Talk:Daniel Levitin

Too many red links hurt my brain
I'm going to remove a few of them. I hope you don't mind. -- Craigtalbert 13:30, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

NPOV?
A few concerns with this article:
 * "As a cognitive psychologist, he is considered an expert on absolute pitch and on music cognition and perception[2],[3]"
 * Both of the sources referenced for this statement were co-authored by Daniel Levitin. I think they're poor sources to provide an analysis of Levitin's expertise.  Otherwise we could rephrase the statement to read "he considers himself…"
 * The "Steely Dan Remastering" Scandal is not mentioned on the Steely Dan article. What is it, and why is it significant?  (I've posed the question there).
 * Neither of the Globe and Mail references (from the same article in a Newspaper) give a year, which should be remedied. An author should also be provided (to ensure that it is not also him).

This article really reads like a vanity page, and could use some reworking. For example, is it really significant that he is mentioned in his mother's memoirs? I would think that would go without saying. At any rate, I've taken care of a few minor things, but the article still needs work. The Jade Knight 04:05, 14 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I think that those sources referenced for the "expert on absolute pitch and on music cognition and perception" prove he is an expert; those papers were in peer-reviewed journals, and would not have been published if his peers didn't consider him an expert. And the journal Trends In Cognitive Sciences is by invitation-only, the editors had to consider him an expert or he wouldn't have been published there. I don't see what marks this as a "vanity" biography, it reads very similar to the WP entries for other living persons, for example V. S. Ramachandran, Oliver Sacks, and Steven Pinker.  As to the memoir, how many people's mother's have their memoirs published by a major publisher? This makes the memoir itself significant, and it makes the memoir a source of information about Levitan.
 * User:TopCat21:21, 14 September 2006
 * We're supposed to avoid weasel terms wherever possible. Rather than saying "he is considered an expert", we should simply mention where he has been published, unless we have a citation from a reliable source other than himself stating that he's an expert, or otherwise mention other (verifiable) things that show his expertise, and let the reader infer it themselves.  The Jade Knight 22:33, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Not sure what the rules are regarding vanity pages, but this sure seems like one; definitely created by Levitin himself...the IP address of the creator is at McGill. Somehow, I feel like there should be a rule against creating a page about yourself, but human vanity and wileyness would surely get around it. Ick. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.72.249.81 (talk • contribs)
 * I agree that it seems that way. It's possible that it may have been created by fawning students.  I've tried to clean it up and get it at least a little more NPOV.  You're welcome to register and help here, as well.  The Jade Knight 18:25, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I've added an NPOV tag, per your concerns. The Jade Knight 18:30, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * There are 40,000 people at McGill, all using McGill IP addresses; the probability that this is Levitan himself is quite low. I'm part of the 200 member academic senate and added one small, recent citatation from the New York Times; I have no reason to believe that the previous entries were written by the subject himself, or motivated by vanity or by "fawning students."  The article reads quite similarly in form, style and content to another McGill affiliated scientist, Steven Pinker. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 132.216.90.113
 * Sure, there are 40 000 people at McGill; but how many of them would spend the time working on an article like this? I wonder if Levitin himself would like to enter into this discussion to resolve this.
 * (talk) 17:43, 17 February 2007 (UTC).
 * Someone tried to re-add a peacock term. I've tagged this talk page with a peacock term tag to serve as a reminder; because I edited out the change, I did not put it on the main article page.  The Jade Knight 20:05, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't see why it would make sense to tag this page with NPOV. Even if someone takes personal issue with what they legitimately believe to be "peacock terms" (and their appearance is easily explained away as inexperienced editors not knowing how to "show, not tell"; see Steven Pinker who is at the moment also described as "prominent"), there is nothing about this article which indicates a point of view.  With the exception of the bizarre piece of vandalism I've just deleted, everything in this article is a fact-- that is to say, every statement is either verified or easily verifiable, and nothing in that respect violates or even suggests violation of NPOV.  If an editor determines there are statements which are untrue or unverified, that editor has a responsibility to remove those statements; it seems to me nonsensical to tag an article full of factual information as NPOV.


