Talk:Robert Steadman/Archive 1

DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.

This archive page covers approximately the dates between October 17, 2005 and November 7, 2005.

Post replies to the main talk page, copying or summarizing the section you are replying to if necessary.

Please add new archivals to Talk:Robert Steadman/Archive02. (See Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.) Thank you. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 00:07, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Reasons for removal of vandalism

I have no connection to Mr. Steadman other than an interest in his music.

I believe that links to an anonymous discussion board on subjects which have nothing to do with Robert Steadman's musical activity and cannot be proved to be written by him are irrelevant to this artiocle and strike me as deliberate vandalism and internet trolling.

To help the situation I have added a new section about Mr. Steadman's non-musical interests. This would seem to be more than adequate to cover the things that Crusading composer (a username chosen to wind up?) require.

If you have no connection to Steadman other than an interest in is music, what is the source of your information regarding his non-musical interests? On what possible basis could this new information be of relevance to the rest of the article, or be of any interest to anyone?

From magazine articles about him and programme notes. Was just trying to solve the problem of the posts linking to an anonymous website without proof of link. I take your point that it is irrelevant but if that is irrelevant so then are the links to the TES messageboard which crusading cokmposer has been adding.

Protected

This seems to be an edit war over whether to include links to Times Educational Supplement board threads purportedly involving composer. Please discuss this question on this talk page for a bit. I've protected the article from edits for now. The protection isn't intended to endorse any one version. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 18:07, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Links

Surely links to an anonymous internet messageboard which cannot be proved to have any connection with the subject of this article are irrelevant?

The links that are here are the best possible reason to conclude that this 'composer, conductor and educationalist' is not in any way notable. This entire article should be removed. It brings wikipedia into disrepute.

Notability

"British composer, conductor and educationalist." I note that the BBC prefers the descriptor "Derbyshire music teacher". There's not much evidence of notability here, and in places it certainly reads like a user page. Is it indeed autobiographical, perhaps? Alai 18:22, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree. To me it seems that this guy is just a posh music teacher who writes interminably to almost every newspaper and web forum going (I found a Robert Steadman in the Guardian letters page and on the BBC). Now he's found Wikipedia. Hooray for us! --Tony Sidaway^Talk 18:33, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I think that's a bit harsh - he's written pieces for the Royal Philharmonic Orchestra, Evelyn Glennie, an anthem used at the Dunblane Memorial Service, etc. Sure, he might be a "posh music teacher" but I think this is a genuine composer who should have a page on here.

I have read the guidance on notability, and concluded that there is a very strong probability of autobiography here. By the criteria by which material should be objectively judged, this article does not merit retention, and should be deleted in its entirety. Posterity will tell whether this man's work is of any lasting value: certainly there is little evidence of it being taken up in significant levels of professional performance, mainstream commercial recording, or favourable peer review. What is the basis for inclusion, let alone an article of the scope and detail that is found here?

How famous does one have to be to be famous? What's the criteria? I'm just asking because the same 'persons'? who built this page have been busy adding Mr Steadman's name to lists of 'famous' people across Wikipedia. He is one of the famous people of Basingstoke and a famous student of Keble Oxford. Now, apart from the TES, I have never heard of Mr Steadman. I wonder how many residents of Basingstoke know of his musical work and his tireless campaigning on behalf of good causes? I wouldn't dare suggest that he be removed from these lists - Mr Steadman is very fond of threatening legal proceedings and he has already accused me of stalking him. He has even suggested that those 'stalking' him on the internet are sending him hate mail and I don't want to provoke him any further - see his threats against me on my user page. I was just wondering if he does merit the celebrity status that he claims?Crusading composer 19:03, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

There's no hard and fast rule, just a number of guidelines, proposals, and ad hoc community standards (and on occasion, divergent individual ones). Go to WP:AFD and you'll get a decent (if that's the adjective I'm looking for) feel for the nature of the process. The WP:Music guideline I linked to in the section below seems the most relevant here. Other common litmus tests are the "average college professor" (is someone more well-known than), various flavours of "google tests" (it doesn't look so good if you don't show up on the web, or only on your own pages), publication, appearance in the print media, etc. Alai 20:06, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Possible source of these troubles

Could this be the source of the continued vandalism?

http://www.tes.co.uk/section/staffroom/thread.aspx?story_id=2141626&path=/Opinion/&threadPage=1

Have a look at posts by "grouch" in particular.

Vhjh

Vhjh/86.136.239.9, can you make your talk page additions in some sort of chronological order, and sign them with ~~~~, please? Thanks. Firstly, "vandalism" is not synonymous with "edits you don't happen to like". Whether they're appropriate, or accurate, is another matter, but this is an editing dispute, not vandalism per se. I infer from that thread that a) Robsteadman on the TES forum at least claims to be the Robert Steadman of this article, and also claims not to be any of the BT Internet anons (such as yourself) largely responsible for this article; accusations of "trolling" and "stalking"; various accusations from other forum contributors of self-promotion on RS's part. And references to this talk thread, at which point the self-referentiality becomes quite epic. I'm not sure how any of this particularly helps us.

BT internet IP addresses for sure, and funnily enough, Robert Steadman's own website is hosted by BT internet. Coincidence?

Perhaps somewhat more material is whether Steadman meets any of the usual notability guidelines, e.g. Wikipedia:WikiProject Music/Notability and Music Guidelines. If the main author of this article is indeed Steadman, or someone closely associated with him, then personally I'd err on the conservative side of these. And if he's indeed notable, the tone should in any case really be cleaned up for "gush" considerably. Alai 20:15, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I think it links to previous vandalism (a couple of weeks ago) - have you looked at that - also references made to the TES messageboards. As for his his notability - as I have contributed much to his page I believe to have had two symphonies, two operas, pieces performed by the likes of the Royal Philharmonic Orchestra and Evelyn Glennie, etc. make him worthy of inclusion. And, before you ask, I am NOT Robert Steadman! vhjhVhjh 20:23, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

This earlier, actual, vandalism is relevant how? In any case, that's all in the page history, one needn't trawl through TES websites for it. The criterion isn't "worthiness", it's notability. Just how notable are these works? Googling for "Sredni Vashtar" and "Robert Steadman" produces a couple of dozen hits, which are all either Steadman sites, or Wikipedia mirrors. i.e. of all the people on the 'net, only you and Robert Steadman seems to have "noted" it. The only verifying references or sources in the article itself are Steadman sites. If this article isn't mere vanity, it reads exactly like it. And no, I wasn't about to ask if you were Steadman, or someone closely associated with Steadman, as a) you've already denied it, and b) the circumstances make it extremely difficult to take those assertions at face value. Alai 21:03, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

The earlier vandalism is relevant because, as Tony Sidaway suggests, this is a dispute about editing - and the current issues of vandlaism are using the same references as the vandalism that was removed a couple of weeks ago. vhjhVhjh Vhjh 21:51, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't follow that. Someone wants to make perhaps dubious, but non-vandalistic additions to this article about the activities on a message board of someone who claims to be the subject of this article, which identity does not seem to seriously be disputed. Earlier edits are immaterial, whether similar or different, unless you want to convince us they must be bad due to some sort of guilt by association.

Personally, I feel their pertinence is highly questionable, but equally, so is much of the current article, setting aside the concerns about his basic notability. If you start including blog-level personal trivia, you rather "open the door" to others wishing to include material of similar triviality, of a less flattering nature. Alai 23:32, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree that this isn't a vandalism issue. The links are relevant though problems of unverifiability call their utility into question. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 14:26, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Mr Steadman gave permission to edit his wikipedia. He claims that it is nothing to do with him and he has no idea who created it. If it was me, I'd have some concerns that people - who he claims not to know, and who claim not to know him, have access to so much of his personal information. I'd be interested to know why vhjh and 'other' contributors to this wikipedia feel that no one else has the right to add edits to 'their'page yet feel they have the right to stifle other editors by pretending to be administrators and actually deleting the entire contents of other user pages. I have beeen repeatedly called a vandal, when all I have tried to do is to give users more information. They seem to want to keep this wikipedia as a sanitised and official PROMOTIONAL shrine to Mr Steadman. If their intention is to keep it clear of anything they disapprove of perhaps they could cut the content to:

Robert Steadman - composer and a list of his musical achievements - without the biased congratulatory tone. Crusading composer 23:28, 18 October 2005 (UTC)(Crusading Composer 00.30 19.10.05)

Request from the subject of this article for the article to be removed

I have emailed jwales and I request any other Wikipedia administrator to contact me to verify my identity via my web site. I ask that the entire article is removed - some of this discussion verges on libel, but I guess the smearing is what the original problem derives from. I had nothing to do with the page's creation but I request it is removed without any further delay. Robert Steadman86.136.232.69 12:09, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

While I am sympathetic to anyone who has been the subject of personal attacks in an article about them, please realize that Wikipedia is a collaborative project and the subjects of articles do not have "ownership" or veto authority over the existence or contents of the article which describe them or the institutions they are associated with. (Consider this the same as with the news media.) That said, Wikipedia has a number of excellent articles about prominent people, including controversies, which are kept from vandalism and smears by an army of dedicated volunteers. If we removed articles because they were vandalized, or because they contained material criticizing the subject (I'm not characterizing the edits to the article about you, just giving examples), Wikipedia would have very few articles. MCB 01:37, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Verges on libel? I'd say that verges on a legal threat, about which there's a rather clear policy. And is also quite a stretch: what precisely would be libelous, the widespread skepticism that the BT Internet user who created this article -- and seemed only interested in editing the articles on R. Steadman, R. Steadman's home town, R. Steadman's alma mater, and assorted others (to add references to Robert Steadman, that is) -- had nothing at all to do with R. Steadman? But I'm inclined to at least try to oblige you: there are enough concerns as to notability here, and even moreso with tone and unencyclopaedic content that listing the whole shebang on AfD and seeing what shakes out seems quite an attractive option. Mind you, have to unprotect it first... Alai 04:37, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

In that case unprotect it! I would like to point out the number of contributors to this discussion for whom this is their ONLY contribution to Wiki.... strange?

