Talk:Johnny Cymbal

Neutrality of article

The article on Johnny Cymbal (now being disputed) was well researched and written by Michael Rashkow (Cymbal's former songwriting partner) and Rex Strother ( a knowldgeable musician and record producer) with substantial assistance from the Cymbal family, Austin Roberts and Jack Gale among others. The dispute is likely the result of his first wife, Carol Cymbal being unhappy with the final editing.

While there might be other choices of photos and or videos that could be made and/or some very minor other points she has complained about, the writers feel that this article accurately represents the life and career of Johnny Cymbal and stand by their representations as accurate, balanced and fair.

[REX] I concur. This piece is fair. It is pulled from many sources, most of them close to Cymbal. I worked on the final edits, and have no relationship with the deceased, and nothing but a neutral point of view, except to believe JC was talented and deserving of Wikipedia inclusion. I have communicated both with Carol Cymbal and Michael Rashkow.

Would anyone who has problems with the article's neutrality be so kind as to spell out what the issues are? GBrady (talk) 13:22, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

It has been over a year and no one has given any more input on this discussion since? It looks to me like the neutrality issue has become a non-issue. Whoever objected has been given over a year to give specifics and have not. It is time to move on. Rod Lockwood (talk) 16:13, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Last sentence "California" section

" Wes Farrell later cut the tune with a girl group for a TV show ??Cattanooga Cats?? and it was released as a single [??on Chelsea??], but went nowhere."

My personal opinion is this looks really bad in what should be an authoritative article on Cymbal. I understand if the writers are not sure WHICH TV show and label the song were used on but it would probably be better to omit that material for now and have someone add it back in when it can be sourced. Anyone else agree? GBrady (talk) 13:27, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it looks bad. Also are the details really that important anyway? It failed, so the specific information is not likely to be missed. Rod Lockwood (talk) 16:07, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Problematic wording "Nashville" section

In that section there is this:

"What effect this latest disappointment had on Cymbal is not known, but it might be fair to say it was likely the last meaningful music he made as an artist, though his writing career continued as before. Over the next decade his music regularly graced the country music charts. "

What is 'meaningful' meant to mean in this context? Is the writer trying to say Cymbal was writing songs just for the money and they weren't personal artistic expressions? If so, it would be better to reword it so that's clear and substantiate with a quote from Cymbal or someone close to him if at all possible. If the writer has suggested the songs aren't "meaningful" because they're country music, then that's the writer's genre bias showing (which should be removed for NPOV reasons).

Either way, I think it's not exactly clear what is meant by the statement. GBrady (talk) 13:32, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

The “might be fair to say” part should just be left out. It isn’t fact, just speculation or opinion. A period should be placed after “known” and the rest of the sentence deleted. Rod Lockwood (talk) 16:00, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Deleted, as described above.Guyburns (talk) 09:31, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Proposed complete rewrite of article

This feels very much like putting my head inside the lion's mouth, but this article needs a complete re-write, and I guess it might be best to get the defense in first. While I appreciate that a lot of work has gone into the entry, by people who clearly have a great fondness for Johnny, the article simply does not fit in with Wikipedia's rules and guidelines. In no particular order, though the first is the most crucial:

