Talk:David Ferguson (impresario)/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

CD Presents Talk Page

Current issues (February 2009)

What we've agreed upon

• This article should not use the NY Arts article as a source. Primarily, because the author is/was an employee of the article's subject, but also because no one has been able to find any other source that backs up most of what's in there.
• Given that CD Presents has its own article, information that's primarily about the label should be in that article, not this one.
• Given that no third-party sources have written about Ferguson's current (2000-present) legal issues, we can't cover them here.

The currently outstanding issues are

• Is http://www.killfromtheheart.com a reliable source?
• Is the FLEX discography a reliable source?
• How useful are these as third-party sources:
  • Putting Punk In Place -- Among the Classics
  • Ferguson finds unconventional fits him just right
  • Chamber Punk
  • House of Tudor
  • Outcast Orchestras
  • In Pen and Ink

Given that they're mostly just quotes from the article's subject himself, and given that no factchecking appears to have been done on them, can we actually use any of them? If we can, what?

Am I missing anything? Dori (Talk • Contribs) 22:31, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

What DoriSmith is Missing (Reversal of Orderinchaos Edit)

Dori, you ask what you are missing. Let's deal with the bogus Angela Holm COI that you and 'uwishiwasjohng' have been pushing for 2 1/2 months.

On the Ferguson Discussion page (Dec 7, 2008) you write: "The article Rediscovered Punk Art at Art Basel, Miami from NY Arts, was written by Angela Holm. This article later mentions that Ms. Holm is an employee of David Ferguson."

You repeated the charge in a 1/13/09 Discussion page entry...

"'[F]ormer staff member'? Got a cite for that? According to the article, she's a current employee of Ferguson's, and I haven't seen anything published to the contrary. If you've got one, please add it—this article desperately needs more cited facts." Dori (Talk • Contribs) 03:26, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

...and again in a 1/16/09 Discussion page entry

"...I don't know how much fact-checking NY Arts does, but as an overall publishing industry concept, if a magazine mentions that you're an employee of someone, they don't have to check to see if you're padding his résumé. In fact, including that piece of info means that it's assumed that it is being padded." Dori (Talk • Contribs) 08:06, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

The NY Arts article mentions no such COI. And, yet you repeatedly pushed this falsehood as proof that the article was 'padded' in Ferguson's favor. Where is proof of this COI? Holm wrote the piece for NY Arts, an established publication. She was not in the employ of Ferguson then, nor can be proven that she is now.

Please point out in the article where Holm notes that she is an employee of Ferguson, because I reviewed said article to locate any such comment and have come up empty. If this conflict of interest between Holm and Ferguson can't be sourced then the NY Arts article is valid and use of it as a citation is valid as it clearly establishes a bona fide 3rd party source linking Ferguson and Warhol.

If this is how you regard one of the citations in question, I can only speculate how dubious your claims that SF Weekly, The San Francisco Chronicle and the East Bay Express (all established daily or weekly newspapers) are unreliable

In the meantime, I'll restore the Angela Holm citation and related text.

DrJamesX (talk) 00:01, 12 February 2009 (UTC)DrJamesX

"Bogus Angela Holm COI"?

From her article (March 2008):

Angela Holm is a San Francisco-based freelance writer and the Director of Productions at Big Sound, Inc., where she is currently working on the definitive restoration of the 1929 silent film, Pandora’s Box.

From the initial version of this article (May 2008):

Ferguson formed Big Sound in 2006 as a means of realizing his ambitions to preserve and present classic silent films in a live setting. ... The German classic Pandora's Box — based on the restoration of the original film funded by Hugh M. Hefner — which starred the American actress and Jazz Age icon, Louise Brooks is the first of Big Sound's restoration efforts. Spearheaded by Ferguson and Big Sound's Vice President of Production Angela Holm, the project also enlisted The George Eastman House, a preeminent leader in film restoration, as its archival sponsor.

Where did I get the idea that Angela Holm worked for Ferguson? From an old version of the article itself!

Open. Shut. No, we cannot use this article as a reference in any fashion. Dori (Talk • Contribs) 00:25, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Not So Fast Ms. Smith (Reversion of Orderinchaos Edit)

Nothing open. Nothing shut. You can't have it both ways Dori. Both you and 'uwishiwasjohng' objected to the inclusion of Big Sound description in the original article because it was not properly sourced. You can't now use that SAME 'unreliable' and unverifiable section of the original article to defend your claim for COI between Holm and Ferguson. There is no verifiable source showing a link between Ferguson and Big Sound or Pandora's Box; so, there's no legitimate source showing a connection between Holm and Ferguson. There's certainly no citation you can produce showing that Holm is presently...over ever was...an employee of Ferguson's...And, if you can't produce a sourced link showing this COI, then the NY Arts (which, again, was Holm's employer for the article, not Ferguson) is legitimate and must be allowed. Open. Shut.

