Talk:Tori Amos/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Rape Reference

Over the years there have been many conflicting stories on whether or not tori was raped. What references exist for this information? Hole fan (talk) 18:35, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Discography

Looking at other artists' articles, I noticed that very specific information pertaining to their discography is covered in their respective discography articles. That said, I have trimmed all specific information from the discography section of the Tori Amos article and moved it to the pertinent sections of the Tori Amos discography article. --Pisceandreams (talk) 16:04, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Academic criticism

I've added some information on academic criticism about Amos's friendship with Gaiman, drawing on the recent issue of ImageTexT on Gaiman's work. However, since I co-edited this issue, I'm letting people know so they can look for COI issues. Phil Sandifer (talk) 03:30, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I am skeptical that peer-reviewed academic criticism, which we generally treat as the best available source, does not belong in this article. The article in question - which I encourage you to look at - deals substantially with Amos's work, including musical analysis of two of her songs, and analysis of Gaiman stories written for her tourbooks. So it's not coming out of left field at all - it's very much academic criticism and response to Amos. Can you explain why that doesn't belong in our article? Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:10, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

The following is the text that was removed: "S. Alexander Reed has written about the intertextual relationships between Gaiman and Amos's work. Reed does close readings of several of Amos's allusions to Gaiman, noting that they happen at points in the songs where the musical motifs of the song begin expanding out of their initial forms, disrupting the established pattern of the song. He reads this disruption in terms of psychoanalyst Jacques Lacan's idea of the mirror stage, arguing that the mutual referentiality serves to create an ideal vision of the reader-as-fan that the actual reader encounters and misrecognizes as themselves, thus drawing the reader into the role of the devoted (and paying) fan. "

This needs to be worked into the article with context, it cannot be merely dropped in right after the initial mention of Neil Gaiman, as it disrupts the flow of the article that we've been working to create for the past year or so. Also, if enough co-editors feel it lies beyond the scope of this article, which may very well be the case, then I think it might warrant an article of its own and there would be a reference to that article in this biography article. --Pisceandreams (talk) 12:48, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm happy to break it to its own academic criticism section, and have done so. I'm happy to see it placed wherever you want, and do not want to be overly pushy due to the COI concerns I mentioned earlier. But I am, as a general principle, strongly opposed to removing peer reviewed academic criticism as "irrelevant." Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:14, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

In this case, the central issue is not that it is 'irrelevant,' but that it is redundant. Ms. Amos' relation to Gaiman's work is already mentioned briefly in the article. A link to the article outlining more specific might be inserted there as a reference, but an entire new section devoted to it, by a non-notable academic, is unwarranted, particularly in a Wikipedia entry already this bloated. 99.174.233.4 (talk) 14:41, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

In this case, it is not merely describing Amos's relation to Gaiman's work, but providing detailed, peer-reviewed analysis of the relationships. This is the most reliable sort of source available, and removing academic perspectives on subjects is completely inappropriate. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:08, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I would have to agree with those who supported its removal. It's an interesting bit and yes, it's sourced and peer-reviewed but it doesn't really fit into the article as it stands. I think it would be more appropriate as an external link or a mention in other sections. It does not, however, deserve its own dedicated section as it is redundant and far too detailed for the broad strokes of Amos's life this article is meant to present. Samuel Grant (talk) 17:26, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

My problem is that I really struggle to see how removing peer reviewed scholarship increases the quality of an article. I, at least, would be hard-pressed to think that the coverage of any topic is diminished by the addition of academic criticism. There is, perhaps, more to add - I am not an expert on Amos's work. [1] suggests that there's plenty to add. Perhaps the section should be tagged as needing expansion, and when it mushrooms a bit more an "academic criticism of Tori Amos" sub-article could be justified. But I see it as the start of a section that really should exist. Phil Sandifer (talk) 18:36, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I've added another paper to this section. There are many more to find, which, were I not on vacation without access to an academic library, I could add more. There's definitely enough to justify an entire academic criticism section. Phil Sandifer (talk) 21:25, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

The second article, unfortunately, seems to fall under the same curse as the first: it's not noteworthy. This article is supposed to be an encyclopedia entry about Tori Amos, and so anything which will spell out who she is and why she is significant is useful, but that shouldn't include every single blog entry every fan has ever made about her. The articles suggested so far pretty much fall under that category (and I say this as an academic, with peer reviewed articles out there in the world myself. The use of jargon in even these brief precis' doesn't help, but even if the authors' theses were paraphrased in common language, there simply isn't enough reason to include them. A wikipedia article isn't supposed to be an exhaustive entry of every statement made on a significant figure by anyone, ever. Just the important stuff. This ain't it. 138.23.244.30 (talk) 15:36, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Mentioning blog entries by fans - now that's most certainly irrelevant. How do fan blog entries have anything to do with the discussion at hand here? --Rebroad (talk) 11:30, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't really know what to say here except that the idea that the rigorous covering of academic research on a subject is immaterial for encyclopedic coverage is ludicrous to me. Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:34, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

And as a follow-up, your comparison of academic criticism to fancruft is absurd. There is no comparison between peer-reviewed scholarship and fan bogs. Academic criticism is an inherently significant aspect of coverage. Blog posts are not. All of our policies are focused around using the most reliable sources, with academic sources being at the top of the list. Covering academic responses to Amos is the single most important thing the article can be doing - not fancruft. Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:41, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I think that you are a bit too married to your article and your field of work to make a truly impartial decision. It generally isn't a good idea for authors or other content producers to add their content to Wikipedia articles as they are obviously coming from a biased viewpoint (Wikipedia:Conflict of interest has more on this).

That is a huge assumption you are making there, Samuel, I think. --Rebroad (talk) 11:35, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

As far as the worthiness of academic criticism's inclusion goes, I agree with the anonymous contributor above. Yes, these are coming from peer-reviewed sources, but just because it's a good source doesn't mean it should be included. If that was the philosophy the article would be overflowing with information.

So what? Let it overflow then, and if the article gets too big, split it up into smaller articles. This is the Wikipedia way, after all. --Rebroad (talk) 11:35, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Specifically, the text about Gaiman and Amos is redundant. Their relationship is already discussed elsewhere. For the second paragraph, well, this is interesting and all but I question its relevance. Would we find these topics discussed in an encyclopedic publication? I just think it's far too specific and narrow to be included in a broad biography such as this. I think it would be useful as an external link, or as a briefer mention. Samuel Grant (talk) 18:21, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

It's not my article, for one thing, nor is it closely in my field. But I point out, I've added a second article. There are far more to be added - if I had access to an academic library instead of having to do this via Google Scholar and my University VPN, I could find far more. Wikipedia is not paper. If the section becomes unwieldy, as I have said, it's fine to spin it off to Academic criticism of Tori Amos. But as it stands, it does not seem to me to be overwhelming the article, and I am hard-pressed to say that the academic sources are not significant viewpoints. Phil Sandifer (talk) 19:04, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I am not so hard pressed. If you don't think academia can devolve into fancruft (albeit fancruft with a lot of long-winded and unnecessary jargon) then you haven't spent enough time at the Popular Culture Association conference. Again, the purpose of informing people what, in brief, a subject is about is seriously harmed by the inclusion of too much material. The acid-test for inclusion is: is this significant to an understanding of the subject. In the case of both the articles you've proposed here, the answer is no. The academics in question are, I'm certain, nice, productive people. But they are not notable, and neither are their opinions, which, when you look closely at them, devolve into subjective interpretation anyway. One does not record every single movie review in an article about a movie. Ditto here. 138.23.244.30 (talk) 23:03, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

This article, and Wikipedia in general, are not going to succumb to the crass anti-intellectualism you're proposing here. Period. Phil Sandifer (talk) 04:42, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

That's a matter of opinion, and in any case, I think you should stop reverting every attempt to change any of your contributed text. It's counter-productive and defeats the whole point of discussion and consensus. Samuel Grant (talk) 05:18, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, and I think people should stop removing verifiable information from reliable sources. It's vandalism. So, you know, we're all really pissed off at each other. Go us. Phil Sandifer (talk) 05:29, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

In any case, if people want to remove the Reed article for COI, go for it. If people want to remove the entire section because "academic criticism isn't important," well, I'm going to do everything I can to stop them. And once I get back to Florida and have access to a Uni library again (January) I am going to expand the section with as many articles and chapters as I can find. Phil Sandifer (talk) 05:31, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

