Talk:David G. Hebert

Discussion on sourcing

The actual sourcing on material about the subject (as opposed to papers written by the subject) comics down to subject's own blog and his academia.edu page, which would appear to be self-published. (The listing for an "academia.com" page turns out to be the same page.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:14, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Can you please offer clearer suggestions? Some papers are more accessible via the academia site. Of course, bias is always a challenge, and anyone is free to edit the article further. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HistoricalEthnomusicology (talk • contribs) 20:19, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

It looks like the problems are fixed now - correct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by HistoricalEthnomusicology (talk • contribs) 21:03, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Seeking further guidance on how to make this page acceptable. There are pages of this kind for many other scholars, and it seems helpful for disseminating research findings to global readers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HistoricalEthnomusicology (talk • contribs) 22:02, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

I want to hear what NatGertler has to say about the tone of the article. He's the one who originally raised the concerns about it being autobiographical. It looks like there's a better variety of sources in place, so I think the refimprove tag can go. Notability is a little closer to demonstrated. The one issue I'd add is formatting: there is some nonstandard use of bold in the article, for instance. —C.Fred (talk) 22:06, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you so much, Fred. I will adjust the bold now - probably you mean book titles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HistoricalEthnomusicology (talk • contribs) 22:15, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

No, I don't consider the problems addressed. While there is some discussion of reviews of his work, the basic information about his academic career and such promo-y claims as "he is among the most widely published and internationally active Generation X music researchers" are sourced either to his academia.edu profile, which appears to be self-generated, or his blog, which is obviously self-generated. It's got pointless boasts like being "a lifetime member of the Society for Ethnomusicology", which is not an achievement beyond writing a check for $1400, and unsourced boasts like " the first study to identify and describe the world’s largest music competition". And between the promo-y tone and the fact that the editing account was used for nothing before creating this page except to insert Hebert's name into other articles, there are strong WP:COI concerns. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:22, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

This is surprising. Is Nat able to identify any GenX music scholars who have published more, worked on several continents, given many keynote addresses, etc.? He gives speeches at universities in about 10 countries per year, for the past 5 years. The book in question clearly was the first to identify and describe the world's largest music contest, which is a significant research finding. This is verified in many publications including major reference works. It seems the article would be of little use without this information. Being a lifetime member of an organization suggests that a scholar is committed to a particular academic mission, not some attempt at boasting. Which of these statements must be removed in order to keep the article? Would Nat like to take a turn editing it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by HistoricalEthnomusicology (talk • contribs) 22:35, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

• Nat does not need to do anything like that. It is up to you to show reliable sources that are independent of the subject that say these things. If it is you who has researched this and concluded that there are no other researchers who have published more, etc, then that is inadmissible original research. Being a lifetime member of a society is meaningless, as pointed out above (I'm a lifetime member of a scientific society myself, I forked over 700 or 800 bucks and that was it). Please have a look at WP:ACADEMIC to see how we determine whether an academic is notable enough for an article. Note that "notable" has used on WP has nothing to do with "deserving" or "meriting" or some such. We have articles on some people that clearly don't merit anything, but they are notable and even more cases that are the opposite. Publishing many papers/books is in and of itself nothing extraordinary either, it's what academics do. What counts for notability is whether those publications got "noted" (as verifiable by reliable sources). Hope this helps. --Randykitty (talk) 22:55, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Okay, does that mean you need citation counts? HistoricalEthnomusicology (talk) 23:00, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Citation counts might be handy in a discussion of whether Hebert meets notability under our notability guidelines for academics, and are sometimes used in such discussions. Citations wouldn't justify the claim "among the most widely published and internationally active Generation X music researchers", which is a comparison that we'd need to see some basis for. (It's a weak claim; how do we define "among the most widely published" - top 5? Top 50? Is there a standard metric for "internationally active"? Heck, I can't even tell if we're talking about Gen Xers who research music, or researchers on the topic of Gen X music.) Meanwhile, can I ask that you review our guidelines on editing with a conflict of interest, and if you have a conflict of interest, declare it? --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:19, 24 January 2015 (UTC) (founding member of the Star Wars Fan Club)

