Talk:Jim Chappell
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Use of Scaruffi web site
[edit]Original discussion
[edit]I've reverted the removal of the Scaruffi link in the Further Readings section. Although Scaruffi might not be (and probably isn't) a reliable source when citing facts in the article, his reviews and assessments are acceptable material for "Further Reading". NewYorkActuary (talk) 18:22, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
- I don't see a problem with that, but I didn't have a dog in the fight about whether Scaruffi links should be scrubbed entirely from the site. I guess you might have to re-open that discussion if you want to include the link, and Woovvee hasn't weighed in here. Chubbles (talk) 04:40, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Per the discussion at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Albums/Archive_46#Piero_Scaruffi_-_Final_Verdict_on_using_him_as_a_source_in_reviews there's a very clear consensus here that Scaruffi is not to be used as a source in music/album articles in any capacity. It is a wp:self published source. Since this is a long running dispute, any contributor warned by the situation and who doesn't respect it, would encounter sanctions and could be blocked from editing. Thanks. You've been informed because you used this source here. Woovee (talk) 22:08, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
- @User:Woovee I've moved your posting from my Talk page over to here, because this is where I prefer to have the conversation.
Thank you for the link to the discussion over at ProjectAlbums. I wasn't aware that there were some people who felt so strongly about adding Scaruffi's reviews to articles on albums. Nonetheless, I fail to see how that is relevant to the instant article, as his reviews do not appear here. And as noted above, Scaruffi's critical assessment of the subject's career is acceptable material for "Further Reading". I also fail to see how any opinions formed at ProjectAlbums can have any application here, considering that this is not an album article.
I note that you reverted my reversion without prior discussion, a violation of WP:BRD. Because a discussion is preferable to an edit war, I'll not make a big deal out of your violation. I do look forward to your responses to the issues raised here. NewYorkActuary (talk) 00:57, 11 October 2015 (UTC)- Definitely agree that including Scaruffi as an external link is different from citing him as a source, and that banning the latter does not necessarily preclude the former. Chubbles (talk) 14:47, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
Because there has been no response from Woovee in over a month, I've restored the "Further Reading" section. NewYorkActuary (talk) 21:13, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Per the discussion at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Albums/Archive_46#Piero_Scaruffi_-_Final_Verdict_on_using_him_as_a_source_in_reviews there's a very clear consensus here that Scaruffi is not to be used as a source in music/album articles in any capacity. So please, do not add his reviews to review charts or his opinions in reception sections anymore. It is a wp:self published source. Since this is a long running dispute, any contributor warned by the situation and who doesn't respect it, would encounter sanctions and could be blocked from editing. Thanks. You've been informed because you used this source here. Woovee (talk) 23:39, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
- Hi there. I was requested to intervene, as I mediated/closed the debate that created the consensus that said he was not a reliable source. While you are correct in stating that there's a difference between using him as a source or an external link, I'm a little puzzled by its proposed use here. The consensus was that this man was not a professional authority in music - couple that with the fact that the content isn't even in English, and I'm just not sure of the benefit for the general reader. Sergecross73 msg me 02:28, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
- NewYorkActuary, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and there is no point to include a self published source which is just a blog, in an article, even in a section called further reading. There is a consensus made by longtime users of wikipedia who all have been editing for years that says: this site is not reliable. Woovee (talk) 00:13, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
- SergeCross73 and Woovee Thank you both for engaging in discussion. Before I address your points, I'll note that I moved Woovee's second posting from my Talk page over to here. I also restate my concern over the application of opinions formed at the Albums Project to the instant article, which is not within the scope of that project. Perhaps SergeCross' statement that "there's a difference between using [Scaruffi] as a source or an external link" is a tacit concession that the opinions formed during the discussion (i.e., the one cited by Woovee) don't apply here, regardless of the scope of that discussion. If so, it would be helpful if this were stated more explicitly. For my part, I am asserting the position that the only operative requirements here are the general rules that apply to "Further Readings" (for which see WP:FURTHER).
