Talk:Ear training/Archive 1

Proposed External Link
Learning to Sight-Sing: The Mental Mechanics of Aural Imagery Clhtnk (talk) 19:06, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Considering that this editor has done little else but add this link to various Wiki articles, conflict of interest is probable, and especially in the interest of avoiding the slippery slope I say no thanks to this link. aruffo (talk) 15:00, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * A personal communication with Clhtnk suggests that the link may have justification for its return. Watch this space...  aruffo (talk) 21:08, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Removal of examples
I removed this:


 * [1] The first interval in Auld Lang Syne is actually from the V to the I, however, the fourth and fifth intervals are perfect ratios, so the example given *is* identical to a I to IV interval.
 * [2] The first interval in My Bonny Lies Over The Ocean is from the V up to the iii. Note that only in Equal temperament (not in Just intonation) is this interval equal to a Major sixth.  The most popular example of a true I to VI interval is first two notes in the chorus of "Buddy Holly" by the rock band Weezer.

IMHO it is beside the point. -- Merphant 05:24, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Midi files
Question: if I created MIDI files or very small MP3 files illustrating each of these intervals, would it be possible to upload these to wikipedia? Are there any other pages that have musical examples that I could use as a guide? I see a lot of images, but not usually sound files. -- dmazzoni
 * I think you can just upload them like you upload images. Nationalparks 08:41, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Star Wars
I changed "Star Wars" to "Twinkle Twinkle". See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Music_theory#Star_Wars &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 152.163.100.197 (talk &bull; contribs).
 * Yes, I agree that the pickup note can make it confusing, since the pickup to the second note is a fourth while the next interval is indeed a fifth. Nationalparks 08:41, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Somewhere Over the Rainbow
Can't have Somewhere Over the Rainbow as major seventh and octave. I think it's major seventh. Then we need something for octave. Nationalparks 08:50, 14 February 2006 (UTC)


 * No, the beginning of "Somewhere Over the Rainbow" is certainly an octave. It will be hard to think of a song that starts with a M7 but I'm sure it's possible. Suggestions: The second part of the 'Superman' theme, The Cole Porter song "I Love You" (it's a descending M7), the a part of On the Street Where You Live that goes "all at ONCE AM i" (the M7 is between 'once' and am'), and the chorus of "Alone in the Universe" from Seussical ("'CAUSE I have wings")
 * DA723


 * Why can't we use an example more than once? Hyacinth 09:52, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
 * How about There's a Place for Us? Yeah, SotR is an octave. Nationalparks 22:18, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't bother me to use an example more than once, what bothers me is that we can't find a song that is a major seventh without having to use the first and third notes. People who are not musically inclined may not be able to hear in their head the interval between the first and third notes of a song, it would be much better if we could find a solid example where the first and second notes form a major seventh.

And "Theres a Place for Us" (aka 'Somewhere') is a minor seventh, not a major seventh.

DA723 02:20, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

See below, "Fantasy Island" theme begins w/ a true M7th. The old Star Trek theme begins with a m7th. Neither works very well for a typical 18-year-old college freshman however.

Overall Objection
I'm on a roll here...

I need to log a personal objection to the use of melodies as mnemonic devices in an encyclopedic article involving ear-training. First of all, these mnemonic devices are more of a guide to how to train one's ear, rather than encyclopedic information, and would thus go better in a WikiHow than a Wikipedia article.

Second, time and again, music theory classes have shown that using tunes to identify intervals is an ineffective method that does not lead to a true strengthening of the ear's ability. If I have a series of notes moving up and down in either minor seconds or major seconds and want to figure out exactly what the notes are, it would be impossible for me to do so by assigning "Happy Birthday" or "Jaws" to each group of two notes. It would be futile and it would ruin the enjoyment of the music. Better to have learned the intervals by playing them on one's own instrument and singing them, so that you don't always have to refer back to a song every time you think you hear a certain interval.

This second objection is definitely more of a personal preference, but I think the first objection merits eliminating all these examples in the article. I want to replace them with just a couple of sentences mentioning the fact that people often use songs as mnemonic devices, and give perhaps one example.

Anyone reading this, let me know what you think. -Aerlinndan 12:50, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd say that the decision to eliminate the melodic intervals would depend on whether or not the same information is featured elsewhere in articles about the intervals. I mean, if someone who's done no ear training comes to Wikipedia wanting to know what a major sixth is, how are you going to tell them except with examples such as these?  This may not be the most appropriate article to feature these examples, but if you're going to delete them here please check out where they should be and put them there.  aruffo 15:10, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

This is pretty obscure, but the theme from the old TV show Fantasy Island begins with a M7th. It helps if you also imagine Herve Villechaize exclaiming "de plane! de plane!"

I have taught music theory and ear training at the college level for many years, and using songs as mnemonics is not only highly effective, it is absolutely essential for certain students. It is a crucial bridge between something concrete which they know (the beginnings of certain songs) and something rather abstract which they do not (intervals in isolation). Of course theory students should also sing intervals and play them at the piano (from a variety of starting pitches), but one must have a variety of methods at one's disposal. Whether or not it "ruins the enjoyment of the music" is beside the point; ear training is not done for mere enjoyment. You might as well say that learning how to recognize different brushstrokes ruins one's enjoyment of painting.

What is ear training?
As someone who has taught ear training for many years, I have found that this is one of the least understood topics amongst musicians. It's also one of the most neglected areas amongst music educators. This is ironic as music is essentially an aural-based art form and anything you do to improve the ear will automatically improve one's enjoyment and understanding of music.

Ear training does encompass the instant recognition of pitch, harmony and rhythmic elements as outlined in this article. But the fundamental goal of ear training is not in labeling sounds, but in the learning how to "think in the language of music" - musical cognition. I think any article that discusses ear training and does not refer to "audiation" is seriously lacking. Edwin Gordon has done some very good work on audiation and the Hungarians were teaching it years before him and called it 'inner hearing'.

On the issue of using song titles as a mnemonic for intervals.. This type of training is often used as a "band-aid approach" by some (bad) teachers! It has value - particularly in learning how to identify abstract (random) intervals. However, random intervals is the most difficult form of hearing intervals and therefore is not where a beginner should start. The large majority of music is tonal and intervals occur in a tonal context - both ascending and descending - as part of a melody. It's here that the song method breaks down. There is only one way to learn intervals - to sing them in every permutation/combination within a scale and then within a melody.

[[User:Jazzyboy|Jazzyboy] 13:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)Jazzy boy

Descending / ascending intervals
Don't know about everyone else but I hear ascending and descending intervals in a rather different way, so would it perhaps be worth organising the list of songs to reflect this? --Kick the cat 08:17, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with you. In fact I agree so much, that I whipped up a table:


 * {| class="wikitable"

! interval ! ascending ! descending La Marseillaise Nice Work If You Can Get It Für Elise Silent Night Satin Doll Smoke on the Water The Star-Spangled Banner Kumbaya
 * unison
 * colspan="2" | Happy Birthday to You
 * colspan="2" | Happy Birthday to You
 * minor second
 * Theme from Jaws
 * Theme from Jaws
 * Joy to the World
 * major second
 * Frère Jacques
 * Frère Jacques
 * Mary Had a Little Lamb
 * minor third
 * Greensleeves
 * Greensleeves
 * Hey Jude
 * major third
 * When the Saints Go Marching In
 * When the Saints Go Marching In
 * Summertime

O Tannenbaum ''Adeste Fideles The Simpsons opening sequence''
 * perfect fourth
 * Auld Lang Syne
 * Auld Lang Syne
 * Eine kleine Nachtmusik
 * tritone
 * Maria (West Side Story)
 * Maria (West Side Story)
 * YYZ

Also sprach Zarathustra
 * perfect fifth
 * Twinkle Twinkle Little Star
 * Twinkle Twinkle Little Star
 * Seven Steps to Heaven

saxophone hook from Baker Street
 * minor sixth
 * Some Day My Prince Will Come
 * Some Day My Prince Will Come
 * You're Everything

Take the A Train
 * major sixth
 * My Bonnie Lies over the Ocean
 * My Bonnie Lies over the Ocean
 * A Weaver of Dreams

Somewhere (West Side Story) Theme from Fantasy Island
 * minor seventh
 * Theme from Star Trek
 * Theme from Star Trek
 * Watermelon Man
 * major seventh
 * Take on Me
 * Take on Me
 * I love you

Let It Snow
 * octave
 * Over the Rainbow
 * Over the Rainbow
 * Willow Weep For Me


 * }


 * These are some of the examples given by the present article and then some added that I came up with, in order to find two POPULAR examples for every interval. As you can see that isn't so easy for descending intervals.


 * I suggest we flesh this out a bit more before putting it in the article. — Mütze 13:02, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, since everybody seems to like it, I'm putting it in. — Mütze 11:29, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think I'd take "complete silence" for "everybody likes it". It seems to me that such a table could belong more appropriately in Relative pitch where it expands on that specific topic; an Ear Training article would most appropriately simply indicate that such a strategy exists.  I don't think I have a strong enough opinion either way to change anything, but it's worth a thought.  aruffo 18:32, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * That was a bit tongue-in-cheek. :D Anyway, I didn't make the table from scratch, but I replaced the badly formatted list with worse examples that was there before. This is a revision, not an addition. — Mütze 17:55, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Perfect Pitch
Do people who have "absolute pitch " need ear training ? Albion moonlight 12:31, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes. — Mütze 12:54, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Avoid Song Removal
Anyone who feels the need to edit the page by removing a song from the list because it is not 'popular' enough, please consider that the value of the list is how well known it is to the student, not how popular it is overall, and what is not well known to you may be rather familiar to someone else.

If you still feel the need, please document the removal in the discussion pages. That way, if someone legitimately disagrees with your decision, at least it's easier to find the deleted entry than in the history pages, and the reasoning behind the removal.

Tedclaymore (talk) 22:04, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd recommend, rather than feeling the need to remove a song, if there's nothing you recognize, find a song you think people would know that features the same interval. The songs you know will probably be different from those I know. --Doktorspin (talk) 05:27, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Editor Aruffo's Conflict of Interest
To prevent the same BS from occurring over and over again, and because Aruffo has failed to disclose it himself, I am adding this section specially dedicated to disclosing Aruffo's conflict of interest. Editor aruffo is the owner of this ear training sites http://www.aruffo.com/eartraining/, http://www.wehearandplay.com/taneda/index.htm , http://www.acousticlearning.com/. He has failed to disclose this in any of the prior conversations. He sells several products related to ear training and perfect pitch likely even making his living from it; "The Ear Training Companion", "We hear to play", "The Fletcher Music Method" and the "Relative pitch monster course" http://www.aruffo.com/eartraining/monster/. His main editing involvement has been to deny anyone from editing external links in the ear training and perfect pitch section. On the perfect pitch section he self-linked his original research, summaries of various perfect pitch articles. It was his first edit to perfect pitch. He should not have a say in addition or removal of external links because it is in his own commercial interest to prevent people from knowing about his product's competition. Wikipedia is a great resource, but not when you're trying to sell a product and Wikipedia is telling people about free and superior software. The mentality of, "Why should my product not deserve equal opportunity?" causes a psychosis of chronically removing anything helpful there's consensus on. I'm tired of this BS. DMOZ is a dilapidated abandoned mess. Ear training is one of the subjects that massively benefits from computer aided training. Denying the best resources to students just for aruffo's greed isn't worth it. The other editors generally come to a consensus. Any links will still be up for debate but aruffo should have no part in their debate or have any say in recommending removal. We've had enough of this cancer. 75.53.34.231 (talk) 16:41, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm the only Chris Aruffo on the North American continent as far as I'm aware, and I should think it should be blindingly obvious that I operate those sites. If I weren't personally interested in ear training topics, there wouldn't be much reason for me to be involved in editing pages about those topics.  If I wanted to manipulate Wikipedia pages to sell my product, or harm my competitors, I would be much better served doing it from an anonymous IP, although I would admittedly be risking sock puppetry.
 * Anyone is entitled to unfounded opinions of my motivations, but I doubt there is a Wikipedia policy that supports imaginary accusations about other editors as a reliable source for editing encyclopedic content.
 * Original research is defined as, well, original research. Until research data has been published elsewhere, it cannot be offered here as evidence to support an assertion.  The Wikipedia policy is meant to prevent the scenario in which individuals perform experiments and then write about their results in a Wikipedia article as though their experiment were a reliable source; for example, if I did an experiment "proving" that mind-reading existed, I wouldn't be allowed to include that evidence here in Wikipedia without having first published it in a reliable journal.  The bibliography of absolute pitch-- yes, I added it a long time ago, along with other links that I wasn't aware were disallowed.  The reason the bibliography link persisted is that it is legitimate content too detailed to be added to the article, so nobody bothered to delete it.  If someone wishes to challenge that link, it won't be difficult to demonstrate how its inclusion satisfies established Wikipedia criteria for inclusion, and fails to satisfy criteria for exclusion, without misrepresenting or omitting any portion of those criteria as stated.  If that's not the case, of course it should be removed, but someone who wishes to see that particular link removed should expect to have to make that case from established Wikipedia policy rather than irate personal attacks.
 * If anyone wants to include particular links or branded software as article content, there are Wikipedia policies and guidelines that illustrate how to do it. For example, perhaps a Wikipedia article about ear training should contain the assertion "Ear training is one of the subjects that massively benefits from computer aided training."  Okay.  Find a reliable source that supports that assertion, write the assertion, add the reference to that source, and bam!  Bulletproof.  If someone wants to assert that [name of software] is massively helpful, then they can find a reliable source that demonstrates so, write the assertion, add the reference to that source, and bam!  Nobody can delete it.
 * The fact is that I went to both Google Scholar and Web of Science and sifted through as many articles as I could find about specific ear-training packages. I wanted to see if I could stop deleting things and add them instead.  From recent discussion, I realized that if I'm going to insist that people insert content with reliable sources, and these same people do want that content inserted, then I would do everybody a service by finding the reliable sources and adding the content.
 * The problem is that I couldn't find it. Searching from 1990 to the present day, looking at hundreds of different papers, I didn't find a single published source that demonstrated how any particular software package provided a benefit not enjoyed by students who did not use that software package.  All I did find was a published review, written by a music teacher, stating that Ear Master was limited and unhelpful-- and it didn't seem helpful to write that into this article.
 * The real issue is that anyone who wants to say that such-and-such a piece of software is "helpful" will have a difficult time finding reliable support for that assertion. I tried.  I failed.  Mfield recognized, in a previous conversation, that the assertion "University programs license commercial software such as..." could be supported by unpublished sources, because it would be silly to argue that the links provided do not support the assertion.  The assertion makes no qualitative assessment of "helpfulness" that must be tested and measured; it makes an objective statement that is demonstrably true from the evidence provided.  Perhaps a different assertion could be made about software that others have argued for inclusion that would also not require published sources to be inarguably evident, but I haven't been clever enough to think of one yet.  aruffo (talk) 23:57, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * You have been removing any and all suggested links citing Wikipedia policy when there was already a 3:1 consensus. I care less about carrying on endless 'debates' over what we already had consensus on. The fact of the matter is you just repeat the same thing over what we had already established was enough to show notability and you denied the previously agreed upon criteria for Rg3000. The fact that you own a relative pitch ear training course which you commercially sell should not allow you to be judging and removing the free links we've agreed upon and posted. This is a clear conflict of interest that you did NOT disclose. Do not expect it to be obvious and implied by your name. I've also seen you make edit to david burge, and prevent the creation of the david lucas burge article, another perfect pitch course. I hate burge's methods but this clearly demonstrates you've been actively preventing any additions from the competition including here in the ear training article. Anyone who agrees: that because Aruffo has a conflict of interest, and did not disclose his ties to commercial ear training software, he should not be able to allowed to continue editing this section. If a few editors agree we can ask an administrator for help. His 'debates' as he calls them are just cyclical logic to waste time. Nevit already agreed:


