Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music theory

Repost from /Solfège talk: Different Naming for Flat Notes

I have a more intuitive naming scheme for the flat notes under https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solfège#Major, but is citation required to begin with?

Timothy L. Jackson Notability

The article Timothy L. Jackson seems to have been self-created. Aside from that, notability? - kosboot (talk) 23:12, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't see enough evidence to be certain Jackson himself wrote the article. Editeur24 has a reasonably long edit history, and describes themselves as an economist. Further, they made the basic mistake of referring to Jackson as a "musicologist" rather than a "music theorist," which is a quite clear distinction in the US, and one on which Jackson decidedly falls on the latter side of.

That said, I think the biggest objection to Jackson's notability is that while he has had quite a bit of independent coverage, it's all for one event. My gut is that he has (barely) managed to clear that bar, but I wouldn't argue with a forceful opinion to the contrary.

If the article DOES remain, it's going to have to be monitored. The original version was incredibly non-NPOV. This is an encyclopedia, not Fox News - you don't get to have a section heading called "Cancellation." PianoDan (talk) 15:15, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Couldn't the same question about notability be asked about Philip Ewell? Both articles seem justified only by the recent events in the UNT and the SMT. If an article is devoted to Philip Ewell, I think it only fair to have one also on Timothy Jackson. Jackson's list of works (which I began completing) is in addition more extended (and more intersting, IMO) than Ewell's. — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 19:53, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

I think there's a fundamental difference. Ewell isn't just notable for the controversy over his views, he's notable for the coverage of the views themselves. Jackson's only mainstream notability is for attacking Ewell. No one is covering Jackson's actual views on music theory in the mainstream press, and if simply being an academic expert on a topic were sufficient reason to have an article, there would be a lot more of them. PianoDan (talk) 18:50, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

That said, I think he DOES squeak by WP:NACADEMIC. "The person has been the head or chief editor of a major, well-established academic journal in their subject area." JSS sorta kinda squeaks over that line, even with only twelve issues, and his title is "Distinguished Professor," which is also listed as a qualification. PianoDan (talk) 18:57, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Well, I don't think "the coverage of the [Ewell's] views themselves" had been what it is, was in not for the reactions in the Journal of Schenkerian Studies. What is covered is the quarrel between Ewell and Jackson. The "views themselves" do not resist examination. But let's leave it at that. — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 19:53, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Please do not make a false equivalence. There is not a "dispute between Ewell and Jackson." Ewell has presented criticism of the current framing of music theory. Jackson responded by attacking Ewell directly. These are fundamentally different, and implying that this is simply a personal matter between two academics misrepresents the actual situation. PianoDan (talk) 06:16, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

@PianoDan, I don't think that WP is the place to further discuss this. I am not speaking of Ewell's views or of the dispute itself, but of their "coverage." Can you quote if only one publication that covers Ewell's views as such? Even the Society for Music Theory forcefully refuses to discuss them after their publication in Music Theory Online. The only thing covered is the quarrel with the Journal of Schenkerian Studies – which was not only between Jackson and Ewell, but also involved several of the main experts in Schenkerian theory, then the University of North Texas, the SMT, etc. — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 09:09, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

I did hear a zoom talk by Ewell where, responding to a question from the audience, he said he was not interested in responding to or talking about Jackson. I still think the Jackson article barely reaches notability. Perhaps someone can post it AfD to see if it passes scrutiny there. - kosboot (talk) 13:12, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

@Hucbald.SaintAmand It's quite a bit disingenuous to say "This isn't the place to further discuss this," and then continue to discuss it. SMT rarely "discusses" anything - the fact that they issued a statement at all is a testament to just how flagrantly unprofessional Jackson's behavior was. And as Kosboot points out - Ewell is repeatedly on record as not wanting to talk about Jackson or the JSS.

@Kosboot In the face of the fact that WP:NACADEMIC expressly calls out the title of "Distinguished Professor" as conferring notability, I personally wouldn't bother filing an AfD, because I predict it would fail immediately on that basis. PianoDan (talk) 14:10, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Is this theorist really notable enough for WP?