- In the discussion cited by Woovee, many of the discussants were basing their opinions on the erroneous belief that Scaruffi is solely a self-published author. In fact, some of his work has received independent publication, a point I that documented in my recent posting to the Reliable Sources noticeboard (available here). Particularly relevant is Scaruffi's Guide to Avant-Garde and New Age, which was published by Aracana (Milan, Italy) in 1991. (Note that I mistyped the name of the book on the noticeboard -- the actual title is "New Age", not "New Wave".) Also as noted in that noticeboard posting, this text has been acquired by several prestigious universities in the United States, and has remained in their collections for more than twenty years. The book is particularly relevant here because the subject of the instant article is largely known for his work in the New Age genre. Because Scaruffi's expertise in this field has been recognized by those universities (as well as by the other libraries listed at the worldcat.org cite), his assessments are acceptable material for "Further Reading", even if they do appear on Scaruffi's own web site.
- As for SergeCross' concern about using a non-English reading, I note that the articles on Domenico Scarlatti, Heitor Villa-Lobos and J.S. Bach all cite foreign-language readings in their Further Readings (or similar) sections. I have little doubt that a more exhaustive search would yield plenty of other examples.
- Thanks again for engaging in discussion. I look forward to your responses. NewYorkActuary (talk) 19:12, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
- This blog is a wp:self published source: this text is not a wp:reliable source only by this criteria.
- Are you a relative of this blogger, a fan or a friend or a clone of userSoul Crusher?
- To finish, don't bring the content of other articles, only wiki guidelines matter in a discussion.Woovee (talk) 14:00, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
- User:Woovee, you have been really unnecessarily strident and bad-faithy in your tone. The "opposition" in this argument actually has some pretty good reasons to bring to bear here, which merit more than a casual dismissal and threats of sanctions. WP:CCC, and careful with that axe, Eugene.... Chubbles (talk) 02:02, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
- Being tagged as "bad-faithly" is inappropriate. This sudden renewal of interest for this blogger is astonishing as his work has been dismissed unanimously a while ago by everyone on Wikipedia.
- One may note here that the supporters of this blogger didn't address anything concerning the wp:self published source of his website which stays in the end, a blog. Woovee (talk) 16:28, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
- User:Woovee, you have been really unnecessarily strident and bad-faithy in your tone. The "opposition" in this argument actually has some pretty good reasons to bring to bear here, which merit more than a casual dismissal and threats of sanctions. WP:CCC, and careful with that axe, Eugene.... Chubbles (talk) 02:02, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
- The source list at WP:ALBUMS/SOURCES was merged with WP:MUSIC/SOURCES because conceptually, there generally isn't any descrepency between whether or not someone would be a reliable source among the various types of music related. For example, I can't think of a single source that would be considered an authority on albums, but not songs. Applied to this, there's no reason to think Scaruffi is not an authority on albums, but somehow an authority on this artist and his genre, neither conceptually, nor if you read the points made at the prior.
- In regards to your comments on Scaruffi's work being published - the discussion did allow for his published work to be usable as a source. The problem was, of course, is that about 99% of his output is self-published. That's the stuff that's not allowed to be used. I have no objection if you want to use one of his published articles as an EL, or a source.
- Your argument of "well other article's do it" falls into a frowned upon mindset on Wikipedia called "other stuff exists". As in, just because other articles do it, doesn't necessarily make it right. Now, it different if you're talking about WP:GA's, WP:FA's, or other peer-reviewed work, that's show the article was reviewed, discussed, and allowed such an example. But just random articles doesn't necessarily prove it's acceptable. I could go find an article that's been unsourced since 2010, or an article that has the word "poop" written at the bottom of it, but that doesn't mean its right, you know?
