Talk:BMI Lehman Engel Musical Theatre Workshop

Back and Forth Changes

1) I reeeeeeeally think the librettist workshop should either not be mentioned, or at the very least have a small heading. It is a totally separate part of the BMI Workshop. Normally when people speak about the workshop, they mean the composer/lyricist program that results either getting into advanced or not, they do not mean the librettist workshop. I tried to compromise from a == heading to a === heading. But you reverted that as well.

The Librettist workshop is a completely separate section of the workshop with different teachers and a different curriculum. I think it's potentially worthwhile to mention, but I think for clarity's sake, it should be separated in some manner as it is a completely separate thing.

2) I'm not nearly as passionate about this, so I'll drop it after this, but I really don't think there's any harm in mentioning Adam Mathias. If we say who runs the main workshop (Patrick Cook) and he doesn't have a wikipedia page, I don't see the harm in saying who runs the librettist workshop. Adam has been on the steering committee since 2016 and is a Drama Desk winner and he also is a Richard Rodgers Award winner and a Jerry Bock Award winner for Excellence in Musical Theatre. I've got no skin in the game on if he's mentioned or not, but just because he doesn't have a wikipedia page, I don't think it means he's not notable at *all* or that he's not worth mentioning (but I care much more about the first one, so if it's important to you to not mention him, fine; I just wanted to at least put my argument for his potential inclusion on record.

3) Speaking of "notable," I saw you get rid of some "non-notable" people. But Masi Asare is a tony nominated songwriter. I'm pretty sure she's notable. If the issue is that she doesn't have a wikipedia page, I'd suggest we build her one, rather than get rid of her name, as she is a Broadway writer. You didn't get rid of Dan Elish for some reason, and he doesn't have a wikipedia page either.

You also got rid of Dan Mertzlufft, but I additionally think he is notable. I have a draft of a wikipedia article going for him Draft:Dan Mertzlufft But I don't know if it's good enough/if it will get approved. Wikipedian339 (talk) 03:28, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Sigh. I answered some of this on your Talk page already. If something is not very important, then it does NOT get its own heading. Please stop WP:EDIT WARring. If you think Mertzlufft is notable, you do not understand what WP:NOTABLE means on Wikipedia. For the purposes of this list, it means blue-linked. If he is so important, someone will write a Wikipedia article about him that can survive an AfD, and then he will be notable. Until then, we should not list him. If I make a change, and you disagree with it, please start a discussion about it here on the Talk page, and we can discuss it FIRST, so that there is no more WP:EDIT WARring. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:39, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

It takes two to 'edit war.' I don't feel like I'm doing any more to you than you are to me, though I understand you have more time on wikipedia, so I'm sure you understand all these stringent rules better than I do. I'm also clearly backing down by making questions on the talk page instead of just reverting edits, and any edits I'm doing now are very small. So, I'm not warring. And I don't 100% appreciate the way you're talking to me in different instances (e.g. with 'sigh' and a million exclamation points etc). My understanding is that we're supposed to keep things super civil here, and I am trying my best to do that.

I already responded to you on my talk page about Masi Asare not being included, so you can respond or not. and I guess I'll just start working on a page for her, as she seems pretty notable to me, so if I can get that through AfC, then we can put this to bed without having to go back and forth on that particular point anymore. I don't understand why you'd take her away and leave Dan Elish, who as far as I can tell doesn't have a wikipedia page - that doesn't seem like blanket rules that apply across the board, so I took his name off to match your rules about why you removed her.