May I suggest a breather? Nobody else here is "pissed off." Nor is anyone exhibiting 'crass anti-intellectualism.' Some of us are pointing out that just because a resource exists does not mean it should necessarily be included in an article, particularly if it (a) fails to meet notability requirements and (b) actually serves to obscure the main thrust of the article with tangential material. My additional objection to the deployment of jargon in the article is in line with Wikipedia's style guidelines, which emphasize accessibility and clarity. 138.23.244.30 (talk) 18:01, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

If you can capture the arguments of the articles in a less jargon-filled manner, be my guest. However, I must point out that WP:N explicitly does not limit article content. Phil Sandifer (talk) 18:07, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

The content of the first article has already been summarized, as noted earlier - all it says, effectively, is that Gaiman and Amos borrow from one another. The article has therefore been reduced to a footnote to that effect, where that statement was already made in the article with reference to primary materials. The second article you included merely states that Amos covers others' songs in an emotional manner. The first claim is already documented in the article, and the second a subjective, unproveable assertion from some non-notable academics. In neither case do the articles help readers understand the importance or dimension of Amos' work any more than might any other random blog entry from a fan.138.23.244.30 (talk) 19:14, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

So, basically, your issue is that you don't like academic criticism. I mean, the first article says considerably more than "Gaiman and Amos borrow from one another." OK. You're completely wrong. Phil Sandifer (talk) 20:53, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

It is rarely useful to presume what someone else thinks. I have no issue with academic criticism, per se. I certainly have an issue with academic criticism which is unnecessarily obfuscatory in order to hide its lack of substantive content. And neither good nor bad academic criticism belongs in an encyclopedia article unless it somehow usefully illuminates the subject. It grows increasingly clear that I and other users will not convince you of much. You have noted yourself, above, that your contribution here violates COI policy, and that has been pointed out to you by other users as well. You are now additionally in violation of the 3-reverts ruling. I will have to turn this over tom someone else. 138.23.244.30 (talk) 21:23, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

As I said, feel free to remove the first paragraph if you think I violated COI with it. Please explain what, exactly, is the problem, however. The second paragraph has no COI. But no - if your arguments amount to the dismissal of academic articles as restarting conventional wisdom, you're not going to persuade me, because you're dead wrong, and dead wrong in a particularly offensively anti-intellectual manner. I am, however, not in violation of the 3RR. Phil Sandifer (talk) 21:40, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

May I point out that "dead" should be used only as an adjective when it's being used to refer to something that is dead-like, such as dead slow, dead stop, dead town, etc.. "Dead wrong" is a rather "un-intellectual" phrase IMHO. :-P --Rebroad (talk) 11:43, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Religion

Tori Amos had criticized some aspects of the Christian religion (on the role of woman), but she never stated she was an atheist or denied the existance of God (or another divine figure). Anybody has any idea what is her religious/spiritual faith? Wandering Courier (talk) 19:33, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

In her autobiography "Piece By Piece," she mentions considering herself generally as a Gnostic Christian.

British born?

Tori Amos was born in America to parents of European and native American ancestry, so why does it say British born? she may have duel citizenship because of the marriage to her husband who is a British citizen. Idrankhemlock (talk) 21:46, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

The page has been severely vandalized. I've tried to do something about it, but I'm not an experienced Wikipedian, so I though I'd just bring it to everybody's attention. EarsOfTin (talk) 09:25, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

RfC: should 'Academic Criticism' section be removed

Please see section on 'Academic Criticism,' above.138.23.244.30 (talk) 22:16, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

To my mind, the major issue here is WP:NPOV, which states that we must represent "fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." To my mind, there are two major issues here.

1) Academic criticism, by definition, is reliable - indeed, WP:RS positions peer-reviewed sources as the very best sources available. 2) The process of peer review is expressly designed to identify accurate and important scholarship. Thus the peer review process is itself a voucher for significance as well.

"Significant" in WP:NPOV is not intended to be equivalent to notability, and thus the notability of the authors writing the articles is not significant to this - what is important is the peer review process. To misread significance as being about WP:N would be a mistake.

Now, as for the rest, I am open to better phrasings of the two paragraphs. But on the other hand, it is simply and ignorantly wrong to suggest, as 138.23.244.30 has, that the Reed article amounts to a statement that Amos and Gaiman are friends. Summary of academic writing does not mean stripping out the scholarship. And so while we should attempt to de-jargon the section, we should recognize that the article would not have been published in a peer-reviewed journal if it made such an obvious claim.

More broadly, look - we're an encyclopedia. Academic criticism needs to be part of what we do. There is no article that would not benefit from more academic criticism. To say that it is incidental to the article cheapens the quality of the project, and panders to a least common denominator. It's a bad approach. Phil Sandifer (talk) 22:32, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

1.) Please moderate your tone. words like 'crass,' 'stupid,' and 'ignorant' tend to make people irksome, and do not help your case, particularly since one of the initial charges was that you are too personally tied to this section to remain objective. 2.) That academic criticism is, "by definition," reliable is, I think, a very questionable statement. But even if we set it aside, and assume that all peer-reviewed academic articles are accurate, that would not necessarily make them worth collating into this venue. The fact remains that the essays in question do not contribute to an understanding of the subject, and violate WP:NOT(2.9): "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information." My note of the authors' non-notability is to accommodate the fact that if, say, Harold Bloom or Camille Paglia had chimed in with their opinions on the topic, they might well have deserved inclusion strictly on the basis of their own notoriety. But that is not the case, here. Without that provenance, the claims in the section must be evaluated for whether or not they contribute to an understanding of the musician's "reception, impact, and significance." I contend that they do not. For guidelines, consider the work of much more influential musicians, including The Beatles, Elvis Presley, and Bach; none have a section on 'academic criticism'...and thank goodness they don't, for if we tried to collate every single subjective musing from every academic ever on the subject of, say, Elvis Presley's influence, the article would be some thousands, if not millions, of pages in length.138.23.244.30 (talk) 23:23, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

And there comes a point where you want to start collapsing things. I mean, once you get to a certain volume, essays and books can be taken together. Should we find another piece on Amos's covers, or on Amos and intertextuality, I would support merging them into existing paragraphs, as they amount to the same perspective.

But on the other hand, I continue to find the assertion that peer-reviewed academic research (which WP:RS identifies as the most reliable of sources) does not contribute to an understanding of the subject to be crassly anti-intellectual. And I stand by the statement, regardless of whether it upsets you, because, frankly, I think the argument isn't worth the bits used to store it. And the idea that peer-reviewed academic research is indiscriminate is absurd. Phil Sandifer (talk) 23:38, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

"...I continue to find the assertion that peer-reviewed academic research...does not contribute to an understanding of the subject to be crassly anti-intellectual." Gee, that would be pretty damning, had I asserted anything so universal. Since I didn't, could you please abide by WP:CIVIL? 138.23.244.30 (talk) 04:56, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I think I'm treating your arguments with, if anything, undue respect. Phil Sandifer (talk) 05:03, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I see the academic criticism section is still a hot topic of debate, and perhaps rightfully so. I stand by my initial opinion: it simply does not fit into the scope of this article. (And might I point out maturely, objectively, and respectfully, that the writing in these 2 paragraphs is unimpressive, as it's littered with typos, incorrect formatting, incorrect sentence structure, and above all, it's lacking thematic structure.) I believe that any academic criticism needs to be placed in a separate article, devoted solely to that subject. --Pisceandreams (talk) 17:39, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Then fix it. Jesus. If your problem is grammar, fix the paragraphs instead of whining about it. "I don't like the prose" is not a reason for removal. Phil Sandifer (talk) 20:06, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree, and on that point, I feel that, at this point in time, there is insufficient notable academic criticism of Tori's work. For now, the section (or such a page) ought not exist until sufficient notability and sufficient reliable sources can be established to justify a separate page. Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 17:46, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Notability explicitly does not limit article content, and the sources are the pinnacle of reliable sources by our own definitions. I see no policy that even remotely supports this view. Phil Sandifer (talk) 20:06, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

The most relevant policy, incidentally, is WP:RS. I quote two key aspects: "Academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources when available." And "Wikipedia articles should cover all significant views, doing so in proportion to their published prominence among the most reliable sources." These two sentences, taken together, seem to me to make it clear that academic viewpoints should, when available, be strongly represented in articles. The most reliable sources are peer-reviewed academic sources. The views most prominent among the most reliable sources should guide the article. Taken at face value, really this means we should start gutting the rest of the article to build it from the academic sources. This is, of course, probably not preferable, however I think prominent and thorough coverage of academic sources is an absolute must under our policy. Phil Sandifer (talk) 20:30, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

