Talk:Georgiy Starostin

message: I started making some improvements on the article... just to give a direction how I think this article can be improved. - Mdd 22:04, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice job, looks very good!  Didn't mean to get hot above; WP:AGF is indeed a very good idea.  On the fact-tags, yes, maybe some of the Russian users will be able to flesh out stuff like his alma mater.  Your work has improved the article quite a lot.  regards, --Jim Butler(talk) 01:29, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Improvements on this article 

message: Of course, I appreciate Starostin's music criticism instead of his linguistic work, but after the AfD I felt that Wikipedia was somehow missing something without this article. See the AfD.--h i s   s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 21:42, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, I understand that you are the editor who proposed to deleted the article the last time. I don't knwo how the first article was like. I do know ee had quiet some discussion around this article, and I think we develope it into an interesting start. - Mdd 20:12, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The earlier version looked a lot like this.  The current one is a big improvement substantively, thanks in large part to Mdd's additions (nice choice of illustrations, too).  I too am a fan of Starostin's music site.  I just went ahead and added back in some of the music stuff from the earlier version; it's all sourced from his personal page, but per WP:SOURCES that's OK as long as the article isn't primarily based on such sources.  cheers, Jim Butler(talk) 03:32, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thanks for making a sourced recreation 

message: This is an excessive deletion; there is nothing "unduly self-serving" about the material (permalink; live version here).  It briefly describes Starostin's music criticism, nothing more.  It would be "unduly self-serving" if, e.g., he were making claims about being one of the foremost Internet music critics.  Common sense also applies, since he arguably is one.  Perhaps some fat could be trimmed from the section, but definitely keep it in the TOC and keep the EL's to his old and new sites. --Middle 8 (talk) 05:25, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry, but this entire addition has no reliable sources to support its inclusion in the article. Forget even the impossible-to-cite "prolific self-published Internet music critic" label, the entire section added is either based in self-published sources or is unsourced. No third-party sources have covered his "music criticism". Using the subject as a self-published source → 1. "unduly self-serving". Is there a reliable source that says he is a music critic? Having a personal blog or website about albums doesn't quite fit neither the academic discipline nor the journalistic meaning of the title. Per WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE, for relatively unknown people, "exercise restraint and include only material relevant to the person's notability, focusing on high-quality secondary sources." Another one, WP:SPS: "Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer." And common sense tells you that people can have hobbies, none of which are covered in BLP articles unless they've been deemed notable by third-party sources. I'm not sure about those external links (WP:BLPEL), but I'm pretty sure a section making him out to be a music critic isn't in keeping with the spirit of notability or BLP guidelines. Dan56 (talk) 06:35, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Dan56 asked for my input as an experienced Wikipedian, and I have to say that Dan56 is completely correct. If no independent source has ever discussed his blog, then it shouldn't be covered here. Well, maybe we could have a single sentence (and I do stress maybe), but any more would be WP:UNDUE. Our job is always to report what independent sources have said about people (that's how we determine what is or isn't important), and if they haven't said anything, we should say nothing. The typical times that we use SPS are for things that are inherently personal; for example, if his blog stated that is married, or had a kid, then we could use the source for that. We don't, however, look to his blog to find out what his hobbies are, or what sorts of things he likes to write about. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:14, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Music criticism