- All in all, I still conceptually see very little value in a self-published blog piece in a foreign language by an author that has an active consensus for not being being an authority on music on the English Wikipedia... Sergecross73 msg me 16:29, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
- Does Scaruffi publish on Chappell in the book NewYorkActuary mentions? It sounds like three of the four editors in this discussion would support the inclusion of that material as a reference here, if so. Chubbles (talk) 02:02, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
- Probably not - the reason he was relegated to "unreliable" overall, and not "situational" or "case-by-case basis" is because a vast majority of his work is not published. But if this one was, you are correct, I would no longer object. Sergecross73 msg me 03:21, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
- Does Scaruffi publish on Chappell in the book NewYorkActuary mentions? It sounds like three of the four editors in this discussion would support the inclusion of that material as a reference here, if so. Chubbles (talk) 02:02, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Hello, folks. Real life kept me away from editing this weekend, so I'm only now reading the additional comments. Regarding Scaruffi's 1991 Guida, Chappell had already charted on Billboard's New Age list by the time the Guida was published. Also, Scaruffi has stated elsewhere that he finds Chappell's 1990 album to be an early example of the orchestral form of New Age. In all, I think it very unlikely that Chappell would have been overlooked by Scaruffi in his Guida. But there's no need for speculation on this point. In my Reliable Sources noticeboard posting (linked above), I also mentioned Scaruffi's 1996 Enciclopedia della musica New Age. Like the Guida, the Enciclopedia was published by Arcana and is currently held in the libraries of some prestigious universities (in this case, the Bobst Library of New York University and the Frankfurt University Library of Goethe University, plus other university and municipal libraries). Chappell is definitely discussed in the Enciclopedia. Indeed, the entry that I had linked in the article is the entry in the Enciclopedia.
Thanks for the additional comments. I look forward to your responses. NewYorkActuary (talk) 23:04, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
- There are a lot of poor books present in the libraries of universities, it is not a criteria of quality as books are often ordered by employees and not by teachers. Woovee (talk) 23:38, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
- Can you provide any proof that the article you're proposing to link in the article is indeed the same as the one that was published by a legitimate third party publisher? Sergecross73 msg me 03:41, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, I can -- see the language near the top of the page linked here. NewYorkActuary (talk) 23:08, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
- Okay, that seems to confirm the entry was in the book, yes. Can you confirm that it wasn't self published though? Sergecross73 msg me 13:44, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, I can do that, too. The listing for the book at New York University's Bobst Library is here. The publisher is identified as Arcana. NewYorkActuary (talk) 17:28, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
- NewYorkActuary doesn't have the book apparently as he failed to give the number of page. Giving a url of the blog as a proof is not valuable.Woovee (talk) 12:32, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
- As it is still in a foreign language, this would't suit on wikipedia.
- Making it as the ultimate reference in an article is inappropriate as he is a scientist, he hasn't never taken academic courses relevant in journalism either in history. He has a diploma in sciences: had he published books about sciences, his writings would be welcome. Sergecross73, if you accept this reference, you open the pandora's box and he and his clones are going to pollute every article about music. This is gonna create a lot of stress again inside the community. He is not the only person who wrote about jazz on planet earth. One must have criterias of quality.Woovee (talk) 12:32, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Hello again, folks. I don't know why, but I am unable to get back to the NYU listing (even though I was able to get there yesterday). In case you folks are running into the same problem, the entry at Google books is here. It too identifies the publisher as Arcana. NewYorkActuary (talk) 19:56, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
- The Worldcat listing indicates it is also held by the New York Public Library, if that's any help to you (your username indicates you may be geographically close to these locations). [1] Chubbles (talk) 20:32, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
It seems that Sergecross73 has retired from the discussion. I have supplied the confirmations that were requested (and I note that the link provided by Chubbles also confirms the third-party publication of the Enciclopedia). I'll be restoring the "Further Reading" section in a few minutes. As for some loose ends ...
- The permission to use self-published sources as "Further Reading" comes from the exception stated in WP:ELNO, which permits self-published material from recognized authorities, provided they are writing within their field of expertise. I didn't follow up on this point, because Sergecross73's acceptance of previously-published material rendered the question moot in the instant case.
- No one has pointed to any prohibition against using foreign-language material as "Further Reading". I also don't buy the gotta-see-it-first-in-a-featured-article argument. But here too, the question is moot. The article on the Japanese composer Toru Takemitsu links to a French-language biography. The article on Hippocrates links to Spanish-language material, as does the article on the dinosaur Carnotaurus. All three are featured articles.
