Talk:Philip Ewell/Archive 1

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Desertarun (talk) 08:02, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that music theorist Philip Ewell received "anti-Black statements and personal ad hominem attacks" after his claim that Western music theory is shaped by a 'white racial frame'?

Sources: "Executive Board response to essays in the Journal of Schenkerian Studies vol. 12 | SMT". societymusictheory.org. Retrieved 2021-05-21.

Breeding, Lucinda (2020-08-02). "A UNT professor challenged claims of racism in music theory, and now he's facing the music". Denton Record-Chronicle. Retrieved 2021-05-21.

Ewell, Philip A. (2020-09-01). "Music Theory and the White Racial Frame". Music Theory Online. 26 (2). doi:10.30535/mto.26.2.4.

Powell, Michael (2021-02-14). "Obscure Musicology Journal Sparks Battles Over Race and Free Speech". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2021-05-21.

• Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Wild Bird Fund

Created by SyLvRuUz (talk). Nominated by 4meter4 (talk) at 17:02, 2 June 2021 (UTC).

• This article is new enough and long enough. The hook facts are cited inline, the article is neutral, and I detected no copyright issues. A QPQ has been done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:14, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Music Theorist vs. Academic

I'm a little puzzled by the recent edits to change Ewell's description from "Music Theorist" to "Academic." While the later is obviously still TRUE, it seems less specific. Is there some reason why we shouldn't use the more specific descriptor? PianoDan (talk) 16:28, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

I suppose it prevents redundancy in language by phrasing it that way in the lead sentence. (ie music theorist followed by music theory could sound redundant). I have no preference personally, as I think the overall meaning it basically identical either way.4meter4 (talk) 17:38, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Maybe less is more? What about "Philip Adrian Ewell is an American associate professor of music theory at …"? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:38, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

The Wikipedia usage doesn't seem to be terribly consistent. Allen Forte is described as a music theorist, while David Huron is listed as a professor, and Bob Gjerdingen is a "scholar of music theory." One concern I have around Ewell's case in particular is that I've seen a number of passive aggressive non-NPOV edits in various places from editors who are clearly grinding an axe in opposition to the issues he is raising. While this is far less obviously that, changing his description from "theorist" to "academic" could be interpreted as downplaying his musico-theoretical credentials.PianoDan (talk) 04:59, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

I think my suggestion above avoids any NPOV. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:17, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Works for me. PianoDan (talk) 16:13, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Eh, I would much prefer "Philip Adrian Ewell is a music theorist who specializes..." and then "He is a professor...". Because think about it, when he dies, it would be beyond bizarre to have him labelled as "Philip Adrian Ewell was a professor..." in the first sentence—he is a music theorist, so call him a music theorist... We don't need "associate professor of music theory"—"associate professor at..." probably works fine if we introduce him as a music theorist. Aza24 (talk) 16:21, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Michael. We're not worried about when he dies (may it be decades from now) at which point his career may have changed. We're concerned with what he is now. What's nice about Michael's statement is that it's factual, while the other descriptions are editorial. - kosboot (talk) 14:47, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Fine by me, Michael's suggestion is still far better than the current situation. Aza24 (talk) 15:03, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Inclusion of a criticism section

I notice that we had a criticism section that was removed per WP:CRITS by Aza24. However, given that Ewell's prime claim to notability is a controversial concept that has drawn wide praise and criticism in academic discourse and publications, I don't see how it's feasibly avoidable within this particular article. Not having such a section is tantamount to academic censorship and is therefore a violation of WP:Wikipedia is not censored and WP:POV. I think the only feasible way to adhear to core policies is to maintain as neutral of a criticism section as we can possibly write; limiting criticism to ones published in academic journals or perhaps given at notable conferences and symposiums in the future. The anon IP who has been adding the content, has added some self published material in the past and that is definitely a no go. Ultimately, this content could probably develop enough to the point where it could be split off into a separate article on Music Theory's White Racial Frame where we could make the criticism section more about the paper/theory as opposed to Ewell the person. I am pinging other editors who have participated in writing or improving this article for input: SyLvRuUz, Michael Bednarek, GiantSnowman, Thrakkx, Arjayay, Kosboot, and PianoDan thoughts? Appologies if I missed anyone.4meter4 (talk) 19:14, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

I think the content/quote is worth including, I don't think it merits a separate section. GiantSnowman 19:27, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sold. WP:CRITS is pretty clear. The article already discusses responses and reactions to MTWRF as such, and that section can continue to expand as responses demonstrate notability, but that doesn't mean "Criticism" as a section heading is warranted. It's also important not to confuse shrillness with notability in the responses. PianoDan (talk) 19:29, 5 October 2021 (UTC) −

