Talk:Jim Chappell

Use of Scaruffi web site

Original discussion

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.wiki.x.io/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.wiki.x.io/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)

• 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)

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

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)

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) Darkfrog24 Thank you for taking the time to review this matter. I believe you miss a basic point when you describe the linked material as "just a blog post". As brought out in the above discussion (especially the parts that took place in early December), the entire site is not devoted to blog posts. A substantial portion of it is devoted to hosting on-line copies of material that had already seen third-party print publication. And as such, it fell outside the scope of the earlier "consensus" (a point that was acknowledged above by the administrator who had mediated/closed that discussion). Nonetheless, your point about including information in the article itself is well-taken. It will be possible to incorporate much of the linked material in the article's section on "Critical Reception" and, perhaps, the disputants will see this as an acceptable compromise (I certainly will see it that way). If I've misconstrued your remarks, please let us know. Thanks again for the review. NewYorkActuary (talk) 23:37, 1 February 2016 (UTC) While I read the thread above carefully, I noticed that it did not include the specific link to the site in question, and neither did many of the linked conversations, so I went to the page history and found this diff: [2]. I inferred that the "further reading" under discussion referred to this exact page and not to any other. Were other pages from this overall site suggested for inclusion under "further reading"? Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:54, 1 February 2016 (UTC) Darkfrog24 My apologies. The link in question has been in and out of the article so many times that I forgot that it was not currently there. Just to be clear, I offer the following: The disputed link is [3] The page on the web site stating that the material in the first link was previously published is [4] The statements by the closing administrator, stating that previously-published material was acceptable, have been highlighted (in two places) above. Thank you for getting back to us. NewYorkActuary (talk) 01:13, 2 February 2016 (UTC) Yes, that's the link in the diff I found, the one that I consider to be just a blog post. Am I missing something? It doesn't look like it contains anything but text about the albums in question. The rest of the site does not appear to contain any unusual resources. If it's been published elsewhere, that might make it reliable but I feel a further reading link should offer something that the regular article itself does not. It's not awful but it's nothing particularly relevant either. It looks like you feel this falls under WP:ELMAYBE #4. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:27, 2 February 2016 (UTC) Thanks for the response. Because the author's works on New Age music are held in the music collections of a good many prestigious universities, the author is an "established expert" in that field within the meaning of WP:RS. As such, my rationale for adding the material as "Further Reading" was not based on #4 of WP:ELMAYBE. My concern was that the amount of material in the reading's assessment of the artist's recording career was much greater than the amount of material that could be gleaned from other sources. Using it in the "Critical Reception" section of the article might have given the appearance of placing undue weight on the opinion of this one expert. And conceivably, bringing in enough of that material to fill in the gaps left by the other sources might also have raised questions of copyright violations (based on the amount of imported material compared to the total amount in the reading). For these reasons, my rationale for using it as a "Further Reading" was (and continues to be) #3 of WP:ELYES. Nonetheless, I have not changed my previously-stated position--if the other party to this dispute is willing to accept the compromise of bringing that material into the article, so will I. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:49, 2 February 2016 (UTC) For my part, I think there is a great deal of value in someone (WP:BURDEN is in effect here...) schlepping to a library and actually pulling the physical book off the shelf for a citation. If the text is, verbatim, the same as on the website, then there's no particularly good reason why the link couldn't be included (it would be obstructivist to demand that the link be removed if a citation to the book were allowed, since the link is much more accessible for purposes of verification), and we would have confirmed that it's been published in a third-party source. Chubbles (talk) 22:43, 2 February 2016 (UTC) This is just your opinion but unfortunately, you are not an administrator. And don't even try to wp:PUSH to include this weblink to a blog or I would ask in the minute that you get sanctions for non respect of a consensus. Woovee (talk) 02:02, 3 