Talk:Noah K

Request edit on 16 November 2018

Please add the word "by" before Arnold Schoenberg in the section on 'Dollshot' so that it reads "songs by Arnold Schoenberg". Thank you Artaria195 (talk) 03:37, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

 Done —C.Fred (talk) 03:50, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

IMDB as a source

The IMDb citations in this article were recently tagged with "better source needed". Rather than cite K's IMDb page itself, here are links to the cast/crew lists of each of the shows cited. Please replace with these and remove the tag. This would pass WP:CITINGIMDB. Here are the links: Wonder Years "Summer Song" (cast): https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0750366/ Wonder Years "The Family Car" (cast): https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0750371/ Wonder Years Full Series Cast: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0094582/fullcredits Once and Again "Chance of a Lifetime" (music dept): https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0665690/fullcredits/?ref_=tt_ov_st_sm And, in terms of the other source you tagged with "better source needed" about the songs on the album Dollshot, here is a link to AllMusic, which has song composer info: https://www.allmusic.com/album/dollshot-mw0002120090. Can you please add this source and remove the "better source needed" tag. Thank you, Artaria195 (talk) 18:42, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

IMDB is not a reliable source for a BLP article per Wikipedia:Citing IMDb#Inappropriate uses, it might be for film and television articles, but not BLP's - FlightTime (open channel) 18:47, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

@FlightTime:, That seems to be debatable, cast lists on IMDb are in the category of 'disputed uses' here WP:CITINGIMDB. But, in any event, since this is not a major point of the article, but rather a biographical detail, it seems like IMDb should suffice. Where else do you recommend finding a cast list from a television show from 1989? This is not a 'potentially contentious issue about a living person' but rather falls under 'disputed uses' and so I believe your edit is rather drastic and request that it be reverted. Thank you, Artaria195 (talk) 18:51, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

@Artaria195: Well, I really do not have any interest in the article subject and don't even want to research anything here. If I were you I'd wait and see who stops by and comments on this thread and no I will not revert because if the information is not sourced, then it doesn't belong in the article. Please review WP:BLP the standards for these types of articles a very much higher than other one. - FlightTime (open channel) 19:03, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

@FlightTime:, I have no interest in escalating this, but I do believe that you are being rather severe here. Aoi simply tagged the material as needing better citations, I'm not sure why you feel the need to delete it, since it is in fact sourced from IMDb. IMDb is not self-published and no where in WP:BLP does it say that it's unusable. I would appreciate it if you would restore the material in the article and let someone else research it if you'd prefer not to. IMDb is only unusable on a BLP if it's potentially contentious, I can't fathom how this could be. Artaria195 (talk) 19:10, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

I nothing more to say on this issue. You should wait and see what others' have to say. Cheers, good luck, - FlightTime (open channel) 19:19, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Princeton

See https://gradschool.princeton.edu/noah-kaplan-g6-music This is an excellent source for the award. Peter K Burian (talk) 00:23, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Also Noah is currently a Ph.D. candidate in Music Composition at Princeton University where he is a Naumburg and Mark Nelson doctoral fellow. He received an M.F.A. in Music Composition from Princeton in 2015 and was the William and Mary Greve Foundation-John J. Tommaney Memorial Fellow in composition at the Tanglewood Music Center in 2016. https://outhere-music.com/en/artists/noah-kaplan/about OR https://www.njsymphony.org/news/detail/meet-the-cone-institute-composers-noah-kaplan The second source is also an interview with him.

Noah Kaplan, one of the four composers of the 2017 NJSO Edward T. Cone Composition Institute, chats about his career and Forest Through Forest, which the NJSO performs on July 15 at 8 pm at the Richardson Auditorium in Princeton. https://www.njsymphony.org/news/detail/meet-the-cone-institute-composers-noah-kaplan Peter K Burian (talk) 00:28, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

My preference is for impartiality, simplicity, less information rather than more. Tell what schools he attended, and leave it at that. Omit anything having to do with "currently". "Currently" is a word that has no business in an encyclopedia. If you want current events, try television or a newspaper, not Wikipedia. Omit also the bits about blah blah blah Fellow because it sounds like puffery and it means nothing to most readers. Those kinds of awards and distinctions are usually important to one person only—the person who receives them. And perhaps the person's mother. Wikipedia is for all readers. It's not here to celebrate or condemn any one person or group or cause or movement.
Vmavanti (talk) 19:24, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

