Talk:Jonathan Cohler/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Copyright issues

The information on this page is copyrighted by me personally and is from my website. I hereby give Wikipedia to use this information on its site. Cohler (talk) 19:54, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I have added the GFDL language to the bottom of the external page at http://jonathancohler.com/cohlerbio.php.

So please remove the deletion warnings. Thank you.Cohler (talk) 20:07, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Cool. Please substitute the name of this article for where it says "article name" in the notice. Cheers, and welcome to wikipedia. Dlohcierekim 01:49, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

This article contains text from [1], released under the terms of the GFDL.

Tagged by shoy 17:58, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Article issues September 2011

Removed tags for autobiography, cleanup, tone, and BLP sources, as all of these issues seem to be fixed. --Classmusic (talk) 14:22, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Just because Cohler has released his official biography under GDFL does not make it appropriate to paste it virtually unchanged into an article. Even after the latest edits, it was still full of puffery (e.g. "legendary" "world-renowned" "prestigious" etc.). It also had unencyclopedic and meaningless time contructs, e.g. "Recently", "currently" etc.) I've corrected these, but the article is still full of assertions that can only be referenced to his own self-published biography, and frankly still reads like one. I have tagged the article for {{primary sources}}. Please do not remove this tag until completely independent sources about him are provided. Voceditenore (talk) 15:04, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

While you made a couple of valid changes to words such as "legendary" that btw were not in reference to Mr. Cohler, this article is, in its present state, virtually not at all a self-published biography. It in fact has references to numerous independent sources including, Alexander Morin (Classical music: the listener's companion), Longy School of Music website, Boston Conservatory website, Billboard Magazine, the Penguin Guide, Andrew Shenton "Towards a manner of realization for Messiaen's music" published by Cambridge University Press, Ongaku Records website, Crystal records website, BBC Music Magazine, the Independent District of Schools in Plano, Texas, the European Clarinet Association, Keith Koons in the The Clarinet published by the International Clarinet Association, and the Boston Globe.

How can you seriously say that this is "virtually unchanged" from his personally published biography? It is nothing like it. And it contains more than a dozen independent sources. Please do not retag for primary sources, as this clearly has numerous independent sources.

--Classmusic (talk) 15:33, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

It's much improved now, but yes, "legendary" to describe his teacher, "world-renowned" to describe the festival he directs, and "prestigious" to describe a music series he played in are puffery and unencyclopedic. Some of the facts in the article which are not exceptional claims to accomplishments are OK to be referenced to his official biographies. Others are not. The claim to have been "the youngest member" at Tanglewood (now removed) and having been principal clarinet of the Colorado Philharmonic Orchestra should be independently sourced. Likewise the claim that several chamber ensembles (unnamed) that he has coached have won various named prizes. Also, it is unclear the extent to which his coaching is responsible for their winning the prize, and the degree to which he coached them. Was he their sole coach/teacher? Was he the primary cause of their success? If so, you need completely independent reliable sources to verify it. This is the kind of stuff that still makes this article read like a press release rather than an encyclopedia article. Voceditenore (talk) 16:20, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

While words like "legendary" are puffery and unencyclopedic if applied to the subject of the article, in this case "legendary" was applied to Cohler's teacher Cardillo, who indeed was a member of the BSO for 50 years and played principal clarinet under Arthur Fiedler in the Boston Pops for decades. This level of detail would be superfluous in the article, however, and that is why the word "legendary" was there. Cardillo indeed was a "legendary" figure in the clarinet/orchestral world. In any case, this was removed.

Furthermore, "prestigious" was used to describe the Dame Myra Hess Concert Series in Chicago, a series that has been around since 1977, broadcasts live all over the country, and whose roster of past performers reads like a who's who of the classical music business. It is indeed a "prestigious" and "renowned" series. In any case, you already removed "prestigious."

As for the chamber groups he has coached that have won prizes, I have added several independent references for that.

As for whether he was "the primary cause of their success," this is a ridiculous and irrelevant question. The article doesn't say he was the primary cause of their success. It states simply, that he has coached (and yes he was the primary coach) many groups that have gone on to win prizes. Perhaps you are not familiar with the chamber music business, as I see your primary areas of expertise are in opera, but it is, in fact, standard that primary coaches get mentioned by groups they coach. A list of each and every group that he has ever coached would be complete overkill in a biographical article such as this. The independent citations I gave, however, make it abundantly clear that he has coached many groups that have won various competitions, which is all that is stated in the article in any case.

Do you have some sort of axe to grind or something? Why do think it reads like "press release"? I find that assertion somewhat preposterous.

--Classmusic (talk) 17:40, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I wrote my previous comment before you had added the appropriate references re coaching chamber groups which has improved the situation considerably. Earlier, when you removed all the maintenance tags (as your first edit to this article), it was virtually unchanged in its wording from the previous version of pasted in chunks from Cohler's official website [2]. The only changes had been the addition of information about his recordings and a few more citations, three of which were to his own biographies. And no, I have no axe to grind. Over the last five years, I've edited literally scores of biographies of living classical music performers. Large numbers of these biographies were created either by the performers themselves or their close associates, as was the case here. If anything, my "axe" is to help turn them into something resembling an encyclopedia article rather than a press release. Articles with promotional language, structured like a CV, based on (and largely referenced to) primary sources, as this one had been, actually do the subject a disservice. This one is reasonably OK now. But if you have any doubts about this or why I removed "legendary", "world-renowned", "prestigious", etc. feel free to ask for opinions from the members of WikiProject Classical Music. Best wishes, Voceditenore (talk) 13:25, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

A very recent example of VdT's long-standing axe-free concern in this area can be seen in this conversation almost-instinct 15:06, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Citation format for CDs

To Almost-instinct (talk) - noticed your change to Messiaen CD citation. Do you think that is a better citation format? And if so, shouldn't all the CD citations be changed to that format for consistency? There are many pages on Wikipedia that use Amazon.com listings as reliable source citation. Amazon.com is certainly much more well-known and independent than simply listing a bibliographical citation for Ongaku Records, Inc. which, after all, is directly associated Mr. Cohler. What is your opinion on this? --Classmusic (talk) 12:33, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

My edit summary was marked "trialing new template" - other editors might be able to recommend a better yet template, which is why I just did the one for the time being. The information that this template provides is all that is necessary (for further guidance see here). A link to a shopping website is not an appropriate reference - see number 5 on this list. Yours almost-instinct 12:58, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I have removed all "references" citing amazon.com with a link to the page where the cd is being sold. These are completely inappropriate commericial links. See WP:EL If a CD is to have any reference at all, it should be review of the CD. In the absence of that, the Label and Catalogue number is more than sufficient to identify it. It doesn't require a link either to the record label or an online record seller in addition to that. Other performers on the CD, if listed, should be listed in the text of the article itself, not as footnote. Voceditenore (talk) 13:17, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't very happy with template but it was the one the Template:Cite audio redirected to. At any rate, since it gives all the info that Wikipedia:Citing sources#Recordings requires, it will do, I think. I have now used it for the rest of the recordings. I've brought the templates out of the footnotes and into the list, and moved info about various recordings into the appropraite places in the list almost-instinct 13:35, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Re-setting question for Classmusic

• WP:TPO says "The basic rule ... is, that you should not edit or delete the comments of other editors without their permission"
• I wrote this on 1 Oct 2011 and User:Classmusic deleted it five hours later. Here it is again:
• Hi Classmusic - can I just check that I haven't got muddled, and that this is your new account, taking over the work you were previously doing at User:Cohler? The edit history of this page suggests so, but I wouldn't like to be making an incorrect assumption. Yours, almost-instinct 17:50, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Misuse of Talk page by Almost-instinct

To User:Almost-instinct,

• If you read the policy you cited above WP:TPO, you will see that it says: "Comment on content, not on the contributor: Keep the discussions focused upon the topic of the talk page, rather than on the personalities of the editors contributing to the talk page." Clearly, you are failing to follow this guideline.
• Furthermore, asking me to reveal my personal identity, and making the implicit assumption that I am who you say I am (which I am neither confirming nor denying), seems to me to be a violation detailed at WP:OUTING, and has nothing to do with discussion of material on the page. The talk page is supposed to be used for discussion of the content of the article.
• Note further that it says in WP:OUTING, "If you see an editor post personal information about another person, do not confirm or deny the accuracy of the information. Doing so would give the person posting the information and anyone else who saw the page feedback on the accuracy of the material. Do not treat incorrect attempts at outing any differently from correct attempts for the same reason."
• Please stop this misuse of the Talk page.

