Talk:John Serry Sr.

COI

Main writer asserted "I am one of the composer's son."[1] about his eulogic articles American Rhapsody and John Serry, Sr.. 62.147.36.251 (talk) 15:45, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Subbing

I've done a first pass subbing:

• Put all dates into WP:MoS compliance, fixed slips with punctuation, abbreviations etc. in dates.
• Put all variations of page numbers "Pg.", "P." etc to "p."
• Replaced "Serry, Sr." in most places with "Serry".
• Moved external links to the pages listed as external links where there are wikilinks.
• General subbing, adding of internal links, remove excess whitespace, caps, etc. Put lists as best as possible into chronological order.

The main thing now is to get the references into order. The New York Times ones are flooding it and I am not sure what to do about that; but beyond that the external links need to be made into proper references. Until one gets a first pass done and can see the meat for the potatoes, there's little point: so I'll leave that for a second pass. This does mean some references are very bald right now i.e. simply numbers; I can't help that.

Hope this is in the right direction. If I come back and find a new reference with "Pg." or "John Serry, Sr." (See Wikipedia:MOS#Titles_of_people) I will have to get out the virtual baseball bat. SimonTrew (talk) 00:08, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Proposal to move

Since WP:MoS now regards commas before Sr and Jr as outdated, and the article does not use them, I propose the title of the articles should not use them either. SimonTrew (talk) 00:19, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

• Reply To Proposal To Move

As the primary author of the article John Serry, Sr. I do not object to using the title John Serry Sr. on this article. If it is at all possible, kindly retain the use of the suffix Sr. so that the title of this article is not confused with the article about the musician's son (who is alive and utilizes the name John Serry professionally in his capacity as a musician). Perhaps some method can be utilized to differentiate between the two musicians so as to avoid confusing potential readers. In addition, kindly excuse the extensive use of the suffix Sr. throughout the article. Once again, my hope was to avoid confusing readers who might confuse these two musicians while researching John Serry's current professional activities. Also note that the article entitled John Serry, Jr. is more properly titled as John Serry since this musician is still alive and known professionally as John Serry (try a Google search to verify) Thank you for your understanding and kind assistance. --Pjs012915 (talk) 15:59, 27 April 2009 (UTC)User:pjs012915--Pjs012915 (talk) 14:38, 28 April 2009 (UTC)User:pjs012915

Well it kinda makes sense for Jr. to be primary then, under WP:BLP. But anyway, I simply changed the notation within the article; after defining who John Serry Sr. is then you can simply say Serry; where there's any doubt it's still spelt in full. Wp:MOS dislikes commas and periods (full stops) on this but that's pretty minor stuff right now I think. SimonTrew (talk) 22:42, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Feedback

Since you've asked for feedback on the article, I have some. First, I recommend you read a number of composer biographies that are Featured Articles or otherwise highly regarded, and see what types of information they provide (as this informs much of my commentary). You might look at Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky and Tōru Takemitsu, to name two that are Featured; I also think that Maurice Ravel is a pretty good composer biography. Also, you might look at what the Composers project has to say on the subject of article structure, and read my essay on the subject. That said, I have a catalog of issues:

1. The article is short on childhood details. We don't know anything about his childhood environment: were his parents musical? when did he begin learning music? accordion? composing? where did he go to (primary/secondary) school, if it's at all important to his musical development.
2. The article is short on biographic details; it reads like a purely professional bio. This man is a human being. When did he get married (if he even did; this is not something even mentioned)? Did he have affairs? How many children did he have? Were they important to his music? Did he write or play music for them?
3. More should be told about how he broke into the business. (What was his first gig? What gig made him famous?) His career is given as an almost staccato presentation of "he worked with" entries. How and when did he meet his collaborators? Which ones were most important in furthering his career? Which ones were just good friends that he liked playing with?
4. Is there some reason why he decided to spend the last 1/3 of his life as a free-lance organist? Why did he leave an apparently successful career in TV, film, and Broadway? Did he stop playing accordion? when?
5. There is little critical commentary. He made recordings; what did critics say about them? how well did they sell? Are there soundbite quotes from critics about any of his performances?
6. You should not have a section titled "Overview". The lead (some spell it lede) which precedes the first section should summarize the article. After that, please give us a roughly chronological biography. Right now the "Overview" is fully 25% of the biographic material of the article.
7. The article desparately needs more images. If you are in fact in the family, you should consider releasing more professionally-oriented images from his past.
8. The lengthy treatments of his compositions should be placed on their own pages. If they are not sufficiently notable for that, the treatments should still be reduced in size; this is a biographic article, not an article about pieces of music.
9. Composing questions: when did he learn composition or arranging? what was his first composition? his first sale? his first notable work? his most notable work? were there breaks in his career when he didn't compose? when did he finally stop composing?
10. I would replace "Advanced Compositions Summary" with a "Musical style" section, in which his style of play and composition (and its evolution over time) is elaborated.
11. Some parts of the article are over-cited; for example, we probably don't need seven references showing that he played at the World's Fair.

This article is a decent Start, but don't feel bad; the above factual problems are all somewhat typical of biographies that are primarily promotional in nature. I've taken the liberty of reducing to Start the assessment on those projects that I know don't use a C rating. Magic♪piano 20:46, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Dear User:Magicpiano -Thanks for your extensive feedback and insights on improving the article. I am one of the composer's several children and the principal author of the article. The article was initially submitted and accepted as a purely biographical article and rated as a B class. Over time, I have attempted to provided verifiable information to augment the article and make it more acceptable to posting with a classical music and contemporary music tag. Unfortunately, these attempts have resulted in conflict of issue questions being raised by various editors and the subsequent downgrading of the article to a C level. Alas, it seems that as I provide more information about the composer various editors find additional reasons to question my objectivity and downgrade the article even further. I am therefore somewhat reluctant to provide the additional biographical details which you mentioned. I am unable to document or verify such details with "known sources" since I am unable to provide additional documentation beyond the sources already provided. Dad was an excellent musician who treasured his privacy --hence not much was published about his private life. I fear that by including additional information regarding his youth, family, upbringing ect. I will only undermine the acceptability of the article even further and perhaps set the stage for its deletion from the encyclopedia.

With this in mind, kindly remove my request for an assessment of the article within the Composer's category. I do not believe that I possess enough verifiable information to justify such a listing and would prefer to salvage as much of the article as possible. In so far as other editors in the Contemporary Music and Classical Music areas have assigned a C-level to this article while it is under a final review, I have taken the liberty of undoing your re-grading of the article and restored its C- level (I hope that this action is permitted). If possible, kindly withdraw my request for an assessment of the article within the composer's section. With this in mind, I have removed the requested tag for the composer's section at the top of the article and restored the C- ratings which were posted prior to your review. I hope that this is permitted. Thanks again for your input and best wishes for the future. --Pjs012915 (talk) 21:30, 6 May 2009 (UTC)pjs012915

Dear Magicpiano: Please accept my apologies for deleting you comments from the talk page on this article. It was not my intention to waste your time. I do sincerely appreciate all of your efforts to assist in the development of the article. I have explained on the article's talk page why I am unable to comply with your request for additional information. I hope that you can appreciate my reasoning . If possible, kindly withdraw my request to include this article within the composer's section and restore its rating back to C-level. Thank you for your kind assistance in this regard.--Pjs012915 (talk) 21:41, 6 May 2009 (UTC)user:pjso12915--Pjs012915 (talk) 22:12, 6 May 2009 (UTC)User:pjs012915

Well, some of MagicPiano's questions may have seemed a bit too personal (not every composer had a life full of scandal), but I do think that some additional biographical details would greatly improve the article. Even just bare-bones details like place of education and important teachers and influences. And the briefest of histories behind how he got the gigs in the late 30s at Radio City and various NYC hotels. How had those places heard of him? Did he have a mentor? Had he won competitions in school? That sort of thing. Even the simplest most non-controversial stuff in that area would be helpful.DavidRF (talk) 21:53, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Dear DavidRF: Many thanks for your insights. While I would be pleased to provide all of the details you have requested, I am unable to document them in any verifiable fashion. Various editors have objected to unverifiable prose which I included in previous versions of the article. I was advised not to include facts which I am unable to document in order to avoid unnecessary editing. I doubt that other editors will be successful in providing verifiable sources since my father took care to avoid the public limelight for the benefit of his family. I have already provided some details regarding his teachers in the section on professional affiliations. i hope that this is of some help. Thanks again for your kind understanding.--Pjs012915 (talk) 22:08, 6 May 2009 (UTC)User:pjs012915

I'm not sure why you think the project assessment of an article is somehow problematic, or that a higher rating will somehow raise its profile. It is merely a measurement against a somewhat objective standard. According to the standards set by a number of projects, this article merits a Start rating. This change of rating (from B to Start or C) will have approximately no effect on visibility within Wikipedia. The only notable ratings which gain visibility are Good Article and Feature Article, each of which place articles on lists devoted to that recognition; the latter also have on their page. This article does not anywhere near ready for either of those standards.

You essentially asked what would make this a better article. Since I've read and reviewed several hundred composer articles, it was easy for me to do one more. My commentary was intended to be constructive; as far as I can tell, the subject satisfies WP:NOTABILITY and is not at risk of deletion. In case you haven't noticed, poor quality (or even lack of complete discussion of a topic) is not a criterion for deletion from Wikipedia.

I actually think the basic material you have added is decent, and should not be thrown out. It needs some (re)formatting and organization, and, if it is to be regarded as a reasonably complete biographic article, needs some of its factual gaps closed. Some of the questions I asked are somewhat personal (and arguably bordering on rude, but I was trying to make a point), but biographies are personal; many questions I asked are not personal (how did he break into the business? is not a personal question). I'm not expecting you to provide information from unpublished sources; in fact, Wikipedia requires information to come from verifiable, reliable sources. If the information to answer my questions is not available from those sorts of sources, the article may well stay at a lower rating; such is often the fate of people whose lives are not sufficiently public (by choice or otherwise). I will say that the article is arguably not far from a Composer B rating: if you can provide early-life development information, for example documenting (from reliable sources) his childhood home, musical development and schooling, that might be sufficient. Or more critical/popular commentary and some more images.

