Talk:Steve Hoffman (audio engineer)

Locked?

I am a moderator on Steve Hoffman's forum. You have locked and protected the vandalized version of this page. Please revert to the correct edit. Thank you!—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.243.75.34 (talk • contribs) 18:09, 31 December 2005

Is this current version the correct edit? It doesn't seem to mention Hoffman's dismissal from MCA which is well sourced. For some reason someone at Wikipedia has kow-towed to a "moderator on Steve Hoffman's forum" which is not, of course, any kind of meaningful title and, in fact, smacks of quite a deal of bias. I actually think that this page should be deleted because removing sourced references just because "moderators" don't like them is pretty bad for Wikipedia's reputation.

90.198.230.215 20:11, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I second the request to remove this entry entirely. At the very least, the Controversy section should be restored. It is absolutely ridiculous that a well-sourced detail of this person's life is removed due to some individuals who seemingly want this part of Mr. Hoffman's career erased. This is akin to having a Michael Richards (Kramer of Seinfeld fame) Wiki entry without mentioning the controversial comedy club routine where he shouted racial obscenities. If Steve Hoffman is important enough to warrant a Wikipedia entry, then this important detail of his life should be included. Please restore the Controversy section OR remove this entry altogether. Huberman 20:38, 17 October 2007 (UTC)Huberman

Bob

Could you please explain further and link to the version you think is correct? Dmcdevit·t 20:48, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Even after another pass from BorgHunter, there is still vandalism from User:audiophool. This might be the best version to revert to: [1] -- Mikeblas 21:20, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Mikeblas is right on the money. http://www.web-house.net/stevehoffman/ is Claus Cheng's URL. BradOlson —Preceding unsigned comment added by 23:38, 3 January 2006 (talk • contribs)

Explanation

I'll explain why I'm not restoring the Controversy section. The request for full-prot came up on RFPP and I investigated it, and found that an edit-war was going on in full swing. I immediately protected the article, not caring about what revision it was on.

Now the rub is that after I protected it, I got a request on my talk page requesting I restore the Controversy section. I reexamined the article history - and found that the edit-war was taking place on the Controversy section. As a result, I declined it because that would make me a party in an edit-war. After another request, I asked the edit-warriors that had posted on my talk page to bring it here to reach a consensus.

Admins are not supposed to use their powers to "win" content disputes for someone. Settle this here, please, and stop asking that I restore the section. -Jéské^{(v^_^v)} 21:45, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Guess what genius? I DID bring it here. I laid out my opinion of why the section belongs. If you want biased Wiki entries, go for it. I really don't care. But I DID bring it here to reach consensus and all we get is a half-assed comment by mcow and your rant. Please stop whining, read the FACTS and restore the damn Controversy section. Thank you. 12.152.10.41 21:53, 17 October 2007 (UTC)Huberman

I said settle it here. Talk with the other parties; they may be willing to listen. I'm not going to restore the section because it's the focus of the edit war, and I will not use admin powers to skew a dispute. -Jéské^{(v^_^v)} 22:00, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I thought things were supposed to work this way: SUBSTANTIATED arguments are KEPT in Wikipedia; UNSUBSTANTIATED arguments are DELETED from Wikipedia. You are not supposed to be part of the argument; your mission in Wikipedia is to verify that, during edit wars, the TRUTHFUL, ACCURATE and FACTUALLY PROVEN revision of an article is protected. I'm not satisfied with your line of thinking - do you also blindly protect other articles by practically ABSTAINING from taking any sort of decision whatsoever? You just became a part of the edit war by protecting an article without the only part that was actually documented! Way to go!

I can imagine the following scenario: Neo-Nazis deleting the Holocaust and all that stuff from Hitler's life, and you protecting an Adolph Hitler page because you want to avoid an "edit war", and deleting every reference to the Holocaust because you don't want to become "part of it", and because the edit war was taking place "in" the Holocaust section. Wake up! Your job is to make decisions based on the rules, not to avoid them!

Besides, what do you really expect from Steve Hoffman's representatives? That they say "Oh yes, you are right, Steve Hoffman did misplace those tapes. Go ahead, document it, we don't mind!" MEMO TO YOU: they WILL protect the interests of their BOSS, and they WON'T let the truth come out.

PROTECT what is FACTUALLY PROVEN. AVOID editing from users without FACTUAL PROOF. Is this really so hard to understand? ValerieSolanas 16:42, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I would like to begin the discussion by asking MCow or any of his associates why they feel that the controversy section SHOULD be removed. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.244.31.184 (talk) 22:14, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

The other parties have no interest in a consensus. They are merely acting to obscure documented evidence. Notice how we ASKED for discussion of this matter but they continued the edit war. Sidar 22:40, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Might I suggest the aggrieved parties go to Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard? If there is a conflict, that can be enough to warrant a block. -Jéské^{(v^_^v)} 08:33, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

How he does it?

I've wondered how Hoffman makes remasters sound better than anyone else. I wondered if it was some equipment he had that no one else had or something he did that no one else could do. I just read the article and it says "keeping the signal simple and organic, rather than over-producing the recording by adding an unpleasant amount of compression, limiting and equalization. He does not use any digital-based noise reduction." Why can't other engineers leave off compression, limiting, equalization, and digital noise reduction? Bubba73 (talk), 02:54, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

if engineers left out compression,limiting,eqing and noise reduction then they wouldnt be doing anything at all! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.151.57.208 (talk) 09:55, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I understand that he is very, VERY moderate about it. Unlike some records that you open on a sound editor and the waveform is a FULL FLAT FORM, ALL MAXED OUT. Ew. -- 201.9.5.212 (talk) 19:00, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Parsing Down the Article

Currently this article reads like a resume with its laundry list of artists whose recordings were touched by Mr. Hoffman in some way. This article should be streamlined to read more like a proper encyclopedic entry. Otherwise, I will be placing a VfD upon this article as it is of negligible importance outside of a certain group of individuals. Sidar 18:24, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Message to Steve Hoffman or his representatives

I'm keen on opening the debate as to whether the "Controversy" section should be re-instated or not.

I ask for Steve Hoffman or his representatives to counter the claims made where Steve Hoffman misplaced Buddy Holly and Roy Orbison master tapes.

I think it should be agreed by all parties involved that, if it's proven (by facts, references, etc.) that Steve Hoffman did NOT misplace said tapes, the "Controversy" section should be removed PERMANENTLY, and the article should be provided protection.

If Steve Hoffman or his representatives can't or won't prove that the allegations are false, the Controversy section must be re-instated immediately, permanently, and the article must be provided some sort of protection against further vandalism.

I am proving, with references, that Steve Hoffman was accused and fired from MCA because he misplaced master tapes while working at MCA.

References

  1. Bone to Pick. Houstonpress.com. Retrieved on 2007-10-04. http://www.houstonpress.com/1996-12-19/music/bone-to-pick/full

  2. Couch, Ingman, Perry. Roy Orbison History: Part One. Now Dig This. Retrieved on 2007-10-16. http://www.geocities.com/orbisonarchive/history1.html

I'm waiting for SH or his representatives to prove otherwise.

ValerieSolanas 16:56, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Valerie. I'm wondering why you'll only accept information from Steve himself, or his representatives. Anyone can edit Wikipedia, so why won't you let them? How will you confirm whether someone is (or is not) a "representative" of Steve? -- Mikeblas 18:28, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey Mike, hope you are doing fine!

Agreed. Any kind of proof whatsoever from anyone should be admissible. If it's proven the "Controversy" section is incorrect, it should be removed. But - as long as there's proof about the allegations, the Controversy section should be re-instated.

ValerieSolanas 19:07, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

That's not even the point Mikeblas. The problem is that many of us are giving our valid reasons on why the Controversy section should remain and no one is giving any reasons why it should be removed. Whoever is removing that section is not providing a valid reason for doing so. Perhaps you'd like to be the first to give it a shot? Why should the Controversy section be removed? Huberman 18:57, 19 October 2007 (UTC)Huberman

Request for edit

{{editprotected}}

I request this page to be labeled with a "Conflict of interest" tag, since it is blatantly obvious Steve Hoffman's representatives are twisting the truth by deleting relevant information.

Requesting the following paragraph.

"This article is being constantly edited by Steve Hoffman's representatives, deleting information believed to be correct. Due to this fact, it's being labeled as "Conflict of interest" until this dispute is resolved". ValerieSolanas 16:22, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

An article can't be labeled conflicted. Users, however, can be tagged as such with {{uw-coi}}. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 19:32, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

This article is a joke

Hopefully, this article is NOT representative of the way Wikipedia handles information. There's FACTUAL proof for the controversy section. There's AMPLE documentation proving each and every allegation. And just because a "representative" of Steve Hoffman demanded its removal and requested protection, Wikipedia editors did such a thing. Isn't this a place where knowledge is supposed to be shared? Are we to understand that if a group demands for any information to be removed, such a thing will be done? ValerieSolanas 16:17, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Conflict ot Interest

Believing that the 'moderators' of Mr Hoffman's personal website do indeed have some sort of conflict of interest I have called for the page Steve Hoffman to be deleted: Conflict of Interest Kalowski 10:08, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Controversy section

I also recommend premanent removal of the Steve Hoffman entry from Wikipedia. My reasons are well documented below. Huberman 13:42, 18 October 2007 (UTC)Huberman

Without the Controversy entry in the Steve Hoffman page, I would recommend the permanent removal of the entry from Wikipedia in view of the unbalanced viewpoint that the article represents in its current format. The removed Controversy section is a very well sourced and informative addition to the entry, in fact arguably the only section that is. Without it, we are left with an article that doesn't even mention such basics as Hoffman's date of birth; a misleading timeline for MCA ('In the 1980s, he worked at MCA for nine years'), which is untrue, as the acousticsounds website mentions Hoffman joining DCC in 1987. I would argue that this entry is criminally below Wikipedia standards, and does the site no favors whatsoever. Warpy72 08:15, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I am not biased in my compilation of the Controversy section. None of what I added is in response to any action taken by either Mr. Hoffman or his website administrators ("Gorts"). My account at the Steve Hoffman forums is in good standing. However, what is ridiculous is the unwillingness of either Hoffman or his associates to recognize that the controversy does exist. It has been demonstrated in the battlefield known as this Wikipedia article that there is no intention of discussing the matters. I, as a member of those who wish to have that section included, am a rational person and willing to compromise. However, this is not the case for Mr. Hoffman et al. Sidar 22:55, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

The opinion of someone who is biased because he was banned from the Steve Hoffman site? Mcow1 21:39, 17 October 2007 (UTC).

