Talk:Sol Babitz

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. You can locate your hook here. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:53, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that violinist Sol Babitz, a pioneer in historically informed performance, was twice evicted by the police from meetings of the American Musicological Society?

• Source: *Haynes, Bruce (2007). The End of Early Music: A Period Performer's History of Music for the Twenty-First Century. Oxford University Press. p. 130. ISBN 978-0195189872. When it met in Los Angeles, the American Musicological Society twice had Sol Babitz, a distinguished violinist and one of the honored pioneers of HIP, physically thrown out of its meetings by the police. At the time, Babitz's historical discoveries were disconcerting, and his manner of presenting them may have been different from that of many musicologists.

• • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Vidoe Smilevski

5x expanded by 4meter4 (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 130 past nominations.

4meter4 (talk) 21:31, 31 January 2026 (UTC).

• It's a B article after a large expansion of greater than five times. It has lots of refs and some good sources. I can't access the key ref but happy to AGF. I removed "twice" from the hook as I couldn't see a ref for that exact bit, apart from that its all fine. I would have linked American Musicological Society but its your call. Well done. Victuallers (talk) 13:24, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

Victuallers Twice is directly in the quote I provided in this thread. Please read the quoted text. It’s the source used with an inline citation in the article as well with the hook fact. When it met in Los Angeles, the American Musicological Society twice had Sol Babitz, a distinguished violinist and one of the honored pioneers of HIP, physically thrown out of its meetings by the police. At the time, Babitz's historical discoveries were disconcerting, and his manner of presenting them may have been different from that of many musicologists.4meter4 (talk) 13:42, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

Oops. Still Victuallers (talk) 18:50, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

Victuallers, AGF approvals are no longer accepted at DYK. If you aren't satisfied by the sourcing and the information you've been given here, please let the nominator know what information you need them to provide to you for you to give this a full approval. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:46, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset: The quote is viewable here, so this doesn't even need to be an AGF tick. That said, since when has providing offline sources with provided quotes been deemed unacceptable at DYK? That's news to me.4meter4 (talk) 05:34, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset: Not your fault but bonkers IMO. I have been editing and assuming AGF for years outside DYKworld - AGF is implicit in wiki editing. Why DYK would prevent this AND not change the template to say "not after 2026" on the AGF template is doubly weird. DYK policy seems to have peculiar and logic defying conditions. I'm curious - how do you approve an offline source? However and meanwhile lets tick it... AGF is implicit anyway. Victuallers (talk) 08:13, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Victuallers, AGF at DYK had been, for a long time, assuming that any source that was offline or in a foreign language did support the information in the article. Now, if someone can't find a source or figure out what it says, the thing to do is to request that the nominator post the relevant portion of the source that supports the information, in English translation if necessary, so that the reviewer can decide whether that is sufficient. I believe this sort of thing is how FAC works; while technically, it's AGF in that the reviewer assumes the nominator is providing an accurate transcription and/or translation, the decision by those who are more active than I at DYK is that this doesn't come under the rubric of AGF and AGF is not sufficient at DYK any longer, probably because too many problematic nominations made it through with inadequate source checking. 4meter4, providing quotes from offline sources to satisfy reviewers is, as I understand matters, acceptable at DYK. I hope I didn't say it wasn't, because it's pretty much the only way to check offline sources short of going out and finding the source at a library somewhere, and that's more than we can expect DYK reviewers to do! BlueMoonset (talk) 03:23, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

Well then, the process was accurately followed to begin with. Why kick up a stink simply because Victuallers used an old tick symbol? He could have just used the correct DYKtick currently in use for the initial tick because a quote was provided. There wasn't an actual failure to properly follow WP:DYKCRIT review procedure, it was just a matter of using the updated tick symbol. This seems unnecessarily pedantic.4meter4 (talk) 05:39, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset: Thanks for the explanation... It is AGF but we wont' say it is ... We will stop using the template, but keep it available, it is bonkers. Orwell would love it. Victuallers (talk) 09:00, 24 February 2026 (UTC)