February 2016 (UTC) Darkfrog24, it is always the same chorus from the Scaruffi's supporters. NewYorkActuary wrote: I quote him Because the author's works on New Age music are held in the music collections of a good many prestigious universities', really but where are the sources? why have he failed so far to supply them. I have a question for you Darkfrog: if a employee of a library, who doesn't have any high degree, ordered a book on amazon by an obscure author to make it available for students, would this order make the author prestigious, really? it seems that this is the point of view of NewYorkActuary and Chubbles. Another point. Beware to not distort any words of the closing administrator, SergeCross has never said anywhere in this thread that he agreed to include the weblink to Scaruffi's blog. He only stated that he would not object to a book reference of Scaruffi in the further section if the book in question was not self-published. This means eventually add the number of the page of the book, year, isbn etc but never, he wrote to include an url to a blog. There is a clear wp:consensus reached by all the community. You don't have any authority to sit on it. If you ever support those 2 guys, I would ask sanctions against you for non respect of a large consensus. For the last time, there isn't any consensus to include a weblink to his blog. Read what is a wp:consensus on wikipedia please.Woovee (talk) 01:42, 3 February 2016 (UTC) Darkfrog24 is not an administrator. He doesn't have any authority to erase a consensus reached by 9 longtime users of wikipedia here https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Albums/Archive_46#Piero_Scaruffi_-_Final_Verdict_on_using_him_as_a_source_in_reviews Woovee (talk) 01:58, 3 February 2016 (UTC) Well no wonder this escalated the way it did if that's your idea of constructive discussion, Woovee. While I do not believe that this source is either RS or appropriate for further reading, if I should ever change my mind about that, I'd be well within my rights. Revisiting consensus in a civil and reasonable manner isn't just allowed; it's an active good. So long as Chubbles and NewYorkA don't edit the article against a clear or binding consensus—which 3O is not—then you would only be wasting the admins time by asking for sanctions, and perhaps find yourself WP:BOOMERANGed. Chubbles, I think you're talking about a convenience link. In that case, you'd write up a citation for the book but add the link to the web site just so the users can click to it if they want. It's under WP:BOOKLINK. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:09, 3 February 2016 (UTC) And the excerpt is not available on google books. This doesn't work for his blog either. Darkfrog, a consensus can change only if the result follows our wiki criterias: one of them is the quality of the sources and as you know it, a blog is not a RS. Woovee (talk) 13:21, 3 February 2016 (UTC) Did you even read my post? Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:42, 3 February 2016 (UTC) I did. WP:BOOKLINK only mentions "Google Books" links in the instances, doesn't it ? And so far, a blog doesn't have any right of the publishers to reproduce material. You didn't adress anything to the question I asked you in my post of 01:42, 3 February. Woovee (talk) 16:10, 3 February 2016 (UTC) Reread my first 3O response post. Or my second post. Or the first clause of the second sentence of my 3:09 3 Feb post. Then see if you still need an answer. I think you may have been in fight mode too long. Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:11, 3 February 2016 (UTC) To make it short, do you agree to see this blog weblink added in the further section ? And do you share this NewYork's point of view that says Because the author's works on New Age music are held in the music collections of a good many prestigious universities ? I don't think they can be considered as such as I have previously said; the book might have been ordered by people who are just employees of the library. Thanks in advance for replying, that would help us to see who is supporting what. Woovee (talk) 22:33, 3 February 2016 (UTC) No and no. However, neither do I believe that NY or C have done anything to merit you threatening them with sanctions. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:32, 4 February 2016 (UTC) Darkfrog, what would be your opinion of an inline citation to the book with a convenience link to the webpage? In other words, if Scaruffi's SPS blog posts are not legitimately RSes, which I am not really questioning, is his published work (by a major publishing house) also unacceptable for inclusion on Wikipedia, by your reckoning? Chubbles (talk) 01:23, 4 February 2016 (UTC) If his books are independently published, then they're fine and the convenience link is fine. If the books are self-published, then my opinion is that they're not fine. A library may include books without relying on them; that's not the case with Wikipedia and its sources and ELs. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:49, 4 February 2016 (UTC) The fact that it's in university collections doesn't necessarily establish that it's a good source, but it does give at least some indication that it's not a wildcat reference. Here, I believe, are the official websites of the publisher and its holding group: [5], [6] I don't know if there is a vetting system that RS sleuths typically use to determine publishers' acceptability as sources, but my cursory look at the kinds of titles this house publishes indicates that this appears to be a fairly well-established popular music press in Italy. Chubbles (talk) 23:18, 3 February 2016 (UTC) NewYorkActuary, could you underline the sentence in Orange where the closing administrator says that he would not object to see the weblink included ? knowing that a weblink is not a book reference. 23:03, 3 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) But if no one has answered to your request on the reliable sources noticeboard, as one can see it now in the link that you have just included in the speech above Scaruffi - third-party publications here, it is because another Scaruffi's supporter had tried exactly the same attempt in the past and people had told him at the time, this didn't stand for his blog. Woovee (talk) 00:06, 4 February 2016 (UTC) As someone who hangs out at RSN, I'll say it's more likely no one responded because it looked boring or looked like too much work. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:32, 4 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 here [here). As to the question of whether the on-line version is identical to the printed version, we have the author's own statement that it is (that statement is linked in the orange-highlighted section above). There is nothing extraordinary about the statement; it is quite common for authors to make out-of-print work available on their web sites. The only question appears to be whether Scaruffi is lying about it. In debates of this sort, it is expected that we argue via WP:THIS and WP:THAT, but let's address this one in good ol' plain English -- Why on God's green Earth would Scaruffi lie about it? He says the on-line version is the same as the print version, and I believe him (and so did SergeCross). 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) The library could just as easily be saying "here's an example of an organized amateur" or "we don't think this deserves to rot away and be forgotten." In a library, inclusion is not endorsement of accuracy. Wikipedia has to rely on its sources and ELs in ways that libraries do not have to rely on the works they host. I wish my tenure here were for so pleasant a reason. Take all the time you need. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:52, 4 February 2016 (UTC) I have to say, I'm getting convinced here by the Actuary. The standard of disbelief that we have to maintain here is getting a little rich, and is mostly motivated by the fact that Woovee seems adamant on reverting any mention of Scaruffi anywhere, for any reason (including the several rather good ones that have been discussed here). Scaruffi absolutely does indicate that the articles are reprints of the Arcana publication, and the Arcana publication is third-party sourcing of the kind I would ordinarily not question. Which libraries the book's in is an immaterial consideration; the more important thing is that their catalogues provide enough bibliographic data to confirm that the book is independently published, and unless Woovee wishes to mount the case that Scaruffi's published work is also deficient in some way, I don't see a leg left for him to stand on. Chubbles (talk) 04:54, 4 February 2016 (UTC) The book was published in Italian on Arcana. On his website/blog, Scaruffi clearly admits that he reproduces texts that have been translated in English by his readers. it is written on the page about Chappell here Scaruffi asks : "If English is your first language and you could translate this text, please contact me." This doesn't follow our wiki criterias of quality. Just a small reminder, https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Albums/Archive_46#Piero_Scaruffi_-_Final_Verdict_on_using_him_as_a_source_in_reviews The weblink that NewYork and Chubbles want to promote is a blog mostly containing self-published material as the closing administrator mentioned it. This is why his site/blog has been rejected by all the wiki community in a large wp:consensus, for wp:RS, lack of wp:notability. Scaruffi is a software consultant who hasn't got any degree, in journalism, history or Literature. A book reference for a work that isn't self-published, can be included on wikipedia even if the author is not known. But in the end, it is not allowed to include a weblink of a blog in any capacity. Woovee (talk) 15:28, 4 February 2016 (UTC) So your contention is that a reference to the book would be alright, but a convenience link to the blog would not, even if they have the exact same content? Chubbles (talk) 15:41, 4 February 2016 (UTC) For the wiki community, Scaruffi is not an expert in music. This is what the consensus says, one can't use his website as sources. Concerning the "Further reading section", the closing administrator said earlier a book reference, for a book published in Italian by a third party publisher, can be eventually added. This only concerns a book reference. I don't share the closing administrator's opinion as I previously said. Woovee (talk) 16:09, 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: The Further Reading section be restored, but re-formatted to describe the print publication of the material, with a convenience link provided for the on-line reader. Is this acceptable to everyone? NewYorkActuary (talk) 22:08, 4 February 2016 (UTC) If it truly is independently published, then the question is one of relevance, not reliability, a much more subjective area. What is the book called? Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:16, 4 February 2016 (UTC) Enciclopedia della musica New Age (Encyclopedia of New Age Music). Its listing at WorldCat.org is here NewYorkActuary (talk) 22:41, 4 February 2016 A weblink to the Scaruffi website is not accepted in any capacity, don't distort my words. I don't consider any of his stuff both reliable and relevant as he doesn't have any degree to be a journalist and is not recognized as such. As SergeCross who is the authority here, as none of us is an administrator, has apparently accepted the book reference, only the book reference with the name of the book, year, isbn, publisher, number of the page will have to be included, not a weblink. Order the book on amazon, buy it on ebay and write the number of the page. You are the supporter of Scaruffi, not us. One doesn't know if it is truly independently published. This is what NewYork advanced. If you put a convenience link which is a link to scaruffi.com, isn't it, I object to the idea of including this book in the further section as it would be going against the consensus. If you are unable to compromise, there won't be a consensus for this article. Woovee (talk) 00:09, 5 February 2016 (UTC) It sounds like you two are deadlocked and that the addition of a third and fourth voice has not resolved the matter. NewYorkActuary, I propose that you write up a draft of the exact text (I know it's just a further reading and a convenience link) that you wish to add to the article and then hold an RfC to establish consensus for or against its inclusion. If you guys don't trust each other to be neutral, I could draft and post the RfC for you. Woovee, would that satisfy you that the rules of consensus and reliability are being given their due? Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:18, 5 February 2016 (UTC) No there isn't any need to bring the discussion elsewhere as there is already a consensus. After a long discussion on a talk, people have to compromise. If the point is to include a link to a blog, as apparently it is the only motive of NewYork, the book reference retrospectively looks like a pretext to put a weblink, we take note of the situation. There won't be a "further reading section" as you and I don't agree with this. Woovee (talk) 00:28, 5 February 2016 (UTC) EDIT CONFLICT: So what you're saying is that you agree to (or at least are willing to settle for) a reference to the independently published book on the condition that no convenience link is provided? Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:35, 5 February 2016 (UTC) Even though I am no longer convinced it is necessary to do so, I have taken the extraordinary step of requesting this title through my local university's interlibrary loan system. I do not know for sure that any library holding it will be willing to ship it to me; if the request is denied, I may be able to resubmit a request for photocopies of the relevant pages. Chubbles (talk) 00:33, 5 February 2016 (UTC) And concerning the weblink to Scaruffi's blog, I underlined a sentence in pink above by sergeCross the closing administrator. I copy paste it here as NewYork has forgotten it. 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. Woovee (talk) 00:39, 5 February 2016 (UTC) If by "a convenience link" you mean http://www.scaruffi.com/avant/chappell.html, the answer is clear, and Sergecross has already given you a reply. No weblink in any capacity to his blog. Woovee (talk) 00:47, 5 February 2016 (UTC) Darkfrog24 I asked you do you agree to see this blog weblink added in the further section ?, you replied no too. Woovee (talk) 00:50, 5 February 2016 (UTC) Darkfrog24. Thank you for the suggestion and offer. I appreciate the good intention behind it. However, I don't see RfC as an appropriate remedy, because this has ceased being a dispute over content. The entire discussion has taken place in two phases. In the first phase, Woovee's tactic was to revert without discussion. When that didn't work, he made an informal request for intervention from an administrator. As indicated in the yellow- and orange-highlighted discussions above, that administrator did not give the answer that Woovee wanted to hear. Accordingly, the content issues were resolved and the material was restored in mid December. Six weeks later, Woovee started the second phase by, once again, reverting without discussion. I trust you will agree that, in the long run, patience and civility are strengths, not weaknesses. But here, those qualities are being used against us. After Woovee reverted for the fourth time, he was met with a response from Chubbles, advising him to engage in discussion. Both Chubbles and I engaged in discussion, and both of us refrained from restoring the material until we heard what Woovee had to say. But Woovee has given us no new arguments. Instead, Woovee's new tactic is to try to convince us, by dint of incessant