 * "I was not aware that he has a conflict of interest with free or open source software. I believe he should be blocked for editing this article or section. --Nevit (talk) 15:46, 20 July 2009 (UTC)"


 * 75.53.40.237 (talk) 00:44, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * "Consensus is built by discussion, not by voting." (see WP:DEMOCRACY)


 * "Where advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest." (see WP:COI)


 * "Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor." (see WP:PA)


 * "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." (see WP:V)


 * I have explained how, why, and largely to what extent my edits are in line with Wikipedia policy. If this is not the case, it would be helpful if a discussion to the contrary were to point out the specific passages of Wikipedia policy that support the alternative view.  It's difficult to have a meaningful discussion when all comments are directed at the contributor, not the content.  If a conflict of interest exists, then it should be easy to build a case which demonstrates that my actions are against the stated goals and policies of Wikipedia.  However, as advancing the aims of Wikipedia is more important to me than advancing my outside interests, I strongly suspect that such a case could not be created.  aruffo (talk) 02:08, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Clearly all or at least part of your income comes from the sale of products related to ear training, music theory and perfect pitch, therefore it is in your interest to deny knowledge of any competitors. This violates wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines, "...advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest.". You've clearly demonstrated this by completely wiping all links in the ear training and music theory section as seen here and here, and aggressively making sure no new links are added immediately removing links as linkspam and not researching them on your own. You added your own perfect pitch research to the perfect pitch section without the same criteria you aggressively ask of the other links, namely that they be notable encyclopedic content, not some random guy's research that gives very short summaries of academic articles. You've been keeping track of competitor's product like preventing any mention of david lucas burge's perfect pitch course as seen here and here. In fact, that's the first thing you did as an editor. First through third edit deal with removing references to david lucas burge, fourth deals with adding your own link to the perfect pitch page, fifth deals with more removing david lucas burge. Wikipedias COI page states under the


 * "How to avoid COI edits" states "...if you have a conflict of interest avoid, or exercise great caution when"


 * 1. Editing articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.


 * You fail this one 100%. You consistently monitor and wipe any external links in the ear training, perfect pitch and music theory section calling everything linkspam. Why were you so interested in removing burge's article? How could you make such suggestions without considering the bias?


 * 2. Participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors.


 * What like deletion of entire sections of links and actively helping remove competitor product articles?


 * 3. Linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles


 * What's that I see in the perfect pitch page that seems to not undertake the aruffo challenge to prove it's notable by reputable sources or by it being used by a large majority. No no, original research by aruffo is 100% encyclopedic.


 * 4. Avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines, especially neutral point of view, verifiability, and autobiography.


 * If you financially benefit from the lack of knowledge about other ear training courses how could you possibly qualify for "neutral point of view". Most related to this article is your relative pitch course.


 * "Editors with COIs are strongly encouraged to declare their interests, both on their user pages and on the talk page of any article they edit, particularly if those edits may be contested. Most Wikipedians will appreciate your honesty. Editors who disguise their COIs are often exposed, creating a perception that they, and perhaps their employer, are trying to distort Wikipedia."


 * We had a massive discussion of promotional links and while you've brought up conflict of interest before, arguing against the inclusion of links, you never declared your own massive conflict of interest with trying to deny any and all links people suggest. Could this be a small oversight? That absolutely doesn't make any sense. You didn't disclose because it wasn't in your interest.


 * You removed material we had agreed upon by a 3:1 consensus on whim citing Rg3000 who clearly had no such intentions. This was on your own without anyone backing your arguments. It's clear that a COI exists and it's becoming more clear your decisions are driven by it. Rg3000 provided what we had agreed upon as the requirements for inclusion but you flatout denied it and used the same cyclical reasoning that made-up the bulk of our unreasonable "discussion" on the promotional links section. "Consensus is built by discussion, not by voting." I absolutely agree. However the problem is no one agreed with you or supported your discussion of the same points you threw before that we had already proven illogical. We debated things exhaustively and you've shown nothing significant enough to wipe out the content we agreed upon.


 * Erin Fogle (talk) 03:16, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * It is incorrect to claim that content which is neither supported by reliable sources nor possessed of notability should be included because somebody got outvoted (again, see WP:DEMOCRACY). If content is not verifiable it should be excluded (again, see WP:V).  Evidence and references to Wikipedia policy have been newly presented which explain and "back" my edits.  The burden of proof is on the person who wishes to add content-- but no evidence, no support, and no justification has been offered for the restoration of that deleted content except references to the prior discussion and irrelevant personal attacks.  The new evidence points out fallacies and omissions in the previous discussion.  If the prior discussion seemed to establish that the recently-deleted content should be included, the prior discussion was mistaken, and for the reasons newly outlined. Therefore, it is insufficient to refer to the prior discussion and willfully ignore the new issues that must be addressed before the content is restored.


 * It is irresponsible and obtuse to assert conflict of interest without evidence. Wikipedia has a distaste for people trying to use its pages for self-promotion.  It happens that I share that distaste.  Someone may claim that I, as a commercial enterprise, am motivated by trying to harm my competitors.  I claim instead that I, currently a master's student and PhD candidate with a growing interest in scientific inquiry, am motivated by the desire to see a scientifically-sound article.  This latter would, naturally, motivate me to prevent irrelevant and unsourced content.  It is an undeniable and unavoidable consequence that "competitors" are thus excluded from ear training articles-- but their character as any individual's "competitor" has no bearing upon their legitimacy as encyclopedic content.  Wikipedia exhorts editors with potential conflicts of interest to exercise caution and place Wikipedia's aims above their own.  I do.  aruffo (talk) 04:21, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Resetting spacing to make things more clear Erin Fogle (talk) 05:38, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Here's a survey from 1998-1999 making the case for computer aided ear training. The complete data is here. 72% of students said the computer assistance was useful. Please show me the stated ear master article to see the quality of your source. I will try to find more recent research. Technology has gotten cheaper, software has gotten easier to write and has less restrictions, therefore creating better programs, and there's more competition in the field of music theory software than there was back then. People have gotten much more familiar and comfortable around computers and software since then. The current data should make the case for the benefits of ear training software. So what do you require for the addition of the content previously agreed upon. I believe it's absurd because I haven't seen you present any new ideas from those you presented previously, and we had to overrule you. What is your new arbitrary aruffo criteria for external links that I must meet? I believe I have already provided sufficient evidence, so spell it out crystal clear for me. If several universities use or recommend a software I don't see how I can't say it's a linear relationship which means the professors must think it's useful enough to recommend to their students or even include it in their course. I honestly don't want to play the lets-write-forever-until-you-agree-with-me-or-overrule-me-game again. It just creates clutter and achieves nothing productive. Be very specific. Also on that note please provide requirements that aruffo from 6 months from now will also require. I don't want you to arbitrarily decide it's time to create a new criteria that meets your fancy which 'I must meet the burden of'. Erin Fogle (talk) 04:39, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

The Ear Master article was really a review.. a teacher's personal experience with the software, rather than an experimental test. There's not much to it, but if you want to see it it's Michlin, A. (2008). All Things Technology. Music Educator's Journal, 94, 26.

Let me try not to be defensive and snippy-- I understand where you're coming from and I see perfectly how you derived your conclusions from what you saw. I can see how you would conclude that my edits and actions are motivated by conflict of interest. This does not mean, though, that I am operating from a conflict of interest and trying to keep out all "competitors". I'm interested in a good article, and good content demands verifiability. In the last discussion I was too perplexed and exhausted from being defensive to seriously or critically assess the result, and to that end I did everyone a disservice. Those links are not reliable sources, the content is not supported, and it should be removed regardless of who I am. I think it would make the most sense to set aside preconceptions and really focus on what would make a better article.

I think you're right that the article should contain statements about the impact of ear training software on music education. To that end it is interesting to know that some universities have licensed and require certain applications, and it would be very helpful to show qualitative evidence demonstrating that software does have an influence. Has that CAI survey been published anywhere? That's exactly the kind of data that we'd want to reference, but its current presentation violates No Original Research because it has not been published.

I am sorry that my edits and edit history make it seem that I am targeting competitors. This is not the case, and if it is important to you I would be happy to talk about that with you personally (my address is nospam at aruffo dot com). Publicly I would point out the unfortunate truth that most ear training packages are not notable. Required use by institutions is an argument for notability; published evidence that a certain ear-training package causes significant improvement would, as a reliable source, justify its mention and inclusion because you are absolutely correct that students who come to this article should be informed of products that will improve their ear. My complaint is that a product should be verifiably demonstrated to produce improvement before being included here.

If a package's only claim for inclusion is that it has unique features, then its inclusion is a statement about that package, not about ear training generally. Consequently it would be necessary to prove notability. Links from fifteen different college professors can only support the assertion "Fifteen college professors are aware that [the package] exists." It cannot support the assertion that a package is notable by WP:NOTE guidelines.

Seriously, ultimately I do want to support you. Our real disagreement in this discussion is about what is worthy enough to be mentioned in an encyclopedia, not whether all "competitors" should be quashed. aruffo (talk) 05:07, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

In addition to what I wrote a little bit ago, let me try here to meet your demand without being defensive. I apologize for making myself look fickle and arbitrary, as though I were imposing my own will, when the criteria, established by Wiki policy, are unchanging and objective. I hope I can summarize the bottom line here. If an assertion is to be made about ear training, verifiable evidence supporting that assertion should be provided. Guidelines for reliable sources and verifiability are provided at WP:V and WP:RS. If a specific ear training package is to be mentioned, it is not enough to say "an example is...", according to WP:LINKSPAM. If an ear training package is part of some assertion (e.g., "Teoria can improve interval identification better than working with a human partner") then published evidence should be provided. If no published evidence is provided, then a case should be made for notability. Notability is defined and explained at WP:NOTE. These are the criteria I am and have been using. I didn't invent them, they don't change, and they are the same criteria that would be applicable to any scientific publication. I implore you to take a look at the content that I've recently proposed for deletion and subject them to these criteria yourself. These criteria don't mean "everything should be deleted"; they mean "content should be included only with appropriate support." aruffo (talk) 05:32, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

This is a Master's thesis which contains solid statistics. Research papers do no have quantum properties. Whether or not it has been published in some random magazine or another random academic paper will not change the data and outcome of the survey. Where do you want it to be published? There are a handful of music theory journals that publish only locally. Ear training journals don't exist. Tangentially related jazz and general instrument-specific magazines would have the highest chance of listing such articles but they are not scientifically credible. What would be the minimal standard of being a credible source based on the aruffo benchmark? Statistics are statistics.

What is the difference between this research paper and your original research self-link on the perfect pitch section? Your self-post contains very short personal summaries of academic writings, which have certainly not all been 'published', while this research paper contains actual numbers, and is an actual academic writing. Why do you hold different standards for when it's not your link? "I implore you to take a look at the content that I've recently proposed for deletion and subject them to these criteria yourself." How about doing it for your own link? I want to make it clear I don't have anything against your link. It's a very logical and useful thing to have been posted in the perfect pitch section, but it does not at all meet your own requirements which you more than aggressively try to extrude from others in order to satisfy your, no, "wikipedia's" policy.