Thank you all for the discussion. NewYorkActuary (talk) 23:08, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
Second discussion
[edit]- There is no point for bringing an arguement from another article on a talk page: there are tons of articles that don't follow our wiki standards but it is not a reason to do it the same thing here. Woovee (talk) 00:03, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
- NewYorkActuary, the demand was to include a reference of a book in the further reading section, an url for a blog is not accepted in any capacity especially from a non journalist and a writer who has never been recognized as a music historian in English. I have just read the discussion and SergeCross73 never stated he agreed to include an url for a blog here. Woovee (talk) 23:59, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
- While it is a fair point that we were talking about the book reference rather than the weblink, Woovvee, that's the fourth time you've reverted, and nobody else party to this discussion stepped forward to complain about it after NYA made his case and gave plenty of time for consideration. You are well aware of WP:3RR and WP:TENDENTIOUS, and if you keep it up with this "revert first and let God sort 'em out" strategy, I'll be making noticeboards aware of it. Please stop enforcing and start discussing. Chubbles (talk) 09:51, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
- The book reference was what we have discussed. Including a weblink of a blog is against our wiki rules: remember that a consensus rests on the quality of the arguements. Sorry but your threat of referring to the noticeboard of WP:3RR doesn't stand here as there is a WP:consensus on my side, done with a lot of users, not 2 like you two, saying Scaruffi's blog must not be included in any capacity on our articles about music. The link is above this discussion, you are invited to read it again. Woovee (talk) 14:27, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
- Please, don't include the weblink to Scaruffi's blog anymore or I will ask sanctions. Respect the consensus that has been reached by all the community. Thanks. Woovee (talk) 14:35, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
- This discussion has been about the web link from the very beginning. We discussed the print edition only in response to Sergecross' acceptance (stated in his December 4 posting and confirmed in his December 6 posting) that previously-published material is usable. In a few minutes, I'll be asking for a third opinion pursuant to WP:3O. Woovee, if that request is accepted, it might be helpful to the reviewer if you provided some support for your contention that using a web link is "against our wiki rules". NewYorkActuary (talk) 21:14, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
- NewYorkActuary You are completely wrong and you advance something that is untrue. Everyone thought this discussion was only about a book reference. The proof is here. Read again this remark from Chubbles posted on 09:51, 1 February 2016 : I quote him it is a fair point that we were talking about the book reference rather than the weblink .Woovee (talk) 01:54, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
- This discussion has been about the web link from the very beginning. We discussed the print edition only in response to Sergecross' acceptance (stated in his December 4 posting and confirmed in his December 6 posting) that previously-published material is usable. In a few minutes, I'll be asking for a third opinion pursuant to WP:3O. Woovee, if that request is accepted, it might be helpful to the reviewer if you provided some support for your contention that using a web link is "against our wiki rules". NewYorkActuary (talk) 21:14, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
- While it is a fair point that we were talking about the book reference rather than the weblink, Woovvee, that's the fourth time you've reverted, and nobody else party to this discussion stepped forward to complain about it after NYA made his case and gave plenty of time for consideration. You are well aware of WP:3RR and WP:TENDENTIOUS, and if you keep it up with this "revert first and let God sort 'em out" strategy, I'll be making noticeboards aware of it. Please stop enforcing and start discussing. Chubbles (talk) 09:51, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Response to third opinion request: |
It seems to me that unless Scaruffi has come to meet WP:SPS's expert criteria in the time that has elapsed since the last discussion of his site's status, he is not RS. There certainly are circumstances under which non-RS are appropriate for use in further reading or external links sections. It's less a question of whether it's reliable and more a question of whether it's relevant, such as if Scaruffi had a personal connection to Jim Chappell or some striking similarity to him that might interest readers or even if the page in question provided some resource or information that the Wikipedia article could not. However, this is just a blog post that happens to be about the subject of the article and it does not, in my opinion, contain more information than the article itself would if it were expanded to FA scale. Good luck with your efforts to improve this article. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:35, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
