Talk:Sputnikmusic

Articles can self-reference the website and it's okay if the interviewed person isn't the founder

Some Sputnikmusic members are "Staff" members. As in they help run the website and are recognized by Metacitic as professional reviewers. Their words aren't just random opinions on the site, but rather key to site's operation. Arguably, they have more control over Sputnik's operation than the site's creator, so to delete 30 sources because "oops only interviews from the site's creator counts for some reason!" is rediculous. The Pitchfork and Consequence of Sound articles operate similarly. They get to self-reference their website with sources to show off their Staff lists. Please treat this article accordingly. Mrmoustache14 (talk) 04:08, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

@Mrmoustache14 Hi, I have never removed "30 sources". I only removed two: see the edit [1]. Ca ^{talk to me!} 00:22, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Jeremy Ferwerda, a pseudonym for Walter Heinrich

I know this is true, he's a 30something white man from Fresh Meadows, Queens. However, I'm finding it difficult to provide a perfect citation for this. Does anyone have information on "Jeremy Ferwerda"? BezosFanYo (talk) 16:58, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

"Walter Heinrich" is the confirmed true identity of Jeremy Ferwerda. Just need to find some WP:RS to confirm. BezosFanYo (talk) 14:19, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Refactoring of article

Hi @User:Mrmoustache14, my reason for my refactoring of the article is as follows:

Lead

• which distinguishes it against similar sites such as Pitchfork, Tiny Mix Tapes, Rate Your Music and IMDb. According to whom? If no references are provided, this is WP:Original research. Opinions should be attributed to a commentator.
• Sputnikmusic is a recognised source on the aggregate Metacritic. Misleading: There is no such thing as a "recognised source" on Metacritic, they simply use Sputnikmusic's reviews in their aggregation algorithm.
• Sputnikmusic provides a reference point for numerous other sites for the purposes of musical analysis, covering metal, punk, indie, rock, hip-hop, pop and other styles. Vague third-party claim: Which sites, and according to whom?

History

• Sputnikmusic was founded in January 2005 as an offshoot of the Mxtabs network, where album reviews appeared on the MusicanForums section. The site developed a stratification system to distinguish its professional Staff-generated content from its amateur User-generated content. Unsourced. Non-independent sources should only be used for simple facts, not entire paragraphs.
• In 2006, the site's Staff writers were recognised as a professional source by the aggregation site Metacritic Unsourced: the cited link does not mention the date 2006 or Staff writers in particular. Promotional wording: Metacritic does not use the label "professional source" nor "recognize" them.
• The site has since been recognised for its subjectively grounded review style Music reviews are by their own nature, subjective.
• credibility of its professional content, citing a Guardian article, and two books(which appear to be reliable WP:EXPERTSPS). However, they simply cite Sputnikmusic's reviews and does not comment on its credibility or professionality. It is original research to extract such promotional wording.
• the diversity of its opinions, cited to a book with an obscure author and publisher, not reliable.
• extent of its coverage Unsupported: the sources simply says "Sputnikmusic is a great site for reviews". That's it.
• comprehensive database, cited to a Master's thesis with an obscure author. This is not WP:EXPERTSPS.
• The website has a diverse userbase, again a single offhand comment in the unreliable book source.

• I do not have access to the sources cited in The ethnomusicologist Jorge Mercado Méndez references Sputnikmusic as an 'acclaimed' review source adjacent to Pitchfork, while Giuseppe Catani cites Sputnikmusic's Alex Robertson alongside the NME.

Stratification and rating systems

• Non-independent sources should only be used for simple facts, not entire paragraphs.

Album of the Year

• My search of ["Sputnik Music" "Album of the Year" -site:sputnikmusic.com] does not show that this is WP:DUE for inclusion, since there are no sources citing or reporting on this series of articles.

Ca ^{talk to me!} 11:25, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

The majority of these suggestions express specific concerns with promotional word or similar criticisms that could be easily addressed by individual rephrasing and do not seem to support the erasure of entire sections of the page or unrelated sources. Your original grounds for deleting the majority of the page emphasised unreliable sources, but of the sources you have access to, only one is singled out as unreliable (and, since that source is not self-published, the WP:EXPERTSPS argument of does not apply to it). Several of the points flagged suggest a valid, constructive basis for editing but provide little ground for refactoring the whole article.

To engage with a few of these points specifically,

• "There is no such thing as a "recognised source" on Metacritic, they simply use Sputnikmusic's reviews in their aggregation algorithm"

As per the Metacritic website, sources are curated from a "diverse group of highly respected critics", which implies recognition as such. All sources used by Metacritic are recognised sources per the vernacular understanding of 'recognised', and there is nothing on Metacritic or in the article to suggest reading 'recognised' as a specific term.

