Talk:Timothy L. Jackson: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 22:25, 19 February 2022

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Classical music

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical music, which aims to improve, expand, copy edit, and maintain all articles related to classical music, that are not covered by other classical music related projects. Please read the guidelines for writing and maintaining articles. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.Classical musicWikipedia:WikiProject Classical musicTemplate:WikiProject Classical musicClassical music

"Editeur24/jackson" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Editeur24/jackson. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 October 30#Editeur24/jackson until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Stefan2 (talk) 12:06, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note - this is NOT related to the current draftification of the article, but is rather related to an error made when the page was originally published, and is no longer relevant. PianoDan (talk) 16:01, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources

Factual information, such as career dates, needs to be sourced to reliable sources, not opinion journals. If Jackson's piece in Quillette is WP:DUE, a fact of which I am not convinced, then a reference to that piece is only appropriate when talking about the piece itself. This is made quite clear in the WP:RSP listing for Quillette. PianoDan (talk) 16:01, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Jackson Timothy L.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:35, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Open letter on antiracist action

As an additional clause in a single sentence, I don't feel that including the link to the open letter is WP:UNDUE. By restoring it, User:Hucbald.SaintAmand has clearly also indicated they felt it is appropriate. Further discussion would seem to be warranted to attempt to achieve a consensus before additional reverts. I'll add a link to a source other than the Google doc, however. PianoDan (talk) 00:13, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mot a reliable source: "Articles should be based on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Google documents doesn't satisfy this. "The term "published" is most commonly associated with text materials, either in traditional printed format or online; however, audio, video, and multimedia materials that have been recorded then broadcast, distributed, or archived by a reputable party may also meet the necessary criteria to be considered reliable sources. Like text, media must be produced by a reliable source and be properly cited." The clause should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.184.26.105 (talk) 01:43, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP forbids non-reliably-published sources on biographies of living people. That is especially true, as in this case, where the material in those sources is controversial. Open letters, departmental web site opinion pieces, and the like, should not be used here. Let's stick to properly published material, please. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:49, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

David: Shouldn't the statement of the Board of the Society of Music The4oiry be removed for the same reason? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.184.26.105 (talk) 04:11, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That appears to be an official announcement of a society rather than an editorial by a random member of the society posted as a non-publication of the society's web page, so I don't think it's at all the same thing as the removed sources. I did also remove another blog source used as a reference for who Jackson's mother was. Since this information didn't seem to be controversial I left it in the article for now with a citation needed tag, but if we can't eventually find a better source we should remove it. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:12, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is all perfectly reasonable. I found a book chapter that referred to the letter^[1], so there is a reliable source that it exists. However, what's important about the letter is that the number of signatories represents a significant fraction of the discipline in the US, which is what makes it WP:DUE here - establishing that this criticism is NOT, in fact, a minority position. Unfortunately, the book chapter doesn't mention that, so I'm not going to bother adding it back in at this time. PianoDan (talk) 15:55, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I must confess that I fail to see why the open letter signed by more than 900 members of the SMT should not (or could not) be mentioned.

Is there any doubt about its existence? In addition to Utz' book, it is mentioned here and here and here and here and here and ... I suppose that this may suffice to make the point.
Is it that none of these may qualify as a reliable source? Does not their number suffice to make their content reliable and to confirm that the open letter does exist?
Is it that it gives to much strength to the argument of the SMT, or rather that it shows how SMT members are "making complete fools of (them)selves"?
Or is it irrelevant to the controversy? I think on the contrary that it illustrates how excessive the controversy is: the open letter calls for a "A censure of the advisory board of the Journal of Schenkerian Studies", no less. Timothy Jackson is victim of a censure, by more than 900 of his colleagues music theorists.

The article itself of course should keep as neutral a position as possible in this: WP is not the place to choose a camp. But then, what's the point, what's the hidden intention of hiding the existence of this open letter? — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 21:03, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If the SMT open letter is included, shouldn't the open letter of the European theorists also be included? It responds to the SMT letter.

References

^ Utz, Christian (2021). Musical Composition in the Context of Globalization : New Perspectives on Music History in the 20th and 21st Century. Bielefeld: Verlag. ISBN 9783839450956.

[1] Utz, Christian (2021). Musical Composition in the Context of Globalization : New Perspectives on Music History in the 20th and 21st Century. Bielefeld: Verlag. ISBN 9783839450956.

[1]

@@ Line 30: / Line 30: @@
 :::* Or is it irrelevant to the controversy? I think on the contrary that it illustrates how excessive the controversy is: the open letter calls for a "A censure of the advisory board of the  Journal of Schenkerian Studies", no less. Timothy Jackson is victim of a ''censure'', by more than 900 of his colleagues music theorists.
 :::The article itself of course should keep as neutral a position as possible in this: WP is not the place to choose a camp. But then, what's the point, what's the hidden intention of hiding the existence of this open letter? — [[User:Hucbald.SaintAmand|Hucbald.SaintAmand]] ([[User talk:Hucbald.SaintAmand|talk]]) 21:03, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
+If the SMT open letter is included, shouldn't the open letter of the European theorists also be included?  It responds to the SMT letter.
 {{talk ref}}