Consider the 'Interval Recognition' portion of the ear training article. I'm the only one to have contributed a university level text book example, the only source, of using songs to associate intervals. However, I did not provide that it was statistically proven to work. There are no numbers, only a high level reference. One author, if you will, which is usually just one or two university professors. Remove the entire list and see the backlash that occurs. Even more people will start making this article their business because they understand the value in the list. It's uncontested. It's common knowledge. It is of extreme significance to their article and must be taken in context. If you truly stand by what you say wipe out that entire section and see if nobody cares. If someone is paid to mop the floor at a hospital room and there's a grieving family there already does he just ignore them and go about his mopping? There may be rules but there's a lot of context to be taken into account. There's a human side. Those references are there because they help students. Who are you to remove them all just because you don't understand the significance and 'common knowledge' won't cut it as evidence. Remove the 'interval recognition' section. It also does not meet your criteria. Stand by what you say and wipe it out. You do not see the context.

The interval identification in teoria, ear master, solfege, is relatively the same. An interval is played and you click the button to answer. The structure of the other aspects of ear training are also the same. In that sense I can't see how things have gotten worse since the 1999 article. The methodology is the similar, if not the same. Professors aren't fools. They use ear training software because it works. In fact, it's pretty much become the standard over the years. Instead of me finding music departments with certain software, I challenge you to contact as many departments as you can and see if you can find any well funded ear training and music theory department that doesn't have any form of music theory software for their students. If they don't find if the teacher actually doesn't recommend any software assistance. I wager anything you will not find a single department. Just because they don't list it on their websites doesn't mean they don't use it. We don't even have a music department website! An academic paper studying the long term benefits and cons of each individual program is not logical. The ear training and music theory field is small in interest, the methodology is common knowledge and has been repeatedly used and replicated, as proof of effectiveness. Review the way the different ear training features act in the different programs mentioned. It's nearly the same, and the same as it was in 1999 with the older ear trainers. The links provide different quirks for each but the effectiveness should not be in debate. Even without the computer program you're still receiving a question and answering it making the training fundamentally the same, the only difference is that the computer will track your scores and provide truly randomized questions, along with even finer customization and targeting available.

In the end your criteria is still arbitrary and your own criteria, not wikipedia's. The previous 3:1 consensus was logical and established concrete guidelines which you have decided to reinvent without a concrete guideline. How many university professors do you need to establish 'enough' notability? Do the amount of students they have matter? Many universities don't have websites devoted to ear training. Should I call them up and ask them and maybe record all their answers for you as evidence, because I must meet aruffos random numerical requirement of notability? How many books should they have written and what should the budget of their publishers be and how many people are required to have read their works in how many different countries verifiably? If one university professor says something and its published by another university professor is it now worth more than 15 professors? Please provide the equation or relation to the golden ratio you've devised! Also what is the ratio of notability between the professors that link the websites and actually include it in their coursework. How many bonus points for a PhD or masters do they get? Where should the ear training research be published? Nature magazine and scientific America? The discovery channel on some wildlife episode?

Erin Fogle (talk) 07:00, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The burden of proof is on the person who wishes to include content. If you do not understand the scientific method, peer review, the process of scientific publication, the qualifications that determine a reliable source, or how notability is defined by Wikipedia, I recommend you take the time to research these things, which will answer the questions you have posed.
 * The previous consensus was flawed and is therefore not fully applicable to the current discussion. I have unambiguously described why and how this is so, referencing appropriate policies and explaining the process of scientific writing, and I will not repeat myself.
 * You seem to be challenging me to rewrite this entire article to a higher standard. If this is so I will accept that challenge, taking into account the content you assert should be included, documenting each change (of content, not grammar or style) here on the discussion page.
 * Again, if you want to discuss me or my motivations, send me a personal message. Publicly I will discuss only this article and its content.  aruffo (talk) 07:56, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * This isn't meant as a personal attack on Aruffo, but it is something that's been troubling me ever since Aruffo removed all of the external links... We all know Aruffo has historically denied all external links.  Then earlier this year there was the 3:1 consensus to include external links based upon academic references to the links.  This consensus was the result of several pages of back and forth discussion of which Aruffo was a key debater.  External links were finally added to this article and then a few months later I came along and Aruffo denied my attempt to add a similar external link.  Aruffo and I then created several more pages of text during a discussion where I repeatedly cited the 3:1 discussion and the reasons for my inclusion based on that discussion.  Multiple times I pointed out the significance of my academic references, especially the UCLA and Harvard links which were more than "links to be aware about."  Then, after another lengthy back and forth discussion, Aruffo tells me he never really looked at the original academic links and has now decided that none of them are justifiable references.  Next thing you know, he removes the entire External Links and has the nerve to say that it was my suggestion.  I can see how a sloppy debater might not bother to visit a few links, but we all know Aruffo is NOT sloppy.  To his credit, he is meticulous in his linking to external policies and in the creation of arguments that defend his case.  Why then did he not even bother to visit a handful of links that formed the basis of page after page of debate?  Especially when these links were repeatedly referenced both in name and in specific content (per my discussion with Aruffo).  I know Aruffo apologized for his oversight.  As much as I want to believe he was sincere, it just doesn't add up to me.  Instead, it seems like a case where he was looking for any excuse to get rid of the external links and seized this opportunity to undo the outcome from the 3:1 consensus.  I can't say whether his motive is self-serving or not (only Aruffo knows the answer to that), but it's hard for me to think of another logical explanation for what transpired... Rg3000 (talk) 11:43, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with Rg3000. Aruffo is being completely contradictory. He says we don't understand but he will not establish new guidelines that would satisfy him, he only rambles on vaguely about the scientific method and him being the embodiment of policy. We had a consensus that evidence of professors using the software and recommending it to their students can establish notability. If you'd like to challenge this, find more editors because you are still the minority in asserting evidence of the use of software in universities requires massive research per software on an effectiveness basis that has been peer reviewed in some random journal. Your criteria is completely your own and you do not apply it to your self links or the other content of the page, therefore the reason I propose must be because of a COI and the benefit you gain from aggressively deleting the external links. Questioning why you don't give your own self post in the perfect pitch section the same critical requirements you require of us is perfectly reasonable, but time and time again you ignore the statement because it comes back to COI again. It is not my burden to present to you evidence that you cannot clearly describe will satisfy your requirements every time. I want to repeat this because it's important. 3 editors agreed you are wrong and that university references are enough. You are the only one that has ever demanded more, even though you exempt your self post from such criteria and the rest of the content on the page. You are still the minority, and you cannot make your case by rambling generalities that you are wikipedia policy and you don't need to explain things clearly because you think you are obviously right. You're not and as this continues it only shows the discontinuity of your logic and continues to establish the case for COI. You're being stubborn without logic just to drag things out. If you think we don't understand make us understand clearly instead of rambling that we don't understand and you do. Again you haven't added any new evidence from the previous 3:1 consensus. Your arguments have been the same cyclical vague reasoning that made the previous promotional links section so long. On a whim you decided your ideas on wikipedia policy were more correct and wiped it out. I presented an academic paper that was used in consideration for a masters degree no less and you still required it to be published somewhere as if there were many places to be published in the field of music theory and ear training. I suspect the more I give you the more you will continue to demand because you do not set your guidelines clear and in the end have no intentions of allowing external links. The criteria is purely invented as we go. Erin Fogle (talk) 15:54, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I have been trying my best to avoid saying so directly, but Rg3000 has asked, and it appears as though I must explain myself. I gave up on the previous discussion, without visiting the links or critically examining the final proposal, because I was literally sickened by the vicious, violent, unfounded, and unrelenting personal attacks that were being made.  I was baffled that no amount of reason would stop them; I was confused and frustrated that no matter where the discussion went, it was twisted back into a rude and unpleasant attack on me personally.  I assented to Mfield's proposal without further comment or analysis because I could not understand the hatred and vitriol which was flooding in my direction, and only by abandoning the argument could I think to make it go away.


 * Yes, Erin, I am talking about you. Your cruelty and anger is unconscionable.  Your ignorance is blatant and embarrassing.  In the previous discussion I was utterly confused why you stubbornly refused, in every case, to stop attacking me personally, and this physically drove me away.  In this discussion you have replaced understanding with accusations and reason with aggression.  You blame me for your own lack of knowledge; you demand explanations but then scoff petulantly when those explanations arise, pretending that I am trying to trick you.  You perceive correctly that I have repeated myself, and I have now learned that this is because you repeatedly reject the facts you are offered.  I have said everything I need to say about my decisions.  Your continued failure to understand the nature of scientific inquiry does not invalidate my explanations of it.  You have made no attempt whatsoever to support your own position except to refer back to a conversation which you "won" only by mindless violence.  The previous discussion ended for the wrong reasons.  If a thousand people vote for the wrong thing, that doesn't make them right.  If voting for bad decisions set them in stone, the earth would still be flat.  I am returning to this issue and this time I will not be bullied.  Erin, you are totally and completely wrong in your wild imaginings about my conflict of interest and my purpose in editing Wikipedia.  I have been nearly convinced that it is a waste of time to engage with you intellectually, as everything I say is met only with violence and willful ignorance.  The plain fact is that you are wrong.  If you refuse to accept me as a colleague and collaborator, if you refuse to abandon your determination to attack me at every opportunity, then it will be clear to anyone that it is not I who should be blocked and banned (WP:PA).


 * I believe in your good intentions. I would prefer that you see that there's no value nor benefit in attacking me or anyone else.  It would be better if we worked together to achieve our mutual aim:  a good Wikipedia article.


 * To which end, I'll try one more (and possibly one last) time to engage with you in this discussion. A master's thesis is not a published paper.  "Published" in the scientific sense means that it has been peer-reviewed-- vetted for errors in procedure, logic, and context.  This process is what lends "reliability" to the source, as readers can be confident that the data being presented accurately represents what it claims to show.  At this precise moment, in another window on this same computer, I am writing my own Psychology master's thesis, which will be finished and submitted as a thesis by the end of next month.  However, the results of my experiment contradicted "established fact" in three different fields of study.  Nobody will argue with my submitting the thesis; it will be bound and placed in the library like any other book.  If I want this same data "published", however, the paper must be submitted to rigorous review by skeptical experts who, especially as they are predisposed to disagree with my findings, will scour my paper looking for flaws in my experimental method, background research, or proposed conclusions.  Only once a panel of experts agrees that the paper is adequately reliable can it be published.  Who that panel is varies from journal to journal, but the process is the same.  Master's theses can be cited, and often are, with the citation "Unpublished thesis, [school]."  However, it is only a citation of last resort, as the unreliability of a master's thesis is commonly known, and the judgment of a person who makes a confident assertion based on master's thesis data is to be seriously questioned.


 * Turning to Rg3000-- in a way I took advantage of you in our conversation, and I'm sorry about that. Your complaint that I was being inconsistent is what really woke me up to the fact that I had been unfairly bullied out of the previous discussion.  Because your comment provoked it, and because I believed that you had been unfairly attributing things to me, I deliberately unfairly attributed my subsequent decision to you as your "recommendation".  Of course it wasn't your recommendation.  I was just being a jerk.


 * Let me try to restate the case as cogently as I can. This is an article about ear training.  It is not an article about software X or training method Y.  If there is a piece of software or training method which has had a verifiable influence upon ear training generally, it should be mentioned here, because its omission leaves incomplete an encyclopedic knowledge about ear training.  This has been accomplished with the few pieces of software mentioned-- if music departments license and require ear training software, this is a general statement about ear training, and the specific software that they use is a matter of fact (and can be verified).  If a piece of software or training method has not had a verifiable influence on ear training as it is practiced, then any mention of that software or method cannot be a statement about ear training, and must be a statement about that software or method.  If the software or method is notable, it should be mentioned and its Wikipedia article linked to because of its notability.  If it is not notable, it should not be mentioned.


 * I honestly don't think that iwasdoingallright, meritorious as it is, yet qualifies as having had an influence on ear training generally or being notable by Wikipedia guidelines. If you opened the Brittanica, would you expect to find iwasdoingallright in its article about ear training?  I'm not saying that iwasdoingallright isn't a worthy thing, or that people shouldn't learn that it exists; I'm suggesting that insufficient evidence exists to justify its inclusion in an encyclopedic article about ear training.  aruffo (talk) 20:28, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Summary of first paragraph: I'm being bullied, Erin is so mean. There was a consensus that .edu references constitute good sources 3 to 1 but since I was bullied I ran away without saying anything for nearly a year at which point I decided that because I was bullied the three people that thought I was wrong, and the 2 new people that think I'm wrong, should be dismissed because I am the embodiment of wikipedia policy and the rest of you are all WRONG!!! ~tear~


 * Summary of second paragraph: "Yes, Erin, I am talking about you. Your cruelty and anger is unconscionable. Your ignorance is blatant and embarrassing." You don't understand anything and I understand and know I'm right so there. Even though I don't demand the same requirements from the rest of the content in the article nor for my own self-link spam in the perfect pitch section, I DEMAND that you satisfy what I believe is necessary. I will continue to ignore mentioning my link spam or the content of the ear training article even though you mention it every reply because I clearly benefit from spamming my link in the perfect pitch section while wiping all links in the ear training sections which constitute competition to my commercial ear training products. Even though I began this paragraph attacking you, you should be banned for attacking me because I'm an insane hypocrite.


 * Summary of third paragraph: [expresses clearly he didn't read the following lines I wrote]


 * "We had a consensus that evidence of professors using the software and recommending it to their students can establish notability. If you'd like to challenge this, find more editors because you are still the minority in asserting evidence of the use of software in universities requires massive research per software on an effectiveness basis that has been peer reviewed in some random journal."