@PianoDan and GiantSnowman Maybe we should re-organize a sub-section on "Music Theory's White Racial Frame" then; sense that is really where all the criticism is. Putting all that criticism into a "career" section doesn't seem appropriate and runs into WP:UNDUE issues. It would make sense to have a section just on that one paper and include critical reaction (both positive and negative) in that section.4meter4 (talk) 19:33, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Ha. I was actually already doing that before I read this comment. PianoDan (talk) 19:34, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Perfect! Have at it. I support that. Seems like the best way to solve the issue.4meter4 (talk)

Yep, sounds OK. GiantSnowman 20:16, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

@PianoDan, GiantSnowman, Aza24, Michael Bednarek, Thrakkx, Arjayay, Kosboot Hi all. Thanks for all your thoughtfulness. I have to disagree with 4meter4 that "Ewell's prime claim to notability is a controversial concept"—namely, MTWRF. As the article states, the "white racial frame" is not Ewell's idea; he cites Joe Feagin who posited the WRF. Why then does the biographical page on Joe Feagin not include critical responses to his work, of which there are more and more reputable ones? Consider for instance, Andreas Wimmer (2015) "Race-centrism: a critique and a research agenda", Ethnic and Racial Studies, 38:13, 2186-2205, DOI: 10.1080/01419870.2015.1058510 OR Michael Omi & Howard Winant (2013) "Resistance is futile?: a response to Feagin and Elias", Ethnic and Racial Studies, 36:6, 961-973, DOI: 10.1080/01419870.2012.715177. Or consider another prominent Black intellectual, Charles W. Mills. There have certainly been objections to his philosophical work, but his biographical page does not include them. Moreover, John McWhorter's quotation should be treated as self-published, just like all the other sources brought forth by the anonymous editor. On reliability of Substack, see here. Though McWhorter is an established professor at Columbia, quotation of a self-published article clearly fails WP:RELY, which unequivocally states "Never use self-published sources as independent sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer." In short, I strongly disagree with the inclusion of the McWhorter quotation and wonder about similar pages' omission of criticisms published in reliable sources. Again, none of the criticisms of Ewell's paper/presentation have come from reliable sources—and the ones that were published in Journal of Schenkerian Studies are no longer available/circulating. SyLvRuUz (talk) 20:53, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

@SyLvRuUz That's a good point, and I agree that I may have overstated his notability to a single topic area. However, I would point out that McWhorter is not criticizing Ewell or providing information about Ewell in that quote. He is criticizing the ideas in a published journal article. Those are two very different things (one being a person and another an intellectual concept/idea). WP:SELFPUBLISH states, "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications." Given that he is an established academic that teaches music history at a notable institution and has published relevant literature to the concept within his articles on race and linguistics, I think the source is usable under policy; particularly because the quote is not providing an exceptional claim but an expert opinion.4meter4 (talk) 21:21, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

I would be in favor of creating a separate article on Music Theory's White Racial Frame (the discussion of which goes beyond Ewell). I'm sure a separate article on White Racial Frame is warranted, although music would play a minor part. Perhaps start with MTWRF and someday someone will create WRF and ask to merge. - kosboot (talk) 21:24, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Let me add that, although that may go against strict WP guidelines, I think on issues of race one must step outside WP's guidelines to promote equity. - kosboot (talk) 21:25, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

@4meter4 I do hear the distinction you're making. However, how do you know that McWhorter teaches music history at Columbia? I just reviewed the citation provided for that on his WP page and it failed verification. I couldn't find any sources verifying that he teaches music history at Columbia. Where is McWhorter's expertise on music theory demonstrable to you? How is he a "subject-matter expert" with "work in the relevant field ... published by reliable, independent publications"? What about the points I raised about Feagin? About Mills? I think that inclusion of McWhorter's quotation is out of place in a biographical article. Even if Ewell's paper/presentation were its own page, I maintain that McWhorter's quotation would be inappropriate and unreliable critical engagement with Ewell's work. SyLvRuUz (talk) 21:31, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

@SyLvRuUz Those are good questions. And ones that deserve good answers. I'll dig for more convincing evidence, as I was basing my opinion on the content on his wikipedia page. I agree that we need better concrete evidence than just his wikipedia page to justify including the quote, given it's publication platform. If that doesn't pan out, I will support not including the quote. My main concern is that we follow WP:Wikipedia is not censored and WP:NPOV. Best.4meter4 (talk) 21:38, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

