Talk:String Quartets, Op. 76 (Haydn)

  1. Home
  2. Wiki

"Jack in the Box"

[edit]

I think this name deserves mention -- at most -- only in the text and not as in the section header. The reason is that it is so seldom used. I have listened to Haydn quartets for many years and I never encountered the nickname before I saw it in this article. I also checked Amazon and found that is hardly ever used on commerical recording. The "Jack in the box" nickname is thus quite different from three other nicknames in Opus 76: "Fifths", "Emperor", and "Sunrise" -- these get used all the time. Let us not misread our readers, who might think to use the "Jack in the Box" nickname and find that no one knows what they are talking about. Opus33 (talk) 05:15, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it should probably be kept out of the header. But I believe the most recent sources are ample evidence that the nickname is in real-world use, enough that it merits mention in the body. User:Michael_Bednarek's request for "scholarly sources" in a revert is inappropriate given the nature of the claim being made. --Sauronjim (talk) 07:56, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, it should stay in. On the other hand, I think we should be clear about its origin and have edited to say this.
This is not something to get worked up about, but this episode leaves a bad taste in my mouth: we failed to source a fact properly, and enabled an internet-type person to use us to further his private interests. Whether he did this on purpose (who made this edit? [1]?) or things just spiraled on their own, it seems likely that many commentators and program-note writers ended up being deceived. Opus33 (talk) 17:35, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, it should not stay in because there are no reliable and independent sources for this claim. Elaborating on the history of this hoax is unencyclopedic gossip. I'm going to restore a version of this article without it. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:29, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The claim that there are no independent sources is simply a lie. Have you actually looked at the sources? There's more than just Atkinson's video.
The claim that they are not reliable is overstated. They are not being used to make a scholarly claim, but to support a claim of the sort "there exists". The claim that some people are using the nickname does not necessitate proof beyond...evidence of people using it. And the sources I added do this. Please keep in mind WP:OWN and do not keep reverting information that is accurate, sourced, and that there is clearly interest in simply because you feel a personal animosity towards has been responsible for making the claim true. This article is not yours alone. --Sauronjim (talk) 13:25, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Whoever did the original edit after Atkinson's first video obviously should not have, because at that time there was no evidence of its actual use. But they did, and whether the programme notes were people taking it directly inspired by Atkinson's call-to-action in the first video (which IMO is completely legitimate) or because they read the irresponsible Wikipedia edits is immaterial at this point. Atkinson was correct in his original video that there is no central authority responsible for musical nicknames (if there was, surely Beethoven's Moonlight would not have a name so at odds with the composer's intention). If it's being used, it's being used, and we should reflect that on Wikipedia.
I actually thought about explaining its origin in my previous edit, but decided against it because I thought that might be giving undue attention to the drama (and to the source of the drama) and straying a little too far off topic for a page ultimately about Haydn's music. I would not object to other editors who believe the context is important and relevant, however. --Sauronjim (talk) 02:39, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What a mess. I think saying that MB is "lying" is discourteous and ought to be retracted. I also wonder if rummaging through the internet to find citations might violate WP:NOR. Opus33 (talk) 17:41, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A forensic pathologist who dabbles in music analysis with 70,000 YouTube followers invents on 12 January 2023 a nickname for a Haydn quartet, based on his reading of its 4th movement. The next day an IP editor adds this to the Wikipedia article. This doesn't get noticed until 29 October 2024 when another IP editor removes it. It then gets restored on 27 January 2025 by another IP. On 11 June 2025 Opus33 qualified the currency of that nickname. On 8 August 2025 I had reason for several improvements of the article, but didn't touch the nickname. On 20 September, an editor made their only Wikipedia edit by adding the nickname to the section header which was immediately reverted by Optus33. On the same day, I removed to unsourced assertion of the nickname. This was followed by several edits from another editor with their only edit and some IPs, restoring the nickname. One of those edits added the YouTube video from 20 September 2025 where the originator of the nickname boasted about the effect his invention had, which he calls "tongue-in-cheek", here on Wikipedia and in blog posts and in program notes by minor publications, which he attributes to the Wikipedia article, thus my remark about the lack of reliable and independent sources.
This whole affair is clearly based on the campaign of a single person which made it undetected into this article and spread from there. This is not a new phenomenon and has been lampooned as "citogenesis" in 2011 on xkcd and some instances are described at Wikipedia:List of citogenesis incidents. I don't believe Wikipedia should participate in spreading this claim.
As for Sauronjim's latest complete revert: it would have been more collegial to retain my improvements to the structure of each quartet, and I would appreciate a restoration of those. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:57, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Citogenesis is an interesting problem, but I think this is a subtly different case from the one Munroe describes there, in a way that makes an important difference in this case. In the case Munroe describes—and in all the cases I noticed on that page (forgive me if I missed a relevant one, I only skimmed)—there is a simple underlying fact that cannot be changed by Wikipedia. If the source of it is uncovered, the correct response is to remove the false information from Wikipedia.
