Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jean-Thierry Boisseau/Evidence

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Please make a header for your evidence and sign your comments with your name.

When placing evidence here, please be considerate of the arbitrators and be concise. Long, rambling, or stream-of-conciousness rants are not helpful.

As such, it is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff; links to the page itself are not sufficient. For example, to cite the edit by Mennonot to the article Anomalous phenomenon adding a link to Hundredth Monkey use this form: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anomalous_phenomenon&diff=5587219&oldid=5584644] [1].

This page is not for general discussion - for that, see talk page.

Please make a section for your evidence and add evidence only in your own section. Please limit your evidence to a maximum 1000 words and 100 diffs, a much shorter, concise presentation is more likely to be effective. Please focus on the issues raised in the complaint and answer and on diffs which illustrate behavior which relates to the issues.

If you disagree with some evidence you see here, please cite the evidence in your own section and provide counter-evidence, or an explanation of why the evidence is misleading. Do not edit within the evidence section of any other user. .wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title Be aware that the Arbitrators may at times rework this page to try to make it more coherent. If you are a participant in the case or a third party, please don't try to refactor the page, let the Arbitrators do it. If you object to evidence which is inserted by other participants or third parties please cite the evidence and voice your objections within your own section of the page. It is especially important to not remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, please leave it for the arbitrators to move.

The Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop. /Workshop provides for comment by parties and others as well as Arbitrators. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact or remedies, Arbitrators vote at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators may edit /Proposed decision.

Contents


[edit] Evidence presented by JzG

[edit] Jean-Thierry is trying to use Wikipedia to "fix" an external problem

  • Jean-Thierry does not appear to understand the difference between gender and gender bias[2]. This may be a result of differences in English usage.
  • Jean-Thierry appears to be escalating the dispute and trying to drag in external parties [3]
  • Jean-Thierry states that the lack of women on list of major opera composers is the result of gender bias [4], but the list cites its sources and inclusion criteria. If there have been no women who are regarded by reliable sources as major composers of opera, that is hardly Wikipedia's fault.
  • Jean-Thierry seems intent on pursuing this singular view of the dispute to places where gender bias might be considered a hot button, despite the fact that there is no obvious relationship between feminism and opera [5], [6].
  • List of major opera composers is highly unusual for a Wikipedia list in that it has, despite its apparently POV title, an objective definition of what constitutes a major opera composer, based on external authorities whose credentials are well established, see List of major opera composers#Lists Consulted. I wish more Wikipedia lists were this well defined and this thoroughly sourced

So: in the real world, there is a historical gender bias against women in classical composition - this applies even more to opera, always a hideously expensive medium. As a result, there are no notable female opera composers. This is a matter of simple historical fact. Jean-Thierry denounces as an example of "POV gender bias" the fact that a list of major opera composers contains no women. This is, I'm afraid, soapboxing. The list contains no women because the sources on which it is based do not rate women among the most significant opera composers, which is in turn simply a recognition of the historical facts as recorded. This is no more "bias" on Wikipedia's part than the absence of women from the list of Popes.

That said, Jean-Thierry appears to be calming down and accepting that we are not here to Right Great Wrongs. I suspect that the findings of fact alone may be sufficient to fix the issue. Guy 22:21, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jean-Thierry appears to be pursuing this outside of Wikipedia

I received quite a vitriolic email from someone who does not appear to be a Wikipedia editor (my email address is published on my website), who appeared to believe that I was personally discriminating against women; this person did not apear to know anything about the detail of the dispute, and went very quiet when I explained the actual nature of the problem. This accords with what Adam says below. Guy 09:08, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jean-Thierry may perceive his own bias as neutrality

Note the paragraph in the middle of Jean-Thierry's long post to Makemi's talk:

Nothing edited under Musikfabrik can be seen as anything but neutral, as we read through all of the articles together to make sure that they were indeed encyclopedic when we understood the principles of this site. No one wrote about themselves. Everything is sourced in published books, recordings and other materials. Our next project was to be a complete revamping of the information about Les Six, using our research involving the original articles in Commedia and other period documents found in the Bibliothèque Nationale. Yes, we do publish the music of Germaine Tailleferre. Someone has to. That doesn't mean that we haven't done our homework.

This indicates that Jean-Thierry (and presumably Paul Wehage) actively discount the possibility that their own writing could be anything other than neutral, even in respect of subjects where they have a vested interest. See also their intention to completely revamp the articles on Les Six; this probably needs doing as the article on Germaine Tailleferre is largely the work of Musikfabrik and is substantially larger than the articles on Francis Poulenc and Arthur Honegger, both of whom are without question significantly more important figures in 20th Century music. Those articles unquestionably need to be bigger.

Re the evidence from Adam below, the "notable American composer" appears to be Dennis Bathory-Kitsz, whose article was deleted after we were unable to find any reliable sources for it; it looks very much as if this was autobiographical, and the subject appears to be the major complainant. To describe Bathory-Kitsz as notable may be somewhat contentious. I am guessing that not so very many people (Wikipedians or otherwise) are active listeners to contemporary classical music other than film music. I am one of those few, having attended premieres of numerous contemporary classical pieces (by Giles Swayne, Keiko Abe and Naji Hakim among others. This past weekend I was listening to music by Steve Reich and Elizabeth Lutyens and an interview with Margaret Leng Tan about the prepared piano and the work of John Cage (old hat now, I know, and positively mainstream). I have never heard Bathory-Kitsz's name mentioned even on radio programmes specifically discussing current developments in contemporary classical music. Maybe that's because he's on the wrong side of the pond for me and it's not to say he's not notable, but I've seen no evidence advanced to suggest that he is. It seems to me likely that this is another example of how Jean-Thierry's perspective on what is significant may be skewed by his own personal involvement.

Wikipedia has no problem with contributions from experts - quite the opposite. We do have a problem with contributions which serve to advance an agenda, especially where spurious arguments of bias are introduced. However expert a contributor may be, there is no substitute for evidence from reliable secondary sources of the relative importance of a subject as judged by a consensus of impartial authorities.

Above all, as stated above, it is not a failure of WP:NPOV to accurately reflect the gender bias which exists, and pretty much always has existed, in classical composition. Guy 09:53, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence presented by Adam Cuerden talk

[edit] Jean-Thierry is blackening the other parties to people outside Wikipedia

There are a number of these, but this one, I think, is the most worrying. I give a possible solution on the Workshop page, but in short:

  • He says that a professor intended to use this as an example of what amounts to sexist behaviour in her class, due to his telling her about it. This escalates things ridiculously, as it means that a minor webpage dispute is being heightened to the good-faith editors being taught in a university as sexist.[7]
  • Also, as JzG mentions, the International Assosciation of Women in Music(same diff as JzG), and so on, as JzG.

I have talked with Paul Wehage, and now believe this was done in reasonable good faith, but Boisseau had a habit, e.g. [8], or his Dr. A section below, of using their comments like a sledgehammer to battle his foes. This use made it difficult to trust him as to what he was saying to them. Even so, a bit more gentleness would have gone a long way, and JzG's nasty e-mail (above) is still worrisome.


I'll provide more evidence tomorrow, if I have time, but this is, in my opinion, the most worrying. Adam Cuerden talk 23:39, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jean-Thierry is (part of) Musikfabrik

...Not really a controversial issue, but worth proving. [9](Only edit), [10] (his statement).