WP:ELNO says: Links normally to be avoided: 11. Blogs, personal web pages'. This is what the Scaruffi is. Woovee (talk) 23:22, 3 February 2016 (UTC) I would not object to see a book reference as the closing administrator apparently agrees for this but I would object to allow the weblink to a blog added in the further section of the article. I based my answer following the wp:RS policy that strictly forbids sites which are blogs filled with self published sources. Woovee (talk) 23:22, 3 February 2016 (UTC) Hello, all. Over the next few minutes, I'll be making three posts. This first one addresses some general matters. The next two will be specific responses to Chubbles and Darkfrog24. First, Woovee's assertion that I haven't identified the universities holdings this author's work is false. They were identified in my posting to the Reliable Sources noticeboard, a link to which had been provided early in this thread. For convenience, I duplicate that link here. Also in this regard, two further universities were identified directly in this thread (in my December 7th posting). Second, Woovee is technically correct in stating that SergeCross never agreed to use the web link. However, this assertion is misleading. I've highlighted (above, in orange) a portion of the dialogue between myself and SergeCross. SergeCross clearly knew we were talking about a web link. He went so far as to indicate the two hoops that I needed to jump through, and jump through them I did. At that point, SergeCross simply withdrew from the discussion. I'll be back in a few minutes with the next two posts. NewYorkActuary (talk) 23:24, 3 February 2016 (UTC) (There had been an edit conflict, so I'm now reposting.) NewYorkActuary (talk) 23:24, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
SergeCross never used once the term "weblink" in his answers, he only said "book reference". Keep on accusing me of "misleading", your post shows that it is you that is currently distorting Sergecross's words. Keep on underlining in orange things you like while ignoring what is bothering for your claim wp:RS, blog, etc.... I stated my point of view. I will not let you put a weblink to a blog unless you have a very large clear consensus in your favour. Woovee (talk) 23:39, 3 February 2016 (UTC) Chubbles Thanks for your recent postings. If I understood yesterday's posting correctly, you were suggesting that someone (presumably, me) might go to a library to inspect a physical copy of the Enciclopedia and, afterwards, come back here to report "I've seen the book with my own eyes and the article on the subject is on page __ and is the same as the on-line version". I'm not in a postion to actually do this (and, I suspect, neither are you). But even if we were, I think it still wouldn't work, because it is unlikely that Woovee would accept personal testimony from either one of us. I also think the exercise is unnecessary. The fact that the Enciclopedia had first appeared as a third-party print publication is beyond dispute. The publisher is identified as Arcana at every link that we have provided in this discussion, including the library-specific links that can be seen via the WorldCat.org site. (By the way, the Italian Wikipedia has an entry on Arcana. It's not much of an article but, for what its worth, it can be seen I regret that we disagree a bit about the implications of the university holdings. But let's first dispose of one argument -- Woovee's contention that universities delegate their acquisition decisions to low-level employees who surf around at Amazon.com is ludicrous. I've taught at the university level and I know that acquisitions are decided at the department level (subject, of course, to possible constraints as to budget and space). In the case of Scaruffi, we see several universities who have not only acquired his writings in the field of New Age music (i.e., the Guida and the Encicopedia), but have maintained them in their music collections for more than twenty years. This does not mean, nor do I suggest, that Scaruffi should be given an honorary Pulitzer Prize. But it does mean, for example, that Princeton University is essentially telling its students that "if you want to learn about New Age music, here's someone you might want to read". And, they have been saying it for more than twenty years. The same thing is being said by Columbia University, Goethe University, Cornell, and all of the other schools that I indicated in the previous post. The cumulative weight of all of this is that, in the field of New Age music, Scaruffi's writings have attained the acceptance of academia. Woovee frequently chastises us for not respecting Wikipedia's criteria for quality. To which I say, if it's good enough for Princeton University, if it's good enough for Cornell, if it's good enough for Goethe University, if it's good enough for Columbia University, etc. ... then it's good enough for Wikipedia. Woovee undoubtedly will disagree, but he has yet to offer any objective criteria for judging whether a third-party publication meets the "Woovee