 * "Where do you want it to be published? There are a handful of music theory journals that publish only locally. Ear training journals don't exist. Tangentially related jazz and general instrument-specific magazines would have the highest chance of listing such articles but they are not scientifically credible. What would be the minimal standard of being a credible source based on the aruffo benchmark?"


 * I never said peer review articles are on the same level as a masters thesis. I just want you to establish guidelines as good as those previously established by the consensus which stated university professors recommending it to their students, or even using it in their own course justifies addition. You had stated the following,


 * "Consequently it would be necessary to prove notability. Links from fifteen different college professors can only support the assertion "Fifteen college professors are aware that [the package] exists." It cannot support the assertion that a package is notable by WP:NOTE guidelines."


 * You significantly dumb down the description of our consensus stating that edu links just acknowledge the existence. It doesn't take into account what university, how many students and how much influence that professor has nor if it was just a mention or evidence of the use in course work.


 * A peer reviewed article is composed of a few editors in a position of credibility reviewing someone in a position of lesser credibility with the article being further scrutinized in future publications. In the previous statement you blow off the opinions of 15 professors as if they were not reliable or useful sources compared to a peer reviewed article. This prompts my response:


 * "The previous 3:1 consensus was logical and established concrete guidelines which you have decided to reinvent without a concrete guideline. How many university professors do you need to establish 'enough' notability? Do the amount of students they have matter? Many universities don't have websites devoted to ear training. Should I call them up and ask them and maybe record all their answers for you as evidence, because I must meet aruffos random numerical requirement of notability? How many books should they have written and what should the budget of their publishers be and how many people are required to have read their works in how many different countries verifiably? If one university professor says something and its published by another university professor is it now worth more than 15 professors? Please provide the equation or relation to the golden ratio you've devised! Also what is the ratio of notability between the professors that link the websites and actually include it in their coursework. How many bonus points for a PhD or masters do they get? Where should the ear training research be published? Nature magazine and scientific America? The discovery channel on some wildlife episode?"


 * You don't just ask for a peer reviewed article, you ask for a peer reviewed references for each and every link provided, scientifically proving the effectiveness for each link by long term study of its users (the only way to establish solid prove) in numbers which must be statistically significant and reproducible. As I have stated ear training and music theory is not a huge field of interest and there are not a lot of places to get such work published or look for those published works. Your requirements are top notch, however you don't use the same criteria for the content of the rest of the article or your own self-link spam in the perfect pitch section. Most of the article would have to be deleted if we used your requirements. In fact most wikipedia articles would need to be deleted all together. How about microsoft encarta. Find statistical peer reviewed research that says students perform better by using it. It should be easy right? After all it's a huge commercial product by one of the largest companies! Find that peer reviewed article establishing proof of effectiveness, I challenge you. We have already established several .edu references as being enough to establish credibility. If you believe you're right and being persecuted seek the opinion of a neutral third party again and find someone who agrees with you. Given the third party was not in your favor last time and the massive conflict of interest you have in the subject I can't see how they would.

Erin Fogle (talk) 05:41, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I wonder where the third parties are this time? Probably sitting on the sidelines shaking their heads in amazement and disbelief. Most of this discussion isn't really worth reading.

I took another look at the fabled "3:1 consensus". Fortunately, the consensus was merely that a section about software training should be created. That I definitely do agree with. Which I suppose makes it a 4:0 consensus. There was little discussion and no consensus about its content, no general agreement about the reliability of .edu sources. Consensus ended with an agreement that the section should be created. That's where I threw in the towel, and that's what I'm coming back to. When I get back to editing I'll restate my objections point by point (I've already mentioned them, but everything's currently more or less buried in useless verbiage). I know that normally burden of proof is on the person who wishes to include, rather than exclude, but obviously it is important for me to emphasize my legitimate reasons for removal to demonstrate that my edits are not a conflict of interest.

So once those third parties show up it'll be interesting to hear their positions (moderators? admins?  Hello?); in the meantime, if I make any new edits, I'll discuss em here. aruffo (talk) 16:31, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * How are you denying it when the evidence is on this page? If you don't even remember our previous discussion you really have no right to ignore our consensus.


 * "At this point I don't see how a software and training aids section, discussing the various most noted online training apps available and linking to them with references from .edu sources to back inclusion, could raise any red flags on WP:LINKS grounds, especially if the editors adding the links have declared and demonstrated no conflict of interest. Let's get that section written up here, proof it over, I'll post another link to it on Editor Assistance for some third party opinion and then leave it here for a few days to generate votes/objections and if no significant and merited opposition is forthcoming then i'll add it in. Mfield (talk) 17:53, 12 November 2008 (UTC)"


 * "especially if the editors adding the links have declared and demonstrated no conflict of interest"


 * See, MField declared it back then and you didn't fess up you were making a living selling ear training products and what you wanted to remove were competitor products. You had the chance, explicitly, but you said nothing. I feel sickened, reading back on it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Erin Fogle (talk • contribs) 17:17, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * "So it seems like we have a 3:1 consensus here to make such a section to back the links that have been disputed and repeatedly removed. Erin Fogle, do you want to create a section and links and post it here for comment? Mfield (talk) 19:22, 12 November 2008 (UTC)"


 * "3:1 consensus here to make such a section to back the links that have been disputed and repeatedly removed"


 * "to back the links"


 * "links"


 * -And again you ignore all the relevant arguments I made, choosing to rewrite your case instead for another long session of wasting time. 3 people said you were wrong before, 2 more say you're wrong now, but suddenly you decide you can delete everything on your own whim months later. This is boring. The more you talk the more in the hole your arguments become and the more the case for COI becomes evident.


 * Erin Fogle (talk) 17:12, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the words that have been copied here above are what I'm looking at too. As is plainly evident from that text, there was a 3:1 consensus to make such a section, and I agree. There is now a 4:0 consensus that the section should exist. Three people disagreed with me then, and I have since changed my mind, so now there is no one who disagrees with me that the section should exist. aruffo (talk) 17:34, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * "to back the links that have been disputed and repeatedly removed"


 * Established in the 3:1 consensus. Then you repeatedly remove the disputed links again months later.


 * "I don't see how a software and training aids section, discussing the various most noted online training apps available and linking to them with references from .edu sources to back inclusion, could raise any red flags on WP:LINKS grounds"


 * Another thing we established that you vehemently oppose now. 3 people for, with 2 new people now for it, and ONLY you against. If the consensus was 4:0 previously it turned 3:1 when you decided to not follow the points mentioned above. The consensus is currently 5:1 without having to be explicitly declared.

Erin Fogle (talk) 17:42, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Obviously we're interpreting the same source differently, with differing understanding of what constitutes "subject" and "predicate", and disagreement about the definitions of "sentence" and "phrase". I have already responded specifically, in detail, and citing appropriate Wikipedia policies, to every relevant consideration you have raised. For your own reasons, you choose to believe that I have not. The only challenges which I have not responded to are either a) rhetorical questions that a basic knowledge of scientific method makes self-evident or b) viciously untruthful accusations about me. There will be no further discussion on this matter without mediation. aruffo (talk) 18:21, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree that between us we're not getting anywhere. You continually ignore the evidence I present, pick and choose things to respond to citing that you don't care if EVERYONE else disagrees with you, as has been the case, as long as you believe firmly you're right then everyone else must be wrong. You've reinvented the agreed upon requirements and called your own arbitrary requirements Wikipedia Policy. Requirements you don't apply to the rest of the article, the song associations method as an example, nor your own link spam in the perfect pitch section. I hope the neutral third party will take into account you sell ear training software for a living and what you're removing are free competitor alternatives to your products. The dedication you have put into preventing any and all external links in a nonsensically more aggressive manner than you look after the article's content shows evidence of intent. The burden of evidence may be on the person adding content but we've provided the requirements based on the interpretation of wikipedia policy by 5 different editors. I don't see how he keeps repeating the 'burden of evidence' must be on the submitter when the person, the only person, aggressively requesting removal does not have a neutral point of view because he has been removing competitor products that directly interfere with his financial success. Despite saying he has a neutral point of view and the best intentions it cannot be established as truth when it is in his commercial incentive to continue what he has always done for the last 3 years (see his first 5 edits as an editor helping remove competition from wikipedia). Erin Fogle (talk) 18:56, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Post-aruffo External Links Discussion and Debate
If you'd like to argue for the removal or addition of an external link please argue your case here. Do not argue in the promotional links (they were never promotional!) or external links (formerly named eartrainer.com) section. 75.53.34.231 (talk) 18:45, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * iwasdoingallright.com ear trainer


 * I have found these references from universities using it in their courses.
 * http://ftp.gac.edu/~orpen/Music%20Theory/MUS212%20Assignments.html
 * http://www.ethnomusic.ucla.edu/courses/winter/2009/129b/UC-Winter%2009%20E-129%20Syll.doc
 * http://courses.dce.harvard.edu/~musie100/Rg3000 (talk) 23:08, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * These universities link it
 * https://oncampus.oberlin.edu/webapps/blackboard/content/listContent.jsp?course_id=_20238_1&content_id=_283520_1Rg3000 (talk) 23:08, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * http://library.nevada.edu/music/research/websites/jazz.php
 * http://www.personal.psu.edu/users/s/r/srs280/WELES%20Jazz%20Improvisation.html
 * http://music.tamucc.edu/new/sourcefiles/PDF/Theory/Helpful%20Websites.pdf
 * 75.53.34.231 (talk) 19:08, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * iwasdoingallright.com ear training tools are offered completely free of charge and include features that are specifically tailored to the needs of jazz musicians, jazz being an artform which relies heavily on well trained ears due to its improvisational nature. Some of the specific (and unique) features of the iwasdoingallright ear trainer include auto-play modes for hands free usage, jazz chord progressions with customizable rhyhthm section, random melodies including jazz licks, and modulation.Rg3000 (talk) 23:15, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * lenMus


 * lenMus is under GNU and fairly new. Because it's open source it can easily be improved upon and modified to meet the needs of anyone. There are several open source ear trainers but their scope does not extend as far as lenMus. lenMus by design is extremely scalable and dynamic with it's tabbed interface and chapter style organization.
 * 75.53.34.231 (talk) 19:08, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I scoured WP:NOTE and WP:RS and I wasn't able to find anything that supported the information here offered as evidence for inclusion. An explanation of how these facts satisfy criteria for inclusion, and fail to satisfy the criteria which indicate it should be excluded, would be helpful.  aruffo (talk) 00:13, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * You may continue to post your arguments in promotional links, as you believe all external links to be promotional. As someone who sells ear training software, you did not disclose your commercial benefit from the links not being listed, there is a conflict of interest over your intentions. I would be happy to debate real editors that don't have financial ties or commercial interests with this article, if one wishes to challenge the addition.75.53.40.237 (talk) 00:53, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Promotional links
To argue for or against a particular link please use this section from now on.

All of these links seem to have been promoting some kind of product or website rather than providing "information that could not be added to the article." See WP:LINKS.


 * Again, see WP:LINKS. aruffo 13:49, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I read WP:LINKS and it cleary states that "Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews and interviews." should be included. There were several ear training tools listed in the External Links section which are totally free, have no advertising, etc... tools that were specifically built to help others, and tools which readers of an "Ear Training" article could really benefit from.  Rg3000 6 June 2007


 * The primary culprit is #3 under Links normally to be avoided-- "Links mainly intended to promote a website." Also quoting from that page, under Advertising and conflicts of interest:  "This includes both commercial and non-commercial sites. You should avoid linking to a website that you own, maintain or represent, even if the guidelines otherwise imply that it should be linked."  aruffo 19:27, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


 * As stated previously, there were several ear training tools/sites that I attempted to re-add yesterday morning (not just one that I'm associated with). All are perfectly suited as external links for this article per the instructions in WP:LINKS since Flash, Java Applets, and other interactive content cannot be posted directly within this article (note: per the WP guidelines, none of the links linked directly to Flash or Java applets themselves).  Furthermore, some of the sites had interviews, reviews, and additional articles which similarly cannot be posted inline.  Again, all of that content is specifically mentioned under "What should be linked".  I don't understand why you'd think these links to useful ear training tools, which are free, on-topic, and not associated with any revenue stream or self-serving interest, could possibly be construed as a conflict of interest or merely as self-promotion.  I respect your interest to prevent link spam, but I believe your refusal to allow ANY links to ear training tools and related content is a tremendous disservice to all readers of this article.  With that in mind, I sincerely hope you will allow the benefit of these links to outweigh whatever personal grievances you many have.  Rg3000 11:27, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