--Classmusic (talk) 04:16, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Removal of more detailed information

User:Almost-instinct why did you remove detailed information about the other artists on the Ongaku Records, Inc. label? Most of it was referenced to other Wikipedia pages and they are significant artists. Furthermore, why did you remove detailed information about the specific countries in which Mr. Cohler has toured and replace them with general (and therefore inaccurate) references to "Latin America", "North American" and "South-east Asia"? --Classmusic (talk) 17:30, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

In my estimation the details about (a) which specific countries JC has visited (b) which artists have appeared on his record label are non-notable in terms of the subject of this page. I don't know the guidelines for the notability of record companies. If Ongaku warrants a page of its own this information can go there. If VdT disagrees with any of my edits, I trust her to revert them, as I'm sure by now she knows that I always bow to her greater experience. almost-instinct 19:22, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

References to From the Top

User:Voceditenore in the context of my responses to you above regarding the notability of From the Top as the #1 classical music radio show in the country, and the sources I pointed out to you above, and given the fact that chamber music coaching (which is a specialized and very important form of classical music teaching) and is a notable and central part of my career, that some mention of this show and the references to some groups that performed on it for whom I was the sole or primary coach is both relevant and notable? --TheClarinetGuy _talk 13:36, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

If you have references that establish that you were the group's coach at the time of the broadcast, and provide independent sources that verify it, it's OK, although I'd omit it. This article is basically a listing of accomplishments instead of an encyclopedic biographical narrative. José Carlos Cocarelli is an example of the latter. To the extent that this article remains written like the former, it will remain inferior and look like a PR plant no matter how well-referenced it is. It's a prime example of why editing with a conflict of interest is strongly discouraged. The choice is yours. I'm not going to waste any more time trying to convince you about this. Voceditenore (talk) 16:38, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

User:Voceditenore I would very much appreciate your efforts in rewriting my article to be more encyclopedic in style. How would you propose rewriting the article? Essentially, everything that is there now is independently sourced, accurate, and stated from a neutral point of view. Indeed, I have looked at dozens of other classical musician bios on WP that are filled with puffery, have comparatively very few independent sources, and yet have no flags on them. Why is that? I will read the José Carlos Cocarelli article to learn more about what you are looking for. And while I would absolutely agree with you that my article is currently basically a list of some of the most important things that I have done in my career, as opposed to a biographical essay, I do not agree that it is like a resume. It is clearly neutral in tone, and extremely well sourced when compared with other bios of classical articles such as Yo-yo Ma and Richard Stoltzman the latter of which, especially, is filled with unsourced puffery. By the way, I see you have been doing some work on Ilya Kaler who is a dear friend and colleague of mine--just played a concert with him recently. And I also played with Susan Allen many years ago. Thank you for your work improving their pages as well! --TheClarinetGuy _talk 01:49, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Edits January 2017

Voceditenore I noticed you recently made several edits to the page of which I am the subject. I don't understand why you made certain changes and would appreciate explanations of the following:

1. Why do you believe that Template:Infobox person is more appropriate for a classical musician than Template:Infobox musical artist? I note that Template:Infobox musical artist states "Infobox musical artist is the standard infobox for musician articles, and is within the purview of WikiProject Musicians" and furthermore in a brief perusal of some notable classical musicians such as Yo-yo Ma, Itzhak Perlman, and Richard Stoltzman, all are using Template:Infobox musical artist.
2. Why did you remove Crystal Records from labels list? The labels list for classical artists is supposed to list labels on which their recordings are currently available. As you can see from a quick perusal again of many classical artists, the labels list doesn't necessarily list only their most recent label. Take Yoyo Ma for example. His recordings on CBS are from 20 or more years ago, but it is listed as one of his labels because those recordings are still available and widely sold, much like my recording on Crystal Records.
3. Why did you add Template:BLP sources when this article has more than 30 documented sources that have been unchallenged for years? What specific statements are you challenging and on what basis?
4. Why did you add Template:Like resume ? This article has been heavily edited by multiple editors, and indeed has had very little done to it in years. What parts of it read like a resume? I strongly disagree with your assessment here and you gave no supporting reasons on the talk page.
5. You tagged four items as "failed verification". All four of those are official websites of the ensemble mentioned. Why does that "fail verification"?
6. As for the fourth one, if you look at this 2001 version of their website you will see that it lists me as a coach of the ensemble. Indeed I was Vento Chiaro's primary coach when they did their Artist Diploma degree at Longy School of Music and when they received awards from the Fischoff and Coleman competitions. Why are you now challenging this long-standing unchallenged information? Indeed the information is also published on the Longy official website here.
7. Why did you remove four of my references to From the Top for groups that I coached? From the Top evidently recently updated their website and changed links. Here's the old and new links. If you listen to the audio of each of these broadcasts you will hear that Chris O'Riley (the show's host) announces me as the coach of each of these ensembles. This show is a nationally syndicated and highly notable radio show that features the best young classical music talent in the country.
   1. Formation Quartet old new, also printed mention of me as coach here.
   2. Elysium String Quartet new. Here is another reference from NPR listing me as the coach of Elysium.
   3. The Festivus Quartet new. This citation for Chamber Music Foundation of New England also states in writing that I was the coach of Festivus Quartet.
   4. Sarquindi Quartet new. Also listen to end of "Catherine's Audio Diary" where first violinist mentions me as coach.

As this page is part of WP:BLP and I am the subject of the article, I would appreciate the courtesy of notification here on the Talk page, and an opportunity to respond, before wholesale changes are made to long standing information on a page that is supposed to be reflective of my biography. If you would like additional verification of any particular fact on the page, I can certainly give you more, but I wonder when the number of citations becomes excessive. This page is far more heavily sourced than most other articles I have seen in this category of similar length. Please correct me if I am wrong. --Cohler (talk) 00:42, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

1. and 2. The classical music projects normally use infobox person with infobox musical artist embedded (where appropriate). Infobox musical artists was designed for popular music genres. The boxes on the other artists you mention are equally inappropriate and should be changed as well. However, that's a minor issue. If you really want want the one with the garish orange stripes, I will change it back. However, the labels parameter is for labels to which the artist has been contractually signed or for whom the artists has recorded extensively, not every label that they have appeared on. As far as I can see you have one recording on Crystal Records. Every other one is on your own label.

3. Re {{BLP sources}}, the article needs more sources because there are many self-serving claims for which there is no citation at all, let alone citations from independent sources.

4. Re {{Like resume}}, because to any neutral reader, that's exactly what it reads like, with laundry lists of festivals, laundry lists of of claimed co-performers, and what basically reads like an advertisement for your coaching services. That belongs on your personal website, not an encyclopedia article.

5., 6. and 7. I tagged the references as failed verification because as they stood, they did not mention you as a co-performer or coach, as was claimed in the article. As I stated back in 2011 [3] when you were extensively editing this article: "It is unclear the extent to which your coaching is responsible for their winning the prizes, and the degree to which you coached them. Were you their sole coach/teacher? Were you the primary cause of their success? If so, you need completely independent reliable sources to verify it. This is the kind of stuff that still makes this article read like a press release rather than an encyclopedia article." Likewise listing groups/individuals of young players whom you coached and then appeared on a PBS radio show is simply puffery.

And no, Cohler, neither I nor anyone else will ask your permission or approval for making changes to the article which are compliant with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. I strongly suggest you read the guidelines at Wikipedia:Autobiography and the policies at Wikipedia:BLPSOURCES. I am now going to list this article at the Conflict of Interest Noticeboard to get further feedback on this. Voceditenore (talk) 06:52, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

1. and 2. Would you mind showing me some examples of living classical music artists that use infobox person? As for Crystal Records I was contractually signed. The fact that it is only one recording is not the issue. It is one of the labels for which I have recorded, and the CD is popular today in the clarinet world and sold worldwide. Indeed it regularly ranks in the top 100 Bestsellers in more than one Amazon categories for various composers represented on the disc (Honegger and Milhaud for example) see my website for example. Therefore it is relevant and important to an encyclopedic understanding of my biography. It is further notable as the world premiere recording of the important late-20th-century work Moonflowers, Baby! by Meyer Kupferman, and it has won awards and top reviews from classical music publications around the world. So I think Crystal Records should definitely be listed as one of the labels for which I have recorded. The record company itself is notable for its extensive catalog especially in the area of winds and brass instruments. And yes all the other recordings are on Ongaku Records.

