be able to flesh out discographies of musicians with a full list of their studio albums, without it turning into a federal case. So...any help that you all can provide to move us in that direction would be nice. Chubbles (talk) 06:11, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
 * If you had catalog numbers next to them, then WP:V would be met. Without them, and without another source, then it fails WP:V.  However, I'm not sure what you do about the self-released title, as there is probably not a catalog number.  I had that problem at Organ Grinder Restaurant.   78.26  (spin me / revolutions) 10:43, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Okay, so can we all agree that, by providing catalog numbers with discographical listings, I can restore discographical entries when they are removed? Is it acceptable to revert an editor who continues removing discographical additions with catalog numbers? (Note that, in the past, I have seen a number of editors remove catalog numbers from discographies, either because it does not fit the traditional minimalist format in the discographical guidelines or because the editors viewed the information as excessively trivial.) Chubbles (talk) 11:51, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
 * We can debate whether catalog numbers should be added using the reference template, or listed directly after the discographical entry, but catalog numbers should not be removed because that is taking away the source and therefore disruptive editing, unless another is provided.  78.26  (spin me / revolutions) 13:53, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Okay. Vmavanti, if entries you have removed are restored with catalog numbers substantiating their existence, does this sufficiently allay your concerns, or is further discussion necessary? Chubbles (talk) 21:33, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Catalog numbers don't belong on Wikipedia. There's no need for it. It's clutter at best. If one album has its catalog number listed, then all albums on Wikipedia should have catalog numbers, to be consistent, and I don't expect that to happen. The reason catalog numbers are there is because a small number of people who are interested in jazz discographies put them there. A very small number. That's their interest. My argument has been that editors, IP or regulars, must distinguish between their interests and the interests of readers—the public interest. It's a very democratic way of looking at things. But this view seems to be shared rarely by those who work on jazz articles (I have no one in particular in mind). There seems to be a diehard group which likes adding to discographies but not contributing much else to Wikipedia. These people have their own ideas about how things should be done, and they are sometimes inconsistent with the rules of Wikipedia. I don't know these people and I can't talk to them face to face. I side with Wikipedia's rules, which are usually reasonable. This is a subject that has been made more difficult than it should be because too many IP editors don't want to follow the rules or learn them. Without the rules, we are left with graffiti, and there's already too much of that.

Vmavanti (talk) 23:52, 7 April 2019 (UTC) Vmavanti (talk) 03:38, 8 April 2019 (UTC) Vmavanti (talk) 15:44, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
 * On sourcing, there is a conundrum here, but I haven't caused it. All material on Wikipedia must be sourced. It's not just a rule, it's common sense. It's what all of us learned in school. I ought to be able to remove unsourced material without having my edits reverted. But the status quo for jazz discographies on WP for I don't know how long has been driven by three unwritten rules: one, discographies don't need sources; two, discographical info nearly always comes from Discogs.com (an unreliable source); three, whatever you do, don't use AllMusic. I walked away from this problem last week because I believe it can not be solved given the status quo. So I reverted my own work, many hours of work mainly on jazz guitarists. But then my changes were reverted, too. So damned if I do, damned if I don't. If there are unwritten rules, I wish someone would write them so the rest of us can follow them.
 * The catalog number is the source. Period.  Full Stop.  I'm not sure why this is so hard to understand.  By the way, Wikipedia is both a general encyclopedia and a specialized encyclopedia.   78.26  (spin me / revolutions) 01:48, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I need some proof for these claims: "Wikipedia is both a general encyclopedia and a specialized encyclopedia" and "catalog number is the source". In order for me to understand, someone has to 1) show where it exists in Wikipedia documentation and 2) explain it. It's not enough simply to claim or assert. A catalog number is just a number. It's not a citation or a source. It's not proof of anything. It's just a number on the screen. The former claim sounds like nonsense to me because it is a contradiction. Why are my points and questions never addressed? There's a debate format where, before one person begins to answer, that person summarizes their understanding of the other's position. Something like "You are saying that..." I would like to see more people on Wikipedia adopt this approach, stating the other's position to ensure that it is understood.
 * I have, in the past, attempted to state your position succinctly, but I have never been able to confirm I have it correct. It appears to be: "All discographical information - title of album, year, label - must be sourced to a reliable third-party citation that is independent of the work itself and independent of the artist him/herself. If such a source cannot be found, the information must be removed; anyone restoring such unsourced information is to be reverted. It is not necessary to use citations for each line or each piece of information in a discography - a single covering footnote can be used for the entire section; however, anything not in that single citation must be removed." I have argued at great length already why there are problems with several of these assertions, but maybe I am fighting a straw man. Did I miss anything that is central to your case? Chubbles (talk) 11:30, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
 * No, except I would replace "ought" with "can". Information can be removed, edits can be reverted. I have trouble believing "I have argued at great length already why there are problems with several of these assertions". Not with me you haven't. I wouldn't call them assertions. My methods are applications of the Wikipedia documentation, unless someone can show otherwise. They are rooted in ethical, legal, and literary standards and conventions. Information comes from somewhere. In practice, when information in jazz discogs comes from somewhere other than Discogs.com, it gets reverted. That is an unwritten rule that I had to learn the hard way. No one has addressed the status quo necessity of using Discogs.com when it is an unreliable source—how to get around using an unreliable source. No one has made a compelling argument that Discogs.com ought to be treated as gospel or how one can know with certainty that it is always correct and always complete. I have addressed the shortcomings of Discogs.com. Many times I have addressed the ambiguities of jazz discographies. You have asserted, not argued, at various times that discographies don't have to be sourced and that they source themselves. Do you have other claims? You have also used as a defense "I own the album". I have said several times that you can use a cite AV tag if you want to use the physical album or liner notes as a source. But I hope you remember that albums in the UK can have different information than albums released elsewhere.
 * Discogs is being roundly used informally as a source of information (to differentiate it from a source being cited in a footnote, which I never do and actively discourage other editors from doing) because it frequently includes a photograph of the album in question - it provides direct support through an image of the item itself.