DrJamesX (talk) 00:44, 12 February 2009 (UTC)DrJamesX

and, by the way, as far as I can tell, the only Wikipedia users who 'agreed' that the NY Arts article was COI between Ferguson and Holm was 'DoriSmith' and 'uwishiwasjohng' -- the same two users who, along with 'damesmartypants', either constructed or maintained the defamatory Legal History section used in a Soap campaign to discredit Ferguson. Wiping out valid citations from established daily and weekly publications (San Francisco Chronicle, SF Weekly and the East Bay Express) with no explanation, reversing edits without discussion, and promoting an unsubstantiated COI has also been part of that Soap approach.

DrJamesX (talk) 01:03, 12 February 2009 (UTC)DrJamesX

Clearly we both have strong opinions, so I've taken the liberty of taking it over to the RS noticeboard. Dori (Talk • Contribs) 01:39, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

DoriSmith on COI re: David Ferguson / Angela Holm (Copied from RS page)

Okay, here's the issue in a nutshell:

The March/April 2008 issue of NY Arts had an article by Angela Holm. Her byline for the article said:

Angela Holm is a San Francisco-based freelance writer and the Director of Productions at Big Sound, Inc., where she is currently working on the definitive restoration of the 1929 silent film, Pandora’s Box.

The initial version of Ferguson's article said (May 2008):

Ferguson formed Big Sound in 2006 as a means of realizing his ambitions to preserve and present classic silent films in a live setting. ... The German classic Pandora's Box — based on the restoration of the original film funded by Hugh M. Hefner — which starred the American actress and Jazz Age icon, Louise Brooks is the first of Big Sound's restoration efforts. Spearheaded by Ferguson and Big Sound's Vice President of Production Angela Holm, the project also enlisted The George Eastman House, a preeminent leader in film restoration, as its archival sponsor.

My thought: okay, Holm worked for Big Sound (based on her byline). Per the old version of the article, not only did she work for BS, but Ferguson started BS, and they worked together. Easy answer: it's obvious COI, and we can't use her piece as a source.

At a later point, research made it clear that there are no sources for that section at all—not that he founded BS, or even that it ever existed. Consequently, that section got cut. That's fine by me.

However, now an editor (one with an admitted conflict of interest) is claiming that this is trying to have it both ways: WP must either allow something to be in the article with no sourcing (the existence of BS) or WP must allow Holm's biased article to be used as a source (since our article no longer says she works for him).

My take: there are plenty of things in the world that aren't referenced well enough to be used in WP but we know to be true. I think it's a DUCK, and we can't use her piece as a source.

Your thoughts? Dori (Talk • Contribs) 01:21, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Additional False COI Accusation

Dori, Failing to properly substantiate a COI between Holm and Ferguson (and failing to properly provide a source for a connection between Ferguson and Big Sound) you instead try an over-reach on a different front. You have again improperly characterized my relationship with David Ferguson. Unlike 'uwishiwasjohng' I did not admit to COI in the passage you cite, as you falsely state above. In fact, I disputed 'uwishiwasjohng's COI accusation in this very passage :

And just to address any concerns of COI on my part. I'm not a 'sock puppet' or a 'meat puppet' (though if Kirkson asked me to join the band, I would seriously consider it). I'm not in the employ of Ferguson. I am an independent writer putting together a book on Ferguson and seek to maintain an appropriate professional distance from the subject

You can try to manipulate my acknowledgment of being an independent writer 'putting together a book on Ferguson' as COI but it doesn't fly. It is possible to write or engage in scholarship about a subject and maintain objectivity or a balanced point of view. Please refrain from trying to twist my words to your advantage and from issuing such baseless accusations.