3. Can you point out any specific "self-serving" claims so that I may respond? I truly have no idea what you are referring to. And I would point out that WP:SELFPUB states "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves..." But as far as I can see, and you have yet to point out anything, there are numerous independent sources on the page, and there is nothing particularly "self-serving," with any reason to doubt its authenticity. In short "there is no reasonable doubt" as to the authenticity of anything on the page.

4. Your statement that "to any neutral reader" is a conclusion that you have drawn with no specifics once again. Classical musician biographies by their very nature always include lists of co-performers. Where specifically does it read like "an advertisement for your coaching services"? You say "this belongs on your personal website" but again you do not point out anything?

5, 6, and 7. I was the sole and/or primary chamber music coach of all the ensembles referenced (and there are many others not mentioned at all) at the time of their prize winnings and appearances on From the Top and therefore, in that sense, yes I was the single teacher most responsible for their success. Which is why I was directly attributed (and none of the students' individual private teachers) in all the references supplied on the page. Every instrumentalist has their own private teachers, of course, but chamber music groups are coached and prepared by chamber music coaches. Several of those groups were high-school level ensembles at NEC Preparatory School and some, such as Vento Chiaro, were college or graduate student ensembles. I was the sole coach of all the high school ensembles, and I was the primary coach for Vento Chiaro, when they won their prizes. As you may not be aware, it is standard in the world of competitive instrumental chamber music to cite the coaches. Indeed, I have received certificates from many of these competitions and organizations. In fact, I'm looking at one right now which reads "The Coleman Chamber Music Association. This is to certify that Jonathan Cohler is the Coach of the Vento Chiaro Which received the Saunderson Award In the 54th Annual Coleman Chamber Ensemble Competition on April 29, 2000..." And in any case, the sentence you removed did not claim that I was the "primary" cause of their success, although it is fair to say that I was, in the context of the chamber music competitions, and nobody has ever even raised any significant doubt about these references other than you. Furthermore, the sentence you removed--"Groups he has coached have also appeared on the national radio show From the Top"--is factual, accurate, and not puffery. Your statement that listing groups I have coached which have appeared on "a PBS radio show" as puffery is inaccurate. From the Top is not simply "a PBS radio show". It is, according to its Wikipedia entry, a "landmark radio showcase of America’s top young classical musicians with host Christopher O'Riley is distributed by NPR to nearly 250 public radio stations nationwide. Among the most popular programs on public radio, From the Top reaches more than 700,000 loyal listeners each week." It is highly selective, widely listened to, and appearing on it is equivalent to winning a national competition. Indeed, many of the groups who appear on it have won national and international competitions. All of the groups mentioned were coached solely by me, as I have documented through multiple, credible, independent sources. Again, what specifically is the problem here? Please be specific.

Finally, I never asked you to get my "permission or approval for making changes," you are distorting and misrepresenting my words here. I said, "I would appreciate the courtesy of notification here on the Talk page, and an opportunity to respond, before wholesale changes are made to long standing information on a page that is supposed to be reflective of my biography" so that I would have an opportunity to participate in the discussion.

I would ask that you please not bite the newcomer here, and I hope you continue to contribute positively to this page, spend less time on intrigues, and more time on specific substance, as part of the community.

--TheClarinetGuy _talk 11:18, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

You created this article in 2008 and continued to edit it over the years. The last go-around over the inappropriate edits (albeit with your sockpuppet) was in 2011, three years after you started editing . So please quit with the "biting the newcomer" accusations. I'm not going to respond to that nonsense any further. Furthermore, you have not documented through "multiple, credible, independent sources" that you were the sole coach of the various groups you have listed. Vento Chiaro, for example, lists seven people who have coached them. Ditto for your assertions of collaborations with notable (or otherwise) ensembles and most of the appearances. In any case, it is those kinds of "laundry lists" which make the article read like a promotional résumé and actually detract from the subject's image rather than enhancing it. If you are unhappy with my answers and views, I suggest you raise the issue at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music and see if the editors there can give you further input. Voceditenore (talk) 16:23, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

All of the coaches other than me and perhaps John Heiss for Vento Chiaro were after they had won the competitions, which occurred while they were students of mine at Longy. How would you like me to prove this? Do you want me to submit the certificate from the Coleman Competition, for example? How would I do that? Many of the performers and ensembles listed are on recordings with me that are already listed in the Discography section. Are you saying I should reference those recordings again, even though they are already in the discography section, to prove that I performed with them? How else would one prove these things to your satisfaction? And can you show me an example on some classical musician page that you approve of? --TheClarinetGuy _talk 17:31, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Is this an acceptable piece of evidence from the worldcat.org site to document that I was a Fellow at Tanglewood in 1978? And if so, what is the proper way to create a reference to it? --TheClarinetGuy _talk 18:15, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

And is it acceptable to upload concert programs from the 1980s and 1990s to document things such as performers with whom I have played? As that time period was the pre-Internet era, very little information from those days is online. It wasn't really until the late 1990s that the Internet became very ubiquitous. How many of these performers etc need documentation? All of this information has been in my publicly available bios published by various third-party institutions over the years including Longy and Boston Conservatory where I work now, and New England Conservatory and Hartt School of Music where I have worked in the past. Do those sources count as independent verification? --TheClarinetGuy _talk 18:20, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

The Tanglewood programme is fine for the fellowship. It is not acceptable to upload programs to Wikipedia as they are in copyright, but a source doesn't have to be online to be valid. However, if it is from hard copy, then it needs full bibliographic information, including the page number. As for the official bios, they are not independent sources as they were all written by you. Normally, such sources can be used to verify non-controversial facts and not unduly self-serving ones e.g. where you went to college, when you started working at a particular institution, the institutions you worked for, who you studied with etc. Assertions about awards, honours, performances etc. require independent verification. The unpublished PhD thesis is not optimal, mainly because it (a) unpublished and (b) based entirely on what is written on your websites. Voceditenore (talk) 15:57, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your responses User:Voceditenore. All set on Tanglewood program, just used link, included full bibliographic info. The fact that I have performed with Muir, Amadeus Trio, and Lark Quartet is hardly controversial or self-serving. Just a statement of fact. I don't know why removing such factual information, which in the case of Lark and Amadeus, for example, has been in my bio for decades, would improve the article, but if you insist, I can remove those. Would that be the kind of "pruning" that User:Randykitty was looking for? The Doctoral Treatise is published, btw, in 2011 here and she used and cross-references many sources and interviews, etc. It is the most comprehensive study of American Clarinetists I know of. Again, the fact that I studied with Pasquale Cardillo, Harold Wright, Charles Neidich, and Karl Leister is well known through the worldwide clarinet community. Why is that controversial? --TheClarinetGuy _talk 02:27, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Cohler, I specifically said above that who you studied with is not controversial and could be sourced from self-written biographies. The PhD/Dictionary is not published, it is hosted on the website of the university where it was written, in common with virtually all PhD (and sometimes Masters) theses in recent years. A look at the bibliography for your entry shows that it is primarily based on your website and the website of your record company. It remains sub-optimal as a source. Voceditenore (talk) 12:05, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Sources for teachers

User:Voceditenore This conversation was getting a bit too indented, so I broke it out here into its own subhead. It is true that the Doctoral thesis (don't think it was a PhD) used my published bio as one of her sources for my entry. But I also referenced several different pages in the study for the entries of the other well known American teachers Pasquale Cardillo, Harold Wright, and Charles Neidich. Each of those had sources as well and the writer also interviewed lots of people in the process, including me evidently, although, being older than 50 now, I have no recollection of it . In any case, I thought you would prefer a Doctoral Thesis to a self-published biography as a source, given that it involved synthesis, multiple editors, advisors, and analysis, or am I wrong here? As for publication, it is "published" by FSU on their electronic system, which is publicly accessible here but I would agree that it is not published by a separate institution if that's what you mean. So I guess my question is which source would you prefer a self-published bio, or a Doctoral Treatise that had supervision, editing, analysis, and multiple sources? --TheClarinetGuy _talk 12:51, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