@SyLvRuUz As for the lack of criticism on other pages, that is an other stuff argument. Granted that's an AFD argument page, but the same concept applies here. Wikipedia lacks coverage on a lot of notable things worth covering because our encyclopedia is not complete. Should criticism be included on those pages? Possibly, yes. Possibly, no. I don't know anything about Mills or Feagin or the criticism of their work to give an opinion. I wouldn't even consider myself an expert on Ewell and his critics and champions. I'm merely just trying to figure out what to responsibly do with the critiques being added to this page.4meter4 (talk) 22:07, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm going to boldy pull the McWhorter quote now, and it can be re-added later if there's better support. There's no demonstrable evidence that he has significant expertise in music to warrant overlooking the guidelines for self published sources. And the cherry on the top for me is that it was added by the Scott Fruehwald sock puppet IP address. Since almost nothing has come from that address that ISN'T problematic, I'd suggest extra scrutiny would be warranted here. PianoDan (talk)

Agreed. I went to the trouble of having the page semi-protected before because of that IP's problematic additions. I think we need to establish better evidence about McWhorter as an expert before including the material.4meter4 (talk) 21:55, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

McWhorter's page at Columbia: https://search.sites.columbia.edu/people/jm3156 - He was also profiled in a Columbia publication in 2017: https://www.college.columbia.edu/cct/issue/summer17/article/essentials-john-mcwhorter . So he may not be in the music dept., but he certainly is experienced with race issues. - kosboot (talk) 22:58, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Absolutely - I don't think there's any question that in an article expressly about race, or about race and linguistics, McWhorter's expertise would be sufficient to allay self-publishing concerns. But given that this article is a) a biography of a living person and b) about the intersection of race and music theory, which is NOT his area of expertise, I don't think it quite gets over the bar. PianoDan (talk) 23:22, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with your assessment that only someone who has expertise in music theory can be qualified to comment. Fortunately an anonymous user appears to agree. - kosboot (talk) 00:28, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

I said no such thing - I said that Wikipedia policy is that SELF PUBLISHED commentary requires direct subject matter expertise. That said, said subject matter expertise has been established below, so I'm cool with the revert. PianoDan (talk) 05:08, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Here is a journal article he wrote on music and linguistics. Here is a respected podcast in which he is the featured guest talking about music, linguistics, and race.Here is a book on hip hop that he published with Random House. It states that he teaches music history at Columbia in his book. I doubt that would be a lie, as it’s published with a major publishing company, and would be an easily clocked lie by that institution. This music history book cites his work. Here is a publication of his on Scott Joplin. Here is a critique of the changing linguistics of the word racism in The Boston Globe. I would argue that his work as a linguist, his writing on racism, and his background publishing and writing on music make him uniquely positioned to provide a critique of MTWRF.4meter4 (talk) 01:16, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure what to respond to so I will just say three things. 1) Having a separate criticism/controversy section is just a bad idea; regardless of NPOV (which is a reasonable concern, as it gives inherent imbalance), it reads far better (and is more logical) when it is conflated into the career section. 2) I see no issue with McWhorter's quote. It is from someone who certainly has the authority to speak on the subject and seems to be a WP:DUE addition for providing an expert opinion in disagreement with Ewell's. 3) The actual current section title of "2019 SMT Keynote" is uninformative and not reflective of the section's content. I suggest something like "White racial frame", "White racial frame in music", "Race in music" or really anything would be an improvement. Best – Aza24 (talk) 05:33, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

That's an obvious enough fix that I just went ahead and did it. Since "Music Theory's White Racial Frame" is the title of the talk as well as the subsequent paper, I formatted it as such. PianoDan (talk) 16:12, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

I like the section as it now stands - thanks PianoDan. - kosboot (talk) 17:12, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Non NPOV additions by anonymous IP

I have reverted edits by an anonymous IP editor who continues to use this page to post material that violates WP:BLP. To avoid edit warring, I am going to comment here FIRST before reverting them again. However, "Quillette" is NOT a Reliable Source, per WP:RSP, and the other reference on the recently added paragraph does not support the actual content. The biography of Ewell is not the place to push an agenda about Schenker, and we must avoid WP:UNDUE weight on that score. PianoDan (talk) 15:26, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