Per Mr. Couriano's request, I have reached the opinion that the Controversy section should be restored and KEPT on this page. My reasons are as follows: 1. This particular controversy is a key detail in the life & career of Steve Hoffman. 2. The controversy is sourced, unlike many of the other details listed in the biography of Steve Hoffman. 3. The attempts to remove the controversy are the result of a few followers of Steve Hoffman who are trying to remove this embarrassing incident from Mr. Hoffman's biography even though it DID happen and again, is well-sourced. 4. Please see my Michael Richards analogy below. 5. The controversy is not defamatory, but rather, gives an insight into the workings of Steve Hoffman, who, in my opinion, does not neccesarily deserve a Wiki entry but since he does have one, it should be accurate and unbiased. 12.152.10.41 21:15, 17 October 2007 (UTC)Huberman

Removing Artist List

I removed the listing of artists that Mr. Hoffman has "remastered." Bob Ludwig only has a few examples of artists he has worked with, not 12 lines like Mr. Hoffman's entry. The information is misleading as well, it makes it appear that Mr. Hoffman has worked with each and every artist on the list, which is false. How do we know the information is correct anyway? Perhaps a source for each artist would be appropriate. Either way, the information is a bit extreme and does nothing to add to the entry. It would be ok to add a couple of artists that Mr. Hoffman has "remastered" and not every recording he has touched. George Martin's entry doesn't even do that. Huberman 15:28, 12 October 2007 (UTC)Huberman

Controversy Surrounding Mr. Hoffman's Dismissal from MCA

An explanation of MCA releasing Mr. Hoffman should be included in the article as Mr. Hoffman held an important position in the corporation (as evidenced by vault access). Evidence of this scandal is present in print form, as cited in a late 90s article by the Houston Press (link) and another article published in the late 80s concerning unreleased Buddy Holly recordings (yet to be found online). Please do not remove the "Controversy" section as citations will follow the statements printed within. Sidar 18:17, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

200.38.162.11 21:11, 14 September 2007 (UTC)Agreed. There's enough proof so as NOT to remove this section.

189.146.105.114 15:02, 16 September 2007 (UTC)It seems that "MCow1" is deleting this paragraph time and time again, stating "slander" as the reason. I please ask Mr. Cow to stop his nonsense. It has been factually proven this was the reason Hoffman was dismissed from MCA. I'd suggest banning MR. Cow if he keeps up with this behavior.

Once again the Controversy section has been removed. I'm restoring it because it RELEVANT and SOURCED unlike the rest of the entry. I recommend that anyone removing this section be cited for vandalism. Huberman 13:40, 16 October 2007 (UTC)Huberman

If removal of the controversy section continues I will apply for page protection, or, alternatively, page deletion. Sidar 16:02, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Sidar, can you please apply for page protection as this edit war is getting ridiculous. The Controversy section is well-sourced and should NOT be removed by people who clearly have some sort of agenda. Huberman 13:33, 17 October 2007 (UTC)Huberman

Note on talk page etiquette

Please add new sections at the bottom of this page, and add new comments below earlier comments. Editors are interjecting their comments here into discussions that are almost two years old. --Ronz 19:08, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

And please sign your comments with ~~~~ or something similar. --Ronz 19:26, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Relevant policies/guidelines

I've noticed that there is very little discussion of the relevant policies/guidelines to the discussions above. WP:BLP discusses issues specific to biographies. WP:COI discusses issues regarding conflicts of interest. --Ronz 20:07, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I found the following paragraph regarding issues about biographies.

Criticism

The views of critics should be represented if they are relevant to the subject's notability and can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to side with the critics; rather, it needs to be presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone. Be careful not to give a disproportionate amount of space to critics, to avoid the effect of representing a minority view as if it were the majority one. If the criticism represents the views of a tiny minority, it has no place in the article.

Content should be sourced to reliable sources and should be about the subject of the article specifically. Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association. Editors should also be on the lookout for biased or malicious content about living persons. If someone appears to be pushing an agenda or a biased point of view, insist on reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability.

I believe the Controversy section clearly adheres to the "Criticism" issue.

ValerieSolanas 20:20, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. By the way, Ronz, you mixed several 2005 comments with new ones :-/ this page is even more confusing now. Plus, there hasn't been a lack of signing to edits, thank you very much. Sidar 20:27, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Please keep your comments on topic per WP:TALK. --Ronz 21:08, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

This point is key:

Content should be sourced to reliable sources and should be about the subject of the article specifically. Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association.

Unfortunately, we don't even have guilt by association because no one is stating their case for REMOVING the section. What we do have, is a reliable source. It is not biased or malicious. It is, as the section states, a controversy and nothing more. No one is arguing any of the other facts of the article, although they could do with some sources on a few points, but that's an argument for another day. Huberman 20:38, 19 October 2007 (UTC)Huberman

Also relevant from WP:BLP is the following:

Wikipedia also contains biographies of people who, while notable enough for an entry, are not generally well known. In such cases, editors should exercise restraint and include only material relevant to their notability. Material from third-party primary sources should not be used unless it has first been published by a reliable secondary source.

The Controversy section is absolutely relevant to Mr. Hoffman's notability as most people who are familiar with Mr. Hoffman and his work is familiar with the "Buddy Holly master tapes" story. It was also sourced from a reliable secondary source thereby meeting the criteria outlined in WP:BLP Huberman 20:49, 19 October 2007 (UTC)Huberman

I took at look at the sources, and do not think the proposed content is sourced well enough to meet BLP. --Ronz 21:08, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Ronz, the two sources are newspaper articles. What is the criteria that should be met for BLP? It's not that I believe a newspaper is completely authoritative - but I just can't simply imagine what kind of proof Wikipedia demands. I mean, there's a "Goatse" article in here. What kind of proof do you demand?

ValerieSolanas 22:03, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to wait what others have to say. I'm unimpressed with the quality of the sources, what little they detail about Hoffman, and how those sources have been used in this article. --Ronz 22:35, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Ronz, please correct me if I'm wrong here. You mention that you "(are) unimpressed with the quality of the sources, etc.". I've always edited Wikipedia under the assumption that editors do not judge the value of sources relevant to the article. Am I incorrect? Do Wikipedia editors usually decide what they deem to be a "quality" source, and what isn't? Doesn't this lead to bias? ValerieSolanas 22:43, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you reread WP:BLP and WP:RS concerning what they say about sources. --Ronz 22:46, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Biographies of Living Persons/Noticeboard

This dispute has been added to the BLP noticeboard: Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Steve_Hoffman Sidar 20:51, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! --Ronz 21:09, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

External links

Homage/parody of stevehoffman.tv is a discussion forum, so should be removed per WP:EL. --Ronz 21:14, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Notable?

While Hoffman appears to be notable, the article needs independent, reliable sources to meet Wp:bio. --Ronz 21:25, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Ronz, if Wikipedia doesn't consider the sources provided in "Controversy" as reliable, then the article should be deleted entirely. "Controversy" was the ONLY section that had reliable sources in the first place, and it was the one you deleted.

ValerieSolanas 22:23, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Editors should be given the chance to research and suggest sources here, no matter the other disputes. Linking the two issues together suggests WP:POINT. --Ronz 22:33, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not trying to "rig" the system. I'm just trying to understand the reasoning behind the deletion of the only part of the article that was substantiated with proof. ValerieSolanas 22:39, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

We've more than enough sources to show notability now. See Talk:Steve_Hoffman#Possible_references below. --Ronz 16:30, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

We're going round in circles - Please delete the article

If Wikipedia editors will not accept a newspaper article as a point for discussion and entry of this section nor a published biography then there is no point in continuing this discussion. I have lost my faith in Wikipedia. If the said published biography was not an accpetable source then there would surely need to be an allegation of libel. As far as I am aware there is no evidence of this or of Mr. Steve Hoffman bringing any legal action towards Houston Press or the publishers of Now Dig This! I have called for this Hoffman article to be deleted. Please see my entry Kalowski 10:08, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed on all counts. With all due respect, Ronz is the strangest mod on Wikipedia I've ever encountered. He has been presented proof of every allegation, and instead of taking a stand and deciding on approving every sourced comment, he hides behind Wikipedia policy and his own criteria. If this is an indication of how wikipedia works, then this place is useless for serious research. EricGoberman 15:17, 20 October 2007 (UTC) Hahahahahaha, yeah, Wikipedia used for serious research. Good one, Eric.

As I mention above, this appears to be WP:POINT. Editors are repeatedly arguing that if they cannot get the content they want into this article, then the article must be deleted. --Ronz 16:02, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Editors are repeatedly arguing that if the article doesn't include factually proven content because a Wikipedia moderator doesn't care about its contents, then the article is useless and could be deleted. EricGoberman 16:06, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Listed for deletion

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steve Hoffman. This article has been listed for deletion, but the appropiate template has not been added to the article. Thunderwing 13:19, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Possible references

I haven't found many easily accessible articles about Hoffman (yet) but there appears to be more than enough to meet WP:BIO if one just does a search. Here's a sample of what I've found:

• Yarlung Records: A simple formula to record young musicians
• DISC JOCKEY MASTERS ARE THE DOMAIN OF PREMIUM CD GURU STEVE HOFFMAN
• Reissue roundup: Audio Fidelity's first reissue plus some Concord Jazz reissues from Groove Note and Pure Audiophile.(The Music)
• FINDING PURIST BLISS MUSIC

--Ronz 15:49, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

One of your references is The LA Times. We are providing proof via Houston Times. What makes the LA Times somehow more authoritative than the Houston Times? EricGoberman 16:07, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to repeat myself, WP:BIO and WP:BLP are to completely different issues. The article should not be deleted if it meets WP:BIO. Content in the article must meet WP:BLP. --Ronz 16:12, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Some that might not be considered WP:RS. Someone familiar with the audiophile industry would be helpful sorting through the many sources available such as:

• Tales Of Hoffman: Michael Fremer Speaks with Steve Hoffman: Part 1
• The Steve Hoffman Interview
• Steve Hoffman: Mastering for the Breath of Life

--Ronz 16:12, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

People familiar with the audiophile industry have already stated Steve Hoffman misplaced the master tapes of Roy Orbison and Buddy Holly, and was fired from MCA as a result. That's one of the things he's famous for in the audiophile circles. This has been substantiated - apparently enough, not to your liking. EricGoberman 19:10, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Please keep on topic per WP:TALK. This section of the talk page is for discussion of possible references to add to the article. Thanks! --Ronz 15:13, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Two more (added to the AfD by Dissolve):

• The mastering master
• In Search of the Holy Hi-Fi Grail

--Ronz 16:54, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

It's hard to say whether some of these references are reliable, or not. The metrotimes.com article most definitely is. I don't think we should rely on any article which is claimed to be hosting an article from another site. If it isn't avaible from the original site, we only have the hosting site's word for it that what they're posting is the real deal. The jazztimes.com article doesn't do anything to help us to build an article, and I don't know what the reliability of musicangle.com is. It may be, I just don't know. Corvus cornix 02:13, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Source for last paragraph?

How about a source for the last paragraph of the entry:

While at MCA, Hoffman championed the idea that reissues of an artist's back catalog could be worthwhile and profitable for engineers, record companies and artists. His approach to remastering aims to endow each CD and vinyl record with what he calls "The Breath of Life" attained by avoiding compression, limiting and equalization. He does not use any digital-based noise reduction.

Huberman 20:58, 22 October 2007 (UTC)Huberman

I'm not sure I understand. Are you saying that it needs a source, or that you know of one? --Ronz 21:45, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I suppose Huberman is asking to verify sources for the article in its current state. As it is, the article is full of unsourced statements. 200.38.162.11 22:01, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

The source for this statement seems to be [2]. There's more on this subject in the reprint from Hoffman's feature in Tape Op magazine[3], a well respected magazine in the field of professional audio engineering. I would probably edit the statement from "avoiding compression, limiting and equalization" to "uses compression, limiting and equalization sparingly" to more accurately reflect the sources. dissolve^talk 17:16, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Make a decision

The moderators of Steve Hoffman's forum have been so threaten by our suggestions of reinstating the controversy section that I have actually been banned from their forums! If this is not the action of people with something to hide then I don't know what is. I will state my case simply and plainly.