 * Here are my claims: Discographical information - at core minimum, a simple chronological list of a musician's studio albums - is inherently encyclopedic, and we do a disservice to readers whenever we fail to provide reliable discographical information. Discographical information must be verifiable. (This is policy.) Discographical information should be traceable to a reliable source. (This is guideline with broad, near-universal support across the project.) As a practical matter, a great deal of discographical information - in particular, the titles of studio albums and the principal record label of release - are rarely disputed or controversial pieces of information, and so to manage the limited human capital of the site, it is advisable to restrict our suspicions about discographical information to specific instances where there appears to be uncertainty or a lack of clarity in available sources. (I have been convinced by EddieHugh's investigations that years of release may merit somewhat more scrutiny, though there is probably a limit to the level of exactness we can guarantee about pinpointing discographical dates.) Routine discographical information (i.e., information for which there is no good-faith reason for dispute) may be taken directly from the recording's descriptive metadata; commercial recordings are published works and are rather obviously de facto the best place to find information about themselves, analogous to the publication data in a book. (Our definition of "published work" on Wikipedia is deliberately broad and includes audiovisual media that are commercially distributed in manners similar to print media.) Exhaustively citing every line of a discography with citation tags for each item clutters the discographies and is very time-consuming, and so is probably more trouble than it is worth; there is no need for discographies to be held to the same standards of footnoting as articles about medicine, crime, or the Kardashians. (I've never gotten any sense that anyone actually wanted that level of scrutiny on discographies until these conversations started.) A single covering cite, however, makes it difficult for future editors to make any changes from other sources, and so is also undesirable.


 * Vmavanti's position and mine are, as I have noted before, incompatible, and our conversations have ground to a repetitive stasis. I'm interested in coming to some sort of consensus that one or both of us is obliged to abide by in this matter. I know that everyone involved in this discussion is tired of it, but I don't know how else to proceed here other than to ask once again for them to weigh in on how to adjudicate between these disparate positions - they are leading to slow-motion edit wars across many pages. Chubbles (talk) 19:43, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
 * There will be conflict, contradiction, and inconsistency until there is some kind of guideline. A new editor might use a source for discography information but then find the edits reverted without sufficient cause or explanation. This behavior is arbitrary and inconsistent and leads to conflict. I might have been the first person to point this out (an admin accused me of creating drama. Hardly.) Editors with whom I disagreed have sometimes put the matter in binary terms: deletionist versus inclusionist, Discogs.com versus AllMusic, open minded v. close minded, us versus them. I reject these false dichotomies and imaginary teams. In fact I agree with some of the points in the above paragraph: Discographies should be cited with independent, reliable sources, like all other information on Wikipedia. I'm glad to see that point has been conceded. As far as I know, I was the first person to raise that subject in jazz.