@4meter4: - Hey there. I don't want to get into edit war territory here, so would you mind reviewing this situation? I don't think the anonymous user is fully aware of WP procedures regarding talk pages, as they have literally never commented on one. My position is that phrases like "pseudoscience" are strong enough language that they do NOT belong on BLPs without a great deal of support from NEUTRAL reliable sources. Also, as this is the biography of Ewell, WP:BLPBALANCE also needs to be strongly considered. PianoDan (talk) 17:19, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Phillip Ewell merits a Wikipedia page only because of his article claiming that Heinrich Schenker is a biological racist and that Schenker's racism is part of the white racial frame. I added the sentence under discussion to elucidate the controversy, not to argue the truth of what Dr. Wiener and Dr. Ewell have asserted. I took the sentence in slightly modified form from the Wikipedia article on Heinrich Schenker. Nobody had a problem with it there. @Hucbald.SaintAmand:

Concerning Quillette. I did not use it to establish biographical facts or to show the truth of a claim. I used it to show that a controversy existed over Ewell's quotations. This exactly what Piano Dan said to use it for. Piano Dan said this on the Timothy Jackson page: "Quilette is NOT an RS for factual information, per WP:RS. It can be used where WP:DUE for attributed opinion. (i.e., don't use it to source biographical details.) 24.184.26.105 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.184.26.105 (talk) 05:28, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

First off - Wikipedia itself is NOT a reliable source to quote for a Wikipedia article. "It was on this other page, therefore it's OK here" is an example of WP:OTHERCONTENT, which is an argument to avoid unless the article you're quoting has been through a GA or FA review. So let's chuck that in the bin right now.

Secondly - you seem to have missed the part about WP:DUE. This is NOT the article about Jackson or Shencker - this is the article about Ewell, and therefore, "Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects." The view that Ewell's criticisms are somehow based on poor scholarship is absolutely a minority view, no matter how strongly you PERSONALLY wish to promote that theory. Disagreeing with Ewell's conclusions, and presenting a balanced view of the disagreements, is fundamentally different from accusing him of pseudoscience. That is DEFINITELY not a mainstream view, and not appropriate for a BLP. McWhorter's comment is already sufficient to provide balance here, and is far less inflammatory. PianoDan (talk) 06:42, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm going to ping @Kosboot: here too. PianoDan (talk) 06:45, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

ñññ

[First off - Wikipedia itself is NOT a reliable source to quote for a Wikipedia article] Then please, let's remove from Wikipedia any citations form Volume 12 of the Journal of Schenkerian Studies, and any citations from Timothy Jackson. In JSS12, Timothy Jackson cites Wikipedia.

- Joshua Clement Broyles

ñññ 186.155.12.76 (talk) 14:43, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

ñññ

[phrases like "pseudoscience" are strong enough language that they do NOT belong on BLPs without a great deal of support from NEUTRAL reliable sources.] Then please remove from the Schenker article the unsupported claim that Schenker considered race theory to be "pseudoscientific". Thanks.

- Joshua Clement Broyles

ñññ 186.155.12.76 (talk) 14:39, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Nonsense. Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED, and that journal publication became the subject of national news coverage. There's nothing in the current text of the article using the word "pseudoscience" or affirming that view, and the article currently is neutrally written. Merely including the said journal as a cited reference is not inappropriate given the widespread attention it was given in the press and academic circles. Further, the repudiation of the journal itself had to be walked back after a federal judge allowed a suit to go forward against the university for selected enforcement practice and academic censorship. Basically the university wasn't allowed to censor the journal under academic freedom and freedom of speach protections. One can still rightly be critical of the journal, but its now part of the academic literature.4meter4 (talk) 19:15, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Piano Dan: You have misread the second half of the sentence. It says that Schenker thought that racist theories were pseudoscience. It's not talking about Ewell. No one is accusing Ewell of pseudoscience. 24.184.26.105 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.184.26.105 (talk) 17:10, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

THAT position can't be supported by the Jackson citation (which, again, can only be used to support the claim that JACKSON believes something, until Schenker himself writes an article for Quilette), and is actively contradicted by the Wiener citation. The section "Schenker, Racism, and the Germans" in that paper makes clear that Weiner DOES agree with the mainstream consensus that Schenker was racist. Wiener, however, seems to be arguing that Schenker was racist against EVERYONE. I fail to see how a) that is an argument against Schenker's racism, or b) how that makes the sentence any more WP:UNDUE on a BLP of Ewell.

