Talk:Barbara Dane

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Nice article, dorks[edit]

It's the biography on her website, almost verbatim: http://www.barbaradane.net/biography.html --67.165.140.73 (talk) 15:01, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Barbara Dane. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:11, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Barbara Dane. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:54, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Barbara Dane. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:36, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on edits[edit]

I made many edits to this article, but all of them were reverted by administrator Cullen instead of discussing them (any one of them) with me according to the rules. So here are some reasons for some of the changes I made. Readers can judge for themselves whether they agree with administrator Cullen that every one of the changes was unacceptable. Keep in mind that the documentation tells us to write formal prose because that is the kind of prose found in encyclopedias. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, though many people seem to be ignorant of what that means.

  1. Lede: I changed "co-founded with" to "founded with" because the former is redundant. Use "founded with" or "co-founded".
  2. WP uses straight quotation marks, not curly. I assume this includes apostrophes.
  3. I changed "Dane's parents arrived in Detroit" to "Dane's parents moved to Detroit. "The former sounds informal and nonsensical. My change is simple and direct.
  4. I changed "Out of high school" to "After high school" though I probably should have written "After graduating from high school". The former is slangy and nonsensical.
  5. I removed "regularly" from "Dane began to sing regularly at demonstrations" because "singing regularly" is unclear and comically misleading.
  6. I changed "While still in her teens" to "In her teens" because it is shorter and because "still" is POV, as if to say "still in her teens...isn't that amazing?"
  7. I changed "She sat in with bands around town" to "She performed with local bands" because the former is sloppy and slangy.
  8. I changed "won the interest of local promoters" to "drew the interest" because it's more neutral. There was no contest to win.
  9. I changed "got" to "received" for formality.
  10. I changed "turned it down" to "rejected" because it's shorter.
  11. I added "in" to "at factory gates and in union halls" because one sings in halls, not at halls; halls are buildings.
  12. I changed "filled with photos" to "contained photos" because the former sounds childish and enthusiastic instead of neutral and formal.
  13. I always delete "and others" because it's to inflate a subject into vagueness. List who she worked with and source it. Don't expect me to take your word about these mysterious "others".
  14. I changed cite news to cite web. Any online source can use cite web.
  15. I added italics to TV shows where they were lacking per MOS.
  16. I changed "opened up a club" to "started a club" because the former is slang.
  17. I changed "There" to "In San Francisco" for the obvious reason.
  18. I changed "performed regularly" to "performed often" because the former is foggy and possibly slang. Performing "regularly" can mean all kinds of things.
  19. I added links to musicians where links were lacking and I deleted links where they were duplicated.
  20. I deleted "whose text can be found in the booklet that's included in Paredon Records' FTA! Songs of the GI Resistance vinyl album of 1970)" because it sounds like the writer is trying to sell albums. If this is meant to be a citation, it doesn't qualify. Use cite AV notes instead if that was the intent.
  21. I changed double quotes to single quotes around "bigtime" because it is within a quotation.
  22. I changed "on the Fantasy label" to "for Fantasy" because it is shorter.
  23. I changed THE POP LIFE from all caps to title caps.
  24. I changed "striking coal miners" to "coal miners were on strike". I assume the writer wasn't suggesting that Barbara Dane was in favor of hitting coal miners. She didn't support striking coal miners. She she supported coal miners who were on strike.
  25. The word "former" is overused on Wikipedia and everywhere else. It's usually unnecessary, like "later" and "subsequently". One of my tasks as an editor is to trim the fat.
    –Vmavanti (talk) 16:53, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the individual edits are fine, but I agree with Cullen that there should not be a separate section headed "Praise for Barbara Dane" - the critical comments should be integrated with the text. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:09, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I was not using any administrator's tools, so I do not know why it is relevant to mention that I am an administrator. I was acting as an ordinary editor in this matter. Most of your changes are fine with me and maybe I misunderstood what you were trying to do with the critical commentary. It seems odd to me to have a section called "Praise for (named musical performer)" and I do not recall seeing anything like that anywhere else on Wikipedia. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 18:26, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I was following the R portion of WP:BRD and now we are at the D part - discussing it. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 18:31, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
When someone reverts all of my edits in an article at once, I assume that means they have a problem with all of those edits. I'm willing to discuss all of my edits. But if they have a problem with only one edit, they can discuss that one edit with me. I have seen it done this way all over Wikipedia. It's pretty simple, really.
–Vmavanti (talk) 21:17, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cheerleading and love letters[edit]

Editors need to decide if they are going to continue to allow biographies on Wikipedia to resemble love letters written by starry-eyed fans. An obvious indicator is when the lede contains a quotation such as, "Bob Smith of The New York Times said Lulu Tiffany-Smythe is one of the greatest singers of her generation, if not all time!" Go into a bookstore, if you can find one, and you will notice books with dust jacket enconiums like "Howard Sherdznegeller...the Tolstoy of Little Rock, Arkansas!" That's because they are trying to persuade. They are trying to sell books. We don't sell here. We're not supposed to.

