Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Inversion (music)

message: Hi everyone. Firstly, may I appologise on behalf of the medation committee for the lack of continuity so far with this request for mediation. However, if all parties agree, I would like to take over as mediator here, so we can get the ball rolling again and attempt to resolve the issues here. I'm not on the mediation committee currently, but I am an administrator here and feel I have the ability to handle this dispute. It might be best if we re-start the mediation so we all know where we are going from the start. If I may ask all parties, do you agree with me taking over the mediation? Regard, Ryan Postlethwaite 21:41, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm good. —Wahoofive (talk) 00:27, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Fine with me. Thanks for taking the time to help with this. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 02:45, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Sure, that would be good. - Rainwarrior 04:42, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

text: OK Tony 08:31, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New mediator 

message: Thank you for accepting me as the mediator. Let's begin this mediation by all parties making an opening statement of the issues to be mediated and your reasons for seeing the dispute the way you do. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:08, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Initial statements

message: This will be the third time mediation has involved initial statements in addition to the huge amount of argument on the talk pages of two articles and several participants. I've already set out in great detail the technical and encyclopedic reasons that the second figure (I 6/4) is highly misleading by itself, and why the attempt to rectify this in the adjacent main text was (i) inadequate per se, and (ii) fails to address the POV inherent in the notational illustration of one analytical method alone. 
In summary, I propose that the matter be settled by negotiating the following changes to the article.
#The expansion of the initial explanation beyond its current superficial frame so that it locates the concept of chord inversion in relation to both the melodic and harmonic generation of 6/3 and 6/4 positions. This is established knowledge (e.g., Aldwell and Schachter), and should ideally be illustrated by notational examples of both ways in which  these positions can arise.
#The recasting of the subsequent explanations of the three triadic positions so that they follow the new opening smoothly and logically.
#The treatment of 7th-chord positions logically and subsequently, rather than the current jumbled treatment that suddenly starts with the third inversion, and, confusingly for most readers, bundles 9th chords with 7th chords.
#A proper explanation in the main text of both ways of notating the cadential 6/4, including, briefly, their conceptual and historical bases.
#Either the removal of the disputed figure or the posting next to it of a matching figure with V 6/4 rather than I 6/4, to illustrate the explanation of both ways of notating the cadential 6/4.
#The copy-editing of the remainder of the article, which is written in an inconsistent tone and contains many linguistic errors and breaches of MOS. 
In addition, the daughter article for the section in question—Voicing (music)—is in a parlous state and will need to be reconstructed in a way that is consistent with this section.
Tony 11:10, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Tony1

message: To me this dispute was simply about the usage of the symbol I 6/4 versus V 6/4-5/3 as an analytical figure for a certain common musical construction. I think Tony1 asks for too much to either place an opposing image alongside (another near-identical diagram will not benefit the reader, see next paragraph), or removal of the image (this would be detrimental). Currently in the text of the article, right next to the image, both symbols are mentioned. Both symbols are quite valid, and there is a great deal of literature that uses one or the other. I wish the I 6/4 to be spoken for because of this. I want the article to use and acknowledge the same symbols the reader would find in music theory literature.
I originally chose I 6/4 for this diagram because I was specifically trying to illustrate the use of a chord in 6/4 inversion. The V 6/4-5/3 alternative I believe would be confusing here because here V 6/4 is not the chord type, the chord type with that symbol is V 5/3 with a 6/4 suspension carried from the previous chord. The topic of a musical suspension, or of the six-four-cadence itself, are worthy of their own discussions (and their own articles), and V 6/4-5/3 is a fine symbol for the purposes of explaining those ideas. The idea at hand, however, is inversion, and I think too much digression about the exceptional meaning of this particular symbol would get in the way. The article should explain inversion, and not waste words and confuse the reader by apologizing for using one symbol or another.
- Rainwarrior 18:26, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Rainwarrior