• Sources exists that verify the allegations made against Mr Hoffman
• These sources are of the same quality as the ones proffered by user Ronz
• The controversy section is relevant to Mr Hoffman's career as he is involved peripherally in the music business and other, famous, musicians have been affected by his work. Some would say positively (via his remastering) and some would say negatively (by removal of master tapes). But both sides should be represented.
• How and when will a decision be made? If the controversy section is not to be reinstated I would like to know - I have other things to do in my life, you know.

Kalowski 10:36, 21 October 2007 (UTC)(Banned from the Hoffman forums)

I've also been banned from the Steve Hoffman forums because of the edits. One of the mods (who goes by the username MCow1 in Wikipedia) informed me they had found about it by matching the IP address on both the forums and this place. That is the reason why I created a new user - I found his "sleuthing" to be deplorable and sad. I asked him, in very polite terms, to please prove that the allegations made in the "Controversy" section were wrong, and that I'd add them to the article and delete the whole thing. In response, I was banned from the forums, without any response - just because I posted a dissenting (but well documented) opinion about their boss somewhere else. There's no way of proving this, obviously. I just thought it's an interesting story, because of the analogies of what is happening here. Also, as user Kalowski said, we are not arguing his merits as a remastering engineer (which are remarkable - I myself own copies of his work and I'm satisfied with them). But in order to portray a fair and balanced view of his career, the "Controversy" section is a must. There's no way of understanding his involvement with MCA Records without it. EricGoberman 14:28, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Please do not use this discussion page as a forum for disputes outside Wikipedia, or discussions unrelated to this article.

Please note that the requirements for WP:BLP are extremely high, while those for WP:BIO are minimal.

As for a "decision" on the contents of this article, that will only come from discussions on the actual topic. --Ronz 16:20, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Ronz, these discussion will clearly last forever beacues of what is happening. i.e.

• There are those of us who feel the allegations warrant inclusion. We have stated our case.
• You have stated your belief that the sources are not strong enough
• We feel that your sources are of equal strength to ours
• I called for deletion because I felt that the quality of editing here was damaging to Wikipedia
• A number of people have called for the page to be kept - probably a majority
• However, very view have called for the CONTROVERSY section to be removed
• Perhaps at this stage a head count or vote of the interested parties?

Kalowski 17:23, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing the discussion back on topic. I'll try to address your concerns in detail...

Inclusion of such infomation should be considered from the perspective of BLP. There's been very little of such discussion, and that consists mostly of introducing BLP.

"We feel that your sources are of equal strength to ours" There are no competing sources here. Inclusion of material requires sourcing. WP:BIO guides us on how to decide if a person is notable enough for an article. WP:BLP guides us on how to determine if controversial material should be included in such articles (and in other articles). BIO and BLP have very different requirements of sources.

"I called for deletion because I felt that the quality of editing here was damaging to Wikipedia" Article deletion is not decided on how an article is edited, but on the sources available.

"However, very view have called for the CONTROVERSY section to be removed" See WP:VOTE. Also note that while the standards for inclusion for such information are extremely high, the standards for removal are very low. It is the responsibility of those that want the information included to make the case for it. See WP:BLP and WP:V.

I hope this clears things up a bit. Thanks again for focusing on the topics at hand. --Ronz 17:46, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Remember this quote:

I'm going to wait what others have to say. I'm unimpressed with the quality of the sources, what little they detail about Hoffman, and how those sources have been used in this article. --Ronz 22:35, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

?

I have been waiting for these others too, Ronz. They have not said anything. They have been active enough to ban myself and EricGoberman from the Steve Hoffman forums, but not participate here. I actually informed one of the moderators of that site about this problem so they could et involved and the truth could come out. That is when I was banned. Anyway, it is pretty clear that they have no contradictory evidence. Why has the section NOT been restored?? Kalowski 17:32, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

See my comments above. I'll reopen the BLPN case. --Ronz 17:47, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Ronz. Can I quote from the Verifiability section:

In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers.

Even if we call the Orbison quote a fanzine rather than a biography (I'm not fully sure which it is myself) the Houston Press article fulfils this criteria and should be included.

Kalowski 17:58, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes. It's just that BLP is in addition to other policies and guidelines like WP:V. We can't just say WP:V is met, then ignore BLP. --Ronz 19:15, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

One final point and then I'm going to hold off for a few days. Speaking of sources, I notice that none of the current article is sourced at all. The four External Links cannot be counted, surely? Two of them are to Mr Hoffman's own site. Can we source the claim that he "earned a degree in mass communications from California State University, Northridge." It should be fairly easy. Kalowski 18:20, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Hoffman's site could be used as a source for his own opinion, but little else. See WP:SELFPUB. --Ronz 19:15, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Evidence of COI problems?

Can someone please point out some evidence for the COI dispute? --Ronz 20:19, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

MCow1 has been repeatedly deleting the "Controversy" section. User MCow1 (or MCow, I can't remember) is a moderator ("Gort") at the forum run by Steve Hoffman (www.stevehoffman.tv/forums; coincidentally enough, this is the moderator who banned me for posting the "Controversy" section at stevehoffman.tv) You can check this fact by yourself fairly quickly. I suppose this is evidence enough of COI. EricGoberman 01:29, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

When did Mcow1 disclose this information? --Ronz 03:41, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

That he's an SH employee? His membership title indicates so - he's a "Gort", or a mod at his website. He edited the pages on Wikipedia under that exact same moniker. This information is not private or propietary - it can be verified by anyone interested. EricGoberman 14:06, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

mcow is indeed an "employee" of Mr. Hoffmans. One visit to Hoffman's forum will prove this fact. This qualifies as a COI because an "employee" of Mr. Hoffman is trying to delete a relevant, WELL-SOURCED detail of Mr. Hoffman's biography. Those of us asking for the section to remain, however, have no affiliation to Mr. Hoffman whatsoever. Huberman 13:38, 22 October 2007 (UTC)Huberman

Controversy revisited

Please use this section to list sources and quotes from those sources that might be used to support a section in the article about the controversies surrounding Hoffman. --Ronz 16:28, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

• Bone to Pick 19 December 1996, HoustonPress.com

• ^ Couch, Ingman, Perry. Roy Orbison History: Part One. Now Dig This. Retrieved on 2007-10-16. http://www.geocities.com/orbisonarchive/history1.html "An unscratched copy of Je-Wel 101 in top condition currently sells for $2,800. A scratched copy in top condition currently sells for $2,000. Sadly, The Je-Wel tape box was taken from Clovis to California in 1984 by MCA's Steve Hoffman and never returned." 200.38.162.11 22:51, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

The houstonpress.com article can be used to establish notability, but there's not much there to write an article on. Corvus cornix 02:15, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Here's another one. Steve Hoffman usually hosts "fundraisers" over at his forum to pay for server expenses. He usually sells CD-Rs of the material he once remastered (without, one may add, paying royalties, etc). This can be documented from his forums' posts. Is this allowable? EricGoberman 13:27, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

You better cite those fast if they're still on the live forums... Sidar 14:49, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Real motives

If you want to see the real motives behind why these people keep badgering Steve Hoffman, look no further than here:

http://stereocentral.tv/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=256&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0

They have an axe to grind and are trying to do it through Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.154.38.205 (talk) 03:31, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

All I see there are people complaining about being banned from the Steve Hoffman forums because of the Wikipedia edits. Am I missing something? Besides, I thought forums, etc., weren't considered as proof of anything in Wikipedia. If anything, it supports the claim that Steve Hoffman moderators don't want the "Controversy" section to appear at Wikipedia, and are "punishing" their members for documenting it. BTW, most people have been signing their comments. Why aren't you signing yours? 189.146.91.36 12:41, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Because he's LeeS, who is also a member of the Steve Hoffman's forums. EricGoberman 15:57, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

That site has nothing to do with online articles from NDT and Houston Press. Warpy72 06:32, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with a discussion elsewhere about ignorant wiki editors. Sidar 14:33, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

That's a strange page to link to. I see no 'real motives' there. Everyone is discussing and wondering why this page is protected. Perhaps the people on that site are the ones who want the controversy section returned. Well, they have made their agenda clear form the start. So the real motive behind why these people keep badgering Steve Hoffman is... they want the allegation of tape theft brought to light. Kalowski 14:56, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

How long can these issues last? Will this article be permanently protected? Will it be deleted? EricGoberman 21:52, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

DEFINITIVE proof / documentation regarding the Controversy issue

Here's some more information that may end this debate. This is definitive proof of the allegations made in the "Controversy" section, taken directly from the Steve Hoffman forums.

Steve Hoffman has been known to use illegal / pirated CD-R copies of his previous work in order to support his business / forum. These copies are made without regard to previous copyright holders, and have routinely gone for high prices.

In this thread, forum member Scott Jimenez, of Fullerton, CA., declares having bought a pirated CD-R copy of The Doors' "Soft Parade", mastered by Steve Hoffman, from Steve Hoffman himself, for $1,800 (one thousand, eight hundred dollars) describing himself as a "fool" for having done such a thing.

http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/showpost.php?p=1966599&postcount=591

(You'll need to be signed on the forums to look at the pictures).

If you look at the last images, you'll clearly see a TDK CD-R disc with handprinted text on it - irrefutable proof of Hoffman's "shady" activities.

It's quite possible the Steve Hoffman moderators will take down this post as soon as they can. I captured the images to my hard disk, and will post them somewhere else in order to verify this information.

EricGoberman 02:32, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't say proof of the other issue (missing masters), but this definitely is another aspect of his controversial activities which should be noted at Wikipedia to provide a balanced view of Mr. Hoffman. Sidar 03:01, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Also -check out the CD-R. It has Steve Hoffman's signature in it. EricGoberman 03:23, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Let me further explain the issue -this particular CD was never released. Steve Hoffman kept a copy for himself, and sold it to the highest bidder. He routinely does this to secure funds for his bulletin boards - he has been known to sell CD-Rs of, among others, 10CC's "The Original Soundtrack". EricGoberman 04:36, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't see this as a source we can use. The arguments here are appear to fall into WP:OR.--Ronz 18:03, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Do we know if this was actually illegal though? I do not know either way, but is it possible Steve was allowed to keep his working copies, to do with as he pleased? Again, I do not know, but this very well might be possible. Acetates and such regularly turn up on eBay and these were once in the hands/owned by the engineers, band members, etc. Working copies in and of themselves do not imply copyright ownership (similar to one buying a 35mm film print) but usually one is allowed to have working copies of one's work and do with them as they please; however, the rights to the underlying works are not transferred. But the object (in this case a CD) can be given or sold. —Preceding unsigned

Well, if it WERE legal for him to sell these cdrs, then why has the above mentioned post suddenly been deleted from the Steve Hoffman forum archive? BTW, here is a screenshot of the original post for anyone who may have missed it (thanks JamieTaint). http://img254.imageshack.us/img254/5939/whatareyourrarestcdsnm9.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.244.31.184 (talk) 19:01, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Links

{{editprotected}} I'd like to add one general link to the References section. I'd like to replace the External links section by removing one link all but the official site and adding two more which are reliable sources:

References

• In Search of the Holy Hi-Fi Grail JazzTimes, March 2007.