[edit] Musikfabrik was used for promotion

However, this understates Musikfabrik's promotion somewhat. A list of authors similar to the ones that Musikfabrik had for sale (a few got left out at times) were added to most lists of compositions and composers in Wikipedia. Example: [11] vs. the Musikfabrik page [12]. Similarly, [13] vs. [14] (Admittedly, the edits include additional Tailleferre compositions - I'll grant they do seem to care about her despite the shameless promotion of themselves), [15] vs. [16], et cetera.

Whether this is strict promotion or due to promoting things they feel passionately about is hard to judge. Adam Cuerden talk 13:02, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Musikfabrik's views on List of major opera composers were strongly in variance with his views on other pages

Compare, for example, this edit summary: [17] "(removing the sources tag. All of the works cited here can be verified in the Principal source cited above. As there are no notes, this would probably be sufficient.)" Or here [18] with his edit description here [19] "That then becomes an incomplete source. If you revert this, please add the full reference including the page number;"

Granted, the other lists have no descriptions for the composers. However, his sources on the lists shown show far more composers than are on the lists.

[edit] The views about lists have changed widely from when he started

[20] in which he talks favourably of my idea, and approves the BBC list - which contains no women, you'll note. to here [21] or here [22]

By the way, Jean-Thierry Boisseau - and he's welcome to provide a diff if I missed it - never even provided a list containing only women like he claims in the above. He suggested a few books, quoted a letter about a successful opera by Ethel Smythe, and suchlike, but whilst everyone else was carefully scanning articles and listing the names, he didn't bother. HOWEVER, Musicfabrik provided a list that contained no women. [[23]]

I am now very interested to know, if it's such a horrible thing to ignore women, he, or his collegues in arms, did so himself. Adam Cuerden talk 06:51, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

This, of course, contrasts sharply with his statement, which rails against the type of sources being used which resemble those that Musikfabrik approved of[24] and provided.


It should possibly be noted here that both Boisseau[25] and Paul Wehage[26], the other prominent member of Musikfabrik, have brought in outside groups, evidently with each other's approval (see Boisseau's comment on my talk page). This muddies the issue of who is the hypocrite, but since the discussion with Musikfabrik over lists went on for quite some time, with two slightly different opinions expressed "I am not suggesting that this is the solution which should be used, but the idea was put forward to collect representive lists and to make a cross-reference to see what was there." vs [27]or "I personally would find this as an acceptable compromise"], and given the discussion ran, with him participating, for quite some time, it seems likely Boisseau was at the least aware of whoever's actions it was. Adam Cuerden talk 10:27, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I no longer fully believe the above - having talked with Wehage a bit, I do think his feelings about women on the list are genuine, but that he failed to think through the oppression of women keeping women off the lists we found until he saw the result. I do believe his talking to the IAWM was at least partially in good faith. I remain uncertain about Jean-Thierry Boisseau. I do believe that, at the least, Jean-Thierry Boisseau is not listening to other people's statements at all, and this is leading to this major conflict, however. Adam Cuerden talk 21:26, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jean-Thierry Boisseau is extremely quick to leap to accusations

Against Makemi - context: This is just after the role account Musikfabrik was disbanded. Makemi's attempts at administration led to him being branded as sexist.

The Anti-semitism affair, where mentioning three men with gender-ambiguous names to clarify they weren't women - and, I might add, non-Jewish men, led to Folantin being branded Anti-semite by Boisseau[28][29][30]

As I showed above, he approved of my only contribution. However, here he uses it to call me sexist: [31]

And here, he used a worried discussion in which I tried to figure out whether it'd be morally justifiable to "promote" a woman since she was so recent as evidence I was part of a conspiracy against women.[32]My response

[edit] Jean-Thierry Boisseau has no respect for Wikipedia Policy

NPOV is a fallacy N.B. This is a response to being called on a previous statement I haven't been able to find a diff for. However, it's by him, and still says NPOV is wrong. Adam Cuerden talk 11:01, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

However, he was willing to use a highly distorted version of NPOV to try and force people to bend to his will to his schedule, as seen here: This is his appearance on the Opera article's talk page, in which, using Jimbo Wales' comments on libelous material in living peoples' biographies(See here), he threatens to delete the whole article unless they jump to his schedule about cites, to his satisfaction. Adam Cuerden talk 15:34, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Musikfabrik promotion has occurred in other Wikipedias.

The French Wikipedia seems full of the same sort of edits, e.g. [33] and again [34] (All additions being from [35])

This one, though under an anonymous IP(Same as his, though), follows the same pattern of adding only Musikfabrik composers: [36]

Did I mention he was fond of adding to anniversary lists? here's one on the French Wikipedia. Evidently, his own birthday is a notable anniversary: [37]

Note that the same possibile good faith listed in "Musikfabrik was used for promotion" - that they are merely passionate about what they have for sale - still applies here. It is still something that should be gently checked - mentoring?

[edit] My role

I'd like to briefly state what I think to be my worst behaviour in this mess, in the interests of fairness:

  • Telling Boisseau to shut up in Talk:List of major opera composers
  • After Boisseau said in his statement that Musikfabrik was a promotional account, going around checking for lists he added Musikfabrik composers to and reverting his changes, and putting up pages about the Musikfabrik group composers he had a major hand in up for deletion, as few seemed notable.

I apologise for the first, though I do think I was being rather sorely used at the time I lost my temper. I believe the second was justified, as Wikipedia is not a promotional tool, and am trying to work to figure out a consensus for the lists of that type to prevent its reoccurring with other, less controversial (and thus less detectable) promoters.

The second, however, may have been a mistake in part: I don't know. Certainly, I tried to only nominate ones that didn't, as far as I can tell, have obvious notability, but not being in the modern music scene, I may have misjudged at times, or the case may have been stronger than the article implied (unfortunate, that), and so I apologise if I acted in error.

[edit] Good done by Jean-Thierry Boisseau/Musikfabrik?

When the composers being worked on are major, Musikfabrik's additions are very strong. Germaine Tailleferre, for instance. However, the choice of composers to work on does not seem to be based on notability, only promotion of his group. though, he didn't always assert notability very well, and some of the contributions are borderline. In any case, this is not a dreadful problem, however: AfD will weed out any that are too non-notable.

It has to be admitted that the List of major opera composers is a better article before him than after. However, I think, given the bullying evidenced above, this is, to some extent, in spite of him, even if he thought - possibly due to less understanding of English than he thinks he has? - that he was acting justly and everyone else was wrong.

...I just don't believe he listens to what others are saying. At all.

However, I do think that a more concilatory, open attitude, with more presumption of good faith and discussion of issues before the lists were made would have made a stronger article much more quickly.

(Edits have been made because, honestly, I think he may have more of a language issue than intentional bullying.) Adam Cuerden talk 12:56, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Response to various parts of Jean-Thierry Boisseau's evidence

The most shocking bit of his statement is probably: It was very clear to me that a process had to take place in order to bring the list to a starting point where a scientific discussion can begin. I began the process, even offering one list (the contents of which did not really matter, as the results of the survey were predictable from the start) and then allowed the process to happen without intervention, to allow the participants to “define their canon”. Once this had been done, the real discussion could begin

This throws his "I personally would find this as an acceptable compromise" into the worst possible light, and I'm frankly shocked he's admitting to it here as part of his defense.

