Talk:Jordan Waring

This article was nominated for deletion on 2006-09-07. The result of the discussion was keep.

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Vanity article?

This appears to be a vanity article, inasmuch as the only substantive contributions are by User:Jordanwaring. I have not proposed it for deletion, for unlike many other autobiographical articles posted to Wikipedia, Jordan Waring does seem to be a notable individual. However, assertions of notability would be much stronger if someone other than the subject himself saw fit to write about him. Marc Shepherd 21:08, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article needs published references showing dates, publishers and/or web URLs. It is not clear at this point if the information in the article is reliable. Please do not remove the tags until the article is properly referenced. If references cannot be found for the article, it will have to be proposed for deletion.

I added some web links from a publisher site and Amazon, but independent reliable sources, such as independent newspapers and other published sources are needed -- Ssilvers 13:58, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a vanity article as I have only ENTERED what was already written by someone other than myself. Apart from some small, unimportant factual information (such as the fact I live in Europe and continue in banking) everything else was written by someone else. Thank you for your contributions -- jordanwaring 16:40, 7 September 2006 {UTC}

The proof that it is not a vanity article would be that you can show actual cited sources. It is also highly suspicious that no one but you found the subject sufficiently notable to write about it. Marc Shepherd 14:45, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am in the process of figuring out how to cite the sources for the information, and appreciate your patience since I am new to wikipedia. Thank you very much for your kind suggestions and contributions. Regards Jordan Waring

An article about a modern art composer is of interest, I think, even if you only have a handful of major pieces that have been performed. All you need to do is put, under the heading "References" a verifiable list of the newspapers that have reviewed you, showing the location and publication date of the reviews so that someone could look them up if they wanted to. Also, if your piece was nominated for a Pulitzer, that information must be publicly recorded somewhere (probably on the web), and a reference could be added. As Marc Sheperd wrote, it is difficult to be objective when writing an article about oneself, so that is why putting in the references will help here. Best regards, -- Ssilvers 15:00, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks S and Marc both. I am in the process of figuring out how to add these citations. Since my grandfather was quite well known in the musical field, and I enjoyed some success as well, it was suggested to me that I put up some of this information on Wikipedia. I had no idea I would offend some so much by doing so, but appreciate the constructive criticism and edits. Kindest regards, JW

For a whole bunch of reasons, it's usually considered a bad idea to write a Wikipedia article about yourself. Please don't take this personally—it's not meant that way—but a sure sign of importance in the encyclopedic sense, is that other people consider it worth their time and effort to write about you. Other people are far more likely to have the necessary detachment and objectivity that it's impossible for you to have about your own accomplishments. Lastly, when you write about yourself, there's a strong likelihood you're going to rely on information that only you know, and that cannot be readily verified by others.

Your grandfather, of course, is a different story. There is a quite meaty article about him, to which many other people (besides you) have contributed. Editing an article about one's grandfather is not quite as problematic as editing an article about oneself. However, there is still the concern that you're not likely to be entirely objective about a family member, and you might be influenced by "inside information" that others cannot verify. Marc Shepherd 15:23, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You raise some really good points. I guess no one thought my music was notable enough, and I definitely regret putting the article up in the first place now. Probably best to let it delete. Thanks for taking the time to try to help. Kindest regards to you! JW

Pulitzer Prize

Was 1996 the year that you were nominated? I've had a look here, but I think that's just the three finalists. One problem, though, is that this section says that many people claim to be nominees by entering, and the Pulitzer website says something similar - did your entry go any further than this stage? Bob talk 15:13, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it was 1996. All I knew until now is that I got a call from the Pulitzer office which said someone had submitted a piece of mine for consideration. I know I didn´t win, but knew nothing beyond that about the selection process, nor do I know who put my work in.

Autobiography

I have restored the "autobiography" tag for these reasons:

Virtually all of the substantive content has come from the subject. (A few other editors have made copy-edits while not adding any new content.)
There still are statements in the article that presumably came from the subject (where else could they have come from?) that are unsourced.
Even when statements are sourced, when the subject is the person selecting them, he naturally will only select those sources that portray him in a favorable light.

In other words, the fact that there are sources does not mean the article is NPOV. It only means that the article's lack of neutrality is better concealed. The editor who proposed removing the tag apparently confused autobiography with lack of sources. A sourced article is still autobiography when the subject has done most of the writing.