The policy is, indeed relevant. The problem is that the views here are not significant, and the prominence of the source is minimal. 99.174.233.4 (talk) 20:42, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Er, how are they not? This is serious academic coverage of the subject. This is an encyclopedia, educational sources are what it's supposed to live on. You saying "noitisn't" doesn't carry a lot of weight. (Particularly from someone with so little commitment to the encyclopedia project as not to bother creating a username.) - David Gerard (talk) 21:01, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

'Serious' it may be - that's a subjective qualifier, but let's let it pass. Significant it is not, as easily measured objectively by a glance at the ISI Web Citation Index, which gives these two articles a whopping "0" number of citations. We're not talking about 'Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction' or 'Anxiety of Influence,' here...we're talking about a couple of bare-bones interpretations which do nothing more than restate common knowledge in obfuscatory terms. Whether or not I have decided to register a username does not effect my points...that you think it should influence people's decisions tells me quite a bit about the strength of your position here. 138.23.244.25 (talk) 22:18, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

"Published prominence" seems to me to refer to their proportional representation among reliable sources, not to the prominence of the sources (except inasmuch as we would naturally favor articles from more prominent journals). So I think that's a misreading. Phil Sandifer (talk) 20:59, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

This problem appears to be Wikipedia:Sword-skeleton theory (cheers to Christiano Moreschi for spotting this one) - David Gerard (talk) 21:38, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I repeats: this is not a matter of nuking good material just because it's tricky. It's a question of dumping poor material which attempts to dress up its poor quality in tricky verbiage. 138.23.244.25 (talk) 22:18, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

"Then fix it. Jesus. If your problem is grammar, fix the paragraphs instead of whining about it." Nice. I'm glad I was being polite, only for you to get snippy with me. If you read my post, you would have realized that my comments on the grammar and the like were merely a side note. You also would have realized that that wasn't the reason I propose for moving the academic criticism elsewhere. My reason is that as it stands, the section doesn't seem to fit the scope of the article. If perhaps it was rewritten to be woven into the article, then it would work, and if perhaps there was a significant amount of material, it would warrant its own article. As for fixing the grammar and typos, I would think that the person (or people) who are defending the section in question would want to fix it and polish it up to the best of their abilities so as to increase the chances of its inclusion in the article. Seriously, why would I, as someone who currently doesn't agree with keeping the section in the article, want to correct it and polish it up?

I'm not saying that under no circumstances can academic criticism be part of the article, my argument is that as is (which has been a few months now without any significant change) the section is abrupt in the flow of the article and the content is poorly constructed. Why can't someone work on the section in their sandbox and then add it to the article when it's ready? --Pisceandreams (talk) 22:04, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Because that's not how we work on Wikipedia. We don't just remove relevant stuff because it's not neatly placed within the article; we work with it, rewriting if necessary, editing, moving it to flow better, etc. Sometimes we move content to another article if it's really a better fit there, yes.

I'm concerned that you think the material "doesn't seem to fit the scope of the article". What is the scope of the article and why doesn't it fit? It feels perhaps to me that you've defined the scope of the article as purely including the aspects that it did before the addition of this section; in other words it considered Tori Amos as a biographical subject, a popular culture subject, and as a musical subject. It did not contain any reference to academic study of her work in a literary or media criticism/theory sense, no, but I don't see that as defining that it should not. Surely the article is improved by considering its subject from more angles? Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:44, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

That seems reasonable, until you take into account the number of angles in the world. This article in particular has been pared down numerous times as fans of this or that trope or perspective tried to cram it full of every tiny scrap of information or even supposition about its subject. A section on Ms. Amos' favorite foods? Another discussing her religion? How about three more detailing her economic philosophy, a listing of every instrument she has endorsed and their relative merits, and various satires or mentions in the pages of online comic books? You see the problem: soon you have not an encyclopedia entry, but a database of its own. It's why there exist requirements that a subject both be notable, and that the information about that subject be limited from simply being a random collection of factoids. The base question remains: does inclusion of these resources - subjective as they are, insignigicant as they are - increase a reader's understanding of the subject? 138.23.244.25 (talk) 22:51, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

We're not talking about the number of angles in the world, though - just the ones in reliable and particularly in highly reliable sources. Phil Sandifer (talk) 00:51, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, scholarship in the arts is not primarily "opinion", but analysis based on study of the primary sources, and informed comparisons, the same fundamental approach used on all other subjects. To the extent that the work is of aesthetic or intellectual interest, the more valid approaches there will be. Sometimes it will be aesthetic opinion, but why is that invalid? So is the opinion of popular critics. if there is "consumer- level" criticism it should be included as well. All responsible opinion on the arts is valid,whether informed by scholarship, love of the art, or both. DGG (talk) 02:24, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

While those assertions certainly *can* be true for some scholarship in the arts, when the 'scholarship' in question does nothing more than restate already known information which came from the primary sources, it's junk. It's not that it's necessarily "invalid." It's that it's pointless. It illuminates nothing, and obfuscates what was previously there.138.23.244.25 (talk) 14:19, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

You know, I'm going to take the value of the peer review both articles went through as being considerably more relevant than your personal opinion of them. Academic journals in the humanities are not generally in the business of restating already known information from primary sources. Certainly I see more in each article than restatements of primary sources. Which suggests to me that either you do not understand the articles, or you simply dislike the articles and believe Wikipedia should substitute your judgment for the judgment of the peer reviewed journals. In either case, it rather discredits your position. Phil Sandifer (talk) 19:48, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your contribution here, Matthew Brown (Morven), because your words have allowed me to see your point of view. As stated before, my only genuine problem with the section isn't merely that it's academic criticism, rather its lack of thematic structure. After all, "academic criticism" is a broad subject and within the 2 paragraphs, Amos' relationship with Gaiman is discussed, followed by analysis of Amos' renditions of a few cover songs. (See what I mean?) This text has been part of the article for a while now and it's never been discussed the shape it's going to take, the subsections it will include, etc. I think with some organization, it could be a valuable asset to the overall article. --Pisceandreams (talk) 03:35, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, as I've said, I've got citations that I'll follow up on in a month or so when I have access to an academic library again that will get a few more articles. Past that, it'll be a matter of how it takes shape - there is a fair amount of academic criticism on Tori Amos, but I've not attempted an exhaustive bibliography, nor is it something I have the time to do. But as the section grows, its shape will be clearer - right now it's embryonic, to my mind, because it's based on two sources. But imperfection is OK. Once we get enough in there that we can start to identify themes and trends we can merge coverage of topics together. Phil Sandifer (talk) 04:04, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

"You know, I'm going to take the value of the peer review both articles went through as being considerably more relevant than your personal opinion of them." If you would take the time to actually read my response, you might notice that I did not rely on my opinion of them, but on the opinion of the mass of academics in the world, as objectively measured by the Arts and Humanities Citation Index which gave both of these articles ZERO citations, despite one of them having been in circulation for four years. The academy seems to have spoken quite clearly on this: these articles are junk. That you seem to think all articles published in peer-reviewed resources are equally valid does not speak well of your critical skills. That the fact that you are the source of one of the articles does not speak well for either your scholarship or your professional ethics. Neither does your fairly obvious off-Wikipedia canvassing of votes from members of the arbitration committee who suddenly showed up to chime in on a topic which none of them have any history of having noticed before. You are doing a disservice to the project when you make such errors, and it is for such reasons that Wikipedia is a bad joke in academic circles. At least you were honest when you noted "you're not going to persuade me." I suppose I should have taken the hint from your unapologetically aggressive use of insult. A final note, since you're going to simply do whatever you like anyway: from someone who has been on both sides of hiring committees, you might be interested to know that although we're technically not supposed to, about the very first thing we ever do is Google a candidate. Your aggressive attitude, back-room politicking, and statements like your belief that all academic criticism is, "by definition," reliable, are not going to help your chances in an overcrowded field. Good luck with that. 138.23.244.25 (talk) 16:22, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Citation indexes are relatively less useful in the humanities, as compared to citation other fields, because in most fields the rate of citation is very low. For one thing, AHCI measures only the citations in other articles from among the very limited range of journals included in AHCI, not citations in books. More fundamentally, in the humanities there are typically relatively few people working on any one particular topic, as compared with the sciences, where certain topics attract very wide attention. There are a great many artists in this genre; there is only one human genome. The lack of citations here only indicates the relatively small number of workers, and the dispersal of their topics of interest, not necessarily the importance of their work. DGG (talk) 20:03, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Keep & Keep: It seems fitting that peer review of aesthetic material is itself aesthetic. Keep both paragraphs and expand if possible.