standard". And, I suspect that there is no such standard. Rather, I think we are simply witnessing an extreme example of "I don't like it". This posting went on a bit longer than I intended. If you actually did read through it all, thanks. NewYorkActuary (talk) 01:14, 4 February 2016 (UTC) Darkfrog24 I promised that I would be making a specific posting to you, but I've run out of time and will have to do it tomorrow. On the off chance that you stayed on-site just to read the promised posting, I offer my apologies. NewYorkActuary (talk) 01:21, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Darkfrog24 When I was drafting this post yesterday, I intended it to be an outline of the two arguments that I had developed, with the goal of perhaps clarifying precisely where the two sides were disagreeing. However, I see that there have been quite a few developments since I wrote my posting to Chubbles. The discussion seems to have crystallized and I don't see any value in my original plan. For a similar reason, I'll not be addressing the question of whether the university holdings shed any light on Scaruffi's status as an "established expert". My feelings haven't changed since my posting of December 19 -- the broader question of "established expert" need not be considered if we agree that the material is acceptable by virtue of having seen prior third-party publication. And that does seem to be where we are at the moment. In view of all this, I withdraw my earlier compromise offer and, instead, propose the following:
Is this acceptable to everyone? NewYorkActuary (talk) 22:08, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello, folks. Just a brief response to Darkfrog's question regarding the statement of the intervening administrator. It's the final sentence in the first yellow-highlighted section above. For convenience, I repeat it here -- [BEGIN QUOTE} I have no objection if you want to use one of his published articles as an EL, or a source. [END QUOTE] Unless there is some ambiguity about the meaning of "EL" (and there isn't, is there?), then it is quite clear that the intervening administrator was accepting the use of a web link. NewYorkActuary (talk) 03:14, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Arbitrary break[edit]Wow, I had no idea that this conversation was not only still going, but had spiraled out of control. I completely forgot about this until it just crossed my mind randomly today, I don't even know why. I'm surprised I was never pinged? I'm not all caught up on things, but I felt should clarify my stances since it looks like I've been quoted and cited quite a bit over the weeks and months... To reiterate my stance on this:
The discussions were rather massive above, so you'll have to update me on any major developments, but at this time, I'm still against its inclusion. Sergecross73 msg me 21:43, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello, all. Chubbles, thanks again for taking on the extra work of tracking down the print version of the article. And if the occasion ever arises, please extend my thanks to the University of California library along with yours. Might I trouble you to tell us exactly what the "parenthetical interleavings" are? If there are only a few, perhaps they could be copied either here or to a sub-page of this one. Thanks again. On a slightly different topic, I noticed that I mistyped the name of Arcana when I added the link to the Italian Wikipedia. I've gone back and corrected it (though I see that you found the article anyway). NewYorkActuary (talk) 22:07, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello, folks. Sorry for the delay in response. Thanks again to Chubbles for providing the additional information. Most of what appears on the site, but not in the book, are song titles that are being used to illustrate observations that appear in the book regarding the album Saturday's Rhapsody. The on-line version also contains two observations that do not appear in the book (these are the final two sentences of the relevant paragraph). The first notes that Chappell was blending "folk" themes with "serious" ones; the second describes the album as Chappell at his "melodic best". Neither statement is of the type that would raise issues under WP:BLP. Sergecross, this is the second time that you've cited us to WP:USERG. Just to be clear, Scaruffi's site is NOT user-generated. Scaruffi retains editorial control over everything that appears there. I presume you are using that cite for its discussion of self-published work. But that discussion explicitly permits the use of self-published material from experts in the field. And there is nothing there that defines "expert" to mean "Siskel and Ebert". Over an approximately ten year period, Scaruffi has had eight books published by Arcana Editrice, two of which are specific to New Age music. Both of those books reside in the permanent music collections of major universities. It's difficult to imagine any sphere of academic endeavour where these facts would not establish a degree of academic acceptance sufficient to render the author's opinions notable (provided, of course, that the opinions address matters within the author's field and do not raise BLP issues). And