Talk:Aaron Robinson (composer)/Archive 1

Questions

Dear Cindy ~ the sentence: " he orchestrated, arranged and conducted the musical Islands on Broadway at the New Victory Theater, with music and lyrics by Cindy Bullens.[citation needed] The musical was followed by a book by producer John Wulp.[6]" is a misleading correction and infers an incorrect statement. John Wulp wrote the "book" for the musical, which is what I had originally stated. The book is a libretto. A musical has music, lyrics and a book. The book that I reference is an autobiography about John Wulp that serves as a source citing for the statement in the preceeding sentence: "on- and off- Broadway." I would politely ask that you please know the subject statement you are correcting before cleaning up what you feel to be incorrect. Also, could you please explain why you keep removing the New Grove book on composers? it states over half of what you have requested citations for ... several reviewers have stated that these citations are excessive. I believe them. To ask for a citation for the Cindy Bullens statement is not making sense to me. It seems that everything that I write needs to be cited; which I cannot find similar practice in thousands of other articles on Wikipedia. If this were the case, then ever sentence on a subject would be followed by a number. Why are you doing this? Do you agree with this recent statement from a reviewer? "You are absolutely allowed to use offline sources for verification and in support of claims to notability. Per WP:SOURCEACCESS and WP:OFFLINE, there is no requirement that sources be available online - it's convenient, but not necessary. You can cite newspapers and magazines using variants of the {{cite}} template; choose the appropriate one from this list." Impromp2Music (talk) 15:42, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

• I wanted to take some time to answer your questions and offer some clarification on some issues that have been identified with the article. Please note that I have no concern over the notability of Aaron Robinson and have no intention of requesting deletion of the article. Your work is appreciated. That said, after I came upon this article while patrolling new additions to the encyclopedia, I identified specific issues that needed to be addressed. These "maintenance templates" flagged the issues and directed readers to additional information for clarification on addressing and/or fixing these issues. Your response to me was to basically fix the issues or clean up the article myself. Yet, when I spend time providing said assistance, you balk at every turn, crying foul. I am more than willing to help, but hesitate when the response has been less than fruitful, appreciative, and filled with personal attacks on the work offered. Here's some clarification, point by point:

1. As far as I am aware, nobody is requiring online sourcing for this article. To do otherwise would be inappropriate. Offline sourcing is perfectly acceptable.
2. Regarding the statement "Robinson has performed on- and off- Broadway[citation needed]". You make this statement, but provide no additional information or citations for the statement. In what productions has he performed on-Broadway? Off-Broadway? Present this information, then show where you read this information.
3. Regarding the statement "he orchestrated, arranged and conducted the musical Islands on Broadway at the New Victory Theater, with music and lyrics by Cindy Bullens.[citation needed]" Great, looks like we have one on-Broadway production to support the previous statement. Now cite that source.
4. Regarding the statement "he orchestrated, arranged and conducted the musical Islands on Broadway at the New Victory Theater, with music and lyrics by Cindy Bullens.[citation needed]" Simply add a citation to support the statement "music and lyrics by Cindy Bullens".
5. The New Grove book source has not been removed. It is still there. If you need to use it as a citation in additional places, you are able to do so. Simply add it in the appropriate place following corresponding content and include the page number where the content may be found in the book. If you are unfamiliar with how to do this, please just ask me. Or you could even post the statements on this discussion page, followed by which site/page to use and I will format and add it to the article.
6. Other references were removed, because they did not meet the guidelines for reliability. The references removed include israbox.com, since it was a site that violated Wikipedia's copyright policies, in as such that it allowed website visitors to download copyrighted materials in violation of law. You can read more about the policy here: WP:ELNEVER. I removed an additional citation to greygardensnews.blogspot.com, since it was a self-published source and therefore considered unreliable per the guidelines found here: WP:BLOGS. While other sources are questionable, I consider them borderline. The opinions of others may vary in this regard. The borderline sources include the Wulp book, since it was self-published. However, I found it to be acceptable, since it was merely used to support the claim that Wulp wrote a book. It would not be reliable to support additional claims about other persons. Searchdictionaries.com appears to be an aggregate site and questionable, but I did not make a thorough review to determine reliability at the time. Other editors may weigh in with their recommendations regarding the reliability of the source.

Hope this helps. If you have more questions about this article, please feel free to ask. (I'm really not that scary!) Just make sure to present your concerns here on the discussion page, rather than on various pages throughout Wikipedia. Best regards, Cindy(talk to me) 09:28, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I've made some changes to the content in the article about the Islands musical. (First paragraph under "Career") I'm guessing after the fact that you were using the terms "book" and "script" interchangeably. I've also used sources multiple times to hopefully give you an example of how it is done. Take another look and see if it appears accurate. Cindy(talk to me) 09:59, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi Cindy. I just wrote earlier below. The term "script" is only in reference to a film or play. A musical has a "book". An opera has a "libretto". Oscar Hammerstein wrote the "book" for Show Boat, Oklahoma, etc. While Jerome Kern and Richard Rodgers wrote the "Music and Lyrics". It tends to be written as follows: Music and Lyrics by Richard Rodgers, Book by Oscar Hammerstein. I know you enjoy getting terms correct just as much as I do! (i.e. "reviewer") Hope this helps! Maybe you can help me out in understanding what "full citation needed" means? I'm thinking about joining and trying to write too. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.244.19.82 (talk) 19:06, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Just a suggestion ...