That said, his claim that he would then have something to discuss from is plausible, but a bit more good faith and notes of possible bias - since as a professional he should have been working to steer us amateurs away from the bias BEFORE setting us on a several week task to prove what he already claims to have known would come forth, would have gone a long way to making his return less vehemently opposed.

In short, I do think that the concealment of knowledge of what would come out, whilst not as shocking as it first appears, perhaps, is at the least poor courtesy on his part. and certainly, since he knew I was uncertain about lists, a little guidance would have gone a long way, and saved weeks of work in fixing remaining bias by preventing its appearance in the first place

"The list is then declared finished, all of this discussion relegated to the archives and a new message asking people to want to include women composers to “prove it”"

Context of his quote: (in a greeting to people asked to help fix the gender bias, by me) "Thanks for helping us show women are important in opera - and prove it!"

I think we have another language error here.


M. Boisseau says he was was asked to stay out of the discussion. I believe this was me trying to politely inform him he was being a bit aggressive[38][39], back when I thought he was acting in good faith to try and get a POV list fixed. I don't think it really agrees with his spin, though it may have been something else, or, again, language problems.



Adam Cuerden talk 17:37, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence presented by Folantin

[edit] Jean-Thierry Boisseau had a "hidden agenda"

I'm not convinced Monsieur Boisseau's concerns about the lack of a woman composer are entirely genuine. They seem more of a tactical ploy. Boisseau was a member of User:Musikfabrik, a role account whose chief purpose on Wikipedia seemed to be the promotion of composers on the Musik Fabrik roster. Boisseau himself has an unperformed(?) opera for sale [40] and his colleague Paul Wehage (another party apparently involved in the List of major opera composers dispute) is editing an opera by the female composer Germaine Tailleferre [41]. This edit [42] shows User:Musikfabrik adding Boisseau's name to the category "composers of opera" on French Wikipedia.User:Musikfabrik had few POV qualms about adding their own members to lists of notable composers for the organ [43] and notable compositions for the harp [44] and organ [45]. (Incidentally, I was led to make this discovery after User:Musikfabrik began harrassing me on other pages I was working on. Examples: [46] and [47]. Only edits).--Folantin 11:03, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jean-Thierry Boisseau has problems with consensus

The other editors and I have worked very hard trying to create a List of major opera composers that would satisfy reasonable NPOV standards and provide a model for other such list pages. Boisseau/Musikfabrik's contributions to this process have been overwhelmingly negative. First, we were asked to provide references; when we did, exact page numbers became necessary; when we provided them, the reference books we used were called into doubt. The question of the lack of women composers arose rather late in the day.

I'll admit I've always taken a sceptical attitude towards Monsieur Boisseau, but those editors who have attempted a more conciliatory approach with him have gained precious little reward for their pains, as a glance at the user talk pages of the various parties involved will show (examples:[48] and [49]. These examples are lengthy, but I think it's worth reading the debates at length to get the full flavour of Monsieur Boisseau's way of thinking and his approach to interacting with other users). Monsieur Boisseau has a remarkable ability to wind up seemingly every Wikipedia editor he comes into contact with. He insists the only method of dealing with such problems as gender bias is that proposed by himself and his circle of friends. Any dissent, any alternative approaches or views are greeted with accusations of sexism and a demand that the offending editor be "re-educated" to bring their ideas in line with "Jean-Thierry Boisseau Thought" (to coin a phrase). In short, Monsieur Boisseau seems to have problems with the idea of consensus and I don't think working with him to resolve POV issues anywhere on Wikipedia would ever be likely to produce NPOV results.--Folantin 08:38, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Intimidation

I'm also increasingly concerned that Jean-Thierry Boisseau may be encouraging external parties to intimidate Wikipedia editors. I have not provided my real name or an e-mail address, so I have no first-hand experience of this, but see the contributions by JzG [50] and Adam Cuerden [51] above. --Folantin 11:50, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My role

Of all the editors on the page affected, I believe I am the only one who has never made much attempt to be conciliatory to User:Musikfabrik and (following its ban), its subsequent representative J.-T. Boisseau. I was provoked by User:Musikfabrik's initial sarcasm [52] and bizarre edits[53] to my contributions (NB: at this point User:Musikfabrik was probably Paul Wehage, not Boisseau). Maybe I was wrong to follow his/their lead and respond in kind, but I had an intuition from the start that User:Musikfabrik was "playing with a deck of stacked cards" and had a broader, unstated agenda [54]. Subsequent investigations have more than confirmed my suspicions. Believing it would be futile, I did not engage in a wider debate about the basic POV issues on the page until User:Musikfabrik was banned. [55]. Once the situation seemed resolved, I engaged in constructive debate with other users. I believe I provided 7 of the 10 lists used to create an objective set of composers and contributed to about half of the fully referenced descriptions on the main page (example of my work [56]).--Folantin 17:32, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comment on Boisseau's statement on this page

It was very clear to me that a process had to take place in order to bring the list to a starting point where a scientific discussion can begin. I began the process, even offering one list (the contents of which did not really matter, as the results of the survey were predictable from the start) and then allowed the process to happen without intervention, to allow the participants to “define their canon”. Once this had been done, the real discussion could begin. (Boisseau below [57])

I still believe Boisseau's concerns about gender bias on the list are little more than a smokescreen to divert attention from Musik Fabrik's promotional activities on Wikipedia. But if we accept what he says in his evidence on this page as true, then it strikes me that Monsieur Boisseau is in clear violation of WP:POINT: don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. He has effectively admitted wasting the time of around half a dozen editors for the best part of a month as part of a stunt to draw attention to his personal beliefs about what musicology should be. I don't think this is on (to put it mildly).--Folantin 19:12, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence presented by Moreschi

[edit] War against Wikipedia

I don't know how much weight the word of a sexist, misogynist anti-Semite has with ArbCom - yes, I have, at various stages, been called all those names by Boisseau/Musikfabrik - but I might as well try. Much of what I would say is already in my initial statement - that of party 3 - and much else has already been said by Adam Cuerden, Folantin, and Guy/Jzg, which I second. However, I am deeply concerned by Mr. Boisseau's latest posts at Antandrus's talk page. What initially started has the sort of dispute one finds every day at WP has evolved into a full-scale war against the Wikimedia Foundation.Examples can be found here and here. Particularly worrying, in my opinion, are the quotes "I do not think you have begun to imagine what has happened here and how far the implications might go..." That is a threat. If that means Guy/JzG receiving abusive, slanderous e-mails then something, clearly, had gone very wrong. As the diffs show, Mr Boisseau has launched a full-scale war against Wikipedia. He has clearly blackened the name of the foundation as a whole and of specific editors in particular and organisations such as the International Alliance of Women in Music, as the e-mail from this William Osborne character demonstrates, which completely misrepresents what has actually gone on here. Later he states that "What Wikipedia is about...the answer is expressed in terms of power and judgements which are not based on any sourced reality", completely misunderstanding the nature of the project and of the people who edit it.