You asked me to reinstate the C rating. I will merely observe that the projects whose ratings I lowered do not use the C rating at all, and I said as much earlier (see e.g. Wikipedia:WikiProject Composers/Assessment). Since the article is not B by their standards, it must be Start. Magic♪piano 22:18, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Dear User:Magicpiano --thank you once again for your thoughts. If possible kindly withdraw my request for a listing of this article within the Composer's pages. Alas, I simply do not have verifiable source documents to cite for verifiability and as one of the composer's son's I am prohibited by Wikipedia standards from presenting myself as a source --see the COI complaints filed against American Rhapsody and Concerto For Free bass Accordion which I authored and the resulting deletion review which ensued. Rest assured I do not take any offense at your request for additional personal information. In addition, my request to restore the C-rating poted earlier is based only upon the grading which was provided by other editors and posted prior to my request for your input. My request is to abort any attempt to list this article as a composer's article and to simply restore the ratings which were agreed upon by other editors prior to my request to you that the article receive consideration in the Composer's section. Thanks again for your understanding. I am not concerned about the article's profile in Wikipedia. I shall not attempt to edit the article further.

I do not feel qualified to address these complex editorial issues in a timely manner.Many thanks for all you help and best wishes for the future. --Pjs012915 (talk) 22:39, 6 May 2009 (UTC)User:pjs0121915

PJ: As Magic says, the classification has little to do with its prominence, which basically will stand for itself. Don't worry about the classification, I've done stacks of stub articles and bits and pieces trying to link things together which are not classified at all, even though I am proud of 'em myself.

Take the changes by editors as a compliment; it means people are paying attention to the article. Though you may claim you are the "primary author" or "original author" nobody owns anything on Wikipedia (see WP:OWNERSHIP). WP:BOLD also means people should make changes if they think they are for the better. I understand your frustration because you want your dad's biog to be right and also you know it can't simply be a hagiography or eulogy; I can understand it but it's best I think to persever and within a couple of months it will be a great article I think.

The references are a bit hard, especially the New York Times going on and on and on. I might try {{reflist|2}} and see if that looks better.

Your argument about Serry Jr. is kinda tricky because it is WP:BLP and quite patently a lot shorter than his dad's, so notability is going to be pretty hard to show there.

My neighbo(ur) Frank Clarke was of the same generation as Serry Sr, I would not be surprised if they'd met from time to time. He was double bass.

Best wishes 22:54, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

OK PJ we crossed horses in midstream. If you kindly look back at my edits, I have done ref fixup (which is a bloody long job) internal wikilink fixes, I fixed typos and punc, I put into house style, I put history into sections with reasonable meanings, I rearranged pictures to make them fit layout, I don't think I can be accused of "some editors" doing anything but trying to make the article better. SimonTrew (talk) 23:02, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Dear Simontrew Thank you for your thoughts. I sincerely appreciate your efforts to improve the article and do not wish to imply in any manner that you have not made a genuine effort to improve the article in a professional manner. I am grateful for you assistance and wish you the best of luck in reconstructing my contributions to comform to Wikipedia guidelines. Alas, I simply do not have the required qualifications or time to master the guidlines fast enough to keep pace with your colleagues. With this in mind, I shall leave the article in the capable hands of you and your colleagues and trust that the article will emerge in the months to come as a valuable source of information for students and researchers alike. Please accept my appologies for creating so much confusion and best wishes for the future. --Pjs012915 (talk) 23:16, 6 May 2009 (UTC)User:pjs012915

P.S. Thanks again for your assistance--evidently my attempt to include this article within the Music Portal have resulted in considerable controversy and confusion. As I've indicated elsewhere my only interest is in creating a simple biographical article for the benefit of future researchers and students of music. There is no need to include the article within the Music Portal if it creates so much ccontroversy. Feel free to simply restore the article's first designation as a simple biography if this serves to avoid ongoing disputes and prolonged editing. Thanks again and best wishes . --Pjs012915 (talk) 14:31, 9 May 2009 (UTC)pjs012915

Deleted Cleanup Tag and Peacock Tag

As per Wikipedia:Cleanup process guidlines I have deleted the Cleanup and Peacock Tag after editing the article further. I hope that this is permitted as per the process described for de-listing an article tagged for cleanup. All peacock terms have also been expunged to the best of my ability.. Thanks --Pjs012915 (talk) 14:21, 25 July 2009 (UTC)User:pjs012915

As User:Damiens.rf pointed out in his reversion of your tag removal, you probably are not the best person to decide whether the tags merit removal (especially the peacock label, due to your relationship with the subject). I personally don't think there is anything particularly peacocky about the current language, so I have removed that tag. The article still has some significant WP:MOS issues, including some about the article structure I pointed out in my review above (mainly numbers 6, 8, and 10). For this reason, it is my opinion that the cleanup tag remains. Magic♪piano 16:10, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you User_talk:Magicpiano for your revision of User:Damiens.rf edit. The Wikipedia:Cleanup process does not appear to preclude responsible editing of an article so long as it conforms to established norms even if the aurthor is related to the subject of the article. With this in mind, thank you for your timely removal of the Peacock tag. As per your request in item #6, I have removed the Overview section title. I have refrained from deleting content from the section in order to avoid distrubing the overall structure of the article. The Advance Comspoition section mentioned in item #8 was created as a result of a merger recommendation following a deletion review of two articles entitled American Rhapsody and Concerto For Free Bass Accordion. The content of these two articles was not considered to be noteworthy for separate articles and was merged into the parent article as per the recommnedation of the editors. I have reduce the type size of the content, but have not deleted any content since it fully describes the compositional structure for the benefit of future musicologists. All peacock terms have been eliminated. I have refrained from creating a separate section entitled Musical Style as mentioned in item #10 until an editor has established whether any content from the Advanced Comspositions section can be retained. Perhaps the article should be tagged for the attention of an Expert in Music who can resolve these questions in a timely manner. An any rate, thank you for your assistance. Respectfully, --Pjs012915 (talk) 17:43, 28 July 2009 (UTC)User:pjs012915

You misunderstand my issue with the Overview section. The problem is that the article effectively contains two biographies, one approximately three times the length of the other, that contain non-overlapping content. Removing the "Overview" header without actually merging the two biographies makes things worse, not better.

I understand why there is a lot of material about these works here. Until it is integrated, the article is (again, my opinion) in sufficient structural disarray to merit a tag indicating as much. Magic♪piano 19:44, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Dear User_talk:magicpiano - thanks again for your thoughts--I've attempted to delete and re-arrange some material from the Overview section while establishing a musical style section as part of the Musical legacy section. I hope that this helps to improve the article's readability. In any event, thanks again for your thoughts. Perhaps an editor who has a more in depth understanding of Wikipeida

standards could complete the editorial process for me--I seem to be out of my depths once again. Thanks again for your help. Gratefully----Pjs012915 (talk) 22:23, 28 July 2009 (UTC)User:pjs012915 ps. The User:Damiens.rf has attempted to undo the use of small type in the text on the advanced grade compositions. I have restored the use of small type as per the suggestion of User: SimonTrew in order to save space. Also the use of the term Advanced when describing the comspositions is not a peacock term as User:Damiens.rf apparently believes--it is actually a reference to a technical grading system which is commonly utilized to rank musical compositions. It simply illustrates that the comsposition is not suitable for elementary or intermediate students of the instrument. Consequently I have also restored its use since it accurately describes the intentions of the composer. Thanks --Pjs012915 (talk) 23:24, 28 July 2009 (UTC)User: pjs012915

Editing by User:Damiens.rf on text size

Dear User_talk:magicpiano Kindly note that User:damins.rf has elected to undo the use of small text in the section describing the advanced compositions section despite that fact that you endorsed utilizing small text in these sections. I have alerted him to this by several attempts to undo his revision and shall make one last attempt to restore the small text size. Kindly inform User:damiens.rf of your preference to utilize the smaller size text so as to simplify the editorial cleanup of the article--Many thanks. --Pjs012915 (talk) 22:05, 29 July 2009 (UTC)User:pjs012915

I don't believe I ever suggested that the font be reduced. I suggested that the amount of text be reduced; i.e. that the content on the works be summarized or reduced in scope. (If you feel these works deserve more than a summary, I suggest you find a different venue in which to publish your description and analysis of them, if the consensus here is that they were not notable.) Magic♪piano 00:46, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Dear User:Magicpiano Sorry for the confusion and thank you for your observations--I interpreted your reference to Size in item #8 of the Feedback section listed above as a request to reduce the size of the font utilized in the text in order to save space as suggested by User:SimonTrew. In so far as the text in these compositions is considered to be worthy of merger into the main article (as per the results of the deletion review) I have left them in the separate section at the bottom of the page in their entirety. I do not believe that the content of the Advanced Compositions can be reduced without deleting relevant musicological data which might be of interest to composers and/or student researchers. I have only reduced the size of the font as per the action taken by the Wikipedia gnome User:SimonTrew in the footnotes section as part of my an effort to reduce the overall size of the article as per Wikipedia:Cleanup process guidlines. If this is not appropriate kindly advise me and I shall be happy to remove the small size font in this section. Thanks again--Pjs012915 (talk) 23:23, 30 July 2009 (UTC)--Pjs012915 (talk) 23:23, 30 July 2009 (UTC)User:pjs012915

I understand your confusion on the size thing. My point is this:

• consensus has apparently decided that these works are not notable.
• this article is about a person, not a concerto

Consequent to the latter, some discussion of his creative works is clearly appropriate. However, the focus of the article should remain on the person. His compositions should be described for their style and technical innovation, but not necessarily in the sort of detail typical in articles on musical compositions. See for example Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky and Music of Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky for the sort of content that would be appropriate. The "relevant musicological data which might be of interest to composers", in my opinion, has no home on Wikipedia, unless notability of the work is established. This is why I suggested you find a different venue to publish it. Magic♪piano 05:30, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Musical style-Advanced compositions

Dear User:Magicpiano Thank you again for your insights. While it is true that the deletion review for the articles American Rhapsody and Concerto For Free bass Accordion established that the subject matter which they contain is not notable for use in separate articles, it is also apparent that several reviewers found the content to be worthy of being retained within the body of the parent article about the composer (hence the decision to merge content). One reviewer even questioned the logic of expecting to uncover independent analysis through internet searching of these works (to establish notability) in so far as: 1) they were composed prior to the establishment of internet databases 2) they were composed for an instument which was routinely excluded from classical orchestral ensembles during the pre-war and post war period in America (See Accordion (use in classical music) and 3) they were composed for an innovative free-bass configuration of the instrument which was largely unknown by the general public and ochestral conductors in the US at that time ((See Free-bass system use in classical music). This comprehensive analysis suggests that the notability of the content contained within the articles is not likely to be established through independent third party confirmation. It does not follow logically , however, that they cannot be appropriately classified as worthy of inclusion within the parent article about the composer. The detailed description of the compositions serves to shed light on the composer's musical style and the influence of various composers on his thoughts. In addition, they serve to provide an insight into the development of musical compositions for an instrument which had been historically accepted in within the European tradition of classical music history but not in the USA. Evidently, the editors of Wikipedia Italy agree with this analysis since they list an Italian translation of the Wikipedia article "American Rhapsody" as an independent article. The existence of this independent article on Wikipedia Italy suggests that doubts concerning the notability of the content of these articles are perhaps misplaced. While it may be possible to edit the content relating to the compositions further, it should be undertaken by a knowledgable editor who has a knowledge of musicolgy and harmonic structure in order to retain the appropriate content without sacrificing important details. Perhaps, however, it would be best to direct resolution of this issue to the attention of an editor who has expert knowledge of music history, harmony and musicology by attatching an Expert|musicology tag to the article. Thanks again --Pjs012915 (talk) 14:13, 1 August 2009 (UTC)User:pjs012915

