Talk:Janet Dunbar

Untitled

After reading the notes about how items which are poorly sourced, especially if they might be considered defamatory, should be removed immediately, I tried to clean up a couple of those instances which I noted the last time I made an entry in this page. Also removed some vague and unverifiable statements without providing a replacement. Added a couple of references. Blue Joule (talk) 23:12, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Galassi. I just noticed your recent changes to this article. I see that you regularly contribute and have quite a bit of good material, especially on Ukraine and historical issues.

I just started looking into getting some of the (approximately 10) additional requests for citations you requested, and hope to provide something soon. I must admit, however, that I'm a bit confused over why you removed and replaced some of the article's previous content, since those changes removed some of the very citations you requested. I'm hoping to gain some clarity over this issue on the talk page.

First, on the section describing "The New Elegant Simplicity", you replace what seems like a pretty decent synopsis of Janet Dunbar's style, complete with a citation to the composer's own words on the style, with a somewhat pejorative-sounding statement and a request for a citation. I think it was a more neutral tone in its prior form, it had more information, and it also had a citation.

In the "Early Life" section, you added a statement to the beginning of the section and ask for a citation. The text you added reads, "Dunbar's date of birth or her exact age is unknown." Are you asking for evidence that no one knows her exact age? Why not just leave this off completely rather than make such a statement and ask someone to cite a reference for a non-fact?

Also in the "Early Life" section, you again add a statement, "She married a co-worker from a music store where she worked, before she became famous", and then ask for a citation. First, the information is vague ("a co-worker", "a music store") and non-objective ("before she became famous"). Why not just leave it off? Although you may not have intended it, in seems to me that the change in question makes the article seem non-biographical and subjective. I had previously changed the "...before she became famous" edit that someone put there to read more neutral and I'm curious why it was put back that way.

I read somewhere about the composers she studied with, so I'll try to dig those references up. I believe an article which mentions her DMA is already cited.

Finally, it looks like you added a trailing clause to the statement about who she studied with (enclosed in << >>):

Dunbar earned a Doctor of Musical Arts degree in Composition [1] at Stanford University, working under composers Chris Chafe, John Chowning, Jonathan Harvey and Wayne Peterson << [citation needed] although her music doesn't demonstrate expected competence. >>

This clause seems subjective and pejorative as well, and is not neutral tone.

I hope to be correcting some of this in the near future, and welcome any input from those concerned.

Blue Joule (talk) 23:19, 19 September 2011 (UTC)