DrJamesX (talk) 02:03, 12 February 2009 (UTC)DrJamesX

It's a matter of where you're comfortable drawing the line. For instance, I don't edit Foo Camp; if I have something to say, I add it to the talk page (as I did here). My COI? I attended the 2003 camp. Similarly, I don't touch the articles in the JavaScript category. But that's me, and what I consider to be ethical behavior. Dori (Talk • Contribs) 21:46, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Merger Proposal

Rather than nominate the article for deletion at this point, which I think might be successful based on reading the history of articles with mostly alternative news weeklies as cites, I'm proposing that the article be merged with CD Presents. That article has trouble as well, but I believe much of the work is work we've already done on this page. I believe CD Presents is probably sufficiently notable, since it is mentioned more often than Ferguson. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Uwishiwazjohng (talk • contribs) 05:55, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh dear

OK, I've restored just the section re CD Presents, but in checking and verifying it, several sources seem to suggest that CD Presents went out of business taking the catalogues of several of their artists (including the Avengers) into limbo. The current wording suggests that it is a current label. I'm not totally familiar with the content or the ongoing issues here so I hope I'm not opening a hornet's nest (I'm an editor from Perth, Australia) but certainly if something of that ilk is the case we should probably mention it in the article. Orderinchaos 08:55, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I think it's an important distinction that CD presents *re-released* Volume 1, which was originally put out on Go! records and is clearly in the cite. Would you be willing to let us put back that distinction? -- Uwishiwazjohng (talk) 16:15, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

CD Presents

I actually included 2 links that show CD Presents releasing Rat Music for Rat People, vol. 1 in 1982

www.penelope.net/discog.html

www.acc.umu.se/~samhain/summerofhate/dils.html (scroll down. Discog on right hand side)

Of course those 2 links were wiped out, without discussion, in DoriSmith's February 10 reversion of my edit.

Orderinchaos...the following link contains a 2004 San Francisco Chronicle article which notes "Ferguson has mined his CD Presents archive and during the next year will release a voluminous history of punk music on 30 compact discs, including the Avengers' studio material and live recordings by influential punk bands Circle Jerks, DOA, Black Flag and Bad Brains."

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/09/26/PKGVR8RVV91.DTL&hw=Putting%2BPunk%2Bin%2BPlace%2BAmong%2Bthe%2BClassics&sn=001&sc=1000

I have recently found evidence on ebay that the first title from that archives series noted in the Chronicle (the Offs First Record) has been re-released by CD Presents to celebrate the 25th anniversary of the album's original release.

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=110342130579&ru=http%3A%2F%2Fmusic.shop.ebay.com%3A80%2Fitems%2F%3F_nkw%3D110342130579%26_sacat%3D11233%26_fromfsb%3D%26_trksid%3Dm270.l1313%26_odkw%3DThe%2BOFfs%26_osacat%3D0%26_fvi%3D1

DrJamesX (talk) 18:21, 12 February 2009 (UTC)DrJamesX

Ferguson's selling stuff on eBay, eh? Given that the auction specifically says it's a vinyl LP, I don't see that it counts as a compact disc, or that it backs up his claimed "history of Punk". Dori (Talk • Contribs) 21:50, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Dori, Either you are joking or you're not keeping up with the developments in the music business. Vinyl is in; vinyl sales are thriving. Conversely CDs are dead (or at least being driven into extinction by mp3s / online digital music technology). Therefore, your argument is groundless.

If the 'CD' in CD Presents has you confused, allow me to explain. The 'CD' refers to Civil Defense, not compact disc. The CD Presents label logo (as seen on the David Ferguson article) was once that of U.S. Civil Defense during WWII. The logo was never copyrighted by the U.S. Govt. Moreover CD Presents began in 1979, well before compact discs were widely used / marketed as a music recording technology.

Besides, the objective was to show that CD Presents is still a viable, current label. The EBay reference proves that. Open. Shut.

DrJamesX (talk) 22:54, 12 February 2009 (UTC)DrJamesX

Restored Warhol mention and NY Arts citation, among other valid edits

Until a COI can be firmly sourced, established between Ferguson and Angela Holm, the NY Arts article which indicated a professional association between Ferguson and Andy Warhol has been restored. Do not take down unless users can show proof of aforementioned COI. In addition, a valid second source is included which also mentions Warhol and Ferguson working 'closely' during their professional association.

Please see WP:RS. The burden of proof is on you.

Also restored was the William Noguera passage under IFUC section, reverting back to an edit by user TheRedPenofDoom. 'uwishiwasjohng' erroneously removed this passage, stating that the article in question did not clarify the relationship between Noguera and IFUC. Requesting clarification of that relationship is one thing -- removing the entire passage is vandalism. The 5-page SF Weekly feature story on Noguera repeatedly addresses IFUC's connection to Noguera. This same article also notes a close professional relationship between Ferguson and Warhol. DoriSmith notified readers of the David Ferguson talk page of her emphasis on fact-checking ("I don't know how much fact-checking NY Arts does..."Dori (Talk • Contribs) 08:06, 16 January 2009 (UTC)) in her attempts to prove a COI between the NY Arts' writer, Angela Holm and David Ferguson. Certainly, rigorous fact-checking would have been exercised in a 5-page COVER story for a major metropolitan weekly.