message: Please list sources here and discuss below.
3rd-party RS:
*Pop Matters (magazine; RS) - opens with a mention of "part-time rock critic George Starostin"
*Speak to Me: The Legacy of Pink Floyd's The Dark Side of the Moon (Ashgate Popular and Folk Music Series) by Russell Reising, pub. Routledge (RS) - cites Starostin's opinion on Pink Floyd and Dark Side of the Moon
*German Rolling Stone (magazine; RS) - several paragraphs praising and recommending his music review website 
*Der Spiegel (news magazine; RS) - quote from above Rolling Stone endorsement
::(note for English readers: Der Spiegel is the foremost German-language weekly news magazine, comparable in stature to TIME Magazine). 
*Psychedelic music in San Francisco: style, context, and evolution; also viewable in Google Books (scholary source; RS) - quotes Starostin's site at some length (pp. 106–107) on Quicksilver Messenger Service
*Song Sheets to Software: A Guide to Print Music, Software, and Web Sites for Musicians (reference book; RS) - mentions site in compendium of music sites
Possible 3rd-party RS:
*Medium (blog; RS, assuming editorial oversight) - cites Starosin as "music blogger" and quotes from his blog
*Interview with Jonathon Bogart, a published rock critic (blog; RS, assuming editorial oversight) - interviewee mentions site
Starostin's self-published sites:
*Only Solitaire - original site, 390 artists, each with multiple reviews  
*Only Solitaire - current blog, 220+ artists, each with multiple reviews; updated with new review daily since July 6, 2009
Other sources:
*Gentle Giant website (apparent fan site and SELFPUB source) - mentions Starostin's original site & reader comments there
====Discussion of sources====
Note: Moved comments to own subsection.  Dan56 comment just below (@12:18, 11 March 2016) is re PopMatters source, above in first bullet point. --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • COI) 03:28, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:   A brief, off-hand mention of Starostin that erroneously calls him a "part-time rock critic" (in reality, he blogs as a hobby) and does not go on to say anything more about him. Dan56 (talk) 12:18, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  Reising compares the critical opinion of "one amazon.com reviewer, 'a music fan from Queens, NY'" to that of "George Starostin's Reviews website" in that source lmaoo. Dan56 (talk) 12:18, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

text: OK, broke out this "Discussion of sources" subsection --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • COI) 21:53, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  You're personal opinion on the relevance of his music blog is clouding your judgment, which is no surprise since the only ppl JG66 pinged were editors from the music WP. WP:NOR: "Best practice is to research the most reliable sources on the topic and summarize what they say in your own words, with each statement in the article attributable to a source that makes that statement explicitly." How are any of those the most reliable sources on a Russian linguist/anthropologist? Also, it's misleading to call him a "part-time rock critic" since he's NEVER been hired or published by ANYONE. He self-publishes, and blogs, as a hobby, not for work. Period. Dan56 (talk) 12:16, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think it was a mistake to set the sources out in this way. Partly because the list is incomplete, based on the discussion that's gone on above, and partly because, even though I know you haven't added any further comments or editorialisation here, it's an invitation for Dan56 to indulge his habit of last-word-itis.  pull your head out your arse/ass. "The only ppl JG66 pinged were editors from the music WP"? – well, I pinged Middle 8 and Qwyrxian, both of whom contributed to a similar discussion on this talk page in 2013. If they're from the music project, I wouldn't know. I also pinged  and , because they participated in a discussion on a music project talk page about Starostin's activities as a reviewer and music blogger. JG66 (talk) 14:16, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: @  - belated note FWIW: broke out discussion of sources and attempted to complete sources ... at least it should make it easier for RfC closer, assuming someone's willing to slog through all this (and assuming that's even necessary given how discussion has evolved & sources have been added) --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • COI) 21:59, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  👍 Dan56 (talk) 14:25, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: There's nothing improper about pinging others who have edited this page.  If some/all of them happen to have opposed Dan 56's position, how exactly does that make them biased?  Interesting Dan56 sees it that way ... --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • COI) 06:19, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  You're making arguments that would appeal to music geeks, which would be the only readers I assume who would know of Starostin's music blog, since it has no significant coverage discussing it (WP:FANCRUFT). Interesting you don't see that... Dan56 (talk) 06:46, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

text:  As is, this article is based primarily on self-published sources (i.e. Starostin's website), which makes your point moot (WP:BLPSELFPUB): "Such material may be used as a source only if: 5. the article is not based primarily on such sources." Dan56 (talk) 09:10, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  No problem, it'll be easy to source most of the linguistics stuff to 3rd-party sources, since he's an academic at two well-regarded institutions. His personal site in English has been used mainly as a convenience link for his Russian-language faculty page . Latter in English via Google bot: .  Good you noticed this.  -Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • COI) 16:50, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  OK, it turns out that the linguistics stuff on his personal site is exempt form the requirement that "the article is not based primarily on such sources", because Starostin is a published expert in his field.  That's per WP:SELFPUB (part of WP:V); see the first sentence (bolding mine):  .  It still can't hurt to use his faculty page, but some of the Tower of Babel stuff is probably available only at that self-published page, and will benefit the article without violating policy.  --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • COI) 12:21, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources 