Struggling to find really any coverage from reliable sources on Stefan Kostka. Anyone have any luck? Otherwise, I'm thinking the article needs to go to AFD—as much as I would hate deleting the article of a music theorist. Aza24 (talk) 01:48, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

I notice that his (and Dorothy Paine's) book Tonal Harmony is cited in almost 50 Wikipedia articles. Maybe that's enough to satisfy WP:NPROF. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:13, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

I suspect the book is more notable than him; I can't find any references to source any of the information on his life, for example. Aza24 (talk) 02:19, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

True, and his books get some scholarly reviews, which helps NPROF, I suppose. His name often appears as "Stefan M. Kostka". -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:59, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

After a bit of digging, I'm surprised to find that I agree - he doesn't meet WP:NACADEMIC. He was never on the executive board of SMT, was not a Distinguished professor, his RESEARCH doesn't seem to have been highly influential, etc... PianoDan (talk) 17:55, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks to you both, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stefan Kostka. Aza24 (talk) 19:52, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

For future reference - it has been pointed out on the discussion thread that WP:AUTHOR is something we should also be considering. I think Cadwallader would still have failed under that metric - he was third author on a textbook that's not as fundamental as the Kostka / Payne is. But for future discussions, we need to think about that in addition to WP:NACADEMIC. PianoDan (talk) 00:31, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Timothy L. Jackson COI/UPE discussion

(started a new topic, moved Michael Bednarek's comment down here - PianoDan (talk) 15:32, 31 December 2021 (UTC))

The article has now been moved into draft space, Draft:Timothy L. Jackson, apparently over WP:UPE concerns. I think it should be in main space. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 09:52, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Here's what I could find:

• Redirects for discussion: Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 October 30#Editeur24/jackson (I think this relates to an error made in the original creation of the page, not the current situation.)
• Original author's talk page: User talk:Editeur24 (last entry, wasn't sure how to link to a subsection of a talk page)

It appears that the admin in question is concerned about either Conflict of Interest concerns or that Editeur24 had been paid to write this page. I think the former is far more likely, since they haven't been back to work on the page since the original publication. In support, the photo of Jackson on the page is listed by Editeur24 as "own work". However, at this point, there's really nothing to be done except wait for Editeur24 to make an AFC request. PianoDan (talk) 15:39, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Editeur24 says on his own page, refering to his sandbox pages, that he has "other local pages such as [...] /jackson." It seems obvious that when he thought that this page could be published, he created it keeping its sandbox name, "Editeur24/Jackson" – which has been the cause of all this discussion. The page File:Jackson_Timothy_L.jpg says that the file is "own work" by Editeur24 and dates it 29 October 2021, which indeed, is when the photograph was added to the article. The metadata however say that the file was created by an iPhone 8 plus on 3 May 2020. The photograph was used in the French WP article on Timothy Jackson since its creation on 30 October 2020. In view of all this, I think that only User:Editeur24 himself could provide information about this page. Both COI and UPE appear unlikely. — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 18:27, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

User:Editeur24's last 500 contributions: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Editeur24&limit=500&target=Editeur24 - kosboot (talk) 20:04, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Since Editeur24 last edited this article, it has changed considerably (diff 30 Oct 2021 – 1 Jan 2022), so I suggest any COI/UPE concerns are water under the bridge. No AFC request is needed; any confirmed user can move a draft into article space. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:07, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

@Onel5969:, would you mind weighing in here? PianoDan (talk) 01:33, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping PianoDan - the length of time an editor has been editing is irrelevant to whether or not an editor has a COI/UPE conflict. In this case, it's very clear that the editor does. I have no comment on the notability of the of the subject (although I will point out that the distinguished professor title stated in the article, does not have a valid citation, so it would need that). UPE editors, along with socks, are two of the largest time-sucks on Wikipedia, and imho, should never be encouraged. I would say that until the editor addresses that concern, it should not be submitted for review. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:14, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

This is definitely a level of Wikipedia procedural arcana that I'm not familiar with, I'm afraid. Is Michael Bednarek correct that anyone could move this article back into article space once it's been cleaned up, or would the request need to come from the original author? Thanks for your help! PianoDan (talk) 16:06, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

@Onel5969:, but what are your arguments to claim that "it's very clear" that the editor does have a COI/UPE conflict? — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 16:34, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Onel5969: Of course "the length of time an editor has been editing is irrelevant …"; relevant is that the current version of the article is quite different to the one written by Editeur24. Any consideration of WP:POISON is now irrelevant. PianoDan: Please read WP:DRAFT#Publishing a draft for relevant guidance. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:20, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi. A, I'm not going to go into the tells which UPE/COI engage in which would only make it easier for UPE editors to game the system. B, The basic content of the article is not that much different. Other than same format changes and the addition of other works, it's basically the same article. Regardless, until the UPE/COI is dealt with by the original editor, it should not be moved. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:13, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