• It's not encyclopaedic, as far as I can see it breaks a considerable number of Wikipedia's guidelines and rules throughout; if necessary I'll provide refs to those I can see, but it's some reading!
• spelling mistakes and grammar; the article even finishes in mid-sentence!
• a complete lack of citations or references for any statement made in the article. It's all very well to quote Gale, Tobin etc, but where exactly were these quotes published, so they are verifiable (a major criterion for a Wikipedia entry). If they're not published, then they have to come out. If they are published, then provide citations, or they come out anyway. You can't just say "Subsequently, according to newspaper reports ..."
• unverifiable, meaningless or 'mealy-mouthed' statements: examples "Johnny Cymbal made a meaningful impact on popular music worldwide" "First and foremost, Johnny Cymbal thought of himself as a songwriter" "Though he was an excellent vocalist with a wonderful stage presence, he believed his greatest talent was composing" "Those who knew him best say Johnny was an extraordinarily intelligent, unpretentious, affable person who had a great sense of humor and a head for business" "Austin Roberts who was a very good singer as well as a writer" ....
• It's not an article about Tobin. Pretty well everything concerning him needs to go into his own article, not here. The same applies to a number of other 'guests' in the article.
• Information that the author isn't even sure of: "Nick (possibly Nikolas) Cymbal" "While the chronology of his early music business years is problematical, it is said he was discovered by" "Then, as Gale recounts, "... Johnny and Lawrence flew in to Philly" with some of John's tapes. That history may or may not be accurate." "It's uncertain in which order the following events took place" "with a girl group for a TV show ??Cattanooga Cats?? and it was released as a single [??on Chelsea??], but went nowhere" (this one was raised before, and had supposedly been fixed - see postings above)
• complete irrelevancies (this is getting long, so just a couple of examples) "Gale was empowered by, and responsible to, the Surrogate Court for handling John's financial affairs and as Gale relates, "had to get approval for every purchase of a shirt or a suit for performances." "John himself stated that he also "worked in a shoe store" as a salesman during this time" "Michael Rashkow, a recording engineer at Costa's studio and "would-be" songwriter, who coincidentally had recently been signed to the writing staff at Pamco Music, the BMI wing of ABC/Paramount"
• Phrasing: "written about Johnny's birthplace in Scotland), which didn’t fly"
• waffle: lastly (and I apologise in advance for having to use a sensitive quote as the example) paragraphs such as : "Peggy Clinger died of a drug overdose at her home in Boulder, Colorado. Of Clinger, Although Johnny and Peggy had broken up as a couple before her death, his discouragement at their LP's failure and his depression at the news of Clinger's passing sent Cymbal into an emotional and physical decline for several years during which he drifted into the Hollywood drug culture ultimately hitting bottom. Fortunately, he went into rehab, and with the assistance of his former wife, Carol, he rediscovered his Christianity, obtained professional help, and over the next few years was able to overcome his addictions and make a complete recovery" belong in a biography, not here. Without meaning any disrespect, it's over-information, has little relevance here, and compeletely unverified. "After Clinger's death, some time after they had parted, Cymbal suffered mental and physical decline for some years before recovering with the help of his faith and former wife, Carol." pretty well sums it up (but still needs verifiable sources).

This article is simply an overblown mess, and nothing short of a complete rewrite can address the issues. It's not supposed to be a biography, just an encyclopedia entry for what is essentially, a minor artist. An entry of comparable length to that of Elvis or Dylan is preposterous.

I'll leave this for comment until 1st October, then re-write. Apologies for any concern this is going to cause Brieflysentient (talk) 00:10, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

If you are going to undertake this ambitious task, I suggest you do it slowly, perhaps updating one section at a time, to allow for feedback and/or discussion. Editors who have already contributed may not like to see their work deleted or changed, and IMHO you should not underestimate the task you are setting yourself. Hohenloh ⁺ 09:32, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure that this would work as a piecemeal change if stripping out the clearly non-encyclopaedic material meant a reconstruct would be necessary to leave a concise article. As a result, I'd planned to sandbox it as it gets done, to allow comment and prevent a series of ever scrappier article changes until it's 'complete'. Perhaps the process might shake out to being able to replace sections at a time, but if not then there's no mass/mess change to the entry until people have had time to digest and comment. The scale isn't the problem, more trying to achieve a consensus as to what belongs and ending up with a far neater article. Thanks Brieflysentient (talk) 16:26, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

File:J Cymbal.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:J Cymbal.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 14:27, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Johnny Cymbal entry rewrite (see above also)

I've uploaded the draft of a rewrite of the Johnny Cymbal entry, following my rationale in the entry a bit above this. Hopefully it's a more concise, Wikipedia-rule-following entry, but any comments and suggestions are welcome.

User:Brieflysentient/Johnny_Cymbal_draft_rewrite

I expect it to take a while to polish, especially as I'm short of time and have to dip in and out - there's a lot of reference/citation work still needed. My feeling is there's still probably a bit too much there, but I'd be comfortable with leaving what's in in (if you see what I mean). And apologies in advance to anyone who's work has been scalped, the reasoning is above, and I don't think there's any doubt that as it stands the article isn't suitable. Brieflysentient (talk) 15:42, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

This is clearly a MUCH better article than the one posted -- more concise, far more readable, and much more in keeping with Wikipedia policy. I nominate that it replace the article currently posted. 74.12.53.44 (talk) 18:58, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Johnny Cymbal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070926231900/http://search.atomz.com/search/?sp-q=%22JOHNNY+CYMBAL%22&sp-a=sp1000ee84 to http://search.atomz.com/search/?sp-q=%22JOHNNY+CYMBAL%22&sp-a=sp1000ee84

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:09, 26 April 2017 (UTC)