The mainstream position here is, by definition, the one articulated by the Society for Music Theory. Past that WP:BLP is pretty dang strict about not overemphasizing out-of-the-mainstream criticism. PianoDan (talk) 18:12, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

I am in wholehearted agreement with the case that PianoDan has presented for reverting the recent edits from anonymous IP. There are several issues at play:

• Quillette is not a reliable source, as is made clear here (linked directly to Quillette on that page).
• The sentence on Jackson's "charge" gives undue weight to Jackson's opinions in a subsection on "Music Theory's White Racial Frame" in an article about Philip Ewell. The inclusion of McWhorter's criticism has already been established as a fair counterpoint to Ewell's analytic of MTWRF. Again, and crucially, the source for Jackson's opinions is not a reliable source. Since Quillette outright cannot be used to substantiate facts, the issue comes down to whether it can be used in an instance such as this one to cite Jackson's opinions. In short, this is a WP:DUE issue. PianoDan has correctly clarified this in their above comments. I strongly align with PianoDan that the inclusion of the sentence on Jackson is a clear instance of giving undue weight to a minority opinion whose legitimacy is diminished by its publication in Quillette, [source deemed unreliable by WP consensus].
• I agree with PianoDan that the anonymous contributor's appeal to another WP page is a baseless WP:OTHERCONTENT argument.
• I refute the anonymous contributor's above statement that "Phillip Ewell merits a Wikipedia page only because of his article claiming that Heinrich Schenker is a biological racist and that Schenker's racism is part of the white racial frame." There is nothing more to say than to consult WP:Notability criteria for academics, especially criteria 1 and 7 (which are supported in the current article with established, reliable sources).
• Why isn't Timothy L. Jackson's WP page the more appropriate page for the sentence the anonymous editor contributed? The due/undue weight issue would be less at play since including Jackson's opinions on Jackson's own WP page would not be considered giving undue weight to a minority perspective on the article's subject. Philip Ewell's page is simply not the page for the anonymous editor's contribution. Moreover, as has been suggested previously on this talk page, a separate page on MTWRF would also be a more appropriate place for detailing the emergence of the analytic as advanced by Ewell with a commensurate section on that page for critical responses to MTWRF. But again, Philip Ewell's WP page, which is a BLP, is not the place for that. SyLvRuUz (talk) 19:07, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Since when is expressing the majority opinion NPOV? More importantly, the Society for Music Theory has not called Schenker a racist. The open letter you are referring to condemns several articles in JSS as "anti-racist." It says nothing about Schenker. SMT has not taken a position on whether Schenker is a racist.

Dr. Wiener and Dr. Jackson are both highly-regarded music theorists. Their opinions must be shown for a neutral article. Not having this sentence is tantamount to academic censorship and is therefore a violation of WP:Wikipedia is not censored and WP:POV. You can reword the sentence to make clear that it is showing contrary opinion, not facts.24.184.26.105 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.184.26.105 (talk) 19:24, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Piano Dan: At no point does Wiener call Schenker a biological racist. The point of Wiener's article is that Schenker was not a biological racist as depicted by Ewell. He shows that Ewell distorted Schenker's quotes by taking them out-of-context to make Schenker look like a biological racist. Schenker was a German nationalist. 24.184.26.105 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.184.26.105 (talk) 19:37, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

ñññ

Wiener's citation shows that Schenker was angry at the French government. It doesn't really change Schenker's use of the word "cannibal", which must refer not to the French government, but to the Senegalese troops. Cannibalism is not a French stereotype, but a black stereotype. It must also be understood as biological rather than cultural racism, since Schenker can't have known much about Senegalese culture.

- Joshua Clement Broyles

ñññ 186.155.12.76 (talk) 14:49, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

I would invite the anonymous contributor to consider treating this talk page as a space for conversation and exchange. Your addition to this thread in no way responds to any of the points I raised or questions I asked.

• Regarding your claims that "SMT has not called Schenker a racist" and that "SMT has not taken a position on whether Scenker [sic] is a racist": This article (Philip Ewell's WP page) makes no such claims about Schenker. In fact, the only uses of the word "racist" occur in the sentence added by the anonymous contributor and the quotation of McWhorter. Like my previous questions, wouldn't the WP page for SMT be the better page for that? But again, there is no such claim on this page that SMT has "taken a position on whether Schenker is a racist." Using Ewell's page to respond to a non-existent claim is certainly undue weight, and an inappropriate use of Ewell's page.
• That Wiener and Jackson are "highly-regarded music theorists" is a non-issue. What matters is the reliability of the source/publication (in this case Quillette), on which the WP community has come to a consensus that it is not a reliable source. It's only acceptable use, as stated in my previous comment, would be to represent an opinion (e.g., "Jackson said XYZ") and not to establish factuality (e.g., "SMT has not called Schenker a racist").
• The burden is on an editor to substantiate all claims with reliable sources in accordance with WP policies. When you state that "their [Wiener's and Jackson's] opinions must be shown for a neutral article," your claim is that inclusion of the sentence you added is not in violation of WP:DUE. The burden is on you to substantiate why your proposed edit is not undue weight. I and other editors here have made our cases with citation to WP guidelines. I invite you to similarly make your case. I remain unconvinced, in large part due to an absence of reliable sources and the fact that you have not offered considered responses to the questions and points that I and other editors have raised. SyLvRuUz (talk) 19:44, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