message: Note: Moved comments to own subsection.  Dan56 comment just below (@12:18, 11 March 2016) is re PopMatters source, above in first bullet point. --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • COI) 03:28, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:   A brief, off-hand mention of Starostin that erroneously calls him a "part-time rock critic" (in reality, he blogs as a hobby) and does not go on to say anything more about him. Dan56 (talk) 12:18, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  Reising compares the critical opinion of "one amazon.com reviewer, 'a music fan from Queens, NY'" to that of "George Starostin's Reviews website" in that source lmaoo. Dan56 (talk) 12:18, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

text: OK, broke out this "Discussion of sources" subsection --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • COI) 21:53, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  You're personal opinion on the relevance of his music blog is clouding your judgment, which is no surprise since the only ppl JG66 pinged were editors from the music WP. WP:NOR: "Best practice is to research the most reliable sources on the topic and summarize what they say in your own words, with each statement in the article attributable to a source that makes that statement explicitly." How are any of those the most reliable sources on a Russian linguist/anthropologist? Also, it's misleading to call him a "part-time rock critic" since he's NEVER been hired or published by ANYONE. He self-publishes, and blogs, as a hobby, not for work. Period. Dan56 (talk) 12:16, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think it was a mistake to set the sources out in this way. Partly because the list is incomplete, based on the discussion that's gone on above, and partly because, even though I know you haven't added any further comments or editorialisation here, it's an invitation for Dan56 to indulge his habit of last-word-itis.  pull your head out your arse/ass. "The only ppl JG66 pinged were editors from the music WP"? – well, I pinged Middle 8 and Qwyrxian, both of whom contributed to a similar discussion on this talk page in 2013. If they're from the music project, I wouldn't know. I also pinged  and , because they participated in a discussion on a music project talk page about Starostin's activities as a reviewer and music blogger. JG66 (talk) 14:16, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: @  - belated note FWIW: broke out discussion of sources and attempted to complete sources ... at least it should make it easier for RfC closer, assuming someone's willing to slog through all this (and assuming that's even necessary given how discussion has evolved & sources have been added) --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • COI) 21:59, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  👍 Dan56 (talk) 14:25, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: There's nothing improper about pinging others who have edited this page.  If some/all of them happen to have opposed Dan 56's position, how exactly does that make them biased?  Interesting Dan56 sees it that way ... --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • COI) 06:19, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  You're making arguments that would appeal to music geeks, which would be the only readers I assume who would know of Starostin's music blog, since it has no significant coverage discussing it (WP:FANCRUFT). Interesting you don't see that... Dan56 (talk) 06:46, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

text:  As is, this article is based primarily on self-published sources (i.e. Starostin's website), which makes your point moot (WP:BLPSELFPUB): "Such material may be used as a source only if: 5. the article is not based primarily on such sources." Dan56 (talk) 09:10, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  No problem, it'll be easy to source most of the linguistics stuff to 3rd-party sources, since he's an academic at two well-regarded institutions. His personal site in English has been used mainly as a convenience link for his Russian-language faculty page . Latter in English via Google bot: .  Good you noticed this.  -Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • COI) 16:50, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  OK, it turns out that the linguistics stuff on his personal site is exempt form the requirement that "the article is not based primarily on such sources", because Starostin is a published expert in his field.  That's per WP:SELFPUB (part of WP:V); see the first sentence (bolding mine):  .  It still can't hurt to use his faculty page, but some of the Tower of Babel stuff is probably available only at that self-published page, and will benefit the article without violating policy.  --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • COI) 12:21, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion of sources

message: * No as nominator and per above. Dan56 (talk) 04:08, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: *I'm reinstating my wish that the Lead contain a mention of his reviewing and blogging activities. I'd been leaning back that way anyway (after striking it above), but with some of the sources that have been added here recently, I also think we'd be justified in covering these activities in a dedicated section, in the main body. JG66 (talk) 12:15, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

text: **Agreed. (My recollection is the article contained such a section not too long ago.) --Andreas JN466 23:38, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Fleshing out my comment and vote - Wikipedia:Notability#Notability_guidelines_do_not_apply_to_content_within_an_article plainly states that "The notability guidelines do not apply to article or list content.... Content coverage within a given article or list (i.e. whether something is noteworthy enough to be mentioned in the article or list) is governed by the principle of due weight and other content policies."  "Notability" as a criterion for inclusion of the music blog here is a red herring.  Rather, it's a matter of WP:WEIGHT; and to my mind, one or two modest sentences about the simple fact of the blog (which he really does write, you know) is hardly the kind of massive, distracting, disruptive addition that UNDUE is meant to guard against.  JohnInDC (talk) 19:35, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