The thesis is marginally preferable to the straight self-written ones, which is why I said it was sub-optimal. However, that does not make it suitable for sourcing exceptional or unduly self-serving claims. I've outlined examples such claims above. You may disagree with those examples, but that's the way it is. As to what is preferable for referencing biographical articles on musicians here, it is the kind of sources which unfortunately do not exist for this subject, e.g. entrees in reference works like Grove, Concise Oxford Dictionary of Music, Baker's Biographical Dictionary of Musicians, etc. or independently written articles devoted to the subject's life and/or work (not interviews) and published in reputable journals or newspapers. Voceditenore (talk) 13:21, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Understood and agreed with everything you just stated. I don't believe I did use the Treatise as a source for anything other than teachers, but please correct me if I am mistaken. --TheClarinetGuy _talk 13:25, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Recommendation for cuts

User:Randykitty thank you for your edits. What would you recommend for cutting and why? --TheClarinetGuy _talk 01:57, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

• Articles here do not need to be exhaustive (as a resume would be). Voci has pointed you to some bios that are good examples of what is good encyclopedic writing. What we have at the moment is more something like what you'd expect to find in Marquis Who's Who or similar publications. I see that you argue that this article is along the lines of (or better than) other articles here. Please realize that with millions of articles, it is obvious that not all are up to par, because the "workforce" here is limited to volunteers. Take an example from good articles, not the less good ones (for example, look for articles that have been rated "good article" or "featured article". Please read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS (also less nicely known as WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS). --Randykitty (talk) 08:53, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

I certainly agree that it does not need to be exhaustive, and believe me, the items mentioned there now are a very small sampling of representative things from my career. I have read the example that Voci gave and I understand the style that she is getting at (I was also an editor and publisher in a previous life...). So the question is, shall I rewrite it as a chronologically oriented biographical essay like the one she cited? I can do that using the material that is there, and put it precisely in the style that you are looking for. I still don't see, however, what that has to do with deleting important and independently sourced elements of my career. Indeed the people most interested in reading the article will be people who are interested precisely in those elements (other clarinetists, people interested in what artists I have worked with, and so on). I'm not sure if this is relevant on WP pages and haven't brought it up here to date, but, for example, I have the #1 Facebook page in the world of any classical clarinetist (about 48,000 followers), far more than anyone else. I know the world of classical clarinet is a small one, but still that is a substantial audience of people who want to know more about me. So cutting out notable things about my career will only make the article less interesting to those types of people and less factual for its primary audience. No? --TheClarinetGuy _talk 13:25, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

• Like Voci, I am of the opinion that what you are saying on this talk page is clear evidence that it would be good if you didn't edit here, but follows the advice on WP:COI and stop editing here. If you identify content that's incorrect or needs to be amended, that should come here on the talk page with an "edit requested" template and somebody else will make the edit, if warranted. WP is not Facebook or some social media site. Apparently you are unable to understand that. --Randykitty (talk) 15:23, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

I understand completely that WP is not FB, and I didn't say anything even remotely implying that. I have never mentioned Facebook in this article. --TheClarinetGuy _talk 16:55, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

What about "it would be good if you didn't edit here" is it that you didn't understand? --Randykitty (talk) 18:12, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

I have followed the agreement made with Yamla when he reinstated me and made no controversial edits, indicated on each one that I am the subject, and greatly enhanced the page in response to the person who tagged it asking for more citations. I have also followed your recommendation to "prune" some of the referenced people, and chamber ensembles. I have also followed Voce's recommendation to remove certain citations. Do you have any objection to any edit that I have made? Or are you now banning me from editing the page? If so, I would like to know why. I have not made a single destructive or controversial edit and indeed I have followed the agreement made with User:Yamla exactly as agreed. --TheClarinetGuy _talk 18:35, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

And the advice of both Voci and me is being ignored. Just by saying each time "I'm the subject" does not permit you to continue as you do. And I just read the advice that Yamla gave you and your reading of it is quite selective. Apparently, WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and WP:NOTHERE apply... --Randykitty (talk) 18:42, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

What have I done? My agreement was precisely "Would you be agreeable if I were to agree that I would make no controversial or unsourced changes directly to the page--those would go on the talk page--and for any direct changes to the page, I would indicate on each and every such change that I am the subject of the page? (btw what is the best way to make that indication? Or is it obvious if the user name is "Cohler"?) Thank you for your help and understanding on this." (see here) To which he responded that was agreeable. --TheClarinetGuy _talk 18:50, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm trying to stay out of this because the people best placed to resolve this conflict are the people already engaged in discussion. Note that edits are clearly controversial if they are being reverted by other editors. Note also that it is not necessarily easy to determine this in advance. Without diving in to the edits that have been happening here, I would say the following. I would not be at all concerned if Cohler is making edits which are largely left intact, perhaps with minor modifications (for example, spelling corrections or minor tweaks to grammar). I would be greatly concerned if Cohler is making edits which are then reverted by another user and then reintroduced by Cohler and then reverted by another different user. I would not be concerned with edit suggestions made by Cohler on this discussion page, some of which would be accepted and some of which wouldn't. I also believe, and continue to believe, everyone is trying to act in good faith. That does not, absolutely does not, mean that everyone is abiding by Wikipedia policies. It's generally frowned upon to contribute to your own autobiography here at Wikipedia. It's not forbidden, but it often leads to disputes and hurt feelings. If there was a biography of me here, I wouldn't personally be able to edit it directly. Luckily, I'm not notable. Now, and I want to be clear, I'm not stating which position we are in at the moment. What I'm doing is expressing sort of a baseline opinion and strongly urging calm. Cohler, please take a moment to read what I said about controversial edits. Perhaps you now are of the opinion that some of your edits have been controversial. Other editors, please take a moment and realise it's understandable for someone to want the best autobiography, and to get tripped up while trying to accomplish this. Again, I am not taking a position at the moment. I'm not advocating for the status quo or for a topic ban. I still hope this can be resolved by the editors involved. --Yamla (talk) 20:42, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Yamla, my personal view is that, while not a particularly good article and still reads essentially like a resume, it is now minimally acceptable. It is also a fairly obscure one with on average 5 page views a day. The problem is that this is not someone who found their biography on Wikipedia and then sought to improve it, but someone who created it with quite blatantly promotional text and prior to their block fought very hard to resist all efforts to bring it in line with our policies and guidelines, as you can see in the now archived discussions on this talk page from 2011. As you can also see in the current discussions, the subject still continually challenges (at length and sometimes accompanied by personal attacks) virtually every edit non-involved editors make or the answers they give here if not to their liking. The end result of this, frankly, is that this barely adequate article will never be significantly improved, because the no one wants to waste their editing time putting up with that. I can't speak for the other non-involved editors who have worked on the article recently, but I certainly don't. However, I'll continue to remove any inappropriate additions in the future. Voceditenore (talk) 12:40, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

User:Yamla I agree with your even-handed and balanced observations. First, in response to you, none of my edits to the page have been reversed (other than my listing of Voceditenore in the COI banner) since you unblocked my account. Second, I have worked cooperatively to follow recommendations of both Voce here for example in taking her suggestions on references to use or not use, and Randkitty here and here in his recommendation to "prune" some of the less notable listed individuals and/or groups. I totally disagree with Voce's statement that I have made personal attacks on her. Indeed, I would argue quite the contrary. I have openly agreed with her that the article is not written in the encyclopedic, chronological style that Wikipedia is looking for, and have asked for her help in doing so. Mostly over the past few days, however, I have been adding or updating references so that it is very well sourced at this point with 48 sources, the vast majority of which are totally independent secondary sources (see #Primary Sources below). The fact remains, however, that the style in which the article is written is suboptimal and unchanged from where it has been for the last 5 years while I have been totally off of WIkipedia. So the lack of progress on the article has nothing to do with me. Quite the opposite, in fact, as I have greatly enhanced the quality and quantity of the sources in the past few days in response to a previous sourcing tag. I have not changed the style in any substantive way for fear of being controversial, but I am happy to change the style as Voceditenore has suggested, and have asked her for help in doing so. But I should also be clear that there is no puffery or advertising promo or other self-promotional language in the article at present. It is totally factual. Style is another question. Some of Voce's comments here refer to events from five years ago, which are not relevant in the present context. And the fact is that in the present, none of my edits have been reverted, and none of my edits have fundamentally changed the style. They have all been to fix errors, add sources, improve citations and the like. Furthermore, I have publicly thanked both Voce and Randykitty for their constructive suggestions. I really hope that we can continue to do constructive work on the page. --TheClarinetGuy _talk 13:44, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Primary Sources

User:Lemongirl942 which citations do you consider to be primary sources? As this is a somewhat subjective assessment, I'm not sure which ones you consider such. I will be happy to remove and or replace as many as possible with preferable secondary sources. --TheClarinetGuy _talk 18:54, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

User:Lemongirl942 by my count now there are at most 7 arguably primary sources, and 41 clearly secondary sources. All of the arguably primary sources are all justified and reasonable, however, as follows:

• #32, 33, 39 are official Faculty Bios published by the institutions on their websites and the citations are used only to show my positions at those institutions. Arguably, these are actually secondary references documenting my positions at those institutions. In other words, it's not me stating I hold or held those positions, it is the institutions saying so.
• #35, 36, 37 are references to official websites of organizations that I run and those are used only to show that fact as explicitly allowed by WP:V#Self-published or questionable sources as sources on themselves.
• #41 is the official website of Ongaku Records used only to document its list of releases.