I see that you are having quite a lot of difficulty with your first article. It can be stressful to keep up with the knowledge and expertise of many editors on Wikipedia who have been doing this for much longer than we have: new comers. Hard as it may seem, emotions need to be set aside for now as they will not get you anywhere. The facts are these, you have submitted an article on a subject that is not well-known, although it has been approved by an reviewer. This being said, one must back nearly all statements with concrete facts and sources that cannot be questioned. Unlike other articles that are well-known: the capital of France is Paris. This is an on-going process. It's almost impossible to show others what you may have in your possession, such as a book, right in front of you that will serve as a reliable source. What you want to do is back up each statement with concrete, unchallengeable citations. If you have taken information from various sources that are not immediately accessible to those researching the subject online, you may want to rethink what you have included and allow others to add to, include, edit or cite sources for you. For example, you may know of Mr Robinson's recording from let's say: Amazon or iTunes or even a biography in a musical programme. You may even have recordings. But unless you can prove release dates, titles, etc, without question, it may not be necessary to include in this article at this time. Read the guidelines that will allow you to include what you want without any fear of editors requesting citations to back your statements. You may need to go back in and select carefully what you feel is important at present, knowing that the article is up and running, and there may be other out there that know more and have different (reliable) sources and will update the article to support your initial vision which lead you to create the article in the first place. Just remember: your article has been approved and it is up and running. Be happy for that, and take time to step back and re-assess what is now needed to go forward. Good luck! Music4ibc (talk) 17:32, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

• While encouragement is always welcome, we need to clarify your comments here to avoid confusion. We don't use Amazon or iTunes as citations. We don't link to online stores or websites which merely serve to promote sales of a product. All content needs to be verifiable. You can read about Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for verifiability and reliable sources at the wikilinks provided here. You may want to read a bit on what the "reviewer" role entails. Being "approved by a reviewer" simply means that the editor reviewing articles at AFC, determined that the article met the minimum guidelines to be moved to the mainspace. Others may actually question the decision to move it to the mainspace and/or the notability of the subject and opt to either delete it, request deletion, or edit and improve the article to ensure that it meets the criteria for inclusion. Note that while articles may meet the minimum criteria to be moved from WP:AFC, there may still be issues with the article, which require addressing. Other links that may offer guidance include WP:OWN and WP:COI (since it is clear there is a conflict of interest editing articles on behalf of Immanuel Baptist Church and their affiliates). If you have questions, please feel free to contact me. Cindy(talk to me) 07:05, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

album notes?

Hi Cindy. Would actual album notes or DVD notes help this person out with her article? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Cite_album-notes and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Cite_DVD-notes. I'm just trying to help out here. Maybe this will alleviate some of the citation pressures since the last editor attempted to link a citation to the albums themselves on Amazon. thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.71.28 (talk) 18:23, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

• You can certainly add album notes, just like you added the other two. That said, we need better sources to support the existence of the albums than to merely add liner notes. It's kinda like saying, "The album/CD/DVD exists because it says so on the album/CD/DVD." For example, there is a sentence in the article that says, "He followed this recording with the Original Cast Recording of Treemonisha – In Concert in 1998." This claim is only supported by a citation to the liner notes. We need reliable and independent sources. You can read more at these links WP:VRS and WP:LINKSTOAVOID. Hope this helps. Cindy(talk to me) 18:49, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Ha! Ha! Cindy! You are right! Which came first? the CD or the Album Notes? I understand completely ASIN #'s on Amazon, but shouldn't the actual UPC codes, ISBNs, etc on the back of products be correct tracking for such items? I mean, it has to go through some process to be marketable right? What proves the existence of a book on Wikipedia? I'm confused between trying to prove existence and reliable sources. Are they different? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.244.19.82 (talk) 19:15, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
    • Yep, I'm just a silly girl at heart. ;) We're really not concerned with proving existence, per se. We're also not concerned with marketability. As an encyclopedia, we're not here to sell or market anything. We simply need to support claims with reliable sources. All claims have to be verified. The criteria for books or albums or whatever is the same... reliable and independent sources. You can read more about verifiability here: WP:V. And reliable sources here: WP:RS. As a side note, we don't generally use citations in the lead section, since that section serves to summarize the content in the body of the article itself. In essence, redundant citations may clutter the lead. For example, we don't need the first citation in the article to support that the subject "has composed and conducted premiere works for the concert and theatrical stage", since it summarizes content below (that requires supporting citations). That said, when lead sections make statements that are not in the body of the article (or make quotes), we need to cite this information. For example, the statement that the subject "can be seen in the PBS documentary On This Island", requires a citation. Two citations were offered, but do not actually support the claims. (Reference #4 doesn't even mention the subject.) Statements and claims regarding importance, significance, and notability of the subject may require many citations. Contentious or questionable material about living persons must be cited every time. You can read more about responding to challenged material here: WP:CHALLENGE. If you have questions, please feel free to ask. Cindy(talk to me) 20:09, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Great! Thank you! Very, very informative!!! Can you do something for me? When you put it in laymen's terms, it makes sense! Can you take a look at this page of so much information on a single musical subject and tell me how there are so little citations when there is just one reference? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Danielpour A bio to the Pittsburgh Symphony is submitted by the artists themselves, a direct affiliation, just like the prestigious Portland Opera with this subject. In addition, the bio submitted to G. Schirmer (although a "reputable" music company) simply prints what is submitted by the artist (composer). Now obviously the bio is impressive, but the article is in no way reliable in their sources. Without google searching or knowing anything about this subject (who is not a household name), why does this article stand up on its own? 2 bios and a artist website should not have allowed such a monumental article. Especially when this one is so detailed with citations needed. I don't want to make the same mistakes, but I'm not seeing what's different. If a publishing firm such as G Schirmer can serve as a single reference (not taking into consideration the accomplishments) just on writing an article, then if Black Nativity is published by Dramatist Plays (a reputable publishing firm) and simply states the composer's bio (the same that can be found in concert programs and on other websites, but is not admissable here, because it is a secondary source that is affiliated with the composer) why is one okay, but the other not? I don't want to make the same mistake this gal did with this article. I'm learning from her mistakes! Any incite would be helpful. Also, what about this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cindy_Bullens? found in this article. The references (although the subject can be found online with a Google search) do not support the content with reliable sources. If we are to write articles that stand on their own, how is this not full of 'citations needed' as well? Why were so many recordings, film score, compositions asked for citations with this article, when similar bios that were acceptable for Danielpour in format and stature allowed? Shouldn't there be citations after each of those? Simply because they are listed in a bio, doesn't prove reliability. Where is the fine line? Can editors simply (like law judges) kind of accept and allow what they feel is 'okay' or should every article rules be treated the same? Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.71.28 (talk) 23:31, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

The fact that other articles are crap does not mean this one should also strive to be just as bad. In fact this article is already far better than those two. The Cindy Bullens article already has a bunch of tags - look at the top of the page - and I've just tagged the Richard Danielpour article. Roger (talk) 07:20, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Reliable Sources to be included ...

