Talk:Anita Carter

Fair use rationale for Image:AnitaCarterRingOfFire.jpg

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

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

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 12:44, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Instruments

Current listing states vocals and bass. There is video evidence that she also played guitar.

PCB 9 Feb. 2013 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.237.45.159 (talk) 18:27, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Tags

I have tagged the article for {{Cleanup rewrite}}, {{Lead too long}}, {{Essay-like}}, {{Fanpov}}, {{Tone}}, {{Peacock}} and {{Weasel}}. In fact, all the problems I see have been introduced since 26 December: the new content is unencyclopaedic and unverifiable. I propose to revert to this version this version. Dorsetonian (talk) 21:03, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

All the content shown since the 26 December version mentioned has citations to published references. So, calling the content "unverifiable" is not accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.68.111.73 (talk) 22:06, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm afraid Anonymous. (nd). Historic Dates in the Career of the Carter Family. Carter Family Fan Club publication is not a verifiable or, by the look of it, reliable reference. Tennessean newspaper, p. 1A, 10A is meaningless. Davis, H. (2004). Anita Carter: Appalachian Angel. Bear Family might be verifiable if I had a copy of said book in front of me - but where is the link to the book so I could obtain it, and what page should I look at? Not a single one of these references you have added is verifiable. Of course, even if the references could be checked, the content is unacceptable anyway: it is very far from the objective, formal prose required of an encyclopaedic article. Dorsetonian (talk) 22:41, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi and thanks for the response

The first reference you mentioned is a print publication from the Carter Family Fan Club. It is a single sheet issued by the fan club. A print copy could be obtained by writing to the fan club. Would you like the address? I notice that this reference was used years ago on other Wikipedia articles about the Carter Family and its members and its legitimacy has never been questioned. So, my collaborator and I thought it was acceptable. It would be helpful if you identified particular things from the source which you think are erroneous.

The second reference you mentioned does look incomplete. That may have been an editing error. The full reference is as follows: Orr, J. (1999). Carter Sister Anita dies @ 66. Tennessean, July 30 p. 1A; 10A. I have a paper copy of the article. You could likely access the same by paying the newspaper for a copy from their archives.

The final reference you mentioned is available for purchase by anyone. It is included in a box-set of Ms. Carter's recordings. It could be obtained at this link, for example: https://www.amazon.com/Appalachian-Angel-Recordings-1950-1972-1996/dp/B0001Z6418/ref=sr_1_5?keywords=anita+carter&qid=1577749508&s=music&sr=1-5 The publisher, Bear Family, is a commercial outfit but highly regarded as a leader in old-time music restoration and research. You asked about page numbers from the book. Do you believe the citations mentioning this reference should include page numbers? Traditionally inclusion of page numbers is reserved for direct quotations. Page numbers could be easily added if you think it would be helpful.

Finally to say that the content is "very" far from objective, formal prose is confusing. Could you cite examples of where you believe the content is biased and/or too informal? That would be most helpful to improving the article I think.

Sincerely — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.68.111.73 (talk) 23:58, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

The boxed set of recordings accounts for a quarter of all the references, yet it is is a primary source. A fan club is a primary source also. These are not independent of the subject, and therefore not likely to be objective.

You ask for examples of inappropriate prose - fundamentally it is all full of superlatives like this:

Many comments have been made about Anita Carter’s voice. One writer offered that her “haunting soprano” was “capable of enormous subtlety and range of feeling” A lot has been said about Anita having the best singing voice of all those in her musical family. Some have claimed that she “could out sing all the women of her day.” All sorts of interesting words and phrases have been used to describe Carter’s vocalizations. Some said she had “absolutely the prettiest voice.” Some disc jockeys called her “miss goose bump voice.” “Pure as springwater,” “angelic,” “amazingly pure, crystalline, clear,” “versatile” and so many other descriptions have peppered conversations about Ms. Carter’s singing It may be that singer Waylon Jennings offered the most straightforward description. His thoughts were reprinted in People Magazine’s End of 1999 Wrap Up which was published shortly after Carter’s death:

She had the most angelic voice. She would open her mouth, and it seemed to be effortless. She could captivate you, just sitting around with a guitar or onstage with a full orchestra; either way it was just her voice.