 * That is one way to look at it. Another way to see it is that the LINKS policy is at fault.  Although I'm sure we could discuss the policy at length and in detail, the better solution is probably to quickly check with a Wikipedia admin who is more officially charged with policy interpretation and implementation, and see what (s)he says.  aruffo 16:32, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Promotional links are promotional links, whether or not they're segregated into a section called "External Links" or buried surreptitiously among legitimate content. aruffo (talk) 19:43, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Issues with the LINKS policy should probably be taken up with an admin. It might be easier for a non-anonymous user to do so.  aruffo (talk) 21:15, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The link that some anonymous user is persistently attempting to include in this site is clearly and explicitly disallowed by the LINKS policy. It might even be argued that this kind of activity is why the LINKS policy exists.  I am surprised that the reversions have gone past the recommended 3-reversion limit; typically, by this time, the user attempting to add the disallowed link has read the policy, or (as in the case above) consulted an admin and acknowledged that the link is not to be added nor allowed.  If an admin must be brought in to resolve the issue then I suppose it shall be so, but I encourage the anonymous user to examine the policies, the history of other attempts to include disallowed links, and especially the arguments put forth for the inclusion of such links (especially the "helpful for people who want to know" argument), so that they will understand Wikipedia's position on promotional links.  aruffo (talk) 21:41, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi I'm Erin, a music theory teacher in Texas. I've seen what you've done before on other articles like the music theory page. You removed commonly recommended sites like teoria.com and musictheory.net that students often use to practice the material they are studying. From your edit history it's clear you seem to have some kind of psychosis with removing all external links in many established articles, seeing all sites as promotional. Trainear is specifically for interval association to songs, which is exactly what the subsection is about. It also includes many links to the actual songs and exactly what time the intervals are played in the media. That fits the policy of, "Such pages could contain further research that is accurate and on-topic; information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail;". It honestly should be in an external links section, but such sections don't exist for any of the topics you edit. There is no "Three strikes and I'm right" Wikipedia policy, nor is there an authority registered users have over anonymous users. I see Rg3000 also tried to help you understand to no avail. As mentioned above, such logic is a detriment to Wikipedia and its readers. You are denying self improvement resources to students, based on the fact links are inherently promotional. Erin Fogle (talk) 23:22, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Ad hominem arguments are irrelevant. Whatever you suppose my mental state to be, the fact remains that links such as this are against Wikipedia policy, and my vigilance-- regardless of its origin or motivation-- is warranted, explicitly and directly, by Wikipedia policy.  The quote you've selected does not support your argument.  The quote explicitly indicates the desirability of further research.  The site you are proposing to link to contains no research.  Nor does the site contain additional encyclopedic information, which precludes the additional argument of whether it does or does not provide anything that could not be easily found with a simple web search.  The site you reference is relevant to the association of intervals with songs, but so are dozens of others which are equally non-notable.  The same argument that would include any one of them would, logically, encompass and include every one of them.  If the site you're attempting to promote featured scientific research demonstrating, for example, why intervals-to-songs are commonly used as ear-training schemes, or testing the effectiveness of such methods, then that would undoubtedly qualify as "further research that is accurate and on-topic".  The remainder of the quote is similarly unhelpful to argue for inclusion of such a link-- an encyclopedic article about puppies would therefore be susceptible to the inclusion of any site that features galleries of cute puppies, which are not only "specifically for [the topic], which is exactly what [the article] is about", but may also be described as "information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail."  (You will notice that, in fact, the puppies article contains no such links.)


 * In any event, these arguments have been made before, and will be made again, and each time the argument will resolve in favor of Wikipedia policy. So far, the interpretation of links policy has held fairly consistent, but if you insist that the decision must be made by some authority I'm sure it's easy enough to get a quick answer... again.   aruffo (talk) 23:50, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The site is specifically for associating songs to intervals. It plays a song associated to an interval in the event a interval is identified incorrectly. You can also customize which songs are played for which intervals. Please review the sites you remove in the future to avoid mistakes like you've made in the past: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Aruffo#Sight-Reading_Link and do explain how this link is much different from the one you also wrongly removed. Please find me all these not notable online apps that require no download which also associate songs to intervals. The program is intended to facilitate learning of intervals and is in itself the result of applied research. As a music theory teacher, I can tell you that denying resources to students just because it doesn't seem to have any personal unique scientific research that was published by some authoritative source is ridiculous. My students don't want research papers based on some graduate students theories; I want them to train the fundamentals. I also want musictheory.net, teoria.com and possibly other links to be added in the external links. It's not at all acceptable how you've been calling everything link spam and promotional without discussion in the articles you have edited. Erin Fogle (talk) 00:01, 12 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The site you've just mentioned was correctly removed and has remained so. Wikipedia policies, the available history of the many discussions for removal of various such promotional links, and the logical points which I have provided to illuminate the LINKS policy (especially the comparison to Puppies), all indicate that the link you intend to promote should be removed.  If this discussion were to continue I would challenge you to answer how the summed evidence, policy, logic, and history is somehow inapplicable to the site you intend to promote; however, the three-revert rule has now been violated for this article, so I have requested editorial assistance.  Although I am of course confident that the LINKS policy interpretation will remain as it has consistently been-- which is why I encouraged you to read and understand what's come before-- we'll find out together how it goes.  aruffo (talk) 00:23, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment from uninvolved editor Please firstly note that there is a difference between external links and inline citations/references. It seems as though some of these links that had been remoevd from EL are now being added inline. Per WP:LINKS and WP:RS, non notable blogs and self published sites not reliable sources. If these sites are really used and respected then there will be third party sources that back their inclusion. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and as such has to provide information that is referenced and can be trusted. If information on these sites can be written into article then it should be, Wikipedia strives to include content rather than just provide links to information held elsewhere. Please layout and discuss why the links in question should be included or not included, as this dispute has descended into an edit war.

and a couple of relevant for and against points from WP:LINKS"


 * Things that can be linked: 'Sites that contain neutral and accurate material.'


 * Links to be Avoided: 'Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority (this exception is meant to be very limited; as a minimum standard, recognized authorities always meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for biographies).'

Also, be sure to log in when editing, as it seems that recent edits continuing this dispute have been from an IP which should not be used as a way to get around WP:3RR as it constitutes WP:Sockpuppetry. Mfield (talk) 00:36, 12 November 2008 (UTC)


 * It's impossible to discuss sites on their merits when we have a guy that thinks his logic embodies Wikipedia policy and deletes any external links as promotional link spam immediately. He's made it clear there is no "debating" once he thinks you're wrong and acts as if he's an authority figure on Wikipedia policies. Debating consists of him telling you to read the policies until you agree with his bad logic. I request that an admin review his record to see what I'm talking about. He wipes out entire external link sections on articles. I'm sorry Aruffo, but Music Theory is not on the same level of complexity as puppies, and students don't go to the puppy wikipedia article to look for help in improving their puppy skills. There used to be an external links section in this article but it kept getting wiped clean because of Aruffo (in the music theory page too). I hope one day an admin will ban Aruffo for his clear abuse and misrepresentation of policies. Aruffo, you're a detriment to the site by denying resources that help students, I hope you're proud and feel you've accomplished something. I'm done wasting time with this BS. Erin Fogle (talk) 02:13, 12 November 2008 (UTC)


 * There's no need to walk away from it. Wikipedia is based on consensus editing. If you start a discussion here, present the facts and a majority of editors agree with your inclusions, then they will be able to remain in the article. I think there is certainly a case to be made for the links you have included, but as they may appear to fall foul of certain key policy points, you need to make that case. It's up to you to WP:PROVEIT. From a content standpoint, it's better to have material not included that might be controversial than to have it included and have people refer to it as fact/trustworthy when it has not been debated. If you can create consensus, then you will have an established position and discussion to refer everyone to. One editor cannot then go against the consensus of the community and delete links and material that have been agreed to be OK. Mfield (talk) 02:22, 12 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Good advice for some articles, but it doesn't work well on thinly edited articles. I had an almost identical situation on Sight_reading. That article currently has very few active editors and I am responsible for most of the recent content.
 * I proposed and added an EL to my sight-reading practice site on August 6.
 * After two months of no discussion, I marked the proposal "resolved" on October 7.
 * On October 13, Aruffo reverted it without discussion. I asked Aruffo to present his arguments on the talk page.
 * Aruffo and I discussed it until October 23 with no other editors getting involved.
 * I then acquiesced and left the link off because under the WP:COI and WP:EL guidelines, the link should not be added by me without a consensus. I've studied WP:EL extensively and believe the EL would be acceptable if added by someone else or if found acceptable by a consensus. I could have argued that position more assiduously, but my COI trumps any favorable arguments anyway, and there did not seem to be enough active (or interested?) editors to develop a consensus one way or another. So, I had to walk away. Incidentally, this is not Aruffo's fault. Aruffo was perfectly justified in challenging it, though I don't agree with some of Aruffo's interpretations of WP:EL. Qazin (talk) 03:43, 12 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I sheepishly realize that I may not yet have apologized for that revert without discussion... I am sorry about that.
 * I have aggressively worked against the inclusion of promotional links in a certain subset of articles, as my history will indeed show. It is possible, nonetheless, to excise the ad hominem attack and look directly at the issue as one of interpreting Wikipedia links policy.  Naturally if we agreed there would be no discussion, but it's a worthwhile discussion to have.  aruffo (talk) 04:06, 12 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I've said all I have to say and so has Aruffo. In the end he gets his way but with this, he won't have the same leverage in the future if he tries to be pushy saying the rules are set in stone and they reflect his actions. Fighting someone that repeats that philosophy over and over isn't a "a worthwhile discussion to have". This just establishes a reputation. Knowing I'll have to 'debate' with him for any resource I would recommend to my students is not worth the trouble, I know where the debate will go. Based on his reputation and actions the odds of coming to a consensus is 0%. It's like playing tennis with eggs, you can expect to go back and forth but it doesn't take much time before it becomes obvious you're getting nowhere and just making a mess. I'll leave it to future editors to debate what's worth it and what's not, stacking or refuting the statements I've made today.


 * Qazin, I think that sight reading web app is another example of a great resource that would benefit students wanting applied practice. Erin Fogle (talk) 04:18, 12 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Any discussion of an issue related to Wikipedia policy will generally be made by making reference to that policy. If the same contested issue recurs, it is inevitable that the same statements of philosophy, as interpretations of that same Wikipedia policy, will also recur.  If Wikipedia policy changes, the discussion will also change as a matter of course, and arguments which are now forceful may be made invalid.  All of us accept Wikipedia's policies as sole and authoritative determinant of our behavior here.  No one is preventing anyone from making any recommendations to their students.  I'm always interested-- obviously-- in discussing the external links policy for this and a handful of other articles; if that discussion is continued here I will continue to participate, but I will ignore any additional ad hominem attacks or straw man arguments.  aruffo (talk) 05:37, 12 November 2008 (UTC)


 * This is in fact a personal attack because the problem IS your unacceptable behavior. You say sorry to Qazin for reverting yet you've reverted many external links over and over again including entire sections without any discussion. You seem to think there's no place for external links on Wikipedia unless they're scientific research papers. You're basically willing to repeat the same thing until the other party shuts up. You're wrong about the link being promotional and your wrong here, and where you also blabbered in the sight reading argument, that somehow a google search is the answer to life for all external link needs. You thought that three reverts meant that somehow I'm abusing the system when in fact it meant discussion was needed before further reverts. Mfield has suggested that such sites CAN be linked so long as there is consensus on whether the site is worthy. You didn't even know how the site I suggested was related to interval song recognition, so as far as any authority, logic or pragmatism is concerned you hold no reliability. Your reputation of aggressively clearing all external links doesn't leave any room for debate. Your actions speak louder than words. There's no use in continuing with that. Erin Fogle (talk) 05:58, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Looking for solutions - are there any reliable references from e.g. academic publications/papers, industry publications or websites that reference the sites and/or products linked, and/or establish the notability of their creators in the field? For example if the creator of trainear.com has any mentions that establish him as an authority in this field then the link would be completely acceptable. This is something I know nothing about. Mfield (talk) 05:43, 12 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't know about the owner, but I haven't seen any other ear trainers that associate songs to intervals. It does the job well. Trainear.com was just the one that remained for a long time because it was linked inline when aruffo deleted all the external links. It's unique so far as the song associations section, however links like musictheory.net, teoria.com hold more weight and include tutorials as well as many interactive tools. As far as I know, besides the variety of ear trainers out there, those sites are the most referenced music theory sites referenced by music theory teachers. Free ear trainers like Good-ear.com and the software Solfege also might be worth mentioning but maybe better placed in a new ear training software category. I'll try to research a bit to give reliable reasons why they are worth it. I can say teoria, musictheory.net and good-ear have been around for a long time with high google pagerank from all the sites linking to them. Solfege has a huge amount of downloads on sourceforge. Trainear is rather new but also very unique. This isn't a very popular interest group so authority figures aren't the easiest to find. Erin Fogle (talk) 06:12, 12 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Teoria.com: Has been around since 1997 and has many lessons and interactive ear training tools. Probably the most linked to music theory site http://www.google.com/search?q=site:teoria.com


 * Musictheory.net: Has been around since 2000 and has many lessons and interactive ear training tools. Linked by MIT OCW http://202.197.54.115/OcwWeb/Health-Sciences-and-Technology/HST-725Spring2004/RelatedResources/index.htm and many other music theory sites http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=link:musictheory.net&btnG=Search


 * Solfege: 500 downloads a day http://sourceforge.net/project/stats/detail.php?group_id=1465&ugn=solfege&type=prdownload


 * Trainear: The youtube tutorial has gotten 160,000 views with positive ratings and many favorites http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K3kC_lYLAZw&fmt=18 . It's the only interval trainer that I've found that associates songs. Erin Fogle (talk) 06:48, 12 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for those.
 * Note that a simple Google linkback search to on "link:teoria.com" returns hits from multiple music departments at colleges in .edu domains. Taking one as an example, http://www.jjc.edu/Dept/FineArts/Music/day-of-percussion.htm, this college site also links to Musictheory.net.
 * Based on simply this degree of connection to academic sites, it is highly likely an argument could be made for notability of these sites, by the measure that would let them have their own articles. I am convinced that these two certainly have enough weight to merit their inclusion as links/references in this article, as long as their inclusion is balanced by adequate context in the article text. Adequate explanation would help to offset claims that the links are purely promotional. If a few others can agree on this point then suggest that the passage covering the sites with the links be hashed out here so it can be worded suitably neutrally and then be pasted in when agreed on.
 * I cannot pull significant back links to trainear.com and solphege, and I don't think that downloads and youtube viewings are adequate rationale without third party mention. These two would need further backing from some other source before the same rationales could be applied. Mfield (talk) 16:11, 12 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Here are some edu links for solfege [] . The problem with it is that if you search solfege there's no way to know in how many pages they're talking about the software. The official site doesn't have as many backlinks because people commonly link to the sourceforge download page rather than solfege.org. The solfege sourceforge all time stats report it has gotten 382,861 downloads. It's the only ear training software that I know that's free, open source, multi OS, and has most of the features most commercial ear trainers have.