As far as whether something gets its own heading, all the time, things are split apart for ease of reading or separating topics without it being 'important'. For instance, on Chenney Carter's wikipedia page: Chennedy Carter within her WNBA section, every year has its own little baby heading. Does that mean every single year is truly important? No. It's separated out to help ease of reading and keep mildly separate things separated. The Librettist workshop is a *wholly* different component of BMI the BMI Workshop and worth setting apart for clarity - even if it's a tiny heading with 4 equal signs on each side. And I don't really know why this specific thing is such a point of contention for you, since I don't see the downside of it. Since currently there only really seem to be 2 of us who are caring about this page right now, I don't know how we reach a 'consensus' on this point (as I guess that's always the goal on wiki)? But I really feel like it would be nice if you could budge on this a little, as I don't think it would hurt the page. And I actually think it would help with clarity of the page. Wikipedian339 (talk) 03:55, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Chennedy Carter's article is not a high quality article, so it is not a model of what you want to achieve. To see some very good Wikipedia articles, look for WP:Featured Articles. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:00, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Okay, so basically, just to make sure I have this straight, you're unwilling to budge on putting any kind of even small sub-heading about the librettist workshop - even though it's a completely different part of the workshop and should be labeled as its own thing for clarity sake/to avoid confusion?

And if you remain unwilling to budge, there's nothing I can do about it because you're more senior than me and if there are only two of us and we can't find consensus, it just gets to be your choice? Wikipedian339 (talk) 04:13, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

I am not more senior than you. I am more experienced here than you, but that does not grant me any seniority if you still disagree. We work by WP:CONSENSUS here. When 2 editors (you and me) disagree (yes, I disagree with adding this heading, as it is IMO not helpful), we wait for more editors to join the discussion to see if everyone can reach a consensus, or we use other Dispute Resolution strategies described here: WP:DR. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:25, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Okay, well, i really wish you would compromise with me on this because I feel like I'm already willing to compromise (e.g. I wanted it to be its own == header, but since you don't think it's important enough, I'm like, oh a ==== subheader will totally do), because it is its own thing, so I think it deserves the clarity.

You also already 'won' on everything else. (e.g. common parlance for "notable" and "notable" in wikispeak are 2 different things, and a list of 'notable' people could include people wikipedia hasn't deemed notable yet. Even wikipedia says red links help wikipedia grow and can be *good* things that encourage new contributors in useful directions Wikipedia:Red link), but you don't want to include a red link for a Tony nominee (someone people should see is missing a page). And you wore me down enough to just shrug and let you 'win,' and I'll just try to make a page for her. etc etc etc.

So, you win. The page is what you want, the way you want. I truly believe a small little subheader of the librettist workshop will help avoid confusion and bring clarity to the average reader to understand it's a separate thing. And this is such a *small* thing to compromise on, after you not really having to compromise on anything else, as far as I can tell.

But if you really can't be convinced/refuse to compromise a little for a small sub-header, then hopefully another editor will mosey along at some point, who, if I'm lucky, will agree with me. Wikipedian339 (talk) 05:02, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

• I’m not sure a sub-heading is warranted here. The relatively short section as a whole works well on its own, and doesn’t need a stubby section to be broken out of it. - SchroCat (talk) 05:17, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

  All right then, sounds like I'm outnumbered, so I guess the consensus is not in my favor. Since you're here, by any chance, do you want to weigh in on if Tony nominee Masi Asare should have a red link in the notable alumni section, since she is what people would commonly think of as notable, and a red link may make it easier to get a page for her as it would help prevent her from being an orphan page? Wikipedian339 (talk) 05:20, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

  If a subject isn't notable enough to have an article, they shouldn't be redlinked. A very quick look doesn't show enough heavyweight third party reliable sources to meet the notability threshold at the moment, although I may have missed something and be wrong. - SchroCat (talk) 06:44, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

  Man. This website is SO hard. The fact that it's an uphill battle to convince someone that a Tony-nominated writer with other awards and shows to her name isn't notable is like... I feel like I'm banging my head against a brick wall.