I have taken a bit of time to reassess my contributions and original article submission from the helpful advice of the recent contributors and editors. Looking through the current article's citations I have compiled the following resources and references to be included by an experience editor who can use the information and hopefully relieve many of the citations presently inserted within the article.

• First Paragraph: "He has composed and conducted premiere works for the concert and theatrical stage;[1][full citation needed]"

1. First ~ the advice given by Cindamuse regarding first paragraphs states that perhaps the information given here is really not the best way to open the article. Perhaps the information given can be replaced in other areas following which may allow a blanket statement of who the subject is and what he is known for being.
2. In a previous edit, when the article was still being reviewed, there was a reference to a September 2001 New York Times article by Stephanie Sudekis about the musical Islands. It was removed by a young, inexperienced reviewer at the early stage ~ but since then such reliable sources have been allowed. The quote within the article regarding Mr Robinson is as follows: "Music Director and Conductor Aaron Robinson is no stranger to the theatrical stage, having conducted several world premieres for the concert hall including Leonard Bernstein's Candide, Scott Joplin's Treemonisha, and most recently Langston Hughes' Black Nativity." Later within the same article when talking about its creation, it is stated that " ... Mr Robinson, who also serves as conductor, provided the orchestrations for the production, along with the vocal arrangements ..." This should suffice for a reliable source in regards to: "In 2001, he orchestrated, arranged and conducted the musical Islands on Broadway at the New Victory Theater.[3][not in citation given]"

• In Playbill Magazine (September 2001 Issue) the statement reads as follows: Credits: "Music and Lyrics by Cindy Bullens, Book by John Wulp (producer), Scenic Design by Eric Hopkins, Orchestrations and Arrangements by Aaron Robinson." It also states performances dates and times and the theater in which it will play (which should suffice for "citation needed" for "In 2001, he orchestrated, arranged and conducted the musical Islands on Broadway at the New Victory Theater."

• Discography ~ I have been informed by Cindamuse that marketing sites such as Amazon promote sales and individual interests. However, the editor that included and formatted this section used Amazon as a research source since no other online site except Amazon contains this detailed information. I'm not saying remove it, I think it is a very professional look ~ but I am using this as an example that many of the citations under "compositions" need citations and yet the Discography information was allowed without contest. Incidentally, some of the information is incorrect. The label for "La Belle Epoque" should read: Music at Immanuel ~ and the disc label for "Treemonisha In Concert" should read "Take-a-Bough" productions. "IBC Black Nativity Chorus" (Orchestra) is incorrect as a singing ensemble is not comprised of instruments. It should read (Ensemble).

• Regarding the statement: "He followed this recording with the Original Cast Recording of Treemonisha – In Concert in 1998.[11][better source needed]" The article by Welker, David (cited previously in the first paragraph) discusses in length Robinson's contributions to the world of jazz and ragtime. It refers to the 1998 historic premiere concert in Rockport, Maine and the recording that followed on the Take-A-Bough label from the performance during its tour at St Luke's Cathedral in Portland Maine. It also states that the "New England Ragtime Suite" is his most well known ragtime work, concurring that the 2nd movement: "Bluet Rag" (comparing it to William Bolcom's Graceful Ghost Rag as being one of the most "... hauntingly beautiful rags written today ...")

• Television Appearances:

1. On This Island (PBS) [citation needed] ~ this episode has aired on PBS stations nationwide and lists in the scroll credits: "Aaron Robinson, Music Director / Conductor". Since there is no template to pinpoint a person specifically within a film, the template Wikipedia allows for episodes / films should meet the requirements for any further citations regarding this film and Mr Robinson.
2. The documentary film: Black Nativity - In Concert: A Gospel Celebration is a film documenting the creation, recording and concert performance of Robinson's "Black Nativity". He obviously can be seen in this film since it is his creation and the listing of this should be within the section. It is confusing that an editor placed this as a "Film Score" with a [citation needed] as Mr Robinson did not "write the score for this film." The liner notes for the DVD clearly states all that might be contested within this article.

• As for "Compositions" both Section and Listing. The works listed only represent a very small library of the works for the subject. I have yet to find a definitive reliable source (other than that of online bio's of the subject for productions ~ which I am told are not allowed) ~ so I will have to do more research in order to update and meet the rules and regulations for this section.

This being said, my plan is to go back in with definitive detailed information, supported by allowed templates on Wikipedia and its guidelines, for the above information. If there are comments before I do this, please leave them here. Thank you. Impromp2Music (talk) 15:24, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