 * These accusations of suspicious authorship are unwarranted and contrary to Wikipedian philosophy. Daniel Levitin is a registered Wiki user, and the entire history of this article shows that he, as a user, neither created nor has edited this article at any time.  Nonetheless, even if he had done so, it is explicitly stated in the "Biographies of living persons" link above that good faith should be assumed and I do not see that philosophical perspective espoused by some of the comments I'm reading here.  Then, further, a complaint that the article was written by "fawning students" is spurious for two reasons.  First is the common-sense reason:  who else would write an article about a living person except those who have a sincere and enthusiastic interest in the life and work of that person?  Second, an editor's attitude toward their own contributions-- fawning or otherwise-- is immaterial if the facts they contribute are verifiable and unbiased in their presentation.


 * If someone is upset that people have cared enough about Daniel Levitin's life and work to list his biographical information and professional credits in extraordinary and arguably trivial detail (such as the mother's memoir) then that person is entitled to their opinion. But NPOV is not concerned with the quantity of information, nor for that matter the triviality of the information.  In reading this article, I would consider it a fair challenge for any detractor to demonstrate that the facts presented in this article are done so with bias as defined and described by NPOV.  If there are one or two specific examples, that editor has a responsibility to remove or revise those statements.  If, and only if, the article is demonstrably and irredeemably suffused with such bias, to the point that a visitor must be baldly warned that the article they are about to read may potentially mislead them about its purported topic, should the NPOV tag be applied.  This article does not meet that criterion.  To this end, it is appropriate and logical to remove the NPOV tag.  aruffo 05:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I have spent a deal of work trying to improve the quality of the article, making it more NPOV, removing peacock terms, etc. Several of the sources I have checked have been mis-cited, and did not say what was written in the article, essentially exaggerating Daniel Levitin's contributions to the music industry.  I've fixed what I've noticed, but I have not checked all the sources (and some, such as newspaper articles local to Montreal, I do not have access to).  Other things are misleading, or poorly cited.  The article states: "His contributions to the music industry have been recognized by three Gold Record and six RIAA platinum records."  What this states to me, and likely many other readers, is that Dan Levitin has received three Gold, and six Platinum records.  I do not know the veracity of this statement, but I doubt that it is true.  I expect that what it means is that albums that he has worked on or been consulted on (to any small and insignificant degree) have received those awards.  That is not, however, what it says.  Statements like these, which seem to be distorted to make Daniel Levitin seem greater than he really is, have made me feel like the article needed an NPOV tag.  Please note that I did not assert that the article was written by "fawning students" or by Danial Levitin himself.  I said that it "seemed" it could have been written by him, and that it was "possible" that it was written by fawning students (which you cannot expect me to discredit as a possibility).  And it doesn't really matter how other articles violate NPOV, etc.  That does not justify disregard for neutrality or clarity in this article.  I would encourage you, however, to fix the problems in other articles that you may find.


 * I disagree with your statement on the usage of tags, however. Editors are encouraged to be bold, but the tags are also there to be used, and to notify the reader that some editors feel that the article still needs work that it has not yet received.  In the case of some articles, sufficient neutrality cannot be achieved.  (For example, the article on Blacks and Mormonism, because people differ in their interpretation of the past so much, or because the topic is particularly volatile.)  The Jade Knight 00:37, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I can speak to the gold/platinum records issue as well as Levitin's contributions to the music industry.  I was the President of Sire/Reprise Records from 1989-2000 and some of Levitin's gold and platinum awards came from us and our artists.  Levitin is a well-known producer and engineer who worked with many top artists.  I don't find anything in this article that exaggerates his contributions to the industry, or anything that sounds like a "Peacock" term.  In fact, the biography understates his contributions if anything.  I agree with arrufo that  JadeKnight appears to be violating the WP "good faith" rule in being overly suspicious about this entry, which is in every respect commensurate with entries for similarly accomplished people, and contains easily verifiable information.  You don't need to speculate about what Levitin has actually done, it is all documented on the AMG web site, and in his official biography, resume, and discography at http://www.psych.mcgill.ca/levitin/discography.html on his web site.  User:HowieKlein 22 February 2007