It seems less fitting that peer review of an editor's work on WP be also aesthetically based. Now that's something I do know about. Operative words:

• Pisceandreams: 'disrupts the flow'
• Samuel Grant: 'doesn't really fit', 'unwarranted' ' 'redundant. Their (Gaiman's and Amos') relationship is already discussed elsewhere'
• 138.23: 'not noteworthy' 'use of jargon'

All subjective. There is only enough substantive argument here to hold between my thumb and forefinger and not have two between my thumb and forefinger (ie, 'relationship is discussed elsewhere', which proved to be misleading, as the article says something completely different about their relationship than the one line above.

• Phil Sandifer: "Peer-reviewed academic criticism". Somewhat more substantial. No, I don't think I can get away with understatement here, hostile crowd. Much more substantial. Just today, I have noticed something: subjective arguments use adjectives. Substantial arguments use nouns. Kind of sounds like a truism now that I say it.
• DGG: (paraphrased) Scholarship in the arts is analysis based on study of the primary sources, and informed comparisons; sometimes it will be aesthetic opinion, which, like the opinion of popular critics, is valid.
• Pisceandreams: I think with some organization, it could be a valuable asset to the overall article.
• Matthew Brown (Morven): "Surely the article is improved by considering its subject from more angles?"

I find especially interesting the way in which Pisceandreams' comments became less subjective as he switched sides, making it more or less 2 to 3. Well, 4 counting me. But of course it isn't all about votes, it is about content; I think I have done a reasonable job at showing substantiality.

Rebroad served the role of critic, which as you can probably tell I find a noble occupation. Unlike me he is sensible enough to stay off of one side or the other. Unlike me he doesn't get a vote, because of that. Hah! At least, not til he says what it is. Anarchangel (talk) 13:03, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Cute, but also utterly wrong. "peer-reviewed" is ALSO an adjective, as is "academic." That you don't recognize them as such tells us all we needed to know about your assessment of the arguments here: you haven't made any. Not all criticism is created equally, and to pretend that an honest evaluation of its merits is beside the point betrays a complete lack of understanding of what "peer-reviewed" actually means. As has been pointed out, the so-called "peer-reviewed academic criticism," in this case, fails all such evaluative measures. The academic quality of this "scholarship" is nil. While DGG tries, manfully, to shoot the messenger above, the citation indices remain the only objective measure of a work's academic importance. Jerome McGann's work crops up hundreds of times. The entire journal which forms the core of the supposed 'academic criticism' section here merits precisely zero. It's junk criticism. And as for "peer reviewed," the "peer" in this case isn't: he's an ABD graduate student transparently - and vainly - trying to pad his resume by putting his own references on a website.

At least you and DGG aren't bothering to dispute the more serious issue here: the strictly counter-policy canvassing which Mr. Sanders engaged in to try to stack the deck here. It's all moot: he's already shot himself in the foot fatally as far as his academic aspirations go. The only casualty here was, again, any attempt to keep Wikipedia itself from being a laughingstock in the academy. Vain hope, that. 138.23.75.251 (talk) 14:45, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

When reading this article on Tori Amos, everything seemed very homogenous and flowed well, until I read the "academic criticism" section. I was then suprised to find more discussion about two paragraphs than everything else in the article. I think it seems that the people who have a problem with it, like me, just read the sentences and have a feeling that they just don't fit. And Phil, being an editor of the magazine, is fighting like heck to substantiate his additions as worthy of this Wikipedia article.

Now, the previous paragraph I just wrote has no evidence related to Wikipedia policy, that was more of a discussion of why I am here, being slightly objective to the discussion. Now, I understand that ImageText states that its articles are peer-reviewed, but I have a problem with reading an academic article about Music Theory in a journal that states, "The objective of ImageTexT is to advance the academic study of comic books, comic strips, and animated cartoons," which makes this article seem totally out of place in an "interdisciplinary comics studies" journal. I know Phil is going to go to the mattresses on this one, but can we truly trust this journal and its supposed peer-reviewed process? I might find this article more applicable if published in a music theory journal. The second article, of course, is from the "society for music theory", so that article obviously is not debateable as academically sound in this context.

Going back to the academic criticism section itself, I still argue, and continue the argument, that it does belong in this article. As an example, this is a biography article, and this section is highly technical to the music theory field. It would be like taking an article about Albert Einstein and spending a section devoted to the technical aspects about his theory of relativity, citing physics formulas and theories that a reader of a biography won't understand or relate to. That kind of technical article belongs in the Theory of Relativity article. Now, 99% of people reading a biography of Tori Amos will not know what "intertexual relationships" or "Jacques Lacan's idea of the mirror stage" means, so that type of discussion doesn't belong here.

As for Burns and Woods study of cover songs, I fail to see where two academics' interpretation of the way Tori Amos constructed the music for two songs she covered should be included. I don't see it as criticism; I see it as interpretations of solely two songs, and not of her body of work. There are literally millions of songs by thousands of artists. Does that mean every article should have a paragraph or section dedicated to someone's interpretation of some or all of the songs? Just because there are some acaedmic articles about artists does not mean that the content belongs on Wikipedia.

I do believe that academic criticism can be placed in an article, but should only refer to the artists' work as a whole, and be from journals of music theory, not Comics Studies journals. Based on this, this section as it exists should be removed, and only be replaced by criticism that applies the motifs and/or themes of Tori Amos's work as a whole. Angryapathy (talk) 18:10, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Late Jan section break

A notice of this thread has been placed on the adminstrator's noticeboard. [2]

On the general question "is academic criticism appropriate for an article" I'm sure that the answer "it depends" will prove unsatisfactory to the proponents for inclusion whom, if I read their arguments correctly, believe it should be "yes no matter what." The text in question was (is) woefully out of step with the article. The source, while ostensibly peer-reviewed (clarification inserted later: this was in refernce to the internal peer review of the source's appropiateness, not it's status as a source. misundertandings like this can be avoided if calm prevails, instead of flaring up, ay?) , is clearly minor. The material covered, in the broad context of the artist's career, is diminishingly small. The size (and bad prose) of the included material means that "editorial judgment" alone argues for its removal. There is also the question of the appropriateness of the off-wiki canvassing to solicit support for a source he is perhaps too close to (see "Editor's Introduction - Philip Sandifer") for objectivity. I'll to attempt to create a compromise position. *sough* {{sofixit}} *cough*
brenneman 00:12, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Iv'e edited the sections on popular culture and gaimen together, but removed the section on covers. If there are other readings on her work, a section on them would be appropiate but on it's own Lori Burns and Alyssa Woods' bit was too much weight. - brenneman 00:24, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

oops, I missed Snowspinner's edit. Care to discuss instead of reverting? - brenneman 00:26, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, considering that you just implied that I engaged in severe professional misconduct and ignored the peer review process on that issue of ImageTexT, no, I don't want to have anything to do with you. Phil Sandifer (talk) 00:29, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Though I will say, regarding the Burns/Woods article, I'm not sure how attention to the only view of a subject is undue weight. If there are views that are being ignored, then yes, that would seem like undue weight. Are you suggesting that there are sources to be added? By all means, point me towards them, I'm happy to summarize them.

But as for anything related to the Reed citation, given both your personal attack and your blatant lie about canvassing, frankly, no. You have no credibility here, and I consider, at this point, any edits based on the supposed fact that the article is only "ostensibly" peer reviewed to be personal attacks. Phil Sandifer (talk) 00:34, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Ahh, thank you for changing your mind about reverting without discussing. Please attempt to maintain a polite congenial atmosphere for discussion.

• Use of terms like "personal attack" are unesacarily escalatory. I simply suggested that spruiking a magazine you are an editor for is a bad idea: You're too close to it to be objective. Even if you're not, as an admistrator and an acedimic, you should know better.
• It is not appropiate to cry poor to the mailing list. While of course I assume good faith in your doing so and that you could not even have imagined that it would attract like minded individuals to come here and support your view, that's what happened.