• I'm afraid those simply are not reliable or independent sources that you've added to the article. Take a look at the guidelines for what constitutes a reliable source. Independent sources are exactly that... independent of the subject and affiliates. That said, the sources that you have added are not independent of the subject. And some of the sources you've provided do not support the article content. When providing a citation from published sources, we also need full citations. For example, dates, pages, name of publication, author, etc. The content needs to be verifiable. At this point, this article is really failing the guidelines all the way around. You've been given quite a bit of leeway in bringing this article up to standards, i.e., providing the necessary sources to verify content and establish notability, but we're not being left with much. The general option at this is to simply remove the unsourced content, taking it back to a stub, until such time as valid citations can be found and added to the article and expand it appropriately. Let me know your thoughts. Cindy(talk to me) 23:40, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Really? Well, then I'm stumped. I did read the links for reliable sources and verifiable content. I'm clearly missing something. NY Times is not reliable? When listing an episode, how could it be independent of the source? I looked at all the templates and common usage and examples Wikipedia has to offer. If you could use examples, real examples, rather than just placing a quick reason ("not a reliable source" - or - "not independent of the subject") as to why it isn't reliable, I think I might better understand. Any help you may offer is greatly appreciated. Thank you. Impromp2Music (talk) 16:06, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi Cindy ~ I just pulled up a really wonderful articles on Christopher Isherwood and Lytton Strachey (2 authors), just to see what I may be doing wrong and although the subjects are dead, there are only 2 references (one of which is an autobiography "Christopher and His Kind" ... which I don't think is independent of the subject, but I could be wrong ...) on Isherwood and Strachey actually has no references at all. Please understand, I'm not pointing out another article for any errors, but to see how it is set up. Is my problem that I'm trying to meet "citation needed" with placing the information in a "reference" category? when perhaps they should be in a different category such as "notes"? I'm really confused. I am reading your links, but even Wikipedia supports many reliable sources such as NY Times. What would constitute "independent" for an article about a person? Every section in the Strachey "further reading" "external links" "notes" "bibliography" is about the subject. What am I missing? Out of the 18 ~ I'm thinking the only reference that might stay at this point is the New Grove book ~ and that everything else is considered "Original Research" (which is not allowed) and should be moved to other areas ... yes? no? I'd like to take just one more crack at it ... after your comments, and then I'll let you go in and clean house correctly. Is that okay? I do appreciate you "adopting" me.

This "subject" currently approved without any disclaimers or citations needed - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Morath is as close to my subject in the same genre and medium as is possible. Could you look this over and see why it works? There is a lot of information that if were in my article, there would be "citation needed" beside it ... I can't see where the references are independent of the subject or reliable sources. They are practically the same: living person, musician, composer, television, film, recordings, etc.

I'm also really having trouble citing recordings. Here is a link to an album: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citation_%28album%29 If someone can just list a recording on Wikipedia like this, why are mine not allowed within the article? Let's say I am trying to include a brief description of what the film "Black Nativity" is about. You said earlier that I cannot prove an existence of something by quoting liner notes. But there is clearly a template for videos, episodes, CD, DVDs ... and separate ones for what is contained in the liner notes. How would you, as an editor, actual prove that an album was created enough so that one could include content from the liner notes to better explain what the production or album is about? ? So that if I write: "In 2004, Mr. Robinson conducted Black Nativity - In Concert: A Gospel Celebration. The film Black Nativity – In Concert: A Gospel Celebration documents the recording of this album that recreates the original performance of Langston Hughes's Gospel Song-Play Black Nativity." Could you please tell me exactly what I would need to prove this statement reliable and verifiable.

Let's say I wanted to back-up the statement: "Ron Howard played "Opie" on the Andy Griffith Show." Without citing episodes, or IMDb, or anything that is not "independent of the subject", how does one actually cite this correctly if an editor placed a "citation needed"? Could you show me how? The actual reference in the "Ron Howard" Wikipedia article has: IMDb, biographies, Magazine articles, and even various statements heard on The Actors Studio. Notability aside, we all know Ron Howard and what he's done ... but to prove it, from an article standpoint, why are these allowed?

Take the living composer: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Richmond ... are these references actually independent of the subject? once again, notability aside, forget that we know him, to write this article, what am I missing that allows these as "independent of the subject"?

You write: "When providing a citation from published sources, we also need full citations. For example, dates, pages, name of publication, author, etc." Am I not doing this correctly within my templates? I just went through again and found all the published sources, and I'm quite sure I'm putting all that in ... what more do I need?

Finally ~ could you please link me to an article on Wikipedia that is of a living subject and will show me exactly what is considered a "reliable source" that proves "verifiable" and is "independent of the the subject" ~ I think if I can see, I'll understand what you keep referring to ... THANKS! Impromp2Music (talk) 22:52, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi Aaron. A lot of questions there to digest. In a nutshell, I really can't comment on the problems inherently existent in other articles. See WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS and WP:OSE. In essence, one bad article does not justify a second one. Note, that you keep mentioning articles in respect to "approval". We don't have such an "approval" process. While we have been working to address citation problems with this article, we now have style and format problems that you introduced in your last several edits. After you requested my help with this article, then I went in and brought this article into compliance, why would you then call it a mess and now revert the improvements to a condition that violates policies and guidelines, along with the Manual of Style? I have been working with you so that this article would not be deleted. However, it is clear that this has simply become a promotional piece. Creating a separate section entitled "Notes", then duplicating a source already listed in a "References" section does not even begin to address the citation issues with this article. The issues are not related to formatting, but to the lack of verifiable content established through reliable and independent sources. You ask for examples, but the links that I have directed you to provides specific examples and detailed explanations of the policies and guidelines. I am more than willing to help, but I find it puzzling that you are not able to read, understand, and follow this information.

As far as "full citations", citations are provided to show readers and researchers exactly where you found the source to write the article content. The content is required to be verifiable. Look at the citation you provided from the NYT. You fail to indicate the date on which this article was published. I have access to the archives on the NYT website, yet with the information that you have provided, I have looked through all articles written by Stephanie Sudekis and have found nothing. I even looked under different spellings of her name and came up empty. Same thing for the Portland Press Herald citation. As far as sourcing content regarding an episode, "independent" simply means that you use a published source that is not connected to the subject. Using a source that is about the subject is essential. "Independence" is shown if that source is not connected to the subject. You are attempting to establish that you recorded or accomplished various things in your life, simply through personal assertion. For example, that you recorded a specific album, using only the liner notes that says so. This is not even close to independent. An example of an independent source for much of the content in this article would be books, magazine articles, or newspaper articles. Reviews, rather than promotional content or advertisements. Publications by sources not connected to yourself, your church, choir members, professional manager, agent, recording studio, etc. We cannot establish notability, unless we have reliable and independent sources to verify the claims.