I am requesting that the words prolific and educationlist are removed from the article. Robert Steadman is a part time teacher, if this is now how we are describing teachers then I would suggest that all teachers who have articles need to be informed to change their status on their articles. Also as has been mentioned before prolific is innaccurate, a search on Mr Steadman only results in articles from either this article or Mr Steadman's own website. Until other sources recognise Mr Steadman's work as prolific I request that this word is removed.

I see no problem with him referring to himself as 'prolific'. He certainly churns out musical compositions - he has responded to every recent disaster. Whether his work is actually any good is another matter - it could sound like your dad on his hanmmond organ - perhaps like mobile phone ring tones for all I know? There is no doubt that he is a prolific contributor to the internet. He posts almost continuously on the TES and writes to newspapers regularly. It's because he spends so much of his time and mental energy on the TES website that I thought the links were important. They reflect another side of Mr Steadman - one that he would like to keep separate from this promotional page, obviously. As for calling himself an 'educationalist', there has been some specualtion about this. Although this page and his own website lists his education, there is no reference to his gaining his teaching qualification. This is surprising, as he seems to list everything else. Perhaps he uses the term educationalist because he is NOT a qualified teacher but a music instructor or coach? I wouldn't like to say. I don't know. He has said that he is qualified, and what reasons could we have to doubt his integrity?Crusading composer 19:15, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Everyone happy now?

OK, so the article's now been unprotected, and some editors have redacted the article considerably, pretty much to the musical-work-relevant stuff as previously suggested. Does this satisfy the various objections, or does anyone remain gung-ho to have it deleted outright, or restored to its former glory(?), etc? Alai 13:41, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

I think that this is a fair summary of Mr Steadman's musical achievements. There is nothing to argue about. My only concern is that the 'editors' of this page seem to find it very difficult to leave it alone and it is expanding hourly. However, it still leaves the question of 'collaboration'. The editors of this site seem to have no truck with any edits not carried out by 'them'. They even seem to prefer to deleting the entire page rather than 'sharing' it. This control freakery estends to other pages where they delete pages and add warnings about vandalism. Is this going to continue - will they accept other contributions? The only other question is - Is Mr Steadman 'famous' enough to appear on various Wikipedia famous lists? But that is for other people to decide.14:53, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

I see no evidence of collaboration in today's drastic revisions. Three editors have tamed an overblown article: one timidly, another boldly and a third with small revisions and additions, without any disagreement, or attempts at reversion to previous versions with a view to an individual view prevailing. This is not control freakery: leave that to the originator of this material, who seems to have conceded that they were not going to prevail in the face of significant opposition. The question of references to the subject's fame in other articles is hair splitting, but the pedant in me suggests that as there is no longer any reference here to Basingstoke, the corresponding reference to one of its famous sons might usefully go the same way. Bakewell Tart 20:19, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

213.166.17.24, as I'm not at all clear "who" you are -- given that you've not edited this article before, and not signing doesn't help -- please forgive me for not being entirely clear who exactly you're complaining about, either. Are you objecting to the previous expansion of the article? Or the current "expansion" of this talk page? (That's rather the nature of talk pages, when people, y'know, talk.) And who, precisely, has been deleting pages? Are you referring to actual removal of the page? Blanking-vandalism? Editing out of content? And why is "collaboration" a bad thing? Editing a wiki is inherently a collaborative activity. Are you suggesting, rather, collusion? If you're feeling "ganged up on": post a Wikipedia:Request for comment regarding this article; contact editors who seem knowledgeable in related areas; or cite sources to support your ideas of what this article should be like (whatever those are). Alai 02:05, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Seems a good compromise. Some of the minor alterations I have made this afternoon are to make things more accurate not to expand the article. 86.136.167.152 17:04, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Someone might have a go at tidying up the last sentence, the reference to environmental issues doesn't really make sense, but this is reasonable. I'm not convinced we have seen anything that would justify the rather grand title of educationalist, but so be it. I would suggest that the basis for any further expansion of the article should be increased notability demonstrated by reference to a source independent of the subject, such references being properly cited. Bakewell Tart 20:06, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

This isn't a subject I'm particularly knowledgeable on, but it seems to be that this article has been rather butchered over the last few weeks, with numerous reverts and accusations of vandalism. It's quite clear a lot of relevant and accurate content has been removed from the article, which should be restored. I suggest the page is protected once again, but failing this that any future reverts are given an adequate explanation on this page. UkPaolo 15:17, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, you could start with justifying your own reversion, given that you have plainly not considered what has already been written here. There is very slender ground for inclusion of this article at all, there being fundamental doubt over the subject's notability, and if there are to be further attempts at expansion, without citation of increased notability (and not just self-referential material) than the article had better be put forward for total deletion, and we'll be done with it. Bakewell Tart 16:34, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

I see yet another attempt to revert to the overblown and wholly inappropriate form of this article, but this time by someone who has already edited the reduced form himself on 24-Oct @ 17:07. What is going on? (unsigned comment by Bakewell Tart)

You reverted my restoration of the full article but failed to even give the courtesy of a reply on your talk page whe I asked for your justification for drastic reduction. You appear to be a new editor (12 edits, all of them to this article and talk page) and do not understand that it is considered very poor form to simply whack an article with an indiscriminate axe because you think it is "overblown". You appear to have a definite POV agenda as to this particular article subject, completely out of sync with Wikipedia practice of comprehensive professional and personal biography of notable subjects. The burden of proof is on you to justify your blunderbuss approach to "editing" this article, not on those who have actually done some research and contributed here (or restored the work of those people). MCB 21:05, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

I felt I did justify my own reversion, in saying that I felt the article had "been butchered over the last few weeks". To put it simply, I have admitted not having a great deal of personal knowledge on Robert Steadman. This does not mean I am incapable of judging a good article about him, or indeed noticing inappropriate reversions. In this case, if we compare the two versions of the article, a vast quantity of information has been removed. I have found no justification from reading this page, that the removal of most of this information was because it was innaccurate. Thus, I can see no justification at all. Either Steadman is notable enough to have a Wikipedia article, or he is not. You cannot decide he is only notable enough to have a short article. If you feel notability is not established, then I would suggest you put the page up for deletion, citing your reasons there. If you feel individual facts listed are innaccurate, then please list such justifications on this page. I fully agree with MCB's comment above. UkPaolo 21:12, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Well put. I really find the edit history and discussion of this article very bizarre. I'm just not getting why there is such a backlash of anti-Steadman people, and can only conclude, unhappily, that it a reaction to his political stances, rather than any substantive disagreement with the facts regarding his musical compositions. MCB 21:25, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's that - from what I know from programmes and a talk at a concert - he's a left leaning, liberal, concerned about the environment and a member of Amnesty International. 86.137.230.153 21:28, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Precisely; Steadman has been more open than most public figures (outside of politics) about his views. There are a number of people opposed to those causes, and they have made themselves very vocal in editing on Wikipedia. I could cite examples -- and counterexamples on the other side -- but I don't want to turn this into (to use the U.S. term) "red vs. blue". MCB 21:39, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

This article in its expanded form is a blatant example of a vanity article. There is fundamental doubt over the notability of the subject, and much of the biographical information contained here is so trivial as to be laughable. Attempts have been made, in good faith, to reduce the scope of the article to a simple statement of undisputed facts, but ultimately, as MCB says, the subject is either sufficiently notable for inclusion, or he is not. You will see that I have nominated the article for deletion, as I have seen, and can find no evidence of notability where the source does not lead straight back to the subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.68.140.152 (talk • contribs) 21:45, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

My interest in this article was prompted by Mr Steadman's comments in the TES. Mr Steadman has strong views on trade unions and religions. I felt that since the article mentioned some of his political beliefs, then it was only fair that others should be included. This caused a backlash from Mr Steadman's 'official' (but apparently unauthorised) biographers. They refused to allow anything that wasn't official and portrayed the subject in anything less than glowing terms. I then added links to websites that gave examples of MR Steadman's 'crusading' opinions. these were also removed and the editors threatened me with blocking as a 'vandal'. When the page was shortened, then there was no reason to have the links as Mr Steadman's political beliefs were no longer mentioned.