repetition, that the intervening administrator did not say what the intervening administrator actually did say. For me, the final evidence as to Woovee's dearth of argument came after I responded to your request for the title of the previously-published book. That response included a link to the WorldCat.org entry for the book. And yet, in his very next post -- his very next post! -- Woovee contends that I have never provided evidence of independent publication. No, this dispute has long ago ceased to be about content. It has degenerated into a forum for Woovee's obstructionism, best exemplified by his own words in his February 3 (23:39) posting -- "I won't let you ...". Right now, I'm of a mind to restore the material and, if Woovee reverts for the fifth time, to file a complaint at the Administrator's noticeboard. Because I value the opinions of both you and Chubbles, I'm interested in what you both might have to say about this. As you think about it, note that it is possible for Woovee to show some good faith by allowing the material to remain in the article while Chubbles conducts his research (for which, Chubbles, thank you for going 'above and beyond'). NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:46, 5 February 2016 (UTC) I'd say I've had people make similar complaints about me, and those complaints, to put it very kindly, ranged from exaggerated to unfounded. Do you have the link to what the admin actually said? You and Woovee might just be interpreting it differently. The answer in that case would be to ask for clarification. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:18, 5 February 2016 (UTC) Arguments were written by both parties. So far, Darkfrog didn't write he supported the book reference and the weblink either. As a sign of good will, even if I share SergeCross's opinion and the wiki community's regarding the poverty of Scaruffi's opinions, I stated I would eventually accept to see the book reference at only one condition, I demanded that the book reference didn't contain any link to Scaruffi's website. I advanced several arguments, wikipedia rules, I also based my opinion on the consensus reached by the community, stipulating that we won't include anymore a link to Scarufficom in any articles as his site is a blog, including translations of texts from Italian to English made by readers/supporters. I stated in the end that everyone had to compromise and from what I observed, it seems that giving further information for the reader, was not the first aim of the user who asked to include a book by Scaruffi in the further reading section. Unfortunately, it would seem that it is correct. The real aim was rather get around a consensus established by all the wikipedia community a while ago in order to sneak a weblink of a blog within a book reference. SergeCross, the closing administrator for Scaruffi's issue, didn't state here on this talk, that he supported the idea to include the scarufficom weblink in the further reading section, neither did I or Darkfrog either. Going against our opinions, and those of other editors of the consensus, would be wp:PUSH. Woovee (talk) 00:04, 6 February 2016 (UTC) Woovee, when speaking of what I think, please phrase your comments as questions. What I think is that an RfC specifically addressing whether convenience links may point to otherwise non-RS that the editors knows contains the exact same text are acceptable would be appropriate. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:03, 6 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) Has anybody pinged SergeCross about this discussion's continuance? He may want another chance to weigh in here. Chubbles (talk) 17:04, 7 February 2016 (UTC) There isn't any proof yet that the text on Chappell was published in the "New Age" book on Arcana? So there is no need to contact SergeCross yet. Other point, the text on this blog is only written in Italian, what is the use for EnWiki readers ? This blog piece is in a foreign language by an author that has an active consensus for not being being an authority on music on the English Wikipedia. Woovee (talk) 17:40, 7 February 2016 (UTC) Arbitrary break 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: There were many arguments that arose at WP:ALBUMS and its related articles, over Scaruffi being used as a source. To solve this, I mediated a discussion to come up with a final consensus on him. The consensus, which has been linked countless times above, was very strongly in the agreement that he was not a reliable source because he was not a professional authority on music. While yes, that discussion was mostly about him as a source, I don't know why the reasoning of "not being an authority on music" wouldn't be a reason to exclude it in the same manner as an WP:EL. Why would we want to include an EL of someone who's not an authority on the subject? The discussion did allow for his use if it was non-self-published work, though research showed that a vast overwhelming majority of his work was self-published, to the point where I'm not sure I've witnessed anyone actually being able to cite him. Even beyond points one or two, there's still the concern of "What is the value added for the reader even if we do decide to use it?" The writing, if I recall, was in Italian. That's not a common second language for English readers, so I think for a vast majority of readers, there is no value added. So, even if someone okay point #2, there still this "Just because we could, doesn't mean we necessarily should. 