With respect to the actual article:

• If the review/analysis in question is the only view of the subject, it's textbook undue weight.
• Please use the same process we expect of all other editors: Compromise, mutual respect, and editing.
• Blind reversion, bullying (in my opinon) and rudeness are not substitutes for editing.

brenneman 00:43, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

No, Aaron. Saying that I "ostensibly" conducted peer review is a personal attack. It's not an escalation. It's calling you out on a completely vile insinuation. As for the mailing list, I very deliberately kept from mentioning the article. Hence the first sentence of my e-mail, "Avoiding making this a de facto RFC on a given article..." So given that you have so far lied and insinuated professional misconduct on my part, I don't really think you're in any position to complain about rudeness. Phil Sandifer (talk) 00:50, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Snowspinner, reading the section #Academic_criticism above certainly gives the appearance that this was a "peer review" in appearance only.

• With much respects, a number of editors are making the same observations: That the material was dropped in as whole cloth, and that you're too close to the source to be objective, and that you're blindly reverting any changes to the material.
• That was circa 10 December.
• Your post to the mailing list was 11 December.
• Again, while it beggers beleif that it did not occur to you that the mailing list (a very narrow set of editors most of whom have very similar opinons) would drum up assymetrical supprt, I must assume good faith.

Moving to the more immediate past,the request for comment was again a pseduo-peer review.

• You attack and belittle editors who diagree with you
• Several indivduals continue to express the opinon that the material is inapropiate
• You are still continuing to blindly revert, quasi-ownership style.

There is no consensus to include this material in the form you are blindly reverting to. You are engaing in edit warring and personall attacks. Please accept the possibility that you are not being objective, and that your current conduct in unbecoming to a wikipedia adminstrator. Work with other editors instead of trying to smash them down.

brenneman 01:11, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Aaaawwwwwww heck Brenneman, I am an arch-inclusionist and love the ruminating richness of academic criticism bits like this. If the two songs are not in daughter articles they should be discussed here, but moved along if the daughter articles arise. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:00, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

oopsies - I see ditty numero uno has an article, and mebbe ditty numero two-o should as well.....Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:05, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm open to reasonable arguments as such, and collective editting is always welcomed. ^_^ - brenneman 01:11, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I have little doubt that independent articles on both songs as well as on Gaiman's relationship with Amos could be justified. All, as independent topics, surely meet WP:N. Phil Sandifer (talk) 01:28, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Are we all (including those who commented on Dec 10 and following the RfC) in agreement then that the material as it exists in the article now is poorly placed? - brenneman 01:45, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

No. I'm in agreement that if articles existed on these subtopics, this information would be among that information that should be spun off, but until such a time, this is the best place for it. Phil Sandifer (talk) 02:13, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

And the opinions of the editors above who also think it misplaced? Snowspinner, you've blindly reverted changed to this section twelve times, thrice today. Is it possible that you're not seeing the consensus here? - brenneman 02:28, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

And the opinions of the editors above who think it isn't? I count 7 in favor of keeping it, all told, 6 in favor of removal. So no. We're clearly not all agreed, and there is clearly not consensus for removal. Phil Sandifer (talk) 02:42, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

If there was consensus for it's inclusion, you'd not have to edit war to keep it in, right? But, as it appears that you're both totally unwilling to compromise and willing to walk right up to the bright-line of 3RR, I will exit stage left for now. Taking this page off my watch list. - brenneman 02:48, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I would say that it depends on the goodwill of the editors trying to take it out before I could say what I would have to do with any accuracy. But I'm perfectly willing to compromise - I'm fine with your creating 97 Bonnie and Clyde and Neil Gaiman and Tori Amos and fleshing those articles out including these paragraphs. What I am not is concerned enough about it to do this myself. Phil Sandifer (talk) 03:29, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I did re un directed '97 Bonnie & Clyde Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:15, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Here is a potential compromise: can we edit the section to remove the Music Theory jargon? Do we really need three sentences to explain that there is an intertextual relationship, or that Tori's covers are emotive? Let's make the section more accessible to everyone. Angryapathy (talk) 14:48, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

If you want to take a crack at an accurate but jargon free summary, be my guest. Phil Sandifer (talk) 23:27, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I still believe that Phil is too biased, and references to the Neil Gaiman/Tori Amos article should be removed. I find it suspect that the article is published in a comic studies journal when the author is a music theorist. I know that Gaiman's work is in the realm of comics, but when the author's speciality is music theory, the article should only be notable if it is published in a music theory journal. Angryapathy (talk) 21:12, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

There are limits to what I can say to address this, since peer review is an anonymous and confidential process. However, it should be noted that ImageTexT, although published out of an English department, is explicitly an interdisciplinary journal. In a case where an article is being published that comes from a disciplinary perspective outside of that of the editors of a journal, part of responsible editorship is making sure that the article is checked on all fronts. However, it should be noted, Reed's piece is not strictly speaking a music theory or a comics piece. It's an interdisciplinary study. It came out in an interdisciplinary journal. And it's being used to make interdisciplinary claims. I am troubled by the implications of your field limitation approach, simply because it seems to me to render the whole of interdisciplinary work suspect for Wikipedia even when it has gone through normal and appropriate standards of peer review. Phil Sandifer (talk) 23:27, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Feb 2009 section break

Request for unprotection

I've asked for protection to be lifted. - brenneman 10:51, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Consensus on existance of Academic etc section to date.

Removed	Editor	Edit summary	Added	Editor	Edit summary
			13:29, 30 August 2008	Phil Sandifer	No edit summary.
15:17, 31 August 2008	Pisceandreams	(Undid revision 235118627 by Phil Sandifer (talk) interesting, but doesn't belong here)	01:15, 2 September 2008	Phil Sandifer	→In popular culture: Return removed paragraph in its own academic criticism section
06:16, 1 December 2008	Eguinho	This "Academic Critiscism" part is a waste of time. It's just a guy criticizing her. he doesn' t has Wikipedia, wich means he's not so important. What he says is: Tori & Neil are friends, big deal...	06:30, 1 December 2008	Phil Sandifer	Removing peer reviewed scholarship from articles is almost always a very poor choice.
00:35, 9 December 2008	99.174.233.4	→Academic criticism: Eguinho is right - this is non-notable ego-stuffing	01:09, 9 December 2008	Phil Sandifer	Removing academic criticism is almost never appropriate.
06:39, 9 December 2008	99.174.233.4	Undid revision 256630485 Removing non-notable ego-stuffing IS appropriate. This is a footnote at best	07:06, 9 December 2008	Phil Sandifer	It's not my paper, so it's hardly ego stuffing.
01:51, 10 December 2008 and 01:53, 10 December 2008	138.23.244.30	→Academic criticism: Fancruft is still fancruft, even when it's in academic jargon. Not noteworthy = not encyclopedic and →Academic criticism: ...and then cleaned up the redundancy - see TALK page)(2 intermediate revisions not shown	04:05, 11 December 2008	Scarian	Reverted edits by 138.23.244.30 to last version by Phil Sandifer (HG)
05:07, 11 December 2008	138.23.244.30	Undid revision 257094567 by Scarian (talk)please see TALK page before reverting	06:54, 11 December 2008	Phil Sandifer	The arguments for removing this get worse by the day.
10:16, 30 January 2009	Aaron Brenneman	→Relationship with Neil Gaiman: removing section on covers - too much detail on a minor point (2 intermediate revisions not shown)	10:18, 30 January 2009	Phil Sandifer	The latter half of the academic criticism section has nothing to do with Gaiman, and the removal of the other criticism seems wholly unwarranted. Bad change.
10:22, 30 January 2009	Aaron Brenneman	→Relationship with Neil Gaiman and graphic arts: slight tightening (One intermediate revision not shown)	10:31, 30 January 2009	Phil Sandifer	You blew your credibility on this one by insinuating that I engaged in serious professional misconduct. Given that this was discussed and there was no consensus for removal, I think this change unwise
10:36, 30 January 2009	Aaron Brenneman	Undid revision by Snowspinner - Please use talk _other_ than to say you won't talk. I will place note on talk and ANI, but won't revert again	10:50, 30 January 2009	Phil Sandifer	Revert

discussion of same

I'm finding it very hard to see consensus for this material, so I'm trying to distill the relevant diffs. Oh, "what's the point" is an obvious question, right? Well, my initial impression was that there was never consesus that this material needed to be added, and that there had been multiple full reverts by a single editor to keep the material in. I do see now that the IP was reverted by Scarian, but I'm not seeing any edits by Scarian to talk at all. Looking over discussions above, here's the bits that distill it for me. - brenneman 12:47, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