Therefore, unless you have some other objection, I will remove the "primary source" tag you added ok? --TheClarinetGuy _talk 15:35, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Just a small comment here. The sentence containing refs 35-37 He also founded and runs the Boston Clarinet Academy, Chamber Music Boston, the International Woodwind Festival summer festival, and is vice president of the Boston Woodwind Society.. Is this sentence really necessary? My view is that it makes the article look like a CV. Unless reliable secondary sources have talked about the schools, it doesn't really require a mention.

References

--Lemongirl942 (talk) 17:42, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

These are all important elements of my career as a clarinetist, performer, and teacher. They are all notable. Boston Clarinet Academy has brought many of the top clarinetists in the world to Boston for masterclasses and performances. International Woodwind Festival has done the same in Boston and Iowa first at Longy, then New England Conservatory, then at Boston Conservatory, and most recently in Pella, Iowa at Central College. So I guess the short answer is yes these are considered important things in the world of classical clarinet, which I understand is a small world, but nonetheless these things are all notable. If you prefer, I can provide secondary sources for these as well, but I did not think it was necessary given the copious secondary sources already provided throughout the article. --TheClarinetGuy _talk 17:53, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Whether something is indeed important is determined by WP:WEIGHT - the amount of coverage it has received in reliable secondary sources. Over here I do not see enough coverage to show that the schools are notable. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia and not a medium for promotion - it's not a CV which describes all aspects. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 18:15, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

I see refs 25-28 are all primary (affiliated sources). The best sources should be actually secondary third party sources. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 17:46, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

No they are all clearly secondary unaffiliated sources:

• #25 is a publication of the Fischoff Competition.
• #26 is a publication of Musical America
• #27 is the website of Vento Chiaro
• #28 is an announcement from the Chamber Music Foundation of New England

I do not have control over any of these publications in any way. --TheClarinetGuy _talk 18:02, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

To summarize, I am happy to provide more secondary sources, but the WP policies don't require secondary sources in these handful of cases, and indeed they caution against over sourcing. In any case, with only a small percentage of the 48 sources currently listed being primary, I don't believe that it is fair to say that "The article relies too much on primary sources" which is what the current tag at the top of the page says. I will provide more secondary sources, however, if you feel that strongly about it. --TheClarinetGuy _talk 18:19, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

There seems to be some confusion here about what a secondary source is. A secondary source is a source that is based on some other (primary) source. To cite one example above, Vento Chiaro's website is a primary source - it was written by Vento Chairo based on their personal knowledge. A secondary source would be if some biographer came along and wrote a book about them based on their statements, or a newspaper wrote an article about them, etc. See Primary, secondary and tertiary sources for more information. - MrOllie (talk) 18:24, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Cohler: Whether a source is primary depends on the relation to the information it is supporting

25 is a publication of the Fischoff Competition - hence primary for supporting the fact about the Fischoff Competition.

26 is a press release by the New England Conservatory - it's primary here as it is a claim about a student. (Note that it is NOT a publication of Musical America. Musical America has no control over the content.)

27 the website of Vento Chiaro is clearly a primary source for an information about members of Vento Chiaro. Note that it is also a self published source.

28 is an announcement from the Chamber Music Foundation of New England - and precisely primary for an information about the competition.

The problem with primary sources is that it doesn't allow us to gauge how important an information is. And ultimately it results in a cluttered Wikipedia article. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 18:29, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

• #25 I agree that this is a publication of the Fischoff Competition. And the Fischoff Competition is the only source of information on who wins the Fischoff Competition as is true with all competitions. It was provided not as an indication of how important the Fischoff Competition (which is the most prestigious chamber music competition in the United States FYI) is, but simply for the fact that groups that I have coached won that competition. In that sense, it is a secondary source. I am happy to provide more secondary sources to show how important and well-known and notable the competition is, but suffice it to say that it is like the Van Cliburn competition of chamber music. Do you really want more sources? That seems more off topic and like more clutter to me. But if you want, I am happy to provide. It is notable enough by the way to already have a Wikipedia entry.
• #26 I agree that this is a press release from NEC published by Musical America. It announces that various student groups coached by me won the Fischoff Competition. For that purpose it is secondary. It is reporting on things that happened outside the purview of NEC. It corroborates first that the groups were coached by me (for this they are primary which complies with WP:V#Self-published or questionable sources as sources on themselves), and second that they won or placed at the Fischoff Competition (for this it is a secondary source), which is also corroborated by the preceding 25. Again, it is secondary for this purpose. Put another way, what possible reference could you want that we be better? Anything, else would of necessity have less authority and be less reliable information. Only the Fischoff can say who wins the Fischoff, and only NEC can say who coached the groups.
• #27 I agree that this is the website of Vento Chiaro and self published information about themselves (i.e. who they coached with) is a legitimate use of self published information WP:V#Self-published or questionable sources as sources on themselves. It is supplied simply to document that I was their coach.
• #28 I agree that this is a publication of the Chamber Music Foundation of New England and as with 25 above is the only source of information on who wins that competition. It was provided not as an indication of how important the competition is, but simply for the fact that groups that I have coached won that competition. Again if you want more sources, I can supply them. It is an important competition in New England, however.
• You seem to be saying if you don't know how important a given organization is, then it should be removed from the article. But this doesn't make sense. As I've pointed out, this article is already heavily sourced. I am happy to add more sources if you like. But the fact that you are not aware of the prominent status of the Fischoff Competition in the music world does not make it unimportant and unnotable. And if you want me to add a source on its importance, I am happy to do so. Same goes for the others.
• Finally, once again, the vast majority of the sources on the page—which as far as I have seen has more sources per word than any other classical musician page—are secondary independent sources, so all of this discussion seems like overkill as far as my proposal goes for removing the tag because the statement now on the page "This article relies too much on references to primary sources" is clearly untrue. No matter which way you cut it—and as I have said I am happy to add more primary source—3 out of 48, or 5 out of 48, or 7 out of 48 primary sources is not relying "too much" on primary sources. It is clear that the vast majority of the sources are secondary sources, wouldn't you agree? --TheClarinetGuy _talk 20:20, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry but your understanding of what is a secondary source is not per the generally agreed definition on Wikipedia (and this may differ from the definition of "Secondary" outside). Those are primary sources (even if they are the only available source of information). And again, we don't include every little thing in an article. Essentially, what deserves to be included in the article depends on WP:WEIGHT, and for this purpose we use reliable secondary sources to gauge that. I personally see the article containing a lot of minute details sourced to primary sources. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 20:41, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Ok I will provide more secondary sources. Uses, however, of non-specific terms like "a lot of minute details" is not helpful in an objective discussion. What specifically are you talking about? Certainly, the 4 out of 48 items you are discussing here are not "a lot" by any reasonable definition, and certainly the competitions mentioned here are not "minute details" of my biography. How is one sentence on a notable aspect of my 30+-year professional teaching and chamber music coaching career too much or "cluttered" information? Here's an article about the Fischoff Competition from the journal of the Music Teachers National Association American Music Teacher. I would also point you to Secondary_source#Classification where it states

"Primary and secondary are relative terms, and some sources may be classified as primary or secondary, depending on how they are used."

"Many sources can be considered either primary or secondary, depending on the context in which they are used. Moreover, the distinction between primary and secondary sources is subjective and contextual, so that precise definitions are difficult to make."