  But I am deadset on doing anything I can, and making whatever cases I can, to get her on this notable alum list. To me, she doesn't seem any less notable than some people on there already (e.g. Ira Gasman or Helen Park for instance don't seem to be more notable than her as far as I can tell, at least)

  Ultimately, I'll obviously have to defer to consensus, but I'm gonna do down swinging if I go down. Here's the draft article I made: Draft:Masi Asare (including articles from the New York Times and the LA Times). Here's hoping someone agrees she's notable Wikipedian339 (talk) 09:04, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

  As I said, my look was only quick and it's possible I missed things. If you want to 'prove' notability, do searches of Google Scholar, Google Books, the Internet Archive (book section) etc. These are the best places for the heavyweight reliable sources which will help both build up the article and make the notability clear. Newspaper references are sort of OK, but it depends on the content as to whether it meets the notability threshold (a passing reference or appearance in a list doesn't amount to notability, but a profile or interview goes a long way to showing it). About 50 per cent of all article writing is research, so that's where you need to put in the legwork to be able to prove it. I hope this helps. - SchroCat (talk) 09:11, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

  I did do the searches you're talking about. I did the best I could as a novice wikipedia editor. I have a full time job and I'm in school. So, I'm hoping if it still doesn't meet the threshold that someone out there is willing to take the ball and run with it. I hope I gave something at least good enough to build off of, for anyone interested Wikipedian339 (talk) 09:14, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

  Btw, I'm sure you saw, but she got an article: Masi Asare. It's really nice that when I was feeling a little ganged up on, seeing that like 2 people buddying up to make a 'consensus' doesn't mean something's true. And I'm happy others agreed she's as notable as she clearly is and that not only did I (and others) get her on the alumni list, we got her her own page. It was a great day :-) Yay! Wikipedian339 (talk) 19:12, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

  You still don't seem to understand. She is "notable" because she has a Wikipedia article. That is all "notable" means in the context of lists of "Notable x's". -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:19, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

  I don't think there was any reason not to allow a Tony-nominated alum to merely be listed with a red link as a sign she should needs an article, and to exist as a name anyone interested in learning about [colloquially] 'notable' alums of the workshop could google. But it's a moot point now, because she got a page

(p.s. for the record, you can say I "don't understand" or act like I'm an idiot all you want, but I *do* understand, I just disagree. As I've stated many times, I don't see anything anywhere that says "notable" alums (notable as a *front-facing* word to a *reader* of wikipedia who would understand it in its normal colloquial sense) on a page MUST *all* have working wiki links. (And I've seen a number of 'notable' alum lists for universities etc that do have red links.) In earlier discussions, I already linked to a wiki page saying red links can be good an helpful. I already linked to the notability page that talks about notability being a discussion point as to whether someone gets a page, not something that says if someone doesn't have a page they are absolutely not notable. (If that were the case, no one new who doesn't already have a page could ever be notable). So, it's not that I don't understand. It's that you just continuously talk over anything I ever have to say and argue for the fun of it, but you don't ever even *try* to hear a point of mine, you just want to prove me wrong (fine, whatever, I went through the appropriate channels and got her a page, so it doesn't really matter how you interact with me or what you think of me). You and I *disagree*. I'm not a stupid person who doesn't understand things; we just disagree. Forever, I will continue to think she deserved at least a red link and that it was wrong to remove her from the initial list. But again, moot arguments, moot points, because she got her page. Her "notability" has been proved sufficiently to other wikipedia editors who helped. She's back on the list, so reason triumphed and it seems this one issue is closed and we technically don't even have to talk about it anymore, I just gave a long response because you really do get my blood pressure up haha... I have a busy few weeks, so hopefully I'll be able to tear myself away for a while. I can't live feeling this way all the time Wikipedian339 (talk) 04:04, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

"Notability" on Wikipedia has nothing to do with whether something is important. It has to do with whether they have a Wikipedia article about them. If someone is important enough, we are confident that, eventually, someone will write a Wikipedia article about them. Then they will be "notable". One place to try to find people who might be interested in reviewing new articles you write is at the WP:MUSICALS project. You can go on the Talk page there and ask if anyone might like to help out with the article. But you should fill out your citations with Author names and dates of publication where they are missing. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:17, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Yet again, we disagree, surprise surprise.