Let's take some of the issues one by one:

Specific citations

1. Not needed. We already have this information in "Published works" section.
2. This is a good source. Remove the "Notes" section.
3. We need issue date and page numbers.
4. We need issue date and URL to online copy (if available)
5. We need issue date and URL to online copy (if available)
6. Not a good source. This is a self-published book. (See WP:SPS policy about self-published sources, which states, "Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer."
7. While others have questioned this source, I have let this one go. In my opinion, it is borderline. Just be careful that you do not use it to support Wikipedia article content that cannot be verified through this citation. Note also that while I have let this source slide, others may voice another opinion, at which time, you will need to provide a better source.
8. Same answer for citation #7. Good source for Wulp and Bullens. Useless for anything about Robinson.
9. Good source for Lois Wright, but useless source for Robinson. It doesn't even mention you. Why would you try to say that it supports that you were responsible for writing the film score for that film?
10. Very poor source for Lois Wright and useless for Robinson. Not only does it fail to mention you, it doesn't even mention the film on which you say you wrote the film score. This is a useless source.
11. This is a good source. That said, using this source, I would add more content to provide some background on Black Nativity – In Concert: A Gospel Celebration.
12. We need issue date and page numbers.
13. We need issue date and page numbers.
14. This is not a citation, but simply repeating article content.
15. This is not a citation, but simply repeating article content.

General comments

1. The lead section no longer summarizes the article and needs to be expanded or rewritten.
2. Article uses poor grammar and sentence structure. Stop combining several sentences into one. See run-on sentence.
3. Stop referring to yourself as Mr. Robinson. Review the Manual of Style for biographies.
4. Place citations after punctuation. See WP:REFPUNC.
5. Remove or edit the comment about "most popular ragtime work". This is one person's point of view. For example, "His first album was Ragtime (re-released in 2011 under the title They All Played Ragtime), which features his "most popular ragtime work", "The New England Ragtime Suite". Change this to: "His first album, entitled, Ragtime, was re-released in 2011, under the title They All Played Ragtime. The album features "The New England Ragtime Suite", which, according to Dave Welker of Down East Magazine, is his "most popular ragtime work".[13] Italicize albums and place songs in quotes.
6. Remove hyphens and replace with en spaces in accordance with WP:HYPHEN.
7. Restore section headings in accordance with Wikipedia:MOS#Article titles, headings, and sections
8. Differentiate between film and television appearances.
9. Combine "Published works" and "Musical works". A discography is redundant with musical works, and a film score is a published work.
10. Remove "Television Documentary" from under "Musical works". No indication why it is there. It is also redundant with "Television and Film Appearances".
11. Under "External links", remove the links to 52composers, Portland Phoenix, Allen Organ, and Allmusic.
12. Remove the wikilink to "List of ragtime performers". Add it as a category or under a "See also" section.
13. You ask specifically how you would cite "In 2004, Mr. Robinson conducted Black Nativity - In Concert: A Gospel Celebration. The film Black Nativity – In Concert: A Gospel Celebration documents the recording of this album that recreates the original performance of Langston Hughes's Gospel Song-Play Black Nativity." Answer: You provide a reliable and independent source.
14. Outside of the Jeff Richmond article, all the articles you mention have citations that do not meet the requirements for reliable and independent sources. That said, why would you question the Richmond article? None of the sources written or published by the subject, his employer, or personal or professional affiliates. Nor were they used to promote the subject or his interests.

That's all for now. Cindy(talk to me) 16:41, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Clean-up

@cindamuse you obviously know what you are doing. just go in and make it right. clean-up what is needed. hopefully it can be started over and correctly edited from this time forward. 24.89.147.126 (talk) 15:10, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Link Rot Citation Tag

There is a more efficient and feasible use of tags referring to link rot and Bare URLs. The tag placed at the beginning of this article refers to inline citations and references within the article; which this article does not contain: Bare URLs for references and verifiable sources. External links are a separate section and do not reflect or provide reliable sources or verifiable resources within the article. A more viable and usable tool would be to place a tag at the beginning of the 'EXTERNAL LINKS' section. Placing a Bare URLs inline citation tag at the beginning of the article promotes newcomers to fiddle with what is already correct within the reference section. A simple solution is to remove the overall tag and place a more descriptive, appropriate and helpful tag at the beginning of the external link section.

Impromp2Music (talk) 13:40, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

This might help in how to place tags correctly and helpfully: WP:TMC

Music4ibc (talk) 18:49, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

• Restored the unaddressed maintenance tag. Maintenance to provide inline citations, i.e., footnotes, is not the same as removing bare URLs in order to allow for verifiability of the article's content. There are actually bare URLS in this article, which often lead to link rot. External links equate to sources, albeit, they are not footnotes and do not always support the article's content. Cindy(need help?) 02:05, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

... you're still here? good gracious lady, you really need to get a life, you know that? :-) I find no redeeming qualities in any of those who do the following:

Avoid tagging articles if you can easily fix the problem. The goal is an improved article, not a tagged article. Avoid "drive-by" tagging: tags should be accompanied by a comment on the article's talk page explaining the problem and beginning a discussion on how to fix it, or, for simpler problems, a remark using the reason parameter as shown below

To me, it's a sad reflection on a meaningless power play on someone else's work. But that's my opinion: I'm free to have one, last I checked. It doesn't matter, because in the end, the accomplishments of the subject in the article will outlast any edits, revisions, tags, or removals made by a Wikipedia contributor.