External links

• Steve Hoffman Website
• The Mastering Master Metro Times, 4 April 2007
• Yarlung Records: A simple formula to record young musicians Los Angeles Times, 1 October 2007.

This will give us an independent reference, and a two external links that all show notability of the subject. (Revised per discussion below.) --Ronz 16:54, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Basically, deleting every reference that shows any wrongdoing, and keeping a couple of vanity sites (Claus' Steve Hoffman Info Site, Steve Hoffman Interview archive, whis is run by Steve himself).

I have to ask you this, Ronz. Do you have any personal interest in Steve's article? It seems to me (and a couple of others) you do. Let's do one thing - do as you please with "your" encyclopedia. I don't care anymore, and I've lost all faith in this place, its editing process, and its neutrality. EricGoberman 01:48, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Then avoid controversies. Everyone has a bias towards someone or something; being a Wikipedian does not negate it. For example, I am anti-republican; hence I avoid editing political articles because of my political biases (and because the majority are controversial). -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 02:00, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I have been reading this with great interest. I am new to this so bear with me. If what you say is true Jéské, that one should avoid editing on a topic that they have a bias toward or against, then what to make of Ronz actions here. Ronz has actively researched this topic, having gone out on the web to find sources in support of keeping the article against deleting it. Should this not be the job of the interested parties who are involved in supporting that side of dispute? I was under the impression that moderating did not allow for that kind of involvement. None of the individuals who seem to have a problem with what has occurred to "their" page have chimed in. Why is Ronz doing their work for them? I do not have a stake in this one way or another, however I am a bit dismayed by the way in which this is being moderated (for lack of a better term). If the article should stay, ok. If the controversy section must go, so be it. My concern is that this be handled appropriately, and to these eyes it does not seem to be.--Foultip 19:59, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I am a bit more dismayed that the ones who requested a full-prot in the first place aren't even showing up here to defend their removals. Ronz's actions are actually supported by Wikipedia policies (Verifiability, Biographies of living people). Any user can find sources for an article, regardless of their stake in it - I have seen articles get trimmed to NPOV. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 20:38, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your input Jéské. I see your point. It is still strange to me, and to you if I read your post correctly, that one half of the dispute is being solely managed by a Wikipedia staff member (Ronz) - No offense to Ronz intended. If the offended parties can not be bothered, then I can not see how important this page can possibly be. In fact having visited this Steve Hoffman forums site, where this dispute seems to emanate from, I see they have over 14,000 members, and the parody page has around 60 or so. Quite an odd representation here from such a large community. Just some food for thought. Thanks again for you thoughts Jéské. --Foultip 21:23, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia, for the record, has no "staff members" independent of the Wikimedia Foundation. It's an all-volunteer project. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 21:46, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I understand now that there are no staff members. There are those with administrative powers though, and up till now I did not realize that Ronz or you, Jéské, were not admins. (see how far speaking with authority can get you ;-) ). So this begs the question, where does Ronz get the authoritative tone from? He has not anymore ability to guide this discussion than anyone else, and for all we know has COI issues here. Again, no offense Ronz. I am just trying to understand how a dispute works, and these are my observations. I was pointed to this dispute by an associate inquiring as to how Wikipedia functions. I can now say I am quite bewildered. It seems a bit wild west to me. BTW who is the user with the admin. powers that protected the Steve Hoffman entry. Just curious. --Foultip 23:08, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I am an admin - and I am trying to remain as neutral as I can in the dispute because I was the one who protected the article.

A dispute on Wikipedia can start innocuously (some botched formatting or misapplication of policy) or maliciously (removing sourced material or complete disregard for policies) and, once it starts, goes into discussion on the talk page (which is when we're doing). Next up, if the dispute isn't resolved, are RfCs, which should happen when talking is useless (in fact, I'm amazed an RfC hasn't been filed yet). If that fails, there's Wikipedia:Third opinion, and finally, The Supreme Court of en.wiki, the ArbComm. Besides, one need not be an admin to have an authoritative tone, especially if he is intimate wil policy and knows exactly what an article needs - I will quote my own experiences at Talk:List of Pokémon (241-260) as such an example, as the majority of my posts there were made before I became an admin. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 23:25, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

My apologies Jéské, I did not see your name on the list of administrators. Thank you very much for the information. This has been an education. I for one would like to see this go to the next step. Even though I am new to this process, I can not see that this page is worth this kind of effort, especially when one of the aggrieved parties can not be bothered to take part in this discussion. With all due respect to those who were against the Controversy section, I find it hard to believe that the page in question is of any real importance to you or any one else due to your lack of interest, and in lieu of that, your opinion is highly compromised due to COI issues. Being in the employ of the page in question's namesake should be an automatic red flag. I believe your heart is in the right place, but that is not a unbiased location. While both parties seem to be less than neutral in their opinions, I have to agree that Steve Hoffman is a minor figure in the recording industry, at best. While your links are useful Ronz, I do not see how they elevate him to notable. I have read them and while informative and interesting he has not played a pivotal role in this industry. I have even read his forums, and I must say they are highly informative and entertaining. Which leads me to this idea, perhaps the article should not be about Steve Hoffman the re-mastering engineer, but the Steve Hoffman forums themselves. These forums seem to be more influential than the man himself. Thoughts? --Foultip 00:22, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but this is complete bullshit. How is this not a black and white issue? Steve Hoffman apparently stole a couple of master tapes according to at least two online sources. Regardless of one's personal feelings for the man, there is proof that these events apparently occurred. Keep in mind also that Steve Hoffman and his associates have yet to deny these allegations, despite the fact that they patrol this page constantly. So let's cut the crap already- it is obvious that certain wiki editor(s) are doing whatever it takes just to put an end to the discussion.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.244.31.182 (talk) 13:33, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Steve Hoffman and his associates are *absent* from this page. They have not said anything here or on the AfD, AFAICT. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 20:38, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

"Basically, deleting every reference" The article has no references. I'm requesting one be added. --Ronz 16:54, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

"keeping a couple of vanity sites" You've had plenty of time to raise this issue and have not. I'm happy to remove those sites. I'm revising the request above. --Ronz 16:54, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, let's follow WP:TALK and keep discussions to the section topics. This topic is for updating the references and external links section. --Ronz 16:56, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• I cannot see a consensus for these edits, so I'll remove the {{editprotected}} tag. If you are able to find a solution that everyone is happy with, feel free to add it back. Tra (Talk) 23:00, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} I'd like to add one general link to the References section. I'd like to add two reliable sources to the External links section. None of these links are contested in any discussion to date:

References section, please add

• In Search of the Holy Hi-Fi Grail JazzTimes, March 2007.

External links section, please add

• The Mastering Master Metro Times, 4 April 2007
• Yarlung Records: A simple formula to record young musicians Los Angeles Times, 1 October 2007.

--Ronz 02:23, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

And I would like to add these to the references section:

http://www.houstonpress.com/1996-12-19/music/bone-to-pick/full

http://www.geocities.com/orbisonarchive/history1.html Kalowski 10:47, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

The geocities.com url is a blog. It does not meet WP:EL as far as I can tell, let alone WP:RS. --Ronz 16:33, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

External Links Question: Just curious, why is there a link to a self-proclaimed "Homage/parody of stevehoffman.tv" in the existing external links? Are parodies relevant - or even allowed - in Wikipedia entries? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.69.81.2 (talk) 19:44, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I've commented above: Talk:Steve_Hoffman#External_links --Ronz 20:41, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely. Both forums, the homage/parody and the self promotional Stevehoffman.tv should be deleted as not being relevant. Kalowski 21:40, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

http://www.geocities.com/orbisonarchive/history1.html Kalowski 10:47, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

The geocities.com url is a blog. It does not meet WP:EL as far as I can tell, let alone WP:RS. --Ronz 16:33, 29 October 2007 (UTC) No it isn't. It is a reproduction of the work "Now Dig This" : Sources: Kevin Crouch, John Ingman (for Now Dig This) and Mick Perry on Part One, Collin Escott on Part Two; Fan Clubs Newsletters: In Dreams, Texan Star, and personal collection on Part Three. Kalowski 21:40, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what that is, let alone have any way of verifying it. --Ronz 15:22, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

"Now Dig This" is a British periodical that is considered one of the preeminent journals on the history of early Rock and Roll. The fact that the original article can not be sourced directly from a web link should not be an issue so long as we can site issue date, number, and page. --Foultip 18:16, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for answering my question. Do we have the issue date, number, and pages? (I don't think the page numbers are necessary though). --Ronz 00:53, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Why shouldn't you give the resource the benefit of the doubt, especially when I (and others) have no means to locate "issue date, number, and page" of the article?? Does that mean it's non-credible? No. Sidar 19:10, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I am giving it the benefit of the doubt (See WP:AGF and WP:TALK). I asked for simple and basic verification information. Without it, I'm concerned that it will not meet WP:V. --Ronz 19:15, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I can't see a consensus to add these links, and moreover they aren't important enough that they need to be added while the page is protected. Please resolve whatever issues led to protection and then request unprotection at WP:RFPP. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:19, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

@CBM: Thanks for the reminder, but you're not really helping. Sidar 15:05, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Request changes to the article

{{editprotected}}

I request that the links pointing to Steve Hoffman's vanity pages be removed.

• 1. Claus' Steve Hoffman Info Site
  2. Steve Hoffman Interview Archive

I also request the following reference be added.

http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/music/article2877291.ece

I request a Controversy section be added, with the following text.

Among the industry giants, such as Peter Mew, from Abbey Road Records, Steve Hoffman is considered "the leader of the audiophiles". Nevertheless, he dismisses them as a small group, and considers Hoffman and his associates to hate him because of his views.

It's all documented.

Thank you very much. -- EricGoberman (talk) 17:55, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. Considering the lack of references at the momement, the external links are probably worth keeping. They should at least be discussed first.

As for the Controversy section, the suggested text is confusing and should be discussed and rewritten to be clear and not violate BLP. ---- Ronz (talk) 18:08, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Ronz, we are talking about Peter Mew here. I'm aware you are more knowledgeable about D&D, Pokémon and fantasy stuff, so let me help you out. Peter Mew is one of the most important mastering engineers in the world. Have you heard about Abbey Road Studios? He's the head engineer there. His opinions are completely relevant to this discussion, especially his POV on Steve Hoffman. You have so far asked for relevant info regarding a "Controversy" and we have given you such. But the really interesting thing is why you don't take out those fancy vanity sites of SH.tv as a reference. Why is it? Is this really an NPOV thing?

-- EricGoberman (talk) 21:08, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Ronz, please check out who Peter Mew is, and consider whether adding his comments would be a worthwile addition to wikipedia. Thanks.