[edit] Bullying and Insults

One further insult that I found particularly appalling was that thrown at Makemi, on her talk page, here. To accuse an editor who has written both Concerto delle donne and Trobaritz of having internalized sexism is, quite frankly, abhominable, and shatters WP:CIVIL into little pieces. At this point I flipped and gave Mr. Boisseau at psych lesson of his own. I admit that my phrasing was a little strong in this instance, but I think that that was the only occasion where I was anything but civil. This is just a small example of the flagrant bullying that Boisseau/Musikfabrik have indulged in. This insulting diff is also interesting.

Doubtless Mr. Boisseau will have a go at everyone involved in the conflict, so for the record I would like to state that I am not sexist or anti-Semitic (which he later removed from the RFAR page, I believe), and find both imputations deeply offensive. Nor, for that matter, am I lazy (another charge that has been levelled), as is born out by the fact that I wrote at least half the annonatations on the list and provided half the references. That's 2 people doing darn near all the work, while Musikfabrik carps from the sidelines. Nevertheless, I believe I remained civil throughout the sordid business, even asking the Musikfabrik account for advice here, and again here. Moreschi 16:51, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence presented by Makemi

[edit] User:Musikfabrik was rude

(aka failure to follow WP:CIVIL) Ok, this is pretty obvious, and we don't know whose edits were whose, but as a background to some comments made by others. There were many sarcastic edits made by the Musikfabrik account. The problem is not so much that any sarcastic comments were made, it's that to me they seem to be the majority of comments.

And that's just from basically one article!

[edit] Communication

The edit which made me feel that further attempts at communication with Jean-Thierry would be futile was actually an exchange with User:Antandrus


also-

[edit] Assume good faith

Jean-Thierry Boisseau has repeatedly failed to Assume good faith.

[edit] Timeline of my involvement

[edit] Jean-Thierry/Musikfabrik and gender on WP

This is a tad bit random, but after all the accusations which have been flying, I thought it might give a little insight to offer these diffs.

[edit] Evidence presented by Jean-Thierry Boisseau

[edit] Contrasting two instances of conflict resolution in which I have been a party

I would like to present two cases in which I have been involved with a conflict with a wikipedia editor, one exterior to this case and the other being my own perception of the issue currently under discussion.

[edit] Conflict regarding Cocteau/Radiguet

This conflict began with the user Musikfabrik (myself, in this case) editing the article for Jean Cocteau regarding his supposed “relationship” with the French novelist Raymond Radiguet. While this “relationship” has been noted in various sources, including François Bott, Radiguet, Flammarion, 1995; and Michel Larivière, Homosexuels et bisexuels célèbres, Delétraz 1997, there is significant proof that this relationship was non-sexual...except that presenting this evidence would be original research and therefore not suitable for the project. I began by removing the sexual references and another user , Haiduc insisted on reverting this based on source material which exists, but which may not take certain aspects of the situation into account. The record of this discussion is here: User_talk:Musikfabrik#Cocteau User_talk:Haiduc#Cocteau./Radiguet Discussion . To summarize the process, Haiduc basically said “I know an awful lot about historical pederastic relationships. You seem to know an awful lot about Jean Cocteau. Why don’t we present both sides of the issue and allow people to see both sides of the question?”

And the results are here Jean_Cocteau#Friendship_with_Raymond_Radiguet, Raymond_Radiguet, Historical_pederastic_relationships#20th and 21st centuries (scroll to the Cocteau/Radiguet listing). In addition, in researching the Hemingway quote added by Haiduc, I found sufficient material to add the paragraph regarding views of Hemingway’s own alleged homophobia, according to certain scholars. Ernest_Hemingway#First_novels_and_other_early_works (scroll to the paragraph beginning “Whether or not Zelda Fitzgerald’s assessment...”) with a significant amount of sources.

The end result of this conflict is that there is more knowledge available on these subjects, and other subjects have been enriched by this discussion. The process here, as it increases the knowledge base, may be termed “inclusive”, since it not only increases the amount of knowledge, but also the interconnections between subjects treated in the conflict. I perceive this as a successful example of conflict resolution.

[edit] Conflict regarding List of important opera composers

The first edit made by Musikfabrik. was made on September 8, 2006 removing the phrase “The greatest French composer of the nineteenth century“ to the entry of Hector Berlioz; [58]. At this point, this article contained no sources, no living composers, no women, no non-Europeans and the selections for inclusion were made by a simple “Yes/No” vote without citing sources. A request for using more neutral language was made on the discussion page here Talk:List_of_major_opera_composers/Archive2#Peacock_terms which basically shows that a radical difference of opinion is clearly expressed. Following this, Moreschi left a message asking what I thought about adding a definition for the word “Important” on the article. My response to this is here : Talk:List_of_major_opera_composers/Archive2#Neutrality_issues which clearly outlines why I felt that the article was POV and why I was adding that tag. It should be noted that three criteria were used; no women, no living composers, no non-Europeans. Inspite of this, a discussion began the next day concerning whether one should or should not include Beethoven, using the old “yes/no” system. Talk:List_of_major_opera_composers/Archive3#Delete_Beethoven.?. After this, a number of definitions of “important opera composers were discussed here Talk:List_of_major_opera_composers/Archive3#Please_do_not_add_or_delete_any_information_from_this_article_until_the_term_.22major_opera_composer.22_has_been_defined on which Mr. Cuerden suggested the idea of consulting lists. I began this process here Talk:List_of_major_opera_composers/Archive3#Collecting_Representative_Lists and included the first list which Mr. Cuerden had proposed, as one well as one that I had found. I then added a point that was made by Marc Shepard on another list which has also obvious POV issues List of major operas regarding comments made by Jimbo Wales. regarding lists in general here Talk:List_of_major_opera_composers/Archive3#An_important_point_to_consider and then in the post just below it, asking for sources for phrases added by Folantin. (for which he clearly had sources available and which he wasn’t adding). Finally, on 15 September, we have the “great page move” here Talk:List_of_major_opera_composers/Archive3#Page-Move with one person making an unannounced page move followed by page moves from both sides (I have explained my own role in this discussion and have already apologized for doing this). We then start to see discussion of entries involving Musik Fabrik composers here Talk:List_of_major_opera_composers/Archive3#List of major opera composers, while valid points (Paul Wehage is certainly less known than J. S. Bach), cited completely outside of the discussion regarding Opera composers. Then it was stated here that Talk:List_of_major_opera_composers/Archive3#One_major_POV_issue_to_be_resolved any information given by Musikfabrik. should be seen as suspect because of the issue of a “role” account. Here Talk:List_of_major_opera_composers/Archive3#NPOV , I provided sources which were intended to begin a discussion on women in opera and which were dismissed because they only dealt with women. The list was then processsed and published. At which point, noting that there were still no women, I made the following comment Talk:List_of_major_opera_composers/Archive4#Not_so_fast.__There_is_obvious_POV_gender_bias_here which was also clearly dismissed. The list is then declared finished, all of this discussion relegated to the archives and a new message asking people to want to include women composers to “prove it” and subsequent discussion that “This is not set in stone and only a snapshot”. Current discussion has includes information about Louise Bertin‘s Opera “Esmeralda“, the only opera to have a libretto written by Victor Hugo and one of the saddest pages of 19th century music history, in my opinion Talk:List_of_major_opera_composers.