Music4ibc (talk) 15:08, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

I must agree in some form with the complaint regarding drive-by tags without the courtesy perhaps of fixing the problem themselves. Which in this case seems to be quite easily fixable. My question is the links to which this tag refers. I clicked on Webreflinks and was told: Applying English Wikipedia commonfixes No changes necessary: references template found. No changes were necessary in Aaron Robinson (composer) Then I clicked on the link to templates and could find no direct link to bare URLs in sections titled: External Links. Only line citations, and general references, etc. Then I took nearly an hour and search other similar articles and found dozen upon dozens external links that simply had bare URLs. In fact, I would dare say, there are countless bare URLs in external link section on Wikipedia. I must ask: if neither the original poster and the one who reinstated the tag are not arguing about the reference section, which I also believe the tag refers to in a more direct manner than a whole article inclusion for the tag, and most are found within the external links section, what would it hurt for the ones who find it a problem to simply take the time and enter in the information via the given templates from the links that are there now, or simply place a tag at the beginning of the section? Reading much of the involvement of two particular posters for this article I find that there may be a personal agenda and overly heightened interest in monitoring this article to the point that it may be a conflict of interest for both. To a user of Wikipedia, it always places doubt in my mind when I see articles with tags. To those who place them there I understand they want a better article and a more reliable Wikipedia, but sometimes they lose sight as to how those tags are perceived. Simple resolution? do the work. Whenever I see someone do a "drive-by" tagging, I look at their editing history, and find that more often than not, this is all they do. In researching WP:CITE and WP:REF offered within the tag, I still cannot bridge the gap between citation and resources within an article (and the definition that is clearly given) and that of external links. The original poster of this tag placed it there because of the external link section as was stated. The poster who reinstated it wrote that there are actually bare URLS in this article, which often lead to link rot. Yet does not offer to fix them or explain them on the talk page. I consider both to be "drive-by" taggings. Wikiguardpatrol (talk) 17:56, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

I removed the linkrot tag - the references are properly formatted. The excessively long list of External links is a different matter not related to citations. Someone more familiar with the subject (not me) should prune the External links down to just a few, per WP:EL, WP:ELNO and WP:ELNEVER. By the way - have you folks never heard of indenting your posts? Roger (talk) 20:00, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

• At his point, I will be spending some time editing and pruning this article to conform with the encyclopedia's policies and guidelines. Roger, please familiarize yourself with bare URLs. While the references may be properly formatted, they neglect to provide information, the inclusion of which often protect from link rot. Cindy(need help?) 21:11, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

The Real Aaron Robinson (Composer)

I am not quite sure of the correct protocol for leaving a personal message regarding the actual article page that is attributed to me so please excuse any inappropriate behavior regarding the rules and regulations of Wikipedia. My intentions are pure. I must call upon the community of contributors and editors of Wikipedia to come to my aid in what I believe to be vandalism and defamation of character. If you can help in any way, I would be indebted to you. I apologize for the length of this message on your board, I have also left it on the talk page of the article in question: Aaron Robinson (composer). I just created a username for myself in order to clear up this matter.

After receiving a call from a colleague last evening inquiring as to whether or not I had seen what was being written about me on Wikipedia, I had to see what all the fuss was about. I must say that I was flattered at first by the intense interest that had been shown as of late regarding my life and career. But by the end of my study, I was appalled at the audacity of certain contributors whose overwhelming number of contributions suggest a personal connection and motive.

I see that there has been great speculation as to authorship and suspicion of connectivity to the article’s subject. Well, unless I have a split-personality, there is only one Aaron Robinson that is subject of this article. I do recognize a few of the usernames associated with various contributions, one in particular has a YouTube channel that expressly highlights my musical recordings. I attribute this to a fan. The other is familiar to a past organization but since I have not been affiliated with them since 2009, I must remove myself from any direct connections and assume that they are simply creating articles highlighting notable people that have passed through their doors. As to the current contributor who is editing this article, I suspect knowledge of me personally and/or professionally. There seems to be a deep need to monitor this article more than other contributors and include information that is grossly inaccurate. Both situations make me feel somewhat uncomfortable, but what can be done?

Some information in this article is correct, some is incorrect, and even more is missing entirely. Several online biographies can be found on the Internet that are exclusively accurate and could very well be consulted in constructing a well-written article on me. As of this day, April 4, 2013, the last edits and contributions are more incorrect than correct, and I am afraid that I have been the victim of personal vandalism.

Public information aside, I am disgusted that certain aspects of my personal life should be included in this article. Namely, where I currently live and where I went to High School. To me, this information has nothing to do with an online dictionary subject of a living notable person. I find it an invasion of privacy and furthermore feel that the contributor who included this information has a personal motive.

The three major contributors to this article are as follows: Music4ibc, Impromp2music, and Cindamuse. I would very much like to report them to Wikipedia for what I consider vandalism and defamation of character.

As for notability, I have been nominated for several awards that should constitute admission as a notable person. I am up for such an award currently. I have composed notable works and recorded notable recordings. I am a member of ASCAP, and I have written for all mentioned medias.

However, to direct your attention to certain contributions as of late that raise suspicion, here are just a few:

David Welker never wrote a book entitled, “Robinson and Ragtime.” I know David Welker, and he wrote an article for a magazine that was entitled “Robinson and Ragtime.” If such a book did exist, I cannot find it anywhere on the web and I question the misleading inclusion of this by the contributor. The reference section even clearly states that it was written for a magazine. Yet the current contributor wrote within the article that it was quoted from a book. I am very suspicious of this contributor’s motives and abilities.

The claim that I self-published a book entitled “Does God Sing” is outrageous and insulting. My Publishing Company and I entered into a lawful written contract in 2010 for me to write this book. I paid not one cent for this manuscript to be published, and receive quarterly royalties for sales through my publicist. Which does not happen when one self-publishes. This is a gross abuse of fact. There are dozen of musical scores by reputable publishing companies that have published my works in the same manner as this book and yet none have been included in this article. Which leads me to believe that the compilation through research by these named contributors is shoddy at best, if not directly connected to me in some way. It lessens my achievements and creates a libelous picture of who I am. I take these accusations and false representations very seriously.