AFAICS, the original editor, User:Editeur24, who is, according to their user page, an economics professor at a major university, has never been asked whether they are paid or have a conflict of interest. How can they be expected to deal with that? What happened to WP:AGF? Most importantly, which passages in the original article or in the current draft could possibly be considered tainted by COI/UPE? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:26, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Leaving aside the COI question for a moment, is there any conceivable reason why we should have or want an article on this person? He does not pass WP:NPROF – he does not have a named professorship, and has an h-index of 3 – and the stuff about the Journal of Schenkerian Studies is already covered, just as it ought to be, in that article. This would make a good redirect, perhaps? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:34, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Timothy Jackson appears notable on the basis of his distinguished professor appointment (WP:NPROF, crit. 5) and of having been head or chief editor of a well-established academic journal (WP:NPROF, crit. 8). It may be of importance to compare his notoriety with that of Philip Ewell, who passes WP:NPROF on none of the criteria and has a Scopus h-index of only 1. WP should accept these two articles, or reject both, lest it unduly takes position in a complex matter. This already was abundantly discussed above. The question is not whether we (who?) want these articles, but rather whether their presence is justified. — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 15:23, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

As discussed above, I fundamentally disagree with your evaluation of Ewell's notability, as well as the significance of the JSS. WP:PROF is a guideline, not a straitjacket. Bringing up Ewell in this context makes Jackson less notable, since it's clear that his primary notability outside of academia is for a single event, namely attacking Ewell. "Distinguished Professor" is the ONLY thing that drags Jackson over the notability line, in my opinion. That said - it does seem to do that. PianoDan (talk) 15:47, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

The more it is discussed, the more I think this "distinguished professor" rule is being misinterpreted and misued. It's only a title. Sure, it may indicate that the person has done enough research to merit an increase in salary. But it might be purely as a result of longevity or internal political manipulations. If "distinguished professor" tips the scales for inclusion, then Wikipedia could easily become a directory of distinguished professors, the majority of which really have no additional reason to be included. Go back to the fundamentals: Has the person really accomplished something of notability that warrants inclusions in Wikipedia? - kosboot (talk) 19:59, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

(Here from spillover discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability (academics).) The claim that all of TLJ's coverage is over the Schenker/racism controversy is completely false. There are many in-depth and reliably published reviews of his academic works [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14], enough for a pass of WP:AUTHOR on top of the obvious pass of WP:PROF#C5 and on top of the large amount of media attention (more than most professors) given to his recent announcements. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:23, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

• Comment. I concur that the subject clearly passes our notability guidelines per criteria 5 and 8 of WP:NACADEMIC and multiple criteria at WP:NAUTHOR. Speaking as someone who just completed graduate studies in music (I passed my defense last month!) both Ewell and Jackson's academic publications have been at the center of much heated discussions in graduate courses in music theory and musicology which I have taken in the last two years. Both of them are at the center of a seminal moment in music studies, and I would be hard pressed to think of two working music theory practitioners more important than these two men for what is happening currently and being discussed in the field.4meter4 (talk) 23:57, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

I am editeur24, who posted the article in the first place. I am not a paid editor; I doubt a musicology professor could afford my billing rate. I saw Timothy Jackson in the news, tried to look him up on Wikipedia, and he wasn't there. I looked up info about him, which I didn't think was controversial (would I lie about him being a chaired professor or having those various publications or being a journal editor?). The conflict with Ewell is what he's best known for, but otherwise he seems to be a fairly typical "big name" academic-- a journal editor with a bunch of publications who is seen as a big name by other academics but not by ordinary people. If his journal deserves an article, presumably he does too. The conflict with Ewell alone makes the two of them prominent music professors-- prominent for their views on music, not for something incidental like committing a murder or people calling for his firing. I wrote to him for a photo, since though there are photos on the web, I wanted to get one with copyright permission, and he gave me the one I used. A photo's not essential to a bio article, but it's nice to have. editeur24 (talk) 18:56, 4 January 2022 (UTC)