Talk:Double-lip embouchure

	Music portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Music theory, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of music theory, theory terminology, music theorists, and musical analysis on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Music theoryWikipedia:WikiProject Music theoryTemplate:WikiProject Music theoryMusic theory articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Project tag needed

Along with assessment. Tinton5 (talk) 23:56, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reference

@Nikkimaria:, Starting a discussion per WP:BRD. Wondering how you would consider this reference (which is a commercial source- regardless if you consider the author an expert) better than the one I added (which is already in the Perennial sources list). CNMall41 (talk) 16:57, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A source being "commercial" doesn't disqualify it from being reliable, particularly when, as in this case, the claim is neutral and the author is an established subject-matter expert. The source you added only partially supports the claim. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:12, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you are saying it doesn't support because it doesn't say he "currently" uses it, there are sources that do. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:22, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm saying it doesn't support it because there are three people who are stated to use this technique with the current source and your source addresses only one. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:24, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. That makes sense now. Will get one of these added and find something better to support the others. Thanks for clarifying. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:28, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's fine as-is. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:32, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can you tell me why WP:BESTSOURCES would not apply?

A subject matter expert is an authoritative source on this topic. Can you tell me why you've decided to mass-remove this source? It hasn't been deprecated, and I don't see any discussion of it at RSN. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:37, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure the term "mass removal" would be applicable. I believe there were four or five total. The first was introduced as evidence in a AfD discussion. I looked and found no editorial oversight. It looks like a blog that is there to promote those who it sponsors. Maybe RSN would be the way to go. In the meantime, how would a site such as this be considered more reliable than a generally accepted reference on the Perennial Source list? I believe a generally accepted source would be considered a better source than a commercial site with a subject matter expert (assuming he is considered one). --CNMall41 (talk) 17:44, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In hindsight, I should have used "unreliable source" template with reasoning. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:45, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Because the SME has specific expertise on the article topic, whereas the more general source does not. Thus the SME is more authoritative, despite the fact that the more general source is at RSP. Speaking more broadly, some of your other removals I would see as questionable, eg this. I think this should go to RSN if you're planning on persisting, though I will say I will oppose its deprecation. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:50, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If my editing behavior is questionable, please feel free to bring it up at ANI. I believe all those links fall under WP:ELNO, but that is also outside of the topic of this discussion. I think RSN is the place for this and will ping you when I get it up. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:58, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]