BLP sources template 10-JAN-2019

This template signals that the article requires additional citations. By my count, 13 of the references used in this article originate from Noah K, in that they are press releases, interviews, or information provided by the subject himself to various outlets (many of these have been bundled at the end of sentences ^{[1][2][3][4][5][6]}, etc. in an attempt to cover up their deficiencies with ref tag overkill.) These should not be considered quality, independent sources. Other items, like the Princeton reference, are deceptive, in that the Princeton source is confirmation that the subject received a fellowship (a merit-based form of financial aid). It is not confirmation that the subject received a Masters degree, and yet that is what the claim of MA is using as the reference (along with two other sources that originate from Noah K's word only). For these reasons I believe that the maintenance template ought to remain.  Spintendo  02:28, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Getting information about a person from that person is standard practice even for very high quality publications and is not a reason to label such a source as inadequate if there's editorial oversight and the publication is independent of the person. (Realistically, almost no publication is likely to spend time checking whether someone who says he got a degree a few years earlier actually did: ideally, all sources would, but that's not how it happens; it's the real world's version of Assume good faith.) Press releases are a problem, however. Could you list the sources you think are problematic? EddieHugh (talk) 13:15, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Right. My understanding is that the official site can be used about basic facts but not to the point of excessive praise, and of course this will be subjective. Experienced editors can easily spot the difference between factual copy and advertising. The subject of degrees is one I don't emphasize. Educational systems and degrees differ around the world, and terms we use don't make sense from country to country. I usually don't mention degrees, but I do mention the schools they attended. Including degrees, esp. if it's a list, makes the article look like a resume, but many articles on WP include them. You might recall the documentation advising against the jargon "sophomore album" because "sophomore" differs in meaning from place to place. The words about education I use in America and take for granted mean little to British people. As an aside, there was a time in America when college degrees and graduate degrees signified something exceptional, but those days are long past. Graduate degrees are so common in America that they are no longer a sign of positive distinction, at least in certain fields of study. But that's my opinion. I'm especially uninterested in comments such as "He is currently pursuing a degree in..." because "currently", current events in general strike me as not at all what Wikipedia is about. When I see people treating Wikipedia like a newspaper or television or Twitter or Facebook, it makes my skin crawl. One other point, when you add current events, and when you use that type of language, you encourage readers to do so. Then the article turns into a bulletin board or a wall filled with graffiti and drive-by edits which is constantly being updated.
Vmavanti (talk) 19:15, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

@EddieHugh: The list you requested:

Source review

is an artist profile provided by the artist himself. is an episode from TV and only references base facts like dates and names This is provided by the subject himself when it should be coming from the institution he received the studies from. No issues; however, no URL is provided to be sure. Also, no ISBN has been provided. On online jazz show with the barest of descriptions of the program with no real information being supplied These references are used to support the Masters degree but none of them are from the institution. One of them is a publicity blurb given to NJ Symphony. The book source contains no ISBN. This is an appropriate source for the fellowship; only problem is that fellowships are WP:MILL items and are not notable Receiving money for an education is WP:MILL info. These are all promotional references where the subject has provided the information to them himself this is an appropriate use of a source; however, no URL has been provided to be sure This source should be using the {{allmusic}} template non-independent promotional source Non-independent promotional source that is repeatedly listed in a single section. No URL provided. Cannot access/no URL provided appropriate source On online jazz show with the barest of descriptions of the program with no real information being supplied Non-independent source This is the subject's record label archived version of a review More All About Jazz sources which are not independent sources Website of producer Info on local appearances, this information was no doubt provided by the subject and not fact checked by the publication non-independent source non independent sources WorldCat allmusic source using the wrong template Marginally independent review/ No URL provided Non-independent source/ No URL provided to be sure References

 Spintendo  19:04, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Wow! Thanks for doing that. Here's my reading of your numbered points (not presented as nicely)