Vmavanti (talk) 02:17, 9 April 2019 (UTC) Vmavanti (talk) 19:32, 9 April 2019 (UTC) Vmavanti (talk) 02:34, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * For many reasons, there are ambiguities in jazz discographies, unlike other genres. These ambiguities lead to discrepancies in release dates and labels, particularly with albums released in different countries. A person may write "This is the third album by John Coltrane" on an album page, but that may be wrong depending on where the person lives or bought the album. The album cover doesn't always solve the problem. The only way to resolve discrepancies is with reliable sources and agreed upon guidelines followed by everyone. If there were a copyright database (a free one) that we had access to, that might solve the problem, but I know of no such resource. The important matter here is accurate, sourced information, and the habits people develop when adding information to Wikipedia. Attempts to minimize these matters are essentially attempts to create wiggle room and free play for one's arbitrary preferences, habits, and sources. They also leave the door open to endless conflict, as when two people argue which Coltrane album was his third. How will that be resolved? It may seem like nitpicking. But there are so many examples on Wikipedia where molehills became mountains that the accusation of nitpicking is hardly worth mentioning.
 * The binary discrepancy here is, at heart, probably WP:BLUE versus WP:NOTBLUE. But it appears we can agree on just one principal thing: The need for resolution through consensus. Other folks - what next? Chubbles (talk) 03:31, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The guidelines are at WikiProject Discographies/style. You can not create project-wide consensus at local pages such as this one.  If you wish to modify the discography guidelines (which, I may note, include catalog numbers), then you'll need to gain consensus by an WP:RFC at Wikiproject Discographies, and a notification to WikiProject Music.  In the meantime there is no consensus to remove catalog numbers.   78.26  (spin me / revolutions) 15:54, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Self-evident truths like "the sky is blue" don't get changed. Discographies do. So the analogy doesn't hold. Nor does the analogy to a bibliography of printed books, because those books don't have the ambiguities (or purposes) of jazz discographies. That's mixing apples and oranges. To say "they are both published works" is nearly as useless as saying "they are both things on Earth". So what? Citations aren't needed to prove the existence of the albums anymore than citations are needed to prove the existence of a book used as a source. It's the content of the book that matters, not the existence of the book. A reader follows a WP citation to check the content, to see whether the information in the WP article corresponds to the information in the source. A reader might be interested in reading that source or using it. It's proof. It's attribution. It's giving credit where credit is due.
 * No one would change something obvious like "the sky is blue". But my edits to discographies have been changed from the beginning of my time here. I'm still trying to figure out why, still trying to find out what the rules are. That may be the gist of it. If an editor changes my edit on a discography, that editor must have reasons. I'm still trying to figure out what they are. As far as I can tell, the reason is it must conform to Discogs.com. But no one has volunteered that information or bothered to put it into a guideline. If that had been done, a lot of conflict would have been prevented. Those of you who believe discographies don't need sources, and are self-sourcing, maybe you can refer me to some books or web sites which discuss that subject. I've looked but haven't found much yet. Where did you get your information? I found one book on the history of jazz discographies called More Important Than the Music: A History of Jazz Discography, but used copies are expensive. Maybe my local library can get it from interlibrary loan. Where did you get your information?
 * Frankly everyone is sick of arguing with you, Vmavanti. The reasons people have changed your discography editing has been explained to you.  You continue to make the same arguments. Discogs has nothing to do with this.  You do not have consensus to remove albums from discography listings at an artists page when the information if verifiable.  Individual albums in an artists do not need to meet notability requirements, it is fine if they are listed as self-evident.  If you want to change this, do as I suggest and change the requirements at the Music and Discography wikiprojects.  It is pointless to continue this discussion here.  Until that happens, consider this a formal warning that removal of such information is considered disruptive editing.  I will leave a formal warning on your talk page, so that there can be no ambiguity.   78.26  (spin me / revolutions) 20:04, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Do you speak for "everyone"? My edits have been deleted, too, you know.  If anyone is "sick of arguing" let that person say so honestly. Talk pages are for debate. No one has addressed the points I have just made. Why not? A request for books and information is met with threats and insults?  Does anyone regard this as acceptable behavior? I hope others received the same warning I received on my Talk page, otherwise the impression is that I'm the one causing trouble or breaking rules. Obviously that's a false impression.
 * My two cents worth: Discographies should be as comprehensive as possible reflecting the artists available output - this probably should include self produced commercially available releases BUT excluding unofficial/bootleg releases not sanctioned by the artist (although sometimes bootlegs can be notable); I don't think that every album in a discography needs to be referenced if there is a general discographical reference or if the individual album article is referenced but catalog numbers is a useful indicator of publication and I will persist in including the first release catalog number in album articles; WikiProject Discographies/style is the arbiter of style not any individual - Play Nice; I support 78:26's assertions DISEman (talk) 01:36, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Just a note - I was not the IP who just reverted the discography edit on the article page here. I'd like to hear if Eddie has any thoughts - not sure if he's interested in weighing in again, but I know he has been a stronger advocate of exhaustive sourcing and may offer a different interpretation. - pinging once more just in case. Chubbles (talk) 03:06, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