text:  , do you think it should be in the lead? Dan56 (talk) 19:01, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: If I may comment: I say yes, since that's what most readers will be looking for. That's the benefit; what's the harm?  --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • COI) 06:19, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  Wtf, was someone asking you here?? And how do you know what most readers will be looking for? Sounds like fancruft, since only music geeks will be looking for, because who else would know about this blog when there's no significant coverage on it, just brief allusions to Starostin being a critic in articles otherwise unrelated to the topic of Starostin (WP:NOR), and one passage in a book on Pink Floyd, in a chapter comparing non-professional reviews. Dan56 (talk) 06:46, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Use Google: the music stuff is all over the place.  I daresay we have at least as many "music geeks" as "linguistics geeks" for readers... c'mon people!  it's not like rock music is more arcane than the origins of language. :-)  Too much wikilawyering and battleground behavior from Dan56 on this page.... not without precedent  --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • COI) 09:07, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  I did use Google, finding nothing but questionable sources, self-published and forums and the like, which would suggest his blog is of interest to a small segment of fans of the music subject (WP:FANCRUFT). But I see you did your research on something at least. Flattering ;) Dan56 (talk) 10:47, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  (Not flattering -- a lot of us wish you'd take constructive criticism seriously.)  Re Google - You're not getting it.  Wikipedia itself is not an RS (not even "questionable"), but lots of people still read it.... same with those other hits (e.g. TVTropes), where people will read about the subject and come here to learn more.  Pop/rock reviews generally are too broad an area for WP:FANCRUFT.  --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • COI) 12:30, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

text: Comment - Actually neither the blog nor the old site is currently referenced in the article.  The cites to starling.rinet.ru are all to the Tower of Babel linguistics site (WP:SPS) which is the site's main purpose; subject's music site is hosted there as a sideline.  --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • COI) 09:36, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