I learned about the concerns expressed here, and as a musicologist, I know Prof. Hebert’s work, and confirm it is original and having an impact. I understand that the author of this article had supportive intentions that were fair and consistent with the mission of Wikipedia, but it is also clear that editors, sincerely motivated by the need for quality assurance, have some valid concerns that must be respected. Let’s also recall another Wiki guideline of the Five Pillars: “disparaging comments may be made about the subject of the article/author and about the author's motives . . . Remember not to bite the newcomers.” Hopefully, within some reasonable parameters, Wikipedia can encourage articles that summarize a scholar’s research and clearly explain its applications, since this could inspire exponential knowledge-sharing (which is what Wikipedia is supposed to be all about: improving rapid, worldwide access to ideas). Articles on active scholars can also help inspire the general public (especially young people) to become more interested in the pursuit of knowledge. Probably in arts fields it is more difficult to do this than in the sciences: much harder to definitively prove what research is “significant”. Hopefully we can welcome articles on productive scholars that have some unique research with verifiable impact, and they should not all have to be Nobel prize-winners, retirees, or dead. It is inevitable that Wiki articles, produced anonymously for free, are most likely to be at least partially written by someone with unusual enthusiasm for the subject. There are already several examples of comparable academics in other fields who have Wikipedia entries, including a few in the fields of music education and musicology, so that seems to be the direction we are moving in 2015, with great potential for research findings to reach the general public worldwide. That said, there are valid reasons for the guidelines (to ensure significant, fair, and balanced articles), and it is clear, for example, that there have been far too many links and notes to support this entry. Those have now been cut back and I have simplified/streamlined the article and added several examples of opposing views in a new “Criticism” section that minimizes the issue of bias in this entry. To resolve concerns about citations to his blog, I have changed those to refer to Hebert’s listing on a Norwegian government website (CRISTIN), where researchers are legally obligated to represent themselves truthfully. I have also removed the links to Amazon, which helpfully offers “free previews” but might also suggest unintended marketing. I have also completely removed the External Links section to appease the editors, although it seems that in such cases some of these kind of links might be helpful for readers. I hope we can all agree that the concerns now seem to be resolved and it is okay to remove the warnings that had been placed on this entry. Musicology (talk) 14:20, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Citing CRISTIN does not alleviate my concerns about reliable sourcing. While it may be "where researchers are legally obligated to represent themselves truthfully", so are other places where folks represent themselves; we would not consider someone's court testimony about themselves, under oath, to be a reliable source. So no, my concerns are not alleviated. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:33, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I have tried to help - changed one of the CRISTIN references into a reference to a printed text. Are you sure every one of these issues is still a concern? I had hoped to help fix this. Hebert has some great doctoral students, and is doing interesting work. Well, I certainly gave it a try. Hopefully someone else can work on this at some point. Musicology (talk) 16:08, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I have not yet reviewed every change, nor am I the one who raised every concern... although the external links concern seems taken care of with the deletion of the external links. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:11, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

This seems like a good article. Is it okay to remove some of the notices on it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.232.17.198 (talk) 12:28, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

It's nice to see this page is getting edited and improving. Thank you everyone for your help. HistoricalEthnomusicology (talk) 13:03, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

• I am the subject of this article, and now know the identity of at least one of its editors. It is interesting to see this discussion. While the content of the article is accurate, I feel that I need to make a few minor edits. I plan to check the page every once in a while to confirm its accuracy. Thank you for your interest, and for respecting my privacy to the extent that is possible. I assume it is okay to post a notice of this kind. Thank you. David Dgh2015 (talk) 10:17, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

• The above user (claiming to be the subject of the article) attempted to remove every single issue notice from the page, as well as the categories indicating that the subject is: 1. A living person. 2. Born in 1972. 3. From Washington state. 4. A non-fiction writer. 5. Works/have worked in Norway. Besides, there would be serious COI issues if the above user is indeed the subject of the article. Manxruler (talk) 20:30, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

It looks like around 8 people have worked on this article already. How can it be an autobiography? Also, each statement seems to be very well sourced with notes, especially to reviews by people other than the author. I am removing two of the warnings, which seem not to fit the article, at least in its current state. 80.232.17.198 (talk) 11:56, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Restored the tags - you deleted three, not two. Key parts of this biography are still sourced to materials written by the individual or employers. Autobiographies remain autobiographies even when edited, and this still carries both substantial material with no known source (such as who his influences were) and things with a lopsided, promo-y sensibility (such as filling sections with rah-rah support for his works, while putting what little criticism has been put forth in a separate "criticism" section, where it is first warned off by an unsourced claim that his analysis is "largely accepted". --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:33, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Request from subject

Hello Editors:

I am the subject of this article, which is evolving quite quickly. I believe that most of its authors have good intentions, but I am not fully convinced I need a page here, and I especially don’t want one labeled as an “autobiography” because that would imply that I wrote this and have control over it. I am not opposed to anonymous people freely writing this entry, but I would hope it could be accurate, contain minimal personal details, and not contain warnings about bias and notability. I especially don't want something potentially inaccurate - something I have no control over - labeled as an "autobiography". I understand that I should be able to request editorial intervention. Hopefully these templates will assist with that. I am thankful that some people seem to think my work is significant, but this entry may not be necessary, despite the good intentions of some of its authors. Thank you for showing good faith and empathy. - David Hebert

P.S. I also posted earlier as Dgh2015, but my wishes seem to have been dismissed.

Dgh2015B (talk) 17:00, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

@Dgh2015B: Greetings! I just took a look at the article, and I don't think that the current tone of the article warrant the autobiography tag, so I've removed it. I've also removed the tag requesting additional third-party sources, as there appear to be several of those. I'm leaving the notability tag in place, however: I'm not saying you aren't notable, but I'm saying that I'm unsure enough on that issue that I'm leaving the tag alone.

The next step would be discussion among independent editors to decide whether notability is met or the article should be deleted. —C.Fred (talk) 17:22, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

The subject may well fall into the vast middle ground in terms of notability, neither so unnotable that it would be ridiculous to include him nor so profoundly notable that Wikipedia would be inherently deficient for his absence. The specific autobiography tag is now gone (and I should note that as phrased, even though the tag says "autobio", it is inclusive of things that are not autobiography) but the subject should be aware that this article can be edited at any time by anyone, even if it was somehow perfect now (and it isn't, it has real balance and sourcing problems discussed above.) As such, if he would prefer the article to be gone, he can used the WP:PROD process to request its deletion. I for one would not object to it, but I cannot speak for other editors, some of whom have put strong effort into getting this article in place. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:35, 7 February 2015 (UTC)