[edit] Analysis of the two instances

[edit] Example no. 1

The end result of the first conflict with Haiduc. is that there is more knowledge available on these subjects, and other subjects have been enriched by this discussion. The process here, as it increases the knowledge base, may be termed “inclusive”, since it not only increases the amount of knowledge, but also the interconnections between subjects treated in the conflict. The presentation of multiple perspectives on the subject encourages the reader to make his or her own judgement. I perceive this as a successful example of conflict resolution.

[edit] Example no. 2

The current end result of the second conflict (although the presence of a new editor is clearly causing this situation to be modified, given the current discussion on the talkpage of the article) is that only one position based on one single representative sample has been allowed to remain and the resulting “consensus” of the parties involved makes the current state of the article difficult to challenge. Since the result tends to reduce the amount of knowledge presented in order to only present the “important” composers as defined by the selection process, I would call this process “exclusive”. In addition, the use of a single perspective does not encourage the reader to question the contents of the article or the sources used. I do not perceive this second example as being successful in terms of the aims of the project because the outcome tends to reduce the amount of knowledge which could be presented and does not promote interconnection between subjects.

[edit] Definition of the conflict, from my perspective

[edit] “Inclusive” outlook verses “Exclusive” outlook

The idea of editors being Inclusionist and Exclusionist is already a clearly established issue among Wikipedia editors. My own personal opinion is that an inclusionist outlook favours a less biased view of subjects discussed, simply because each piece of knowledge changes slightly the perspective of how the whole is perceived. With an exclusionist point of view, the overall whole is easier to grasp, but the result lacks nuance and completeness.

In the Cocteau/Radiguet example, Haiduc and myself were able to present both sides of the issue, allowing the reader to make up his or her own mind on the subject. In the second situation, only one viewpoint is present and the result, although now sourced and based on some sort of defined process, does not provide a complete view of current thought on the subject.

[edit] An evolutionary view of subjects verses a fixed, static view of subjects

In the first situation, discussion of the validity of the sources used was part of the process of establishing the resolution of the conflict. Sources on both sides were questioned and a decision was made to present both sides of the conflict without comment. By doing so, this allows the reader to have multiple points of view from which to select and therefore make a judgement based on what is being presented.

In the second situation, only one perspective was judged as being acceptable by a “consensus” of editors. Attempts to add information outside of the perspective of the majority are not entered into the process used to determine the contents of the list. The result is a list which only presents a single perspective based on a “valid“ “sourced“, but incomplete view of the subject discussed. With only one perspective to choose from, the reader is encouraged to accept the contents of the list without discussion. There is only one possible conclusion to make from this sort of discussion: that which the list presents.

If I may use a figurative example to make a point here, I would like to refer to the Royal Chapel at Versailles. If you’re in the spot where the King stood for Mass, you see this : [59] ie a very severe classical architecture with very clear lines. If you’re in the place of the congregation, those of the court and the clergy, you see this [60], an extreme example of baroque architecture and decoration. So, is the Royal Chapel of Versailles Baroque or is it Classical? It depends on where you are, but the complete answer is that it is both. And an analysis of why it is both (Louis the XIVth’s aversion to the Baroque style and his love of classicism, the views of the Church and rise of the baroque style to provide the theatrical style of Counter-reform Church ritual and decor, the subversion of the King’s personal tastes in order to make way for popular taste of the time) creates understanding which is greater than the understanding of the two views of the whole. If you only see one view, it is not possible to understand the implications of the entire structure. And why should one accept only having one view if one only has to raise one’s head or climb a staircase to see the other view?

This idea of “multiple perspectives” is one of the concepts in what has been called New musicology , which is a movement which treats Western Art Music in Anthropological terms, in order to more fully discuss the sexual, political, personal and emotional programs. inherent in musical creation within specific societies. To quote - *"For me ... the notion of an intimate relationship between music and society functions not as a distant goal but as a starting point of great immediacy, and not as an hypothesis but as an assumption. It functions as an idea about a relationship which in turn allows the examination of that relationship from many points of view and its exploration in many directions. It is an idea that generates studies the goal of which (or at least one important goal of which) is to articulate something essential about why any particular music is the way it is in particular, that is, to achieve insight into the character of its identity."

    • Rose Rosengard Subotnick (1987). "On grounding Chopin", Music and Society: The Politics of Composition, Performance, and Reception. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0521379776.

[edit] Involved professionals/informed amateurs

One basic difference between those of us who work as scholars and actors in the music industry is that we are describing something to which we have a direct connection. Those who do not work in the music business or in academia have a less active tie to the information that they are presenting. Those outside of the circle of professionals may have access to knowledge, but perhaps are not as involved in reshaping the way that this knowledge is presented.

I am calling the first category of people within the music industry “involved professionals” and the category of those who follow music from outside of the music industry “informed amateurs”. Of course, there are shadings which could be made in this distinction, but I am using the generality in order to discuss this aspect of the conflict.

In this current situation, it would have been counterproductive to begin discussing the ideas of New musicology, current research on gender in relation to music, modern currents in music theatre, other forms of the genre etc because there was no framework against which to discuss. The unsourced list which was selected using the collegial system in place was not only unacceptable in terms of Wikipedia, it was completely unjustifiable outside of the specific experience of this group of editors. It was very clear to me that a process had to take place in order to bring the list to a starting point where a scientific discussion can begin. I began the process, even offering one list (the contents of which did not really matter, as the results of the survey were predictable from the start) and then allowed the process to happen without intervention, to allow the participants to “define their canon”. Once this had been done, the real discussion could begin. Unfortunately, once the results were put into the article, the participants considered that “We’ve done about as much as we can do here” and the discussion was closed, as there was “consensus”. It must be said now that the discussion has now been opened again and the idea of somehow addressing these issues in the scope of the article itself.

It has been put forward that I was not showing “all of my cards” in the discussion which lead to the creation of this list and that I had a “hidden agenda”. I will say now that this was absolutely true: how could I possibly come right out and start discussing theses issues from the perspective of New musicology when statements like “What does feminism have to do with opera anyway?” were being made? These issues could not be broached until at least some rudimentary methodology had been established so that the way the list was constructed could be discussed in musicological terms. And how could I help in the process (...especially after I had been asked to keep out of the discussion once it had begun) if I knew from the start what the result was going to be and that I was in disagreement with the way the choices were being made and the validity of this result?

The “involved professional” has a basic problem in interacting with the “informed amateur” in that the professional may not properly use all of the knowledge he or she has at his disposal because a great deal of it might be perceived as being extraneous to the subject being discussed. In group dynamics, if the majority of people working together on specific project decide that valid information should be excluded, it is quite easily to use the principle of “consensus” to exclude this information, and even the source of such information.

There is also another issue at play here: the issue of power inside and outside of the closed system of “Wikipedia”. The “inclusion” and “exclusion” within Wikipedia is clearly a means of “canon forming” in that judgements concerning “notability” are made according to the perspections of the editors of the relative value of sourced information. The “involved professional” clearly has an unfair advantage here, in that he or she is not only able to present information within the system, but he also has access to specialized information outside of published sources (ie manuscripts, discussions with qualified colleagues, specialized discussion lists etc) which allow him or her to see these published sourced in other ways. Even if the original research is excluded, the knowledge is still there in the conclusions made concerning published sources (the Cocteau/Radiguet discussion being a case in point).