There are many ways to approach this point. Such quotations appear so often in Wikipedia that they fail to signify. Everyone on Wikipedia is supposed to be notable, so every article could include material like this—if we allowed it—and too many of them do. But not every singer can be the the greatest singer in history, even if a smitten critic from The New York Times says so. These comments by critics (who are, let's face it, not geniuses) say almost nothing because they are vague and subjective. I find such material worse than useless. They undermine the credibility of Wikipedia. They make the subject of the article weaker because a person of real accomplishment can let the facts speak for themselves.

Yes, I know what they rules say, so don't throw acronyms at me. This is where we have to keep in mind why rules exist and avoid adhering to them so rigidly that they become commandments. I propose that we either avoid adding such material in the first place, which is what I do, or we move it to a section marked "Praise for..." because that's what it is—praise. It isn't a critique or analysis. It is always praise. It's not a problem for me because I avoid writing or editing any article about which I have strong feelings. I am long past the age of being a "fan" (short for fanatic) of anyone or anything. I lack the stamina and flexibility for cheerleading. Frankly, when I read this kind of prose, it's embarrassing. What must readers think? When a person has too strong feelings for a subject, they have trouble being neutral, impartial, disinterested, and Wikipedia suffers.
–Vmavanti (talk) 21:14, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Trim the unencyclopedic praise; identify and keep the encyclopedic critical appraisal; integrate it with the main timeline rather than having a separate section; and be willing to compromise. Simple. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:06, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, yes, but as you know, nothing on Wikipedia is ever simple. Oh, no. Everything has to be open-ended and expansive and left for someone else to solve down the road. I have tried to do what you suggested, in other articles. What happens is the person disagrees and claims the praise is critical appraisal.
–Vmavanti (talk) 00:40, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Vmavanti, a professional music critic writing for the New York Times is a reliable source. You, Vmavanti, are not a reliable source (and neither am I). The assessments of professional critics belong in Wikipedia articles. Your personal assessments do not belong in Wikipedia and neither do mine. Your quirky view that professional critical assessment of musical performances or film performances or stage play performances or novels or poetry or paintings or sculpture does not belong in Wikipedia is bizarre, idiosyncratic and not supported by consensus. It is disruptive for you to try to impose your idiosyncratic preferences on relatively low profile articles like this. If you want a radical change in how we handle critical assessment of works of art, then it is incumbent on you to make the argument project-wide and gain consensus for that change. Good luck with that. If you are embarrassed by how we do things on Wikipedia, then there are countless other websites where you can express your opinions without worrying about Wikipedia's inconvenient policies and guidelines. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:20, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
At the risk of again disrupting this duologue, I'd like to point out that what is currently in the second para of the lead is not a "critical assessment" in any meaningful sense. It is excessive praise, of minimal encyclopedic value to any reader of this article. It can be either removed, or - if that is too severe - incorporated in the main text. But it should not be in the lead, per MOS:INTRO. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:18, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In my edit summary, I recommended moving the cited critical assessments to the body of the article, so I agree with you on that score, Ghmyrtle. On the other hand, please explain why critical assessments by people like Leonard Feather and Louis Armstrong do not belong in the article. Why would readers be interested in what such credible people wrote about Barbara Dane? I am a reader and I find the content useful. Why is it "excessive"? Do we consider critical assessment of other artists "excessive", and if so, what metric do we use to make that judgment, other than "I don't like it"? If there is some critical commentary that says that Dane was a lousy Marxist-Leninist singer who should be dismissed as a folk artist, then that should be added as well. Please bring such sources forward. Otherwise, this article should contain well-referenced critical commentary, as all other well-written Wikipedia biographies of various types of artists routinely contain. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:45, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The comments by Feather and Armstrong are mildly interesting, but their few words of praise hardly amount to "critical assessments". I don't have a strong view on whether or not they should be included in the main text, but I don't think they should be in either the lead or a separate freestanding section. If relevant and helpful, they should be integrated into the main text. Anyway, the other detailed changes suggested by Vmavanti seem to be perfectly acceptable, and there is no reason why they should not be taken on board. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:46, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Barbara_Dane&oldid=1205974940"