Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of classical music riots


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep.  Sandstein  11:39, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

List of classical music riots

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )



This was prodded, and the prod rationale makes some valid points, but given the topic's potential to be a valid topic, this would benefit from the greater scrutiny of an AfD. The prod rationale was as follows: "This article has been around for a decade without any sufficient citations. When they are provided, they don't support the page's own definition of what a riot is. Given the persistent lack of evidence to support the notion that these pieces caused a riot, the page should be deleted and replaced with a category." Arxiloxos (talk) 20:44, 8 May 2015 (UTC)


 * As I wrote on the nominator's talk page: If nothing else, then solely the most striking cases of music impacting on the world of art, this particular overlap between the domain of music and society, seems sufficient in itself to justify that the article should be retained. If there is music psychology, how would anyone question the most tangible instances of music sociology? Irrespective of the condition of the article (and a dozen examples are far from few), the topic itself lends significance to the article. (In the worst case, the specific incidents may be divided by whether they were riots as such or other obvious expressions of outrage.) In short, my vote is unequivocally keep. Adam78 (talk) 23:42, 8 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep: There are 12 riots listed, 3/4ths of which have citations.  Of the ones I could check out, all used the word "riot" without qualification or further details, but that should be enough for Wikipedia, they're proper secondary sources, right?  The riot at the premiere of Stravinsky's The Rite of Spring is particularly well known, and I see the first listed, while not fitting the usual definition, emptied into a riot that sparked the independence of Belgium, which is no small thing; you might say it's more evidence of the Power of Music, echoing the general point Adam78 makes above. Hga (talk) 17:21, 9 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete:There only 8 citations on the page, 3 of which are direct links to content where the word "riot" appears. Still, that is not enough for Wikipedia. There must be a definition of what a classical music riot actually is, and according to this page, it is "violent, disorderly behavior". Of the 3 available sources, none of them describe behavior that fits this definition. Most of the entries on this list were not actual riots. They were variations on the well-known practice of claquers. It is extremely misleading to label them as riots. Trumpetrep (talk) 02:05, 10 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep This is a well-known phenomenon which passes WP:LISTN. For example, see The Social and Applied Psychology of Music. Andrew D. (talk) 08:41, 10 May 2015 (UTC)


 * That citation just demonstrates the reason why this article should be scrapped. The passage you linked to misstates basic historical facts and repeats myths which are untrue. That kind of bad history has no place on Wikipedia.Trumpetrep (talk) 12:19, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The word "riot" has many shades of meaning (the OED lists 12, covering various types of extreme emotion and protest). It seems clear that it is commonly used for occasions of this sort, regardless of the details.  For another example of this usage, see 10 of the best: Musical riots.  The author of that piece, Tom Service, has a doctorate and now lectures and writes on music.  If you dispute his scholarship, then you must provide other sources as we can't delete such material purely on your say-so. Andrew D. (talk) 22:03, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Tom Service is a fine critic who wrote a dissertation about John Zorn, but did you actually read that article? He actually cites viewer's complaints to the BBC for broadcasting Birtwistle's Panic as a riot. Surely you see how ridiculous that is. There are no shortage of people who are happy to make money off of exaggerating what actually happened (and why) at these so-called riots, but that, however, is a separate issue from the one at hand.
 * Please take a moment to click through to the riot article that is used on the page to define a "Classical Music Riot". You will see how inappropriate the word "riot" is for the behaviors on display in these instances. This page is an indiscriminate collection of information, which is grounds for deletion on Wikipedia. Most of the listed "riots" do not meet the page's own definition of what a riot is. If you look at the Talk page, you will see the history of my suggestions on how to improve this page, which include redefining the word "riot" to one not found in English or another label that is in fact more accurate.
 * People seem emotionally attached to this page, and I have no objection to fixing it. But for three years no one has taken an interest in improving this page. If proof of a riot is to come in sources like a wildly overblown Guardian blog post or rote repetitions of myths, that is insufficient. So, it seems reasonable to just delete it altogether. Trumpetrep (talk) 22:48, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Two editors worked upon the article last year; they just didn't get much done. I turn up now and start producing substantial sources, which seem to be low-hanging fruit.  Here's another one which has an extensive account of the matter.  It uses the word riot too and links the topic to violent melees which occurred at exhibitions of modernist art: Movement, Manifesto, Melee.  The ease with which one can turn up such sources demonstrates that this is just another case where more work is needed.  This is quite normal for our topics because only about 1% have been recognised as good quality. Wikipedia is a work-in-progress, does not have a deadline and so it is explicit policy that articles may be imperfect. Andrew D. (talk) 08:18, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Let's not misstate facts. There was no concerted effort by any editor other than myself last year to improve this article, as the edit history clearly shows. Hyacinth made three helpful edits one day, but that's it.