• "Vague third-party claim: Which sites, and according to whom?"

Practically the entire body of sources support the inclusion of this line, though the vagueness of phrasing is

• "According to whom? If no references are provided, this is WP:Original research. Opinions should be attributed to a commentator."

Stating the presence or absence of faculties on a website is neither opinion nor research. If the issue here is that there are no sources cited to affirm that Pitchfork and Tiny Mix Tapes do not allow user-submitted content whereas Rate Your Music and IMDb do not contain professionally cited content, it could just as easily have been flagged as such rather than removed wholesale.

• "Unsourced: the cited link does not mention the date 2006 or Staff writers in particular. Promotional wording: Metacritic does not use the label "professional source" nor "recognize" them."

The history of Sputnikmuskc's inclusion on Metacritic can be very easily verified on the Metacritic website

• "Music reviews are by their own nature, subjective."

A moot point that disregards the clear emphasis implied for Sputnikmusic's coverage relative to other sources. Rephrase if this is an issue.

• "My search of ["Sputnik Music" "Album of the Year" -site:sputnikmusic.com] does not show that this is WP:DUE for inclusion"

WP:DUE is concerned with the overemphasis of minority opinions misrepresenting the accepted information or narrative on the articles to which they pertain. Since Album of the Year lists are aggregated from the site's entire staff roster for each respective year, this argument is moot.

I have made a handful of edits in line with the concerns flagged, and would recommend you approach further reservations in the form of instance-specific edits unless you believe there is still a basis for refactoring the whole article. TwentyWhiteTents (talk) 18:36, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

For context, when I refactored the article, it looked like this: [2]. Que Publishing is an obscure publishing company with no reputation for fact checking, nor is the author a recognized expert. However, I made the analysis above to point out problems with the new, expanded version of this article. Ca ^{talk to me!} 00:11, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

• Perhaps the Metacritic statement could be rephrased as "Sputnikmusic's reviews are used by Metacritic's aggregation algorithm", which is clearer and less promotional.
• no sources cited to affirm that Pitchfork and Tiny Mix Tapes do not allow user-submitted content whereas Rate Your Music and IMDb. According to policy, original interpretation and comparisons are still original research , even if all the facts are correct: see the section WP:SYNTH.
• As a reader, I am still unsure what a "subjective emphasis" is, since reviews are meant to be subjective. I don't have full access to the book, only snippets. Does it mean that the reviews feel more personal?
• WP:UNDUE is also about the level of detail. It says Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects.(emphasis mine) Album of the Year is an aspect of the site which is not covered by any other sources other than Sputnikmusic itself, so it is undue for inclusion.

Ca ^{talk to me!} 00:20, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Pinging involved editor @ResonantDistortion @Shamus248 Ca ^{talk to me!} 00:32, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

what did i do? Shamus248 (talk) 03:16, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

This edit here: [3], where much of the draft was rewritten to be in its current state. Ca ^{talk to me!} 12:14, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

• "Perhaps the Metacritic statement could be rephrased as "Sputnikmusic's reviews are used by Metacritic's aggregation algorithm", which is clearer and less promotional."

rephrased to "'Sputnikmusic is one of many recognised sources used by the aggregate Metacritic."

• "Album of the Year is an aspect of the site which is not covered by any other sources other than Sputnikmusic itself, so it is undue for inclusion."

This misinterprets WP:UNDUE, as it concerns the content of the site itself and not a topic where multiple strands of consensus are at play to begin with. Review WP:UNDUE's example of not affording flat-earth conspiracy theory representation on the earth wiki page, as this does not represent general consensus on what constitutes 'earth'. There are no outside opinions or competing sources on whether or not Sputnikmusic's Album of the Year selection actually constitutes Sputnikmusic's Album of the Year selection because this is an obvious moot point. For your argument to stand, there would have to be sourced, distinct counter-perspective about the subject matter of the Album of the Year feature or its pertinence to the website -- unsurprisingly enough, neither seem to have been called into question externally.

I think it might be more helpful to reference pages for parallel subject matter for a working precedent than to apply these rather strained readings of tenuously pertinent guidelines - please see Stereogum and Tiny Mix Tapes for similar examples. TwentyWhiteTents (talk) 18:49, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

I agree that WP:UNDUE may not be a best fit for this situation, which is more about fringe theories. However, I believe my stance is backed up by the section that is further down WP:PROPORTION, where it suggests An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject as determined by reliable sources. It is clear that this Album of the Year is not of great importance since it has not gotten coverage in reliable sources, unlike, to give an exaggerated example, Oscars. Ca ^{talk to me!} 00:09, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