 * Solfege has gotten 382,861 downloads, and the trainear tutorial has gotten 160,000 views. These may not seem like significant numbers compared to how well videos of cats do, but we're talking about ear training; they're probably the top downloaded in their category. Since trainear isn't downloadable there isn't a good way to gauge its use, but if the tutorial on how to use the program is an indicator then it's probably fairly popular. I could only find one edu site that links trainear http://www.people.vcu.edu/~bhammel/theory/new_menu/resources/dictation.htm . I found trainear.com through the youtube video mentioned above like 3 months back, the site is fairly new. It may not be an authority but again, it's the only ear trainer I've found that's specifically for associating songs and having it online based also helps. As far as intervals I recommend trainear over solfege so my students can hard code a song to reference if they ever have trouble sight signing. These really aren't as important as teoria.com and musictheory.net but provide applied practice Erin Fogle (talk) 17:35, 12 November 2008 (UTC)


 * re: Solphege, as a GFDL licensed open source project, I don't see how anyone could be complaining that a link to it is commercial in nature, it even shares the same free spirited license terms as all wikipedia content.


 * At this point I don't see how a software and training aids section, discussing the various most noted online training apps available and linking to them with references from .edu sources to back inclusion, could raise any red flags on WP:LINKS grounds, especially if the editors adding the links have declared and demonstrated no conflict of interest. Let's get that section written up here, proof it over, I'll post another link to it on Editor Assistance for some third party opinion and then leave it here for a few days to generate votes/objections and if no significant and merited opposition is forthcoming then i'll add it in. Mfield (talk) 17:53, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Please remember that external links are not appropriate for article bodies. I've seen many articles reduced to linkfarms once external links to free software start getting into the article body. Perhaps adding en external links section with the appropriate category would be an acceptable compromise. --GraemeL (talk) 18:58, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * That's really what I was intending. A paragraph that talks about the various apps etc, backed with in text citations, with the relevant apps linked from an EL section. As long as the ELs are directly relevant and covered by appropriately referenced text, they will not be summarily deleted. Mfield (talk) 19:06, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, sorry I misinterpreted your intentions. A correctly referenced section like that would of course be a good addition to the article. --GraemeL (talk) 19:09, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * So it seems like we have a 3:1 consensus here to make such a section to back the links that have been disputed and repeatedly removed. Erin Fogle, do you want to create a section and links and post it here for comment? Mfield (talk) 19:22, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't understand how the ear trainers article will be structured, but as far as the two resource sites something like:
 * Teoria: Music Theory site with exercises, articles, online trainers and lessons.
 * Musictheory.net: Music Theory lessons, online trainers and utilities.
 * The sites are very similar so maybe the same description is merited. Maybe there's a more standardized way of referencing online tools / web apps / online trainers. There's actually many music theory programs out there and it might be better to just categorize them into a music theory software section rather than specifically ear training. Maybe there should be a chart similar to these http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_MIDI_editors_and_sequencers http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_video_sharing_websites http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_media_players . Or maybe the list is too small, I don't know.


 * By the way, in pre-Aruffo times the Music Theory site had a pretty handy set of external links Aruffo just wiped out. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Music_theory&oldid=228298511 . There were some complains about his actions but nobody stubbornly made an effort to challenge the abuse. The links didn't just appear over night, here's it in 2007, and you can go further http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Music_theory&oldid=178363044 he wiped off the uncontested history of links. Same goes for the ear training article pre-Aruffo times http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ear_training&oldid=127643437 . Sure, it did need a little cleanup and debate probably but it's just flat out abusive to wipe and claim you encompass Wikipedia policies to all debating editors. He's done this in other categorize too, and as a parent, teacher and user of wikipedia, I'd like to see the abuse stopped. Erin Fogle (talk) 19:41, 12 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Just to bring it back on topic, as this page is not the place to be discussing other editors actions. I think a table would work but care needs to be taken to stick to a quick feature comparison so as to avoid pov/unreferenced opinion as it is not the place of WP to provide reviews. Alternatively a simple secion on software/training that provides some history and then moves onto modern methods and technology with how they have become commonplace. Something that provides more encyclopedic context. Mfield (talk) 20:07, 12 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately I can only recommend things from the POV of a Music Theory teacher. I don't know the history of ear training software and I haven't tried any commercial ear training software other than auralia. Music Theory has many different aspects so such a section wouldn't do much good if kept generalized. I wouldn't be sure how to structure something like that. Erin Fogle (talk) 21:01, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to add my support for the addition of an external link to trainear.com. Arguments for: Rebuttal of arguments against: Disclosure: the proposer added a comment in support of a link I had previously proposed, but that has not influenced me in supporting this proposal. Neither of us canvassed each other for support. Qazin (talk) 20:13, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Satisfies what should be linked # 3 "Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due ... other reasons." The "other reason" is that it is an application.
 * Is "proper in the context of the article (useful, tasteful, informative, factual, etc.)" and does not violate any of the restrictions or precautions of WP:EL.
 * "The site is note notable." There is a common misconception that notability is a requirement of the content and links in an article. This is false: "These notability guidelines only pertain to the encyclopedic suitability of topics for articles but do not directly limit the content of articles" WP:NOTAB. Notability of web sites (WP:WEB) does not apply to content either: "This page gives some rough guidelines which most Wikipedia editors use to decide if any form of web-specific content, being either the content of a website or the specific website itself should have an article on Wikipedia", which is consistent with WP:NOTAB.
 * "If we let this link in, we will have to let other links in." That is not true if WP:EL is followed. First, having one link does not require adding other links for the sake of being comprehensive since "Wikipedia's purpose is not to include a comprehensive list of external links related to each topic." Second, "Each link should be considered on its merits, using the ... guidelines." Third, "As the number of external links in an article grows longer, assessment should become stricter."
 * "The site doesn't contain additional research." WP:EL lists that as only one of the possible reasons to link to a site: "Wikipedia articles may include links to web pages outside Wikipedia. Such pages could contain further research that is accurate and on-topic; information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail; or other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to its accuracy." This link qualifies under the third reason. The reasons are all joined by "or", not "and."
 * "The link is not a reliable source..." or some other quality-of-citation argument. First, this is not a valid argument unless the link is a citation of a source, in which case WP:EL does not apply: "The subject of this guideline is external links that are not citations of article sources. ... Guidelines for sourcing, which includes external links used as citations, are discussed at Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Citing sources." Second, it is specifically not a requirement of an external link per WP:ELMAYBE, and in fact is one of the the types of links to be considered: "Sites which fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources."
 * "This is a promotional link." WP:ELNO #4 discourages "Links mainly intended to promote a website." Every link, by its nature, promotes the site it links to. The guideline discourages links which are "mainly intended" to promote, not which merely promote by the nature of their existence. No evidence has been offered that this is the case with this link.


 * The resolution of this discussion-- and many other identical discussions which will take place in the future-- surely rests on whether Wikipedia is intended to be an encyclopedic reference or a directory of "helpful links". All I'm aware of points to the former.  It appears from the discussion here that evidence is being assembled to demonstrate the encyclopedic value of links that have been proposed, and I'll undoubtedly weigh in again after there's evidence to weigh.  aruffo (talk) 22:27, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Off topic conversation commented out

please continue below.... Mfield (talk) 23:29, 12 November 2008 (UTC)


 * If I understand your concern over "... whether Wikipedia is intended to be an encyclopedic reference or a directory of helpful links..." correctly, you are making one or both of the following arguments which I will attempt to address below.
 * "WP should not be a directory of helpful links, therefore no helpful links should be added." I agree with your premise, but you have offered no evidence that connects it to your conclusion. WP:EL clearly allows the addition of some helpful links: "Some external links are welcome (see "What should be linked", below), but Wikipedia's purpose is not to include a comprehensive list of external links related to each topic. ... " This link falls under "What should be linked below" as I point out in the Argument For above. If you don't agree with the current guideline, please present your case on WT:EL to change it. I've done that on several points with satisfying results.
 * "If one or several helpful links are added, it will risk becoming a directory of helpful links." I addressed in rebuttal 2 above. Qazin (talk) 23:56, 12 November 2008 (UTC)


 * That's sort of on target. I've been trying to figure out what we're actually disagreeing about-- it doesn't do much good to continue referring to the same Wikipedia policies as the core of our discussion if we continue to interpret those same policies differently-- and I keep coming back to "helpful" links.  An immediate and obvious example is the one to a website at which people practice associating intervals to songs.  One editor believes the link should be included because it is "helpful".  Another editor may believe that associating intervals to songs is not only a useless endeavor, but damaging to his students' development, and would insist that the link be excluded because it is hurtful.  But neither of these editors can be said to be either "right" or "wrong" in their opinion.  If legions of academics not only espoused the practice, but specifically and publicly recognized a particular website as THE website for such practice, then the opinion of any individual editor over the "helpfulness" of the site would be rendered moot and the inclusion of that particular website could hardly be questioned.
 * So while I am essentially arguing that no helpful links should be added, the reason I am making that argument is that helpfulness can be a highly individualized judgment which cannot be objectively measured (and can be endlessly argued). If a site or link is to be independently included, as Earmaster has been, there should be adequate evidence that its inclusion is for a topically notable reason, beyond any individuals' opinions of its helpfulness or the success of its advertising campaigns in raising its own profile.  I think that the dmoz proposal is intriguing, because it simultaneously allows the statement that ear training software exists, provides the resources to anyone who wishes to find that software, and (if I'm understanding it correctly) is neutral to inclusion or exclusion by being comprehensively inclusive.
 * I'll be off-line for a while after this post, but I will naturally be interested to see what develops. aruffo (talk) 00:44, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Please find an academic paper or authoritative site that says that associating intervals to songs is somehow damaging. I can tell you as a Music Theory teacher that knows many other Music Theory teachers interval song association is what really helps students get jump started into really being able to identify intervals correctly. Even the Music Theory book we use "Theory Essentials" by Connie E. Mayfield, which is used by many many schools, contains on page 52 a list of song associations that it suggests students can use when trying to identify intervals. I have a mastery of intervals and I can tell you it's perfectly normal for a song or several songs to instantly come to mind upon hearing certain intervals. This does not degrade the ability and cannot in any way be described as damaging. I've found that students that make their own associations do far better on their exams and further courses than those that try based on teacher recommendations or don't associate songs at all. As far as the site I recommended, it is THE website that actually plays an associated song when incorrectly identifying an interval rather than just playing some kind of buzzer sound effect. Try to find another ear trainer that lets you customize songs for associations and let me know. If it were controversial there won't be a table with interval-song associations in the first place. That table has been the main reason I've recommended this Wikipedia article to my students in the past. Your argument went after the weakest recommended link of the proposed sites but make no mention or refutation of the evidence of notability I provided for the others. See chess (featured article), italian language, french language... There are many active articles in WIkipedia with helpful resources added with the same intentions I have. Erin Fogle (talk) 01:26, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


 * (This section is getting awfully long-- should it be archived or split? I don't know how to do that.)
 * Well, you do see my point, if indirectly. When someone makes an assertion we disagree with, it's only natural to demand evidence, corroboration, and validity, as you have rightly done.  It's not only fair, but reasonable and justified, for you to expect to be required to provide evidence, corroboration, and validity for your own assertions.  Notice, too, that you are demanding an academic paper or authoritative site as appropriate evidence-- not Google, not Youtube, not download counts, not other editors' opinions.  That's the kind of evidence that usually means something; that's the kind of evidence that tends to stick.
 * Curiously, although I had volunteered my example as a mere theoretical extreme (EDIT: and I had entirely forgotten that another editor did say exactly that, above, in the section labeled "overall objection"), I suddenly find that I do have an academic paper which supports the view. Tomorrow I will be attending the Auditory Perception, Cognition, and Action Meeting (APCAM) and as I look at the program, I see that the paper being presented at 9:20am asserts that melodies are not truly perceived as intervals, but as tonal scale values.  aruffo (talk) 05:41, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I am demanding from you what you demand from us with your standards, which is a perfectly reasonable request, and again, you make no note of the evidence of notability we've already provided or how it is not significant enough. I did see the other editor's remark, which I assumed was the basis of your example. Googling the username shows he was probably a music theory 101 student at the time of posting. Please show me how your document provides any evidence at all that using song association for interval recognition is damaging. Asserting that melodies are perceived as tonal scale values and not intervals does not somehow negate the usefulness of interval training nor have anything to do song associations as memorization. Musical scales are in fact made up of different intervals, and scale identification has its place in ear training too. It is natural that once the scale is identifiable the brain can start predicting the variation within the scale rather than seeing it as a compilation of conjoined intervals. If songs were perceived as a series of intervals, Music Theory teachers would not have such a hard time teaching students how to identify them. This again does not negate the usefulness of interval training. The first two notes of the song, which are the ones usually used for the interval association, have no scale established yet and are easily picked out. This argument is useless, example invalid and distracting from the point. Providing a "mere theoretical extreme" that actively attacks the proposed site is like a "tongue in cheek" comparison of a candidate to Hitler through a minimally correlated point. You're still planting the idea, admittedly giving a bad example, and distracting from the points that SHOULD be getting argued. It's distasteful. Erin Fogle (talk) 14:03, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