 * The reason you have not found much in the way of exaggeration of "peacock" terms is because I have tried to remove all that I have found, and clarify other elements in this article. Within this last week I have removed another peacock term.  I would hardly call my concern about these issues, which initially plagued the article, a breach of "good faith".  The AMG website actually states nothing about Daniel Levitin having received any gold or platinum RIAA records.  This article, before I corrected it, did not reflect the information on the AMG website (which it was purporting to reference).  Is there any independent published source which catalogues Daniel Levitin's reception of gold and platinum records?  The article would be stronger with such a reference.  As it is, it is impossible to tell from Daniel Levitin's own "official biography" that he has received exactly three Gold and six RIAA Platinum records (as this article states), let alone from any independent source I have seen on this article.  If you would like to get involved in helping to ensure that this article is neutral, clear, precise, and accurate, you are welcome to join and start finding citations, adding them, and ensuring that the article matches what is being cited.  I have been actively involved in improving this article myself, and my concerns about it arise from the material I have had to edit here.  I think the article is much improved, but, as I have stated, I cannot check every source, and I worry that other statements may be inaccurate, as some of the statements for sources I have checked have been.  Oh, and welcome to Wikipedia—I hope you decide to stay and contribute.  The Jade Knight 10:57, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I must confess astonishment at the suggestion that the personal biography of an academic researcher is in any way similar to a volatile discussion of anthropological history. I've never heard such a proposition before.  I wonder how I would feel if someone said that my career achievements as an acting instructor resembled Feminist history in Latin America.


 * Perhaps you may find it helpful to re-read assume good faith. From my understanding of its stated intent, "good faith" is the assumption that contributors to an article are doing so because they want to make the article better.  I assume, for example, that you are editing this article because you want to improve it.  I am not supposing that you have a vendetta against the subject of the biography; I am not speculating that you are someone who is jealous of his success; I am not suggesting that you resent the appreciation that others show for his work.  No-- rather, I accept the premise that you think this article, as a biography, could be written more clearly, and you want to see that done.


 * In other words, an example of good faith being breached could be the presumption that the subject of a biography has been secretly corrupting an article to aggrandize himself-- even when no evidence exists to support such a presumption. An example of good faith being breached could be the accusation that contributors are purposefully manipulating facts to deliberately misrepresent the truth.  An example of good faith being breached could be to "doubt that [a statement] is true" simply because the statement is complimentary of its subject, especially when a quick Google search can offer immediate confirmation (see this interview, paragraph 7).


 * Your enthusiasm for clearly written and factually precise articles is surely a blessing and a boon to the Wikipedia community. Your concerns are surely welcome when they lead to improvements and clarifications in whatever articles to which you choose to donate your time, attention, and energy.  I would merely implore you to re-read assume good faith if you want to understand how your descriptions of the work at hand are being perceived.  aruffo 00:51, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Let me reiterate that I did not presume that Levitin was editing or, as you claim, "corrupting" this article. You preach about good faith, but you are building up straw men and assigning them to me.  Your very response, while cleverly disguised to build yourself up as a charitable and community-focused individual, impugns me of malicious intent in nearly an entire paragraph.  In WP:AGF, you might like to note the sentence which states "Accusing the other side in a conflict of not assuming good faith, without showing reasonable supporting evidence, is another form of failing to assume good faith."  I am simply interested in accuracy and clarity at Wikipedia.  I believe that some of the editors may have come to this article, intending to write and help wikipedia, but have been perhaps a little over-zealous in their appreciation for Levitin.  This is certainly forgiveable, but the oversights in the article need to be corrected, and editors should be watchful and careful to ensure that they do not make these faults.  Regardless of the reasons other editors have for making their edits, they should strive to ensure more carefully that they are accurate and neutral.  Is that such an unreasonable thing to ask?    The Jade Knight 01:11, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