Expert-talk Musical style Advanced Compositions

Dear Experts: The section of this article marked Musical Style - Advanced Compositions requires the attention of an editor with expertise in Classical Musicology or Classical Music Composition for Cleanup Tag resolution editing. Kindly examine the text for the two compositions entitled American Rhapsody and Concerto For Free Bass Accordion in reference to concerns about the presence of the detailed information concerning the composer's musical style. The content for both compositions was merged onto the composer's article as a result of a deletion review but some questions remain as to how much of the original articles should be retained. The deletion review specifically recommended that the contents of the article should be retained on Wikipedia and merged into the parent article due to the notability of the composer. (See discussion above with me and the User:Magicpianoin Musical Style Advance Compositions section above). Kindly examine the text to determine whether the text should be excised out of the article entirely ( as some editors have advocated) or retained in an abbreviated form within the parent article as I believe the final decision of the deletion review panel suggests (See American Rhapsody redirect discussion page for deletion review discussionWikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Rhapsody). Should you agree that the text should be retained due to its relevance (and notability as evidenced by its presence on Wikipedia - Italy as a separate article entitled American Rhapsody), kindly remove the Cleanup Tag and retain the important musicological and harmonic references for the benefit of interested musicologists and researchers. I would gladly edit the text myself, but lack the necessary musicological expertise. In the event that you determine that further editing or cleanup of this text is not required, kindly notify User:magicpiano of your decision so as to expedite removal of the Cleanup tag at the top of the parent article. In addition, kindly explore the possibility of preserving the merged content as part of a second window which can be opened from within the main parent article for the benefit of readers. This would serve to conceal the details of the composition from readers who are primarily interested in the composer's article while preserving important details about the composer's musical style--thereby addressing some of the objections raised by other editors concerning the parent article's overall length.Thanks again for your assistance --Pjs012915 (talk) 14:56, 1 August 2009 (UTC)User:pjs012915 --Pjs012915 (talk) 13:22, 3 August 2009 (UTC)User:pjs012915

See current discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music#Classical accordion? --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:23, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Why does American Rhapsody redirect here?

There are compositions by that name by (to name two) Delius and Dohnanyi - why does that link redirect here? Most odd, Watson. Most odd. Schissel | Sound the Note! 03:45, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Dear SchisselSound the Note!- I am the original author of the article mentioned above. The link for American Rhapsody was redirected to this musician's article as a result of a deletion review decision (See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Rhapsody) earlier this year. It was determined that the contents of this article as well as the article entitled Concerto For Free Bass Accordion should be merged within the main article describing this musician's contributions as a composer to the advancement of the accordion as a serious solo concert instrument and classical orchestral instrument in the early 20th century. I hope that this helps to clarify any confusion. Thanks for your interest and I look forward to any contributions which you might be able to make to the cleanup activities associated with the parent article. Thanks again for your interest..

--Pjs012915 (talk) 14:23, 15 August 2009 (UTC)User:pjs012915

Solution that may have seemed more common sensical to me: replace American Rhapsody with a dab page: it is most likely to be sought for either by someone looking for the movie, An American Rhapsody, or by someone looking for Delius' Appalachia of 1896, subtitled American Rhapsody ( or that may have been the title of an early version of the piece; anycase, one of his most famous works, but without as yet a separate page, so one would link directly to Frederick Delius.) The Dohnanyi and Serry examples would also be on the disambiguation page, but for the sake of completeness (the Dohnanyi is among his less-known works, having been recorded to my knowledge twice in all.) Schissel | Sound the Note! 17:20, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

This may be an interesting solution. I am not so certain, however, that someone searching for the title American Rhapsody is more likely to be seeking the movie with a similar title. Kindly keep in mind, however, that Wikipedia Italy has translated the article American Rhapsody into Italian within its Musical Portal. :

Evidently, Wikipedia's editors in Italy consider the composition to be noteworthy and worthy of inclusion as a separate article. It might be best to keep this in mind before removing the redirect link since musicology researchers in Europe might wish to investigate the composer's full biographical article in English after learing of his composition in Italian. In any case, the confusion between the title of the movie and the title of the composition might easy be resolved through the disambiguation of the title of the musical comsposition to American Rhapsody (Composition). Just a thought--thanks for your interest. --Pjs012915 (talk) 16:28, 18 August 2009 (UTC)pjs012915

Advertisements as references and others which do not mention the subject

There are a lot of of references in this article to the New York Times, but most of them are advertisements for upcoming events. A search of the NYT by a helpful subscriber found only one article which mentions Serry specifically and which is not such an advertisement. I think that the others should be deleted, because upcoming event announcements don't show that an event actually happened, and the ones that don't mention him are not references for his participation in the event anyway. Unless someone objects, I will begin deleting them in a few days.—Anne Delong (talk) 20:47, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Dear Ms. Delong: Thank you in advance for your thoughtful analysis. The references in question (i.e. to the New York Times) might actually serve a useful purpose for prospective researchers of the future. Consequently I would advise against removing these references without first considering the following analysis. While there can be no doubt that the presence of an "advertisement" does not unequivocally substantiate the occurrence of a historical event in the same manner that a reference from a newspaper article, it is equally clear that its presence in an authoritative source such as the The New York Times does serve to increase the probability of a correct citation for the subject matter described in the article. It would seem highly unlikely that noted professional musicians and the promoters at professional concert venues such as Radio City, the Waldorf-Astoria Hotel or the Plaza Hotel in New York City would allocate substantial time and resources in order to advertise concert performances on specific dates and times in an authoritative source such as The New York Times in a fictitious manner, while actually scheduling another performance on exactly the same date and time at another concert venue, or perhaps even more improbably --failing to schedule a concert performance at all. In addition, the administrators of such noted professional schools of the era (such as the Biviano Accordion Center) could hardly be expected to advertise their course offerings and the noted musicians on their faculty for purely frivolous reasons. In addition, while these references may not actually cite the name of each of the artists performing within the orchestral ensembles cited in the article, they do serve to substantiate and document the existence of the musical ensembles in question during the time period referenced within the article. In addition, one could hardly expect an advertisement to provide a compete listing of the members of an entire orchestral ensemble during this period of time (1930's - 1940s) i.e. before the advent of the Web. In so far as these references serve to document and substantiate the existence of the orchestral ensembles cited within the article, they provide a useful function by providing credible documentation for the contextual framework of the article itself. In the "ideal world" such citations would provide the specific names of the artists and perhaps even a critical review of the performance itself. One should keep in mind, however, that during while World War II raged in the late 1930s and 1940s, resources were scare and the allocation of space within periodicals was limited. Consequently, as researchers we must be grateful for the citations and references which we are able to salvage under such unique circumstances. With these observations in mind, I would encourage you to refrain from deleting such useful reference citations in the days ahead. Respectfully Yours 72.69.152.90 (talk) 00:11, 29 August 2017 (UTC)JJ72.69.152.90 (talk) 00:18, 29 August 2017 (UTC)JJ

DelongHello, JJ. While editing the article, I checked the references to see if they were news or magazine articles, concert or recording reviews, books published through an editor, or other independently published writings specifically about the subject, in this case Mr. Serry. The policy of Wikipedia is that the text in the article is to be a neutral summary of information in these independent writings. If I have removed any such references, please point them out. As far as I can see, there never was a reference next to the sentence about the nationwide live radio and television broadcasts. The references that I removed were ones that didn't mention Mr. Serry, or were user-contributed databases, or were not independently written. If I hadn't taken those out, another editor would have. Note that it is not always necessary to have references to items in the lead summary if the detailed text further down in the article has references to the same information.I'm presuming that it was you that added all of those newspaper references. If so, and you know what the titles of the articles are, or the URL to the newspaper website, I hope you will add them. I can't tell what they say about Mr. Serry; if they don't mention him they should be removed.I'm sure that what you say above about the reputation of accordionists is all true, but Wikipedia can't be used to promote opinions or ideas, and if journalists, music critics, or other authors who are not friends, relatives or close colleagues of Mr. Serry have not published articles or books about how these topics and how they relate to him specifically, then it is unsupported opinion, and it should not be in the article about him.One last thing- It's fine for you to leave messages on my talk page and I am happy to reply here. You may, however, wish to leave messages on the article talk page instead, where they may be read by other editors who will help to improve the article. Now that I have edited the article, it's on my watchlist, so I will see your comments there as well as here.—Anne Delong (talk) 02:24, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello again Ms. Delong - Thank you again for your kind and prompt response. I appreciate your analysis and clarification regarding the use of reference sources and hoped merely to underscore the importance of avoiding the temptation to eliminate reference sources which may not necessarily be pristine, but serve to provide documentation in support of the subject matter contained within the articles ( i.e. such as the name of an orchestra, the name of its conductor and the date and times during which the orchestral ensemble flourished). With this in mind, it might be advisable to refrain from eliminating all such reference citations in so far as they serve to support the general context of the article itself. In reference to the elimination of phrases which you have described as "self promoting" or "unsubstantiated opinions" (such as the use of the terms virtuoso, recording live broadcasts nationwide, concert soloist as well as orchestral accordionist), it should be kept in mind that this musician, along with several others of his era in the United States (See Charles Magnante, Pietro Deiro and Dick Contino, aspired to elevate the performance level of the instrument before live audiences throughout the USA at a time when the instrument was essentially embraced by audiences, critics and conductors within this country as essentially a "Folk Instrument"--only suitable for performing polkas and ethnic music. The absence of reference citations from "authoritative independent sources" should not be surprising since each of these musicians attempted to overcome the widespread preconceptions which prevailed throughout the professional artistic community regarding the accordion's potentiality as a "serious" orchestral instrument. ( See Accordion music genres/Use in classical music for more details and Viva America for Voice of America cultural diplomacy initiatives). With this in mind, the use of such terms as virtuoso, concert soloist and leading orchestral soloist are best regarded not as "self promoting" as some might suggest, but rather as technical clarifications of the level of artistry achieved by each of these musicians during their performance endeavors and their attempts to educate their fellow musicians despite the level of ignorance and misunderstanding which prevailed at that time. The use of such technical performance terms underscores the obstacles which each of these artists were required to overcome in the course of their performance careers as well as the high level of their artistic achievements, as evidenced by public performances within premier concert venues and published compositions for the instrument. I hope that these thoughts help to clarify matters somewhat, in the hope that you and your fellow editors reconsider the elimination of these terms from the introductory sentences of this biography and the biographies of the musicians listed above. Once again, many thanks for your kind and thoughtful analysis and best wishes for your continued success on Wikipedia in the future- Respectfully yours, JJ 72.69.152.90 (talk) 1359, 29 August 2017 (UTC)72.69.152.90 (talk) 1407, 29 August 2017 (UTC)JJ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.69.152.90 (talk)