 * um... you really don't see my point. Let me try again more abstractly, so you don't get distracted by the example.
 * Editor A makes assertion X.
 * Editor B rejects assertion X.
 * Editor A is obliged to support assertion X.
 * However, even if Editor B is not present, in a scientific article Editor A should expect to be required to present meaningful evidence to support their assertion. Editor A should in fact be prepared to support their assertions regardless of whether an Editor B ever surfaces to offer a challenge.
 * The evidence required for a scientific article is not Google prominence, Youtube popularity, download quantity, sales figures, or editors' individual assessments of "helpfulness" (however impassioned). The average editor is not familiar with what kind of evidence is appropriate for a scientific article, and will typically volunteer this type of support, but the criteria which is applicable is enumerated in various Wikipedia policy documents.
 * Less abstractly-- It is not currently in question whether interval association is an effective strategy, because no one is attempting to say so in the article. What is asserted in the article is that many instructors use this strategy, and you have offered third-party evidence to support that assertion.  I have incorporated that evidence into the main article (which has prompted me to notice that most of the article seems to be unsourced).  What is in question, and what needs to be supported by evidence, is whether a link to any particular site is a legitimate contribution to this encyclopedic article.  The only issues I have with Qazin's interpretations is that they do not make it possible to discriminate between those sites which have legitimate encyclopedic value versus any random site which any random editor may claim is "helpful".  Thus far, although it has been suggested that appropriate evidence may exist for the inclusion of particular links, that evidence has not yet been explicitly presented.  When it has been sourced and presented, I am sure I will want to comment on it.  I doubt I will have more to say about this until then, although I would appreciate the cessation of ad hominem attacks and spurious judgments of my motivation and character.  aruffo (talk) 21:58, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Really, its would seem to be a very trivial matter to write up a section of prose that discusses the use of software apps used by various educational departments and what the benefits have been, and to back that with citations, whilst adding links to the apps in question in EL section. I almost feel that from all of what's been written in these arguments, I could construct that section with almost zero prior knowledge and 10 minutes at a book store. Doing this is what the whole original debate was about and it has been agreed as a way to move forward. I am kind of at a loss as to why it has not moved forward in any way but has instead dissolved into an another argument. If the point was to get the information included then a clear way to achieve that has been set out. Mfield (talk) 22:06, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Musictheory.net and teoria.com have theory lessons and apps, while Solfege and Trainear.com are purely ear trainers. A prose could resolve the issue with adding Solfege and possibly trainear but I'm pretty sure that most music theory departments don't usually explicitly mention software they use on their websites. The programs are used as a supplementary resource for practice and not considered necessary. From experience it seems the most common software used by universities are the commercial products: Auralia, McGamut and EarMaster. Much of that is because those companies actively contact us and provide ways to network all the students so teachers can immediately see progress and scores. I haven't seen any explicit recommendations or mention of software in any of the Music Theory texts we've had. Another issue is establishing which are the significant aspects of innovation programs have made through time which will inevitably shift between the commercial software. That might create an even worse debate and argument over the order of things and notability. My interest lies more in adding free resources I would recommend to my students for self study and practice. Erin Fogle (talk) 23:33, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Aruffo, evidence was already presented for all the links I proposed. It's your turn to say why you think the evidence is not notable, which I've been repeatedly trying to get you to answer specifically. I got your point a looong time ago, I assure you. Evidence that sites have thousands of sites linking to them, verifiably hundreds of thousands of downloads and views IS in fact establishing notability by the quantity of usage and high level sources. And as mentioned before, the fact that there's only one site that does a particular task (associate songs), does in fact, associate it as THE site to go to for training that particular topic. Hypothetical disagreement suppositions based on imagination doesn't help. If it wasn't the point please don't site sources to defend your non-points, otherwise you may have them challenged (accusing takes a lot less writing than solidly defending). If you really want me to manually dig up all the edu sites that link to them then I will. What is your arbitrary requirement in the amount of .edu sites required for inclusion? Please explain what exactly you'd need. People are NOT going to solicit a specific software or site while presenting their particular theory about music, that is not at all realistic. They will NOT reference student resources in their academic papers. You know who will reference these sites? All the Music Theory department websites, but you seem to reject them. At least you could have argued for Solfege, which were all directly .edu links. Erin Fogle (talk) 23:33, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


 * This is my final comment on this debate until a section appears for approval as discussed. Erin Fogle, please stop continuing to argue with Aruffo when a consensus has developed to back your side of the original argument. We have also agreed with the points you are currently continuing to debate, i.e. that .edu links are a reliable enough yardstick of notability to allow them to be used to back the inclusion of links to these software sites and apps. All you have to do is write a section of prose that places these applications in context, so as to avoid the perception of the article merely being a link farm. That is it. Any further argument is pointless until that happens, without the context the links are never going to be able to stay in, so if you want them included, then do as a number of previously uninvolved - and now exasperated - editors have suggested, and write some accompanying text for approval. Mfield (talk) 00:16, 14 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with the dmoz link proposal from GraemeL.  The addition of one link invariably leads to another and another.  Once you get a significantly large linkfarm, it can get ridiculous.  A dmoz link will allow all of the links to be present and allow readers to sift through them to find the resource that is appropriate to them which keeping the page in compliance with WP:EL.  This debate is nothing compared to the quagmire once you get into trying to debate which links are superior to others and which ones should go.  TastyPoutine talk (if you dare) ] 23:30, 12 November 2008 (UTC)


 * dmoz is fine in general I guess, but it definitely has some negatives. I just checked the dmoz theory and ear training software section and it's not exactly top notch. Debating here could bring GNU Solfege as the #1 priority as far as ear training software, whereas in dmoz they have it ordered alphabetically, with the first result being a new unheard of, nowhere recommended, shareware program. The same goes with the Music Theory dmoz page, there's also no editor and many links of dubious quality. dmoz seems abandoned for many non popular categories and editor link reviews and link cleanups can be rare. Erin Fogle (talk) 00:08, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Dmoz links are useful and encouraged by WP:ELMAYBE 3, however they are problematic when dmoz categories don't align with the WP article subject, of which this article is an excellent example. A dmoz search link would solve the problem, but WP:ELNO 9 deprecates links to all site searches, and I have nominated for deletion a dmoz search template which violates item 9. (Disclosure: I'm a DMOZ editor.) Qazin (talk) 00:32, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Proposed Subsection: Ear Development Through Software

Accurate identification and reproduction of musical intervals, scales, chords, rhythms, and other aspects of ear training often can require a great deal of practice. Exercises involving identification often require a knowledgable partner to play the questions and validate the answers. Software specialized for music theory can remove the need for a partner, customize the training to the users needs and accurately track scores and progress. University music departments often license popular commercial software for their students such as: EarMaster, Auralia and MacGAMUT; allowing them to track and manage student scores on a computer network. A variety of free software also exists both as browser based applications and downloadable executables. For example, GNU Solfege is a free and GPL open source software that can provide many comparable features to popular commercial products. The majority of ear training software are MIDI based, allowing the user to customize the instruments that play and even accept input from MIDI compatible devices such as electronic keyboards. Teoria and MusicTheory are two notable websites that provide many browser based ear training tools that can be used without requiring users to download and run an executable. TrainEar is a recent browser based ear trainer specifically for helping associate musical intervals to songs.

Erin Fogle (talk) 02:28, 14 November 2008 (UTC)


 * That is a great sub-section, but it would be even greater if you could find some source references to cite. Here is an example that might be useful. This shows how I related a relevant and useful External Link to the context of the article. If you add links for the sites, be sure they are in an External Links section since embedded links are strongly discouraged, even for source references. My example is an historical view since the link was subsequently removed due to a lack of consensus for the link, which I suggested on the talk page according to the conflict of interest guidelines. Qazin (talk) 02:48, 14 November 2008 (UTC)


 * That is an excellent start. Well done. Per Qazin, it just needs some in-line references to establish the notability and context and it will be good to go. Mfield (talk) 03:00, 14 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Should it be referenced with the superscript references or should it just be described in-line somehow. Can I referenced this talk subsection where more evidence or refutations may be stacked in the future? There's a lot of edu sites that link to some of these. Should I just use examples from a few of the more prominent universities and if so how many? Erin Fogle (talk) 04:13, 14 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Do it either via simple or the more comprehensive tag method. You can word it in as well, for example..


 * "the xxxx piece of software is recommended for in college music programs such as yyyy college ."


 * The link to the app site such as http://www.sourceforge.com/xxx/app.html would then go in the External Links secion. Mfield (talk) 05:01, 14 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Note that the references will not show up as footnotes until they are on the actual page with the refernence section. Alternately you could create the section in userspace e.g. at User:Erin Fogle/scratchpad and put a reference section after the text with a tag and you would be able to see the refs as they will look on the page. Mfield (talk) 05:10, 14 November 2008 (UTC)


 * How about this

Accurate identification and reproduction of musical intervals, scales, chords, rhythms, and other aspects of ear training often can require a great deal of practice. Exercises involving identification often require a knowledgable partner to play the questions and validate the answers. Software specialized for music theory can remove the need for a partner, customize the training to the users needs and accurately track scores and progress. University music departments often license popular commercial software for their students such as: EarMaster, Auralia and MacGAMUT ; allowing them to track and manage student scores on a computer network. A variety of free software also exists both as browser based applications and downloadable executables. For example, GNU Solfege is a free and GPL open source software that can provide many comparable features to popular commercial products. The majority of ear training software are MIDI based, allowing the user to customize the instruments that play and even accept input from MIDI compatible devices such as electronic keyboards. Teoria, MusicTheory and Good-Ear are notable websites that provide many browser based ear training tools that can be used without requiring users to download and run an executable. TrainEar is a recent browser based ear trainer specifically for helping associate musical intervals to songs.