The various problems are explained for you in the links within the maintenance tags at the head of the article.

You say you are working with a collaborator. In what context? Working with a collaborator without on-wiki discussion is unusual. If you have a conflict of interest you are expected to declare it. If you are being paid directly or indirectly you must declare it.

Dorsetonian (talk) 00:48, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello again

The two references you mention at the beginning of your response are used repeatedly but they are supported and supplemented by other references. If you have a specific claim in mind about objectivity I think you should identify that specific claim. Blanket claims of subjectivity within a heavily referenced piece of writing can not be fairly met with a rebuttal. It would be most helpful if you listed a section heading, line, or quotation from the Wikipedia article with which you have disagreement.

Regarding use of superlatives: You highlight the introductory section of the article. This is a fair description of how the subject of the article is usually described. Perhaps it is too flowery but it is supported by citations to multiple references and with multiple types of references. I will gladly consider toning down that portion of the article. I would also say that articles (wherever they are published) about entertainers very often include language like this. Entertainers are described in this way all over Wikipedia, in print articles, in print encyclopedias, in books, etc.

I have read the tags and am familiar with Wikipedia policies. I frankly think that the tags have been over applied and that it is more helpful for an editor to identify specific issues within an article.

The context in which I am collaborating on this article is not relevant to the discussion we are having on this talk page. There is no conflict of interest to declare and there is no payment for services. There is also no requirement for anyone to use an on-wiki discussion.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.68.111.73 (talk) 01:29, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

ADDENDUM: In an effort to fairly and thoroughly address your concerns about the Davis (2004) book I carefully examined the book and can add the following: * The author of the book is Hank Davis. He is a music producer who has won awards and he is a retired professor of psychology who holds a doctorate level degree. Mr. Davis lists his primary sources for his book on page 46 of the title. One of those sources included work by Otto Kitsinger who was an attorney and a country music researcher, writer and journalist. Another source listed was Colin Escott, an author of at least 15 books about music. One of those books won a Grammy award. I would also ask that you take note of the fact that two of my references come from a peer-reviewed scholarly journal: https://trove.nla.gov.au/work/33621631?selectedversion=NBD25586871 In short, I believe that the reference list presents a good balance between popular sources, news paper articles, magazine articles and scholarly books.

I am hopeful that we can continue the discussion and find a good resolution to the issue. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.68.111.73 (talk) 03:14, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

The section I highlighted was the first of the main article but it was not the introduction (lead): that it also excessive in tone. I have quoted a section I see as problematic but you have asked for another: the problem is, it is all fundamentally flawed; I see your request as an attempt to limit the scope of the issue. We fundamentally disagree about this so I have asked for an uninvolved editor to come and offer a third opinion. Dorsetonian (talk) 10:20, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

I like your idea about involving other editors. I'd like to frame the issue as follows. I have asked repeatedly asked you to identify subjectivity in the article. That is one issue. I understand that you have issues with the writing style or tone as well. I think it would serve us best to stick to one issue at a time. For example you have never answered my questions about issues you identified on three of the references. I tried to answer your questions but you did not answer my follow up questions. Instead you shifted to questioning whether I was being paid to write the article. So, yes. We do need to limit the scope of the issue to one item or category at a time. Otherwise we are simply spinning wheels in the mud. I will say again that as a contributor I have added information to an existing article using a variety of published resources which are available to the public. None of the references are cryptic. Any person on the planet could acquire, read and evaluate the resources. The references represent a wide, balanced set of information about a non-living entertainer. I have added no "new" information about the person. All items in the writing are cited with support of references the likes of which are commonly used in most any published piece of writing, including in long-existing Wikipedia articles themselves. The existing tags, in effect, represent overkill. I do not believe you have provided any justification as to why the tags (singly or as "multiple issues") should remain in place. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.68.111.73 (talk) 12:39, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Third opinion request

Hello, I've picked this up from WP:3O. I'll read through the discussion and the article before commenting further. In the meantime, if either or both of you wish to make a brief statement to summarise the issue that might help us get started. My thanks. FrankP (talk) 12:33, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Comments by 199.68.111.73

Hi FrankP

I just posted something immediately previous to your post. To summarize again I think the tags placed on the article are too broad. I think they were initially placed there arbitrarily as evidenced by the fact that Dorsetonian initially took issue with revisions from one date on the article and later changed that date to catch previous revisions. IF content before December 30 was once ok then how did it suddenly become "not ok" four days later?

