Talk:Church Music Association of America

Suggestions

I changed the CMAA page to a disambiguation page, so that people who type in "CMAA" can choose either the Australian trade union or this article. Previously, "CMAA" redirected you automatically to the Australian page.

I altered the final line of the article about organizers expecting higher attendance for next year's Colloquium. Wikipedia has a guideline about not predicting the future.

This article is, essentially, a vanity article, in that someone ostensibly representing the organization (User:Cmaa) has written the article. In general, Wikipedia discourages this practice, because of the conflict of interest between self-promotion and objectivity. However, this is a guideline rather than a policy, so you should be able to keep the article. I strongly recommend, though, that you take extra care to be objective maintain a neutral point of view.

Because this is a vanity article, it's especially important that you verify your facts, especially claims of notability. For example, I'd strongly recommend that you give a source for the claim that Sacred Music is the oldest continuously published journal of music in North America.

Slightly more problematic is the claim that "It was the first international meeting of church musicians following the close of the Second Vatican Council and the publication of Sacrosanctum Concilium." There is a citation here, but the source is Fr. Skeris, the vice-president — hardly a neutral observer. Don't get me wrong; I don't mean to impugn Skeris' truthfulness. But you should use a more neutral source for an encyclopedia article. Could you cite the conference schedule of the Consociatio, perhaps?

There is a level of detail in this article that may not be suitable for an encyclopedia article. This is colloquially known as cruft in WP (Wikipedia) parlance. It's most common in articles on serial fiction such as video games, television shows, and comic books, but it occurs in nonfiction articles also. I have to delicately ask, for example, whether "The treasurer is William Stoops. Its secretary is Rosemary Reninger." is really encyclopedic, or whether it is information is known and important to anyone other than a CMAA member. This is a judgement call; you may decide that the information is valuable and encyclopedic, and choose to keep it. I suspect it isn't, but I don't feel strongly enough about it to delete that information without raising the issue here on the talk page. I will point out that it's a good idea to qualify such current information with a phrase like "As of 2006, the Treasurer was so-and-so." That way, the article remains accurate even if someone accesses it fifty years from now.

Cruft can be an indicator of a promotional article. Encyclopedia articles should be neutral in tone, not promotional. This article is currently a little too promotional, in my opinion. The overview is a bit long and contains a level of detail that doesn't belong in an overview. The history section is good, but the Sacred Music section consists mostly of a very one-sided, laudatory quote by a highly concerned party, the editor. The Summer Colloquium section, I'm afraid, reads flat out like an advertisement.

I'd suggest moving the lines "Its contributors include Peter Phillips, founder and director of the Tallis Scholars, as well as Peter A. Kwasniewski, Michael Lawrence, Shawn Tribe, William Mahrt, and Robert Skeris. It publishes feature articles on music, commentaries on chant and polyphony, documents and reviews, news and editorials. It is published quarterly and distributed to Members." from the Overview section to the Sacred Music section. Either explain the notability of the contributors or omit them. Can you tell us when exactly it began publication?

For the Colloquium section, I'd suggest removing the 2005-6 information, and rewriting this section along the following lines:

"The CMAA, in conjunction with the Ward Center of the Rome School of Music at Catholic University of America, has sponsored an annual Sacred Music Colloquium since 19xx. The six-day colloquium offers practical instruction in the liturgical practice of chant and polyphony. In recent colloquia, participants have sung Mass daily at the National Shrine. Faculty has included both CMAA leaders Mahrt, Buchholz, and Skeris. Guest lecturers have included Scott Turkington, Director of Liturgical Fanfare at Ivory Tower University, and Amy Zuberbueler, whose album of Offertory chants, Suaviter, won the Early Music Grammy Award in 2001."

Note that I'm deliberately using past tense, so that when I use the present tense, it's more clear that I'm referring to an ongoing, habitual event, and it feels less like a promotional blurb. I also recommend that you only list notable speakers, and explain their notability. (My "notable" credentials here are obviously just made-up.) The number of last year's attendees feels like cruft to me, and the 2007 event is speculative and promotional, so I'd recommend just removing them. Also, please notice how I trimmed the prose; the phrases "Sung Masses take place ... at which the music prepared by participants is sung" was redundant, even using the word "sung" twice. A good copyedit will help make the prose "flow" better and be more easily readable.