 * Better reference sites that recommend multiple sites I've suggested
 * http://music.agnesscott.edu/theory.htm recommends Musictheory.net, Good ear, Solfege, teoria
 * http://home.minneapolis.edu/~paulyel/shared_files/software/musictheory.htm recommends teoria, good ear, solfege
 * http://www.mcneese.edu/theatre/index2.htm recommends Musictheory.net, Good ear, Solfege
 * http://www.southernct.edu/music/links/ recommends solfege, musictheory.net
 * http://www.ulm.edu/~everett/auralskills.html recommends Solfege, Goodear
 * http://uweb.txstate.edu/~ns13/courses/Theory_Resources.html recommends Teoria, Good Ear, Musictheory.net
 * http://courses.dce.harvard.edu/~musie100/ recommends Teoria, IWasDoingAllright.com, MusicTheory.net Rg3000 (talk 22:51, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * http://www.ethnomusic.ucla.edu/courses/winter/2009/129b/syllabus.htm recommends IWasDoingAllRight.com Rg3000 (talk 22:51, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * There are a lot of sites that reference the programs but this seem to clearly state their endorsement or use
 * MacGAMUT http://www.ruf.rice.edu/~gottsch/functional/, "Students will be required to use MacGAMUT to practice their aural skills." http://ems.music.uiuc.edu/courses/tipei/M113/index.html
 * Earmaster http://music.tamucc.edu/new/theory_files/Page351.htm, http://faculty.plattsburgh.edu/drew.waters/elementary120b_home.htm
 * Auralia longurl Erin Fogle (talk) 16:06, 14 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Excellent. I am putting it into the article. Further improvment can be made to it in situ, as it stands it has answered the original questions as to notability and context. Mfield (talk) 16:23, 14 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the patience and help. Erin Fogle (talk) 16:37, 14 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Groovy. I dig it.  Thanks also.  aruffo (talk) 20:28, 14 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Comparing the different sites, there seems to be a difference between "recommending (as you should use it)" and "including in a list of things (if you feel like checking it out)." aruffo (talk) 05:00, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Let me get this straight... I initiated this debate with Aruffo. I was cited by Erin in her argument to add external links to ear training tools.  Arfuro finally relents and "allows" ear training tools to be linked to this article.  I then play by Arfuro's rules and a couple of educational references that link to my free ear training tools (which have more features/flexibility than some of the approved ones), and not less than 24 hours later Arfuro removes my link?!  This guy is unbelievable.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rg3000 (talk • contribs) 11:46, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * No, that's not straight. "This guy" simply happens to have this and a few other articles on a watchlist.  The only thing that I do not wish to "allow" is your attributing Wikipedia's rules to me as though I'd invented them.  I don't have any "rules" to be played by (except perhaps spelling my own name correctly), and even if I did, who cares?  My rules wouldn't matter.  This isn't my sandbox.  I'm not an administrator.  I'm an editor just like you.  If any editor has a different interpretation of the rules than does another editor, and they're at loggerheads, then one or both should appeal to the authority whose rules they actually are.  As was done before, on this very topic, for this very reason.  If it comes to the point, even if it weren't for self-promotion, WP:LINKS also excludes iwasdoingallright as its rule #11:  "Links to blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority (this exception is meant to be very limited; as a minimum standard, recognized authorities always meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for biographies)."  If your site isn't a blog, if you're not engaging in self-promotion, if those web pages are actually endorsing your site and not just offering suggestions of "other resources", if you are notable enough to warrant your own Wikipedia entry, then I would expect anyone to agree that your link should remain, and agree that its removal was thoroughly unreasonable (perhaps even "unbelievable").  I can understand your annoyance and frustration at me personally because I am the one editor most persistent in noting any violations of LINKS policy made in this article (perhaps I'm the only one even bothering), but it's unrealistic for you or anyone to pretend that I invented Wikipedia's rules or attribute to me any greater authority than you have yourself.  aruffo (talk) 13:54, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Aruffo... I did not link to my blog. I linked to a landing page for my ear training tools.  I could link to the actual tool if that would appease you, but I don't see the difference.  Furthermore, my tools are also linked to by similar sites as the ones which apparently validated the inclusion of the other External Links (see my links from Harvard and UCLA posted above).  I fail to see how linking to my ear training tool is somehow not allowed, when you've allowed links to Teoria and TrainEar.  My tool isn't promotional at all.  I don't charge any money for my tools, I don't ask people to donate, I don't even have any advertising.  Both Teoria and TrainEar, however, do ask for donations and/or solicit membership fees.  I simply want people who come to Wikipedia's Ear Training page to have access to my tools which many people have found useful.  You, however, single-handedly continue to prevent this.  And now it makes even less sense than before, given your willingness to allow other tools but not mine.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rg3000 (talk • contribs) 14:58, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Please stop pretending that these are my rules and that you are somehow in my power.
 * There are plenty of "useful" things in the world that nonetheless do not merit encyclopedic mention. This is not an issue of value, sincerity, or intent, but of notability.  If you "fail to see" how Wikipedia guidelines operate to exclude your link, please ask an administrator to explain them to you or re-read the prior discussion; that which I would write in reply here, I already wrote there.  aruffo (talk) 21:31, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I've read through the previous argument between Aruffo and Erin, I saw the editor intervention where you (Aruffo) were finally convinced to allow external links. External links are now allowed and my ear trainer has educational references as noted above (I can provide more).  My ear training tool has unique features such as auto play, random melody generation, modulation, jazz lick melodies, simple song melodies, and even random chord progressions with a rhythm section.  So, why are tools like Teoria and TrainEar allowed, but my tools aren't?  I commend Erin for fighting a terrific fight, I don't see why I should have to fight it again...Rg3000 (talk) 22:29, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Because it's not a fight to be won, it's a case to be built. The case to be built is for notability, not value.  It doesn't matter how wonderful a product is, how little it costs, how sincere its provider, or (ultimately) whether or not the person who created it is the one to propose its inclusion into Wikipedia.  What matters is whether or not it's notable according to Wiki guidelines.  Erin built a strong case for the notability of those particular products, which not only merited and warranted but necessitated their inclusion.  Again, it was not and could not be my decision to "allow" anything.  Any reasonable person examining Erin's case for the products' notability, evaluating that case according to the guidelines set forth by WP:NOT, would be compelled to agree.  Anything I might say to the contrary becomes worthless and impotent in the face of the objective case.
 * If you want a link included, don't bother arguing with me; as you've seen, it's possible to go round and round for days on that sort of thing without a hint of resolution. Check out WP:NOT and WP:LINKS and assess for yourself how to build the case for its inclusion.  It is a weak case to assert "the rules for inclusion apply to me, and the rules for exclusion don't."  It is a strong case to demonstrate notability according to the explicit criteria that have been delineated.  aruffo (talk) 01:24, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Aruffo, it isn't my intention to argue with you now, nor has it ever been. I read through this discussion, and attempted to follow the guidelines that you agreed to (cite references to prove notability, make a case, etc).  When I added my ear training tool, I cited links from Harvard and UCLA.  The UCLA link is especially notable because I am the ONLY ear training tool they mention and because it is recent.  As I'm sure you've noticed, most of the other references used are dated/broken and may not even represent the modern landscape.  I also followed the guidance of the wikipedia editor who said we should consider the uniqueness of any external link.  In other words, does the tool have a truly unique feature set that warrants its inclusion?  The Teoria tool was specifically mentioned as unique because it uses songs in the exercises.  Using that example, I specified how my ear training tool is different by listing several features that no other ear training tools have.  The auto play feature is an ideal example since it allows you to setup the ear training tool and play along on your instrument, improving your aural skills on your instrument, rather than simply clicking buttons and taking tests.  The jazz, melody, modulation, modulation, etc features of my tool are also unique.  Given the above, I believe I have followed the WP rules and especially the rules as they were interpreted in the previous discussion.  At this point I'm relying on you to agree.  Have I made my case now? Rg3000 (talk) 21:36, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps-- can you point out where Wikipedia policy shows that "unique feature sets" are a criterion for inclusion? I took another look at the links and notability policies; I did see an item that specifically said that a thing can be notable enough to warrant being mentioned in an article while not being notable enough to justify its own article, but the only criteria I can find for inclusion are "reliable sources".  In that regard, I think the case could be stronger, as catching the attention of a teacher or two doesn't seem quite the same as being required for use by a nationally-revered music program.  aruffo (talk) 18:46, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Yet another example of unnecessary guarding of article. --Nevit (talk) 12:43, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Aruffo. You said "Perhaps"... now we're getting somewhere!  That wasn't sarcasm, btw, I genuinely appreciate the consideration.  I mentioned the unique feature set as compelling because in the earlier discussion, Mfield said "A paragraph that talks about the various apps etc, backed with in text citations, with the relevant apps linked from an EL section. As long as the ELs are directly relevant and covered by appropriately referenced text, they will not be summarily deleted."  Since I have unique features, I can mention them in the "Software Training Methods," thus explaining and justifying the inclusion of the ear training tool.  This is similar to what was done with TrainEar in the last sentence of the "Software..." paragraph of the article.  Also, I spent a little more time looking through my traffic logs for educational links and found a few more:


 * https://oncampus.oberlin.edu/webapps/blackboard/content/listContent.jsp?course_id=_20238_1&content_id=_283520_1 (I'm the first tool mentioned)
 * http://hrsbstaff.ednet.ns.ca/clarkedc/Music%20Links%20and%20Contact%20info/music_links.htm (I'm the first ear training tool)
 * http://chorus.ryecityschools.rhs.schoolfusion.us/modules/groups/integrated_home.phtml?gid=787125&sessionid=388a99a031ea20229946482f726bfe68 (I'm the only ear training tool *mentioned)
 * http://schools.bvsd.org/boulderhigh/departments/music/apmusictheory.aspx (I'm in the "Ear Training Tools" link at bottom right)
 * http://www.uni-graz.at/~parncutt/publications/GuPa08.ppt (My ear training tool is used as a reference in the last slide)


 * Hopefully with these additional links, the unique features, and previously agreed upon decision to include external links to ear training tools, I now have your approval. If so, I'll add an additional sentence to the "Software Training Methods" paragraph that mentions my tool and the unique features (auto-play, random melodies, jazz exercises) so there's something to justify the addition of the External Link (per Mfield).  Thanks again for the consideration. Rg3000 (talk) 00:39, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Again, it's not my approval you're after, it's "reliable sources" according to Wikipedia guidelines (which in turn create the case for notability of your product). The decision is made by those two sets of criteria, not by editor "approval".  If I "approve" and your links/product do not fulfill those criteria, anyone could delete it later with easy justification.  If I (or anyone else) "disapprove" and yet your links/product clearly fulfill those criteria, then you simply ignore the complaints and include the content.
 * To that end, rather than my "rendering judgment" on the work you've already done, it should be enough for you to double-check these links versus Reliable sources and point out why/how what you've found are reliable sources according to what's explained there. In truth, any assertion needs only one reliable source.
 * Alternately, or additionally, you could find the Wikipedia policies which explain that unique features are an accepted criterion for content inclusion, which would also trump potential complaints or deletions. aruffo (talk) 08:33, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I have to admit that I'm a little confused here. In the previous discussion with Aruffo, Erin, Mfield and others it was agreed upon that academic links were sufficient to prove notability and thus inclusion in this article.  I read the Reliable Sources article and see that this was likely based on the Scholarship and/or Academic Consensus sections.  I think "Usage by other Sources" also applies here.  I've cited several links from academic institutions, including some links where I am the only tool that's recommended.  I mention this point because there was earlier discussion that being cited in a long list of links isn't necessarily as meaningful.  These are the exact same types of links that were agreed upon previously and based on what Mfield stated (and I quoted earlier) with these types of links and with the relevant text in the "Software..." section, the external links "will not be summarily deleted".  Also, you just said I only need one reliable source.  If that's the case, I'd think the UCLA and Harvard certainly fit into the "accepted, high-quality" category mentioned under "Usage by other Sources."  But again, I provided several links from academic institutions, so I'm not following why there continues to be any objection from you nor do I understand what's left for me to prove (Aruffo). And we both know I really do need your approval to add the links since without it they'll be gone within a few hours... ;-) Rg3000 (talk) 11:23, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * As long as you continue to believe that you need my approval you will continue to be confused. If I wanted to edit the Face recognition article by adding the statement "Facial identity and facial expression are processed separately" I would be able to do so without anyone's approval or permission.  All I would have to do is cite a single reliable source whose evidence supports that assertion.
 * The existence of sources isn't the issue-- the evidence that they provide is. The reason for requiring a reliable source isn't because of mere reputation (which would create a appeal to authority fallacy), but to clarify that the evidence presented by that source can be trusted.
 * In the case of the ear training products that Erin put forth, the academic links demonstrated that those products were used and required by notable institutional programs as part of their regular curriculum. I didn't look at all the links you provided, but a couple of them seemed to show merely that a professor was aware of your product and thought that maybe their students could benefit from it too.
 * I'm basically asking you to please follow the simple process that makes anyone's approval unnecessary. If you start with an assertion ("University music departments often license commercial software"), find evidence from a reliable source that supports that assertion (ULM's Aural Skills course webpage explicitly shows that Auralia is part of the curriculum), and cite that evidence as a reference in the article (as has been done), then no one-- no one-- can justifiably delete your contribution.  If someone claims that your assertion is invalid, you point out the evidence.  If someone claims that your evidence is invalid, you point out the reliability of the source.  If there is no reliable source, if there is no evidence, then the inclusion or exclusion of any content is up to editorial whims and, yes, "approval".  If there is evidence from a reliable source, a contribution is bulletproof.  aruffo (talk) 04:50, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * None of Erin's links say that the currently linked-to external tools are "required." The context in her links (at least the ones not broken) is exactly the same as most of the links I posted (i.e. recommended links for students).  The Harvard link that I posted, however, does at least mention my tool under "Course Links" along with several other links that point to content on Harvard's server, including their syllabus and worksheets.  That suggests the tool could be part of their curriculum and it is certainly as good or greater endorsement than any of the links Erin provided to justify the existing External Links.  And this is the source of my confusion... I have provided the exact same type of justification that Erin provided yet for some reason it isn't good enough for you (Aruffo). Rg3000 (talk) 11:04, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Good point. At your suggestion I have removed the broken links and the content associated with those broken links.  What remains should make the point much clearer.  The assertion is that "music departments license commercial software".  If you follow the link offered as a reference for each of those software programs mentioned, you will discover at the other end some music department that has licensed that commercial software.  Are these reliable sources?  Not really.  They do support the assertion in a way that would be foolish to refute, but because these pages aren't actually published (in the scientific sense) they too could disappear and take their associated content with them.
 * Again, if someone wants to add content, then they must make an assertion and support it with reliable evidence. Otherwise that content becomes subject to opinion and whim.  aruffo (talk) 12:00, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The decision to remove the entire External Links section and the names of the free tools is yours alone, Aruffo. Please do not characterize that as my suggestion. I never once stated that we should remove anything. I simply argued for the inclusion of my tool based on terms that you, Erin, Mfield, etc agreed to previously.  I need a break from this (you may like one as well).  Hopefully another editor will chime in at some point. Rg3000 (talk) 22:02, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry to have been confusing. I didn't take the time beforehand to confirm that the links we were discussing actually provided the information that I said they did.  As a direct consequence I started this conversation saying that those links provided evidence which they clearly didn't-- I can see why it seemed that I was being capricious and fickle.  Now, though, what remains does make sense, and it's even possible to go back to what Mfield was saying to point out why (text copied below is from Mfield's earlier writing)
 * "Based on simply [a] degree of connection to academic sites, it is highly likely an argument could be made for notability... I am convinced that these two certainly have enough weight to merit their inclusion as links/references in this article, as long as their inclusion is balanced by adequate context in the article text. Adequate explanation would help to offset claims that the links are purely promotional. If a few others can agree on this point then suggest that the passage covering the sites with the links be hashed out here so it can be worded suitably neutrally and then be pasted in when agreed on... I cannot pull significant back links to trainear.com and solphege, and I don't think that downloads and youtube viewings are adequate rationale without third party mention. These two would need further backing from some other source before the same rationales could be applied. Mfield (talk) 16:11, 12 November 2008 (UTC)"
 * The adequate explanation Mfield was asking for is the statement that university music departments license those specific software packages for their curricula. Although the sources provided are not strictly "reliable" they are obviously authentic in their support of that explanation.
 * To include mention of (and a link to) the iwasdoingallright ear training tool, all that's needed is an explanation of why it's notable and evidence to support that explanation. I would argue (and have been arguing, although with the wrong evidence, for which I again apologize) that "A few college professors have noticed it" does not demonstrate notability, an observation clarified by comparison to "music education institutions require students to use it."  Having unique features is not inherently a criterion for notability.  If there is some convincing explanation of why iwasdoingallright is notable, especially if that explanation explicitly mirrors the Wiki criteria for notability, then that's its ticket into this (or any relevant) article.
 * Alternatively, if you just want to have a link to your site, another way to get mentioned without being overtly promotional is to host some reliable source on your site and include article content that links to that as a reference. As an example, if you said something in this article like "University programs began teaching ear training in the year [whatever]" and had on your website a PDF or an HTML representation of a pre-1923 (i.e., public domain) scientific article that provided evidence for that statement, you could write the article content here, add the reference, and provide the link to the referenced article on your site.  aruffo (talk) 07:59, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

To argue for or against a particular link please use this section from now on.