message: There's a particular chord which is common throughout Western music (esp. classical, but also Jazz, Rock, etc.) which is (to simplify) often found as the third-to-last chord of a piece.  For now, let's call that chord the "cadential six-four" which is a term I think Tony and the three of us would agree is an acceptable name.  However, a problem comes with the abbreviation used to represent this chord in context (unfortunately, the use of abbreviations for chords is completely pervasive in music theory, so "don't abbreviate" isn't going to work as a solution).  The traditional abbreviation, used universally until around 1930 was I64--which means that the chord is the second inversion of the I or tonic chord.  After 1930 and especially after 1950 or 1960, a second way of thinking of this chord gained traction.  In this way of thinking, the chord isn't really an independent chord at all, and is especially not a second inversion, but is instead an embellishment of the following chord called V and thus this is V64.  In the 1970s and 1980s, this was a big point of dispute in academic circles, but since the 1990s, there's basically been a truce with two camps calling the chord what they like: either I64 or V64.
The inclusion or not of the image is part of a wider dispute that some editors have been having on whether to present both sides of the I64/V64 divide (RW/WH5/MSC & Noetica) or just V64 (Tony1).  My research indicates that textbook writers are about evenly divided between using I64 (3 of 5) or V64 (2 of 5) but all but one (I64) writer spends at least a sentence on the merits of the other system.  In general, I don't care whether a particular mention of the chord uses I64 or V64 so long as we don't privilege one side of the debate over the other.  
Tony has suggested that the usage of academic textbooks is irrelevant to the discussion because they are written by "medicore fools".  I don't think it's our place (or certainly not the place of a single editor against consensus) to decide which widely used textbooks are written by fools and which aren't.
In the particular case of the image on Inversion (music), it seems like I64 should be used for examples, since I64 implies that the chord is in inversion (the topic of the article) while V64 denies that the chord is inverted.  Using V64 notation thus does not illustrate inversion.
I've been working on a history of the six-four chord and current debates about its usage, but I don't think I'll put it up until these disputes are resolved.  If it matters to anyone, I personally use V64 in most of my teaching and academic publications, but I don't see I64 as misguided or a fringe view at all.  Best, -- -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 20:55, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Michael Cuthbert

message: I have little to add to the above. This is a dispute not about the facts, about which we agree 99%, but about the symbols used to denote those facts. I think it's perfectly possible for us to avoid this whole conflict by (a) including an enhanced explanation about the notations and the functional interpretations of the 6/4 chord; and (b) eliminating all labels from the illustrations and simply highlighting the second-inversion chord with a colored box or something. We've already put ten times as much effort into the talk page as we have into the article; what a waste of effort. Tony's points (3) and (6) are certainly well taken, but I admit that I have no idea what (1) means. —Wahoofive (talk) 21:29, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Wahoofive

message: Thanks guys for the patience with this, I can understand that you must all be frustrated with how things have moved in the past. So to begin this, let's discuss the use of I64 and V64. I quote Michael Cuthbert here, "In the 1970s and 1980s, this was a big point of dispute in academic circles, but since the 1990s, there's basically been a truce with two camps calling the chord what they like: either I64 or V64." - Would there be a way that discussion of this point could be made in the article to highlight the fact that these terms are disputed between different parties? This could elaborate on the current wording and be informative to the reader as to why the two terms are used. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:00, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Start 

message: Would parties involved be willing to accept an alternative, new image that is a compromise between all parties? Ryan Postlethwaite 22:00, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image 

message: I think a good idea now would be do get some sources that show how both chords are used within inversion from both opposers and supporters of the concepts. Discussion of these sources may help break the deadlock and we could progress to look at how they could be added to the article. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:55, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources 