EricGoberman (talk) 02:00, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Discussed! Ha!! Claus' Steve Hoffman site is a fan-site. Very nice for Mr Hoffman to have a fan site but not noteworthy or important in any way. OK Leve the link to his own forum, but as a link not a reference. Having just read the atricle from the Times newspaper noted above I feel that that is a more important link as it highlights his position in the small industry of remastering and shows another mastering engineer's opinions -- Kalowski (talk) 19:37, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

There is not agreement for this edit, so I will disable the editprotected tag. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:51, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

It's not as much as there's no agreement in this edit; more like Ronz doesn't even care about them. The fact that a fan site and Steve Hoffman's own site are appearing as "references" is completely laughable, to say the least. Peter Mew may be the most famous recording engineer alive, and yet an article which directly references Hoffman is not included.

Why? Bias? 189.146.98.52 (talk) 18:18, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

So, hmm, is this article as important as, say, Adolph Hitler in that both *need* to be protected? That's some dubious honor.

At least take out the vanity sites, for decency's sake. This would be laughable, if it wasn't so... oh, wait. It's laughable.

EricGoberman (talk) 18:58, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Eric, what's actually laughable is that you run the "anti" Steve Hoffman site.... talk about a biased perspective. Get a freakin' life! Do you really have such hated of Steve Hoffman that, not only do you run an "anti" SH site, but that you come here trying to bring your agenda as well? Wow, he must have really pissed you off somehow..... are you a wannabe engineer or something?

I wish I had as much time on my hands as you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.33.174.133 (talk) 05:14, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Does it matter? You're not helping much. Sidar 15:31, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Sidar, I fully agree with you.

It's interesting to note how those of us who are requesting politely to add / delete entries from the article sign our petitions WITH OUR REAL NAMES. I question the motive of anyone who doesn't do the same. Anyway, this particular IP points to Atlanta, its owner: Lee Scoggins. Anyway...

Dear "anonymous": I do not run the "anti" Steve Hoffman site. It's not even anti Steve per se - you have your own sub-forum, devoted exclusively to content you posted on SH. So, there you have it - either you are lying or have no clue. Probably a bit of both. Biased perspective? Dude, I own 20 or so DCCs. I like Steve's work. That doesn't mean he doesn't indulge in "shady" activities, like shilling for products he has never used, or using his "Grover" alias for selling cheap, underperforming cables at a premium price. As for a life, I believe I have more of it than you ever will, considering your posts on SH.

Again, I do not run the "anti" Hoffman site. Prove it, or else I may sue you for libel, Lee. The ball is in your court. I have no agenda whatsoever.

I'm an engineer. A real engineer, BTW, not like SH, who took a liberal arts class or something like that and calls himself such. Or like you. I'm an electromechanical engineer, have a masters in computer science, and I'm finishing my second masters on telecommunications. So, excuse me for saying this - it's YOU the one who is a wannabe engineer. Not that it matters, though.

As for time in my hands - maybe if you stopped poating non-stop on SH's forums, you may have some time yourself. Pot, kettle, black.

Buh-bye, Lee.

EricGoberman 16:49, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

How many months does it take to resolve a dispute for an unknown person like Steve Hoffman? Dear god. Perhaps a unbiased moderator would be helpful. This Ronz seems like a complete tool. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.152.10.41 (talk) 21:15, 14 December 2007 (UTC) I agree. This post is right on the money. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.244.31.184 (talk) 03:14, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

If anything, from what I've been seeing it's Ronz who's been Switzerland, while everyone else has been reenacting the Battle of the Bulge. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 04:58, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, all I see is many members asking for article unprotection and a few moderators filling in the role of the absent nay-sayers. Sidar (talk) 16:41, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Requested protection of current article

Due to the fact that SH representatives have again questioned the validity of the "Controversy" section in this article, I have requested protection for it in its current state. I find it completely inadmissible that they are deleting proven facts while trying to protect the image of Mr. Hoffman. EricGoberman (talk) 16:49, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I second the request 12.152.10.41 (talk) 17:14, 17 January 2008 (UTC)Huberman

The request for protection has been denied.

I'm unaware of any "SH representatives" editing here. This has been discussed at length. If anyone can provide any evidence at all, please do so. Further, anyone is allowed to edit here as long as they follow Wikipedia policies and guidelines, so even if evidence were actually provided, the only reason to bring this issue up would be in the context of clearly demonstrating that these individuals are violating policies and guidelines.

I'm unaware of any "deleting proven facts." What facts and who is doing this? --Ronz (talk) 17:36, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

This is crazy. We've been debating this issue for months. Again - user MCow1 is a Steve Hoffman associate, and he originally deleted the Controversy section. I don't see why anyone should delete the only section of the entire article which is backed up with sources. EricGoberman (talk) 19:12, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I request a new moderator. 12.152.10.41 (talk) 17:39, 17 January 2008 (UTC)Huberman

I suggest trying WP:EAR, where you'll most likely to get a prompt response. You might also consider WP:RFM or WP:MEDCAB, which tend to be much slower. WP:ANI might also be appropriate at this point, given the amount of prior discussions in multiple venues. --Ronz (talk) 17:45, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Unreliable Source

Hi Ronz, the information on the auction of the disc in question (The Doors 'Soft Parade') seems to be first person and valid to me. It was sold by Steve Hoffman to one of his forum members. I do not see a dispute over these facts. The disc (Signed by Mr. Hoffman)and price paid for it are not refuted by Mr. Hoffman, especially when you consider that this is a post from Mr. Hoffman's own forum. I did some reading at his site, and in fact Mr. Hoffman takes a dim view to violation of copyright laws and the sale of bootleg material. This of course makes his actions indeed controversial. Consider for a moment the industry in which he works. Foultip (talk) 18:44, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

A picture of a disk does not verify any of the information in the article, nor what you mention above. Maybe this should be brought up at WP:RSN? --Ronz (talk) 19:04, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand, Ronz. This has nothing to do with any of the articles. This is a separate point of controversy that someone has posted. It is referenced by a link to verification of said controversial action. Foultip (talk) 19:22, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

A picture of a disc signed with his name and emblazoned with a "Property of Scott Jimenez" watermark, a link which points to his own forum (and the thread he deleted afterwards) aren't proof enough? EricGoberman (talk) 19:16, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

As I said, take it to RSN.

Foultip wrote, "I think you misunderstand, Ronz." I don't understand what you're referring to here. It's being used as a reference. I'm saying it is not a reliable source, it does not verify the statement that it is being used as a reference for, and I'm unable to verify any of the information you mention above in your comment dated 18:44, 17 January 2008. What is it I don't understand? --Ronz (talk) 19:31, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

More sources

OK, here's another source. Michael Fremer. Music Angle web site. Hope this is good enough for you. EricGoberman (talk) 19:19, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

"While no one criticized Hoffman's results- in fact all thought his reissue work was among the finest and most consistent sounding- there was some sniping: the most frequent complaint I heard was that Hoffman sometimes takes credit for the work of others, that in some cases he's given mastering credit, when in fact the actual work was done by others under his supervision." http://www.musicangle.com/feat.php?id=61 —Preceding unsigned comment added by EricGoberman (talk • contribs) 19:21, 17 January 2008

Barry Diament, legendary audio engineer, has this to say about Hoffman:

"By coincidence, issue 101 of The Absolute Sound, the audiophile magazine from which I'd resigned a few months earlier had arrived at the show. In it was a condescending, accusatory and innuendo laden letter from disc masterer Barry Diament criticizing Hoffman's digital transfer of The Beach Boys' Pet Sounds .

Though the technique was subtle, essentially Diament accused Hoffman of boosting the bass, playing with levels during song introductions and upping the overall level to the point of overload. The letter went on to challenge my listening abilities because I called Hoffman's disc "The Pet Sounds to own" (the vinyl LP hadn't yet been issued). "

EricGoberman (talk) 19:25, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Look, I'm tired of this. You have to meet WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:BLP. Take it to WP:RSN or WP:BLPN. --Ronz (talk) 19:30, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I sincerely don't get it, Ronz. We are trying to substantiate the "Controversy" section so it suits your criteria. The rest of the article is completely unsubstantiated. Why, I must ask, do you insist on ignoring valid references? Do you know who Barry Diament is? Michael Fremer? Peter Mew? If you don't, then I'd respectfully suggest a new wiki admin is needed here - someone who knows about the music industry. EricGoberman (talk) 23:43, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm obviously not ignoring anything. I am simply questioning the reliability of the sources, and have suggested a venue for resolving this dispute. Please take it to WP:RSN or WP:BLPN. --Ronz (talk) 23:54, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't see why we should take this issue to those instances. Fact is, anyone who knows who Mew, Fremer or Diament are knows that their reputation is beyond reproach. Their statements regarding Hoffman are 100% authoritative. What I'm starting to think is (and I do not mean to insult you) is that your ignorance in these areas is potentially damaging a 100% NPOV article. It would be like me trying to moderate an edit war regarding peritonitis - I'd have no clue as to what I'm doing. EricGoberman (talk) 01:53, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

We are tired of this as well, Ronz. Does the following paragraph meet WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:BLP?

"While at MCA, Hoffman championed the idea that reissues of an artist's back catalog could be worthwhile and profitable for engineers, record companies and artists. His approach to remastering aims to endow each CD and vinyl record with what he calls "The Breath of Life," attained by avoiding compression, limiting and equalization. He does not use any digital-based noise reduction."

Please find me a source for "The Breath of Life" reference. I implore you.

12.152.10.41 (talk) 21:59, 17 January 2008 (UTC)Huberman

Or a source for "reissues of an artist's back catalogue could be worthwile and profitable for engineers", or whether he avoids compression, limiting and equalization, or DNR. Fact is, that entire paragraph could have been pulled out of anyone's vivid imagination, and you (Ronz) aren't even asking for "sources", much less the "reliability" of said "sources". What is going on here??? EricGoberman (talk) 01:55, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

The comments attributed to Barry Diament are from a letter he wrote many years ago. What may not be known here is the Mssrs. Diament, Fremer and Hoffman have all discussed this since then and it is water under the bridge. Mr. Diament withdrew his initial comments, which he felt did not do justice to Mr. Hoffman's fine work. Mr. Diament is also a regular contributor to Mr. Hoffman's forum and he holds Mr. Hoffman in very high esteem. - Campbell Bonaire —Preceding unsigned comment added by Campbell Bonaire (talk • contribs) 18:48, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Last Warning

The article has been protected again and will remain so for four months. If, after the four months are over, there is still edit-warring, I will have Loxodon Banhammers in hand and will block ANY PARTY engaging in edit-warring, regardless of whether they've been on the talk page or not.