• Comment (disclaimer: I am a member of the Sputnikmusic community and had been observing this dispute from the sidelines) Ca, I say this with genuine respect, but I do not think your recent edit, which excised over 5kb of text, was appropriate. I note that you previously nominated this article for deletion. That AfD was successful, and while the article wasn't in much of a seaworthy state at the time, the updated version was indeed an improvement (though imperfect). I choose to believe that the following wasn't your intention, but your recent attempts to remove large amounts of content from this article create the impression of trying to overrule the consensus of the most recent AfD, which resulted in the article being kept. Yes, the article needed to be cleaned up, but I don't think removing content en masse is the answer here. Furthermore, the edit summary of your recent edit gave the impression that there was consensus behind your suggested changes. No editors backed up your position (at least not on this talk page), whereas your suggested changes were opposed by at least two editors. Ergo, no consensus existed. I think drawing broader attention from the community would have been more appropriate than making your changes unilaterally. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 16:45, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

  I thought 4 months was enough to gather any neccessary comments, butyour comment made me realize I was being brash. I apologize. I have reverted my refactoring of the article. What specific removals do you disagree with? Ca ^{talk to me!} 22:49, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

  @Ca: Apology accepted. I think most of the history section can be kept, though it does need to be rephrased – while those sources are acceptable for citing characteristics of the site, quite a few of them to be less praising Sputnikmusic per se, and more speaking neutrally of it. I will say that I don't see how any one reviewer being named next to the NME is pertinent, though I could be wrong on that. (I say this with regret, as I've personally chatted with Alex on a few occasions and have great respect for him.) I think the bulleted information in the rating system section should be kept as well – unfortunately, I'm not quite sure how to source anything in that section after the last bullet, beyond linking to individual reviews (which might not be desirable). Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 01:21, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

  My biggest issue is the reception section. As it could be see in the analysis above, the section massively misrepresents the source material, and exaggerates passing mentions into a "praise" for the website. Some sources are not reliable nor significant, such as theses. Do you dispute any of my thoughts on the reception section as I expressed earlier? Ca ^{talk to me!} 13:16, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

  @Ca: OK you're pretty much on the money regarding the Verve Magazine ref – I think it can be accepted as a source for positive reception toward Sputnikmusic, but you are correct that it does not verify any information regarding extent of coverage. I also think you're correct about the "credibility" wording, though I think it could be worth mentioning that Sputnikmusic was cited in those publications. Pearson Education does appear to be a reputable publisher, however. I believe that the information about Metacritic should be kept as well, though perhaps rephrased to something like "Metacritic has incorporated Sputnikmusic's staff reviews into its aggregate ratings dating back to X's 2006 album Y" or a more polished variant thereof. I am neutral on the master's thesis. WP:SCHOLARSHIP states that Masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence – while I'm not sure if it counts as "significant scholarly influence", Google Scholar does show that the thesis has been cited by a handful of academic papers. I do wonder if the thesis passes the RS bar for stating that Sputnikmusic has a "comprehensive database", which does not seem to me like a particularly contentious claim. I'm also torn on the ref published by Oxford University – while the cited passage seems to deal more specifically with Funeral than it does Sputnikmusic, it does appear to lend praise toward the reviewer's writing nonetheless. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 17:45, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

  You make good points. I was confused about the book The Ultimate Digital Music Guide: The Best Way to Store, Organize, and Play since the books appears to be published by two publishers, one reputable and one obscure. It has editors listed (even though I see some typos). I do agree the inclusion Metacritic rating is notable, hence I had left it alone. Do you agree with this rewrite below? I made sure to transparently attribute opinions and word it accurate to the source material. This is just a mockup; I had not copyedited it yet.

  Metacritic incorporates Sputnikmusic's staff reviews into its aggregate ratings. The site was cited by The Guardian and Neil Daniels. Michael Miller wrote that "you're likely to fine a wide variety of opinions" in the site". [sic] A Master's thesis utilized Sputnikmusic's music database for its research, citing its "focus on non-mainstream artists" and its "encompassing database". The ethnomusicologist Jorge Mercado Méndez references Sputnikmusic as an 'acclaimed' review source adjacent to Pitchfork, while Giuseppe Catani cites Sputnikmusic's Alex Robertson alongside the NME. Ca ^{talk to me!} 13:07, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

  @Ca: I think that's a good start. I think it might be worth including a little something from the Jalt Call Journal ref too – maybe something along the lines of "a 2008 study cited Sputnikmusic as an example of the role of user-generated content in fostering development of students' writing skills"? Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 18:07, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

  I think the involvement of Sputnik is too minor to be anything useful. Both of the cited studies only mention SputnikMusic once in a passing mention. The focus of both studies was about user-generated content in general. Ca ^{talk to me!} 07:37, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

  @Ca: That sounds fair enough. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 23:22, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

  I added the changes to the article. 👍 Ca ^{talk to me!} 13:07, 9 June 2024 (UTC)