Talk:Christopher Hobbs

Comments December 2010

Nice to see that this article has been kept - this seems to have been an attempt at vandalism, and as the original writer, I am grateful to those who have kept it. But I am not happy with the request for more references.

The problem now is that there are several references that are either old, or wrong, or irrelevant. I have corrected the references to Nyman and Anderson, but the reference to Cardew,ed. Scratch Music, is problematic, for instance, as it shows only one facet of Scratch Orchestra output. Hobbs contributed to several other collections of Scratch Orchestra musical genres, but this only shows one small category.

The problem of Wikipedia editors asking for more references for articles neglects the possibility that the main contributor may be the main expert in his/her field. I have added several sources, many of which may not be easy to get. This seems to be a case of 'more is better', rather than quality is better. The comments in the previous discussion shows that this entry should be kept; I'm just not sure that the additions tell us more about Hobbs in a quick reference such as this. I'll come back, and if these are not enough, I shall attempt to add even more.

Experimusic (talk) 17:23, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

It is absolutely true that Wikipedia requires outside sources, rather than trust to the expertise of "main contributors". The opposite side of the coin, of course, is that a "main contributor" might possibly be an overconfident ignoramus or, worse, the subject's bitterest enemy. Very often, however, the "main experts" has themselves published books or articles that may be cited as reliable sources or, failing that, are in the best position to know where such sources may be found. I know how frustrating it can be when you know something to be true from personal experience or research, but cannot provide the required verifying source to correct a mistaken claim which, unfortunately, has a supporting (but "old, wrong, or irrelevant") reference. For better or for worse, the rule is that "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth; that is, whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true."—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:43, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Okay, but this is a reason why many experts no longer contribute, and why this has been the talk of several email lists, including the one for my professional musicological society. The point is that there were already five references in the article, with two consulting sources. This isn't opinion, it is cited fact, yet the verifiability claim remained on this article even after someone had made an attempt to add some material. In a related article, I found that two 'editors' claimed that there was no reference and claimed conflict of interest, even though there were several unrelated sources named. The editorial people, who both came from some kind of science background, could not see the difference between one source and another. This is why I don't edit science texts; I don't have the background. Perhaps these complaints should be made by someone who has a background in the arts and arts writing. When music journal editors do not understand something or complain about my writing, it may hurt or feel unwelcome, but I know that it comes from some understanding of modern art music. These editors don't have that understanding.

Experimusic (talk) 18:01, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, when User:Jubileeclipman placed the banner calling for references on [January 2010], this article had only three embedded external links serving as references (strongly discouraged by the Manual of Style). This banner probably should have been removed (or at least changed to "Refimprove") when proper references were subsequently added—some of them by myself. It is true that experts accustomed to the standards of academic journals often find it difficult to adapt to Wikipedia. For those of us who do manage to adapt, it's not such a bad way of working, and even encourages more careful documentation in our professional publications and conference presentations.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:37, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I removed the Grove article that I removed before, the one marked 2001, published by Macmillan. First of all, there is no article for Christopher Hobbs from 2001 in the hard-copy Grove, second of all, the editorial staff for that edition is wrong. Stanley Sadie was removed as editor in the late 1990s. The editor of the 2001 version was Laura Macy, who herself was removed when Grove was bought by OUP. The present article on Hobbs was commissioned by the later contemporary music editor, Tim Rutherford-Johnson, among a whole load of contemporary music articles that were added at the time. The so-called 'partial' references were complete, except for one. The Anderson book was a reprint; I see nothing that forbids the style I use in the Wikipedia style guide, which allows several variants - it is more accurate, less confusing. I've added volume and number to the PNM reference. It does not need page numbers as it is a special issue. But the main problem is the repeated reinsertion of the erroneous Grove article, despite the fact that I got rid of it before. This is the problem with editing a document without looking at the sources or having any background in the subject. This should not be put back unless the editor 1) goes to the Grove hard copy, 2) sees that the article is there, and 3) ascertains the correct citation, including correct editors and year (I suspect that Tyrrell and Sadie are the editors for the sixth edition, 1980, but I'd have to check myself). It's what I do when I edit my professional publications and conference presentations. Until Wikipedia editors use the same care and attention, I am not convinced by your claim of the superiority of the academic rigour of Wikipedia over other academic publishing. Experimusic (talk) 14:00, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Several extremely odd things here, not the least being that Stanley Sadie and John Tyrrell's names appear on every single volume of the 2001 second edition of the New Grove, and Laura Macy's name (usually given as just "L. Macy") does not. She appeared only as editor of Grove Online. I shall, as you say, have to go to the library to confirm whether or not Virginia Anderson's article appeared in the print edition of New Grove but, for the moment, must trust in the editor who first placed the source in this article, since you yourself admit you have not checked the print edition, either. I find no trace in the usually dependable OCLC of a printed edition of Anderson's M.A. thesis, though I find a digitized version made in 2001. Even if it were photocopied and placed in a library somewhere (there is such a copy in my university's library), the year 1983 is still the "year of publication", until and unless a new edition is actually prepared. The PNM issue was not a "special issue" (though it was a "double issue") and, even if it had been, the any bibliographical entry would still require page numbers for any component portion (it would not require page numbers if the Childs/Hobbs anthology had comprised the entire volume, but in fact it is preceded by three essays written by Michael Kowalski, Daniel Warner, and Sarah Johnson, and followed by twenty-seven other items by diverse other authors). In fact, this collection covers just 87 pages out of 603 (not counting the advertising pages at the end). If this is the best you can do when you edit your "professional publications and conference presentations", I cannot say I am very impressed. I am also not very impressed by your misreading of my claims about Wikipedia editing, which say nothing at all about either superiority or academic rigour.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:56, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I have just returned from the library, where I checked the 2001 print edition of New Grove. Indeed, it does not include an article on Chris Hobbs, and I shall remove the incorrect reference immediately.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:13, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Article concerns