for a real laugh, go read the reviews of his ridiculous ego-fest of a book...this guy is a terrible scholar  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.123.202.66 (talk) 14:33, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Major deletion
I am not sure that it's such a good idea to delete half the article. What's the reasoning for this? The Jade Knight 23:08, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I wasn't trying to break protocol. It's just that I followed the discussion and it seemed that you (Jade Knight) had a number of complaints about the entry inflating this guy's importance, and subsequently it was graded a "B."  My idea was to eliminate information that really seemed like "padding" and to keep this entry concise.  When I Googled Levitin this morning I got 250,000 hits, so there is no shortage of information for someone who wants to know more about him, and his own website is quite extensive. But a WP biographic entry isn't supposed to say everything that can be said about someone, rather, it should give representative highlights.  I'm also trying to compare his entry to some candidate others to determine what constitutes appropriate scope and length.  I looked at articles about other best-selling science authors -- Steven Pinker (shorter entry), Richard Dawkins (Longer entry), Daniel Dennett (about the same).  I looked at entries about record producers -- Mitchell Froom, David Briggs and David Kahne (shorter), and Bob Rock (about the same if you include discography).  Looking at academics, Philip Zimbardo and E. O. Wilson (about the same length as Levitin entry but Zimbardo is 75 years old and Wilson is 80; Wilson's is rated "A" by the way), Terry Winograd (a bit shorter), Seymour Martin Lipset and Joseph Nye (shorter).  I propose to shorten the Levitin entry (as I did in the previous edit, anyone can view it) and then maybe with the help of others to create a "theory" section such as exists in the Wilson entry.  Two articles appeared in the journal "Essays in Philosophy" which have a quite detailed description of Levitin's theories. ClydeC 19:27, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I noticed that you deleting the entire list of his publications, which may be appropriate—Wikipedia is not a CV. His mother's book may also not be worth mentioning, though if someone feels it particularly deserves to be in the article, I wont fight them on it.  Mind explaining your justification (specifically) for some of the other deletions?  I probably wont oppose most of them, but I think we should give people a chance to talk about them, first, to see if the deleted sections would best be revised, or if some of them should perhaps be kept.
 * One thing, though, is that I think that whatever we do keep, we should strive to ensure is as specific and clear as possible—for example, when we say he "contributed to albums", it should state what he contributed. The Jade Knight 23:01, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, and FYI: "Protocol" is that when deleting large chunks of text from an article, you should paste what you've removed onto the talk page, along with an explanation (at least, that's what I remember having read somewhere).  The Jade Knight 23:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi - For what it's worth, my opinion is that there is waaay too much information on the page, more than is necessary for a WP biography. As ClydeC pointed out, a lot of this stuff is available on my web page, so there is no reason to burden WP with all this detail here.   I don't see the need for the "selected publications" section, or at least it shouldn't be that big.  One or two would do, don't you think?.  I'm not sure that info box is necessary either, that's something I've only seen with people who are primarily known as musicians.  My mother has her own WP bio, so that's the place to mentionher memoir probably, not here, and that business about Miami Vice and The Marshal, while true, really seems to me like unnecessary fluff.  And I think the entire section on the e-music and producing could be properly reduced to just a few sentences, and the "writing career" thing eliminated completely.  But obviously, as the subject of the bio, this is not my decision.  As to the previous postings that questioned whether I really-and-truly have gold/platinum records, or whether they were merely awarded to albums on which I worked, I do have 14 gold and platinum records that were actually awarded to me.  The list on WP looks right.  One of the posters above asked how this could be verified.  I'm not sure what I can do here.  I can take photos of them and post them somewhere, but that seems a bit strange.  If I'm not mistaken, Clive Thompson and others have mentioned them in their articles about me (eg. New York Times) and they wrote what they wrote after seeing the awards hanging up in my office.  Help me out here, I'm not sure what to do to help all you do a proper job of maintaining the entry about me.  DanielLevitin 01:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, it still reads like a vanity page. A lot of the material, i.e., contributing jokes to Jay Leno etc., sounds extremely minor. The place for this is on your personal web page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.76.1.62 (talk) 21:48, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

has anyone noticed that this article is longer than that devoted to Jimmy Hoffa? This should be cut down considerably.