message: :I just wanted to say that I haven't been following this page closely, because I don't think we're moving toward a reasonable mediation solution.  I thought that in mediation we would bring reliable sources to the table to argue our positions according to WP:V.  I don't yet see any that Tony has brought to show his position that I6/4 is not accepted (or at least tolerated) by much of the learned theory community.  I don't think that the three of us should bend over backwards to satisfy an editor who has only asserted that the others are wrong while we have been citing textbooks and academic articles to show that both symbols are commonly used. Though this mediation is about content not conduct, I don't see myself as able to work together toward a solution with someone who cannot read religious lyrics without labeling them as "ideological crap" and who attacks me and my credentials in other forums.  Improving Wikipedia is important to me, but saving myself from anger and endless intractable arguements is even more so.  Reluctantly, I'm leaving this mediation.  -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 16:44, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Would any parties like to add anything to this? Is there any other suitable route that you would like to try? Ryan Postlethwaite 20:31, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Cuthbert, you misrepresent my views completely, again. Now, I suggest that we set a deadline for resolving this impasse: by the end of October. This is absurd to take so long in deciding on a NPOV way of expressing second-inversions. The article has been locked for god knows how long. Tony (talk) 01:06, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Did you say disagreement? This is a huge concession from you, Tony. Everyone's life would have been much easier if you'd acknowledged there's disagreement months ago, instead of insisting that the I64 is the province of a few crackpots. —Wahoofive (talk) 05:31, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not a concession at all, and I never asserted that there is no disagreement (out there) about the status of the cadential six-four. I just won't have the silly one paraded as the norm on WP: simple as that. Having the ridiculous I 6/4 (i.e., "the tonic is the root") as analytical notation in the figure, reinforced in the caption, is not acceptable, because it indicates POV that this is the norm. I don't know why your friends are so obsessed with the idea of using a controversial example to illustrate second inversion, when its status is a matter of disagreement, both here, in their own eyes, and out there. And here we have an ideal example in your Rustington excerpt, and they want to be difficult about that, too. Is it that Cuthbert, who is writing an article on the cadential 6/4, has his ego so entangled in the phenomenon that he insists on promoting its existence where it muddies the waters? Tony (talk) 06:34, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Where in the literature is the I 6/4 analysis disputed? I have seen sources which prefer V with the figured dissonance, but in every such source where I 6/4 is mentioned it was recognized as an alternative, not labelled as incorrect. Earlier in this discussion several examples of this were cited. You haven't yet demonstrated that there is, in fact, a disagreement in the literature, and the lack of sources to support this idea suggests that this is a minority viewpoint. - Rainwarrior 06:51, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Keeping it locked is better than having an edit war. - Rainwarrior 02:34, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What on earth does that mean? You'd like it to remain locked permanently? You don't seem to address my question. Tony (talk) 02:56, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It means that I don't think it should be unlocked as long as we're liable to edit war over it, which seems probable at this point as we really haven't established any kind of consensus here as of yet. Also, with only three people there's not much a consensus to gather. - Rainwarrior 03:23, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is why we are here at mediation. The fact that one person has walked out of mediation doesn't mean that it's sabotaged. It means that he is just not part of the consensus that needs to be constructed to progress the article. If this is part of a strategy to have the article locked permanently in a way that you want it, that will easily be seen as acting in bad faith, and I'll take the matter elsewhere for arbitration. So ... four could generate consensus, but three can't? Numbers don't matter here; ideas do. Tony (talk) 03:46, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll be out of town until Monday, so I won't be able to contribute to this discussion from now until then. - Rainwarrior 04:00, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

text: That could be a good way to go; since Rainwarrior is so keen to retain the image in the article, will s/he write a sample of the text of this section? The article has been locked for far too long already. Tony (talk) 04:26, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Are we reaching a conclusion?

message: Please can all parties try and form a time line for when this is going to be resolved? The article has been protected for a very long time now, and I believe it is in everyones interests to get this sorted once and for all. Ryan Postlethwaite 15:32, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggested the end of October a little while ago, but that was ignored by everyone. I suggest now two weeks—around 8 November. Can't be very hard. Tony (talk) 15:54, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't understand this desire for a timeline. What happens if we haven't resolved our differences when the deadline comes up? Does the page become unlocked again and edit warring restart? I don't think that setting a deadline will aid this mediation in any way. - Rainwarrior 16:45, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We can't keep an article protected for such a long stretch of time over a dispute involving a small number of users, it was discussed in a mediation the other day and found to be unacceptable. We really need to come up with some definate length of time before the article can be unprotected. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:45, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Timeline 

message: I see that we are down to two people left in this mediation, which is disapointing as I was sure we were close to a compromise. This might well be an ideal time to create a subpage to try out the new ideas for the page and maybe a compromise can be thrashed out there. Ryan Postlethwaite 10:12, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, Ryan. I'm posting on Wahoo's page now to ask him to participate in this. Tony (talk) 10:25, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moving on....