IF the article is to be retrurned to it's former length and include non musical details, then the editors will have to accepot that some people WILL add information that might show Mr steadman in a less than positive light - he is VERY outspoken on certain issues. If everybody is happy with that, then I don't mind either way.Crusading composer 23:11, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism

23.10.05 Now THIS is vandalism. I never had any attention of vandalising Mr Steadman's page - only making it balanced. The gush was removed and I think that what was left was an accurate summary of Mr Steadman's achievements. Mr Steadman thinks that I am his personal enemy and that I am carrying out some kind of vindictive stalking policy. I'm not. Perhaps when the editors of this page - Mr Steadman amongst them, see the difference between editing differences and pure destructive vandalism, they might want to aplogise.Crusading composer 14:29, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't know about other people, but I have had my user page and talk page deleted and had quite childish comments left on them by both Mr Steadman himself and his unaffiliated well wishers. While this childish tit for tat attitude persists, I can understand why Mr Steadman's page is a target for vandals. I think that it's time to leave it drop.Crusading composer 14:58, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Reverted text to remove silly and childish vandalism. May I suggest that if someone has a substantive objection to the present text they raise it here FIRST? 'Educationlist' is bound to be a target (or legitimate object for revision, based on your view), but childish vandalism is not the name of the game. Bakewell Tart 14:54, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Why choose the term 'educationalist' rather than teacher? What's that about then? If the composer (of the article - Not Mr Steadman himself, unless they are one and the same, whuch has been hinted at)can comment as to why they chose that word, that would be useful. Otherwise it might be better to change it to prevent further edit wars.Crusading composer 15:17, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

I think the point is that he does more than just being a teacher - workshops, teacher training, university lecturing, etc. Rather than list all of those an umbrella term of "educationalist" seems to make sense. 86.136.167.152 16:28, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Rob, I have made a change - it's a genuine attempt to head off any further vandalism. we may disagree on educationalist/teacher but 'educationalist' seems to attract a lot of negative attention. Do you really want to be reverting this page every day? You must agree that if you are 'notable' it IS for being a composer/conductor/events organiser. Although working in education IS important to you, that is not what this article is about. Feel free to revert but I think this edit actually focuses attention on the musical element in the first line. 19:45, 24 October 2005 (UTC) Crusading composer 19:47, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

For Bakewell Tart and Crusading Composer

Please explain the source of your interest and knowledge in Robert Steadman. That might help the rest of us understand why you seem to be so determined to malign him and reduce a perfectly reasonable article to the smallest possible length. Robeaston99 12:11, 27 October 2005 (UTC) (I will also put this on the AfD page)

Fixation

It seems some posters have a fixation with Steadman - looking at user contributions it seems that Crusading composer has done nothing but add and particularly subtract stuff about Steadman. Is this healthy? 86.137.230.153 19:56, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Crusading_composer

Bakewell tart seems similarly fixated - is this healthy that these editors are getting so involved? DO they know the subject in real life and have a vendetta?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Bakewell_Tart

You couldn't be more wrong. I do not know the subject of the article, and have no personal interest in him or his work. In the midst of repeated vandalism of this vanity article I made a bold revision reducing the article to a plain outline, and suggested that any future expansion should be based on evidence of increased notability. I might remind you that the subject himself was concurrently seeking the deletion of the article (although he took no steps to list the article for deletion). If you want evidence of contributors with an unhealthy interest in the subject, you don't have to look very far. Bakewell Tart 22:01, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

And yet, Bakewell Tart, it is the ONLY article that you have edited in any way. That seems alittle odd to me. 86.137.230.153 22:04, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

And this is the ONLY article edited by 86.137.230.153, for what that's worth. Go and investigate THAT, control freaks. Bakewell Tart 09:35, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Shall we expect a flurry of editing activity now?

Not from me. If the article is to stand, it should be properly edited, with proper citation of sources independent of the subject. I have looked but I can find none. Bakewell Tart 22:07, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Are you campaigning for other pages which do not have sources listed to be similarly delated? How about {Mike Oldfield, Michael Nyman and Evelyn Glennie for starters? No this is a personal venetta in my opinion and the Wikipedia admin need to look into the track record of Bakewell Tart and Crusading Composer very, very carefully before allowing them to further edit.

I don't need a vanity article like this one to tell me that Mike Oldfield, Michael Nyman and Evelyn Glennie are notable. They are each of them well-known, have been public figures for years, and yet they don't have articles here full of gush and inappropriate personal material. This article is a shrine to its subject, out of all proportion to his notability, and the current show of support for it has every appearance of being a coordinated attempt to deny wikipedia criteria to vanity publishing. Bakewell Tart 09:35, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Also very concerning that the two editors who have caused so much trouble with this article have usernames which relate to the subject of the article? He is a composer and he teaches in Bakewell? There is something not right about this - further investigation is needed.

If we are looking at the track record of certain posters, perhaps we should be looking at those who make sly threats when they themselves have posted silly messages on other people's pages-user:86.137.230.153? Also, if we are talking about unhealthy fixations, this article has been created over several months by several anonymous users without the authority or knoweledge of the subject. They have included a large amount of personal information that has nothing to do with Mr Steadman's musical career. When the subject asked for the page to be deleted, they argue to keep it. Isn't that fairly unhealthy? Some people have an obsessive need to keep the page 'offiicial' and will not tolerate anything else to remain on the page for long. As far as my user name is concerned - I have registered and use ONE name, rather than using a series of anonymous IP addresses to make it seem as if I am one of many. Why is the term 'composer' suspicious? Crusading composer 22:52, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

So you are making accustaions about the authorship - on what basis? How do you mean "official"? A look at the history suggests a good many editors have contributed to this page. Wiki articles have many facts about many people - what is your problem with that?

Finally, you make accusations about vandalism to your page by the IP address I am using - and yet your page history does not show that - such an accusation is not in the spirit of Wikipedia and should be retracted immediately.

Did I say it was YOU? No, just a reply to your claim about things being 'unhealthy'. I have NO idea who made some of the comments although one threat WAS left by someone claiming to be Mr Steadman himself. Obviously he is not that disinterested? The article has been drafted by one named user and several anonymous BT IPs. Mr Steadman himself uses one an anonymous BT IP, but as you said, I wouldn't suggest that Mr Steadman has made any additions to this page himslf, as he has said categorically that he hasn't. Mr Steadman's integrity is not for me to question. When I use the term 'official' I refer to a small clique of Steadmanphiles who have put a lot of time and effort into creating a veritable shrine to the composer.Crusading composer 23:23, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Educationalist

The editor who continues to label Mr Steadman an educationalist needs to check the definition. The term does not refer to one who works in education but someone who specialises in the theory of education. Mr Steadman does not seem to have even a basic teaching qualification in his otherwise encyclopaedic list of accomplishments, so how he can claim to be an expert in the theory of education is beyond me. The editor needs to stop reverting to 'educationalist' as this is a factual innacuracy.

• True, but possibly a genuine error. - Just zis Guy, you know? 12:49, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

It's typical of the 'bigging up' of Mr Steadman: he is not a teacher - he is an educationalist he is on the list of the greatest composers - added of course by the same anonymous posters who decided that: he is a famous resident of Basingstoke

• True. Basingstoke is a dull town, let it have its claims to fame - Just zis Guy, you know? 12:49, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

he is a famous graduate of Oxford

• True. Along with thousands of others. - Just zis Guy, you know? 12:49, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

His name is spreading throughout the Wikipedia pages and it is all down to one or two editors who have a mission to ensure that he IS famous because he IS everywhere.Crusading composer 13:22, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

• But he is famous. Genuinely. - Just zis Guy, you know? 12:49, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I have put in "music educator" as I think this fits the bill.

• Currently stands at "teacher", I think, which is how most musicians who also teach describe themselves (I have just spent a weekend with a bunch of same, horn players like Michael Thompson, Frank Lloyd, Jeff Bryant, Simon de Souza). - Just zis Guy, you know? 12:49, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

As for Crusading Composer removing all links from other pages that seems a little petty and strikes as a campaign to remove Steadman. I think many of those links should be reverted. 86.137.230.153 19:50, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Also on what grounds do you claim that Steadman has no teaching qualification? He works in a state school in the UK? Do you know for a fact he has no teaching qualification or are you guessing or are you just trying to belittle someone for whom you seem to have a bee in the bonnet? 86.137.230.153 19:52, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

I haven't said that Mr Steadman has no qualifications - only commented upon the fact that he hasn't mentioned any. Surely, someone who is such a committed 'educator' would mention his qualifications and list his experience? If you look at the facts, Mr Steadman's 'educating' isn't really mentioned at all. He graduated in 1987? and started working at his current school this year. That's a gap of 18 years - he mentions a couple of part time jobs and his work as a freelance with an LEA - hardly worth the title of 'educationalist', is it?Crusading composer 22:58, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

• Many (probably a majority of) musicians who teach have no formal teaching qualification. It depends, as I understand it, on whether you teach music the curriculum subject or specific instruments or techniques (such as composition). - Just zis Guy, you know? 12:49, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Ah, but you delete it without knowing whether he is or not? And the long form of the article does refer to university lecturing - o you know what that is? You also keep saying that Mr. Steadman doesn't mention - I do not believe such snide accusations to be in the spirit of Wikipedia - are you claiming the bulk of the article was written by Steadman? Can you prove it? 86.137.230.153 23:05, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Oh for goodness sake, if you read a dictionary, you'd find that Mr Steadman is not an 'educationalist'. That is why I deleted it. I thought that the onus was on editors to provide sources for making statements. You will not find any sources to back this particular claim up because educational theory, while it may be one of his many, many interests, is not his field of expertise. When I say that Mr Steadman does not mention his qualifications, I am refrring to Mr Steadman's website which is the only real source on the internet of his 'notability'. I am of course, forgetting about your extensive collection of programmes and posters. Perhaps it was mentioned on one of those?Crusading composer 23:30, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Music Educator

Would those who keep removing or altering the term "Music Educator" please exaplin their reasons here. To me it seems that someone who teaches, lectures at a uni, gives workshops, etc. is not just a teacher, or a part time teacher but is an educator.Vhjh 13:27, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Teacher aptly covers all those things mentioned above. Others in education do not see the need for such showy titles as "educator" so why should Mr Steadman get this title?