DrJames,

The article never says exactly what Ferguson does for Noguera. Read it again. I read it very closely. You have to assume. It doesn't not say "Ferguson promotes Noguera's art" or "Ferguson arranges for exhibits for his artwork." It is unfortunate, but true. The cite doesn't back up the statement.

As of 1/30/09, 'uwishiwasjohng' has been engaged in a strategy to discredit weekly publications as valid sources. Forget it. The SF Weekly has a circulation of over 100,000 readers and is owned by Village Voice Media, which controls 15 other weekly newspapers, including The Village Voice and The LA Weekly. To seriously challenge the verifiability of any of those weekly publications is a disingenuous maneuver.

That's for Wikipedian's to decide and they are not clear on it. What appears to be clear is that you can rely on these for local reporting about events. The value of their editorial and features appears to be in doubt. I was trying to get clarification, as was DoriSmith, but so far we haven't been able to get any help. I question whether or not this article would survive and WP:AFD, but I'm trying not to go there.

'uwishiwasjohng's parsing of the text of the SF Weekly article on William Noguera was another attempt by him to weaken the overall David Ferguson (impresario) WP article so as to 1) bolster his attempt to remove it outright or 2) to strengthen his request to have the article merged in CD Presents. Please note, other notable IFUC sponsees (Clinton Fein, Holly Hughes and Barry McGee) and IFUC's relationship to this sponsees were added to the IFUC section. The valid restoration of the Warhol and Noguera references as well as the sourced additions of Fein, Hughes, and McGee show that Ferguson's impact on the world of art and culture extend beyond just his founding of CD Presents.

You have used the words 'supported' and 'sponsored'. Not only do those words not appear in the articles, nothing like them appears in the articles. You can say that IFUC interns helped Fein. That's in the article. But that's about all.

DrJamesX (talk) 21:23, 12 February 2009 (UTC)DrJamesX

Statistical Rebuttal Against Merger Proposal

'uwishiwasjohng' has proposed a merger of David Ferguson (impresario) bio with that of CD Presents. One justification he uses for the eliminating the David Ferguson WP article: "I believe CD Presents is probably sufficiently notable, since it is mentioned more often than Ferguson." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Uwishiwazjohng (talk • contribs) 05:55, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

But WP page view statistics betray this argument. From the inception of the articles in May 2008: the CD Presents article has been viewed more than 2,700 times. David Ferguson's article has been viewed more than 9,300 times. That sizable statistical gap alone indicates a greater interest in David Ferguson and further warrants the inclusion of his individual WP article.

DrJames,

I'm probably 2,000 of views, and you're probably 1,000. It doesn't matter. Please see WP:NOTABILITY. That is the standard -- Uwishiwazjohng (talk) 03:12, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

DrJamesX (talk) 22:00, 12 February 2009 (UTC)DrJamesX

Yes...well, 'uwishiwasjohng' you're admission to the 2,000 views only confirms your WP:COI with Ferguson and the extent to which you have been preoccupied with this article. In a posting on 'Orderinchaos's Talk Page, you admit to going to the library to research information pertaining to your edits. You take time out of your day or evening to go to the library to research for sources and information about a person whose noteworthiness you now call into question. That's a curious contradiction.

There is no contradiction. I went to the library and found that most of the sources, as I suspected, were bogus. I went to the library to prove it. -- Uwishiwazjohng (talk) 05:44, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Keep in mind, my '1,000' views since November have been primarily from a position of defense: I sought to restore text and citations that you and DoriSmith improperly removed. Or I rewrote text to minimize bias per your request and / or provided additional sourcing to satisfy the staggering number of 'citation needed' tags with which you stocked the article. In any case, my edits have been in reaction the to the volume and aggressive nature of your edits on the article.

If we improperly removed things, put them back. That is your prerogative. We removed things that were improperly sourced. When I went to the library, I checked exactly 10 sources, 1 of which was even close to what it purported to support. You continue to add sources that clearly do not support your statements. The reason there are so many cite tags is because so many of the statements you have made in the article are either outright false or half-true.