SyLvRuUz: I was responding to Piano Dan, not to you. Our comments went up at approximately the same time. 1. Piano Dan raised SMT. I was responding to him. SMT has not expressed an opinion on the accuracy of Ewell's quotations. 2. McWhorter is talking about a different issue than Wiener and Jackson. 3. The Wiener footnote supports the sentence with a minor rewrite, even if the Jackson cite is not included. 4. You said this in your comment: "It's only acceptable use [of Quillette], as stated in my previous comment, would be to represent an opinion (e.g., "Jackson said XYZ") and not to establish factuality." I agree. I am trying to show an opinion, not establish factuality. 24.184.26.105

My point about SMT was that the SMT statement emphatically decries the JSS issue as being an example of poor scholarship. The issue in question was literally CONSTRUCTED as a showcase for Jackson's point of view. According to their response: " ...the journal’s advisory board did not subject submissions to the normal processes of peer review... These are examples of professional misconduct, which in this case enables overtly racist behavior."

And the SMT, by definition, is the leading voice on what constitutes mainstream music theory in the US, which is where Ewell, Jackson, Weiner, and almost everyone else involved in this issue, are located.

As such, it is quite fair to say that quite a bit of evidence would be needed to support the inclusion of views expressed in that issue as examples of scholarship worthy of inclusion on the biography of a living person, which, as has been mentioned repeatedly, has an extremely high bar for the inclusion of critical viewpoints. As SyLvRuUz has pointed out - Wikipedia has rules and policies. We have made arguments based on those policies, and it is incumbent on opposing arguments to correctly cite them. PianoDan (talk) 21:23, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Since I was pinged in this argument. I think the anonymous editor has made points that have no credibility, particularly with regards to the arguments presented by PianoDan and SyLvRuUz. I plead guilty to taking a very cynical view of anonymous editors who insist on remaining anonymous. They are basically proclaiming that although they have a point of view, they do not want to take responsibility for it. (I am aware this goes against WP guidelines to assume good faith, but I think there is a point after which the evidence shows that you don't need to make such assumptions.) - kosboot (talk) 02:08, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

As I was pinged, I personally wouldn't use the source for the reasons stated above. Further, using Jackson as the source of critique in a publication lacking peer review is suspect. Jackson has a personal stake now in this issue due to the related ongoing litigation against his university and the complex issues connected to that law suit. He's a man fighting for his job, the survival of the journal he created (Journal of Schenkerian Studies) and his public reputation. I'm not saying that his writing/argument is right or wrong, but that its not clear that he is able to write on this topic currently without an agenda that stretches to the personal when it comes to critiquing Ewell. In short, anything written by Jackson about Ewell in a publication without editorial oversight now lacks sufficient independence to be considered reliable given the current situation. Best to let some third party academics write on this topic and publish, and use those sources in the future on wikipedia. Inevitably this whole thing will eventually work its way through published academic discourse by independent writers which will in the end be the best and most reliable sources for wikipedia's purposes.4meter4 (talk) 09:20, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Don Baton

...is not a real person. He's a pseudonym, and as such, his use on a BLP page isn't supported by WP:BLP. PianoDan (talk) 01:26, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Where exactly in the BLP language are you drawing that conclusion from? (I'm not challenging your opinion, just wanting to know the relevant text to look at). In looking at the article the text seems like a critique of Ewell's publication and not Ewell as a person, so I am not really seeing a problem in what I read of the BLP policy language. The City Journal is a respected policy magazine with an editorial board so I don't see a problem here. Writers published under a pseudonym in RS with editorial review are still considered reliable under policy because of the editorial controls of the publication. 4meter4 (talk) 03:19, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

"Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that: is unsourced or poorly sourced;"