How many university lecturers do you know who would like to be called a teacher? How many teachers would loike to be called workshop leaers? Very different skills and should they need to come under one title educator is surely better and more appropriate? Vhjh 18:19, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Can people adding new comment sections please observe Wikipedia talk-page convention, and add them at the end? Y'know, like the "+" button for adding a new comment does by default. Editing the whole page simply to "top-post", as several users are doing here, is a tad vexing.

On how to describe the subject: I mentioned earlier (i.e., below...) that the BBC online article about him uses the phrase "part time music teacher". The website of his school lists him under the "part-time teachers". I'd like to see some source for descriptions like "educator" or "educationalist", and preferably not just self-descriptions. The gist of the NPOV policy is how is he actually described, rather than necessarily how he'd prefer to be described. If he does more than this to a significant degree, what about simply listing them? Likewise, if the addition to the reviews section was an accurate quote, why was it removed? Again, the objective is a neutral description of the subject, not selective culling of favourable quotes. Alai 19:33, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

I think the point was that the short quote, under musical style, refers to musical style - the longer version wasn't about style and has a place in the reviews sections (do many articles have review sections?). I think educator is a nice simple NPOV way of describing someone who does a variety of work in education - and avoids having a long list of different activities. I see the point about the BBC article - though it was from BBC Derby so they were looking for the "local" angle and, obviously, the school he teaches at will describe him by the job he does for them. Vhjh 19:42, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

I take your point about the context of the quote: certainly they should be "fit for purpose". The separate review section may be a good idea for that reason, if there's a significant number of "miscellaneous" quotes on and critical evaluation of his work. I don't see the harm in having a long(ish) list of descriptors; there's not a single descriptor in any case -- and it's not as if the article is in much danger of being short, anyway. And I don't follow your reasoning that "educator" is NPOV: if no-one actually describes him this way, and he's commonly described in other ways, then according to the policy, it isn't. Now personally, I don't see anything wrong with, or inaccurate about "educator" as a description, but that's a somewhat different issue from it being NPOV. Alai 20:04, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm intrigued how Crusading composer justifies linking to posts on a messageboard and unions, religion and arguing on a messageboard as relevant to Steadman being an educator. 213.249.155.237 08:27, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I am fed up

I am fed up with Crusading composer and his continual attempts to sabotage a perfectly good article - asking to AfD a matter of hours after a previous one was defeated overwhelmingly due to its bad faith nomination. Every little thing he does to the page is an attempt to make Steadman look bad - a new section today for REVIEWS (plural) contain only one (in fact only half) of one review which only had negative comments. Time for admin to step in an stop this mischeivous editor who is dangerously fixated. Vhjh 19:15, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

I created the heading, you have now added more reviews. What is the problem with that - that's how Wikipedia works. Could you find a review less than six years old? It would be interesting to see how Mr Steadman's work is received today. AS far as the bad faith nomination is concerned, that was nothing to do with me. Mel ettis decided it was a bad faith nomination even though other administrators had recommended that it shoulf be AfD. Did Mel Ettis not go to Oxford as well? I wonder if Mel and Steadman know each other? You have been told that you cannot revert edits just because you dislike them. I reserve the right to add any relevant information. It might show Mr Steadman in a positive way, it might not. If you want to have your own fanzine and have total editorial control, buy some bandwidth.Crusading composer 19:24, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

I resent your accusation and I hope that Mel Ettis looks into your accusation. Your record speaks for itself - involvement in a determined campaign, no explanation of any knowledge of the subject beyond an internet messageboard and much negative editing of a page. I wonder..... Vhjh 19:29, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Why have you accused me of removing sherwood forest links and the background - they are still there! You are a bit fixated about this. Crusading composer 19:56, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Crusading composer If you look at your earlier edit and the edit by a previous person it is clear that it was YOU who removed the background sectiona nd the sherwoo forest reference and did various other changes. Please stop this personal venetta against the subject of this article. It is clear that you are not interested in a balanced article - you simply want to belittle the subject. Vhjh 20:00, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

And please don't pretend that people are making false allegations - the evidence is there for all to see. I am very concerned about your integrityt as an editor. Vhjh 20:01, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

I HAVE checked again using that compare versions function and it ceratainly does look like I made the changes but I didn't. 1. I only added the review section. 2. I didn't even add the quote bit in 'style' 3. I didn't even look at the robin hood section 4. I didn't touch the background.

I'm being perfectly honest about this, if I'd done it, I'd admit to it. How this happen I cannot explain. I did get a 'updating an old version' message while I was saving it. Could my edit have overlapped another. Don't know. It wasn't me anyway.Crusading composer 20:10, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Look at the dates and times and changes - you were the only person editing then - and after you finished various things had been removed with no good reason. Now you bleat to make out that you are innocent. Stop your campaign of trying to belittle this subject and wreck this article. Vhjh 20:13, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Unlike most of Mr Steadman's fans, I use a username and try to give a reason for doing things. I'm not sure what is happening, I just added a reply to Alai in 'music editor' and now that has gone.Crusading composer 20:19, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

So you've been caught red handed and yet you try to make out it is other people still. Amazing. What a nerve. Vhjh 20:26, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it is 'amazing'. What is your problem, Rob? I have said that if I'd done it, I'd own up to it. I haven't told any lies or created an army of sock puppets.Crusading composer 20:38, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Hold your horses! Have you just accused me of being Robert Steadman? That is outrageous and should be withdrawn immediately. As for your earlier vandalism, the evidence is there for all to see. Vhjh 20:42, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Response to RfC

In looking over the article, I cleaned up some spelling and ended up removing the entire Review section as a blatent copy from Steadman's homepage. As far as the article goes, it could use a considerable rewrite to make it more cohesive -- it's very choppy in its current form. Perhaps a temporary page could be created where the major players in this discussion could work together to create an article you could each agree on and leave off editing the main article until your issues are resolved? I'd be happy to help work on tone and style to improve the article. --.:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 21:36, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree it's all a bit choppy - partly the problem of a couple of vandals who keep chopping things about!

WOuld happily work with anyone who has a genuine interest in this subject (not just wanting to belittle the subject).

What suggestions have you got Jareth? Vhjh 21:47, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

By the way, what is "RfC"? Vhjh 21:56, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

RfC is "Wikipedia:request for comments". I listed this article there as an on-going content dispute. Often it's a good idea to try to get a third (or fourth or fifth...) opinion in these cases, given that we seem to have all the editing here being done by people with rather doggedly pro- and anti- Steadman positions, none of whom do any significant editing elsewhere. (With me popping by occasionally, and in the "profoundly ignorant either way" category.) Though perhaps wikidiction will set in and you'll all "go native"... Jareth, your temporary version suggestion has merit I think, not so much because the "edit-warring" is especially bad here, but because it might enable people to sketch out a structure they could live with, without the pressure to instantly "correct" the live person of the page. Vhjh, please note that you can't restrict editing of this page to those with a "genuine interest in this subject"; verifiability, notability, encyclopaedic tone, and NPOV also need to be satisfied here, and editors whose interest those are should be encouraged to be here. Obviously "belittling", vandalism, etc, is inappropriate here, or anyplace else on Wikipedia. Alai 23:42, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

I've left a message for Crusading composer in order to involve him in the discussion as well. Typically when edit wars get this bad, working on a temporary page or discussing all edits (and reaching a consensus) on the talk page first will help get everyone working together again. As far as my suggestions, I honestly believe the article has become so disjointed from the constant editing and revision that it could use a complete rewrite to make it flow again. It might be prudent to hash out the content disagreements first so we have a better picture of what will be in the fixed version. ---.:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 00:24, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

A modest proposal

Can I suggest that the disputants try to agree on two things, first of all?

• What are the sources for this article; and
• What the lead section should be.

A good lead section should have a definitional character; it should sketch out all you really need to know about a topic, if your attention span is going to give out after a paragraph or two. See Wikipedia:Summary style. In this context, it should really quickly sum up what the subject is notable for, and give the basic biographical facts (only). At the moment it's far too short, and gives no indication whether he's as famous as an educator as a conductor, say, and doesn't even allude to the political stuff that lobs up later on. One then gets a paragraph of not-very-significant-sounding curriculum vitae, so that's not a good candidate for a lead, either.

Sources are important too: several of the disputes seem to have arisen because one "side" is using sources that the other doesn't have access to (programme notes, etc), or doesn't accept is necessarily valid (is the TES website Robsteadman really the subject of this article). This also goes to verifiablity: as it stands, the reader, or the third-party editor, is essentially being asked to accept the word of one or the other, without being presented with a means of demonstrating the truth of either set of assertions.

I think if these are sorted out, a lot of the remaining concerns will be essentially matters of style and tone, and as such, much less contentious. Alai 05:34, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Banning, neutrality, etc

Interesting that Crusading composer has suddenly done a splatter of postings on other topics. Is this to gain some credibilty so that their continual vandalism and attempts to get this page removed are taken seriously?