Has Jordan Waring ever received unfavorable reviews? I suspect so: anyone reviewed at any frequency will receive negative reviews sometimes. But when only Waring himself is adding content, it's a safe bet that, if negative reviews exist, we'll never see them. Marc Shepherd 20:47, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect to Marc, I believe he is neither correct nor justified in his assertions that this article is autobiographical, although much of the content was entered by the subject (myself). While it is true that most of the substance of the article came from me, I was merely quoting sources from articles, FULLY referenced, about my works and life. I think to call that autobiographical is very disingenious. The NPOV of the article is, in my view, not really disputable, and Marc is taking a position that is simply not supported by fact or evidence. I propose that the autobiography tag be removed, and would ask an administrator to please settle this debate once and for all. Although I entered this data, I did not write it. That means, simply put, it is not autobiographical, save some filler data (readily attainable). If it will settle the argument, I would be happy to remove the very few items that are not DIRECT quotes from reviews and biographies, in other words, with no contributions from myself.

As far as negative reviews, please feel free to enter any you can locate, Marc. Jordanwaring 10:44, 20 September 2006 (UTC)Jordan Waring[reply]

Removal of Autobiography tag

I have removed the Autobiography tag for the following reasons:

1. All substantial material on the page was NOT authored by Jordan Waring (myself). Therefore, it does not qualify as an Autobiography.

2. All substantial material is sourced and readily available on the internet for independent verification.

3. Just because someone enters information into Wikipedia (or any other online encyclopedia for that matter) doesn´t mean they wrote it. I can´t take credit for writing ANYTHING online that I quote, otherwise it´s plagarism. In order for this to be an autobiography, I would have to have been the author of the material.

4. SUBSTANTIAL revisions to the article have been done by other wikipedians, including additional sources.

Lastly, I will add that Marc Shepherd continues to go against other users who have made additions or changes to this article, and stubbornly refuses to acknowledge the edits and removals of even an administrator. I would suggest that if this continues, user be discontinued from having editing ability for this article. Can we please get an administrator involved? Jordanwaring 13:50, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Remove the Autobiography tag. Mr. Waring, although I have assisted you in finding web references for some of the material on your page, much of it is NOT reliably sourced. Do not threaten editors on Wikipedia. Shepherd makes extensive contributions to Wikipedia. You, on the other hand have contributed only your own autobiography and your father's and information to your Grandfather's biography. The statements you make above are mostly untrue: 1. You are the source of the information for this article. 2. To the extent that you quote favorable reviews of your work, we cannot see if these quotations are characteristic of most of the reviews of your work. 3. It is NOT true that all the information is available on the internet. I have been asking for weeks for you to merely tell me what city The Harbinger is published in, but you have neglected to do so. Your conclusions in "3" above are not correct. It appears that you have only produced a few substantial, reviewed works of composition, and none in over 10 years. Your continued postings to the talk pages about this article hurt your case. If Mr. Shepherd renews his AfD application, I will be forced to vote to Delete this article because of your failure to tell us the city where the Harbinger is published. -- Ssilvers 14:19, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I haven´t threatened anyone, including Mr. Shepherd. Please tell me what parts of the article are NOT reliably sourced. While Marc Shepherd may make substantial contributions to Wikipedia, that does not mean that he is right in his statements above. An administrator removed the Autobiography tag, so did other users, and for some reason you and Marc Shepherd seem to be bent on restoring it. I am sorry for not answering where the Harbinger is published (Mobile Alabama). I have applied to have the article blocked from editing until this dispute is resolved. Jordanwaring 14:31, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps someone also should ask for Waring to prove he exists. This is clearly becoming an edit war. I request all further editing be suspended until an administrator can settle the disputesJordanwaring 14:34, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted to the version from Administrator Blanning. I request that no further changes to this article be made until the dispute is settled Jordanwaring 14:41, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you leave the autobiography tag pending the administrator's further advice, I will refrain from making further edits. Thanks for the info in The Harbinger. -- Ssilvers 14:46, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Although I believe that the version we should use is the version edited by Wikipedia Administrator Blanning, in the interests of averting a more headaches, I will leave it for now pending intervention. I have requested this article be suspended from edits pending Admin intervention. Jordanwaring 14:49, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stop bolding "Wikipedia Adminstrator" as if it's important. My removal of the tag was done as an editor and is no more binding than anyone else's edit. However, I support Mangojuice's reasoning for removing the tag (see below). --Sam Blanning^(talk) 15:17, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies to you and bold removed. Sorry for the violation of etiquetteJordanwaring 15:22, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Autobiography tag

