User talk:Ranthlee

Welcome!

Hello, Ranthlee, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Hyacinth 01:57, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tippett

My apologies. I moved your question to the talk page for the Tippett article (Talk:Michael Tippett) and then my computer crashed and I forgot to get back on and tell you so. Hyacinth 17:58, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Hyacinth. I would have done that to start with if I could have found the "Talk: Michael Tippett" page. Ranthlee 05:24, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. A link to article talk pages should appear at the bottom or top of the article page, and on the side, as "Discussion" (which, for the "Michael Tippett" page links to "Talk:Michael Tippett"). See Help:Talk page for more information about article and user talk pages.

Regarding user talk pages I find it best to reply to people on their talk page (rather than my own). This is because people almost always have their talk page on their watchlist (Help:Watching pages) and will be notified, while very few if any people are notified of messages left to them on your talk page. However, some people prefer to keep conversation threads in one place. Either way if people have strong feelings their talk page usually contains a notice of which they prefer.

Happy edits. Hyacinth 01:22, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Leo Sowerby

Note: To link to a user page use "User:" in front of the user name. For example: Hyacinth links to the article about Hyacinth, but User:Hyacinth links to my user page.

Quick answer: When someone makes changes to an article that you don't like, disagree with, or question, you have a few options. One is to ignore it and let it be. Another is to be bold and either revert all their changes or edit the article to undo part of their changes. A third option is to leave a message on the article's talk page (in this case Talk:Leo Sowerby) questioning why the changes were made and/or requesting the changes be unmade or that users discuss which is better.

You may look at other article talk pages to see examples of how consensus is reached. Happy edits! Hyacinth 02:54, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rejoice in the Lamb

Hello Ranthlee. Regarding your comments on the talk page and to User:Hyacinth, I recommend you read WP:NPOV, which is one of Wikipedia's fundamental policies. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. As such, articles should be written as you would expect to find them in any paper encyclopedia. See WP:NOT for a good list of what Wikipedia is not. Subjective statements should not be a part of an encyclopedia. More on this below. You made a reference to Osama bin Ladan on Hyacinth's page. Probably, the most appropriate policy related to this can be found on the NPOV page. It's called "Let the facts speaks for themselves." To quote the page:

Let the facts speak for themselves

Karada offered the following advice in the context of the Saddam Hussein article:

You won't even need to say he was evil. That's why the article on Hitler does not start with "Hitler was a bad man" — we don't need to, his deeds convict him a thousand times over. We just list the facts of the Holocaust dispassionately, and the voices of the dead cry out afresh in a way that makes name-calling both pointless and unnecessary. Please do the same: list Saddam's crimes, and cite your sources.

Yes, Rejoice in the Lamb is a fantastic, moving, and beautiful piece, but that is not relevant information for an encyclopedia. The article should neither promote nor degrade its subject; rather, it should describe it impartially. As is it, the article reads like a set of program notes which exalts the poignancy and beauty of the piece. It cannot. It must be an encyclopedia article.

Rather than containing metaphorical and subjective descriptions of the music, such as "'mousy-sounding' registration", it should contain content which describes in musical terms how Britten realized the impressions you have described.

Wikipedia:Verifiability is another of Wikipedia's fundamental policies. While it is helpful that you have cited the score and a CD as references, the amount of literature on Britten is vast. Any one of the numerous biographies and analyses of his music would help provide more and better content and help elevate this article to a more academic level. "Popular with many cat-lovers" may be true, but it's not material for an encyclopedia, UNLESS you have an article or something else which you can cite to support this point. Here, I'll again quote WP:NPOV. I think this might be especially useful to address you concerns.

Attributing and substantiating biased statements

Sometimes, a potentially biased statement can be reframed into an NPOV statement by attributing or substantiating it.

For instance, "John Doe is the best baseball player" is, by itself, merely an expression of opinion. One way to make it suitable for Wikipedia is to change it into a statement about someone whose opinion it is: "John Doe's baseball skills have been praised by baseball insiders such as Al Kaline and Joe Torre", as long as those statements are correct and can be verified. The goal here is to attribute the opinion to some subject-matter expert, rather than to merely state it as true.

A different approach is to substantiate the statement, by giving factual details that back it up: "John Doe had the highest batting average in the major leagues from 2003 through 2006". Instead of using the vague word "best", this statement spells out a particular way in which Doe excels.

There's a temptation to rephrase biased or opinion statements with weasel words: "Many people think John Doe is the best baseball player." But statements of this form are subject to obvious attacks: "Yes, many people think so, but only ignorant people;" and "Just how many is 'many'? I think it's only 'a few' who think that!" By attributing the claim to a known authority, or substantiating the facts behind it, you can avoid these problems.

I hope this addresses your concerns. Obviously, you have an interest, an expertise, and a wealth of experience with some of this music. I assume you love the piece and that's why you wrote the article in the first place. Now, I encourage you to help improve it by rendering it in neutral way. Britten's music doesn't need our opinions to make it great. Best wishes, -- MarkBuckles 02:29, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would say some of the above and point you towards Wikipedia:Cite sources. Hyacinth 07:37, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. I wrote my first articles about things I loved as well and it's easy to let subjectivety creep in. I think the reason I've contributed to Wikipedia so much in the last few months is that it allows me to procrastinate and feel productive simultaneously. I'm also on summer break from Boston University right now, though it's not much of a break at the moment as I'm at a conducting institute at Bard College.

Makemi's article on Hymn to St. Cecilia is a good model of another short article on a piece by Britten. I may try to add some more content to Rejoice in the Lamb once I'm a little less under the grind. It's always tough to describe music without using subjective adjectives, so the easiest part is to talk about the facts of composition, orchestration, and reception. Then for the music, it's usually best to stick to musical terms, or if necessary or applicable, quotations from the composer or other scholars.

Best wishes -- MarkBuckles 04:55, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Leo Sowerby

Hello,

Apologies for the much-belated response, but I've been away. With regards to your earlier post on my talk page:

May I ask what possible point there was in moving the list of Sowerby's selected works to a separate page? Apart from the inconvenience of separating them, it leaves a reference under "Canticle of the Sun" to "mentioned above" when it is no longer mentioned above because there is nothing above. Would you mind terribly if I undid that edit and reattached the list of works to the main article? Ranthlee 16:12, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I created a separate page for the list of Sowerby's compositions because I was doing so for a large number of composers, according to (if I recall) Wikipedia:WikiProject Composers. However, it appears that no such guideline currently exists, so you are welcome to make the edit you suggested (which I assume you did several months ago). I will likely raise the issue on the project page, and hopefully a consensus will be reached about all such pages. —Sesquialtera II (talk) 23:50, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

March 2010

Friday, March 5

Re: Peter Lorre

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content (particularly if you change facts and figures), as you have to the article Peter Lorre, please cite a reliable source for the content of your edit. This helps maintain our policy of verifiability. Take a look at Wikipedia:Citing sources for information about how to cite sources and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. -- Doniago (talk) 14:19, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]