P.S. Regarding various proposals to eliminate the section on Musical Style, kindly note that this musician's incorporation of high musical standards and the avoidance of exaggerated bellows shakes and glissando while performing with his fellow professional musicians does constitute a distinctive musical style as an expert on the performance standards of the instrument can attest. Thanks again for your kind thoughts. 72.69.152.90 (talk) 14:39, 29 August 2017 (UTC)JJ

Ah, high standards... (if I understand you correctly now) not quite clear from the article text currently. Still, maybe a performance style, but, unless explained, still not clear how that would effect musical style. Further, "avoidance of exaggerated bellows shakes and glissando while performing with his fellow professional musicians" may constitute a musical style, but,

1. We may prefer someone else telling this than the person himself; it may be that he recommended this to other musicians, which still tells little or nothing about his own style: is there a source that says this is "distinctive" for his musical style (seems rather "what any accordionist should/would do" when playing in an ensemble).
2. If that's all we have that's too little for a separate section on style I suppose, even with improved references. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:58, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

The Who Is Who In Music International 1958 reference seems dodgy (this US publication seems furthermore to be confused with International Who's Who in Music, which was published in the UK in that period). Does anyone have access to it? --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:59, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Dear Schonken - many thanks to you and your colleagues for such a kind and prompt reply to my thoughts regarding the "musical style" section. In passing, I would once again merely observe that in an "Ideal Editorial Universe" one might hope to acquire purely "objective independent verification" of the existence of a "Musical Style" per se. Such a lofty standard might fail to account for the fact that this musician and his colleagues from that era ( as cited above) were in fact continuously establishing totally new performance standards for this instrument within the United States during a period of time that the instrument was largely shunned and ignored by professional orchestral ensembles (as the Wikipedia article on Accordion music genres - Use in Classical music illustrates. Consequently, as judicious and impartial editors and researchers , we have an obligation to be judicious and not to judge the performance styles and standards of these artists from within the frame of reference which we adopt in the 21st century. I would respectfully suggest that it more appropriate to analyze these musicians' contributions from the frame of reference which prevailed during the unique era of musical history in which they performed. As the Wikipedia article on the history of the accordion cited above indicates, the vast majority of accordion instrumentalists who performed during this era in the USA were content to perform ethnical music, folk music and rudimentary jazz compositions suitable for the masses. These performances reflected specific performance styles which were subsequently associated with the instrument itself by members of the general public, conductors and professional orchestral musicians of the era in the USA as documented within the Wikipedia article on the history of the accordion in America. . Musicians such as Magnante, Serry and Deiro continued to develop and adopt unique musical performance styles to elevate the use of the accordion beyond these preconceived notions of what constitutes "acceptable musical performance standards" within the musical profession. In short, through their performances, recordings and compositions, these musicians established new performance standards within the USA which within todays frame of reference might seem perfectly unusual and perhaps even mundane. For example, Serry's refusal to adopt the exaggerated use of "bellow shakes" or the flashy incorporation of prolonged glissando, and repetitive arpeggio in his performances when analyzed within the frame of reference of contemporary performance standards might seem perfectly unremarkable, but when analyzed within the context of the prevailing performance standards of the time, they are indeed noteworthy and distinctive -- in Serry's case this "distinctive musical style" and high standard of perfection was sufficiently remarkable to serve as the basis for Serry's recruitment into an exclusive musical ensemble (the Pan -American Orchestra) at the Columbia Broadcasting Network CBS (the acknowledged premier radio/television broadcaster of that era) by the distinguished Italian/American conductor (and student of the legendary Arturo Toscannini) Alfredo Antonini ( Musical Director at CBS)in accordance with the high performance standards required by the United States Department of State's Office of the Coordinator of Inter-American Affairs for Voice of America as documented in the book A Pictorial History Of Radio. Settel, Irving. Grosset & Dunlap, New York, 1960 & 1967, p. 146, Library of Congress # 67-23789 (see photograph). Only a handful of musicians were accorded the honor of representing our country on live international broadcasts such as Viva America in support of the nation's cultural diplomacy initiatives during World War II. Serry is the only known accordionist to have been recruited to participate in such an exclusive orchestral ensemble. Clearly, his "distinctive musical style" (as evidenced and documented on audio recordings archived at the Bibliotheque de France) should not be trivialize or dismissed too casually in accordance with our modern frame of reference regarding the definition of "distinctive style". Thanks again for your kind consideration and best wishes for your future editorial efforts — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.69.152.90 (talk) 23:43, 29 August 2017 (UTC) P.P.S Alas- I neglected one final observation-- it is not quite clear why the reference to Who is Who in Music International 1958 should be categorized as "dodgy"--especially since few accordionists of that era were accorded such an honor during that time. Many thanks once again for your kind assistance and best wishes in sorting all of this out in the months ahead. With warmest regards.---72.69.152.90 (talk) 00:05, 30 August 2017 (UTC)JJ

I think my question was simple enough: do you actually have access to the Who Is Who In Music International 1958 volume? Your answer seems to be beating around the bush on that one. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:43, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

The possibility of "dodginess" with the Who is Who book comes from the fact that some of these types of books are legitimate collections of professionally written biographies of noted musicians, while others contain biographies which are contributed by the musicians, who have paid to have them included. Also, a Google search " - Who Is Who In Music International" 1958 - shows no hits at all except ones about Serry, which may indicate that the title or the date may be incorrect. WorldCat shows library copies of "The International who is who in music.", but the latest edition held in any of their thousands of libraries is 1951. There's also International Who's Who in Music, which includes musician-submitted biographies published by International Biographical Centre. So - it's important that someone who actually has a copy of the book check on the correct title, date and publisher.—Anne Delong (talk) 17:45, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that, and:

• not naming an editor or author for the publication (if there is no author or editor this would suggest text submitted by the subject and published without modification);
• not giving a page number but the rather enigmatic "Biographical File # B11719" indication instead (which may suggest that the musician's biography was maybe added to some database in 1958, not necessarily "published" in a printed edition in that year, maybe not even ever)

I think I was probably wrong to attempt to "repair" a reference which rather seems dodgy beyond repair, and will self-revert the edit where I tried that repair. Also seems best to remove this reference where it was added by someone who probably never saw what is called "Who Is Who In Music International 1958" in the article. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:29, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Dear JJ 72.69.152.90:

I will address some of your points:

• nationwide live broadcasts - the article already mentions this; no need to have it multiple times
• Virtuoso - If a music critic has called him this in a printed review, then the Wikipedia article can use the term; otherwise not, since this term is reserved for musicians who have been widely acclaimed as having exceptional skill.
• concert soloist - I have been unable to find a definition of this term, but the context of the article makes it clear that he played in ensembles which gave concerts, so the word "concert" is redundant even if applicable.
• orchestral accordionist - this is not a commonly used musical term. In fact, more than 95% of the Google hits for "orchestral accordionist" are links to copies of the John Serry, Sr. Wikipedia article and other WP articles to which information about Mr. Serry have been added.
• lack of reliable sources for accordionists because they are considered folk musicians - If a musician or ensemble is popular, or in some way exceptional, critics will write about this, whatever genre they are considered to be. (see this and this and this.) The majority of musicians, whatever their instrument, are striving to promote their preferred genre, style, performance excellence or compositions; these are worthwhile goals; those who succeed are written about and cited as influential in book, magazine or newspaper retrospectives, which provided reliable sources for Wikipedia articles.

In spite of what I have written here, you are quite welcome to advocate for your changes on the article talk page, or at Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical music. I'm not a classical music expert;the editors there may agree with you.—Anne Delong (talk) 16:12, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello Ms. Delong - This is a very interesting discussion- perhaps I can help to clarify a fine technical point regarding the differentiation between a "Orchestral Accordionist" and a "Concert Accordionist" since the terms are best understood as nouns rather than adjectives. An "Orchestral Accordionist" is generally described as a permanent staff member of an established orchestral ensemble (in this case the Columbia Broadcasting System's Pan American Orchestra & the Viva America Orchestra at CBS and the CBS house Orchestra) who has a permanent chair within the orchestral ensemble. (as opposed to a temporary part during a specific performance). The responsibilities of the orchestral accordionist include 1) performing the specific part assigned to the accordion within the orchestral score 2) monitoring the entire orchestral score during the performance and assuming responsibility for playing the part assigned to either the violins, violas, cellos, oboe, flutes, french horn or trumpet in the event that certain members of these sections either fail to respond to a conductor's cue or unable to follow the conductor's specific instructions during a performance. In this sense, the orchestral accordionist utilizes the sweeping tonal range of the accordion to serve as a fail safe performance resource in the event that an individual section of the orchestral fails to respond appropriately to the conductor. He must assume this role for each of these non-percussive sections of the entire orchestra--a responsibility not assigned to any other member of the orchestra and must be prepared to read the entire orchestral score during a performance and respond to the conductor to assume any part of the score at a moments notice 3) The Orchestral Accordionists must be continuously vigilant since that conductor may also call upon him without advance warning to "double-up" (i.e. play concurrently) with any other non-percussive section of the orchestra in order to produce a particular tonal quality (keeping in mind that as a free instrument with a tonal chamber, the accordion is capable of harmonic sympathetic resonance with the entire orchestra). A "Concert Accordionist" does not generally function as a permanent member of an orchestral ensemble, or assume these specific wide ranging responsibilities. He is typically assigned a specific instrumental score for the accordion only and is assigned the responsibility of performing only that exclusive part--which often requires the unique technical talents of an accomplished soloist. He typically performs either as a soloist or a featured instrumentalist with orchestra accompaniment -- for example during the performance of a Concerto for Accordion and Orchestra. Concert accordionists also perform as soloists in a concert hall setting without orchestral support or as musical collaborators with singers. For example, in this case Serry performed as a Concert Accordionist in collaboration with Marianne Oswald At Town Hall in 1942 and as a Concert Accordionist as a soloist at the Radio City Music Hall in 1933. While the distinction between the two roles is perhaps technical in nature, it is worth noting since this particular musician demonstrated a capability for assuming both roles during his professional career. Perhaps this analysis helps to clarify the appropriate use of these two terms at the start of the article. Thanks again for your kind consideration and best wishes 104.207.219.150 (talk)PS PPS - In reference to the discussions regarding eliminating the section of the article devoted to "Musical Style", the text of the article clearly strives to clarify this musician's "Musical Performance Style" within the genre's of classical music Broadway music and Jazz. The author of the text does not appear to claim that this musician established a totally new musical genre comparable to classical music, jazz or popular music through his performances. The text serves to clarify the use of his unique "musical performance style" to advance the use of a largely neglected folk instrument (in the United States at this particular time) within various different types of orchestral ensembles--including jazz, Broadway and classical music orchestras. A very simple solution might be to simply retitle this section to read "Performance style". I hope that this minor alteration helps. Thanks again for your consideration With best wishes PS104.207.219.150 (talk) 18:27, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia provides a correct summary of well-established publications

• "Leone Jump", not "Leona Jump", please follow spelling of the original publications;
• recorded "Sep-45", not "1947", per the provided clemson.edu source, please don't confuse "recording" date and "release" date;
• first released 1946, not 1947, please don't confuse original release date ([2], also already discussed in Billboard in April 1946 per reference given in article) and dates of later re-issues

Wikipedia is not a channel for approximative, but wrong, information: if you can't get it right it will be removed from the article.