"In scholarly writing, an important objective of classifying sources is to determine the independence and reliability of sources." (emphasis added)

The purpose of using mostly (not entirely) secondary sources is to ensure the reliability and objectivity of the information. In the case where one is verifying who won or placed in a competition, the best, most reliable, and most objective source of that information is the competition itself. In essence it is similar to the official records hearsay exception for court proceedings. --TheClarinetGuy _talk 21:17, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

User:Lemongirl942 so now when I provide the citation you asked for to establish the notability of the Fischoff Competition, for example, you reverted it saying it doesn't mention me, which is true. But that is not the reason for which the citation was given. The other citations already there tie me to the Fischoff Competition through the ensembles that I coached. You said you needed a secondary source on why the Fischoff Competition was important. I said I thought that was overkill, but you insisted. And now you revert the change that you asked for. Please explain? Also, can you please show me an example of an article on a classical musician that you believe is properly sourced solely with secondary sources? --TheClarinetGuy _talk 21:52, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

It is better not to juxtapose sources to imply a conclusion. What we could really use are secondary sources that both indicate that these groups won these competitions /and/ mention the coaching, so we know that independent writers credit the coaching as important in that particular case. - MrOllie (talk) 23:58, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

MrOllie your premise is false and illogical. I did not juxtapose to imply a conclusion at all. The article states "Cohler has coached groups that have won prizes in the Fischoff Competition...". The first citation #26 is an independently written and published review of the Vento Chiaro CD in Fanfare Magazine. In that review the author states, "Vento Chiaro (Joanna Goldstein, flute; Ana-Sofia Campesino, oboe; Michelle Doyle, clarinet; Ellen Barnum, bassoon; Jason White, horn), whom Cohler coached at Longy, winners of the Fischoff and Coleman competitions, have put together a rather individual program, comprising one full-length recent work and a series of shorter items, mostly transcriptions." So that is a single secondary source, independently published, indicating that I both coached them and they won prizes at Fischoff and Coleman in the same citation. The next citation #27 is a publication of the Fischoff competition that proves conclusively that Vento Chiaro and some of my other NEC groups did indeed win a prize at the competition. There is no better source than the issuer of the prize. Finally, citation #28 is a publication of a press release from NEC which was my employer when they assigned me to be the coach of the group. Being a chamber music coach is a specific teaching assignment. There is no better source than the school's official word as to which teacher was assigned to teach which group. So we have a logical certainty here, no implications, and no guesswork. I was THE chamber music coach of various NEC ensembles when those ensembles won the Fischoff competition as is stated in the press release and confirmed by the competition's own publication. We can dance around the definition of primary/secondary ad nauseum, but it is absolutely clear here from an objective viewpoint that these sources support the statement made in the best possible manner. The best (indeed the only) source of an official record is the issuer of the official record. I was a publisher and editor-in-chief for many years in the publishing business so I am very familiar with these things. --TheClarinetGuy _talk 03:59, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

@Cohler: The secondary source should verify the information. It should mention that the group won the competition AND that you coached them. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:28, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Lemongirl942 where does it say that anywhere on Wikipedia? I have not seen any such absolute policy, and you have not shown me any such absolute policy. And you have not refuted my logical argument in any way. In any case, reference #26 does do both in the same source. So are you satisfied with that now? --TheClarinetGuy _talk 03:59, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Here's more. and has appeared in the Dame Myra Hess Memorial Concert Series in Chicago.

References

The source for this is https://www.musicinst.org/camille-witos where I found Favorite musical moment: Dame Myra Hess concert broadcast live on WFMT with clarinetist, Jonathon Cohler (he flew in from Boston the day before the concert and that was our rehearsal)!. This is a primary source and a self published one at that. It doesn't help to make it clear why performing at this event was a major incident for which the subject was acclaimed. I see this as one of the example of too much info. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:43, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Usergirl942 first, it is not self-published. It is published by and on the website of the institution by which she is employed, namely, the Music Institute of Chicago. Now while it is likely that Camille may have contributed to or written some or much of the bio that is there, that does not make it a "self-published" source. When institutions hire people, they do extensive vetting, interviewing, and other background checking procedures to figure out whether the person's background is appropriate for the job. Precisely, the type of checking that a good writer hopefully does in writing a newspaper story. The bios that the institution then choose to publish are quite often edited heavily by the institution, or at the very least checked for accuracy during the entire hiring/vetting process. Self-published sources are defined quite differently at WP:SELFPUB#Self-published sources as "self-published media, such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs (as distinguished from newsblogs, above), content farms, Internet forum postings, and social media postings" and an institutionally published professional bio most definitely does not fit that definition. Second, the citation of Camille's bio was used to show only that we performed together on the Dame Myra Hess series. The series itself is one of the longest running most prestigious concert series in the country, but I guess if you are not familiar with the music business you may not know of it. If you would like me to add a citation about the prominence of the series I can, but then you are just going to revert it and say that it doesn't mention me. But that is a silly Catch 22 argument that has nothing to do with proper encyclopedic writing. Not every citation has to prove both things in the same citation. I can certainly provide citations that show (A) Dame Myra Hess concert series is highly notable, and (B) I performed on it. But according to your logic, unless I can show both of those things in the same citation then the mention of it is unworthy. That is simply wrong. I don't know how else to explain it. So where do we go from here? Are you going to continue to insist on the false tag stating that the article relies too much on primary sources when no matter how you cut it the vast majority of the sources are secondary sources form reliable independent sources?

One last stab at trying to convince you... The point of aiming for good sources (primary, secondary, tertiary, self-published, or otherwise) is to make sure that articles are balanced and reliable. But it depends on what you are talking about to decide which type of sources are best. For example as WP:Secondary_source#Law states "Legal writers usually prefer to cite primary sources because only primary sources are authoritative and precedential, while secondary sources are only persuasive at best." In other words, if you are dealing with simple factual matters like who won a competition, or who was employed by what, or who was the coach of a group, it's ONLY the facts that matter. It's not a matter of opinion. We clearly know the answers to those questions, and you cannot seriously tell me that you or anyone would doubt the veracity of the statements made in the article given the sources supplied. Another thought experiment... if you were a reporter and you wanted to know who won a competition, where would you go look for the answer, a third party opinion piece, or to the competition itself? In any case, I've given you both kinds of sources. I really don't understand why you are being so adamant about this. And thank you for outdenting the discussion! I was wondering how to do that. --TheClarinetGuy _talk 03:59, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

FYI, here's a recent listing of the Myra Hess series in the Chicago Tribune as one of long-time critic John von Rhein's 7 recommended choices for the week. Just a small example that it ranks up there with the Chicago Symphony and the Lyric Opera of Chicago in his weekly choice lists. --TheClarinetGuy _talk 04:21, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

@Cohler: I believe you did not understand my point. A bio on Wikipedia is supposed to mention only notable aspects of a subject's life - not every single event of the subject's life is worth mentioning (even if a source can be found) (see WP:IINFO). We are looking at 3 different things here - 1. That the event is notable, 2. That you actually performed at the event (verifiability) and 3. That your performance in the event was something which was notable enough to be noticed by others. Now the source you have provided (university website bio) may be useful for 2 (but, not for 1 and 3). For satisfying 1, we can usually find sources which say that the event is notable at least in Chicago (which, let's assume it is). For 3, we need to find a secondary source which specifically mentions the event AND your contribution to the event - and this needs to be cited in the article. Ideally, this source would elaborate that you participated and you performed a particular composition...and so on. The problem is that we don't have such a source. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:28, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

While the Myra Hess concerts are a long (35+ years) and popular tradition in Chicago, performance at one of them is not remotely equivalent to appearing as a soloist with the Chicago Symphony or being a First Chair in that orchestra. The Hess concerts are free, weekly, lunchtime concerts specifically designed to give "emerging artists" a chance to perform. Mentioning the subject's participation is valid if there is a review of the performance. If not, it's simply "resume" and not encyclopedic. The content of a biographical article must be in proportion to the availability of independent reliable sources which cover the subject in some kind of depth. The fewer there are, the more succinct the article will be. Wikipedia is not about documenting every individual "accomplishment" of the subject. (That's for their website, if they wish). It's about documenting those aspects of the subject which have already been deemed sufficiently noteworthy by independent, reliable, published sources to merit their writing (or some cases broadcasting) about them in a non-trivial way. Voceditenore (talk) 19:11, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

This is a straw-man argument. I never said anywhere that performing on Dame Myra Hess is equivalent to appearing as soloist with the Chicago Symphony. I will respond to the rest later, in a hurry now. --TheClarinetGuy _talk 22:05, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Voceditenore first, I apologize for the length of this post, but things have been going in circles here for a while, and I want to try and break this down somewhat. Following this post I will create a new section to deal with things one at a time. Note first that I simply stated that the Myra Hess series "ranks up there with the Chicago Symphony and the Lyric Opera of Chicago in his weekly choice lists" a simple fact. Now back to the point.