This is getting asinine. Unless everyone talks it out and comes to a consensus before the article is unprotected, I am planning to take this to RfC and, failing that, RfArb to get the edit-warring to stop. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 19:41, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Jéské, out of sheer curiosity I read your web page on Wikipedia. It seems to me you are an expert on comics and Pokémon. You are out of your element here. There's no way you can succesfully moderate on article on the music industry with your credentials. I have to wonder - is this the way Wikipedia works? Will, say, an expert on Sailor Moon or GiGi moderate an article on nuclear power? This is exactly what is going on here. Is there a way we can ask for a moderator with at least *some* knowledge of the music industry? If this is Wikipedia's modus operandi (Pokémon experts moderating every article out there), then I pity the fool that trusts its contents. EricGoberman (talk) 15:48, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Hilarious. Actually, who cares? Who is this guy? Why have I ever bothered to get published facts here for a guy whose main job is surely to press 'record'. A mastering engineer? Or a re-mastering engineer? What the hell does it mean? Protect it forever, man. Hell... delete the poor guy! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kalowski (talk • contribs) 20:11, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Watch it, Kalowski. Trolling and incivility are blockable offenses. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 20:23, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe the best solution at this point would be to delete the Steve Hoffman entry entirely. This will solve all your edit-warring problems. I, for one, have no intention of stopping. If that means a ban, so be it. I honestly do not believe Steve Hoffman is relevant enough to deserve a Wiki entry. If he absolutely must have one, however, it should be UNBIASED and the Controversy section should remain. It has SOURCES backing up each FACT. 12.152.10.41 (talk) 20:27, 17 January 2008 (UTC)Huberman

The behavior of certain editors is not a reason for deletion. See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Steve_Hoffman.

If you are refusing to follow wikipedia policy, then I'm sure a admin will be happy to block you. --Ronz (talk) 22:09, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

What Edit Warring?

I see Ronz sorting through sources and finding any Wikipedia policies to invalidate them. I see Jéské making M:TG references and imparting threats with his recent adminship. I see a few colorful characters embellishing the information on Steve Hoffman. -Sidar (talk) 02:27, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Would you mind not assuming bad faith, Sidar? -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 02:29, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Good luck cleaning this mess up. Sidar (talk) 02:41, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

As someone who has followed but not participated in the edits over the few months, I won't say that I assume 'bad faith' but I can't assume 'good faith' either. Look at the points that Huberman, et al., pointed out above about the Biography section being completely POV and having zero (not even one) citation or reference. That section reads like a commercial for Hoffman's service. No comment was made on the points that Huberman brought up. Isn't there a way to bring in an unbiased editor (e.g. one without an agenda or axe to grind) to address these issues? A neutral party that can apply the same standards to the complete article and not just one portion that they don't like? ExampleOfHumanBeing (talk) 14:29, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Where is the discussion?

It just occurred to me that the only discussion going on here is between a few people that believe the Steve Hoffman entry should include a Controversy section, or should be removed entirely, and a couple of admins. Where are the folks that believe the Controversy section should be removed? Why are they not adding their thoughts to this discussion? Very unusual. I believe these the admins should demand a more balanced discussion from this point on. It is absolutely ridiculous that no one is stating their case for why the Controversy section should remain, no one except Ronz that is. I believe we have a biased admin in our midst. Either way, there is no actual discussion going on here. Jeske asks for "everyone [to talk] it out and [come] to a consensus." Who should come to a consensus, Jeske? The only folks that seems to DISCUSS anything here are myself, Sidar, Kalowski, and EricGoberman. Look at the discussion for the last few months, it is ONLY US. Each point we make, each suggestion we recommend, has been rebuked by Ronz. How can there be consensus when there is NO DISCUSSION between two opposing parties?? Insane. Do you want to know what our consensus is? Our consensus is delete the entry or keep the Controversy section as is. Period. Why is this so hard to understand? 12.152.10.41 (talk) 14:45, 18 January 2008 (UTC)Huberman

Good point, Huberman. Look what Ronz put on my talk page:

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. However, please be aware of Wikipedia's policy that biographical information about living persons must not be libelous. Any controversial statements about a living person added to an article, or any other Wikipedia page, must include proper sources. Thank you. [1] --Ronz

Is this some sort of veiled threat? Or does everyone who participates on a discussion page receive the same information? The reason that I ask is because I have ONLY contributed to Mr. Hoffman's talk page apart from removing one link from the main page. Yet, Ronz, informs me that

biographical information about living persons must not be libelous

Why single me out for this? Ronz has not yet given me any reasoning behind this. In fact, he said,

I gave you the diff, and I see another editor has warned you as well. Any other questions? --Ronz

Whatever "I gave you the diff" means. The other editor warned me about trolling yet Ronz has warned me about libel. And he's been quiet condescending about it too... Any other questions?

Kalowski (talk) the ανθρηπος —Preceding comment was added at 15:41, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll try to state my case with as much respect as I can for every party involved. I sincerely believe Wikipedia admins are hiding behind strange acronyms. Everytime a point is made, we are told to "check the DIFF", "WP:BS", or whatever. Maybe those acronyms do make sense to some, but let's be honest here - we are not Wikipedia fanatics. We are common people who share some knowledge about a specific field. To expect us to fully understand the bureaucracy behind Wikipedia is, frankly, ridiculous. I guess that if we were told what on earth we are doing "wrong" (at least according to Jeske's and Ronz' criteria), instead of telling us to go read dozens of bureaucratic regulations this whole issue could be resolved amicably.

I would also respectfully request that our Wikipedia admins at least tried to understand the contents of this article. So far, they haven't had any issues with any unverified statement in it - but they have argued to no end that those arguments backed up by sources should be removed. If they just knew about the reputation of the people mentioned in the sources, they'd understand how authoritative they are in the field.EricGoberman (talk) 16:03, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

It's rather silent here. It seems that the opposing party has disappeared again. Sidar (talk) 17:51, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

'A consensus is defined as a general agreement among the members of a given group or community, each of which exercises some discretion in decision making and follow-up action. (Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensus)' I'm interested to see where this dialogue takes us this time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.152.10.41 (talk) 18:45, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Apparently, we've all agreed that:

1) The Controversy section is well documented. 2) The rest of the article isn't.

I don't see anyone arguing otherwise. Does this mean we've reached consensus? EricGoberman (talk) 02:06, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Nope. I've made detailed arguments, based upon Wikipedia policies and guidelines, as to why the Controversy section is inappropriate. Consensus is not going to be reached by ignoring these policies and guidelines. I've made multiple suggestions on how to continue, which have been ignored as well. Per WP:V, the burden of evidence is upon those editors that want to include the information. As I've repeatedly pointed out, you'll also have to meet WP:RS and WP:BLP. --Ronz (talk) 02:33, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

As for consensus, see WP:CON. WP:TALK might be helpful as well. --Ronz (talk) 02:35, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

As someone else posted before, we are no Wiki nerds, Ronz. Instead of pointing out thousands of useless acronyms, can you please tell us what is it that bothers you about the sources? Trust me, I have better things to do with my life than trying to understand wikipedia policies. 189.146.89.206 (talk) 13:55, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

The entire controversy section inappropriate? Even if we parse down all the gray-area sources, we still have the credible Houston Press article. -Sidar (talk) 05:26, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

The following section does not meet WP:RS and WP:BLP either:

"While at MCA, Hoffman championed the idea that reissues of an artist's back catalog could be worthwhile and profitable for engineers, record companies and artists. His approach to remastering aims to endow each CD and vinyl record with what he calls "The Breath of Life," attained by avoiding compression, limiting and equalization. He does not use any digital-based noise reduction."

I recommend removal of this entire paragraph. 12.152.10.41 (talk) 15:15, 23 January 2008 (UTC)Huberman

Recommendation from an outsider - Deletion

Hi all, After reading the above, and looking at the article, at this moment in time it is clear that the Controversy section is overblown. It violates WP:UNDUE and doesn't appear to be well sourced. Also, is the Controversy what Steve Hoffman is "best known for"? If so, then there needs to be clear sources stating that this is so rather than the hodgepodge of cherry picked statements at the moment. Personally I believe the whole Controversy section should be pruned back to a single sentence - however with the references in the article at the moment, it will be difficult. All the supplied references have had liberal doses of WP:SYN applied to make the arguement that is currently present in the article. This is a Bio of a living person and per the Wikipedia policies it requires excellent referencing. It doesn't have that at the moment. In fact I'm left wondering if Steve Hoffman is notable at all. I am leaning towards recommending deleting this article. Comments? Shot info (talk) 08:43, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the recommendation for deletion. Steve Hoffman is not a notable person. His addition makes many question the integrity of wikipedia. 12.152.10.41 (talk) 15:01, 24 January 2008 (UTC)Huberman

Feel free to try another AfD. I'll unprotect the article so that the changes you recommended can be made before or during the course of the AfD, and, as I have stated above, any edit-warring will be met with blocks. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 10:10, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

We've been down the deletion line before. Ronz doesn't want it. He tells us its not WP:THIS and WP:THAT but he still won't tell us why the Houston Press or the Times articles are not reliable. They don't seem reliable to him. Kalowski (talk) 18:22, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I've stated my opinion on the subject of the article, however I have also reviewed the previous AfD and I must admit, most of the arguements for "keep" I disagree with. But in saying that, lets go with that and keep the article. However in saying that, as I stated above, the Controversy section does not appear what Hoffman is "best known for" hence it's dominance in the article is in violation of WP:UNDUE (and probably WP:BLP. So if nobody objects, I'm going to prune it right back to a single sentance within the body of the text. Shot info (talk) 23:31, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

The whole Biography section should be removed. If you're going to put [citation needed] on everything, how about leaving the Controversy section with [citation needed] on every point. It is absolutely ridiculous to leave a sentence like "His approach to remastering aims to endow each CD and vinyl record with what he calls "The Breath of Life." What is his approach to cassette tapes endowed with? Are his mp3s endowed with the "Digital Breath of Life"? I would settle for leaving the first paragraph and doing away with the rest of it. 12.152.10.41 (talk) 20:21, 25 January 2008 (UTC)Huberman

A More Acceptable Edit

OK, I went back and removed some of the more embellished/very POV writing to be more acceptable as per Wikipedia's standards. I have, in the process, restored the Controversy section with all four sources, reverting from a recent edit by Shot info (talk) who blatantly tried to restart the "warring". I hope my edit is more acceptable. -Sidar (talk) 04:53, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, there is the slight matter of this think called undue weight that kindof trumps "information with sources". It seems that Sidar hasn't read the previous discussions above, and instead wishes to (re)engage in some editwar of his own creation. I must note that I am a previously uninvolved editor, and I have pointed to basic policy (such as WP:BLP in my arguments) something Sidar only alludes to ("to be more to be more acceptable as per Wikipedia's standards"). Now because we are editing a BLP, it is important that the sources are top class....which they aren't. The "sources" are cherry picked quotes which are then synthesised together here in Wikipedia...something called original research which editors should know and understand. Now per BLP, such crap editing can be removed (if you don’t believe me, read the policy and tell me where I am incorrect). If editors think that I am violating policy, by all means report me here > WP:ANI. Shot info (talk) 05:00, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Sidar, you did more than revert. You added new content with a reference. I checked the reference, and do not see how the new content is supported by it, so have tagged it as such. I think it should probably be removed completely per BLP. --Ronz (talk) 05:21, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, the two currently unreferenced items will be removed. -Sidar (talk) 19:35, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Why were my edits reverted?

Please answer the following question: Do you consider Michael Fremer to be an authoritative source? If so, why are you removing the Controversy section paragraphs?