The article that now represents my name is poorly written, using incorrect terms and phrases that are not a part of my career or profession. It diminishes my achievements, career and stands to prove that the contributor(s) have (or had) a personal connection to me, and what’s more, a personal reason to defame my name via this service.

To write that I served as musical director in the PBS documentary On This Island is downright belittling. I conducted this musical on Broadway at the New Victory Theater, from which a PBS documentary was produced. The statement that is currently in the article implies an entirely different position that I did not serve and is wrong. To state that I conducted "a" performance of Scott Joplin's Treemonisha is beyond belief. I toured with that production for over a year.

I could go on, but it is futile at this point. The article is a mess and I am disgusted to be associated with whomever contributed to its creation.

Is there any recourse at all to bring to the attention of Wikipedia and its board of contributors these heinous insertions by the above named contributors to a very respected and reputable career? Thank you for your time and attention to this matter. Sincerely, the "real" Aaron Robinson.

Broadwaymaestro (talk) 15:13, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Please take a look at Biography of living persons section called Relationship between the subject, the article and Wikipedia - there are some procedures and advice there that might prove helpful. Wikipedia articles rely on published information from reliable sources, so if there are mistakes that you see in the article then those statements can probably be traced back to the sources/references themselves. As frustrating as it can be to deal with some of Wikipedia policies & guidelines regarding living persons, they are in place to try to protect the subjects from unsourced statements. If progress seems slow or your questions are not being answered, I would suggest you place this template -->> {{adminhelp}} on *your* talkpage-->> User talk:Broadwaymaestro (along with an explanation of the various issues you have with this article). I hope you are able to get the issues you see with the article resolved to your satisfaction.

And please keep in mind that anyone you come into contact with on the pages of Wikipedia is a volunteer, and that even if our efforts seem misguided or are hard to understand, the overwhelming majority of the editors around here really do try to do their best. Shearonink (talk) 15:58, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

• On the subject of the facts you claim are different, I'm sorry but we don't make exceptions to WP:RS for living persons. You'll need to give us reliable sources that say the facts for them to be changed. By the way, calling the statements defamatory and/or heinous won't get you anywhere. We aren't just going to change facts on someone's sayso, sorry. gwickwire^talk_editing 16:29, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

We have a noticeboard for such matters; I've raised your concerns there:

but unfortunately won't be around for a few days. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:53, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

@shearonink Thanks! That was really helpful! I will definitely look into this! @gwickwire sorry to have ruffled your feathers. I don't recall asking anything to be changed. When you say "we" and "us", I thought everyone was a contributing volunteer? Are you part of an exclusive section of Wikipedia that I should submit things for approval? Such as, if I contest the fact that I did not self-publish my book, but a contributor writes it in the article, yet the reference does not in any way back or support such claim, how can that be admissible as a reliable source? Broadwaymaestro (talk) 18:30, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry if my feathers seemed ruffled, I was rushed for a quick response at that time. I'm still a bit occupied, but I'll try to remember to take a look at it later. :) gwickwire^talk_editing 18:34, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

@gwickwire no worries. You are right. My terminology was over the top. All I can do is take shearonink's advice and list inaccuracies as I see them. Backed up by the correct reliable sources. Thanks again. Broadwaymaestro (talk) 19:12, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Section begun User talk:Broadwaymaestro

Thanks to all the helpful volunteers who came to my aid. I have started a section on my own talk page User talk:Broadwaymaestro in hopes that some neutral contributors will correct many of the inaccuracies in this article. Thank you. Broadwaymaestro (talk) 17:34, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

my first contribution!

hi everybody. my name is amy. i am new to wikipedia but you can read about me on my talk page and see what i am all about and what i am up to. i am starting my edits and contributions very slowly. trying to cover all my bases before posting any new information or corrected edits. if you have any advice along the way please do. thanks. amy(talk to me) 09:50, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

question about self published sources

i noticed that a frequent contributor to this article has cited a source as self-published. i am confused since there was no explanation given on the talk page. i want to make sure i understand so that i dont make the same mistake. i am doing alot of research on the subjects i chose before editing the articles so that i can create really good ones on my own. i cannot seem to find any where on the internet that backs the claim that the book by john wulp and aaron robinson were self published. if one editor cannot claim that it wasnt self published how can someone else claim that it was? confused. isnt that a form of vandalism when the same person places a tag at the beginning claiming self published sources? also. i found quite a few sources on the net that say boston conservatory. but the reference is the book he wrote. the citation doesnt give any reference to page number or anything. ive read the arguing above and wonder if i have chosen the wrong subject since it seems the same contributor keeps editing this article. is there any sense to even try? who put the reference to the book for boston conservatory? and why not cite a source not self published from the internet? is a book like wulp written by a person about their life an autobiography considered a self published work? and is not allowed on wikipedia? i am working on bob marley article and if the tags put on this article is any reference to what is allowed then i cant edit anything. i placed the same tags on that article and have been doing my homework to correct it. it helps newbies like me if editors left why they did something on the talk page. amy(talk to me) 02:23, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