It would be most helpful to the article if individual items within the article were questioned and/or recommended for revision.

You will find that the sources used in the recent revision for the article are all published, and publicly available, pieces of writing. They range from newspaper articles to magazine articles to peer reviewed articles from journals to popular books to academic books. In fact some of the specific, individual resources Dorsetonian has proposed erasing entirely by going back to very old versions of the Wikipedia article in question are in use all over Wikipedia in multiple other articles. So, the question becomes why are those references appropriate for articles on X, Y or Z but NOT appropriate for this article we are discussing?

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.68.111.73 (talk) 12:51, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Comments by Dorsetonian

I encountered the changes being made by 199.68.111.73 (talk · contribs) during recent change patrol; IMO the new content was highly problematic and irredeemable - but I tagged rather than reverted in order to get additional opinion. Thank you for now taking that on! Above, I proposed to revert only this IPs recent changes but it has become clear that they are working in tandem with 152.27.57.2 (talk · contribs) (from the style of writing, and the comment "my collaborator and I" above) so further propose to revert that IPs change on 24 December as well, restoring the version of 20 December.

My view is this: the additions since then are a series of unquestioning superlatives, far from the objective and neutral prose required of an encyclopaedic article. It is written in the style of the personal reflection of a fan or associate of the subject to such an extent that it is essentially spam from start to finish.These changes consist in their entirety of weasel words: it is likely that Anita Carter was the first female country music entertainer to appear on American Bandstand; puffery: two of her original recordings were famously covered by other artists to become country standards, White and Anita included a beautiful duet and editorialising: while Anita Carter is not historically remembered as prolific or commercially successful a songwriter as her sister Helen, she did write a number of good songs; sadly, many of those session details have likely been lost to history.

The writing contains obvious passion and there are outlets for work such as this - but Wikipedia is not one of them.

Dorsetonian (talk) 15:10, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Follow Up

"Working in tandem" with another Wikipedia user is not in violation of any Wikipedia policy.

As previously noted, entertainers are frequently tagged with "superlatives". So and so was the first ____. She is remembered as the best ___. He was widely regarded as ___. All those claims have citations to published references.

Weasel words: It is likely that she was the first female CM entertainer to appear on bandstand. While I did not cite the Wikipedia article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_acts_who_appeared_on_American_Bandstand I did cite a published reference listing the year in which she appeared. As detailed in an earlier reply to Dorsetonian that reference is available to anyone by purchase. I also detailed the writer's qualifications as well as listing some of his primary references.Judging by the Wikipedia article she predates other acts shown on the list.

Two of her original recordings WERE famously covered by other artists. In fact there is a Wikipedia article dedicated entirely to one of those: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_of_Fire_(song). It seems to me that the citation of one Wikipedia article within another is not a very academic practice. So I cited external references. Again, those references are available for anyone in the public to read.

About songwriting: It is true that Anita is not traditionally remembered as a songwriter. One of the citations, Zwonitzer is actually strong enough on that point to stand on its own. I cited two additional references for clarification.

Sadly many of those....lost to history: The entire paragraph about her studio work contains six references. Do you propose deleting the sentence about the session details? If so, that may be a fair point.

As far as passion goes: I contend that I have made citations to published references throughout the entire article.