1st off, *We* are the someones. We can be suggesting and writing articles, not just being confident that 'eventually' someone will. That's one of the many points of being here is seeing what's missing and stepping in and writing it. So, I stayed up all night last night to write my article about Masi Asare, because it's now become my personal mission in life to prove her notability to you.

(Obviously pages that are already made are not the be-all end-all of notability because there are discussions on this website every day as to whether people are notable. As I'm sure you're well aware, the real test of notability is significant coverage from reliable sources Wikipedia:Notability, not whether someone *already* has a page - that's why new pages can be created because new people are getting notability all the time and not every notable person has a page.)

And even if you are confident that people will come along and write articles, leaving red links can help editors to see what's missing. Wikipedia:Red link "Good red links help Wikipedia—they encourage new contributors in useful directions"

To my knowledge, she's the only Black person on the list of notable alumni on the BMI Workshop's Wikipedia page, and she's one of only a handful of women. So it rubs me the wrong way that she's not on there. [I want to make it clear that I'm not accusing you at all of racism nor sexism, but we have systemic issues that aren't going to be fixed if we go with the flow instead of actively fighting against them.]

A list of "Notable Alums," I would think could use 'notable' as we know it colloquially and not as 'only people who have wikipedia pages.' So, I don't see any reason she couldn't be listed with either a broken red link or just no link at all.

But since arguing with you gets me nowhere, I wrote the article and hopefully people are willing to work on it to do whatever needs to happen to make it to the mainspace and then I can finally triumphantly add her back in (and I sincerely hope I'm the one who gets to do it).

[I didn't even know who she was yesterday, but you sure to have a way of getting someone to make opinions and stand 10 toes behind them, and go off and do research about someone because the need for a page is so strong. So, I guess all the better for wikipedia since it's lighting a fire under me to get a page done for a deserving person] Wikipedian339 (talk) 21:21, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Missing Alums

For anyone who's interested/has the bandwidth, here's a list from BMI that highlights their alums: https://www.bmi.com/theatre_workshop/entry/notable_shows_by_bmi_workshop_members

[I know we probably can't use that as a source, but we could use it as a jumping off point to find sources to back the rest of them up]; there are definitely some people on BMIs list that aren't on this wikipedia one. (Some may already have wikipedia entries, some may not.) [Not that they *have* to match completely, I just think ours could potentially be expanded, again, if anyone has the bandwidth/desire]

The missing alums I can see (when comparing to the link above) are:

- James-Allen Ford (no wikipedia page, someone can see if he's notable enough, if they're interested).

- Russ Kaplan (additionally, no wikipedia page, could be notable enough if someone wants to check into it).

- Robert Brittan. He seems to be an alum from the '60s so it seems to be a little harder to find info about him readily. He was the co-writer of Raisin (based off a Raisin in the Sun) if anyone is interested in taking it on to see if there's enough on him for a page

- Dan Elish I think also is a Broadway writer without a page

- Bruan Crawley, co-writer of violet doesn't seem to have a page (I doubt he's the Irish politician, although you never know, would be kinda cool if he was)

And as far as I can tell, those are all the missing alums from the list that BMI published of alums who've written for Broadway (which would probably be the alums most likely to be notable, though there are a number of missing off-broadway writers at the same link https://www.bmi.com/theatre_workshop/entry/notable_shows_by_bmi_workshop_members, if anyone is interested in doing some deep dives as some of them certainly could be notable as well). Wikipedian339 (talk) 18:59, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Redirects?