 * Moreover, let's not pretend like the sources you've provided aren't low-hanging fruit for a reason. They are repeating pernicious myths and grossly exaggerating historical events. Music scholarship has grown past the days when this kind of hyperbole was acceptable.


 * Lastly, you have provided your first good link: to Mr. Cohen's book. Perhaps unwittingly, you provided the very kind of language that should replace the word "riot" in this article, if it is to be kept. On page 147, he lists a handful of pieces that received a "hostile audience response". That is language that accurately describes what is being inaccurately called a "riot" in most of these instances. If this page were to remain on Wikipedia, it should be renamed to accurately reflect the fact that the listed compositions did not always provoke a riot, but rather, particularly notable disapproval from its audience. Trumpetrep (talk) 13:42, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * We shouldn't get too hung up on the word riot as, while it seems to be the most common usage, there are other fighting words used such as scandal, storm, battle, melee, disruption, tumult, upheaval, demonstration, fisticuffs, donnybrook, &c. "Hostile audience response" isn't good enough because a key point about many of these events is that there were two sides acting up - the pro and the contra.  For example, "...so determined were both sides to fight each other that the music quickly became lost in the battle...".  The accounts remind me of what we see here on Wikipedia - disputes between inclusionists and deletionists, such as this very discussion. :) Andrew D. (talk) 17:04, 12 May 2015 (UTC)


 * With that quote from Cohen, you have (perhaps inadvertently) hit precisely on the reason why "riot" is such a misguided, inaccurate, and unhelpful term in this situation. The fact that these disturbances were often preordained, as either ongoing skirmishes in petty style wars (Nijinsky) or outright publicity stunts (Antheil), is indicative of the fact that nothing resembling a "riot" was in fact taking place. While I grant that "List of Classical Music With Hostile Audience Responses" is not as catchy as the current title, it's far more accurate and welcoming of the type of entries that people seem to want to include.


 * The fact of the matter is, if you want to create a list of every time a classical piece was met by booing or worse, you'd have something akin to the Yellow Pages on your hands. I have no problem with such a list. I could see real value in an article that marks instances of open hostility to a piece of music. Again, I would beseech you another time to look at the history of this page, the edit history of the article, and its talk page to see that I have no problem with keeping this page, as long as it is accurate.


 * The problem is that the page clearly defines what a riot is, and then proceeds to name things that do not meet this definition. It's hard to take an editor seriously when he says that we shouldn't get hung up on the operative word in the title of an article. What else is the purpose of an encyclopedia? If words and their meanings are not to be taken seriously, why bother?


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 12 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep – The article lists a number of well known and often discussed incidents and provides sources. It may be imperfect, but that's no reason to delete it. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:44, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Imperfection is not why it's being nominated for deletion. It's being nominated because it is an indiscriminate collection of information. The page's definition of a riot is not met by most of the pieces listed on this page. That's why either a different term (and title) should be used, or the page should be deleted.


 * The fact that these instances are "well known" and "often discussed" is all the more reason to discuss them with accurate language. Take a look at the Talk page, when you have a minute, and click through to the "riot" article that is used to define the term on this page. Clearly, you can see that this page's flaws go beyond imperfection and into a category that does not merit inclusion in Wikipedia without a wholesale revision of the article.Trumpetrep (talk) 13:53, 12 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep – Fine, then lets improve the list to include accurate language, but this is a much-discussed, highly notable topic in classical music. "Classical music riots" re-directs to this page, btw.    78.26   (spin me / revolutions) 16:14, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.