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) I think the biggest development here is that prior discussions of whether Scaruffi was a professional authority on music seem to have been unaware that he has had some works on music published by what appears to be a significant independent publisher in Italy (Arcana). In fact, he wrote an entry on Chappell in one of those works, and that entry is apparently reproduced verbatim on his website in the proposed EL. Having a work published by a significant publishing house, one which presumably employs some measure of review of the works it publishes, in my opinion changes the landscape significantly about how much of a "wildcat" Scaruffi is. I think ought to be considered a reasonable third-party source for material published in such a way, though perhaps not for the rest of his solely self-published material. Chubbles (talk) 22:43, 17 February 2016 (UTC) If true, that would cover points one and two....but three? Sergecross73 msg me 23:45, 17 February 2016 (UTC) If it provides new information not present in the article, or verifies currently unsourced information, it would help with both WP:V and WP:N for this article. Even if in Italian, if it's an independent third-party source, it has at least some utility. One further note - this constitutes international recognition (granted, on a small scale), which tends to be valued in weighing claims against WP:MUSIC for artist notability. Chubbles (talk) 04:03, 18 February 2016 (UTC) As luck would have it, my interlibrary loan arrived today. I am holding in my hands (or at least, I was until I started typing) one Enciclopedia Della Musica New Age: Elettronica, Ambientale, Pan-Etnica by Piero Scaruffi, copyright 1996 Arcana Editrice. (Special thanks to the library of the University of California - Santa Barbara for fulfilling my interlibrary loan request.) The book's publication information substantiates that it has been through an editorial review process (redazione editoriale: Roberto Monesi, Patrizio Visco). Jim Chappell has a substantial entry on pp.117-118. It appears that the online link from Scaruffi's website includes a few parenthetical interleavings which are not in the printed version, though the two are mostly alike. I put it to the community at large that there is no longer sufficient reason not to use the printed work as reference material for Chappell's article. Chubbles (talk) 07:13, 18 February 2016 (UTC) What you're describing, to me, sounds somewhat like the difference between a writer's self-published first draft, and a revised version edited by an editor/publisher. That would make the book version a usable source for citations in the article, but would discount the blog version, as a rough draft, WP:USERG-violating piece of work. I'd support directly citing the book, or even listing the book itself in a "Further Reading" section, but I still have my reservations using the blog entry itself. This approach would go along with the consensus at WP:ALBUMS, and would be feasible considering you currently have the book in your possession as well. Listing the book would also help with notability concerns in the same manner as the blog would too. (Although I don't see that as being an issue in the past, nor in the future, considering the number of Billboard/Allmusic sources already used...) Sergecross73 msg me 14:25, 18 February 2016 (UTC) I continue to be surprised at how hard I sometimes have to fight to keep notable articles from being deleted, even in the face of sources such as those. I think your presumption's a reasonable one, but the website's copyright is 1999, which implies that the interleavings might be subsequent additions rather than draft material removed; nevertheless, my argument, in particular, is in the service of including the print reference. Chubbles (talk) 17:25, 18 February 2016 (UTC) True, I suppose you never know who's going to nominate what for deletion, and its best to be prepared for the worst. But I think, if anything, citing the printed, published book would probably be more persuasive than an Italian blog anyways. Regardless, if we're both on the same page about things, then hopefully "New York" and "Woovee" can agree on this compromise as well, and we can end this long running dispute and move onto other things. Sergecross73 msg me 17:46, 18 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) There are more paragraph breaks in the print version, even in places where the text is the same. The fourth paragraph of the online version is considerably shorter in the print version. The print version reads, "La svolta di LIVING THE NORTHERN SUMMER verso una musica per ensemble darà frutti nel successivo SATURDAY'S RHAPSODY, una raccolta di emozionanti mini-concerti per pianoforte e piccola orchestra (fra i tanti, anche Mike Marshall al mandolino e Michael Pluznick alle percussioni), la title-track e One Last Time su tutti." That is the only difference from what I can see; the rest of the text is exactly the same. Chubbles (talk) 05:47, 24 February 2016 (UTC) I again