Thanks— Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.68.111.73 (talk) 22:00, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Ok, hello both of you, thanks for bringing it this far. Now, I've had a good look at the issues and I do have some preliminary observations. But first, I see how well you've both been doing to keep it civil so far, let's try and maintain that. I'm getting a sense that patience might be wearing thin, please, let's just take it easy and air the issues without spiralling into something, OK? Also, if you can, I believe it will be really helpful to indent comments and sign them when you're done because that makes the conversation so much more readable for anyone who sees it later. FrankP (talk) 18:26, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

So, there are a great many points of detail that we should and will get into, but I suggest we have to take them in some kind of logical order to get through them all. We can't just dive into the weeds and get gnarled up in a battle over the reliability of The Tennessean (or whatever). I can see two immediate priorities:

• I do believe there is a serious debate to be had over the neutrality of this page
• However, adding so many tags might not be the best approach (I'm not saying they weren't added in good faith)

At the heart of the issue, I think, is that the fact that it is true must be balanced by the question of whether it is notable. I suggest reducing the tagging on the page to just {{cleanup}} and {{POV}}. The other tags can be moved here as a reminder of the specific issues raised. Then let's start talking about notability and just what needs to go into this article, giving due weight to good sources and trying to reach towards a sensible structure with an impartial tone. Only then, I suggest, should we be having the back-and-forth over this source or that source, etc.

Lastly, I think we should draw attention to the page from places like Project Country Music, Project Women in Music, etc. If we can't get a consensus on our own, I would guess it should posted to NPOV Noticeboard. But I know they have a backlog over there, so it is worth having a go before doing that. Those are my first thoughts and I'm happy to help if I can to sort it out (although I must confess I'm not any kind of Country expert, despite enjoying Johnny Cash's music greatly!). FrankP (talk) 18:41, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Response to FrankP Thank you so much for your input. I think your comments have given way to what could be a constructive path for improving an article without simply trashing it out of hand. I look forward to seeing upcoming reduction of the tags. Then I think it will be appropriate for me (or other contributors) to try to work on the point of view/neutrality. My goal is to educate readers about the subject of the article in a scholarly fashion. Following that (as you suggested) then I think more specific discussions within the article itself will be in order. I will respectfully refrain from making any further edits or contributions to the article until we hear from Dorsetonian. Sincerely END OF COMMENTS — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.68.111.73 (talk) 20:06, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

I will comment later today. Dorsetonian (talk) 13:28, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

I would like to make some observations, and make an offer/proposal if all three of us can agree to it.

199.68.111.73: to some extent there have been some misunderstandings. For example, I cited "puffery" above, in two of her original recordings were famously covered by other artists to become country standards and you retorted two of her original recordings WERE famously covered by other artists. At issue was not the fact that artists have covered her songs, it was the way it was written: "famously" (which I bolded) was puffery. (The same might be said of "to become country standards".) The encyclopaedic way to make this statement would be entirely neutral, stating only the facts: "Her song X was covered by A and her song Y was covered by B". This is the kind of language which pervades all the new content and which makes it inappropriate in tone. Similarly, when I cited "editorialising" in sadly, many of those session details have likely been lost to history I was not disputing that details have been lost, I was making the point that we do not judge the event to be sad but simply state that it happened.

On the other hand, there are clearly some fundamentally opposing views between us. She is remembered as the best ___ is not ok at all, it is classic WP:PUFFERY - see that link for just this kind of example, and why she was the best selling U.S. artist of 1972 might be a better and acceptable alternative. If you have seen such content, it does not mean that the the policies and guidelines can be ignored, it means those articles need fixing too.

In addition to these issues, FrankP has said the fact that it is true must be balanced by the question of whether it is notable - in other words, he was drawing your attention to avoiding trivial detail.

So, there are a number of issues with what has been added and the way it has been written, plus the referencing needs to be looked at (making it more accessible, and using proper wiki markup). It seems clear to me that you have a passion for the subject which is getting in the way of objectivity; in such circumstances Wikipedia says you really should be contributing to other areas of the encyclopaedia. However, we might be able to work together with FrankP acting as arbiter if he is agreeable. I don't know if it will work in practice, but I'm offering to give it a try. IMO there is too much to do with the current page to try to fix it; what I suggest is that we revert the page to the way it was on 20 December as I previously proposed (which will remove all the tags also), but then slowly work it forwards again by you making a series of changes which are small enough to discuss in turn. This is likely to be at a much slower pace than you would like, but I don't have the commitment to the article that you do and there is no deadline. Rolling the page back in this way does not lose your edits permanently - they will remain in the page history and can still be seen there.