 * Dear 142.76.1.62 -- Please don't direct your comments to *me*, with respect to what belongs here versus my web page. I'm not the one maintaining this article.  DanielLevitin 00:48, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

New Reader of Brain on Music
I happen to see a article in Billroad. Bought the book This is Your Brain on Music. Having trouble understand most of it for I do not know music. After retiring from the Ballroom Dance world 40yrs. I find time to complain about this that really are a stresser for me. MY PRESENT GOLD IS TO FIND OUT WHY THIS HARD ROCK AND RAP MUSIC IS PLAYED IN MOST GYMS I HAVE BEEN IN. MOST PLACES ARE RUN BY YOUNG GUYS, THEY TELL ME THAT IS THE TYPE THE OWNERS WANT. SOME DAYS I LEAVE FOR THE MUSIC STRESS ME OUT, IT'S HARD ENOUGH FOR A 66 YEAR OLD TO WORK OUT BUT IT'S IMPOSSIBLE SOME DAYS.MOST OTHERS AROUND ME ARE IN MY AGE GROUP AND COMPLAIN ALSO. (EARLY AFTERNOONS) MY HOME IS IN WILMINGTON NC AND I SUMMMER ON CAPE COD GO TO A YMCA GYM AND WINTER IN POMPANO BEACH Anyone that can give me some insight on the effects of rap and rock music for the people who work out please let me know. Sincely Robert Orpen rorpen@ec.rr.com

Latest edit/undo
The most recent edit was strange.. the edit summary amounted to nothing less than a blatant personal attack. Even if the edit summary had not called the quality of the edits into question-- especially given the editor's erroneous assumption that Daniel Levitin does edit or ever has edited this article-- a moment's look at Allmusic's entry for Joe Satriani's "Flying In a Blue Dream" confirms Daniel Levitin's involvement. Although Levitin has himself suggested that this article includes more details than anyone actually needs to know (see his comments on this talk page), surely making accusations and deleting verifiable information is not the most effective solution. aruffo (talk) 07:08, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

The Big Bang Theory Controversy
Dr. Levitin made a cameo appearance on an episode of the television show The Big Bang Theory. The definition of a cameo, according to Wikipedia, is "a brief appearance ... of a known person in a work of the performing arts, typically unnamed or appearing as themselves." A user named user:Ricardo Santiago has repeatedly deleted this entry both on Levitin's bio page, on the page for the TV show, and on the page for documenting cameos List_of_The_Big_Bang_Theory_characters, on the false assumption that it does not constitute a cameo appearance if uncredited. Alfred Hitchcock's cameos, uncredited and often in the background of a scene, are the classic case. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Alfred_Hitchcock_cameo_appearances. It appears that this user is harboring some kind of personal grudge (like the user in the previous paragraph — perhaps they're the same disgruntled person) and violating the edit warring policy of Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Edit_warring. HowieKlein (talk) 19:50, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Nothing personal against Mr. Levitin. A cameo requires him to play himself. He didn't do that. He was just a background actor. Ricardo Santiago (talk) 01:29, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Of course he was playing himself. Who else could he have been playing? He played a Professor having lunch in the CalTech cafeteria! StephenEngle (talk) 05:25, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Daniel Levitin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110724130411/http://www.websters-dictionary-online.net/definitions/Levitin?cx=partner-pub-0939450753529744:v0qd01-tdlq&cof=FORID:9&ie=UTF-8&q=Levitin&sa=Search to http://www.websters-dictionary-online.net/definitions/Levitin?cx=partner-pub-0939450753529744%3Av0qd01-tdlq&cof=FORID%3A9&ie=UTF-8&q=Levitin&sa=Search#922

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 12:57, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Daniel Levitin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121104212237/http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/arts/story.html?id=9b74bf5c-cec2-4cce-a3e7-090dd75acfd5 to http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/arts/story.html?id=9b74bf5c-cec2-4cce-a3e7-090dd75acfd5
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100629202556/http://en-us.nielsen.com:80/content/nielsen/en_us/insights/rankings/books.html to http://en-us.nielsen.com/content/nielsen/en_us/insights/rankings/books.html
 * Added tag to http://en-us.nielsen.com/content/nielsen/en_us/industries/media/television.html?gclid=CL3TlaHph6QCFV195QodlxaWLA

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:41, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Why does this article have two infoboxes...
Why does this article have two infoboxes? Geo Swan (talk) 11:57, 22 April 2020 (UTC)