That's a matter of opinion, and in any case, I think you should stop reverting every attempt to change any of your contributed text. It's counter-productive and defeats the whole point of discussion and consensus. Samuel Grant (talk) 05:18, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, and I think people should stop removing verifiable information from reliable sources. It's vandalism. So, you know, we're all really pissed off at each other. Go us. Phil Sandifer (talk) 05:29, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

In any case, if people want to remove the Reed article for COI, go for it. If people want to remove the entire section because "academic criticism isn't important," well, I'm going to do everything I can to stop them. And once I get back to Florida and have access to a Uni library again (January) I am going to expand the section with as many articles and chapters as I can find. Phil Sandifer (talk) 05:31, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

We-ell, I have added the critiques to the song pages just in case it all gets swept away here as it is directly pertinent to them. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:15, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I thought you'd given up on the discussion. Ah well. I'm seeing a rough tally of... well, about even comments on each side. Which does not seem to me to be consensus for removing verifiable information from a reliable source. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:49, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

To be frank, I'm not feeling like there is much actual "discussion" going on. Per the diffs above, there is clearly no consensus that this material needs to be included in the article. Per the discussion above, several editors have expressed that (for a variety of reasons) that they do not believe that this material belongs in the article. I repeat Samuel Grant's request that you stop reverting and allow discussion to occur. You've come right up to the three-revert rule while edit warring to keep this material in. Repeatedly, over an extended period of time. Please remove this material until such a time as there is consensus for its inclusion.
brenneman 23:04, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

No. Phil Sandifer (talk) 23:56, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

In musician articles, we typically create "Musical style" sections, which include commentary. See R.E.M. and Janet Jackson for example. You could easily refashion an "academic criticism" section into this. WesleyDodds (talk) 00:59, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I strongly second Wesley Dodds idea, this makes it broader and more relevant to the general reader (which I feel it has the strong protential to be) rather than coming across as esoteric. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:53, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd be fine if someone wanted to undertake such a transformation, so long as the two sources continue to be accurately summarized. I'm happy to look at any proposed rephrasings if people aren't sure they've got the articles right - I know the Reed one, in particular, is fairly technical in spots. Phil Sandifer (talk) 01:54, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm still opposed to the inclusion of the material. I've linked this before, but I'll do so again. From Wikipedia:Weight#Undue_weight: "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia [...]" While there has been a claim made that the field of academic criticism of Tori Amos has a rich vein only waiting to be tapped, so far we have two. As a compromise, can this material be removed to User:Phil Sandifer/Academic criticism of Tori Amos? Then, once Phil has added in "with as many articles and chapters as [he] can find" we can actually determine if appropriate weighting is being given? - brenneman 10:27, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I will be very happy if formatted as Wesley Dodds suggests - this makes it broadly accessible and is something all artists should have. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:18, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

All right, I can see which way the wind is blowing. ^_^ Next time though, can we generally agree that material that's contentious should not be repeatedly re-inserted? - brenneman 13:37, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I think brenneman still has a point. Earlier in the discussion, Phil promised more sources and material than just the two articles we have here, saying that he would provide more starting in 2009. Now, a month later, we have no new academic articles regarding Tori Amos, but Phil still wants these two articles included alone. Again, just because academic criticism exists doesn't mean its useful. Here is an analogy: if there was an article comparing Beyonce Knowles' music and J.D. Salinger's writings, would that be included in the article about Salinger? No, because there are tons of other academic articles about him, and that wouldn't be necessary. Including every academic article would be a literary review. Wikipedia isn't a literary review. Just because these are the only academic articles we have about Tori Amos does not make them the best or applicable. We need more, and better, articles. Angryapathy (talk) 15:33, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah. Life got in the way. Just on the bibliographies of those and a quick search, however:

• Whiteley, Sheila. Women and Popular Music: Sexuality, Identity, and Subjectivity. New York: Routledge, 2000. (Page 197 deals with Amos - someone with access to the book will want to find it)
• B Gordon - Women’s voices across musical worlds, 2004 (Seems to have a chapter on Amos)
• L Burns - Expression in Pop-Rock Music: a Collection of Critical and... (Google Scholar is cutting off the title - has an essay n Amos though)
• [3] looks promising, particularly for a bit more on the Burns/Woods piece.
• Joseph Henry Auner, Judith Irene Lochhead: Postmodern Music/Postmodern Thought: Seems to deal briefly but substantively with Amos on page 327.

I do not have time to do an extensive tracking down of those sources, but if someone wants to go find them and see what they do to the academic criticism section, I suspect it would improve the section. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:56, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Goodbye, Academic Criticism

I found a WP guideline that seems pretty straightforward about this section, from WP:PSTS: "Wikipedia articles should rely mainly on published reliable secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors." We have no secondary sources for the articles that we have, so until someone finds some, we should remove the section. Angryapathy (talk) 19:33, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, no one has argued against deleting the section, so if I don't hear anything soon, I will be taking out "Academic Criticism." If someone wants to find better sources, feel free, but with only primary sources, this section needs to be removed. Even Phil mentioned the need for better sources, which he and no one else have investigated. There is no reason to keep bad information in a section because there might be good information out there to add to the section. Angryapathy (talk) 13:14, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Huh. Apparently this fell off my watchlist somehow. OK. Well, as for your first point, these are not primary sources for what they are being used for, which is the Tori Amos article. We can describe the contents of a source. We do not need to wait for a secondary source on a topic to be summarized in yet another secondary source before we can use it. We have never had, and will never have a policy to that effect, because it would be absolutely stupid. Phil Sandifer (talk) 20:52, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of your belief that such a policy would be 'stupid,' its principle remains valid. In order to include material in Wikipedia, it must serve the purpose of the article, i.e., to provide unbiassed understanding of a subject's importance or impact. Even if one were to grant the need for a separate 'academic criticism' section - which I don't, and which, in general, does not appear on most subject pages -- one would need to establish criteria for their inclusion. Including every single interpretive article on, say, the Rime of the Ancient Mariner (much less STC in entirety) would make the article some tens of thousands of pages long. Thus there must be some threshhold for the inclusion of such references......you seem to have decided, on the basis of your editing here and on 'Calvin and Hobbes' (and others?), that the threshhold is "article was edited and/or written by me." 99.174.233.4 (talk) 23:56, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Do feel free to add more. To my mind, the threshold is "give an overview of the academic criticism on the subject." For Rime of the Ancient Mariner, indeed, that involves a much more birds eye view. Phil Sandifer (talk) 00:13, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

But that's the point - there is no significant 'academic criticism on the subject.' 99.174.233.4 (talk) 02:17, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Given that you've elsewhere made your distaste for academia clear, I'm disinclined to take that claim on your part seriously. Phil Sandifer (talk) 03:01, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I am not against academia, in its place, and well handled. In this case it is neither well-handled, nor placed properly. Try addressing the actual argument rather than attempting to attack the person. The argument remains: since one can not include every single academic reference to a subject, the inclusion of such references has to be when they are significant contributions to the topic, or notable in their own right. The bush-league work tossed randomly into this article do not qualify in either respect. 99.174.233.4 (talk) 13:42, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I think the point that is being missed is that Phil himself has admitted that these sources are not good enough. Yet he hasn't found other sources to improve the section. I do not see the point in keeping bad information on Wikipedia because good sources might exist. If he wants to put better sources, let's do that. But since he, and no one else, has included better sources, the section as it exists needs to be deleted. Angryapathy (talk) 02:05, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I haven't said these sources aren't good enough for inclusion. I've said there's more to write about it. I've provided, in the section above, several sources to look at. This is not, however, bad information - it is merely incomplete information. There is nothing *wrong* with either of the sources used. The problem is that there is other information to be added, and possibly synthesis and summary of the information once it's all in, should multiple articles on similar topics be found. The situation would be analogous to us only covering Little Earthquakes and From the Choirgirl hotel in detail. Yes, there are nine more albums that need to be dealt with. But the article is not improved by cutting out the information we have. There are not better sources than the peer-reviewed scholarship we have. There is, however, more of it to find. I gave several examples. Anyone interested in improving the section further (I do not think it has any egregious problems, although, like any section of any article, there is room for improvement) should follow up on those sources. Phil Sandifer (talk) 12:51, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