• "This ... demonstrates ..." is called editorialising: unless an established, reliable, publication asserts it "demonstrates" we can not use such wording in Wikipedia. In Wikipedia, we can not expand in our own words on what is found in external publications. Wikipedia contains a summary of these external publications (if a Wikipedia reader wants to read the full text they should see the original source, per the given reference, and not find out that Wikipedia has "more" than is actually in the publication which is used as reference).
• The 1956 Squeeze Play review in Billboard is shorter than all the combined text Wikipedia references to it. This is a no-no: summarizing means making shorter than the original.

So again the section on style is veering out of control: fix it or the entire section will be removed. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:58, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Dear Schonken: thank you once again for your thoughtful analysis--So sorry for the typographical errors --in so far as Serry's music performance style has already been preserved and archived within the National Library of France's Online audio archive for all for enjoy, I see no reason to

initiate a controversial debate on the topic--As per your suggestions it has been entirely eliminated. Thanks again and good luck 47.21.83.122 (talk) 13:43, 1 September 2017 (UTC)JJ

In so far as the entire Musical Style/Performance Style section of the article John Serry Sr. has been deleted as per objections cited above by Francis Schonken and Anne Delong, the removal of a banner which flags the article as a "personal reflection/opinions essay" which is founded upon "primary sources" published by the subject of the article should be eliminated. No other specific instances of the excessive utilization of "primary reference sources" or "personal refletons/opinions" within the main body of the article have been identified by either Francis Schonken or Anne Delong. Also kindly note that Anne Delong indicates on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical music talk page that she is not an expert in classical music and is not comfortable making such sweeping changes to an article such as this ( See her remarks to Schonken & Arendt - "Francis Schonken and Gerda Arendt, I appreciate your input and participation. I am not an expert in the area of classical music (I am more into traditional folk genres) and I am a little uncomfortable in making so many serious changes to a B class article. There's also some relevant discussion on my talk page if you are interested.—Anne Delong (talk) 17:23, 29 August 2017 (UTC)"). Apparently, serious changes to an article which has been posted on Wikipedia for several years is not required in the view of this editor. With this in mind, kindly reverse the imposition of the warning banners cited above. Thank you for your kind consideration. Respectfully yours 104.207.219.150 (talk) 15:52, 5 September 2017 (UTC)PS

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on John Serry Sr.. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110707072342/http://www.aamsaccordionfestival.com/2005/ettore.html to http://www.aamsaccordionfestival.com/2005/ettore.html

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 21:39, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on John Serry Sr.. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060528201555/http://www.local802afm.org/publication_entry.cfm?xEntry=23736371 to http://www.local802afm.org/publication_entry.cfm?XEntry=23736371

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 18:54, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Sourcing

From checking some of them, I conclude that the sourcing in this article is very poor. There's an abundance of information and citations, but almost none of the sources that I've been able to look at mention the subject of this article. I suspect that checking all of the sources and removing all material that doesn't mention him, or is from questionable sources, would leave us with a short article. That would be appropriate, given that this is an encyclopedia that requires reliable sources. I lack the enthusiasm to do that checking. I imagine that no one else wants to do it either. Based on these identified problems and what Anne Delong noted above, there's a case to be made for removing most of the material on this page on the grounds that it fails verification. This isn't a fan site, blog or family scrapbook... it's an encyclopedia. EddieHugh (talk) 22:41, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

These objections appear to be somewhat unfounded. While the subject of the article may not be mentioned specifically by name within each of the reference citations examined by User:EddieHugh (talk), it is not necessarily correct to assume that the references are irrelevant to supporting the text of the article. In so far as the subject of the article was a documented staff member of several of the orchestras and jazz ensembles mentioned within the reference citations (as demonstrated on several record albums preserved cited within discographies and archives at major university's and national libraries as well as within a published discography of recorded music), it seems appropriate under verification to include them within the article as good faith efforts to document his noted musical performances. It is hardly unusual for staff members of major orchestral ensembles to achieve notoriety as performing artists within such ensembles without attaining specific acclaim by their individual names within the national press or scholarly articles. The lack of "a specific reference" to the name of the subject of the article within such references should therefore not be misconstrued as grounds for questioning the suitability of the reference citation or the notoriety of the subject of the article. In addition, the allusion to "questionable sources" seems somewhat ambiguous and lacking in specificity. The reference sources cited within the article are generally either known publications or accepted archives which can be referenced online and include leading universities such as the University of California at Santa Barbara, the National Library of France and the Library of Congress. A case for removing "most of the material" on this page on the grounds that it fails Wikipedia's criteria for verifiability requires more than mere suspicions or undocumented doubts. As User talk:EddieHugh talk indicates, this article has already been reviewed on several occasions by User:Anne Delong|Anne DelongAnne Delong for verifiability and has not been substantially reduced in size over time since that review was completed. In light of this fact, the suggestion that the article is little more than a fan site, family scrap book, or blog as suggested by User talk:EddieHugh talk clearly requires the presentation of more specific evidence. In order to assist in such a scholarly endeavor, I have endeavored to reintroduce several citations into the "Archived Works" section of the article to document that several original scores composed by the subject of the article are in fact archived for scholarly research within the Juilliard School of Music's Special Collection Archive at the Julius Baker collection. These scores are not merely unnoteworthy "circulating scores" as suggested by User talk:EddieHugh talk, but are in fact musical scores which the professional archivists at the Juilliard School have retained within their archive collection of the music and manuscripts of the noted educator and flautist Julius Baker, who was clearly a colleague and friend of the subject of this article as demonstrated on the dedication written by the composer on the score itself. Hopefully, these additional online reference citations from such an unimpeachable scholarly reference source will be of some help in allaying the quality concerns cited above. With best regards for the continued success of your editorial efforts ...160.72.80.178 (talk) 18:54, 9 December 2022 (UTC)NHPL

Based on the above, it looks like Anne Delong gave up, and didn't complete a review. For the 'he was part of a band' content: this could be summarised in a sentence for each one, but we have paragraph after paragraph, implying that Serry was a significant person in these sessions, when there appears to be no sources supporting this. It's this excessive level of detail that makes the article look like a fan site or similar. There's also a lot of name-dropping and WP:OVERCITE. The additions are just the sort of thing that isn't needed. Why does the fact that some scores by a composer are held by a library somewhere merit inclusion? The library states that Baker's was a donation of "his collection of 1,900 published scores and 275 manuscript scores"; archivists aren't in the habit of throwing out (even parts of) such collections, so there is nothing noteworthy about this for Serry or this article. This, and a lot of the content and its presentation here, is trying to make the subject of the article seem more important than the actual content of the WP:RS justifies... I've seen this in a lot of articles... as I said, I'm not enthusiastic about spending the required amount of time on this one to make it more encyclopedic, but I might be able to hack away at the most obvious faults. EddieHugh (talk) 18:37, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Spelling out more of the sourcing problems: there are sentences and paragraphs with no citations; there are numerous examples of things being attributed to Serry when the sources provided do not mention him at all; many of the problems listed years ago (above, on this talk page) have not been addressed; a large amount of the content is based on imaginative extrapolating from sources that are just lists or catalog entries. That's enough for now, and more than enough to justify the 'Verify sources' and 'More citations needed' templates that have been added (again). EddieHugh (talk) 23:12, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Adding WP:SYNTH to the problems, with the example of this edit summary for a removal of 'not in source' tags compared with this edit summary in response. Based on some of the comments in earlier talk page sections, SYNTH has been a significant way of adding content to the article. EddieHugh (talk) 00:02, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi fellopw editors It is with kindlness that I have removed for a second time the templates posted by User:Eddiehughs in so far as his objections appear to have been largely addressed. The ample documentation from published scholarly texts and magazines such as: "A Pictorial History of Radio" (see photograph of Serry in the CBS Pan American Orcheatra), "The Los Angeles Examiner" (see the photograph of Serry in the Shep Fields Rhippling Rhythm Orchestra), "Media Sound and Culture in Latin America and the Caribbean", "The Nation" "Time Magazine", "The New York Times", "The Billboard", "The American Dance Band Discography" either contain photographic evidence of Serry's participation as a permanent member or a contributing member in several noteworthy long-lived jazz and classical orchestral ensembles (as opposed to short-lived bands) or cite the role which these ensembles and orchestras played in the development of jazz and classical music in the US during the end of the World War II era while the State Department promoted the performance of Bolero and Latin American Music in concert with the CBS broadcasting network which was established through Voice of America and coordinated by Nelson Rockefeller (See Office of the Coordinator of Inter-American Affairs cultural diplomacy) to promote cultural diplomacy throughout Central America during World War II. The updated text of the article does not imply that Serry was solely responsible for introducing Bolero or other examples of Latin American music to the US during this period as User:Eddiehughs implies. It merely indicates that he served as a member of several orchestral ensembles which did serve this function. The fact that Serry is not specifically mentioned in each of the references to the role played by these orchestral ensembles does not nullify the use of these references to support the text in so far as the additional reference sources provided elsewhere in the article demonstrate that Serry was a member of these ensembles. Wikipedia clearly encourages the use of multiple reference sources which taken as whole serve to justify the cited text. UserEddiehughs seems to imply that unless each reference source specifically identifies Serry by name, it is inherently invalid. Such a literalist interpretation of Wikipeida's reference citation guidelines is not widely accepted throughout the encyclopedia. The use of multiple referencing citations in support of paragraphs in other major articles which mention Serry such as Viva America and Office of the Coordinator of Inter-American Affairs and cultural diplomacyand Accordion music genres, has not been dismissed by other more experienced editors. Is it possible that User:Eddiehughs specializes largely on editing individual sentences within the text of an article and lacks experience in analyzing citation references when taken as whole? This might help to explain his objections to including the "Works Section" of the article. UserEddiehughs justifies removing the entire listing of published compositions on the basis that the individual reference citations to the compositions fail to support the noteworthiness of the composer and merely serve to reflect the fact that they were published. The presence of such a "Works Section" within a biographical article about a musician whose performances and arrangements on a neglected instrument such as the accordion and who received favorable reviews in such magazines as "The Billboard" and "The Cash Box" seems puzzling and perhaps even arbitrary in nature. Note that similar articles about educators and performers such as Samuel Adler (composer) and Aaron Copland utilize the same referencing technique by incorporating a "Work Section". This is not to suggest that Serry has not had the same monumental influence in the development of music in the USA as Adler or Copeland. Clearly this is not the case, yet the inclusion of such a section does serve to document that noted soloists of the accordion (as opposed to composers of classical or jazz music in general, who were not accomplished concert artists performing on the accordion itself) did endeavor to compose advanced music for the instrument during the 20th century as the article on Accordion music genres illustrates. UserEddiehughs seems to have lost sight of this potentiality by concentrating exclusively on the content of each reference citation rather than reviewing them in their totality and the manner in which they support the content of the article as a whole. In addition, his insistence that every sentence within the article must contain a specific reference which specifically mentions Serry by name in order for the article to to attain the status of being encyclopedic in nature is clearly not the guideline embodied within Wikipedia's guidelines. UserEddiehughs has undoubtedly encountered examples of the intentional misrepresentation of facts by editors during his review of newly created contemporary articles for Wikipedia and is properly enthusiastic in his efforts to protect the Wikipeida plateform from improper use while improving the quality of its articles. He is to be applauded for his efforts in this regard. In summary, I would respectfully note with kindness that his somewhat hasty analysis of a mature article dating from 2005, which has been analyzed by dozens of other editors over the course of the last twenty years without serious objections and which has attained a rating of either C or B by editors participating in several Wikipedia Projects including: Jazz, Classical Music, Latin Music, New Ork City and Composer indicate that his objections are largely without merit in this instance and should be reverted. Perhaps User:Eddiehughs should be also be reminded of the importance of avoiding hasty wisespread editorial deletions while reviewing articles for Wikipedia, for in the final Wikipedia is a collaborative endeavor rather than the product of any single individual editor. With this in mind, I have removed the templates which he has repeatedly assigned to this article and attempted once again reverse his editorial deletions. Naturally the input of other editors is more than welcome in this regard. Happy editing to all and have a Blessed Holiday 68.129.171.66 (talk) 01:47, 14 December 2022 (UTC)PWL