It's not just me, it's policy and procedure. Personally, I don't mind if a discography is poorly sourced (although I'd prefer good sourcing) – getting good sources for a discography is unlikely to be a priority. But if someone places a sourcing tag, removes something or otherwise queries any part of a discography, then we're immediately at WP:BURDEN: "All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution." That's policy (is there something more local/specific that counters/modifies this? MOS:DISCOGRAPHY doesn't, but does state "The exact format chosen will depend on the discography and the amount of verifiable information available"... emphasis added). Is a cat. number enough? I've seen editors state that one is, but not explain why one is. Is the argument that a cat. number is analogous to a book's ISBN? That's not a bad argument, but the drawback is that the connection between a book and an ISBN can be checked (verified) online with ease, but that might not be true for an album. I've looked at WikiProject Discographies/style before, but unfortunately it's both unfinished and dormant, so can't be used to support anything. Perhaps revitalising that is the way to go. EddieHugh (talk) 12:35, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * There is no ISBN for records. But in a biblography, books are not removed because they pre-date the use of ISBN numbers.  Catalog numbers are what we're left with, and so unless there is reason to believe the addition is a hoax (doesn't happen in jazz much, but I've seen it happen in current whatever-the-latest-pop-craze-is).  If someone has gone online and really tried to verify the existence of an album, there is no catalog number or any other way to verify the information, then I have no problem with removing the album.  If there is, say, a Beatles album listed on Dot Records with a catalog number, then that should be removed as a hoax because the Beatles never released material on Dot Records.  However, this conversation needs a broader audience, as I have suggested above, and not here on a notable but completely-unknown-to-most-editors topic.   78.26  (spin me / revolutions) 13:51, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * P.S. let me be explicit: the addition of a good quality, independent source is to be much preferred.   78.26  (spin me / revolutions) 13:55, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * So, Eddie, what you're asking me to do - what policy compels us to do, you are saying - is that, whenever Vmavanti removes anything in a discography, if I wish to restore it, I must provide an inline citation to a reliable source? I am claiming that catalog numbers are sufficient in the way ISBNs are (I am also claiming that, in general, any commercially released album meets verifiability for its own existence and catalog data on its cover per WP:SELFPUB). Am I therefore obliged to format discographies in this way:

Discography

 * Album One (Generic Records, 2000)
 * Album Two (Generic Records, 2002)
 * Album Three (Generic Records, 2005)

But why here...?
Greetings! I have recently launched a topic concerning similar issues at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Discographies. After seeing all the lengthy conversation you've had here, I can't help but wonder why it has taken place just here, and not some project / policy Talk Page? I mean, even if you achieved some sort of local consensus, it wouldn't be automatically applicable to the rest of the articles.

So far, I am not sure if there should be a generalized rule on including sources to the discographics. WP:BURDEN still lies on the person who adds material, but bloating the article and adding a source for every single entry might not be necessary. Should an entry be contested, though, a reasonable source should be provided (be it a review article, publisher's website etc.) If no such source was found, the entry is free for deletion.

If we're dealing with a notable artist, finding information to back-up the existence of one's albums should not be a problem. But if an artist is claimed to have published a new recording — even though no sources can be found to support that claim — then this places a big question mark over the a) credibility of the claim, or the b) notability of the artist. The latter should not be included in the encyclopedia; the former should not be included in the article. Summa summarum, not to be able to find sources that support the contested recordings of an artist, perhaps that means that those really don't exist, or that the artist just doesn't meet the WP:NOTABILITY criteria (which is a miracle that the article has passed to its existence in the first place). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jayaguru-Shishya (talk • contribs) 03:17, 28 June 2019 (UTC)