If you agree, there are a couple of other things I would like to happen. You are not required to create an account, but IP addresses change and I would want to know your edits from any others - therefore, I also request that you do create an account and edit under it. The other is that I fully understand your connection to the subject. I am not prepared to collaborate if you have any conflict of interest beyond a fan's admiration for them. In regards to your collaborator - you are right, that is not of itself a problem and we are not required to discuss on-wiki our collaborative efforts, but to be collaborating with another editor you know off-wiki does ring some alarm bells as to the nature of your interest in the subject, and could also expose you to claims of meatpuppetry in certain circumstances. Therefore I also request that you confirm both your interest in the subject and your connection with your collaborator - if not here in open forum, by email to me at least (you should be able to email me, possibly only with an account, via an "Email this user" link at my user page.

I, too, agree we should also bring in some of the other interested project groups to watch over this also. For myself, I have no knowledge of this subject and would see myself only as your foil, to help ensure balance.

Is this an acceptable way forward?

Dorsetonian (talk) 19:34, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

BEGINNING OF COMMENTS Response to Dorsetonian and FrankP

Hi

I think we should follow the suggestion made by FrankP (1) That the tag bombing should stop (2) That the tags should be limited to POV and cleanup. That is an essential part of the third opinion request response which was asked for by Dorsetonian. I also think that any interested party should be allowed to make edits to the article. That is standard practice, i.e. the very notion of a "wiki." If I make edits I will follow FrankP's suggestions regarding neutrality.

Also, " in other words, he was drawing your attention to avoiding trivial detail." I don't think you can or should speak for FrankP. Neither can I, nor should I.

Finally, I am very disturbed by your continuing to bring up charges of conflict of interest and your new charge of possible metapuppetry. I have very clearly stated that I have no conflicts of interest.

Also, I would remind everyone that Wikipedia contributors/editors ARE NOT required to create an account. Why would it be important to be able to identify my edits from all others? What difference should that make? If the edits are good it does not matter who wrote them or who made the changes....again the fundamental philosophy of "wiki."

Also, I am very cautious about accepting your offer to e-mail you regarding this article. You may have entirely good motives but I find the offer DEEPLY disturbing in the context of editing a public Wikipedia article. I do not think that any Wikipedia policy provides for a "foil." Would that not make you my collaborator and have you not expressed misgivings about my working with a collaborator? Why would it be acceptable if you were the collaborator?

So...In summary: Dorestonian, I think we should both follow the suggestions made by FrankP in his response to your own third party request. Then, whatever happens to the article moving forward happens. That is the nature of a wiki. Also, I want to make sure that I am not offending you by turning down your other requests but I will emphasize that they seem highly irregular to me and they make me very uncomfortable. I am not being judgmental of you. You are likely a very fine person but I do not customarily make e-mail contact of the type you described in a forum such as this. Others may do so but I elect otherwise.

END OF COMMENTS — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.68.111.73 (talk) 23:41, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

I can clarify my own view a bit further on some of these issues:

• I do think the tags that have been added represent real issues, so I did not intend to dismiss them, rather I thought we might move them here (or list the issues here) as a reminder of what we have to work on. I think it will suffice to reduce the tags on the article to POV and cleanup because this is enough to retain the multiple issues status and seems to cover in general terms what is under discussion. But the tone of the article has become fanpov, there is puffery, and so on.
• I didn't express a view on reversion or not, in fact the idea of reverting to 20 December and working forward makes some sense, but so might working from what we have now. I'm not expressing a preference right now because I think there needs to be significant prior discussion about what the article should be like. I think we need to get that clear first.
• I'm not sure how much I can commit to the article in any long-term sense. It's not an area of expertise for me. I came really to express an opinion. Every Third Opinion request is different, but as a process it is most effective when an uninvolved opinion is needed to decide a relatively well-defined question in dispute. This goes beyond that. The logical next step will be a referral to NPOV Noticeboard
• It's not required to make an account, but it is recommended and will help the process of discussing progress with other editors. At the moment we're having a conversation with an IP address, which feels a bit odd. Please consider it. I can see why Dorsetonian has made the enquiries he has of you regarding your neutrality and so on. And collaborating is ok, of course, Wikipedia is a collaborative enterprise, but there is a strong culture of making that collaboration open and accountable.
• The main issue for me is the limits of notability. Not everything which Anita Carter did in her life is likely to be notable or encyclopedic. Now, there is no formal limit on a biography's length, but what this article has become does seem disproportionate. The article size in bytes was less than 6,000 until April this year, then increased to 11,000 until edits from 199.68.111.73 expanded it to over 36,000. That's a lot of extra content. Is it justified? She now has more written about her than June Carter Cash, five-time Grammy winner and the writer of Ring of Fire along with (notably) being married to Johnny Cash. The only other member of the Carter family with as long an article is Mother Maybelle, but checking the revision history of that page we see that a series of edits by 199.68.111.113 starting in February this year took it from 12,000 bytes to more than double that, and it has continued to grow to its current size of 41,000 bytes. Which leads me to think it might be necessary to check through that page and see if it too has become bloated with un-notable facts. It also raises the question of whether one or more editors are trying to systematically puff these articles, in succession, behind the screen of a small number of IP addresses. It's quite reasonable to ask about that.
• Notability. Anita Carter is notable, I guess, for having three top-ten hits and being the first to record Ring of Fire. That's the basis of her notability, in that if she had not done those things she would probably not have an encyclopedia article. On top of that, we should add some extra context so the reader can understand who she was and where she fitted into the musical scene she was part of. But most of the really detailed detail should be on a fan site not on Wikipedia.

That's it for now. FrankP (talk) 14:38, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, FrankP. I broadly agree with your assessments, which you have elucidated more ably than I. I thank you for offering a third opinion!

I believe we agree the changes to this article made between 24 and 30 December 2019 need to be sorted out one way or another; the question which remains is what actions need to be taken to do that. Neither of us claim expertise or interest in the subject and anyway the onus is on the original poster - but they do not seem to accept there are any problems, and have refused my offer to work with them. As such, the only remaining options I see are immediate rollback ("To revert widespread edits (by a misguided editor [...]) unhelpful to the encyclopedia, provided that you supply an explanation in an appropriate location, such as at the relevant talk page") and/or your suggestion of referral to the NPOV Noticeboard. Personally, I remain of the opinion that the recent edits to this article should be removed sooner rather than later, and before they get difficult to rollback due to subsequent edits - but you wanted a significant prior discussion about what the article should be like before forming an opinion on that, which the NPOV noticeboard may be able to provide. In addition, this option may widen the scope to the other articles which may be so affected. In the case of the Maybelle Carter article, I agree that these edits from various 192.68.xxx.xxx addresses between 17 February and 4 March 2019 added a large amount of trivia and fancruft and I have tagged that one accordingly (this time, only for fanpov and over-detail).

Dorsetonian (talk) 14:42, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

I'd be OK with that if you want to choose a previous point which makes sense to revert to. I have opened a new section below where we can work on cleanup. If the tags are no longer accurate (after reversion) I'll add a note linking to the diff that they do apply to. As you correctly pointed out, the newly added material will still be preserved (and obviously quite a bit of effort went into it, for good or ill) and could be assessed by any other editors who we can get to review it. I'm happy to post about it in relevant forums like Project pages, and we would only need to try a different route if we can't work things out somehow here. FrankP (talk) 16:38, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

I would revert to this version from 20 December - before the recent additions that added the current problems with tone and the like. It is desperately under-referenced but I believe it would be better to start there than where the article is now. I don't see any need for maintenance tags at that revision apart from one for additional references. Dorsetonian (talk) 17:58, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

I will action this. FrankP (talk) 19:06, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Very many thanks! Dorsetonian (talk) 08:58, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

HELLO TO BOTH It is untrue that I have not accepted that there are problems regarding the article in question. Any viewing of this transcript will demonstrate my willingness to discuss, ask questions and concede. I understand and appreciate the comments that have been offered. I have expressed my willingness to improve the article; that would include limiting the material in the article and changing the point of view/clean up. What I take exception to is being accused of outlandish things, having my contribution called "spam" and being solicited for unnecessary personal information. In the edits I made there were citations to a number of reputable, non-primary published resources. I will not make judgments about Dorsetonian's locus of control but I would invite Dorsetonian to consider that there may be other issues of subjectivity and bias at play.