@amiamy1995 Let me give you a little bit of advice regarding this article: Just walk away. It is beyond help due to the constant tampering of a very persistent contributor. I myself was blocked from editing this article by her because she is also an Administrator. Don't challenge her or make edits on this article or she will change them and block you too. Case in point? I saw you made a minor edit claiming that the subject was an Emmy nominated composer. A perfectly legitimate claim for a Wikipedia article that was backed by a reliable source directly from the Academy Chapter itself in Boston. You'll notice that she removed this, and simply wrote a sentence that already stated your reference below word for word. Why? I believe it is to make this subject less notable. Truly. If you also notice, she placed a claim directly in the lead some time ago that the subject "self-published" his book. When this was challenged and another editor removed it, she then "hid" the same claim within the citation lines for where he studied so that it now says: "self-published inline". A claim she has yet to provide any reliable source for such a statement. Then she turns around and places a tag disclaimer at the beginning of the article stating that this may contained self-published sources. Once again, I believe it is to make this article and its subject look bad. Why place "self-published" hidden within citation references, after another editor removed it from the article, only to then place a tag at the beginning? She blocked me and then placed a tag claiming sources close to the subject. She assumed I was the subject I was editing and had me blocked for sockpuppetry simply because I used usernames related to the subject. She likes to assume. Luckily I have several usernames that she can't find and have been working on other articles that she hasn't been able to touch. I haven't touched this article since because she is not playing fair. She has an unhealthy control issue with this subject and article. I've said it before and I'll say it again: she has a personal ulterior motive with this subject and anyone who tries to add anything, she changes it. Instead of finding the correct resources easily found on the internet, she places a tag and runs away. The last time I made this claim she shut the article down in a fury while she "worked" on it, made atrocious edits in a matter of minutes without proper source citations, and then placed a slew of excessive tags. Isn't it odd that out of all the articles on the internet on this subject, she contributed where the poor sap actually lives? Maybe she's an ex-wife or something. Is this really information that should be in a Wikipedia article? I know the guy has asked for help, but until someone stands up to what they call: Wiki-bullying, it will never be free of her tampering. May I suggest: move on with your other articles. If you have the guts, I would put back the title of Emmy nominated. It is a perfectly notable claim and you backed it up. Call the Academy: an Emmy is an Emmy no matter what chapter issues it. Watch what happens when I post this message. Just see what she does. I'll probably be blocked from Wikipedia all together now. She is holding this article hostage and contributors are scared to touch it. She holds it in higher standards than any other article on Wikipedia and disputes any and all claims for additional inclusions made by other editors. Good luck, Amy. You'll need it. Music4ibc (talk) 01:04, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

info box

hi. its me again. tried my first attempt at an info box with a photo on another article. successful but not very impressed. need to learn to bold highlight and color text. going to try my luck here. any help is welcome. the info that i have included are from the newspapers that i have found in the library. i paid a buck for the articles from the village soup. i plan to use these to also back up some of the other info in the article itself. worried though. some editors do not accept newspaper articles and from what i can see even when the templates are used and info entered correctly its still not enough. but there are 7 sources that state all the same info. the most notable site is dramatist plays in new york. so im going with what is considered trustworthy. any help on that too is welcome. thanks! lets see how it goes.

@music4ibc thanks for your note but im staying out of the politics. i did contact the ne chapter in boston and they directed me to their site which does state what you said. also on wikipedia emmy article. i should not have put 'emmy nominated composer' and this was corrected. but there is no such thing as a new england emmy. i will change that. hope no one minds.

amy(talk to me) 11:51, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

okay. so my second attempt at an info box. this was better than my last. sorry about all the save paging. i didnt know i could preview. 2 corrections though. its dramatic publishing in new york not dramatist plays. and even though there is a chapter in new england which is what the emmys and wikipedia call area-specific awards, winners and nominees are still called emmy winners and emmy nominated. im on the fence on this one. i will see if there is a way of including this so that the editor who changed my first contribution is satisfied. any suggestions? amy(talk to me) 12:56, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

well. i have deleted the info box. it seems my image did not meet wikipedia guidelines. i now know alot more about what i need to do in order to upload images to wikipedia though. for now i would rather just delete the info box until i can upload the correct image. i guess i will just continue on with my contributions. hope no one minds. amy(talk to me) 02:58, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

privacy for subject

hi. last time today. all thru with edits for now. more to come. i just wanted to start a section about personal information and subjects. i dont really think including where a person lives in a wikipedia article is necessary. in fact privacy for a subject is right up there with wikipedia respect for living persons. i have collected a lot of personal background info that i will be adding later and if it seems appropriate i will include it back in. but for now the section isnt very good and putting where he lives just doesnt sit right. yes it may be public knowledge but if someone wants to find out let them use the white pages not wikipedia. i cannot find other living persons with their address included. any comments? amy(talk to me) 1 July 2013 (UTC)

@amyami1995 I felt bad that I had to correct and update your other article (although I did leave my reasons why on the talk page) so I thought I would make it up by uploading an audio file that you can try your hand at creating listen boxes. Just type in Bluet Rag from The New England Ragtime Suite.ogg - it should come right up. Use this template and you should be fine:

listen|filename= |title=|format=Ogg

Drop me a line if you need any help! Music4ibc (talk) 18:14, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

my contributions

hi everybody. its me again. i have done all i can with my other article for edits. i think. so i will be starting on this one before attempting to create ones on my own. i am still learning quite a lot thanks to the help of other editors. i know i will make mistakes but at least i am trying. today i am starting with just a few cleanups that i found online to improve the content facts. hope no one minds. i will make sure i explain all my edits on the talk page as best i can. thanks. amy(talk to me) 3:04, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

thats it for today. i contributed content to the personal background. i only included facts that i could find in more than 3 different sources on the web. i hope this is okay. i have more to contribute to the other sections but thats it for now. i also took out the questionable portopera link. amy(talk to me) 3:31, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

last set of edits

hello again. its me. here are my last gathered attempts at editing. i feel that i have somewhat improved the article in trying to cite better sources with the wikipedia guielines use common sense

• added newspaper web sources in career to better back claims
• removed questionable self-published source references
• added career information
• found candide article in library but was unable to add accessdate

together with the previous edits to lead and personal background i hope that this article is found to be less questionable in its content and does not cite selfpublished sourses. i hope no one minds.

my last attempt at an infobox will be when i receive a permission granted image. fingers crossed. i will add appropriate information to its content once i do. until then. thanks. amy(talk to me) 11:54, 16 July 2013 (UTC)