I have been doing some careful reading of the Wikipedia guidelines and policies on articles and I think there is a bit of confusion here about WP:Notability that is causing us to go in endless circles. Hopefully, we can stop that with some clear understanding. First, "On Wikipedia, notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a given topic warrants its own article." The notability of the subject (me) has long been clearly established and uncontested (indeed supported by you) with numerous independent, third party, reliable sources, including significant coverage over the period of time from 1993 or so to the present with articles and significant coverage and broadcasts in BBC Music, Gramophone, Fanfare, American Record Guide (to name a few) various newspapers and radio stations etc.

But "Notability guidelines do not apply to content within an article" (emphasis added).

Content coverage "is governed by the principle of due weight" and that information must be verifiable. Indeed, the Hess concerts, which turn 40 in October, are, as you stated, for emerging artists, and I was just such an emerging artist when I played on the series sometime in the mid-90s (I'll have to go back and check exactly when that was). If that's all it was, however, I would agree with your assessment of its worthiness for inclusion in the article—and certainly, I have played on hundreds of concerts series in my career, nearly all of which are not mentioned in the article. Myra Hess, however, is a highly selective and highly prestigious series, and perhaps more importantly, that's why WFMT and I believe around 200 radio stations around the country broadcast the performances live to an audience of 100s of thousands of listeners. There are very few concert series like that in the entire country. Playing on the series is the audio equivalent of being featured on the cover of a widely distributed magazine (as I was for example on the October 1994 issue of BBC Music which went to 350,000 readers). This performance was most certainly one of the largest milestones in representing the early stages of my career and according to the principle of due weight merits inclusion in the article. Unfortunately, the Internet was in its infancy at the time, so I have been unable to find the live broadcast online (the website only goes back to 2009 or so for the broadcasts), but I would bet that it still exists at WFMT and elsewhere.

So now to the sourcing question. Your statement that the source must "cover the subject in some kind of depth", is not what Wikipedia policies state, as far as I can see, regarding every single statement made in an article. Certainly, to meet the notability requirement for inclusion of an article on Wikipedia that is true, but that test has already clearly been met. A reliable published source is all that is required for individual statements, and the definition of published is "made available to the public in some form". WP:SOURCE further explains "Use sources that directly support the material presented in an article and are appropriate to the claims made. The appropriateness of any source depends on the context." (emphasis added) Furthermore, sources should directly support the information as it is presented in the Wkipedia article. And self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves.

So when Musical America publishes an article written by an official representative of New England Conservatory stating that I coached a group that won the Fischoff Competition, that meets all of the criteria. Furthermore, when there is another source from the Fischoff Competition stating that group won the competition in that same year, that meets all the criteria as well. Indeed, they exceed the necessary criteria. The sources are either independent, or self-published about themselves, they are verifiable, they are published, and there is no reasonable doubt as to their authenticity. And when WFMT and 200 other radio stations broadcast a live performance to 100s of thousands of listeners, the event is clearly noteworthy. And finally, when the Music Institute of Chicago publishes a faculty bio stating that the person performed on the series with me, it is a combination of a self-published source commenting on themselves, as well as a publication of an institution that institutes vetting, fact checking, and control over the information on its website. Furthermore, the information has appeared on my website as far back as I can find it on the web here in 2004.

So to sum it up, I believe that covers all the issues that have been raised. Let me know if I have anything wrong here. --TheClarinetGuy _talk 05:58, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

@Cohler: There is usually a difference between following the letter of a guideline/policy and the spirit of it. You don't seem to have enough experience editing Wikipedia to understand that. As far as I am concerned, you need find a "reliable", "third party", "Secondary" source about the event (as I described above in my previous comment). I have other stuff to do as well so I just want to let you know that adding non-notable details to the article will only degrade its quality as an encyclopaedia article and probably push it over the WP:PROMO line, and possibly result in a G11 deletion. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:15, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

User:Lemongirl942 once again your response here is non-responsive to the discussion or questions raised and gives only your general assessments of my understanding in your opinion. That does not contribute to the discussion in any productive or factual way. --TheClarinetGuy _talk 06:22, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

@Cohler: A reliable published source is all that is required for individual statements, and the definition of published is "made available to the public in some form" No, that is not true. We do not include information simply because it is reliably sourced. - Information should not be included in this encyclopedia solely because it is true or useful. A Wikipedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject.. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:25, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

@Lemongirl942: again this is a strawman argument. I did not say that. You need to read what I said and respond to that, not to something that I did not say. The paragraph that you pulled that quote out of context from begins with the topic sentence "Now on to the sourcing question". The paragraph before that is about "Content coverage". Please read before you respond. And the article is not a "complete exposition of all possible details" not even close. It is most definitely a "summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject" and a very short summary at that. --TheClarinetGuy _talk 06:39, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

@Cohler:Alright, so you agree that simply sourcing something doesn't make it noteworthy enough to be included? Great! Well, I disagree that it is a summary of accepted information (and it is actually WP:UNDUE here). And to convince me, you need to find reliable secondary sources. For example, if you can find an NYTimes article which explains and describes your performance in the Dame Myra Hess Memorial Concert Series in Chicago, that would be of help here. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:44, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Colorado Philharmonic Orchestra

@Voceditenore: 1. I did hold the principal clarinet position. 2. The listing never said it was a professional orchestra. Furthermore, it is in the Education section, not Career, as it was a training orchestra. Indeed it was linked to the NRO page which explains exactly what it is. It is similar to the Tanglewood Music Center Orchestra which immediately precedes it. It is one of the top two or three pre-professional, full-scholarship summer festival orchestras that is run like a professional festival orchestra. So do you need a secondary source to put the truth back into the article, which is that I did indeed hold the principal clarinet position? If so, I will attempt to find one. But I can guarantee you that it is the truth. And it has said so in my self-published bio which has been available and published for more than 30 years. Unlike Tanglewood, Verbier, and the other handful of full-scholarship festivals, Colorado Phil did not rotate seating for different concerts. Carl Topilow gave each player a specific assignment. Mine was principal clarinet. Let me know what the best way to proceed is? Would an email from Carl suffice, for example? FYI I was also a soloist with the orchestra and conducted a performance of L'Histoire du Soldat there, but I have never mentioned those in the article as I did not consider them significant enough for inclusion. --TheClarinetGuy _talk 21:44, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

The best and only way way to proceed is to leave the sentence as I have amended it: "He also played clarinet for the Colorado Philharmonic Orchestra (now known as the National Repertory Orchestra) in 1979 under conductor Carl Topilow.". Additionally claiming to have "held the principal clarinet position" is self-serving and exceptional (even for a training orchestra) and requires an independent published source, not an email from Topilow, not your personal knowledge, not what you claim on your website, not what you assert is the truth. Voceditenore (talk) 22:11, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Ok I will go with your judgement on leaving the language as is. I do, however, totally disagree with you that the factual, truthful, and descriptive statement "held the principal clarinet position" is in any way self-serving, promotional or exceptional. I agree that we have not yet found an independent published source for the statement. --TheClarinetGuy _talk 00:46, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Record producer

From 1992 to the present, I have been the Producer on 18 of the 24 recordings released by my record company Ongaku Records which is mentioned and referenced in the article. All of the releases have received significant critical review in the worldwide classical media as is already documented in the article under Jonathan Cohler#Discography for the 11 releases on which I play clarinet. All the releases are published and available worldwide, and you can find them all on Amazon including tray cards indicating that I am the producer. For your quick reference here, these are the traycards listing me as Producer:

1. Cohler on Clarinet
2. More Cohler on Clarinet
3. Ilya Kaler, violin
4. Suren Bagratuni, cello
5. Jonathan Cohler: The Clarinet Alone
6. Yoshiko Okada: A French Piano Recital
7. Great Russian Cello Sonatas
8. Petrouchka and Other Prophecies
9. David Alpher: American Reflections
10. Olivier Messiaen: Quartet for the End of Time
11. Vento Chiaro
12. Rhapsodie Française
13. Jonathan Cohler & Claremont Trio
14. Romanza
15. Reflections
16. American Tribute
17. Cohler plays and conducts Weber
18. Polonaise brillante (Weber), S. 367 - this is a digital single release of Track 12 from 024-126

I would therefore propose updating the first sentence of the article to read as follows

Jonathan Cohler (born June 19, 1959) is an American classical clarinetist, conductor, music educator, recording artist, and record producer.