Cia fellow Wikipedia Editors - Just a quick observation regarding User:Eddiehughs' editorial concerns. I agree that the deletions and objections which he raised appear to be somewhat overstated and perhaps even ill advised.

The reference posted in the "Pictorial History of Radio" on pg. 146 does in fact include a photo of the Alfredo Antonini CBS Pan American Orchestra performing with the featured soloist Juan Arvizu and User:Eddiehughs is correct in his reading of the script published under the photograph. He fails, however, to mention that the photograph of the orchestra includes an accordionist who bears a clear and unmistakable resemblance to the photograph of John Serry Sr. posted in the article itself as well as a clear resemblance to the motion picture images of the same accordionist featured in the Shep Fields Rippling Rhythmn Orchestra in the paramount motion picture "The Big Broadcast of 1938" as well as the photograph of the accordionist appearing in the Shep Fields Orchestra published in the "Los Angeles Examiner". Surely User:Eddiehughs does not wish to maintain that this is purely coincidental or indicative of an intentional attempt to mislead readers on Wikipeida. Serry is clearly seated in the orchestra as a permanent member who is joining his fellow orchestra members in a performance with the featured soloist Juan Arvizu. In so far as the additional reference citations from "Media Sound and Culture in Latin America and the Caribbean" and "Dissonant Divas in Chicana Music" identify the CBS Pan American Orchestra as a noteworthy contributor to the introduction of bolero in the United States, it is hardly a violation of Wikipedia guidelines to identify Serry as one of several participants in this regard as the proposed text clearly indicates. In short, while the presence of one reference from either source may not be considered sufficient to justify the text, the presence of two references from both texts is both necessary and sufficient to comply with Wikipedia standards. In addition, User:Eddiehughs sweeping deletion of the "Works Section" which documents this musician's compositions appears to be premature. UderEddiehughs overlooks the fact that this biographical article about Serry documents his activities not only as a performer, but as an educator of many students over several decades and composer. These compositions document these activities for his students and the general public over the course of several decades and are noteworthy for the time in the United States in so far as few accordionists of his era undertook similar initiatives within the USA. In addition, it should be noted that none of the editors or readers in France, Italy, or Germany or Spain who enjoy the translation of this article in their native languages have raised any objections to the text regarding Serry's role in introducing Bolero to audiences in the United States. Once again, one might ask UserEddiehughs whether this is purely coincidental. I hope that these remarks prove to be helpful in your analysis. With best regards160.72.80.178 (talk) 15:49, 14 December 2022 (UTC)NHPL

I find walls of text hard to read, so I'm using bullet points:

• None of the concerns expressed by the presence of any of the three templates has been addressed.
• In looking at the sources that I have access to, I see a large amount of WP:SYNTH and, more generally, original research. 'If you look at this photograph and compare it with this other one, and then see a mention of a band...' is all very tenuous. Piecing together things in this way might be appropriate for a book, but not for an encyclopedia that requires direct verifiability: "Even if you are sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it".
• Sources don't agglutinate in Wikipedia in the way that you suggest... unless the basic facts are very clearly verifiable. If we have a source that states "X was part of Y in 1948–50", then that's a good start for supporting a statement that "X was part of Y's 1949 activities". If all we have is some photographs of unnamed people, some library catalog entries about Y in 1949, etc, then we can't say anything about X in relation to Y. Let's try some concrete examples:

What's the source for "For ten years Serry performed as an original member of Alfredo Antonini's CBS Pan American Orchestra (1940–1949)"? One is a single photograph that might include him. The other is given as "The New York Times, 5 November 1983, p. 34". This probably refers to the article in that entitled "Alfredo Antonini, 82; Led CBS Symphony". It's a brief obituary in which Serry isn't mentioned. Later in the sentence, there are more citations... in sequence: a deadlink; a 1946 article; the 1983 NYT one again; a 1946 NYT one that mentions Antonini but not Serry; a book that doesn't mention Antonini or Serry; and a book that mentions Antonini but not Serry.

What's the source for "Serry performed at CBS as a staff member of the original CBS Orchestra (1949–1960)"?

What's the source for "Serry collaborated on ... The Revlon Revue (1960) for CBS Television"?

These are just examples, remember!

• Discussing the 'Works' section is a distraction for now. We can get to that later.
• An assortment of other comments are also distractions: standards on Wikipedia have advanced considerably since 2005; 'other articles do this' is merely WP:WHATABOUT, as is the point about Wikipedia in other languages.
• (Your insinuations and accusations about my editing aren't productive. Look on my user page at the list of articles that I have taken to Good Article status if you doubt my abilities. Most of them are biographies of musicians; some are perhaps as obscure as John Serry Sr.) EddieHugh (talk) 18:06, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Sorry to have in some way questioned your integrity as an editor, but they are relevant and productive to this discussion. The hasty manner in which you deleted whole sections of a well researched article which has been examined by multiple editors who specialize in the development of articles about both Jazz and Classical music artists from the 1930's-1950's era without obtaining the imput of other ediotrs suggests that you may lake the necessary experience (or gravitas) as an editor to address the intricacies of this article. In addition, you appear to have missed the central relevant observation -- The various wikipedia guidelines which you quote which such alacrity do not require that every line of text in an article to be specifically sourced with the specific name of the subject of an article. The use of multiple quotes from different sources to support the general narrative flow of a paragraph, an entire section or a series of consecutive sentences is not prohibited or discouraged so long as they serve to provide relevant documentation to the text and is cleearly left to the discretion of an editor who is thoroughly versed in the subject matter. The hasty manner in which you deleted whole sections of a well researched article which has been examined by multiple editors who specialize in the development of articles about both Jazz and Classical music artists from the 1930's-1950's era suggests that you may lake the necessary experience or gravitas) as an editor to address the intricacies of this article. As mentioned earlier, this is clearly the case in such relevant articles as Viva America and Nestor Mesasta Chayres and Juan Arvizu who also appeared in the CBS Pan America Orchestra with Serry and Alfredo Antonini. The suggestion that this constitutes original research about an obscure musician such as John Serry also demonstrates your failure to analyze the article in its entirety since Serry's work was clearly reviewed by several noted reviewers at Billboard magazine. 160.72.80.178 (talk) 00:44, 15 December 2022 (UTC)NHPL

• "The use of multiple quotes from different sources to support the general narrative flow of a paragraph, an entire section or a series of consecutive sentences is not prohibited or discouraged so long as they serve to provide relevant documentation to the text"... but they don't provide sufficient documentation in numerous instances in this article! See my "Let's try some concrete examples..." above.
• "is cleearly left to the discretion of an editor who is thoroughly versed in the subject matter". No. What you are advocating is the opposite of Wikipedia WP:OR policy: "Even if you are sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it". That means no matter how much of an expert an editor here might be, all information that is added must be verifiable, which means from reliable sources.
• Most of my work on the GAs I referred to is on jazz musicians who were active in the 1950s, some earlier than that. (But I don't think Serry is associated much with jazz – most of what's mentioned as jazz in the article is really big bands/dance bands of the era that might have been described as 'jazz' at the time but generally aren't now.) Based on this, I can see that "the intricacies of this article" are really just bad sourcing. Improve the sourcing and the "intricacies" will disappear. But do the sources exist? EddieHugh (talk) 17:52, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