I see they have also questioned an admin's neutrality! I can't see why this editor is still allowed to edit. 213.249.155.237 10:27, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes it is interesting isn't it. I usually spend half an hour or so flicking through random articles. I don't enjoy most - lists of Olympic winners, town in USA, australian politicians etc., but now and again I find one that I have some knowledge of. I am a scifi fan and I have participated in the Nijmegen marches. Perhaps I might find another article tonight, is it OK with you if I edit that or should I leave a request on your talk page, because I do SO care about your opinion? I haven't questioned an admin's neutrality, but I have said that I think he was wrong. That's allowed isn't it? Or are we suddenly living in Stalinist Russia? The reason that I am still allowed to edit is that I haven't done anything wrong. Duh! Just because you don't agree with me doesn't make me wrong. I think the cahnges made this evening - particularly the restyling of the 'style' section are good. That is exactltyb what I would have done. If we could lose the entire campaigning composer section, I'd promise not to add links to it - that section is my main point of contention and always has been. when it was removed I was happy to post neutrally in the vote for AfD. It was only when it was restored that I voted to delete the article.Crusading composer 23:46, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

In Soviet Wikipedia, article delete you! (Shamelessly stolen -- from Neutrality IIRC, funnily enough.) I'm not aware of CC having done anything rising to the bannable, or at any rate, certainly not "on sight". You could start an WP:ArbCom case, though I'd strongly advise you to try other means of dispute resolution first. Like, y'know, actually discussing the content of the article, in the first instance: everything else is really simply a second order problem to that, at least so far as WP is concerned. (As I suggested above; I've started a new section for this, as it's completely ignoring the points I tried to raise.) I certainly don't think his behaviour is ideal, and does smack of editing with an anti-Steadman agenda, but there's a big gap between "ideal" and "bannable" (in which most of us exist for at least some of the time, I'm sure). He's certainly free to disagree with an admin, but should of course be civil about it, not do so disruptively, and try to not impute that the disagreed-with actions are badly motivated.

If his politics are notable, then I do see some pertinence to the anti-union stuff (in the context of him being suggested to be otherwise "left-leaning"), but a web-forum does seem a somewhat low-grade source. If he was on more formal public record that would be preferable. But likewise, the other material here also seems to be rather weakly sourced. Hence my suggestion as to trying to agree a set of reasonable sources. Alai 00:59, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Vanity Article

I ask that an aadministrator looks very carefully at the creation entries to the Robert Steadman article: 19.06 217.42.67.174 creates the page and also adds Steadman's name to other sites. This continues until 09.07 when the editorial duties are taken over by Robeaston and Vjhj who also edit other pages either relating to Mr Steadman or adding his name. A series of other anonymous posters( 86.136.163.90, 86.133.71.137, 86.136.239.9, 86.136.167.52, 86.137.64.72, 86.136.235.69) then add further details to the article. What is noteworthy though is that each time the poster is only active for one day but in that time posts many edits to the steadman article and also Steadman related sites. One anonymous editor even finds the time to remove 'vandalism' from Vhjh's page. These editors claim that they have no relationship to each other or to Mr Steadman, but obviously there is some relationship. I am also skeptical that there are a series of people who have no realtionship to Mr Steadman but who have a detailed knowledge of his home town , university and personal life. I'm not claiming that they are ALL Mr Steadman but it wouldn't surprise me. I am also concerned that the various editors have the same style: call anyone who touches their site a bully or a stalker, whilst belittling THEM and constantly calling for administrators to ban them. Anyone who follows the links to the TES website will find that these are the very traits that the poster calling himnself Rob Steadman is accused of. I believe that this article should be re referred for deletion as a vanity article and the work of sock puppets. Mel Ettis claims that it was a bad faith nomination, but at least two administrators believed that there was enough reason for referring it. I was NOT involved in the original RfD, I was neutral until the editors above started abusing the page. It had been shortened (as recommended by an administrator) and was fine, however, when it attracted some positive responses the page was restored to it's full length. My take on it is that it is the work of mainly one person who reserves complete editorial control. When others added to it they asked for it to be protected, but when they realised that they could not have it permanently protected as a shrine, they preferred to have it deleted - especially as it had been recommended that it wasn't notable enough. To prevent vandalism, they then shortened the article, but once they started to get support they restored it with a vengeance. Why am I bothering to bang my head against a brick wall over this? It's not a vendetta, I just want the creator of this article to realise that it's not THEIR sole property. Once again, I have had a perfectly reasonable and accurate edit deleted for the sole reason that it portrays the subject in a bad light. If just cannot see how anyone else cannot see that this IS a real example of a classic vanity article -from the way it was created right up to the continuimg attempts to keep it free of anything that doesn't show the subject in the most postive light. Crusading composer 20:48, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

This was in the incorrect place on the page so I have moved it.

It repeats previous claims by Crusading composer who is intent, for reasons best known to himself, on getting this page removed - despite being cited by Mel Etitis as part of a bad faith AfD nomination recently which was overwhelmingly defeated.

Crusading Composer - please explain your sources and knowledge of Robert Steadman. Are you an expert in modern classical music? Do youi have ANY knowledge of modern classical music? (You recent panic editing of other sites suggest that your interests and knowledge may lie elsewhere). And, finally, what is the issue you have with Robert Steadman? To me it is clearly personal. Are you one of those involved in earlier TES based vandalism of this article? Or are you just a schoolkid that Mr. Steadman has put in detention - because that is the level of your behaviour.

You have accused me of being Robert Steadman AND you accusedMel Etitis of abandoning neutrality and favouring him over you.

I really think that, as has been pointed out by many editors, you hold a personal grudge and your claims are just childish.

Vhjh 21:26, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

To answer vhjh 1. Regardless of the fact that Mel Etitis was one of many who supported you it doesn't mean that he is infallible. It was his OPINION that this was a bad faith nomination - other administrators believed that it should be AfD. Also Mel Etitis was incorrect to say that I was part of a bad faith nomination. I never nominated thae raticle - I merely voted against keeping it. Unless wikipedia is some kind of Stalinistic dictatorship You can't be denounced just because you disagree. Mel etitis is entitled to HIS opinion, I am entitled to mine. I believe that he was wrong in his actions. 2. I am NOT bothered if this article is removed or not. I just object to its tone and content. Cut out the non musical references, the gush and the oud of date self congratualtion and I'd have nothing to balance. 3. I believe that Mr Steadman IS the self same Robsteadman of the TES and that TEs contributor is not a particualrly nice fellow. Here is some evidence of the links between the two steadmans: http://www8.tes.co.uk/section/staffroom/thread.aspx?story_id=2146582&path=/Music/&messagePage=1&messageID=1203563#message1203563 I DO know quite a bit about him and I feel that this article, as it stands, lacks balance. I wish to redress that. 4. I have not vandalised the article - you have been told many times that just because YOU don't like it, it doesn't mean it's vanadalism. 5. As far as childish behaviour is concerned, you need look no further than your own actions. 6. Why is it suspicious that I have edited one or two articles? You are correct, I do have interests other than a slightly famous part time music teacher who hapens to have composed a few tunes in the last 20 years but has very little to show for it.

I believe that the various editors mentioned above are sock puppets. As I said, it seems incredible that so many posters would log on for a day to contributer to this article, yet at the same time, feel the need to also edit articles that relate to mr steadman's personal life - his school, home town etc. unless they had some kind of relationshipo to the subject. You, for instance, when questioned about your links to Mr Steadman said that you did not know him, had no connection to him or his publishers and was merely someone interested in his music. If your aim was to create an article about him why have you been creating pages about his school? Where did you find that information? Certainly not iin the programmes that you cite as evidence. Why have you added his name to dozens of other wikipedia articles. Your editing of personal pages unrelated to his work or music makes me believe that you have not been candid in your replies. Crusading composer 22:07, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

1. Which admins thought that it should be AfDed, and where did they express this opinion?
2. Why does that fact that you weren't the nominator mean that wasn't a bad-faith nomination? You seem to be implying that you're the only person who makes bad-faith nominations...
3. I don't understand what you think is the relevance of your remarks about "Robsteadman of the TES".
4. Your only edits here, the last time I looked, were to this article and its associated pages; that suggests that you have no interest in Wikipedia, only a (negative and rather unhealthy) interest in this person.
5. It's common practice (and encouraged) that articles are relevantly linked to from other articles. --Mel Etitis (?e? ?t?t??) 22:43, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Alai (is he an administrator?) suggested that it be AfD. Tony sidaway ceratinly felt that the original article wasn't cut and dried 'notable'. I resent the suggestions that I have been 'involved' (sic) in a bad faithy nomination and that this is sufficient that my consduct be 'looked into' (sic) - are you not allowed to express an opinion contrary to the majority?

I repeat again for those to slow to read my comments before jumping down my throat, my intention is NOT to delete this article but to see it presented in a more balanced way. I haven't vandalised or cut out large parts of it. I have added some links, changed some sentences and completed a quote. I have added far more than I have removed - the trouble is that some people can't accept that in a balnaced article the subject might have some references that are not positive. That DOES NOT mean that the person who put them there is acting in a destructive or negative way.