In addition, the “informed professional” also has the means of changing the knowledge base outside of the closed system, in that he may have the means to create published sources (in the form of published books, articles, musical scores, recordings etc) while the “informed amateur“ usually does not. This is clearly an unfair advantage, but if such contributions are to be excluded, the knowledge at the disposal of the encyclopedia is diminished. In this case, I would argue that the benefits outweigh the drawbacks.

[edit] Requests for information outside of Wikipedia

It is obvious from my point of view that information and commentary requested from outside the closed system of Wikipedia is necessary in order to analysis the validity of the information presented in an encyclopedic context. In exploring the issues of bias, and specifically gender bias, I asked Paul Wehage for ideas regarding who might be contacted regarding this discussion, he suggested that we put the question to the listserve of the International Alliance of Women in Music [61] . Paul has been a member of this list for many years, on the invitation of Sally Reid, a former president of this organisation. This organisation of over 800 men and women who are composers, performers, musicologists and others who are trying to work towards a greater awareness of the issues facing women in music, both historically and today, was seen as a good place to get reactions from qualified colleagues as to whether or not gender bias issues were indeed a part of this discussion (I believe that if they were not present that these highly qualified people would have said so...) and if so, suggesting possible solutions or means of confronting this issue.

Positive results of this interaction have been a project involving the collection and documentation of a bibliographical reference involving women in opera, discussions of Wikipedia and its issues regarding interaction with academia and general discussion regarding gender bias. Several individuals provided information which I believe are relevant to this discussion:

[edit] Dr. A .

Dr. A. is a musicologist at a European university who would prefer to remain anonymous at this time. Dr. A. researches and lectures in the areas of gender, sexuality and eroticism in music

Dr. A. is especially interested in the idea of “canon formation” as it relates to gender. She has been following the discussion concerning this list and her views concerning exclusionary practices have been interesting from my perspective. “You” in the quote below refers to Paul Wehage, who received the email on October 4, 2006 and not Wikipedia editors or readers or any one else in general.

Quoting the email.

“I stand by my remarks about canon formation and consensus. To be blunt, I think any list--the 10 best albums of 2006, the 7 greatest opera composers--is a ludicrous enterprise. If there is to be such a list it might as well have women on it, but the fundamental nature of a list of "great" anything is exclusivity. You must know the work of feminist scholars on genius and greatness--both categories exclude women by definition. The whole concept and process is flawed at such a basic level. I don't think canons should be "merely" broadened to include women or people of colour, or whoever else is missing, (although I recognise that is a huge enterprise and one that is valid within the terms of canonic discourse); rather, I think canons should be ditched altogether. (Although I also realise that is, in a sense, an impossibility.) That is one reason (among many) why I couldn't get involved in the Wikipedia discussions. Canon formation is a phenomenon of "our" culture, of dominant discourse, and is a means to propogate and "give weight" to the values it upholds. It is as such that my students might be engaging with it. From that perspective, battles about who to include or exclude and on what grounds are fascinating and they certainly say a great deal about the dominant discourse of a given culture or subculture--about what that (sub)culture thinks are markers of worth. The discrepancies (if any) between what that (sub)culture says and what it does are also illuminating.

It seems to me that you and I disagree in interesting ways about list-making and canons. As far as I can make out, you think they're important and they should include women. I agree lists and canons play an important role in our society--far too important a role--but I think they should not exist full stop. I think engaging in the kind of discussions you've been bravely taking on is a lifetime's work, and one that will have to be repeated over many lifetimes for as long as canonic discourse exists. Perhaps canonic discourse will always exist; if so, people will always argue about what should be in the canon--the boundaries of the canon will always be policed, and will always be contested. Let me make clear that I do admire the energy and commitment you show in participating in this canonic discourse--in being one of the few who so vociferously contest the dominant values that a canon asserts. But in a sense, arguing that a list should include X, Y and Z is still to accept the validity of the canonic discourse, or of that way of thinking. I prefer to contest the very concept of canon formation and the validity of notions that underpin them (e.g. "great composers"). I would love to see an end to canonic discourse. (That's probably an impossible pipe dream--it would mean the end of encyclopedias, of dictionaries such as New Grove, and of most university courses as we currently know them. I'm proud to say that my department does not teach survey courses, which generally reinforce canonic norms. Instead, we endeavour to teach issues, themes or topics, and to have an open mind about what constitues music. Of course, there are limits: there has to be a great deal of selection and exclusion, but almost as department policy we endeavour to avoid creating canons of "great" composers, musicologists, works etc.)”

Endquote

Dr. A. has suggested the book “Gender and the Musical Canon” by Marcia Citron, University of Illinois Press; New Ed edition (November 7, 2000), ISBN: 0252069161 as a reference for beginning research involving these issues. It would also seem that Dr. A. is suggesting that the validity of this list, and indeed any lists that attempt to form a canon should be questioned. I believe that this should be a matter of discussion.

In another email to Paul Wehage, Dr. A. has also made the point that there are sources which point to a greater role of women being involved in the development of opera as a genre 16th- and 17th-century Italy--not only Francesca Caccini, but also various women singers who probably composed and performed their own arias--but that social mores of the time meant that they couldn't claim authorship by publishing music. It would seem that there is another avenue to explore here.

[edit] Losangelina

Losangelina is a musicologist specialised in contemporary and multimedia music and teaches at an Art University in Germany. She has extensive conducting experience including opera and has worked at a classical music publisher and at a major label. As the result of this discussion, she has recently begun editing on Wikipedia, making her first post on the discussion page of List of major opera composers to address these gender issues with the editors.


She had interesting remarks concerning the historical barriers put against women in music and how this is changing in recent trends:

Quote:

« As a conductor and musicologist, I have for decades been involved in questions surrounding women and composing; I have even conducted a few operas myself. As a multimedia teacher in Germany and Wikipedia fan, I would like to add a few thoughts on the list of 'major opera composers' and women.] First, music is a category of art with an extremely long selection and aging process. Even longer than great wines. Due to this, it may take decades for the 'great opera' that is written today to be recognized as such. And like the great wine, it may not start to be pleasing for years. Second, as in many other areas, women were long denied access to musical institutions, and their entry into the field of music, specifically composition, has been recent and very slow. Even after World War II, rules still existed (e.g., in Germany) baring women from studying composition. Third, opera is the largest common musical form presented regularly today. As such, it commands substantial financial and institutional resources. Until recently, many institutions have been hesitant to place such means at women's disposition. (When was the last time you saw a woman racing a Formula 1 car? The comparison has a certain validity...) For all of these reasons, the 'great operas' as well as the musical 'canon' that validates them were formed at a time when women were all but excluded from the creative production process. And, although women are now composing operas, it will take some time for their young works to come of age and for the canon the recognize them. Therefore on this list, great operas by women are conspicuous by their absence, and their absence deserves comment. Since the advent of 'new musicology' in the last 15-20 years ("http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_musicology") (musicology is the discipline concerned with writing the history of music), a broader view is taken in the search for and evaluation of operas, past and present, that formerly were not recognized by the canon. Moreover, music connoisseurs recognize attributes that might well point to the coming of a 'great opera;' and the serious musical press has generally been in agreement that women will be among future rare vintages, women like: Kaija Saariaho (born 1952) "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaija_Saariaho" Adriana Hölszky (born 1953) "http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adriana_H%C3%B6lszky" Olga Neuwirth (born 1968) "http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olga_Neuwirth"

End Quote

Losangelina has also made the point that the perspective of New musicology needs to be explored as a means of compensating for the exclusion of women and recent compositions from the generally accepted canon. Her contributions to the discussion currently underway will probably bring in new ideas for selecting and documenting important works by women and contemporary composers. As this discussion is currently underway, it does not seem productive to comment further other to say that I am very happy to see that it has begun.