by "notable", I mean that they are referencable within a Wikipedia article. I don't expect that you'll agree with this but, if this ends up in arbitration, my arguments will proceed along these lines. I remain committed to compromise. Accordingly, I will be restoring the material, but re-formatted to read as a reference to the book, with a convenience link to the essentially-identical on-line version. I hope this compromise is acceptable. A brief recapitulation of this debate is in order. At the start, the original material was reverted twice, with the only substantive discussion being threats of sanctions against me from Woovee. And when the two phases of true discussion began, each phase took place only after Woovee had reverted for a third and fourth time. The material remained out of the article during those discussions. Although I am willing to engage in further discussion, I now respectfully insist that the material remain in the article while that discussion takes place. If it is reverted for a fifth time, I will file a complaint at the Adminsistrator's Noticeboard. If you would prefer the structure of a mediated debate, I'll be happy to participate. And finally, thanks again to Chubbles for the additional work and thanks further for the offer to look up other entries in the book. That won't be necessary, but the offer was appreciated. Thank you all for the discussion thus far. NewYorkActuary (talk) 17:38, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
Sorry again for the delay. Real life has gotten a bit busy this past week. Before proceeding to my main points, I'll address that newspaper article. Despite Woovee's undocumented assertions to the contrary, I was quite aware of the article. Indeed, it had already been in the (Wikipedia) article at the time I commenced its clean-up last year. I removed it because it is largely an interview with Chappell, thus rendering it a first-party source. I doubt that Chappell would have lied about playing sold-out shows in the Phillipines, but I was concerned about the fact that he never stated that his band was the headliner for those shows. Was he simply opening for a more famous act? Was it a music festival for which Chappell was just one of many acts? Adding the fact that the interview took place at a time when Chappell was preparing to issue his Manila Nights album, I was left with an uneasy feeling that Chappell was engaged in some self-promotion during that interview. Chubbles, in our earliest conversations, I think we established that you and I simply have different comfort levels with first-party sourcing. I'm not looking to impose my editorial judgment on you and I do note that you did a good job of incorporating the material into the text. But I did have what I felt were good reasons for removing the material in the first place. Now to the matter at hand. The convenience link was an essential element of my compromise offer, because it does little good to point readers to a critical assessment that appeared in a now-out-of-print text. And it is nothing less than ridiculous to refuse to provide the reader with a link to the on-line version of that assessment. I regret that the compromise offer has been rejected. Because neither Woovee nor Sergecross have commented on my suggestion for mediation, I presume that this has been rejected, as well. I have maintained all along that the only operative requirements here are the general rules for external links, which permit the use of opinions from experts in a field (provided that the opinions are related to that field and do not raise BLP issues). This is a basic guideline that cannot be undone by any local "consensus" formed in a one-day discussion on the talk page of a project to which this article is not subject. Accordingly, I have restored the on-line reference as it appeared when first added. I remain committed to resolving this in an amicable fashion and, to that end, I have filed a request at WP:Dispute resolution noticeboard. The request names only Woovee as the non-filing participant, but the participation of the rest of you would be welcome (and that includes you, Darkfrog, if you're still here). NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:11, 14 March 2016 (UTC) Post-DRN discussion[edit]
Hello, guys. It's good to hear from both of you again. For your convenience, the link to the DRN discussion is here. As noted at that discussion, that old one-day RfC at the Albums project back in 2014 can not be cited here as a policy or guideline. My argument continues to be that Scaruffi's track record for being published by Arcana Editrice, as well as the acceptance of his books as university-level texts, renders him a "recognized authority" and allows for the use of his self-published material. What are your arguments? NewYorkActuary (talk) 22:32, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
|
- Biography articles of living people
- Stub-Class biography articles
- Stub-Class biography (musicians) articles
- Unknown-importance biography (musicians) articles
- Musicians work group articles
- Automatically assessed biography articles
- WikiProject Biography articles
- Stub-Class Jazz articles
- Unknown-importance Jazz articles
- WikiProject Jazz articles