suggest that citing/listing the book is going to be more beneficial for this article. Between the fact that the website is in Italian and rather...unprofessional... in its looks, and there being an active consensus to generally not use Scaruffi on Wikipedia (even if this is a rare case where its acceptable), I would think a citation to a published book would go a lot farther towards protecting this page from any merge/deletion discussions in the future. Sergecross73 msg me 14:11, 24 February 2016 (UTC) So, just so we're clear (and I thought this was obvious), the book is in Italian as well. So if the language is at issue (and it always seemed like a very minor issue to me), it's as much at issue for the print work as for the website. Also, this whole experience has convinced me that the judgment of Scaruffi's work as generally unusable seems to have been hasty, as no one in the prior discussion seems to have brought up Scaruffi's full publication history - meaning that the discussion proceeded with incomplete evidence. I'm not exactly going to rush to reopen the discussion on use of his personal website, but the knee-jerk rejection that necessitated this thoroughly lame edit war speaks to a presumption of guilt on Scaruffi as an author that I now believe is unwise. This indicates, to me, that Scaruffi citations from his Arcana publications (if perhaps no more than those) ought to be reasonable additions to other articles as well. To that end...NYA, are there any other articles you'd like me to look up in this book, while I still have it? Chubbles (talk) 21:07, 24 February 2016 (UTC) And some people want us to think they are not relatives of Scaruffi, whereas they spend their energy arguing to include a weblink for a blog. This blog in Italian, sorry but this is a big issue for the community, is full of texts that are just summaries of articles published in reliables prestigious sources. Information. In one minute of research, I found a article/interview published in the Los Angeles Times here that is not even used in the article. How bizarre... Woovee (talk) 23:44, 24 February 2016 (UTC) I'm not sure I follow all of your argument - unless you're to the level of someone like Siskel and Ebert, (very rare) self-published works generally aren't accepted on Wikipedia (WP:USERG), so whether 1% or 50% of his work were published, we still generally wouldn't allow the use the USERG stuff. There were quite a few participants in the WP:ALBUMS discussion about him, and outside of one SPA, it was unanimous not to use his self-published work. I find it strange how strongly users both support and reject Scaruffi - to me, he's just another person - but regardless, that discussion at WP:ALBUMS was held to end debates squabbling over him. Its rather clear, both the consensus and Wiki policy rejects self-published material. Outside of starting a new WikiProject-level discussion, I don't see how one could come to any other conclusion other than "use his published work, but not his self-published work". Sergecross73 msg me 00:39, 25 February 2016 (UTC) I think that's a reasonable guideline to agree on. Chubbles (talk) 02:34, 25 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) NewYorkActuary doesn't have any wp:consensus to add a convenience link to a blog; three users SergeCross, Darkfrog and Woovee disagree. There is also decision taken by all the community saying that a link to this blog is not allowed. https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Albums/Archive_46#Piero_Scaruffi_-_Final_Verdict_on_using_him_as_a_source_in_reviews This blog is also in Italian, it would seem that this request was made by a relative of Scaruffi. The aim of this user is not really to add content to the article, it is mainly to add a weblink to a blog because in one minute of research, I found an article/interview published in the Los Angeles Times which is far more interesting than the Scaruffi text. The funny thing is it is someone else who added it today. Woovee (talk) 15:44, 3 March 2016 (UTC) So, I missed the part where you demonstrated that one of the people involved in this conversation is a relative of Scaruffi's and thus has a conflict of interest in promoting his works. Can you please point me toward the evidence for this claim? Chubbles (talk) 03:09, 4 March 2016 (UTC) I used "conditionnal tense", I wrote "it would seem". Scaruffi's supporters spend a lot of energy to include a link to a blog in Italian whereas in one minute of research on google, I found out an interesting long unreleased article/interview published in the Los Angeles Times about Chappell: its content and the facts that are mentioned into it are still hardly used in the wiki article whereas it contains a lot of information. What are the motives of Scaruffi's supporters ? It would seem they are not really to improve the content of this wiki Jim Chappell article, this looks secondary, otherwise they would keep on making researchs on google to get other articles published in wp:RS. It would seem that the motives of Scaruffi's supporters are only to include a weblink to his blog. The logical question is: are they Scaruffi's relatives ? We would never know, what justifies such a waste of time whereas there are probably a lot of RS available elsewhere for Chappell? One can