An anonymous article is poorly sourced, given that the source is unidentified. Editorial controls don't change the fact that a BLP is not the place for an anonymous attack. Had the City Journal editors signed the piece themselves, that would be different. (Ironically, one of the more egregious bits of academic malpractice in JSS #12 was publishing an anonymous article without any justification for doing so.) PianoDan (talk) 03:56, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

@PianoDan I don't think you are understanding this policy correctly which is in reference to defamatory and/or libelous comments about living people. It isn't meant to be applied towards published critical assessment of works by living people (otherwise we would not include critical reviews of films, books, music albums, etc. encyclopedia wide). This is a published critical book review in a national magazine, not a research article in a journal. It's also entirely non-controversial in regards to the BLP policy as the article in question is not about Ewell but is a published critical review of On Music Theory, and Making Music More Welcoming for Everyone. The author in question also routinely publishes under this nom de plume; and it isn't something they are doing to avoid scrutiny; unlike in the aforementioned journal. Again this is not an academic journal, but a national magazine. I further point out that criteria 3 and 4 for WP:NAUTHOR specifically mention critical reviews as evidence for the notability of biographies on authors. Using articles like this in biography pages on writers is an expectation. 4meter4 (talk) 05:11, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Three columns total, including this one, hardly reaches the level of "routine". It's not that the review is critical that is the issue - it's the fact that it's not in any way NOTABLE, by virtue of being anonymous. City Journal may be a "national magazine," but that doesn't mean that an anonymous submission to it reaches the level of BLP worthy. PianoDan (talk) 14:31, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

I am not sure what you mean by "BLP worthy" here as there isn't anything in WP:BLP policy or WP:Verifiability that would discredit or invalidate this source. Unlike other sources which have been discussed on this talk page, this is not a self published source. Further, this is one of the very few published book reviews on Ewell's book, and it's in a notable publication. What makes it notable is where it is published (i.e. the platform), and not who authored the piece. There's not really a valid reason not to include it as a source in this particular article given the scarcity of published materials on this particular topic.4meter4 (talk) 23:14, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

ñññ

Appeal to Scarcity is most commonly used by advertisers to manipulate consumers to buy things they otherwise wouldn't buy. I must say I never expected to see it being used on a Wikipedia talk page.

- Joshua Clement Broyles

ñññ 186.155.12.76 (talk) 18:55, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Four people disagree with you. You are not the board dictator./ You did not answer 4meter4's question. Tell us where you got your rule from or don't revert./ You haven't satisfied the exemption to the three revert rule./The material you reverted three times is not about a person, but about a book. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Klimt1973 (talk • contribs) 04:29, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

@4meter4 has expressly said "I'm not challenging your opinion.", so you can't count them as one of the four.

The anonymous IP contributor can feel free to create an account if they wish to be taken seriously.

So that leaves just you and the original poster vs. the exact language I cited: "Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that: is unsourced or poorly sourced;", which is straight out of WP:BLPREMOVE. PianoDan (talk) 04:36, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

The material isn't contentious/It's just a cite. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Klimt1973 (talk • contribs) 04:53, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

ñññ

But what are Don Baton's qualifications? How does citing something he said differ from City Journal quoting a random person in the street? Are we going to cite the opinions of bloggers next?

- Joshua Clement Broyles

ñññ 186.155.12.76 (talk) 18:50, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Don Baton is a real person, writing under a pseudonym (as we all do here). He explains why: "Don Baton is the pen name of an orchestra conductor working on the East Coast of the U.S." The only question is to know whether what he writes is "a contentious material about a living person" or merely a review of a recently published book. WP readers should be able to sort that out by themselves. The two reviews mentioned (by John McWhorter and by Don Baton) apparently are the only ones published up to now, but other ones should be quoted, of course, as soon as they appear. — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 20:44, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

There is a new review of Ewell's book, by Barry Wiener, published today on Quillette. This one, however, may not qualify for a mention in the article. — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 19:52, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

And another one here, on Substack. Not too enthusiastic either, but again probably not worth mentioning in the article. — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 09:20, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

@Hucbald.SaintAmand, I would think an article published in Quillette' would be fine given it has an academic bent with editorial review and is not self published, and the author has clearly meticulously researched the topic and examined the historical evidence. The author fact checked Ewell's book by looking at historical documents drawing into question its assertions based on faulty historicity and quotations which were misrepresented and taken out of context. It's clearly worthy of inclusion. The sub stack article, however, is self published, so its use is tenuous, although the author is on the editorial board of a notable journal and is a published author in music journals. Best.4meter4 (talk) 20:03, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