I also finally deleted the "Breath of life" paragraph. It's ridiculous, considering the context of an Encyclopaedia article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by EricGoberman (talk • contribs) 21:03, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

The question here is why did you revert edits discussed above, without so much as a comment? You seem to be edit-warring here. Please stop immediately. --Ronz (talk) 21:11, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, let me discuss the following: I'll be editing the article and adding Michael Fremer's comments on Barry Diament and Steve Hoffman, since they establish Mr. Hoffman's mastering angle appropiately. EricGoberman (talk) 23:44, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but that's no discussion. Good luck on avoiding being blocked. --Ronz (talk) 23:11, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't really care if you block me - if that's what makes you feel good about life, be my guest. I'm not "scared" at your blatant abuse of power but hey - whatever. Really. I'd only like to ask you why you refuse to accept Michael Fremer as a credible source. Just Google the guy. He's famous. He's influential. He's credible. Why is it so that you refuse to accept his interview as a source? EricGoberman (talk) 23:44, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Michael Fremer, obviously Wikipedia disagrees :-). FWIW, check out WP:RS on what Wiki calls a reliable source. Shot info (talk) 04:09, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

The fact that Michael Fremer is not in Wikipedia has nothing to do with his reliability... it just means nobody has yet created his page. EricGoberman (talk) 18:22, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

You're confusing WP:RS with WP:BIO. This concern here is that verifiable, reliable sources are provided. --Ronz (talk) 18:52, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

"Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living persons. Thank you. --Ronz (talk) 20:45, 12 June 2008 (UTC)"

Yeah, whatever, Ronz. The only reason I didn't cite my source is because I don't trust you. Kalowski (talk) 16:32, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Editors that repeatedly violate BLP will find themselves blocked or banned very quickly. --Ronz (talk) 16:37, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

The only reason I didn't cite my source is because I don't trust you - what on earth??? Kalowski, please read WP:RS and WP:BLP. You are wishing to add info into the article, the onus is on you to provide the pertinent information per Wikipedia policies. Ronz is correct in his actions. Can I recommend that you assume some good faith? --Shot info (talk) 00:37, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense?

Please explain in words of more than three acronym based letters what is wrong with this section that I added and "impartial" Ronz deleted:

Hoffman's personal website and forum, populated by fans, yet strict with critics, regularly runs forum fund-raisers, such as this: [4] which allows members to contribute to the running of the website. Yet, the website is not subscription based, and there are no accounts published as to the use and distribution of the money. Because of this there has been some questioning of these fund-raising tactics. Some people who question the validity of this fund-raising have been banned from contributing to the forum discussions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kalowski (talk • contribs) 18:52, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

The edits were reverted because of WP:OR and WP:BLP concerns. If you follow the links, you should get some idea of what is wrong with the sections. Simply, this article and talk page are not forums for gossip and attacks. --Ronz (talk) 20:20, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

?? But what I said is true. Follow the link —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kalowski (talk • contribs) 22:38, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:V states, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true." --Ronz (talk) 22:59, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

But I linked to a forum fund-raiser on his own website? Verified??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kalowski (talk • contribs) 23:27, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Verified, but not by a reliable source. --Ronz (talk) 02:09, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Cleaning up the article. Yet again

As per Wikipedia protocol, I'll delete all unsubstantiated references and add all the sourced information.

If you are going to add nonsense as "Breathe of life", you'd better have some good sources to back it up.

Meanwhile, I'll add substantiated sources to support all of the contents I'll add.

DO NOT DELETE substantiated information without discussing it first.

EricGoberman (talk) 02:06, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Why'd you remove the http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/aug07/5429/3 reference, in favor of a musicangle.com article? --Ronz (talk) 03:06, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry Ronz. I wasn't aware I had done such a thing. I noticed you (yet again) removed the Houston Press article: http://www.houstonpress.com/1996-12-19/music/bone-to-pick/full. And once again I ask you - why are you deleting facts published by the press? Please don't say "WP:BS" or stuff like that. Try and explain it to me as if I didn't know a thing about Wikipedia (because I don't).

Check this out:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Houston_Press

Apparently, the Houston Press has a readership of more than 645,000 people. It's notable enough to be included in Wikipedia. It has won several awards (http://www.houstonpress.com/about/). Perhaps you don't like the way the criticism is worded? I'll edit a new version, and see if you like it.

EricGoberman (talk) 13:38, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for replacing the reference.

Regarding the Houston press article: I removed it then and just now because the references provided do not verify the information added, and the information is defamatory. See WP:BLP. I suggest you take this to WP:BLPN.

Also, I'm unable to get the mp3.com reference to work, or figure out what it is supposed to be linking to. --Ronz (talk) 16:23, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I again ask you to please explain what WP:BLP is. I can't understand it myself, or how it applies to the Houston Press link. Nevertheless, I thank you for not removing the sourced information I added to the article. I appreciate it very much. EricGoberman (talk) 16:32, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi folks, I saw the 3O and thought I'd drop in. I did skim through some of this talk page, and the article, but I don't feel I'm up to speed enough to really offer any content comments, so I'm not removing the 3O post. The one thing I did want to say, was that seeing that there have been previous 3O attempts, and there's still an issue - have you considered bumping this up to an RfC? It could give you not only more "eyes-on" but perhaps folks that haven't checked this out yet. Just a suggestion. — Ched (talk) 08:15, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh and Eric, the WP:BLP thing (If I understand your question) probably relates more to the topic of the article than directly to the reference itself. I know Ronz is a stickler on WP:RS, but without doing my own investigations, It's obvious that Houston Press is a reliable resource, unless the actual ref is to one of their blogs - if that's the case it may be more difficult to make it work. BLP is notoriously more strict on refs than most other areas of wikipedia. — Ched (talk) 08:23, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

The latest section added has some issues. For staters, Music Angle is a blog. So it's going to have an uphill battle on a BLP. There are some OR issues - for example stating that Peter Mew (note the redlink) is an "industry giant". Obviously not giant enough for Wikipdedia. So there is a source needed there, or at least a 3rd party souce to show why his opinion on Hoffman is pertinent to be included in a biography of Hoffman (per BLP). Likewise Davis' opinion. It's not relevant in a biography to say "people said X" as biographies are just a list of random quotes. Otherwise we all can just add our own opinions willy nilly. The last paragraph needs a source at anyrate. Finally the entire section can be shortened as it's just too long and WEIGHT kicks in. Ta Shot info (talk) 11:54, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

If you don't know who Peter Mew is, and think that he is not "Giant enough for Wikipedia", then you will never understand this article. I could tell you that he worked since 1967 on Abbey Road, but I guess you wouldn't know what that is, either. Being listed on Wikipedia has nothing to do with his legendary status - at all. And, Music Angle is not a blog. It's Michael Fremer's site. It doesn't let you comment on its articles, and it's more of an online magazine. Fremer is an incredibly respected columnist, but I suppose you don't know about him, either. I have to agree on two things. 1) The section is too long and it's biased. I'll find more references on Hoffman's work. EricGoberman (talk) 19:01, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't have to know who Peter Mew is...the article needs to have the sources that make his opinion relevant to the subject. Given that he isn't listed on WP and WP has some really dubious notability in many fields (ie/ like this article) if Mew isn't on WP, then your claim that he is notable is in dispute. But it still doesn't address the issue(s). And yes, Music Angle is a blog. But rather than trying to tear me down it appears that you agree with the germane parts of my discussion - which of course revolves around writing encyclopedic content. Shot info (talk) 01:54, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Third opinion request still in dispute?

I'd requested a third opinion, "Disagreement about information removed "per BLP" (removed here and removed here) and request for further explanations of WP:BLP." However, I'm wondering if this is still in dispute while we wait for someone to respond. --Ronz (talk) 23:58, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I suppose there are two things that make a third opinion really difficult. First of all - the Houston Press is the only article to be found regarding the Buddy Holly incident. Second, nobody else is making an argument about removing the information in the first place. It all comes down to whether you believe the Houston Press is indeed a respectable, credible source of information. EricGoberman (talk) 01:01, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

3PO x2 Questions about the usability of a source in a BLP can be asked at wp:BLPN. As Ched as already suggested, if BLPN doesn't help work this out, then the next step is an RFC. More than 3 people have given opinions, so this is no longer a 3PO issue. NJGW (talk) 20:50, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality disputed

What happened here, Ronz? I thought we were OK now. I used factually correct and true sources, the persons mentioned are experts in the field, and everything is presented in a NPOV way. Why did you add a "Neutrality disputed" notice? NOBODY is disputing the facts I posted about. I'll delete the messagem, since as far as I can see, there's no dispute whatsoever here. If you add it back, please explain your reasons to do so. EricGoberman (talk) 20:38, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

The material gives undue weight to these sources and the selection of material does not represent the overall perspective of each source. --Ronz (talk) 21:12, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

We have a problem here, then. Nobody is arguing non-NPOV but you. You are a moderator, not an interested party. Someone else would need to argue the article is biased. And, again, I see nobody has argued to the contrary. Do you see what the problem is? You are a part of this discussion, and the judge of it. But, so be it. Please tell me what's the viewpoint of the material I present, and why my arguments are invalid. A simple "gives undue weight" won't do. If you want to argue, argue with facts, please. EricGoberman (talk) 21:25, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I understand your concern. I'd like to resolve the BLP issues first. Are there problems with leaving the notice in the article in the meantime? --Ronz (talk) 22:34, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

None at all. Thanks for your patience.EricGoberman (talk) 22:45, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

New sources, more info

In an effort to keep an NPOV throughout the article, I've made several changes. Hope you approve of them, Ronz. I believe it's far better than 1 week ago. EricGoberman (talk) 19:49, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I notice you are still not satisfied with the sources, Ronz. We have a problem here. Steve Hoffman is famous, but you'll really not find any more information about him online. These sources are the most authoritative out there. We can have either 2 options here.

1) Have an article that says "Steve Hoffman is a mastering engineer", which is probably the only thing that can be sourced the way you want it to be (the rest of the article is based on sources you find to be "unreliable", or 2) Delete the article, since stating that "Steve Hoffman is a mastering engineer" is pretty useless to everyone.

Here's the deal, Ronz. You have no previous knowledge of mastering, mastering engineers, producers, remasters, etc. So, it's obvious that people like Peter Mew, Jon Astley, Nick Davis, Barry Diament will never ring a bell. Likewise, Mix magazine, Michael Fremer, etc. are not names you are familiar with. So you consider them unreliable.

Trust me, there are no other sources of reliable info for Steve Hoffman.

So, what's it gonna be? Prune, or delete? EricGoberman (talk) 23:44, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:BLP applies always. If there is poor sourcing because the subject isn't really that notable, then prune or delete away. Given that BLP errs on the side of caution, deletion is often the "safer" path. Shot info (talk) 01:56, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd strongly argue to "delete" then, since it's impossible to properly source this article. EricGoberman (talk) 14:17, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

DELETE - Pointless article. Kalowski (talk) 12:48, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Deleting the "unsourced" comment on initial page

Since Ronz has not indicated otherwise, I'm removing the "unsourced" tag on the front page. The article is pretty well sourced now, and IMHO, quite NPOV.

