Talk:Musical historicism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article falls within the scope of the WikiProject contemporary music, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of contemporary music subjects. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

	Philosophy Portal This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received an importance rating on the importance scale.
Additional information: Related task forces (core areas): Social and political philosophy

[edit] Grant Colburn, Tim Crawford, et al.

Editor Galassi has been insisting that the interview with Roman Turovsky-Savchuk included in the Colburn source found in the References includes a statement that the reason listeners had mistaken Turovsky-Savchuk's compositions "for works by masters of the composer's own mythopoeic invention" was their "quality". This source simply does not verify this claim, and Galassi's persistence in reverting my edits, even when I substitute direct quotations from the interview to make absolutely plain what is said and not said, is becoming tedious. If Galassi can cite a passage that I have overlooked in that interview (and I have thoroughly read the version at Polyhymnion that Galassi keeps waving at, vaguely), then I will cheerfully concede the point. As a second line of defense, Galassi has used the word "sprezzatura" to characterize Turovsky's sometimes self-deprecating tone in the interview. I submit that making such an interpretation constitutes Original Research, which is counter to Wikipedia:verifiability: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth, that is, not whether we think it is true. 'Verifiability' in this context means that readers should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source." The same is true for drawing inferences not explicit in a cited text. Finally, Galassi briefly inserted a reference to a publication identified only as "T. Crawford 2001", saying that it would confirm the connection between the quality of Turovsky's works and some listeners' belief that it was genuine baroque music. I was delighted to see this, but, when I was unable to find any publication by the well-known lutenist Tim Crawford published in that year, and questioned whether it might instead have actually been one of Crawford's publications from 1995, 2002, or 2007, Galassi simply withdrew the citation and accused me of not knowing who Crawford is. (It is of course completely immaterial whether or not one or another editor recognizes the name of some authority—every single reader, whether familiar with the subject under discussion or not, must be able to consult the sources.) I invite Galassi to address these issues here, and make a better case for keeping the questioned phraseology than he has done so far in his edit comments.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 20:46, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

The Crawford quote is from private correspondence that is PUBLISHED on http://polyhymnion.org/swv/comments.html and thus is reasonably cited.Lute88 (talk) 20:54, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Funny that no one has up to now thought to use that reference in the article. However, even though it claims to be quoting someone else, because this is the only source and is Turovsky's own site, it clearly fails WP:SPS: "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, forum postings, and similar sources are largely not acceptable." It seems to me that the material from Colburn, too, because it comes from an interview with the subject and emanates directly from the subject's statements, and not from Colburn, is perilously close to failing WPS:SPS as well as WP:RS "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This is fundamental to the encyclopedia's policies."—Jerome Kohl (talk) 01:11, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

It says SHOULD, rather than MUST. So we'd have to live with that citation for the time being. Why don't you email Colburn, and ask him whether he endorses that citation? He is often enough on the EM list where you are seen as well.Galassi (talk) 01:55, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

We do not necessarily "have to live with" anything that does not fulfill Wikipedia guidelines (which are the ones that say "should" rather than "must"), and we are not permitted to knowingly retain things that violate Wikipedia policy. As for writing to Colburn, I could do that—I could write to a hundred people and ask their opinions, and so could you—but that would not make any of it a "published third-party source" let alone a "reliable source", and these are the criteria for verification on Wikipedia. You see, it is not me alone that you have to convince, but everyone and anyone who happens to read a Wikipedia article. As it says on WP:PROVEIT "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. The source should be cited clearly and precisely to enable readers to find the text that supports the article content in question" (bold letters are in the original, italic emphases are mine).—Jerome Kohl (talk) 03:37, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I notice that Galassi has once again restored wording that has been challenged and removed under the just-cited guideline. I will add the online link myself, since Galassi seems reluctant to do so, but I reiterate that the word "quality" occurs in the online interview exactly twice, and neither time is it connected with the acceptance by anyone of the compositions as genuine baroque works. The first of these is "I've earned some great friends for whom music's quality is paramount to its pedigree. Not least of these is . . .", and the second instance is "I was surprised at the uncritical ears, oblivious to uncharacteristic elements. Even detractors zeroed in on my alleged immorality, ignoring quality alogether" (my emphases). I ask Galassi to refrain from again restoring this unreferenced material, until and unless a reliable published source can be found.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 16:44, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

The quote is restored and properly inline-cited. Any removal thereof will be considered wikistalking, undue weight, and/or vandalism. Your personal vendettas are out of place here, regardless of Turovsky's opinions about Stockhausen. Having said that, I don't want to be too combative and search for OR in you KHS article. I think we could live peacefully, as an ex-musicologist, and an ex-composer [;-)Galassi (talk) 19:37, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Statements such as these are contrary to WP:ETIQ, WP:AGF, and WP:CIV, and Turovsky's opinions about Stockhausen (whatever they might be) are entirely irrelevant to this discussion. (The article on Stockhausen, incidentally, is not "mine", though I have contributed to it. Since it has recently passed a WP:GA review, I think you may rely on the fact that it contains no OR.) Since you persist in restoring removed claims that have been demonstrated not to be supported by the cited references, and no other editors appear to be involved, I see no better alternative than Wikipedia:Third opinion.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:41, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I was asked to provide a third opinion so here goes. As I see it, Turovsky's accomplishment is notable enough for the article, and the reference is fine, but I'd suggest removing the phrase "of such quality" since it's causing problems here, and also -- having read the reference before reading the full commentary on this talk page -- I admit I also stumbled over the assertion that the source supports it. So an initial suggestion is, "These include Winfried Michel, author of the impressive "Haydn Forgeries," (Beckerman 1994; Lindskoog 1996) and Roman Turovsky-Savchuk, whose original lute and viola da gamba compositions in the baroque style were sufficiently convincing to be mistaken for works by masters of the composer's own mythopoeic invention (^[1]) and led to accusations of "trivializing musicology" (Smith 2002). -- Hope this helps. I appreciate the work all of you are doing here. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 23:05, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Fine. No problem with with this wording.Galassi (talk) 23:35, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Fine with me, as well. It was nothing but the claimed connection between "quality" and the "mistaking" that I was objecting to (and not even that, if a source could be found to support it). I hasten to add, since there may be some doubt about this, that I have never questioned the notability in this context of Turovsky's compositions.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 02:58, 1 May 2008 (UTC)