If anyone wants to see a negative and unhealthy interest - just see my user page which has been repeatedly attacked by contributors to the Steadman article and even someone purporting to be Mr Steadman himself. Are non editors really allowed to add the vandalism templates? Who monitors mischievous or malicious use of these - as in my case where I hadn't committed ANY vandalism. I got so many warnings and threats that when, one day, I got a message that I was blocked from editing, I actually believed that I had been banned. Vhjh is now even following me around ref=verting my edits to other articles - deciding that he thinks that they aren't relevant. That user is acting in a malicious and manipulative way just to get me to react. But I won't. Crusading composer 23:12, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Mel Etitis, have you made any effort to look over my comments about vanity articles and sock puppets? Can you honestly say that this article and its editors are completely above board? I still think that you were wrong to close the vote and call it a bad faith nomination. It was likely to be won anyway. Crusading composer 23:12, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

With the exception of my first question, which you half answered, your first response seems to be to somone else. To your second comment, I can only that this is pretty obviously not a vanity article, and that I see no sign that multiple accounts are being used illicitly (to avoid 3RR violations, for example). I'm sorry that you diagree with my action, but I stand by it. --Mel Etitis (?e? ?t?t??) 23:56, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, and haven't claimed or sought to act as such (though should I mention, for full disclosure, that I'm currently nominated?). Not that being an admin is really either here or there as regards matters of editorial opinion, anyway. They're allowed to express personal views, same as the rest of us... I don't think Tony or I actually said it should be AfD'd, though we did question the degree of notability of the subject. Based purely on web trawling in my case; I'm certainly not claiming any knowledge of the subject area at all. I've yet to find a web source on post minimalism mentioning RS's role in it that isn't a WP mirror, and his web media presence doesn't seem terribly high in general. But that may not be a good measure in this area, I couldn't say.

Vandalism templates: firstly, they should be placed on User_talk pages. Secondly, they should be used for clear vandalism, not as a retort in an editing dispute. So far as I know anyone can add them, not just admins. OTOH, the "last warning" stuff from an anon seems to me a little silly, as clearly they have no power to block anyone (and in this case, I think little idea about blocking policy). Personally, I'd remove them if I were you, CC. Your User: page can be edited pretty freely by you, and essentially only as you allow by others. That's unless you're using it wildly inappropriately, or have some fairly formal decision made about you by the community, such as being banned, determined to be an abusive sockpuppet, etc. I'd recommend you leave comments on your User_talk: page intact, though I can't claim this is a universal practice.

I don't see why you say this is clearly not vanity, Mel. The biographical trivia that the contributing editors do not source, and the general tone, certainly smack to me of something that "presents the appearance of being intended to in any way promote the personal notoriety of [...] associates of the author". Obviously I don't know if such an association exists in fact, and the several accounts here that edit exclusively in a Steadman-promoting manner (and are the only editors so doing) may simply be, as they say, very well informed and focused fans... The cautions about "little-known subjects" also seem pertinent here (unless the subject is a good deal "better known" than I get the impression): "it is particularly important to express the facts in a neutral way and as much as possible to cite sources that are credible, neutral, and independent". But maybe I've over-sensitive on this point, having been scarred for life as a very young Wikipedian by stumbling into the Keith Wigdor debacle... Certainly it's not a clear-cut autobio-with-no-notability-at-all, the never-popular "hardcore vanity" that pops up regularly on AfD, I'll absolutely grant that.

CC, you grant that the outcome would have remained the same had the AfD ran "full term", so given that it was broadening out into a re-hash of much the same issues as appear on a regular basis on this page, it may well have been simply prudent to end it when Mel did. If you feel that one version is "deletable", and another isn't, then that tacitly acknowledges that the issue is content, and thus that AfD is not the place to resolve that. You should also be aware that the community is typically leery of the role of relatively new accounts that focus exclusively on a small set of articles, especially in AfD discussions, and I think for understandable reasons.

On CC's other points, I believe he's referring to whether the links to the views of "Robsteadman" (who at least claims to be the very same Robert Steadman) are verifiable, and are relevant here. This seems to feature quite heavily in past disputes here. (One might speculate that some of this whole dispute is "spill-over" from the TES boards themselves, but in such matters too, one shouldn't really speculate.) If they are verifiable, such views seem to me at least as relevant as, say, membership of Amnesty. Article links: I think the question here is how notable Steadman is in the various contexts into which he's being inserted, and how an objective-but-uniformed third party might convince themselves they are indeed relevant. OTOH, if those articles are being actively edited, people knowledgeable in those subjects (whether it be Basingstoke or post-minimalism...) should be the people in the best position to judge. Alai 02:51, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

More style changes

Since Mel did such a fantastic job starting off the cleanup, I was able to go in an make a few more stylistic changes and hopefully clarify some of the article. I also moved the information about being known for his choral works to the main paragraph of the Compositions section to give it more visibility. I removed the section on Lighter music since no examples were given -- it seemed out of place there, maybe something should be written into the intro of the Composition section? I also renamed the campaigning composer section for clarity and moved it out from under the compositions section; it didn't seem to belong there. I removed the paragraph about Notebook since it was worded more like an advertisement and the article already discusses his music available for donations to charity. I still feel like the intro is lacking a bit and would like the phrase "music educator" to be replaced with something that rolls of the tongue better, but I haven't been able to figure out how to fix that yet. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 14:58, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

As an outsider (though I confess to having performed a piece by Robert Steadman last year with a choir in which I sing) this seems like a sensible way ahead. I can't believe the fuss this page has generated. Glad some people are seeing sense. (Unsigned comment by 213.249.155.242)

The phrase music educator certainly does not roll off the tongue, but I remain unconvinced that the reference is appropriate. The consensus view seems to be that Steadman's notability is derived from his compositional work principally. There has to be serious doubt (based on the information presented here and readily available from external sources) that his notability extends to his work either as a conductor (which simply goes as part of what he does for a living), or more particularly, as an 'educator'. If we recall the 'college professor' test for notability, we might usefully remember that Steadman isn't one. He may do some part-time lecturing work, but is there any evidence of him being notable for doing it? Equally, he is a part-time assistant teacher in a state comprehensive school. He isn't head of department, and while he may be in all respects an exemplary classroom practitioner, he is no more notable as a teacher than the several hundred thousand teachers in a similar position.

There is still too much gush and personal material here, and much further editing required, before this article could be considered an asset to Wikipedia. I'm not going to make any further alteration myself - I have already been accused of acting in bad faith by the Steadman fan club, whose POV is manifestly not neutral, and I am happy to leave the matter in the hands of those who have not (yet) been accused. Bakewell Tart 17:45, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

So all who agreed it was a bad faith nomination on your part and the admin who agreed are all part of the Steadman fan club? 213.249.155.242 18:28, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

That does not necessarily follow from what I've said, but this discussion is about the article, not about me or my motivations. I would remind you that I have been one of the least active of its editors and have added nothing to the article whatever. Bakewell Tart 08:47, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Another issue regarding style is that the section headed 'Political activities' is misconceived. There is nothing here which represents political activity, but rather that his compositional work is informed by his own political beliefs (tempered by the commissions which have come his way), and that is something quite different. Steadman's politics and opinions are known to huge numbers of people interested in education through his extensive (even ubiquitous) contributions to the TES Staffroom - the internet discussion forum which has been mentioned here before, where he is a prolific contributor (nearly 10,000 postings to date). There are over 97,000 registered users of that well-established forum, and he is hugely better known as an argumentative and verbose teacher than he is ever likely to be known as a composer or conductor. One issue over which he has been robustly challenged there is the fact that as an atheist, he is dismissive (in often grossly offensive terms) about religion as mere "superstition", he has derived a significant proportion of his income to date as a composer in setting religious texts. He stands accused of hypocrisy, and it is arguable that his 'political' stance is not as principled as he would have us believe. To date, all attempts at making any reference to such views (and they haven't been very effective attempts in my view, but that is another matter) have been ruthlessly suppressed in this article by a tiny group of editors (who may well be the same person, and who certainly don't appear to edit anything else), determined to see this article have the character of hagiography. It's not appropriate. Bakewell Tart 18:07, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

There are many for whom religion is merely superstition, that is not that unusual point of view and there are, I believe, many composers who have set religious texts without feeling the need to believe in the content of the text. I think the important part of Bakewell Tart's above is the return to the references to the TES fora - this is continued overspill by someone with a grudge. 213.249.155.242 18:28, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps, but please try to WP:AGF. Even if you're right about its lack, it doesn't help matters to personalise matters into a dispute about motivations, rather than about content. Why for example is his attitude to religion and to unionisation less significant than the political views that are represented here? 'Is a member of Amnesty', for example, is neither especially unusual, nor especially public. Alai 19:08, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I think he's clearly not notable as a teacher or lecturer; the proverbial average-college-prof test would indeed seem to apply. It's worth mentioning as bio, but should be more clearly distinguished from notable activities/properties. The composer stuff seems marginal as regards notability, too. I've tried to clarify this, in line with my earlier comments on the too-slim lead section. But it's clearly on an improving trend, to look on the bright side. Alai 19:08, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

As no one seems to be arguing with that assessment, I am left wondering why I stand accused of having acted in bad faith in nominating the article for deletion. Never mind, I can live with it. Increasingly, I find consensus forming around my original view that the article grossly overstates the subject's notability, and that the scope and content of the article should be adjusted to reflect the man and his work considered from a NPOV, rather than the hopelessly (and perhaps innocently) partisan and hagiographical perspective of the original editor(s). Bakewell Tart 08:47, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I didn't say he wasn't notable at all: presumably the argument is that he is, as a composer. Alai 23:32, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Politics

I am not going to edit the article due to the hostility of the original creator/s but I strongly feel that some of the content of this article is inappropriate. Mr Steadman is known, if known is the correct word, as a composer. He is not notable in any way as a conductor or 'educationalist'. I think it's fair to mention in his bio that he is a teacher and that he is a conductor. IF this article is going to stray from the central premise of notability then I see no reason why it should NOT include details of his contributions to the TES. After all, it is a forum for teachers and Mr Steadman's educational accomplishments and political beliefs are well documented on it. Mr Steadman is probably as well known on the TES as he is for his composing and he certainly seems to spend more time posting on there as he does on his compositions.Crusading composer 21:42, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

How about: Robert Steadman/redraft Crusading composer 21:58, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

What does the removing of proper sub headings achieve other than to make the article more tricky to read? Vhjh 22:15, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

An what is your reasoning (other than your POV rants) for removing everything abouit conducting, education, politics, etc? Personally I think the article is now well balanced and reads better. Vhjh 22:17, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I assume, because Steadman has not been demonstrated to be notable in any of those areas. Alai 22:43, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Leaving the headings in meant that this suggestion became muddled with the other headings. Look, I could have edited the actual article, but I though that it was more polite to post my suggestion here. Instead of having a hissy fit, can't you just comment in a friendly cooperative way? Crusading composer 22:22, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Can you both please desist from the gratuitous incivility? Alai 22:43, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I see no benefit whatsoever in removing the subheadings. Completely pointless and makes reading the article much, much harder. I also see no benefit to the other changes you have suggested.