[edit] William Osborne

William Osborne is an internationally known composers and writer on women in music, music sociology and philosophical/theoretical concepts His biography and a partial list of articles may be found here : [62] . His article “Art Is Just An Excuse: Gender Bias In International Orchestras” was published in the Journal of the International Alliance for Women In Music, where it initiated international protests against the Vienna Philharmonic and worldwide press coverage including reports on NPR, an interview of William on ABC’s Good Morning America, and front page articles on both the New York Times and the Los Angeles Times.

Mr. Osborne’s comments involved musicological questions regarding the selection process itself

quote

« From a musicological perspective, it would be questionable to think that one could create an objective list of this sort, and yet the Wiki editors still seem relatively oblivious to this point. The list as it stands is so unscientific and undifferentiated, it could be misleading. For example, Gustave Charpentier, who wrote only one opera, "Louise" --which is today almost completely unknown and unperformed-- is listed along with composers like Verdi, Wagner, and Monteverdi who changed the history of music. The short descriptions of these composers are of little help. Monteverdi's significance is vastly greater than having simply completed the first opera in the modern day repertoire. Western classical music was fundamentally shaped by his contributions to the development of the bel canto technique and his concepts of orchestration. Weber's innovations are hardly mentioned even though he might be seen as one of the most important initiators of the entire romantic movement. Wagner, and most other opera that followed, was profoundly shaped by Weber's influence. It is thus notable that Weber is only mentioned on 80% the referral lists. No one who fully understands the history of Western music would leave Weber off of a list of the most important opera composers. He profoundly shaped the history of opera. So what is the criteria for major, or important? These terms are obviously undefinable and highly subjective. The list is necessarily comprised of major opera composers, but also a good number of relatively minor opera composers such as Charpentier or Walton. (They would hardly be defined as major composers, operatic or not.) It is superficial to think that one can accurately differentiate between these minor opera composers on the basis of comparing various lists in other references. An examination of the criteria for each list would show that the decisions were less than scientific, for the simple reason that there is no accepted scientific methodology for creating such lists. One might also note that all of the source lists are in English, even though the history of opera is centered in Germany, Austria, and Italy. Especially when it comes to the listings of relatively minor composers, the cultural orientation of lists becomes a significant bias. Walton, for example, would almost certainly be very rare on any such lists created by German musicologists. Since there is little scientific foundation for the Wiki list, it would not be unreasonable to try to compensate for the inherent patriarchy of classical music by including some women. In fact, it might be prudent. It would also reflect the current standards and methodologies of contemporary musicology, which has been strongly influenced by women's studies and post-structuralist thought.

End Quote

[edit] Conclusions which could be drawn from these viewpoints

From. Dr. A’s standpoint, validity of the existence of this list (and also probably of similar « canon »-forming lists, such as « List of important operas ») needs to be questioned, as according to her view, the process has inherent gender bias which cannot be completely removed. The obvious reaction to this point of view would be to nominate the article in question for deletion.

From Losangelino ’s point of view, the ideas of New musicology could give new perspectives in analysing the phenomenon of Canon formation in opera. Information concerning new trends in musical composition could also be added in order to document the importance of those aspects of the subject. Losangelino is actively participating in this discussion with the other editors, so it seems that this is one avenue towards resolution of this conflict.

William Osborne’s comments on the scientific validity of the list currently selected raise important points and avenues to explore in order to provide more scientific validity and a more balanced approach to the question. It would be hoped that his comments be taken into consideration.

It must be pointed out as well as that there are specific differences in the opinions of these three « experts »

First of all , Losangelino and William Osborne both seem to be arguing with the idea that the notion of « great opera » is a valid idea and that an unbiased canon may possibly be created. Dr. A. seems to be implying that this concept may not be valid. Her position would tend to take the position that opera and views of its reception in specific societies exist, but that the idea of « canon » would not be meaningful. So, even among informed « experts », notions of the validity of canonic discussion would seem to be a matter of question.

[edit] Conclusions relating to personal issues

It would appear from the current discussion underway on this page that there would be no possible way to resolve the personal problems between the various editors involved in this specific conflict, as the misunderstanding is probably too deep to be repaired. In terms of the discussion currently underway, I am more than happy to cede my place to Losangelina to allow her to have a chance to give this article a more inclusive perspective and a scientific basis. The current discussion seems to be heading in a positive direction and my contributions are no longer necessary for it to go forward.

What to do about the personal issues here? Most of the issues brought up by the other parties have been discussed above.

I will admit that edits made by a music or book publisher, a specialized academic, an established composer or performer, or other « involved professional » are by definition unfair. However, they often represent knowledge and perspectives that are not available otherwise. It is regrettable that this idea of a « role » account was not brought to our attention before, but given the user name used (the name of the publisher), the clear remarks from our very first contributions, and our direct replies to specific questions, the idea of a « hidden agenda » cannot be conclusively proven. It may be that the assumption of « good faith » might be the only option in resolving this aspect of the conflict.

In the case of List of important opera composers, I will say once again that a perusal of our vocal catalog [63] shows that we only publish one opera (my own « Escalier de la Reine ») which has not been produced and clearly does not qualify. Paul Wehage is reconstructing Germaine Tailleferre’s « Il était un petit navire », but the first performance of that opera was a failure due to much the same situation that Mr. Folantin is currently discussing regarding Louise Bertin’s opera « Esmeralda ». Neither of these works qualify as « important operas ». In this specific discussion, it is clear that our bias as a publisher cannot be called into question.

Regarding an alleged « war on wikipedia », « bringing in external parties », « not respecting wikipedia policy », I would like to point out that this is a public space which is visible to anyone with an internet connection. I have explained above my motivations for contacting the IAWM and I feel that they have been beneficial to the discussion at hand. If this causes discussion of the validity of Wikipedia policies among academics studying what is happening here, the results can only further the process itself. Questioning, re-evaluation, changing perspectives and ideas are all part of the scholarly experience. If Wikipedia is not part of this external questioning process, I fail to see how it can be improved.

My statement that "I do not think you have begun to imagine what has happened here and how far the implications might go..." is not a threat: it is an expression of what I’m seeing. The situation involving the deletion of the article about Dennis Bathory-Kitsz (Discussed by Mr. Bathory-Kitsz here [64] ) has already caused a great many people in academia and the music industry to seriously question the validity of the selection process in music categories here. Without going into specifics, the current situation and especially the wave of deletions (which I am not contesting, considering them as part of the process of information selection here) happened to come to the attention of a variety of people who have commented on this process and will probably cause them to adversely modify certain opinions about this project as a result. It is only prudent to know what people are saying about your work and perhaps consider what the implications of these changing opinions.