While it is clear that the term "Jazz" does not conform to a strict "text book definition" over time due to the improvisational aspects which characterize its nature one should note that User:EddieHugh presents a distorted interpretation of what is generally included by professional musicians within the category of "Jazz Music" here and consequently the role which Serry played as performing artist in its devlopment during the 1930's and its evolution into Easy listening music in the 1950's. Serry's membership within the Shep Fields Rippling Rhythm Orchestra is well documented in the article by multiple reputable sources including a published discography, the online discography at the University of California Santa Barbara, and his performance as a member of the band in a major Paramount motion picture of the era (The Big Broadcast of 1938. Wikipedia's articles on the subject of Jazz clearly identify Shep Fields as a noteworthy and prominent Jazz band leader of his era and categorize his ensemble as a "Sweet Band" as documentation in the Wikipedia articles Big band (see the Swing Era section) and Swing music (See the 1935-1946 Section) and Big band remote articles illustrate. While User:EddieHugh presumes to possess specific knowledge of how "jazz" might be defined in contemporary terms, surely this begs the question in so far as the role of Wikipeida is to provide documentation from a variety of historical sources over time as opposed to a specific era which is arbitrarily identified by one source or a single editor such as Eddiehigh. In addition, User;Eddiehigh appears to misinterpret the observations of User:160.72.80.178 by suggesting that he advocates the use of sourced materials from only a single editor in the development of articles which is not supported by Wikipedia. . Quite the contrary. His remarks merely indicate that Wikipedia does not prohibit the use of citations posted from multiple sources to support narrative texts in articles which are subject to peer review by the entire editorial community of Wikipedia over time. While User:Eddiehguh may question the suitability of such references to support the text, Wikipedia frowns upon efforts by its editors to discredit other contributing editors who do not agree with his unique and specific assessment by claiming that their inclusion within the article constitutes an example of "poor sourcing". Based upon these observations, it is clear that the insights of a more experienced editor would be useful in reviewing the editorial efforts of EddieHugh in this article. I hope that this helps in the collective discussion.160.72.81.182 (talk) 15:16, 16 December 2022 (UTC)MPL

I prepared a lengthy response, but let's concentrate on my example questions above ("Let's try some concrete examples..."): I await some concrete answers. EddieHugh (talk) 16:40, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Alas User:Eddiehugh' remarks suggest that he has embarked upon a hastily prepared and incomplete analysis of the totality of the text contained within the various sections of the article. Note that he characterizes the "possible presence" of Serry's photograph in the CBS Pan American Orchestra (in the reference "A Pictorial History of Radio") as tenuous and inconclusive without taking time to even examine the hardcopy photograph of the article itself or the various additional biographical reference citations found throughout the article which document his performance history including: the biography posted about him within the reputable professional trade journals of the times "Accordion News, March, 1935 and "Accordion World", March, 1946 Vol 11, Pg. 3 or his biography in "Who is Who in Music International 1958, Biography File #B11719. A more experienced and responsible editor would clearly either check these reference materials as potentially submitted to the archivist for inclusion within the John Serry Sr. collection at the Sibley Music library at the Eastman School of Music or alternatively post a template near the text requesting the submission of an additional reference citation in order to encourage additional input from other Wikipedia researchers before unilaterally dismissing the reference to Serry's tenure in these orchestras as unverifiable and unsupported. With all due repsect, User:Eddiehughs is to be congratulated for attempting to explore the numerous reference citations in greater depth, but this suggests the presence of an incomplete editorial analysis and a hastily synthesized deduction which is not consistent with accepted editorial practice on Wikipedia. A simplistic and casual review of reference citations on a line by line basis utilizing hasty research in books.google hardly qualifies as the basis for questioning biographical text posted within the article. "160.72.80.178 (talk) 21:33, 16 December 2022 (UTC)NHPL

Once again kindly note, UserEddieHughs appears to continue to cast doubts regarding the suitability of utilizing photographic evidence of Serry's performance with the CBS Pan American Orchestra as posted in the reference citation "Pictorial History of the radio An experienced editor would first take the time to review the actual hardcopy of the publication prior to questioning its suitability as posted here; https://www.worldcat.org/title/1475068160.72.81.182 (talk) 18:25, 16 December 2022 (UTC)MPL

A template requesting the input from other editorial experts as posted by User:160.72.81.182 was arbitrarily removed without explanation by User:QuietHere in a unilateral manner before any other editors from other projects associated with this page have had an opportunity to either review the request or respond to the concerns it raises.. I have restored the template as per standard Wikipeida.org editorial practice and reversed the deletion pending further input from other editors.160.72.80.178 (talk) 20:16, 16 December 2022 (UTC)NHPL

I've seen the photograph, hence my comment above: "One is a single photograph that might include him." I note that again you have not provided any answers to the simple questions asked in "Let's try some concrete examples..." above. EddieHugh (talk) 21:52, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree with EddieHugh on all points. Where a cited source doesn't actually corroborate an assertion in the text, and we instead have to rely on implication or inference to fill in the blanks, then we've got issues with WP:V, WP:SYNTH and/or WP:NOR. As for various WikiProjects' previous assessments, I don't see how "B" or "C" classifications are somehow stamps of approval. (Nor are they criticisms, per se.) They mean there's more work to be done. I also see some of the comments here (and defense of same) as impugning EddieHugh. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 02:44, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

A fascinating epistemological discussion by all. Perhaps the observations of the ancient Chinese philosopher Lao-tzu in the Tao Te Ching are applicable here. To paraphrase: "To know that you do not know is best, but to think that you know when you do not know is a dis--ease". Like his son John Serry Jr., Serry Sr. appears to have contributed in a wide variety of ways to the evolution of "Jazz" and "Classical" music during the course of his multiple performances as an independent musical artist and educator. The fact that these activities were undertaken primarily as an independent musician clearly introduces a level of complexity into the process of verifying the references which are cited. Apparently in the case of the Serry Sr. article, multiple reference sources were provided in a good faith preliminary effort to identify the times and geographical locations of noteworthy performances in order to properly place these potentially relevant events within the proper context of the structural sections in the article. Sadly, it is highly improbable that additional specific verifiable references can be found to identify Serry Sr. specifically in these performances, however, in so far as members of orchestral ensembles (whether classical or jazz) are often not given much published credit for their work (even if it is within the context of highly successful productions on Broadway or in network television). With this in mind, I have deleted sections of the article related to Serry's activities in the 1960's and the 1970's since the references provided serve to provide only contextual support (i.e. related to times and places) to the narrative rather than specific verifiable evidence of his performances as required by Wikipedia. In addition, I have removed excessive linking to other Wikipedia articles which may be distracting or misleading in some way. I have attempted to identify any remaining reference citations which might be problematic in the balance of the text and removed them. I have not removed the sections relating to "Compositional Works", "Archived Works" or the "Discography Section" since the discussion posted above raises the possibility that they might be noteworthy as early examples of jazz and/or classical compositions written for the accordion in the United States during the 1930's-1950's when the instrument enjoyed more widespread acceptance by audiences in this country. Of course, this may be a purely academic question since many leading music conservatories in the United States have either abandoned their instructions for the instrument (as in the case of the Juilliard School of Music after the 1950's) or eliminated their respective departments of accordion studies following the passing of their respective chairmen (as is the case of the Lamont School of Music following the passing of Robert Davine). Once again I apologize if this appears in some way to question the integrity or suitability of User:EddieHugh to edit the article further in the future. Without doubt, his efforts to improve the quality of the article are clearly not in question and are worthy of special praise. Any additional delay in removing these sections is merely sencouraged in order to enable other editors from other participating projects (who might possess a unique or more comprehensive understanding of this instrument as it evolved during this unique period in American history) to review these sections in a more timely and detailed manner as outlined in related articles. No disrespect of User:EddieHugh's contributions is intended or implied by such a request. In any event, thanks to all editors who participated and best of luck to those who attempt to clarify the intricacies of this article further in the years ahead. With best wishes---160.72.80.178 (talk) 18:10, 20 December 2022 (UTC)NHPL 160.72.80.178 (talk) 18:15, 20 December 2022 (UTC)NHP

Notes on sources

Some notes on the sources used in this article, as some can take a while to find:

Article text: "He was Assistant Dean of Accordion and Harmony at the Biviano Accordion Center in Manhattan between 1939 and 1942"

• The New York Times, 2 Nov 1941: X6. Serry is listed in an advertisement for "Biviano's Accordion Center" as one of the "associate teachers".
• The New York Times, 6 Sep 1942: X5. Serry is listed in an advertisement for "Biviano's Accordion Center" as one of the "assistants". No mention of 1939 or 1940 in either source.

Conclusion: fails verification.

Article text: "providing instruction on accordion and orchestral jazz"

• The New York Times, 25 Oct 1942: X8. Serry is listed in an advertisement for "Biviano's Accordion Center" as one of the "assistants". Not mentioned: "orchestral jazz".
• The New York Times, 29 Nov 1942: X6. Serry is listed in an advertisement for "Biviano's Accordion Center" as one of the "assistants". Not mentioned: "orchestral jazz".

Conclusion: largely fails verification.

Article text: "He simultaneously undertook private studies with: Joscha Zade in piano (1945–1946), Arthur Guttow an organist at the Radio City Music Hall (1946) and Robert Strassburg in Orchestration and Advanced Harmony (1948–1950)."

• The New York Times, 18 Nov 1945: 50. There might be something, but I haven't spotted it. But the source is from 1945 and the article text covers 1945–50, which is impossible.

Conclusion: fails verification.

Article text: "He also appeared at Town Hall under the baton of Alexander Smallens in a concert performance of Virgil Thomson's opera Four Saints in Three Acts with the choral director Leonard De Paur in 1941."

• The New York Times, 28 May 1941: 32. This is the article "'FOUR SAINTS' SUNG IN THE TOWN HALL". I see no mention of Serry.

Conclusion: fails verification.

Article text: "On the Broadway stage he performed under director Harold Clurman in a production of Arthur Laurents play The Time of the Cuckoo with Shirley Booth and Dino Di Luca".

• The New York Times, 15 Oct 1952: 40. Probably article "Curtain at Empire Set for Last Play". Serry isn't mentioned. Also advertisement for "The Time of the Cuckoo"; Serry isn't mentioned.
• The New York Times, 21 Sep 1952: X1. Probably article "Gossip of the Rialto". Serry isn't mentioned.
• The New York Times, 28 Sep 1952: SM18. Serry isn't mentioned. There is a photograph, but I see no accordion and all people appearing in it are named.

Conclusion: fails verification.