By the way, you have yet to explain your knowledge of Steadman. Are you a musician? Have you performed his work? Have you written other articles abolut him? Or isit all based on an arguement on the TES boards that, from your anger, you lost? Did you get banned or something? Vhjh 22:27, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

It's entirely up to you. If you wish to keep 'known for his political campaigning' in the article, then let's have a section on it. It is entirely justifiable to include such comments as: Steadman is strongly anti-union. He believes that the unions are corrupt and regularly exhorts other teachers to resign their union membership. or Steadman is not only an atheist, but he is strongly antagonistic towards religions - especially the catholic church. I'll explain this S-L-O-W-L-Y, this is a suggestion about content. I removed the headings because they muddled this page. I'm not suggesting we remove the headings in the actual article. If you really wish, I could edit the actual page and refer it to arbitration.Crusading composer 22:33, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

1) Is he anti-ALL unions or just the teaching ones? Is there a reasoning behind his arguments? 2) Most atheists are anti-religions - are you sure about the Catholic Church bit or are you assuming that? Are ANY of your replies to points one and two from any source other than specific messageboard discussions on the TES web site - each thread of which tends to be a single issue discussion? Vhjh 22:38, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I refer both your questions to the TES forum. I'm sure that you already know the answer to your questions since you seem to be already VERY familiar with that forum. Please don't push this, you'll only cause embarrassment to the subject of this article. 22:46, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

No please answer the questions - you seem to be saying you know all aboutSteadman based on an internet messageboard - please enlighten us all. And why woul this cause embarrassment to the subject? Isn't that what you've been trying to do all along? That is your sole purpose - to belittle and embarrass the subject. Vhjh 22:49, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Do you REALLY want me to post a series of links to debates where Mr Steadman has done this?Crusading composer 22:58, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

This is extraordinary. This article is supposed to be about Steadman and his work. If reference is made to his political stance, as evidenced by a reliable source, independent of the subject (the huge TES Staffroom forum, operated by an independent publisher and with 97,000 registered members, which for my money is a better source than anything else yet cited) and the subject finds any of his c10,000 contributions 'embarrassing', then that is either because he posts material that shows him in an unfavourable light, or that they otherwise conflict or have the appearance of being inconsistent with material here. If the former, then as a 'notable' and therefore to some extent a public figure, he might usefully have been more circumspect about his very public and undoubtedly prolific outpourings made in his own name (when most contributors make anonymous comments, as we do here). If the latter, then that is the fault of this article for not neutrally presenting the man's work, and to the extent that they are relevant, his political and personal beliefs. Bakewell Tart 08:15, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I would have thught that the fact that Steadman uses his music to make political points is significant and justifies this section - it is the only genuine public statement of his beliefs beyond the dubious TES staffroom which, as has been stated, might well be someone else, or might be him playing Devil's Advocate, or might, just as easily, be only part of the picture. To use internet messageboards seems, to me, at least, as a very poor source of information.

Bakewell Tart - I think you miss the point. You may have done little to the article itself but, despite showing little interest in the subject, you were responsible for a bad faith nomination that was overwhelmingly defeated. To do little in the way of editing and merely do that was extraordinary, in my opinion.

213.249.155.239 10:21, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Your response overlooks several matters: 1. It does not follow that because I stand accused of acting in bad faith in nominating the AfD, I was actually acting in bad faith. That way of proceeding was suggested by another editor, and the subject himself (if the contribution was genuine) was also seeking removal of the article, although he took no steps himself to that end. The current consensus accepts that Steadman is not notable on two out of three cited grounds, and it is suggested by more than one editor that notability as regards the compositional work is marginal. I contend that there was a prima facie case to nominate the AfD, and I made that nomination in good faith. I am quite happy to accept the outcome. Why should I not be? 2. The point that I was making about the Political Activites section was that it is misconceived. You are not responding to my point, but pursuing your own agendum. As for the TES Staffroom being a poor source, you fail to make any case. It is virtually the only actual source that has been cited at all, and it is public and verifiable. There have been plenty of opportunities for the editors taking a contrary view to cite their own sources, but they have not. 3. If there is to be a section on political activities/stance/motvation (or whatever), then you are not entitled to be the sole arbiter as to what is relevant or not. Apart from anything else, we are discussing the work of a contemporary composer, who can speak for himself should he choose to do so. For all we know, the present slant of the article may be a complete fiction as regards the subject's standpoint. How are we to know otherwise? Bakewell Tart 10:44, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

BT - you seem to be missing the point. 1: The rejection of the bad faith nomination was on the grounds, from what I can see, that the subject does warrant a page on Wikipedia. 2: I am not following any agenda except trying to resolve this issue. Please don;t try to drag me into this sorry disagreement. 3: As I have said below, the only "on the record" statement of the subject's political/humanitarian views or campaigning seems to be via his music. That is, after all, the thing for which he is known and, therefore, is the only thing that is relevant unless he has published articles on the subject - has he? I really don't think internet messageboards hold up against artices or, for that matter, compositions published and performed with a clearly stated purpose. 213.249.155.239 11:19, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Your assertion assumes the very thing that has not been established. The present article cites no sources for its assertions about the political activities of the subject. It seems increasingly reasonable to assume that this is because they don't exist. I think the section should be removed if it cannot be substantiated, but I will take no steps to remove it myself. As for the reliability of the TES Staffroom, I regret that I cannot see why it is considered to be a non-source, or at best an unreliable one. One of the notable features of the TES Staffroom fora is that postings cannot be edited or removed by contributors, and the moderators will rarely remove a contribution, merely because it reflects little credit on its author. Presumably, the subject felt that he had something to say, so as to justify the investment of time and effort in making nearly 10,000 contributions, many of which appear deal directly with the subject of this section of the article, one way or another. The biographer of an historical figure would find such a rich and easily accessible resource a wonderful fund of knowledge about his subject, even if he ultimately concluded that his subject's political interests were of very little interest to anyone else. Bakewell Tart 11:40, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

No, from a quick look at Steadman's website there are clearly pieces being given away with the request that a donation to certain charities is made. This is there and verifiable. The problem with any online messageboard, and I suspect the TES fora are no differnet, is that people use them for all sorts of purposes including playing Devil's Advocate, enjoying the arguement, taking a stance and running with it, etc. The fact there seems to be a poster on that fora who is called robsteadman doesn't mean he is and the fact that most (all?) other posters are using a psuedonym puts the verifiablity, reliability and usefulnes of such resources in question. You seem very certain you know Steadman's views - is that based solely on the TES fora? I suggest that publicly performed pieces written and published with a political intent hold rather more water and have rather more substance. 213.249.155.239 11:49, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

In most cases you would be corre ct about the anonymity of the TES, but Robsteadman has made no secret of the fact that he is Robert Steadman. He has offerred music from his website and posted his internet address - the same as the one on Robert Steadman's website. This has been going on for years. If robsteasman was a fraud, then the real Robert Steadman would know about it and presumanbly have complained. There are threads where people have thanked him for the music he has sent them so there is obviously a link between the two. Robsteadman has made, and been the subject of, many complaints to the TES administrators and I am sure that if he wasn't who he said he was they would not take such care over how they handle his complaints.Crusading composer 12:35, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

TES

DoesCrusading composer know anything aboutRobert Steadman beyond a few simple internet searches, the info on Steadman's own web site, this Wikipedia article and anything on TES? Please tell how you know so much about the man? Vhjh 22:38, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Mmm, perhaps I have gained all the information I need from a few magazine articles (unspecified and unverified) and a few programme notes? No, I'm mistaken, that's you, isn't it?Crusading composer 22:42, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