I don't know how redirects work (and I hope I'm even using the right word/language here) and how many are normal. But I'm wondering if it's possible/advised to land on this page when people search "The BMI Workshop" or "The BMI Musical Theatre Workshop" as both of those names are often used colloquially (certainly might be someone's initial search as definitely not everyone looking it up would know the full name of it), and I think the easier someone's search can be the better. (But feel free to ignore if not relevant) Wikipedian339 (talk) 21:35, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

BMI Workshop already exists and redirects to Broadcast Music, Inc.; I've set up BMI Musical Theatre Workshop to drop onto this page. - SchroCat (talk) 07:38, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Can BMI Workshop be changed to redirect to this page instead since that's almost certainly what somebody would be looking for who looks that up? Or no? Wikipedian339 (talk) 18:43, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

I think I've fixed it now. Works OK? -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:03, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes, thank you so much Wikipedian339 (talk) 19:07, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

What was wrong with 'how the workshop functions' as one of the headers?

I agree it's not perfect, but is it not better than 'operation'? To me, operation isn't the most appropriate word for that section. It explains how the program works - like most of the section is how people apply and how they progress... which is what the old heading evoked. So what's the issue? Wikipedian339 (talk) 20:30, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

To my eye it fails the MOS restrictions on titles. - SchroCat (talk) 20:37, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm reading the Wikipedia:Manual of Style sections that have to do with titles and I don't see what the problem is. Can you please cite your specific issue at hand that you think goes against MOS? Wikipedian339 (talk) 20:44, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

The old title was clunky and included repetition of "the workshop", which we shouldn't keep saying. I think operation is a distinct improvement, from an encyclopedic point of view. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:47, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

"Academics" was also wrong, partly for the reason given in the revert, and partly because "academics" can be mistaken for a group of people who work in a university. - SchroCat (talk) 21:00, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Oh my god. It is so so so so so so lonely on this wikipedia page with it only being the 3 of us and you two always being in cahoots. Anyway, organization doesn't make sense to me. I know the workshop is not like a degree-granting institution, but it is educational. And on Harvard's page for instance: Harvard University organization is like governance, endowments, divestment. That's the kind of stuff 'organization' evokes, not the pathway from applying to what is studied in with a mention of concerts that are put on. Is there not a yet more appropriate word you guys could possibly just maybe compromise on? Wikipedian339 (talk) 21:19, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

The Harvard University article has been failed for GA more than once (which is hard to do), because it is not well written. Again, if you want good models, look at WP:Featured Articles. Academics certainly implies a university setting, rather than a workshop, and the section includes things like that BMI provides performing opportunities to the workshop participants. So, if you don't like the current heading, come back here with some proposed alternatives for which you can make a strong argument. Please add publication dates to your refs, which help one search for the article if the url goes dead. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:29, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Okay, how about instead of calling the section "Organization" which for most people evokes more of like how boards are formed or investments etc, we call it "Programs"? Could you get on board with that? Technically, there are multiple programs covered in that section (the main initial composer/lyricist workshop, the advanced workshop, the librettist workshop, and even the public-facing performances are kind of their own thing). I think that's more in line with what that section is actually about and more descriptive for someone coming in not knowing anything about this subject, trying to navigate their way around Wikipedian339 (talk) 02:50, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

It's not called "organization". It's called operation, which is just a more efficient synonym for the old title of "how it works". Programs would be confusing, because we describe the workshop as "a program". The section is a description of the operations of the organization. So, for these reasons, I think the current heading is pretty clear, when a reader wants to know basically what they are going to read about in the section. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:14, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Sorry that I misstated what it currently is, but I think 'operation' is actually even worse and even more confusing. But unsurprisingly, it doesn't seem like you're interested in collaborating or compromising on a different title. So, I guess I won't waste my breath and hopefully maybe someday more people join this conversation with some kind of compromise in mind instead of you ending up getting to be the sole voice who makes decisions on this page since the only other person who ever pipes in on here always just sides with you Wikipedian339 (talk) 15:17, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedian339, can you please read and try to remember WP:AGF. While every editor's opinion is equally valid, SSilvers is an experienced editor who is knowledgeable on the MOS and knows how to put together good content. Rather than sniping at them, please try to learn from them. - SchroCat (talk) 15:21, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