I'm removing this again. Here's the problem: whether or not this article was written by Jordanwaring isn't really the important thing. That tag is more for leaving on autobiography articles no one is bothering to edit, just in case there's an issue. Since editing here is active, it's not really appropriate. For better or worse, Jordan's writing has now been edited by others, so it's not correct to say that the content is suspect because it came from him. The autobiography tag also specifically describes "problems with WP:NPOV:" is there a neutrality dispute on any specific content here? If so, tag the article with {{NPOV}}, identify the dispute on the talk page, and work on it. If it's sources that are the only issue, use {{unreferenced}}. The autobio tag is just causing contention and is impeding progress here. Mango juice^talk 14:54, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I'm concerned, it is an autobiography. A few of us have removed blatant POV and copy-edited, but virtually all of the substantive content has come from the subject. One could quite easily look at the edit diffs and see that this is the case.

Jordan is confusing autobiography with sourcing. A public figure like George W. Bush could write his autobiography, and he could quote zillions of sources who've written about his life. It would still be an autobiography, because he is the one choosing the content. In this article, nearly all of the substantive content has been selected by the subject. We have no idea what he has chosen to omit. Jordan, are you telling us you've never gotten a negative review in your life? Beethoven and Mozart got negative reviews, so if you never did, that's a remarkable achievement.

I am sure the admin who removed the {{autobiography}} tag only looked quickly at the edit history, and did not see that most of the content is still coming from only one source–the subject. Although admins do have some authority that us ordinary editors do not, when it comes to plain-old editing, they have the same standing as other people.

Usually, the sign of a non-autobiography is that other people besides the subject care enough about it to contribute material to the article. People like Ssilvers and myself have contributed only by removing unsubstantiated material and rewording other material for NPOV. It remains the fact that nobody but you cares enough about the subject to actually add to the article. Marc Shepherd 15:00, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) (I take it "you" refers to User:jordanwaring.) I looked through the history, and like you said, I haven't seen any material added by others. But everything seems quite well sourced (except the basic biographical details part) and written in a neutral tone, and I searched but didn't find much to add. Could you explain your {{tl|NPOV}] tag? What, specifically, do you think is not presented neutrally? When I look over the article, the only evaluative claims at all are the ones in the "critical response" section, and those are specifically sourced. The only slightly suspect part is the "conservatively tonal" comment, which is cited from Amazon but falls under "product description," which may mean it comes from the CD case or something, in which case that should be mentioned in the reference. Mango juice^talk 15:11, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You neglect to mention that you are not the only two users who have made edits. You are wrong when you assert that "nobody cares enough about the subject" to write about it. While we may all think otherwise, Wikipedia is not the world. I have demonstrated in the article that plenty of people cared enough about the music to comment on it. I have been reviewed, I have been recorded, I have been published.

Furthermore, I think that ALL POV stuff has been whittled down to the bare minimum. Does everyone get negative reviews? Surely. I have been fortunate that my works have been extremely well-recieved, but surely somewhere someone has written something bad about it. I sourced everything I could find for this article, and I again ask you to please demonstrate anything to the contrary. You´re free to contribute to this article as well.

At this point, I think that the POV has been addressed ad nauseum, but apparently there are some (you and user Silvers) who do not. I´m sure that with an admins help, this will be addressed. Jordanwaring 15:08, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I support to Mangojuice's explanation of why the autobiography tag is no longer needed. If there are still concerns with neutrality that justify alerting readers, then {{POV}} should be used and justified. "The subject has written it, therefore it must be POV" is not sufficient; the sections of the article which are disputed and/or the verifiable and relevant information which has not been included, must be laid out. What are they? --Sam Blanning^(talk) 15:21, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality

Has the dispute over neutrality been sufficiently settled? If not, can those who feel there are parts in the article not NPOV point them out so that other users can address them? Thanks Jordanwaring 15:42, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The question has just been asked. Normally on WP, editors should be given a few days to respond. After all, it took you several weeks to respond to my repeated requests for information about the Alabama newspaper quote. Best regards, -- Ssilvers 17:01, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken. Thanks and kind regards 88.11.43.194 17:23, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion

I have flag this page for deletion because there is nothing notable about this person. --Eezurr (talk) 14:49, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]