So you have no knowledge beyond your TES based grudge? Well that speaks volumes. Vhjh 22:47, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I really CANNOT see where you are going with this? I am not disputing that your knowledge of Mr steadman's music is much greater than mine - I have only become interested in classical music in the last five years and he hasn't done that much in this time, has he? I am only disputing the non musical content and in this area, you and I are in the same position, as we only know of the facts second hand - your sources are apparently programme notes (and I grant that he probably doesn't engage in anti catholic rhetoric on the back of a programme for tyhe Hollywell Assemble) and mine are statements mnade by Mr Steadman in an on line discussion forum. Of course, if Mr Steadman was to put a disclaimer on his website denying that he is Robsteadman of the TES, then I shall not comment on this article again 22:55, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Can you please both, if you can't desist personalising this in terms of each other's motivations, etc, then at least move such to each other's talk pages? This talk page is for discussing the article, and is turning into anything but. Alai 23:08, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I apologise. Has anyone else got any views about my redraft? I'm not trying to take anything away from Mr Steadman's musical achievements - just suggesting that the non musical aspects which are the source of controversy are removed.Crusading composer 23:13, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Hence my suggestion that you (try to) agree what are verifiable, relevant, credible sources for his politics. BTW, you could now also fix the section headings in the redraft (either of you, indeed). Alai 23:27, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I would like to know the basis for Bakewell Tart's knowledge - from this discussion page it seems it is based largely on the TES messageboards which strikes me as a poor and unverifiable source for information. Has Bakewell Tart any genuine knowledge of the subject beyond those boards? 213.249.155.239 10:25, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Do me the courtesy of acknowledging that I have and am making no attempt to introduce material from the TES Staffroom. The extent of my knowledge about the subject, and the sources of that information are really none of your business. How about you? Your interest in this man appears to be verging on obsessional. You imply that you have detailed and intimate knowledge of the subject, and quite extraordinarily (as you cite no source whatever) that your knowledge extends to a judgment as to whether the subject's political standpoint is self-evident from his composition and represents the only authentic statement to be found. I find that an interesting thesis, and would be interested to read an article that made the case. Bakewell Tart 11:01, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

The only definite public statements of his political views/humantarian views seem to be several pieces written for those purposes. If you differently please tell us. These pieces are, at least, known of and agreed to exist (unless I have misunderstood). Surely it is the only "on the record" source for his political views? 213.249.155.239 11:14, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

The redraft

I'm having a difficult time following it with the headers and spacing missing. I'm not sure that the conducting and politican references need to be removed unless they are unverified; if we can list trivia about the places he's lived and his marriage, certainly other aspects of his life can contribute to a full bio. Maybe scaling them down and keeping the focus on his composition? It would really be helpful to have some sources other than Mr. Steadman's own website. And once again, can we please try to move towards working together? .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 00:34, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Fixed the headers up. Agreed, no harm in mentioning them as background bio, surely, though the verification does seem a bit sketchy. Also needs a long lead, as per my earlier comments on the the live article, as was. Credit to CC for making at least this first step. Alai 01:05, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

This is much better, but the biographical information remains full of redundant trivia. Basingstoke, for example, is rather better known for featuring prominently in the Idler Book of Crap Towns, than it is for having Steadman as one of its famous sons. Bakewell Tart 08:57, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Then by all means feel free to add a factual statement mentioning it's appearence in Crap Towns... UkPaolo 09:15, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

But the point is that Steadman IS a famous son of Basingstoke. Basingstoke isn't famous BECAUSE of Liz Hurley or John Arlott but they are famous in their field and came from the town - that is interesting and is right to be noted. 213.249.155.239 10:34, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Please see my comment above about politics. Basically, the only verifiable public statements of political stance are the political compositions - this is a justified subject, in my opinion, whereas internet messageboard postings seem very weak. 213.249.155.239 10:23, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I would have to agree. If we have nothing more than a forum account that cannot be verified, we should remove those statements. Unfortunately, I'm not sure which is which anymore -- can someone more familiar go ahead and trim that section? And since I know it will be said, Crusading Composer, if you can verify that those posts were in fact made by Robert Steadman, please do so. Otherwise, I could make a nick George W. Bush and add things to his page that I wrote -- could get rather silly, no? .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 14:49, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

So, jareth, are you saying that mesageboard postings, which we don't know whether they were serious, debating points, Devil'd Advocate or whatever are ok as long as they can be verified as by the subject? How can you be sure a messageboard forum is the genuine beliefs? Surely they to be stated elsewhere too in some publication? Is that what you're saying? Or is it ok he said it and ignore what the purpose was? 213.249.155.237 15:07, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

This is becoming farcical. There is such an abundance of internal evidence on the TES Staffroom that robsteadman of TES is Robert Steadman that to suggest otherwise is just silly. Apart from anything else, as far as I recall, no one has suggested that he isn't, least of all the man himself. I still don't think that there is anything in those forum contributions of value to this article, but that is another issue. Bakewell Tart

Surely its not whether posts on a messageboard are by the subject but wether they can genuinely be described as political campaigning. I see no justification in that despcription because there is no way without a back up source of knowing whether tehy are genuine views, Devil's Advocate, debate for the sake, etc. 86.137.227.147 22:32, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

So if you don't see any worth in referring to them who DOES want reference made to the TES fora? Is it just Crusading Composer? Who was the person who added a link earlier today? Was that CC or someone else spilling over from the TES boards? 213.249.155.237 15:35, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't have any real need to add the TES links UNLESS Steadman's political activities are an issue. If 'someone' feels that they merit a section then I see no reason why his other interests shouldn't get a mention. And, no, I didn't revert the links today - I'll tell you when I do. Please stop making accustions, for, after all, we now know that 'Robbie smells'. Do you think that we should include that in the introduction or put it in the biography?crusading composer 16:48, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I have added 'conductor' to the intro - I'm not sure if he is as well known as a conductor as he is for the compositions, but I'll err on the side of caution. I have reordered the background to make it chronologically correct. I can't provide a source for the 'international' reference, but a LONG time ago I came across Steadman's name on a US site where someone was saying that they had used some of his downloaded music in a concert - it might have been 9/11 or could be as recent as the tsunami. My memory plays tricks. I'm sure someone could find it again. I haven't expanded too much on his ploitical/social music - the important stuff is in other sections anyway. I have used 'pieces' of music several times, I'm not happy - perhaps someone else could suggest a more appropriate word? The discography - I originally blanked out all the additions made after Jerath had asked for new editions to be discussed - there is evidence that apart from his own recording, Steadman's work appears on the recordings of others. I think that this DOES deserve a mention, but the older edit didn't make it very clear which was Steadman's recordings and which were collaborations and which were not. I have tidied up some spellings, some punctuation and some grammar. I'm not saying that my edits are correct, but I think they flow a little better. I know we will still have an argument about JUST HOW MUCH information should be in the 'political' section, but is this a good place to srat from?Crusading composer 20:01, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Vhjh, I'm glad that you have stopped reverting all my edits on principle. I'm happy that you agree with some of my contributions to this article.Crusading composer 17:56, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Discography

Am I right in thinking that a discography refers to work that has been recorded and published? I cannot find a reference to anything in this discography except the De Mille recording. Sextet publishing does not list Steadman as ione of its composers and seems to be a publisher of sheet music rather than a recording company. (Does anyone else have a feeling that this article will expand until it is the biggest article in Wikipedia? Does Steadman have any faous relatives? Does his goldfish do tricks? What else do we possibly need to know about the man?)

Crusading composer 12:47, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I think a Discography is just recordings. Published sheet music is a different thing.

I think your second paragraph is unhelpful and perhaps is more a display of your POV about the subject. Please try to stick to facts. 213.249.155.239 13:41, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

The Kintamarni recording is referred to via their website: http://kintamarni.com/

So really the discography should just contain the De Mille album?213.166.17.24 16:43, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Discographies should include all material that has been recorde3d and made commercially available. Have a look at some other pages about musicians, groups and composers. EVen if the release was of a limited "special edition" nature they are of interest. In fact. often, the slightly more unsual releases are of more interest. Why do you think some recordings shouldn't be included?

I agree that discographies should include Mr Steadman's published works. I cannot find any references to anything other than 'DeMille'. Please can you provide links before adding others. We also need to differentiate between those recordings that are by Robert Steadman, those he has made in collaboration and those by other artists that include music that he has written.Crusading composer 16:05, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

I believe that for modern composers a discography should include ALL compositions (published or unpublished) which have been recorded. CC's logic (and lack of knowledge in this area) is wrong as Steadman is NOT primarily a performer but a composer. Therefore the Kintamarni recording, as referenced above, should be included, as should the others from Steadman's website. I have reverted them as I see no justification in their removal earlier today. Vhjh 17:13, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm not disagreeing with you - I think that you'll find that when I removed the list it wasn't about content but accuracy. I think that you need to either add MORE deatil as to what pieces appear where - even, perhaps, 'bigging up' Rob's De Mille album or leave them out, because at the moment, it is confusing. You prove my point when you talk about my lack of understanding - this article is available to all wikipedia users - it's not in a specialist music website - it has to be understood by 'laymen' like myself. ALSO, I'm pretty sure that Sextat is not a record label but a publishing company for sheet music - as I daid, you need to make ACCURATE headings and not just cut and paste from the subject's own website.Crusading composer 17:54, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Interesting that you are now calling him "Rob" - do you actually know the subject of the article? Also, I think you'll find there WAS a track listing on an earlier edit for the DeMille recording until someone removed it. As a layman who claims to be "disinterested" you do seem to have spent an inordinate amount of time researching Mr.. Steadman. Is it just curiosity? 86.137.227.147 10:19, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Also I see nothing inaccurate about the information about the recordings from Steadman's website. 86.137.227.147 10:21, 7 November 2005 (UTC)�

Conductor Steadman

I think some recognition should go to his school. The orchestra he does there has recently been invited to play in the Royal Albert hall in London. So he's not only a great composer, but a great conductor to!