There have been *multiple* instances where he has not assumed good faith in me, or where he has been adamant that he was right but he wasn't (e.g. telling me I made an "assertion" that wasn't in the cite, but if you go to the cite itself and search for 'advisory committee' it's in there. So, then I have to re-do work I already did on the page because he implies I'm lying about something being in a cite when it was right there. Or, telling me in all caps to "STOP and pay attention to what I'm doing" when I was *fixing* a quote that was attributed to the wrong person. In the end, we learned I was the one who was reading the article and I was correct, but it didn't stop me from getting yelled at in the process (even though my edit was the one that stayed and he was the one not 'paying attention' to who was actually saying the quote), or when he undid an edit of mine on another page to say something was a YouTube musical when it *wasn't*. It was broadcast on television and my cite didn't say otherwise (and he didn't add one that did). So, then I had to re-do that work as well. Everybody makes mistakes and that's fine, but these don't feel like random little mistakes. What it *feels* like from the evidence mounting is that this is someone who does not take me seriously, *assumes* my edits are wrong, and certainly doesn't assume my good faith or assume I have anything valuable to add (even though I've been working hard and adding many valuable things!). I do not think I'm smarter or better than other wikipedia editors, but I don't think he is either. I haven't had a problem with anybody else on here. I've been gracious and thankful to others for help and have been learning from a lot of people. But it's hard to 'learn' from someone who doesn't *seem* to respect the idea that I might have something valuable to add - who doesn't *seem* to want to actually be working as collaborators.

I understand what wikipedia has guidelines, but guidelines are guidelines. There is clearly a lot of wiggle room on various things. For instance, just to name one, the name of this section doesn't *have* to be "Operation." I think there has to be a clearer word and that operation is not truly indicative of what is in that section. I even suggested one alternate because I try to be a problem solver, not just a problem-pointer-outer, but I'd be open to others too, of course. But it feels like every time I have an idea on this page, instead of thinking 'is there maybe common ground that does work toward getting this knowledge out to people clearly', it's just 'nope, nope, nope, this is how it is'. I feel consistently shut down on this page. So, I hear what you're saying, but I don't really want to be told to assume good faith if people aren't assuming mine Wikipedian339 (talk) 15:51, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

tl;dr. I'm not going to go through a Wikipedia:Wall of text that's nothing more than he said-she said. This is a project that needs you to work with other people, not charge about trying to force things to be done your way and then for you to complain and/or edit war if you don't get your way. Try asking nicely and building bridges - and when a much more experienced editor who knows how to produce good content is explaining why things have to be done in a certain way, take it on board. If you don't, then your Wiki life is going to be frustrating and short. - SchroCat (talk) 16:22, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

You don't think there's any value in more on what people they chose and what they teach?

I understand maybe paraphrasing or trimming, but you don't think there's any value in what was there before? Just as people are interested in average SAT scores etc for Harvard etc, if a school specifically states 'we don't look for craft, but we look for potential' (which is very similar to what one of the steering committee members said), I don't think that's an advertisement, that's an interesting piece of what they're looking for/how they choose their initial class, no?

Same with *what* they teach. Again, I understand paraphrasing or trimming some, but there's no encyclopedic value to understanding that they value traditional musicals etc? Just as people would want to know Juilliard values traditional music and Berklee values contemporary pop music, BMI valuing traditional musicals and their opinion on how music functions in a show has some relevance, does it not? Wikipedian339 (talk) 20:36, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, which means we're supposed to summarise the key points, not regurgitate every point about a subject we can find. - SchroCat (talk) 20:38, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Okay, well, I think it would be nice then if instead of just completely undoing what I did after I'm spending so much time reading about this workshop, if you just said 'summarize this' and asked me to rephrase (or rephrased yourself) instead of making me hunt for what I did to work backwards to improve it Wikipedian339 (talk) 20:42, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Encyclopedias are not a list of things that are relevant about a topic. They are a summary treatment of the most important facts about the topic. If people are interested in further detail, they can read the articles cited. If you can make a good case for why a fact is particularly important, people can consider your argument. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:53, 11 June 2024 (UTC)