What Atkinson has done here is essentially created a new fact. It was not true before he did it, but it is true today, because Wikipedia falsely shared it previously. This is possible because it's not about an underlying innate truth to the world, but it is about what people believe. Whether it was Atkinson himself or one of his viewers who vandalised Wikipedia in 2023 doesn't matter. What matters is that as a result of the vandalism, there are now people, reviewers, and musical ensembles out there in the real world who have used the nickname Atkinson coined.
But in this case, Wikipedia has not merely spread a mistruth, but created a new truth. This is unfortunate. If I could go back in time and edit out the vandalism immediately, before it spread, I would. But I can't. And neither can you. The only thing we can do is continue Wikipedia's job to present accurate and verifiable information.
Wikipedia's verifiability rules recommend against primary sources, as Opus notes with the NOR link, but this is not a hard-and-fast rule, and there are many ways that they can be used, particularly when there is no interpretation of the primary source being done. In my edit, I included a number of primary sources being used in this way. However, we needn't rely solely on primary sources, because we do have one secondary source that I am aware of. Atkinson's 2025 video. It's far from an unbiased source, but the nature of the claim being made here means it doesn't particularly need to be. Because the claim is a modest one: that some people have been using the nickname "jack-in-the-box" for Haydn's Op. 76 No. 1 string quartet. Any secondary source which can find a large enough number of primary sources that indicate this and collate them together is sufficient to demonstrate that the nickname exists.
As for the other improvements, I do apologise for the bother, it was certainly not my intent. As a software engineer, this is why we always talk about doing atomic commits. If you do multiple unrelated things in a single commit, it makes it much harder to revert a change that turns out to be problematic, without also undoing good work. I would certainly not advocate for reverting them, and support you putting them back. (I must admit, I have never been perfect at doing this, either here on Wikipedia, or in the world of software development. But it is a goal worth striving towards.) --Sauronjim (talk) 17:45, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree on all points. When an unsupported personal observation that made it into a Wikipedia article gets picked up by minor publications, it's exactly what citogenesis and WP:CIRCULAR describe; the creator of the term says so himself. Wikipedia doesn't accept editors creating a new fact. Continuing to keep it in the article spreads this "tongue-in-cheek" hoax further and may encourage others. Counting a video by the originator as a secondary source is preposterous. Absent any serious independent sources, any mention of the nickname should be removed. Absent any discussion in secondary sources of the nickname's origin and its further spread is Wikipedia navel gazing; there's no reason even to mention that in the article. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:23, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Sauronjim That interpretation of primary source use is completely inappropriate in this case. For one, this isn't actually a primary material on String Quartets, Op. 76; but a commentary on the quartet made hundreds of years after its publication and composition. It might be considered a primary source on the nickname "Jack-in-the-box" quartet, but in that case it can't be used as a source because of our policy at WP:NOTNEO on invented phrases and the need to use independent sources (ie not primary) on such terms. We also have a policy on WP:No original research. The idea that we can use primary materials in the way you are suggesting is counter to what our policy clearly states on this subject.4meter4 (talk) 12:08, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Can someone please lay out for me the evidence for this? All I can see presently in the article are two WP:SELFPUBLISHED sources; both of which are by a popular YouTube personality who is not a subject matter expert but an amateur music enthusiast. This does not seem sufficient to be considered WP:RS and that is concerning. Do we have any WP:SECONDARY WP:RS sources for this content? If so please link them here so we can all see and evaluate them. Further, I would go so far as to say that WP:NOTNEO needs to be taken into account here. This is an invented phrase/ nickname as indicated in the one video which means it is a neologism. It's not enough to demonstrate that this phrase exists but we also need to establish use in WP:SECONDARY independent materials. According to our policy, "Neologisms must at least have three independent uses for inclusion." and "Neologisms that are in wide use but for which there are no treatments in secondary sources are not yet ready for use and coverage in Wikipedia. The term does not need to be in Wikipedia in order to be a "true" term, and when secondary sources become available, it will be appropriate to create an article on the topic, or use the term within other articles." At this point I have not yet seen three reliable secondary sources use the term. For that reason, I am leaning removing this content from the article unless editors can present here three pieces of SECONDARY independent evidence in which the term is used. Note that the primary YouTube videos do not count as independent RS, and three published materials with editorial oversight by a by-lined independent author are needed to meet the sourcing threshold for neologisms. Note that these sources must also discuss the term in detail and not just mention it in passing per our policy on neologisms and the use–mention distinction. Because the current text is entirely based on self published PRIMARY sources (primary in the context to the neologism; unreliable SPS in context to the quartet itself) by an individual who is not a subject matter expert, I am removing the content for failing our WP:SPS guideline. The content may be restored when cited to a minimum of three independent secondary materials in WP:RS per WP:BURDEN/WP:NOTNEO. 4meter4 (talk) 11:41, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I think this shows that WP has to be conservative in order to avoid the citogenesis problem. Once something has appeared in WP for more than an instant, it gets treated as "fact". So I agree with 4meter4. Imaginatorium (talk) 03:25, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]