Talk:Gillian Whitehead

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

Controversy over date of birth??[edit]

Yesterday I deleted a citation for the nationality and date of birth of the subject of this article, on grounds that it is unnecessary. I see that, today, editor Nrswanson has reverted this edit, with the comment, "actually a reference confirming her date of birth is useful and essential". I would like to know what is contentious in this case (the usual reason for requiring a citation). I regularly peruse biographical articles on Wikipedia, and have never seen this type of first line annotated (see, for example, the articles on Horatio Parker and Gian Carlo Menotti), nor is it ever done in standard works of reference such as the New Grove, except when there is some controversy. In such cases, the contrasting point of view is always mentioned. I am unaware in this case of any such controversy, but if Nrswanson or anyone else is able to enlighten me, I will cheerfully concede the point. Otherwise, I believe the citation ought to be removed.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:21, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The reason why I added it is because I added the date of birth. The lack of a DOB before implies that the other cited sources didn't contain the date of birth. All information on the page should cite its source somewhere. Perhaps in those other articles the sources were simply named at the bottom of the page. If you don't like the inline citation at the begining of the article you should simply remove the inline citation and replace it with a source mention at the bottom of the page. You shouldn't delete the source all together.Nrswanson (talk) 20:15, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are no sources cited (apart from the two doubtful ones in footnotes). New Grove has an article on Whitehead, and does not disagree with this date of birth. You are proposing, then, that similar inline citations are needed in Horatio Parker and Gian Carlo Menotti? Also Tomaso Albinoni, Hugo Alfvén, Gilbert Amy, Leroy Anderson, Louis Andriessen, Hans Erich Apostel, Malcolm Arnold, Kees van Baaren, Milton Babbitt, Johann Sebastian Bach, Don Banks, Jean Barraqué, Béla Bartók, Alban Berg, Arthur Berger, Erik Bergman, Luciano Berio, William Byrd, André Boucourechliev, Pierre Boulez, Martin Boykan, Johannes Brahms, Jacques Calonne, Niccolò Castiglioni, Carlos Chávez, Aldo Clementi, Aaron Copland, Luigi Dallapiccola, Franco Donatoni, Hanns Eisler, George Enescu, Karlheinz Essl, Franco Evangelisti, Brian Ferneyhough, Irving Fine, Stephen Foster, Roberto Gerhard, Frans Geysen, Alberto Ginastera, Lucien Goethals, Karel Goeyvaerts, Glenn Gould, Lou Harrison, Jonathan Harvey, Hans Werner Henze, York Höller, Heinz Holliger, Bill Hopkins, Klaus Huber, Hanns Jelinek, Ben Johnston, Rudolf Kelterborn, Gottfried Michael Koenig, Józef Koffler, Ernst Krenek, René Leibowitz, Ingvar Lidholm, Bruno Maderna, Ursula Mamlok, Philippe Manoury, Donald Martino, Paul Méfano, Jacques-Louis Monod, Robert Morris, Luigi Nono, Per Nørgård, Krzysztof Penderecki, Barbara Pentland, and any of thousands more, which do not presently annotate such uncontested information—these should all be challenged until someboday can cite a birth certificate? You're taking on a big task! Ludwig van Beethoven provides a good counterexample, where there is a certain doubt about the date of birth. If you like, we can take advice from another editor or two, but I think you will not find many who agree with you.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 04:14, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • No the answer would be to cite New Grove then (which is not cited). Anything on the page anywhere should be referenced by at least a listed source. That is wikipedia policy.Nrswanson (talk) 09:08, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you really believe that, then I suggest you go and read Wikipedia policy again. If you can show me anywhere a policy statement that reads, in effect "anything anywhere should be referenced by at least a listed source" (and I assume you mean an inline citation when you say "a listed source"), then I will cheerfully concede the point, and insist that you start annotating the birth/death years in that list I began above (and I will bet that I can add to it faster than you can find the required sources—even though they should be extremely easy to find). If you cannot find such a policy statement in, say, the next 48 hours, then I propose you should agree with me the inline citation is certainly inessential and even unnecessary, and should be removed.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 02:52, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • No I didn't mean an inline citation. I meant a listed source as in just a list of sources at the bottom of the page. "All unsourced material can be challenged and removed." Seems pretty clear to me then that all material should be sourced. I don't understand what te problem is here Jerome Kohl. Having a source on the page isn't hurting anything.Nrswanson (talk) 09:12, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not talking about a source just listed at the bottom of the page. I'm talking about the inline citation you inserted in the first line. The only other example of this sort that I have been able to find is the Beethoven article mentioned above, where there is some doubt about the actual date of birth. Are we arguing about nothing here?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 02:43, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I told you that I am ok with not including the source as in inline citation as long as it is listed somewhere on the page. As it is you, you removed the source entirely from the page.Nrswanson (talk) 10:06, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, for heaven's sake! So I did! I had wrongly assumed that there was a Bibliography, collecting together all the sources cited in the footnotes (as well as items not actually given inline citations). After two years editing Wikipedia articles, I should know better than to make such assumptions. I have created a Bibliography section, put the New Grove article in it, which I think is a far more credible source than the Opera Glass item, which I have added to the external links. Can we get rid of the inline citation verifying date of birth now?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:48, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Certainly if Grove lists the birth date and her opera compositions (info I also added from opera glass) I have no problem deleting it. Otherwise I would like to list opera glass in the bibliography section just so we have something confiming the DOB and operas. For now I just moved the citation to after the opera. I assume Grove would have her DOB but you never know for sure. Nrswanson (talk) 22:57, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The New Grove article begins: "(b Whangarei, 23 April 1941). New Zealand composer. Part-Maori, she was born into a musical family and began composing at an early age." There is no complete work list, but eight of her operas are named (I find it a little odd that Opera Glass lists only her first one). I have no problem with including externally linked sources in bibliographies, especially when they are actually cited in the text. In fact, I find it a little strange that most Wikipedia articles maintain a separate section for external links. Perhaps the other cited source with an external link should be put into the bibliography, as well, only I'm a little rusty on how properly to cite acts of governments.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 00:23, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's not really that odd. Opera Glass doesn't cover operas much past 1980. I just got access to Grove online yesterday so I will take a look and see what I can come up with. Sense Grove contains the D.O.B. and the operas, I see no reason to add Opera Glass other than that it adds another independent ref which means we could delete that annoying ref tag at the top of the page.Nrswanson (talk) 00:30, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd go for that, for the time being, at least. There are still a couple of calls for verification in the body of the text, including a conflict with the information from New Grove over the year she left the Sydney Conservatorium, and whether or not this involved taking early retirement, but I suppose those markings are sufficient.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 04:27, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:37, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:47, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gillian_Whitehead&oldid=1210421572"