That's it, so far. Note: the OCR on these NYT pages is bad, so I might have missed something. I'm happy to be corrected if I have. EddieHugh (talk) 23:30, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for testing these references and your assistance. As per your suggestions, the references have either been removed or relocated to the appropriate sections of related text in the article. I Hope this helps in some small manner. Thanks once again for taking the time to clarify the inadequacies of these references. 160.72.81.86 (talk) 21:20, 19 December 2022 (UTC)GCL

A fascinating epistemological discussion by all. Perhaps the observations of the ancient Chinese philosopher Lao-tzu in the Tao Te Ching are applicable here. To paraphrase: "To know that you do not know is best, but to think that you know when you do not know is a dis--ease". Like his son John Serry Jr., Serry Sr. appears to have contributed in a wide variety of ways to the evolution of "Jazz" and "Classical" music during the course of his multiple performances as an independent musical artist and educator. The fact that these activities were undertaken primarily as an independent musician clearly introduces a level of complexity into the process of verifying the references which are cited. Apparently in the case of the Serry Sr. article, multiple reference sources were provided in a good faith preliminary effort to identify the times and geographical locations of noteworthy performances in order to properly place these potentially relevant events within the proper context of the structural sections in the article. Sadly, it is highly improbable that additional specific verifiable references can be found to identify Serry Sr. specifically in these performances, however, in so far as members of orchestral ensembles (whether classical or jazz) are often not given much published credit for their work (even if it is within the context of highly successful productions on Broadway or in network television). With this in mind, I have deleted sections of the article related to Serry's activities in the 1960's and the 1970's since the references provided serve to provide only contextual support (i.e. related to times and places) to the narrative rather than specific verifiable evidence of his performances as required by Wikipedia. In addition, I have removed excessive linking to other Wikipedia articles which may be distracting or misleading in some way. I have attempted to identify any remaining reference citations which might be problematic in the balance of the text and removed them. I have not removed the sections relating to "Compositional Works", "Archived Works" or the "Discography Section" since the discussion posted above raises the possibility that they might be noteworthy as early examples of jazz and/or classical compositions written for the accordion in the United States during the 1930's-1950's when the instrument enjoyed more widespread acceptance by audiences in this country. Of course, this may be a purely academic question since many leading music conservatories in the United States have either abandoned their instructions for the instrument (as in the case of the Juilliard School of Music after the 1950's) or eliminated their respective departments of accordion studies following the passing of their respective chairmen (as is the case of the Lamont School of Music following the passing of Robert Davine). Once again I apologize if this appears in some way to question the integrity or suitability of User:EddieHugh to edit the article further in the future. Without doubt, his efforts to improve the quality of the article are clearly not in question and are worthy of special praise. Any additional delay in removing these sections is merely sencouraged in order to enable other editors from other participating projects (who might possess a unique or more comprehensive understanding of this instrument as it evolved during this unique period in American history) to review these sections in a more timely and detailed manner as outlined in related articles. No disrespect of User:EddieHugh's contributions is intended or implied by such a request. In any event, thanks to all editors who participated and best of luck to those who attempt to clarify the intricacies of this article further in the years ahead. With best wishes---160.72.80.178 (talk) 18:10, 20 December 2022 (UTC)NHPL

Lots of ground to cover here but I removed templates since most of the unreferenced text identified above seems to have been either removed or augmented with additional reference citations. New references have also been added my multiple editors. Also the reference citations left appear to be relevant to the text or properly interpreted in the paragraphs. It seems OK to leave the archive section and discography section untouched They help to document several compositions written by a noted performer of the accordion (which was often described as a neglected orchestral instrument in the USA during his time). Hopefully this is OK and helpful72.69.152.90 (talk) 19:20, 4 January 2023 (UTC)JJ

I was optimistic when unsourced material started to be removed. However, the same problems/mistakes were then repeated. Examples:

• Serry isn't mentioned on page 119 of Sold on Radio: Advertisers in the Golden Age of Broadcasting.
• "During this time he also appeared as a soloist at the Radio City Music Hall in New York City": the source doesn't mention when this happened.
• "Items donated to the library include..." isn't a source for Wikipedia purposes.
• "...son of John Serry notes that his father's compositions and recordings have been submitted..." also isn't a source for the given information.
• IMDB isn't a reliable source (WP:RSP).
• "...has been described as a child prodigy on the accordion" comes from promotional liner notes. We need a better (independent) source for such a strong statement.
• The legacy.com and nfwalkerfh.com sources look like they were written by friends/family, so are unlikely to be reliable sources.
• I'll restore the templates, as there's enough evidence to show that they are still applicable. I'll not restore the 'Expert needed' one, but feel free to restore it if you believe that it still applies. EddieHugh (talk) 20:37, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

• The objections raised above have been addressed by deleting the texts cited. In addition, new references have been added and the templates have therefore been removed.160.72.80.178 (talk) 21:58, 4 January 2023 (UTC)NHPL

For the record, I disagree with the idea that the objections have been addressed. The above instances were examples only; I have no doubt that there are more in the article, but I have, for now at least, run out of enthusiasm for identifying and flagging them. I believe that the templates should still be in place. EddieHugh (talk) 18:33, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Removal of Infobox as per Wikipedia Project Classical Music guideline posted in the text of the article

Ciao Fellow Wikipeida Editors: As per the instructions posted at the top of the article by the Wikipedia Classical Music Project () I have removed the info box for the page and also resized the photographs and the External Audio Links Boxes and improved the syntax contained within the boxes as per Wikipedia guidelines for the use of italics around the titles of songs within these boxes. I Hope this is OK. 160.72.80.178 (talk) 22:13, 23 January 2023 (UTC)NHPL

Hi fellow Wikipedians. I added a smaller Info-Box (for persons as suggested by the Wikipedia Biography Project rather than the Wikipedia CLassical Music Project) which does not crowd the text of the article as much as the previous Info Box. I hope this is Ok. Thanks. 160.72.81.86 (talk) 17:23, 24 January 2023 (UTC)GCL

Additional reference citation added for additional record album

Cioa fellow Wikipedia editors: Minor edit==> As per the template at the top of the page I've included some text and a reference citation for the compilation album "Ballroom in Dreamland" on the Dot Records label which includes performances by Serry and performances by the Billy Vaughn Orchestra. I hope this is OK. Thanks again for your assistance. Enjoy!160.72.81.86 (talk) 14:31, 11 April 2023 (UTC)GCL

Additional reference citation added as per request in template at top of page

Hi to fellow Wikipedia editors ==> As per the template posted at the top of the page, I have included an additional reference citation related to the names of John Serry Sr.'s wife and his four children as posted in a biography about his son (the jazz pianist named John Serry Jr.) which appeared in "The Encyclopedia of Jazz Musicians" on jazz.com. I hope this is a reliable and acceptable source. Thanks for your consideration 160.72.80.178 (talk) 14:47, 2 August 2023 (UTC)NHPL

Additional reference citation added as per request in template for a change of his family's name

Hi again ===> included an additional reference citation for John Serry Sr. changing his family's name from Serrapica to Serry as posted in a biography about his son (the jazz pianist named John Serry Jr.) which appeared in "The Encyclopedia of Jazz Musicians" on jazz.com. I hope this is a reliable and acceptable source. Thanks again for your consideration. 160.72.80.178 (talk) 15:06, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Additional reference citation added as per request in template-- the Serrapica family name is from Gragnano, Italy

Hi again ===> included an additional reference citation for John Serry Sr.'s original family name of Serrapica coming from Gragnano,Italy near Naples as posted in a biography about his son (the jazz pianist named John Serry Jr.) which appeared in "The Encyclopedia of Jazz Musicians" on jazz.com. I hope this is a reliable and acceptable source. Thanks again for your consideration.160.72.80.178 (talk) 15:23, 2 August 2023 (UTC)NHPL

Additional reference citation added: For record Dot Record Album featuring Billy Vaughn's Orchestra

An additional reference citation was added for the DOT Records audio recording featuring performances by the Billy Vaughn Orchestra and by John Serry Sr. as released in Japan.160.72.80.178 (talk) 15:32, 24 August 2023 (UTC)NHPL

Additional Content and References added for performances on Italian WADO radio

A quick note: Some additional content with three verifiable references from The New York Times (as found accessed on Proquest New York Times) from the year 1931 has been added -- indicating Serry (using his birth name John Serrapica) performed on the Italian radio station WOR (now known as WADO) on at a minimum of three live broadcasts as an accordion soloist during the earliest years of his career following his first broadcast at the age of 15 in 1930 on the WCDA rardio station. I hope it helps to fill in some of the gaps. in some small way Thanks!160.72.81.86 (talk) 18:25, 12 December 2023 (UTC)GCL160.72.81.86 (talk) 18:25, 12 December 2023 (UTC)GCL

Included additional reference citations from the archive at the Eastman School of Music

Just a quick note -- additional reference citations have been included from the JOHN J. SERRY SR. Collection archive of musical scores and audio performances by John Serry Sr as archived at the University of Rochester's Eastman School of Music as shown here: I hope that it helps..160.72.80.178 (talk) 00:40, 19 December 2023 (UTC)NHPL

160.72.80.178 (talk) 00:40, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Excellent - this seems like a good reference site of original scores and arrangements by Serry which have been professionally reviewed and compiled by archivists at one of the nation's leading music conservatories-- so I helped you along by including this site as a reference citation for additional compositions and also used the site as a source for additional compositions by Serry. Thanks for the outstanding research effort. Here is the pdf file for the archive. 160.72.81.86 (talk) 18:06, 21 December 2023 (UTC)GCL

Additional text and reference citations included for the album Pietro Deiro Presents the Accordion Orchestra

Hi fellow editors: Just a quick note. I have included text for the album "Pietro Deiro Presents the Accordion Orchestra" on Coral Records (#CRL-57323, 1960) which includes performances by John Serry as a member of the orchestra. The album was reviewed on The Billboard magazine and received high praise from the critics. An additional source from the magazine "Music Trades" verifies his performance in the orchestra. The album cover also identifies him as a performer in the orchestra who has worked under such conductors as Alfredo Antonini, Shep Fields and Mitch Miller, so I have included a link for Mitch Miller at the top of the article as well. Hope it all helps. Happy Editing to All72.69.152.90 (talk) 16:05, 29 March 2024 (UTC)JJ72.69.152.90 (talk) 16:06, 29 March 2024 (UTC)JJ

Just a quick note- the reference citation found on Discogs.com was deleted by User:Anne Delong o 11/4/2024 apparently because Dscogs.com is user generated and is therefore not entirely reliable. Note that the WP:RSDISCOGS consensus discussion in 2019 indicates that the site has not been deprecated and the discussion in 2024 also indicates that photographs of albums posted on Discogs.com may or may not be useful as a reference source. I have circumvented this controversy by including a reference citation from worldcat.org instead. I hope this is OK. See: Cia 160.72.81.86 (talk) 19:21, 4 November 2024 (UTC)GCL

160.72.81.86 (talk) 20:39, 4 November 2024 (UTC)GCL