So if we find 50 peer-reviewed articles on Tori Amos, do we include them all? What is your criteria other than the vague, "peer-reviewed"? Angryapathy (talk) 15:56, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Again, the COI policy suggests that "Using material you yourself have written or published is allowed within reason, but only if it is notable" (emphasis mine). The concern is a valid one: inclusion of external sources, in their own section (rather than as cited references) only makes sense if the publications *themselves* are notable. These are definitely not, and nobody, not even Phil, has tried suggesting they were. Thus even if they were included as footnotes they do not merit a separate section. 99.174.233.4 (talk) 17:48, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Certainly the journals pass WP:N. It's also a bit of a stretch to say that I wrote or published either article. I had involvement only in the ImageTexT article, and there I was the issue editor only - I did not write it, and the end decision to publish was not made by me but by the journal's editors and, more broadly, by the University of Florida's English Department. So we have here two articles, one of which I had nothing to do with, and the other one of which I neither wrote nor published, both of which were published in notable journals under stringent editorial provisions. I'm working very, very hard to see how this violates COI, and it's just not happening. Phil Sandifer (talk) 18:57, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

The journals do not seem to pass WP:N. There is no mention of any citation of ImageText in any citation index. Reed's article was published by an organ of the University at which he teaches...hardly a glowing testimony to its objective value. Just so, while the MTO journal might, arguably, be considered worthy of a footnote somewhere, the article cited here does not merit an entire paragraph. It's one lone opinion on the work, by some very minor academics who are not, themselves, notable. It's ego-stuffing. 99.174.233.4 (talk) 21:46, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd have to see what the 50 peer-reviewed articles say. Articles with similar topics - whether it be similar approaches or similar subjects (i.e. multiple articles on Under the Pink) can likely be grouped and summarized. Eventually, for something with sufficient academic coverage, a spin-out article such as Academic coverage of Tori Amos could prove preferable. But it is difficult to describe in any detail how to write a section on 50 sources when I have only read two of the 50, and do not even know what the other 48 are. It's not a very useful hypothetical. Phil Sandifer (talk) 18:57, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

The burden of proof, in this case, is on you, to suggest what standard of 'noteworthiness' or importance an academic work should have in order to merit its own paragraph-long section in a wikipedia article covering its subject matter. We're not talking PMLA or Jacques Derrida or even Camille Paglia here: we're talking two bush-league views, both of which are just synthetic readings of the work through other (more noteworthy) scholars' theories. So, what's the threshold for inclusion? 99.174.233.4 (talk) 21:46, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

What I am trying to get at is that if we include every journal article about Tori Amos, why stop there? Why not do it for every topic on WP that has journal articles written about it? Basically Wikipedia would just become a huge dumping ground of academic articles. It would literally be an academic review. And as Wikipedia says in WP:IINFO: Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. "...merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia." I do not agree that being published in a journal satisfies notability, because there are tens of thousands of journal articles. Angryapathy (talk) 22:53, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I think, to some extent, this issue starts to scale with volume of academic coverage. Certainly something that has a huge amount of academic writing on it needs to be more selective. On the other hand, a topic that is the subject of a few articles can probably summarize those articles. To my mind, the issue is several-fold. First of all, encyclopedic coverage ought to include an overview of academic views of the topic, because academic views are significant views in terms of the knowledge about a subject. If a subject is covered by peer-reviewed, notable journals, that coverage matters simply because, well, academic viewpoints have an inherent weight to them. From there it becomes a matter of writing a good academic criticism section. I agree that the one here needs work. I've pointed to sources that people can use to perform that work. But what there is now is still preferable to ignoring academic scholarship entirely. Phil Sandifer (talk) 04:55, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I think this is truly the heart of the matter. I, among others, do not believe that having academic criticism alone warrants inclusion. I think just getting peer-reviewed does even come close to being notable enough for inclusion. The academic criticism articles included especially are not notable. This is where we need to get others' opinions on whether or not peer-reviewed=notable. Angryapathy (talk) 15:36, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

You keep using the term "peer reviewed" as if it, by itself, equated to the term "notable. It doesn't, particularly when for half of the material here "peer reviewed" actually means "Phil Sandifer reviewed." Much "peer reviewed" scholarship falls well below the notability guidelines here, and in the world at large. You are also repeating your preconception that "academic viewpoints have an inherent weight." The statement is simply untrue. Certainly plenty of academic work is worthy, notable, and important...but not all of it. Some of it is a waste of ink, or even electrons. And even in those cases where the work is worthwhile, it is not appropriate to foreground it in a Wikipedia article on the work's subject. 138.23.246.0 (talk) 10:09, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Peer review is not editorial review. I edited the issue that the Reed article was published in. That does not mean that I conducted the peer review. Indeed, it would be unusual for me to have done so. Phil Sandifer (talk) 19:32, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Does peer-reviewed equal notability?

Does peer-reviewed academia automatically have notability and merit inclusion in articles?

I believe that peer-reviewed academia, like all other topics and content on Wikipedia, need to be filtered by notability. Just because journal articles receive peer-reviewing does not make their content worthy of inclusion into Wikipedia articles. Some academia is only applicable to the narrow field it is in. I think we are giving too much weight to articles that do not deserve the attention here. Perhaps Wikimedia could start a separate project in which academic journal articles are summarized; Wikipedia is not the venue. Angryapathy (talk) 13:23, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

This seems to me to subject academia to stricter scrutiny than other sources. We are not nearly so worried about the degree of notability of individual reviews of an album, for instance. What is significant is that the article appears in a notable, peer reviewed venue More broadly, I think that academic criticism matters and is worth discussing. We should pick the most notable academic articles that we can find, but fundamentally "academic attention" to a subject, broadly construed, is a notable viewpoint. Furthermore, WP:N as such explicitly does *not* limit article content, so I'm not sure where the argument here is coming from. The phrasing that is most relevant is WP:NPOV: "Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each." The question is whether academic viewpoints are significant and prominent. And I would suggest that both of these *are* accomplished by dint of the peer review system. Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:03, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:NPOV also states in WP:DUE: "Just as giving undue weight to a viewpoint is not neutral, so is giving undue weight to other verifiable and sourced statements. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject." Thus, not every verifiable source needs to be included. And while WP:N does not limit article content, WP:IINFO states "merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia." The guidelines seem to hold the peer-reviewed articles to the same standard as any reliable source: they need to be notable and worthy of inclusion. Academic (peer-reviewed) articles do not get a free pass for inclusion. Angryapathy (talk) 14:40, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, but none of those things take us to WP:N - in fact, NPOV does not use the word "notable" at all, which I do not think is accidental. We're not using the standard of WP:N where something has to be covered in multiple sources for article inclusion. That is why WP:N says, explicitly, that "The notability guidelines determine whether a topic is notable enough to be a separate article in Wikipedia. They do not give guidance on the content of articles."

Except in the case of COI, where notability, in its own right, *is* the standard for inclusion. The policy reads that material you have personally been involved with "is allowed within reason, but only if it is notable." That suggests strongly that the threshold for inclusion is one which asks whether a general audience - one not involved in editing, publishing, or writing the material in question - would have considered the scholarship worthy of inclusion in its own right. There is no way to answer that question, in this case, since Mr. Sandifer both violated that policy with his initial additions, and then violated it again by off-Wiki canvassing for support when he was called on the topic (see above discussion). What can be done is to recognize that the policy's rationale applies here: unless the academic perspective is, itself, notable (an essay by Camille Paglia, for example, or some other individually notable scholar or venue) it has no place in the article...certainly not foregrounded in its own section, as though it were part-and-parcel of the article's subject. 138.23.246.0 (talk) 16:49, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I have not violated COI. I have not off-wiki canvassed. Please stop lying. Thanks. Phil Sandifer (talk) 04:56, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Your use of off-wiki canvassing in the discussion above is painfully obvious enough to have been commented on by multiple editors. More centrally to this discussion, you are, by definition, the one person on the planet who gets absolutely no vote as to whether you have violated COI, since you cannot, by definition, give an objective opinion on the subject. Your own definition of the COI policy in the past has been that if others can see a COI, then it exists. 99.174.233.4 (talk) 15:05, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

There is no proof that he has done off-wiki canvassing. Remember to assume good faith. Also, Phil noted that there is a possible COI from his editting of the journal. After all, that is what prompted him to insert the article into Wikipedia. However, there is no need to attack on this issue, or make claims that you can't prove. Focus on the issues, not the editors. Angryapathy (talk) 15:36, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

So as phrased, the question "does peer-reviewed equal notability" is irrelevant, because notability isn't at issue in discussing the content of this article. The relevant phrasing of the question is "is the viewpoint of academic scholarship a significant viewpoint on a subject?" I think you're very hard-pressed to suggest the answer to that is "no." Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:52, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the question is phrased, "Does peer-reviewed academia automatically have notability and merit inclusion in articles?" which again is the issue being skirted here. I am saying that not every peer-reviewed journal article merits inclusion regardless of content. There needs to be some standard for inclusion, which has henceforth been called "notability," but we can call it, "Worthy of inclusion in articles." I agree that academic scholarship can deserve inclusion, I am arguing against automatic inclusion. Angryapathy (talk) 17:31, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

And I maintain - the viewpoint of academic scholarship is significant, and should be expressed as well as possible. I am fine with improving the section if it gives an incomplete or inaccurate portrayal. But it is a start towards the section, and deleting it because it is insufficiently perfect is silly. Phil Sandifer (talk) 04:56, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I came here to comment on the RFC. Wikipedia articles should generally include peer-reviewed scholarship about artists when that scholarship exists. If there is too much scholarship to include it all, then we can worry about which parts to include. If there is not much scholarship (just one or two papers), we can summarize it all. Our goal is not merely to give a biography and a list of artistic works; we should be trying to cover all aspects of the artist, including critical and academic reception when these can be sourced.