1. Per WP:BLPSELFPUB, this is ok for the assertion made.
2. This isn't a source.
3. I haven't seen that, so can't comment. Is there a link to the relevant issue of the magazine?
4. ok (I haven't seen it).
5. For the second use (album release, this is fine, and unnecessary). Presumably the info for the first use is in the audio, so a time is needed. The ultimate source must be NK himself again, but the info it supports is not controversial, so I think it's usable.
6. Source 8 (AAJ) states he's a PhD student at Princeton, so that doesn't support what's asserted. 7 looks like an NJSO insert into what NK said, so it's borderline (I'd prefer something better, but would probably use it). 6 I haven't seen.
7. ok. I'd mention that he got some scholarships, without naming them, as no one cares about which one.
8. See previous... they're notable institutions, so I'm fine with naming them. No sourcing problem, anyway.
9. Kind of, but is "for which he writes music and performs" something that needs special sourcing? We could just use one of the other sources from that section if you prefer.
10. ok. I added that one, so I'm happy.
11. Really? I prefer not to; lots of examples I see don't include the author, so I tend to change to the standard citeweb. It's just a preference.
12. Having a public radio website source for the band having played on that public radio isn't a problem. I don't see how it's promotional (in a Wikipedia sourcing sense; obviously they were performing to promote themselves) or non-independent of the subject (NK/Dollshot/record label/etc).
13. Ooh. I added that one. It's not promotional; it's an album review from a jazz magazine. Putting the sourcing after each sentence/piece of information supported by it is my preferred style. Given the sourcing tag at the top, I suggest that doing so is essential.
14. Cannot access/no url is not a sourcing problem. You said the same source was fine in point 10. See "If your source is not available online..." at Wikipedia:Citing sources.
15. ok.
16. Same as 5, above.
17. How is All About Jazz not an independent source for this? It's very widely used as a source.
18. Again, for non-controversial info such as an album release, this is fine.
19. True. Is that a problem? It's DownBeat, the world's best-known jazz magazine.
20. As 17, above. For biographies, AAJ is not independent, but it's fine for reviews.
21. The second one is; the first isn't (I'm not sure what it is.). Any objections to the info they are connected to, bearing WP:BLPSELFPUB and similar in mind?
22. It's Time Out (magazine), which is very well known, and the mention begins with "TimeOut says": it's fine.
23. Again, when all the source is supporting is "The DVD of Michael Almereyda's documentary of Fancher, Escapes (2017), includes a video portrait of Fancher shot by K", then the company that made the DVD is fine as a source.
24. The new music one uses an editor's note, which is fine. I don't know about 5:4, but it's redundant as a source anyway.
25. Not a source I'd want to use, but also redundant anyway.
26. Again, this is personal choice. See WP:CITESTYLE.
27. It's DownBeat again. In what way is it "marginally independent"? It's as strong a source as can be obtained for jazz.
28. Same as 14, above. This source is, without question, good. (But please explain if you disagree.) EddieHugh (talk) 20:17, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

In summary, I see a definite problem with No. 2, a possible problem with 3 and 6, and more sourcing detail needed for 5. The rest involve, for the information they are used to support, sources that are acceptable. EddieHugh (talk) 20:25, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

In regard to #2, here is what WikiProject Television recommended for the citation as opposed to IMDb. "If a released film or episode is listed in an article, that film or episode itself is presumed to be a published reliable source that supports the credits info in Wikipedia and IMDb articles." I assumed #2 was the source itself. Thanks, Artaria195 (talk) 20:21, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

True. I recommend taking out the Wikilink in the citation, and adding it to the main text mention. This avoids confusing the reader. A better source is still desirable. EddieHugh (talk) 20:31, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Fixed that. Also, found a Princeton graduation program here pg. 35 to confirm his degree. This should suffice? And, here is a link showing the issue of Jazz and Tzaz (source #3) that he's on the cover of. Looks like its issue 232/233. Lastly, here is a description from Princeton's website of the fellowship mentioned, where it is described as an academic award, rather than a scholarship. It seemed relevant to me in a section on his education, but of course I defer to the majority opinion here. Artaria195 (talk) 01:30, 12 January 2019 (UTC).

@EddieHugh: Thanks for your detailed response about each of the sources in the article! I've fixed the sources you mentioned as being issues. Do you think the BLP template can now be removed from the article? Thank you, Artaria195 (talk) 06:04, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Spintendo has updated the article and removed the template now, so I assume there are no further problems. I've dealt with the new tags, so it's now 'clean'. EddieHugh (talk) 20:14, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Great and thank you, Artaria195 (talk) 21:51, 27 January 2019 (UTC)