--TheClarinetGuy _talk 01:27, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Leave out the utterly redundant "recording artist". It's clutter. All notable 20th and 21st century musicians have extensive discographies. Do you see Pablo Casals or Glenn Gould described as "recording artists"? Voceditenore (talk) 08:48, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

I've now added record producer and removed "recording artist" per my comment above. Voceditenore (talk) 14:55, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

@Voceditenore: Ok. That makes sense. Thank you. --TheClarinetGuy _talk 17:55, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Source for INDIE Award Nomination and Honorable Mention

@Voceditenore: I have a published source in Billboard Magazine documenting that my CD The Clarinet Alone was nominated for the NAIRD INDIE Award in 1995 in the Classical Instrumental Solo category. Furthermore, I have a certificate from NAIRD, which is now defunct, and the certificate further shows that the CD received an "Honorable Mention". As nominations for major awards (this was the independent industry equivalent of the Grammy), and the receipt of an "Honorable Mention", are important indicators of WP:NOTABILITY I would like to include these in the article. What is the best way to do that? --TheClarinetGuy _talk 06:25, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Notability_(music) gives some examples of major music awards: 'a Grammy, Juno, Mercury, Choice or Grammis award.'. I don't believe a NAIRD INDIE Award is on the same level. Note the red link - the rule of thumb is that a major award will support an article of its own. - MrOllie (talk) 15:48, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

@MrOllie: the most major music award of the independent recording industry was the INDIE award (formerly the NAIRD Award). As it says at NAIRD,

National Association of Independent Record Distributors (NAIRD). In 1997, the 25th anniversary of the group, it changed its name to the Association for Independent Music (AFIM). As AFIM, the organization was best known for the annual issuing of Indie Awards, recognizing artistic and commercial success among artists signed to independent music labels. These were known as "NAIRD awards" prior to the name change. The AFIM Indie Awards were last issued in 2003, and the organization dissolved in 2004.

NAIRD and AFIM were the primary industry organizations for the Independent industry, hence the names National Association for Independent Record Distributors and later Association for Independent Music. The fact that you are unaware of the award or the organizations, or the fact that it is not one of the listed examples of "major music awards" does not prove that it is not a major music award. If you read some of the history and check the copious publications about NAIRD, AFIM and the INDIE awards, which were always featured in Billboard, for example, you will see that indeed the INDIE award is a very notable and important major music award. The fact that a page doesn't yet exist for it on Wikipedia doesn't mean it is not notable, it simply indicates that no Wikipedia editors have bothered to write about its highly notable history yet. Given that the last INDIE's were issued in the early 2000s, much of the history of the INIDIE's, NAIRD, and AFIM is documented on paper from the 70s, 80s and 90s, not on the Internet, so it takes a little more research to learn about it. In any case, as WP:Notability states very clearly, "Notability guidelines do not apply to content within an article" (emphasis added) so notability is not the criteria for inclusion of its mention in this article. Notability is the criterion for creation of its own article. The criteria for inclusion here, however, is noteworthiness and due weight both of which are clearly satisfied here. --TheClarinetGuy _talk 19:21, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

NAIRD awards got written about in Billboard, which is an industry publication. Major awards like the Grammies get written about everywhere. I understand that you are proud of this nomination (as you should be!) but please try to have some perspective - this tendency to over inflate the importance of things is why people on this talk page and at the conflict of interest noticeboard are questioning your ability to edit this page in a neutral fashion. As to notability, you brought that up - I was just clarifying that in the event that this article were brought to AFD, having been nominated for a mid-tier award wouldn't be a reason to keep the article. Not exceptionally relevant here, but important to know someday when you branch out beyond editing only your own article and use your expertise to improve some of our other coverage of classical music. - MrOllie (talk) 20:25, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Cohler, I see that you have already added this to the article with the Billboard reference. The reference is adequate. The addition in the discography section is OK. It's not a huge issue, but really, for your own sake, it does not enhance your image to list minor awards like this, quite the contrary. And yes, it is definitely a second-tier award, and before you start with the you-people-don't-know-about-the-classical-music-industry-but-I-do stuff, you're wrong. I do know about it. Re the 'honorable mention' bit, it cannot be claimed without a published source, but in any case, it's utterly superfluous to a biographical article. Can we please not waste any more editors' time discussing this trivial issue. Voceditenore (talk) 20:52, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

@Voceditenore: I don't mean to be argumentative here; I am trying to learn. Given what you said here my question would be as follows. I understand that by comparison to the Grammy Awards, the INDIE is not a "major" award, and although the Independent record industry is very large in absolute dollars and numbers, it is not large compared to the major label industry (especially in the areas of Pop music). In the classical arena, the ratio of indie's to majors is quite different, but in any case, wouldn't the common sense interpretation of the policy on "major award" be relative to the industry that the award is addressing? Certainly, in the Independent record industry the INDIE's were and are considered to be a "major" award by the independent labels. As a former chair of the Special Interest Group (SIG) on Classical Music of NAIRD, I knew and communicated with most all of the member Indie companies and their reps on the committee, and they were all involved in and considered the INDIE award to be a major award from my experience. Indeed, they all entered their releases in the competition and promoted the results in advertising and marketing campaigns. I think you would be hard pressed to find independent labels from back then that did not enter the INDIE competition. As I understand your logic, however, any award associated exclusively with the independent industry would not be "major" because it is associated with a smaller market than the major labels and therefore less significant. Is that your argument? --b>TheClarinetGuy _talk]] 21:23, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

If you cut the niche small enough everyone is the best at something, but we don't have an article on the Guiness World Record holders who constructed the longest paperclip chain. - MrOllie (talk) 21:43, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

@MrOllie: it's not small actually. 37.6% of global market share by this recent report. The INDIE Award was used by that entire market segment. --TheClarinetGuy _talk 00:37, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Well, yes, Cohler you are being argumentative (at length) here and for absolutely no reason. I said that mentioning the nomination was OK and the reference to Billboard was OK, although for obvious reasons the assertion of an "honorable mention" cannot be referenced to a certificate which is your possession but not published anywhere. I'm just telling you as piece of advice that putting this kind of marginal stuff in the article is pretty immaterial and possibly counterproductive. Take it or leave it. For the last time, who you have talked to in the industry is utterly irrelevant. Wikipedia publishes summmaries of what has already been published in reliable independent sources, nothing else. Voceditenore (talk) 22:00, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

@Voceditenore: Once again, you haven't answered the question I asked. In short, the question is: Do you not consider the NAIRD INDIE Award a "major award" because the independent industry is smaller than the major label industry? (As mentioned above, independents now account for 37.6% of global market share.) --TheClarinetGuy _talk 00:41, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

It was a major award in a minor sector from a now-defunct organization. The award's coverage outside industry publications like Billboard was nil, and note that several classical releases on independent labels were actually winning Grammy awards and nominations in addition to Indies. In any case, I don't know why you are belabouring this point. Given the reference from Billboard, there's no problem with mentioning that one of your recordings was nominated for one. I simply said that in my opinion including that kind of marginal stuff is not the best way to write an encyclopedic biography. Ditto the laundry list of festivals, none of which appear to be referenced to an actual review, simply concert listings. and again some of which a pretty marginal. Voceditenore (talk) 08:37, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

@Voceditenore: Ok I will go with your recommendation not to mention the INDIE Award in the body of the article. Regarding the festivals, they were reviewed and featured, and I supplied citations to both reviews and announcements published in independent newspapers and journals. If you want I can remove the announcement citations if you prefer, although I thought they are relevant because the Globe and other sources only feature a small handful of announcements in their news coverage. These were not simple calendar section listings. These were selected by the Arts editor.

• 35 Boston Globe Review
• 50 Boston Globe Announcement
• 51 Boston Globe Announcement
• 52 Boston Globe Review
• 53 Boston Globe Announcement
• 54 Boston Globe Review
• 44 The Clarinet magazine Review
• 57 Oskaloosa Herald Feature Article

--TheClarinetGuy _talk 18:11, 18 January 2017 (UTC)