In this specific case, the journals in question seem to have academic editorial boards ([4], [5]). It would require some strong sort of evidence to explain why these are not actually reliable sources for the information they present. "Notability" of the source (which I think means, "how many people have heard of this journal?") is not a relevant consideration provided that the source is reliable. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:34, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

So are you saying that as long as the source is reliable, its content merits inclusion on Wikipedia? Angryapathy (talk) 17:33, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I am saying that an article about an artist should cover all the aspects of that artist, including biographical information, lists of works, and criticism including critical reception of works and academic criticism of works when this can be sourced. In some cases the criticism can be put on pages related to the individual works, as with Guernica, but I think the criticism being discussed for this article discusses Amos' in a wider sense, rather than just an individual work. I am not making any general statement about every reliable source or about articles that are not about artists. The particular references being discussed here give a broader view of the reception (and content) of Amos' work, and appear to be reliable sources. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:45, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

The question as stated is easy to answer: no. The mere fact that a perspective has been considered 'interesting' or 'worth publishing' by a specific cadre of a specific editorial board for a specific journal on a specific topic does not make it, de facto, 'notable' in the sense that the term is used here on Wikipedia (i.e., useful to a general audience). Inclusion of scholarship on a topic is justified, when it is relevant to the general topics of the article itself. However, when the academic perspective veers sharply from the material of the article (as, for instance, when the academic work focuses on a specific reading of a few selected texts) I think it is much harder to argue that it merits inclusion. Regardless, such material, worthy or not, is handled through citation references: not a separate section, as it is here. 138.23.246.0 (talk) 16:27, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I think that broadly lumping all academic scholarship into one topic is dangerous. I think that the scholarship should focus on Amos' work as a whole, not for instance on two cover songs. It's like focusing on one short story of John Steinbeck and ignoring his whole body of work. The only articles that should be included here should be about her whole work, otherwise the picking and choosing of which articles on which songs/albums could be considered Original Synthesis. And again, the summaries should be in direct proportion to the weight of the article. So no paragraphs about articles that have no academic citations outside of Wikipedia. Angryapathy (talk) 12:45, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm fine with spinning the two cover songs information off into individual articles. I have little doubt that a second source for each song can be found to satisfy WP:N. Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:27, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Phil, do you feel every peer-reviewed journal article should be summarized on Wikipedia? What are your standards? Angryapathy (talk) 17:23, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I feel every topic that has substantial academic perspectives on it should summarize those perspectives. For a topic that is the subject of massive volumes of analysis - Pride and Prejudice say - obviously that's not going to involve attention to every single article, because there's such a massive body of academic work that any given article is not a significant portion of the critical consensus. Furthermore, you start to have numerous articles with similar perspectives. The issue is adequately summarizing the academic views on the subject. Phil Sandifer (talk) 19:57, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Is it your opinion that there is "substantial" academic perspective in this case? Or that the two article you've devoted paragraphs to in this article "adequately summarize" such perspectives? Or, if not, that they are even the best place to start? 99.174.233.4 (talk) 20:33, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

By "substantial" I mean in terms of the substance of the analysis of the articles - that is, non-trivial coverage in the article, as opposed to off-handed mention. I am inclined to think that either of the articles provides a substantial perspective. Are they the best place to start? I don't know. They were the place I knew to start, and the place I could start with the resources I had immediately available. The section can be better, but it is a start. Certainly I think the articles provide a useful route in. I would be surprised if no coverage of either exists in the Platonic Ideal of an academic criticism section for Tori Amos - the Reed one seems to me to offer a unique perspective on a much-noted aspect of Amos's work, and the other one is by an author with multiple publications on Amos, and is thus a sizable portion of the body of academic work on Amos.

But look, if your problem is the lack of attention to other viewpoints, I gave multiple citations to follow up on. Instead of bitching, go do some actual encyclopedia writing and research. Phil Sandifer (talk) 21:38, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your maturity in calling discussion "bitching." Ignoring that, I think you aren't seeing the big picture: The vast majority of people don't want this section. And every time someone tries to rewrite it, you revert it. The section overemphasizes poor journal articles, which your only defense is, "Go find better articles," or that peer-reviewed articles magically earn inclusion no matter what, without any standards. You are the main person carrying the torch on this. You should find articles that are worthy of inclusion, at least some that have made some impact in the field. And I fail to see why doing an academic meta-analysis of journal articles on Tori Amos's work is encyclopedic. Sounds more like a term paper. Angryapathy (talk) 12:26, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

"Vast majority of people don't want this section." This is just untrue. "poor journal articles." This reduces you back to POV pushing - you dislike the scholarship, so you want it removed. "You should find articles that are worthy of inclusion." Erm, no. I'm not the one complaining about the section, which I think is an incomplete but useful section. You seem to be mistaking Wikipedia volunteering for some sort of compulsory service contract whereby I have incurred an obligation to edit this section to your standards. No. Unless the section violates policy (which it does not) its improvement is the task of those who want to improve it. My investment, at this point, is a willingness to ensure the section does not devolve. Nothing more. As for "academic meta-analysis," there is nothing but summary going on right now, so I'm not sure what you're complaining about. Phil Sandifer (talk) 13:39, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

No, your investment has been unconditional protection of your wording of the summaries of the articles. Every attempt to make the section written to a wider audience has been stopped by you, which you have defended by vaguely saying, "It doesn't accurate summarize the articles." You ignore attempts for consensus every time.

And do you have any standards for individual journal articles? Because you avoid that point every time. Angryapathy (talk) 13:53, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I do not recall any of the alternate summaries proposed. If you have alternate language, I'd be happy to look at it. As for standards for individual journal articles, I'm not sure what you mean by the question. Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:49, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

As it seems no one else wants to comment, I'll leave the article alone. I still think the academic criticism section as it stands is completely out of place here, and disrupts the entire tone of the article. But if Phil wants to insist on having barely grad-school quality journal articles as examples of academic criticism, I'll leave it be. At least Imagetext will have one citation somewhere. Angryapathy (talk) 17:42, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

to go back the question at the head of the sentence, peer-reviewed does not necessarily equal notability, but the sources for a topic do not have to be notable; they merely have to meet the requirement for Reliable sources, which, in many fields, accepts a very wide range of academic work. For controversial material, it's a different sort of consideration, because some sources are more reliable and authoritative than others, and we use the best. For addition of pertinent information that wouldn't otherwise be there, any RS would do. Notability refers to the subject of an article, not to the content, and not to the sources. DGG (talk) 21:19, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

• RfC Reply While it appears to be based on solid references, I don't find the content of the 'Academic Criticism' section to be significant enough to merit inclusion in the article. It just doesn't really add anything of value to the article. Dlabtot (talk) 20:49, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

• RfC Reply I don't see any reason to treat acedemic viewpoints differently. They are reliably sourced, and do indeed give an alternate insight into the article subject. One paragraph summarising a paper does not seem to violate undue weight. Editors would be better employed expanding other sections rather than delete sources material. renaming the section to "critical reception" or somesuch, and expanding with pop culture sources would make it stand out lessYobMod 14:58, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Interesting article written by Tori about her life in Cornwall

Not sure if this is of use for the page: [6] It has some interesting insights about her relationship with Cornwall and how it has influenced her songwriting. 86.133.244.68 (talk) 12:36, 17 May 2009 (UTC)