I did not "refuse" Dorsetonian's offer to work with me on the article but I have to say that the offer was couched in ever-increasing wild, baseless accusations. Also, I continue to be troubled by Dorsetonian's unnecessary and unwarranted solicitation of private information from me within that context. He has tired to lure and pressure personally identifiable information from me within a forum which does not require such information. To quote from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_anonymous: "Remaining anonymous is your right." It may sound melodramatic or spiteful but I think that certain passages from this talk transcript may show probable cause for a cyberharassment complaint. I would respectfully invite FrankP to comment on that before I move ahead.

So: Here is my summary. We are not deliberating a death penalty case. We began with a disagreement about my adding to an existing Wikipedia article. Dorsetonian solicited a third opinion. I believe that FrankP offered a reasoned, thoughtful, compromised solution to the disagreement. That involved reducing the tags to two and then moving ahead on the article. Dorsetonian has patently refused to follow the recommendation. I have expressed my willingness to do so over and over.

END OF COMMENTS — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.65.240.115 (talk) 16:41, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't wish to be placed in the position of mediator between editors on behavioural matters. I came to give an opinion, which I have done, and that opinion was on content. Now I see myself as being just another editor here. I'm not neutral, I'm sure I have my share of biases. If you do feel you have been the subject of "ever-increasing wild, baseless accusations" then there are proper channels within Wikipedia for you to seek redress. As another editor (not a mediator) it's my personal opinion that I cannot see anything beyond reasonable enquiries from Dorsetonian as well as a wish to focus on content. I acknowledge that a term such as meatpuppetry can be pejorative, so perhaps I would myself be cautious about introducing it as being liable to inflame a potentially sensitive situation, but it's clear that it was not an accusation. I don't believe anyone has tried to "lure" or "pressure" you.

Both of us have made polite suggestions to you about why there are good reasons for creating an account. In actual fact is it "you" to whom I am replying? The IP on this comment appears to be 68.65.240.115. Perhaps another person has decided to muddy the waters by posting as "you". Ultimately of course the decision is yours on that. But we can state our views. Could we move on? To dwell on these issues is to be distracted from the content. There remains the possibility of working on that instead of just letting our "wheels spin in mud" as you put it. FrankP (talk) 17:34, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Cleanup needed

As discussed above there has been some disagreement over how to develop this article, especially from the perspective of maintaining a neutral point of view and ensuring notability. I have reverted article to this revision from 20 December 2019, with the exception that I kept some recent additions to Category and Authority Control in the page footer. It's not that this particular version is in any way special or even good -- it may well need improvement and might benefit from additions. But the severe problems with the large amount of content added between 2019-12-20 and 2019-12-30 really make it infeasible to make progress without setting a clean slate.

I'm posting notifications at relevant projects / noticeboards (e.g. Project Country Music, Project Women in Music, NPOV Noticeboard) to see if we can get some further help with the article. Editors wishing to help might have a look at the revision history as there is very likely worthwhile material there, which might need cleanup to meet encyclopedic standards. FrankP (talk) 20:00, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

The last revision of 30 December 2019 had been tagged as suffering from the following issues:

Lead too long

There is specific guidance in the Manual of Style on the structure of a biographical lead section. That would seem like a good starting point.

The opening paragraph should usually state:

1. Name(s) and title(s), if any (see also Wikipedia:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility)). Handling of the subject's name is covered below in § First mention.
2. Dates of birth and death, if found in secondary sources (do not use primary sources for birth dates of living persons or other private details about them).
3. Context (location or nationality);
4. The noteworthy position(s) the person held, activities they took part in, or roles they played;
5. Why the person is notable.

The lead also devotes a large amount of space to Elvis Presley rather than Anita Carter.

--Reverend Banjo (talk) 10:46, 23 July 2021 (UTC)