Nobody has argued otherwise. EricGoberman (talk) 13:46, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

The tag doesn't indicate the article is unsourced, the tag indicates that we need more and better references. --Ronz (talk) 16:43, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Recent and possible references

Possible references (again)

These are from the previous discussion above: --Ronz (talk) 18:49, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

1. Yarlung Records: A simple formula to record young musicians
2. DISC JOCKEY MASTERS ARE THE DOMAIN OF PREMIUM CD GURU STEVE HOFFMAN
3. Reissue roundup: Audio Fidelity's first reissue plus some Concord Jazz reissues from Groove Note and Pure Audiophile.(The Music)
4. FINDING PURIST BLISS MUSIC
5. Tales Of Hoffman: Michael Fremer Speaks with Steve Hoffman: Part 1 (Included in the list below)
6. The Steve Hoffman Interview
7. Steve Hoffman: Mastering for the Breath of Life
8. The mastering master (Currently used as an External link)
9. In Search of the Holy Hi-Fi Grail (Currently used as an External link)

Recent references

These were removed from the article immediately prior to the AfD: --Ronz (talk) 18:49, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

1. http://www.monoandstereo.com/2008/02/interview-with-steve-hoffman-matej-isak.html
2. http://vinylfanatics.com/content/view/220/38/
3. http://www.musicangle.com/feat.php?id=61 Tales Of Hoffman: Michael Fremer Speaks with Steve Hoffman: Part 1
4. http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/music/article2877291.ece
5. http://www.audiofidelity.net/upcoming_releases.html

why is the Houston Press article not included? Sidar (talk) 21:15, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Article cleanup

I am cleaning up the approach section to remove redundancy and the subjective concept of "breath of life". Also resubmitting the reference to the Houston Press article in a separate section specifically worked to avoid POV and defamation. Address your concerns here before reverting. Sidar (talk) 21:30, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

The information from the Houston Press article has once again been removed per WP:BLP. --Ronz (talk) 18:09, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Indeed it was. There is no room in a bio for claims based on "anecdotal evidence". That's just unacceptable, especially given that it is a negative claim. - Rjd0060 (talk) 18:23, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Metallica Gold Edition CDs?

Why doesn't the article mention Hoffman's "24k Gold" remasters of Metallica's Ride The Lightning, Master Of Puppets and ...And Justice For All albums? 190.17.41.208 (talk) 04:49, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Biography

Shouldn't a biography include actual biographical details? Like when he was born, for example. The article as it stands is a joke ... 4 masterings listed and minimal information about his career. If it is not possible to provide sources listing this information then perhaps this article shouldn't exist. Either he is important enough to warrant a properly sourced article or he isn't. Of course, the same criticism could be made of the Peter Mew article. Even Ken Scott's article lists his date of birth! Pinglis (talk) 13:11, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Pending changes

This article is one of a number selected for the early stage of the trial of the Wikipedia:Pending Changes system on the English language Wikipedia. All the articles listed at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Queue are being considered for level 1 pending changes protection.

The following request appears on that page:

Comments on the suitability of theis page for "Pending changes" would be appreciated.

Please update the Queue page as appropriate.

Note that I am not involved in this project any much more than any other editor, just posting these notes since it is quite a big change, potentially

Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 00:11, 17 June 2010 (UTC).

MULTIPLE issues with this article

Hey there, I see multiple problems with the article. Here they go.

1) The article uses as "sources" Steve Hoffman's vanity site and forum. That's like using Mein Kampf in an article about how nice Hitler was.

2) The interviews used come from a subsite of Steve Hoffman's vanity site. Again, they should be considered non-NPOV and worthless.

3) The "A bone to pick" article, from the Houston Press, has far more info on Hoffman than is available here.

I'll do several changes to the article, they are badly needed.

159.16.237.54 (talk) 18:00, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps Hoffman's site is being used too much as a reference. The applicable policy is WP:BLPSPS.

Perhaps the external link to his interview site is unnecessary. The applicable guideline is WP:EL.

The external link to his site should be kept per WP:ELOFFICIAL.

The information from the "A Bone To Pick" reference is covered in detail in Steve_Hoffman_(audio_engineer)#The_Picks.27_overdubs. Without another source, this is seems to be too much detail per WP:UNDUE. --Ronz (talk) 19:59, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

159.16.237.54 (talk) 00:22, 5 November 2011 (UTC)Ronz, I say removal of Stevehoffman.tv is necessary here. It's not possible to base almost an entire article on a vanity site the person being referred to built.

As for the information on "A bone to pick", 3 years later I still cannot see why you still fail to acknowledge the facts that are presented in it. Either it should be included, or it should be deleted completely.

159.16.237.54 (talk) 00:22, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

If you're not even slightly interested in the relevant policies and guidelines, I doubt you'll convince anyone to make any changes to the article. --Ronz (talk) 01:28, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Why did you delete the notes on the partial discography? The defects of the various versions of his albums are well known, as are the different editions that corrected the mistakes. This, at least, should stay. I have no problems with removing the extra statements from the A Bone to Pick article, though. I'll restore the notes on the discography and source them from somewhere else, rather than Amazon.com. I'll tell you why it's important to do so: because, for example, the Pet Sounds master tape was only available once to DCC and Steve Hoffman, and the DAT copy he did of it may actually be the definitive version of it. Likewise, some of the discs he made (for example, The Pretenders) are considered collectible by now because of their issues. Please consider leaving up every note that can be sourced.

201.124.151.187 (talk) 13:59, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I have sourced every note from the partial discography. This information is available, public, and in some cases, has been generated by Steve Hoffman himself. I also went back and added more verifiable info to the article. I didn't add the Controversy section. I believe the article is now NPOV, sourced and correct. 201.124.151.187 (talk)

15:28, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Ronz, why on EARTH did you delete the properly SOURCED comments on the discography? Are you going to remove anything you don't think should fit in the article? There are several MUST-HAVE CDs on the collection, definitive versions of classic albums, and there are defective versions that should be avoided. Everything is PROPERLY sourced. Why did you do that? 201.124.151.187 (talk) 16:17, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Ronz, work out with me here. You are probably not knowledgeable about the subject matter we are discussing here, and you certainly aren't allowing information in this article that is of interest to many people. You are knowledgeable, though, on all matters Wiki. So let's make this article a good, balanced one. Here's my question: If we were to remove all links towards stevehoffman.tv and the like, the article would be 2 or 3 paragraphs long. If we were to keep all links, we could have the discography list restored. THERE ARE IMPORTANT COMMENTS MADE BY STEVE HOFFMAN IN THERE - VERY IMPORTANT. For example: the fact that the original master tape of Pet Sounds has been lost, and Steve compiled what is widely regarded to be the BEST dupe out there - the Agfa 30IPS backup he kept. HE HIMSELF SAID SO, and his version is the definitive one. Here's what I propose: I'll restore the partial discography list and will remove every note that's not properly sourced. Let's keep those that really add info to the article. Deal? 201.124.151.187 (talk) 16:24, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) As I wrote, you're not going to convince me if you continue to ignore the relevant policies and guidelines.

We're writing an encyclopedia article here, not a blog article written by both fans and detractors.

We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high quality sources. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing.

That's from the introduction in WP:BLP. I hope it's clear. Shall we continue in more detail how it and other policies/guidelines apply, and how to make edits that aren't in violation of them? --Ronz (talk) 16:26, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

It's not really clear, Ronz. Here's what I don't get. Is stevehoffman.tv an acceptable source? That was the whole basis of my original edits. If it is, then there's a lot of information that should be there: the story about the Pet Sounds tape is incredible, for example, and IMHO, the pinnacle of Steve's work (if he's famous for something, I believe, it should be because of Pet Sounds). Anyway, as you can see, I deleted practically everything that wasn't sourced properly and left only information that I believe could be of interest to all parties involved.

So, I guess my point is, after deleting every unreliable source I could think of - do you think the partial discography list is acceptable now?

Thanks, for working with me on this. 201.124.151.187 (talk) 16:40, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

As I wrote previously, "Perhaps Hoffman's site is being used too much as a reference. The applicable policy is WP:BLPSPS." I then proceeded to remove information to fix this.

No, the partial discography list is not acceptable. I'm not clear that we should have the list at all, but certainly it shouldn't have a "Special notes" column that contains poorly sourced information only tangentially related to Hoffman. --Ronz (talk) 16:57, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Interesting point, Ronz. Hoffman has made tons of remasters, and the list is not even representative of his work (off the top of my head, I can think of, for example, the Elton John remasters, which beat the SACDs by a mile). I'm not sure whether the information contained within the list is "tangentially related to Hoffman", though - at the very least, I think the Pet Sounds info should stay.

What about removing the entire list, and adding the Pet Sounds information as part of his work? Would you feel more comfortable with that? Thanks. 201.124.151.187 (talk) 19:04, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for staying with me in this discussion.

We write articles from sources. If an articles is written primarily from independent, reliable sources, then we should be able to avoid most problems. Details can be provided by other sources on occasion, but we need to be cautious when doing so.

That said, what sources do we have about Pet Sounds that specifically mention Hoffman's work with it?

I'd like to get others more familiar with such lists to guide us on whether or not to keep it. For the moment though I just want to make it clear why the "Special notes" column is inappropriate. --Ronz (talk) 01:01, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I deleted the whole partial discography list. It's too incomplete to be used as a reference, anyway. People who wish to see every Hoffman related release should be directed to his official site, anyway. Thanks for your patience, Ronz. Do you believe the Pet Sounds info was properly sourced? If so, I may add it back later. 201.124.151.187 (talk) 20:40, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

The source says, "considered by many to be..." and doesn't mention Hoffman other than to credit him. That's tangential and poorly sourced, even if we corrected the information in the article to better correspond to the source. --Ronz (talk) 04:31, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Approach

The "approach" section makes no sense to me. His job is to improve the sound of old albums, and he does this by running them through outdated vacuum tube technology and intentionally distorting the sound? How can that possibly make the music sound better? And what is "subtractive equalization?" Admittedly, I've no background in audio engineering, but shouldn't a short article like this be understandable to laymen? 47.32.26.220 (talk) 22:48, 29 June 2016 (UTC) Doug F.

Edits

I didn't see this page before adding two brief pieces of info. I see there's been a long, long, LONG debate about various bits of the article. All I added was that (a) he's known for audio engineering and (b) he has a website that includes a forum where people discuss existing recordings and share news of new ones or represses, etc. I hope those are relatively uncontroversial and throughly neutral things. 2603:8001:2A00:7428:D9C7:6B6F:898A:A153 (talk) 01:37, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Hoffman Music Forums

Just a question for User:Hipal, why did you revert my edit adding some more details about his audio equipment and music message board? I saw your message on my talk page and found it very helpful, thank you. I hope I understood correctly and this is the right place to ask you to expand on your rational.

Thanks again, Stridersword (talk) 19:32, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Mention of the message board is pure WP:SOAP.

The rest of the content was far too similar to past disputed information, so I removed it all per WP:BLP.

BLP says, The burden of evidence rests with the editor who adds or restores the material. --Hipal (talk) 02:24, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Steve Hoffman was a helper and nothing more

Why does this man call himself a Mastering Engineer? Seriously— he makes ridiculous claims. If you call him out on them as have many true Audio Engineers have from MFSL or AP— he bans them from his site. I was banned for just asking the last time he mastered anything and why he doesn’t own any audio gear. 76.184.19.249 (talk) 01:09, 13 November 2022 (UTC)