This is all fine for me, @4meter4. I try to keep track of reviews of Ewell's book, and these are the only ones I have been able to find up to now. Also, I'd hate to seem being the only one adding such references to this article. Feel free to add these or any others, if you find that useful. — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 20:59, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Another review of Ewell's book: Philip Ewell On Music Theory, by Hugh Morris in 'VAN', June 29, 2023, less critical than the ones above. — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 21:03, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

There is a new review of Ewell's book by Bryan Pankhurst,"Sins of the Father: Schenker, Schenkerism and Ewell's On Music Theory," in the British Journal Music Analysis 43/1 (March 2024), pp. 136-174. At one point, Pankhurst writes: "I sincerely have no earthly idea what Ewell is driving at." That seems to be the essence of his review. — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 20:43, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

McWhorter Quote from Substack.

The exact wording of the policy from WP:SPS is: "Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer." The equivalent statement from WP:BLPSPS is "Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article."

I removed the McWhorter quote as a violation of that policy. @4meter4 reverted, arguing that the quote is about Ewell's research, not about Ewell himself. (Do I have that about right?)

So the question is - what's the proper application of the policy here? Is including a self-published quote about the research different from including one about the researcher? I would argue that this is a BLP page, so the policy applies to the whole page. Might be worth pinging an admin with experience in BLP issues. PianoDan (talk) 02:45, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, you are correct. The researcher is not synonymous with their research. The quote in question is not providing any information about Ewell. It's providing a critique of his research from an widely recognized expert in the relevant field. It's a big stretch to argue that the content is providing any information about Ewell as a person or that using this source violates the language of the policy at WP:BLPSPS.4meter4 (talk) 02:52, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

I DON'T think it's a stretch, frankly, so I'm going to go check at the help desk to see what answer I get. However, if the consensus there is "this is OK," I'll let it go until some more academic sources appear. As you observed in the prior thread, that process does certainly take a while in the humanities. PianoDan (talk) 02:57, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

If that is the consensus, than I strongly suggest we no longer house this topic on this page. The entire section should be moved out of this article to it's own wiki page at Music Theory's White Racial Frame. There's certainly enough significant coverage (even The New York Times has good coverage) to pass WP:GNG. The quote certainly would not be out of place in such an article.4meter4 (talk) 03:03, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Arguing for a complete split based on a single source being ruled invalid strikes me as a bit of an overreaction.

If we DID start an independent page, I think it's obvious the content should still be summarized here with a "see full article" subheading, since it is, after all, research that Ewell is known for. PianoDan (talk) 03:07, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Obviously. As for the "single source" issue, this is not the first of negative critiques that have been challenged and removed. Its clear to me that there is a WP:POV push at work towards censoring any form of criticism. That concerns me. Moving the content to a page that can more easily house criticism is preferable over violating WP:NOTCENSORED. 4meter4 (talk) 03:11, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

The fact of the matter is that there IS very little criticism in WP:RS. Ewell's positions are, as evidenced by the nearly a thousand signatories to the SMT open letter, widely supported by the music theory establishment. SMT keynotes aren't handed out to people with fringe views. Simply creating a second page for the purposes of trying to dodge WP:BLP doesn't feel to me within the spirit of the rules. If it were so important to include critical viewpoints, it wouldn't be nearly so difficult to find them in sources that clearly pass Wikipedia muster. PianoDan (talk) 14:26, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

I would argue that we aren't dodging BLP, because there isn't an issue with the quote and the policy in the first place. You are WP:wikilawyering to overturn the community consensus above on the McWhorter quote and enact censorship on the article to push your WP:POV. Lastly, having separate articles on notable works (books, films, publications, etc.) is a standard practice on wikipedia, and including critical assessment on those works is a normal part of article development.4meter4 (talk) 16:05, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

ñññ

A problem I see with the McWhorter quote is that it ends with a question which the format of the article implies has gone unaddressed. Doesn't Ewell's work partly address McWhorter's question?

- Joshua Clement Broyles

ñññ 186.155.12.76 (talk) 18:44, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Questions often make salient critiques. Based on your comments here, you seem to be WP:POVPUSHing which is not allowed. Further, we can only report criticisms not critique them. That involves original analysis on our part which we can't do on wikipedia. That's not allowed under WP:No original research. You are welcome to that opinion, but that is no reason to not include the opinion of a subject matter expert like McWhorter. This issue has been solved already through WP:CONSENSUS based in policy language.4meter4 (talk) 19:36, 19 November 2024 (UTC)