A balanced assessment of the association's achievements would really help the neutrality of this article. Can you give an objective statement of the measurable goals of the organization, and then state which of these have been achieved and which have not? Can you find a third-party analysis or commentary on the group's organization and efficacy? I know this last request is touchy, but I have to ask: can you address the group's limitations and failures? Has the group's achievement been diminished by internal politics, or have their methods or philosophies been challenged, critiqued, or condemned by rival organizations? Has the organization made any real impact on post-Vatican music performance, or has it been a lone voice in the wilderness of diehard chant aficionados singing to themselves in museums while mainstream Catholics sing "Kumbaya" accompanied by acoustic guitar? I'm being a little facetious with my example here, but I hope the point is clear: if you can include the perspectives of people who don't approve of the group, who have had conflicts within or against the group, or who feel that the group is not achieving its mission, that will go a long way towards improving the neutrality and encyclopedic tone of this article, and make this feel a lot less like a vanity article.

Of course, negative comments should be balanced with the accomplishments. Speaking of which, despite the many paragraphs of critical comments I've just written, I want to compliment you on a very good article so far. It reads well. The basic structure is strong, and just needs a little simplification to the Overview and a little expansion and balance to the later sections. The quotations are well-chosen. I can tell that you have already made an effort to achieve a neutral tone and not be overtly promotional; many vanity articles never get this far.

If you like, I can take a stab at tightening the prose. Creating neutrality and balance, however, I'll have to leave to you. I'm not familiar enough with the organization.

I hope these comments have been constructive. Good luck! Peirigill 19:44, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

These are outstanding comments, and I truly thank you for them all! Lots of work to do. User: CMAA

probably two thirds of these comments have been addressed. Making my way through the others. What should I do with this talk page when it is done. Any problem in deleting what is already addressed? Cmaa 21:49, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Yet more changes, done. Let me know when we can clean up this discussion page or if we can. CMAA 17:06, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Inclusive?

I think that the title "Church Music Association..." is a bit misleading, since this organisation only represents one church. Why isn't it called the "Catholic Church Music Association" (we'll spare them the Roman prefix)? I notice that they feature an Anglican Use on their website. Do they co-operate with other churches? Ausseagull (talk) 14:59, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Copyediting

I did a little copyediting - typos, minor rewording, and the like. These rewordings are just suggestions; please revert or change them if you like. A few things:

• Please go into edit mode by clicking "edit this page" on the CMAA article page. I've left some comments and questions in the article. In case you haven't run across this before, you can insert editorial comments within the article text like this: <!--insert comment here-->.
• The article uses passive voice a lot: "was held," "was elected," "was named," "was drafted," "were chosen," "was attended," "became editor," "the location has been CU." I've always been taught My teachers always insisted that active verbs made prose stronger.
• "The first general meeting of the CMAA was held in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, August 28, 1966 at the conclusion of the convention held in conjunction with the Fifth International Church Music Congress sponsored by the Consociatio Internationalis Musicae Sacrae, an international sacred music federation founded by Pope Paul VI in 1963." That's quite a mouthful. How about "In 1966, the Consociatio Internationalis Musicae Sacrae, an international sacred music federation founded three years earlier by Pope Paul VI, sponsored a convention in Milwaukee, Wisconsin in conjunction with the Fifth International Church Music Congress. At its conclusion, delegates held the first general meeting of the CMAA."? (Note the linking of important terms.)

I know you haven't had a chance to do much with my earlier suggestions (not that you're obligated to), so I'll stop here. Peirigill 22:31, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I'm so sorry for waiting so long. I'm working through addressing these points. Many changes already made I've made many changes. Cmaa 21:45, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:David-CMAA.gif

Image:David-CMAA.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 21:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Promotional tone

Dear fellow editors,

Thank you for your contributions to this article. In case any of you are new to Wikipedia, I invite you to review "The file pillars of Wikipedia", which outlines the principles behind the encyclopedia.

I say that because some of the text in this article sounds like promotional material, and does not express the neutral point of view which Wikipedia strives to maintain in all articles. Any opinions (favorable or not) stated in a WP article should be attributed to the sources which have published them.

It might be helpful for some editors to review the pages about what Wikipedia is not. Among other things, Wikipedia is not a place to promote anything. It is intended to present articles containing reliably sourced facts -- that is, facts already published in some reliable, independent, third-party source. As much as possible, please cite sources.

Some of the references in this article do not really fulfill the proper purpose of a reference. The purpose of a reference is to present a citation which supports the facts asserted in the article. But some links being added as references do not do that; they are mere general web sites about persons referenced. If proper references cannot be found to support assertions, editors are free to remove unsourced material in order to conform to WP's quality objectives.

Thanks again for expanding this article. --Chonak (talk) 03:07, 19 July 2010 (UTC)