As the writer of the Grove article in question, I can state that Jerome Kohl's changes to this entry are ill-informed and not verified properly. The change to Hobbs's birthplace is illiterate. I have noted this on the WikiProject Composers Page. Experimusic (talk) 07:23, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I've added the verb to "Hobbs born in Hillingdon, near London", which I think was just an oversight on Jerome Kohl's part. And frankly, calling it "illiterate" is neither appropriate nor helpful. He had quite rightly moved the birthplace out of the DoB parenthesis in the lede per Wikipedia's Manual of Style. He acknowledged his error re Grove and restored the Grove Online reference six months ago. The other changes were minor, and correct in my view. Jerome is both a musicologist and an experienced Wikipedia editor. There was no real need for "(special issue)", and in referring to the MA thesis, he was right to give the original source and original date and suggest a note to say that it had been reprinted in facsimile by the Experimental Music Catalogue. He carefully explained above why "special issue" was not accurate in the context of that reference and obviously had seen that issue. So on what basis are his edits ill-informed? Are there any other concerns you have with the article in its current state? Voceditenore (talk) 11:50, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I have changed the edition of Anderson, British Experimental Music back again from where Kohl keeps putting it. I mentioned on the wikiProject Composers Page that it has been reprinted. In fact, the original is no longer available; it was stolen from the university in the mid-1980s. If they have a copy, it's the 2000 facsimile; loads of places have it. It is, I think, in the University of Washington, where Kohl received his degree, or it was there some years ago. I tried to duplicate Kohl's claim that there was no sign of this facsimile, but instead found many references to this edition, the most recent being in an article in the New Theatre Quarterly (27:1, 2011), which deals with Hobbs, among others. That's a Cambridge peer-reviewed journal. I'd add it, but I can't trust that it will remain.Experimusic (talk) 16:50, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I think, I've phrased in such a way now to accomodate both points of view. The actual thesis needed better documentation. Voceditenore (talk) 16:54, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

More information has arrived. One page on the EMC catalog site (http://www.users.waitrose.com/~chobbs/history.html) lists it as: "Virginia Anderson, British Experimental Music:Cornelius Cardew and His Contemporaries (1983; reprint, Experimental Music Catalogue, 2000)". This reprint is currently OOP, but a new edition is forthcoming, under a slightly different title.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:04, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh, yes, on that same page is the statement, "The new EMC is still not a publishing house: more a distribution centre of documents, both of the classic experimental era and of today". This probably accounts for the fact that the 2000 facsimile is not listed as an "edition" on OCLC WorldCat, or in the library catalogues I have checked (including the one at the University of Washington, which does not list this title at all).—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:18, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Christopher Hobbs. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091011081613/http://www.coldbluemusic.com/pages/CB0033.html to http://www.coldbluemusic.com/pages/CB0033.html/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080719052947/http://www.topologymusic.com/index.php/interview-with-composer-chris-hobbs/ to http://www.topologymusic.com/index.php/interview-with-composer-chris-hobbs/

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 18:57, 6 August 2017 (UTC)