Regardless of the obvious validity of the deletion process as means of controlling the information included here, it would seem to me that there is an obvious need to re-evaluate the process to ensure objectivity and especially to guard against deletions motivated by secondary issues. It would also seem to me that the « exclusionist » vision is being abused as a means of maintaining the musical canon of standard repertoire. I find this to be disappointing, since inclusion of knowledge would only improve the project, from my perspective.

If people have received insulting emails or comments, I really do not think that any of the very professional scholars with whom I have been in contact about this would be involved in this sort of activity. I cannot be responsible the millions of people who could potentially be seeing this discussion and reacting to it, although I do regret that it is taking place.

In terms of charges of “bullying”, “intimidating”, “not listening to others”, “being uncooperative”, “not helping”, I think that my motivations are sufficiently clarified in the discussion above. If I had actually been bullying and trying to shape the article to fit my views, I believe that I would have begun by taking apart the sources, discussing the issues of New musicology and imposing specific individuals and styles. I did not do this and even stated several times that it didn’t matter who was on the list, simply that the representative sample of women be included. Surprisingly, it has not been mentioned that the woman who is best placed for inclusion, Judith Weir, is the principal teacher of one of the composers who we publish and whose article was recently removed in the series of article deletions - Carson P. Cooman [65] I have specifically refrained from discussing Weir in this context. The fact remains that I began the selection process using an idea presented by another editor and then only re-entered the discussion when it was over. If I had intended on manipulating the process, then why was I not an active participant?

I might also point out that I have already apologized on the discussion page for the most of the incidences involved, including for what I had perceived as an anti-sementic remark and which I realized later was a misunderstanding on my part. I made the apology after accepting Mr. Cuerden’s apology for asking me to shut up on the discussion page of the article, but to date it has not been accepted by Mr. Folantin. I will apologize again here for this miscalculated remark made in a moment of anger and frustration. I also apologize for having left a sarcastic post on Mr. Moreschi’s talk page after the page-moving incident, which again was the result of an angry reaction.

Finally, Mak has requested an apology (on the discussion page here) for my comments concerning "Venus de Milo" syndrome, which I would certainly like to offer for any misunderstanding as well as for his or her perception of exclusion from the the category of "involved professionals". Since my view of "involved professionals" has a decidedly negative analysis of having an "unfair advantage" in relation to "informed amateurs", I was reluctant to include others in this category. However if he or she wishes to be seen as an "involved professional", I am more than happy to acknowledge this individual as such.

This entire incident, which I must qualify as being extremely regrettable, has forced me to re-examine my entire participation in this project, since clearly there are aspects of this conflict which cannot be completely resolved and which will probably create further conflict in the future. I do not have an answer for any of this and am seriously questioning whether I have any valid place in this process.

Clearly, my role on List of major opera composers is currently unproductive and is likely to remain so, given the current attitude of the editors working there. I also feel that Losangelina should be allowed to try to include some of her ideas unfettered by this situation which is not her fault. But the issues which have arisen because of this situation outlined above may also inhibit her and other “involved professionals” from functioning in this environment. However, I would like to hope that the results of the discussion here would give those of us in this position guidance and perhaps guidelines as to how this type of situation could be avoided in the future. Jean-Thierry Boisseau 10:31, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence presented by ForDorothy

[edit] Jean-Thierry Boisseau seems to be trying to promote original research

Jean-Thierry Boisseau seems to be more concerned with ends than with means and seems to be trying to promote original research in order to achieve his desired ends.

  • On September 13, at 08:19 UTC, someone editing as Musikfabrik responded with the following (boldfacing added):
That's not a bad idea, and it does use third-party sources. The list that you've given is by a journalist with the BBC, but if you get a pool of 10 or so lists and they're all basically saying the same thing, then perhaps this would mean something; I personally would find this as an acceptable compromise, although I still think that exploring the idea of measuring "popularity" using number of productions, record sales etc would also be an interesting avenue to explore; However, this idea would be perhaps a suitable starting point.
  • Three days later, on September 16, at 15:27 UTC (less than five hours before Jean-Thierry Boisseau had to create his own account), someone (else?) editing as Musikfabrik posted this (again, boldfacing added):
Again, we have a problem with how the list is being selected. If you'll reread the discussion page, the selections are made without objective criteria. Ssilvers has suggested a system which may provide these objective criteria, but this needs to be discussed. I personally find that there are a few holes in this system (which references should be chosen? How to guard against national and gender bias in most general reference sources. How many sources would be a representative source?). One of those lists you're printing out was found by yours truly. More are needed. We were kind of hoping that you might be able to do your own research and find others....
I believe that the reference to Ssilvers is to this post, in which Ssilvers proposed language to explain the methodology in the article’s introduction. (I’m passing quickly over the fact that Boisseau failed to give proper credit to Adam Cuerden for suggesting the methodology, a failure that he has subsequently corrected.)
The problems are in the boldfaced passage:
  • How many sources would be a representative source? (Musikfabrik had already said, “a pool of 10 or so lists . . . all basically saying the same thing . . . would mean something.”);
  • which references should be chosen? (Boisseau has never raised a specific objection to any of the references cited in the article; after the fact, he raised a blanket complaint about most of them);
  • How to guard against national and gender bias in most general reference sources. (So "most general reference sources" are not to be trusted? Here he lays the foundation for promoting original research: By insisting that the List of major opera composers incorporate "specialized" reference sources and take into serious account lists that exclude Mozart, Rossini, Verdi, Puccini, Wagner, and Richard Strauss, he’s trying to create a "new" canon and to give that new canon legitimacy by giving it the imprimatur of Wikipedia. He may be able to justify his ends, but he cannot justify his means.)

On this very evidence page, Boisseau has written, The fact remains that I began the selection process using an idea presented by another editor and then only re-entered the discussion when it was over. If I had intended on manipulating the process, then why was I not an active participant?

I would submit that Adam Cuerden—not Jean-Thierry Boisseau—"began the selection process" when he proposed the methodology and suggested the first list, but I digress. I would like to address Boisseau’s question. Boisseau was not an active participant because he had no interest in manipulating the process; he "re-entered the discussion when it was over" because his interest was in manipulating the results of that process. Again, ends and means.

If you have lists that have only men, then you have to accept lists that only list women, he has asserted, repeatedly, as though he were delivering a self-evident truth. (I picture him shaking his head in frustration at these poor benighted fools who Just Don’t Get It. And I’m shaking my head at either someone who doesn’t "get" the difference between de facto exclusion and de jure exclusion, or someone who doesn’t "get" why the former is acceptable in a source for an article of this kind while the latter is not.)

He has yet to propose a legitimate methodology that would yield his desired results.

I’ve been following the List of major opera composers since shortly before Boisseau declared "lavish spectacle" non-neutral language, and his hectoring and condescension have certainly kept me from wanting to contribute.

My hat is off to many people here, but particularly to Adam Cuerden. --ForDorothy 14:12, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jean-Thierry Boisseau might be a newbie

Boisseau's first post occurred on September 16, 2006. He might not yet know that on November 3, 2005, Musikfabrik had posted the following: As a performing musician, conductor, music publisher and record producer, I don't have the time to learn how this system works; If you don't want the information that only I have, then just say so and I'll delete it all.

He might also not yet know that Musikfabrik posted this later the same day.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/e/q/Wikipedia%7ERequests_for_arbitration_Jean-Thierry_Boisseau_Evidence_3b8a.html"