ponder. I close brackets as it is just a remark. Woovee (talk) 13:07, 4 March 2016 (UTC) See my comment below. If we can just all agree on the compromise, then whether or not there's any COIs will be largely irrelevant. These discussions are already exhaustive, I'd rather we not go down this road. If NYA was spamming Scaruffi links all over the place, or glorifying Scaruffi's article, I'd be concerns, but this is pretty small scale overall in relation to Scaruffi. Sergecross73 msg me 17:02, 4 March 2016 (UTC) To be clear, I had thought that both WP:USERG and WP:SPS linked to the same place, so I've used them interchangeably, though it seems that, at least right now, that's no longer true. USERG is a particular scenario of SPS, but conceptually, its the broader SPS that relates to this particular situation. Its not that his work is "user-generated", its that its "self-published". Scaruffi writing his own content and putting it on his own website named "scaruffi.com" is about as literal as the concept of "self-published" gets, and the consensus was that this sort of content of his is not usable. We've got a workable compromise of just using the non-self-published book, and any concerns about his notability are purely hypothetical to begin with, (and a published book would be more influential in those hypothetical discussions anyways) so I don't see why we can't just go with this and move on to more constructive efforts (myself included.) And to be clear, the compromise would be using the book instead of the website. I think its rather clear that there's no consensus present to include a link to the blog. Sergecross73 msg me 16:56, 4 March 2016 (UTC) I agree on the compromise written by Sergecross. Woovee (talk) 01:12, 5 March 2016 (UTC) Well, I think the space for debate here at least in part hinges on the commutativity of the book and the site. I was fully prepared to argue for a convenience link to the site if the text of the site were exactly the same as the book - which it turned out not to be (hence the reason I insisted on ordering it!). If it were exactly the same, the reasons for not including a convenience link would seem to me to speak more to knee-jerk assumptions about Scaruffi and about Wikipedia's sourcing requirements than they would actual source reliability or user experience. Now that we know they are not exactly the same, I could see space for debate as to whether the additions on the site are so de minimis as to be effectively obstructivist toward the user if the convenience link is not included. That's all beside the point of whether or not the whole issue of Scaruffi being patently unreliable ought to be reconsidered, but I am not really relishing the thought of spending several more months arguing with Woovvee on this point in another referendum. Attrition is war's most effective weapon. Chubbles (talk) 17:59, 5 March 2016 (UTC) By all means, feel free to start up a discussion at a music-based WikiProject to change the consensus on PS if you're not happy with it. I didn't start that discussion to eliminate the use as him as a source, I created it to end all the needless arguing over him. Sergecross73 msg me 03:30, 6 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 Sergecross73, NewYorkActuary has got a wp:PUSH behaviour: he put back the url of the scaruffi website in the article. I have just read the Dispute resolution noticeboard here he opened. He didn't get any consensus. Next time I will report him on a Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. Woovee (talk) 17:24, 30 April 2016 (UTC) Indeed, he did not garner a consensus here or there, and should not have made that edit. NYA, regardless of your stance on this, you've been made readily aware that is not the correct way of handling things. Re-adding contested content without consensus is considered disruptive. Either follow protocol it drop it. I recommend dropping it, as this has already been a massive time-sink over a very minor detail with virtually no benefit for either party. Sergecross73 msg me 19:04, 30 April 2016 (UTC) 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) My objection is that Wikipedia doesn't usually link to self-published blogs, and that you're editing without a consensus in your favor. Additionally, the mediation I held regarding using PS's work was so that editors would stop wasting time on arguing about using his work, and yet you've managed to waste more time here than all of those past discussions combined now. Sergecross73 msg me 22:52, 30 April 2016 (UTC) Re read all our posts on this article talk page plus this here which is a high level of consensus from the entire community of people who contribute to music articles. Woovee (talk) 23:21, 30 April 2016 (UTC) I have to say, if rescuing Scaruffi from the unfortunate caste he's been shunted into is your aim, seeking WP:CCC at the site of the original consensus is probably the best way to go about it. Chubbles (talk) 03:11, 1 May 2016 (UTC) Correct. And even if he (wrongfully) claims that the old consensus against PS's use isn't relevant, that still doesn't change the fact that there isn't a present consensus in his favor here regardless. At the very best, he's at WP:NOCONSENSUS, which would not allow for his inclusion. Sergecross73 msg me 13:44, 2 May 2016 (UTC)