text:  That is one passage in a book on Pink Floyd, in a chapter comparing non-professional reviews (an Amazon.com user review compared to Starostin's review), with no discussion of the blog itself, because there are no reliable third-party sources that actually discuss the blog, . Why are there no reliable sources directly related to the topic of Starostin that can be used to flesh out this blog info on this Wikipedia article? (WP:NOR) Just brief allusions to Starostin in low-quality sources, definitely low-quality for a BLP. Relatively shitty sources compared to what's expected, but then again--and I'm sure  would agree--this article is full of nothing but references to Starostin's website so the standard here I suppose is shitty. Dan56 (talk) 22:16, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: You keep applying the 3rd-party standard of WP:N, but per WP:SELFPUB (cf. FloNight above), not everything in the article needs to meet that.  Adding something like this about subject's music writing falls easily within SELFPUB. Mention in outside sources is gravy -- puts it over the top.  This isn't indiscriminate; it's an extensive body of work (thousands of detailed reviews).  So what's the problem?  --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • COI) 00:31, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  "Mention", not coverage. First of all, he's not a music critic, but a blogger (the Medium writer currently cited is more accurate in their description than the PopMatters source), and both sources are not directly related to the topic of Starostin (WP:NOR); we're just using bits out of sentences that don't actually discuss Starostin or his blog as an excuse to introduce anything on his blog--not very good research or article writing IMO. Second of all, it has to be more than just mention. Of what use are those sources in this article when you don't actually use them to cite information about his blog, but instead rely on Starostin's own site to create an entire section on his "music criticism"? He hasn't been published nor is he a notable blogger (the scarcity of sources discussing him in that light proves that), and the material is self-serving. And why call them "detailed reviews" or an "extensive body of work"? According to whom? Your own opinion on his writing? There's a reason we don't ignore the rules in cases like these, because editors lose sight of objectivity in determining what's notable, when the threshold for that is established by significant coverage from reliable sources. Dan56 (talk) 03:43, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  Do you understand about WP:N?    So which rules, then?  And how is writing music reviews (which anyone can see he does) self-serving?  --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • COI) 06:35, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  I didn't cite WP:N as a rule; you brought up WP:IAR before, so that was the wording you suggested ("Ignore all rules"). I cited "What Wikipedia is not", specifically it not being an indiscriminate collection of information: Per WP:NOTEVERYTHING,  You want to give his music blogging more weight than the whatever third-party sources discussing it show it deserves. Briefly alluding to him being a music blogger is proportional to the third-party coverage of that (because that's all that the very few reliable sources mentioning him as a music reviewer do, briefly alluding to him being a music blogger), yet you're suggesting a stand-alone section going into more detail than any of the sources goes into. I mean, to end this back and forth, would it be too much to expect that a reliable third-party source has said something to the effect of "Starostin operates a music blog called 'Only Solitaire'", or "publishes music reviews on a blog...", etc.??? The only hits I get when I search "Starostin" and "Only Solitaire" are music fan forums, message boards, wikis (like tvropes), and other questionable sources with self-published/user-generated content, so what does that tell you??? It already says "Starostin is a music blogger" in the "Biography" section of this article, cited to Medium's "Trickster -- When Is Music Fandom Pathological?" article. What more do you want? Dan56 (talk) 07:12, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  What those Google hits tells me is that while Only Solitaire itself isn't very notable, people are reading about it (TVTropes is not tiny), so we should give them more than a crumb of coverage.  You argue that we can cover things in a BLP only to the degree that 3rd-party sources discuss them, but WP:SELFPUB imposes no such limit; another couple sentences aren't excessive.  You also cite NOTEVERYTHING, but most people's hobbies aren't even mentioned in 3rd party sources.  That's where those hits come in: not to limit coverage to a bare minimum, but simply to show it is not indiscriminate. --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • COI) 08:50, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, most people's hobbies aren't even mentioned in Wikipedia articles. I cant take you seriously if you bring up TVtropes again; it's a Wiki, which says nothing about Starostin's life/work. it's just some unknown user(s)'s summary of his blog, which proves the same thing these other hits--nothing but message boards and forums and fan blogs (, , , )--prove: His blog is only of interest to a small segment of readers, which in this case appear to be rock music geeks (WP:FANCRUFT). That's what those hits show, and let's not pretend like we don't see what "people are reading about it". Dan56 (talk) 11:42, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I really don't understand the fuss.  The blog exists, right?  And it's his?  Thin third party coverage notwithstanding, lots of people seem to know about it - not all of them "music geeks" (myself, for example) and would find it useful to know that the fellow we've just found on Wikipedia is, indeed, the guy whose blog we've enjoyed reading.  Why are we arguing, arguing, arguing about it?  Honestly!  JohnInDC (talk) 13:36, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  "whose blog we've enjoyed reading"? LMFAO Dan56 (talk) 00:55, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Forgive me, Dan56, but I don't understand what you found offensive in my comment, or what I ever said or did to you to warrant the uncivil response, "Laugh My F**king Ass Off".  JohnInDC (talk) 01:28, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Nothing, Dan56?  I wasn't asking rhetorically.   I'd really like an explanation.  Unless I suppose it's simply your MO to belittle editors with whom you disagree.  JohnInDC (talk) 11:14, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

text: Again Dan56 you're focusing on the 3rd party sources which aren't even the main point.  Per WP:BLPSPS (the BLP version of SELFPUB) we can just source to Starostin's own sites.  That's a really simple point, and your only rebuttal has been "but it's self-serving" which nobody else accepts.  --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • COI) 05:57, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  This article is based primarily on self-published sources (i.e. Starostin's website), which makes your point moot (WP:BLPSELFPUB): "Such material may be used as a source only if: 5. the article is not based primarily on such sources." Dan56 (talk) 09:10, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, that's easily fixed; see Sources section above. --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • COI) 16:40, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: N.B. Hopefully this will be fixed (I will try) in a timely fashion, before RfC closes. --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • COI) 23:12, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

text: Actually it doesn't need to be fixed, per WP:SELFPUB.  --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • COI) 12:27, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

text: P.S. FANCRUFT isn't even a policy or guideline. There's no "rule" against this at all; it's simply editorial discretion.  --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • COI) 06:22, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

text: ,  agree. So show some editorial discretion. Dan56 (talk) 09:10, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment - Wow, those actually would probably justify having a standalone article on Starostin's site. --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • COI) 03:43, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Votes