Between the creation of the article in May 2008 and evidence of your first edits in November 2008, I rarely even visited the article, let alone modified it. Yet there were still hundreds of hits per month during that period (774 hits in June, 284 in July, 820 in August, 744 in September and 660 in October).

Nothing prevents anyone from hitting their own site occasionally. Statistics like these don't really prove much. --Uwishiwazjohng (talk) 05:44, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

So you're argument regarding WP:NOTABILITY is certainly not factoring in obvious outsider interest in Ferguson and his career. Not only is such WP reader interest in Ferguson born out by the page view statistics, but none of these other viewers found the article so objectionable as to warrant the methodical destruction to which you and DoriSmith have subjected it.

Regardless, WP:NOTABILITY is the standard. Much of the material in the 3 articles about Ferguson, CD Presents and Institute for Unpopular Culture is repeated. It makes sense to merge some or all of them. -- Uwishiwazjohng (talk) 05:44, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

DrJamesX (talk)DrJamesX

KEEP David Ferguson (Impresario) article. Article should not be merged

This is a request to keep the David Ferguson WP article and NOT MERGE it with CD Presents.

This merger proposal is but another effort by user 'uwishiwasjohng' to eliminate the David Ferguson article. Note that 'uwishiwasjohng' on 1/31/09 requested deletion of the article (for which user DoriSmith instead advised Oversight) but did so only after a Legal History section that he crafted and maintained for several weeks in the David Ferguson (Impresario) article was taken down due to improper sourcing and what other WP readers deemed to be a defamatory tone. 'uwishiwasjohng' has also twice admitted on separate Discussion pages of having a WP:COI with Ferguson.

'Uwishiwasjohng's' pattern has been that -- when his attacks on Ferguson have been rejected in one area -- he simply shifts the theatre of conflict. He attempted to delete the WP article for Ferguson's organization, IFUC. Through WP community consensus, the IFUC article was retained, the deletion campaign defeated. Please feel free to review IFUC deletion discussion page.

This request to keep the David Ferguson (impresario) article is being posted should 'uwishiwasjohng' shift his energies back to pushing through the merger of the Ferguson and CD Presents WP articles. Given Ferguson's career as founder of an arts organization, which has a 20-year history supporting alternative arts (IFUC), Ferguson's contributions to art and culture extend beyond his music career as a promoter, producer and founder of the CD Presents record label. The David Ferguson (Impresario) article establishes this.

In addition to the number of San Francisco Bay Area sources The following links establish Ferguson and IFUC as having had national media exposure -- a media presence separate from that associated with CD Presents.

• New York Foundation for the Arts. Fall 1997 (http://ifuc.org/articles/fyi_barrymcgee.jpg)
• Forbes Magazine. May 18, 1998(http://www.forbes.com/forbes/1998/0518/6110336a.html)

In November 2003, The Punk Rock Orchestra, which was established by IFUC, was also profiled on CBS Radio's The Osgood File

• http://www.acfnewsource.org/art/punk_orchestra.html

The transcript of PRO's appearance on the Osgood show says "The Punk Rock Orchestra is the brainchild of David Ferguson, Director of the Institute for Unpopular Culture (IFUC)."

• http://www.punkrockorchestra.com/osgood.php)

On April 24, 2004, the Punk Rock Orchestra (PRO), was also featured on NPR's Weekend Edition...

• http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1850470

When you combine Ferguson's careers as a record producer with that of an arts organization founder, along with the local and national media coverage, then Ferguson's WP: Notability as a public figure worthy of WP article is established. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DrJamesX (talk • contribs) 21:25, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Formatting

DrJamesX, In your comment adding back the citation, you said that I changed the formatting. I wanted to let you know that the formatting was changed because I marked the statement containing the Warhol statement as dubious, since User:DoriSmith, you and I have been arguing about it for months. It it the template that changes the formatting. -- Uwishiwazjohng (talk) 00:31, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Done

All,

My work here is complete. I am done with all three articles relating to Mr. Ferguson.

• I have edited the article per User:Yilloslime's comment about alternative weeklies on the reliable sources noticeboard

Without specifics I wouldn't want to say for sure, but can't you just phrase it like, "So and so told such and such paper that ..."? Yilloslime

• I have merged CD Presents into the article per User:TheRedPenOfDoom's comments about my proposed merger to go the other way seeming WP:POINTy.

I won't come back here and edit this article again unless

• Someone adds citations that violate WP:RS or otherwise mucks with the neutrality of the article
• Some undoes the merge I just performed without a good reason

Otherwise, I am moving on. Uwishiwazjohng (talk) 04:55, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2