Talk:Bernard J. Taylor

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Cult following[edit]

Simply pointing to a yahoo group as evidence of a cult following constitures original research. We need a secondary source that says Taylor has a cult following to support such claims. Rklawton 04:05, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

see references below

Musicals[edit]

We need sources other than the subject's own website to support claims made in this section. Reviews would be especially useful to readers. Rklawton 04:11, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See references below

Tone[edit]

This entire article needs editing for neutrality. DurovaCharge! 18:28, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Various sources/references: There are many sources of references to support the basic details of this profile. In addition to The Virgin Encyclopedia of Film and Stage Music, quoted in the references on the profile page, googling Bernard J. Taylor produces many independent references, including the following:

Hungarian reports and reviews of recent Budapest production of Much Ado:
http://www.szinhaz.hu/index.php?id=1266&cid=25457&libri=1
http://www.zene.hu/programok/reszletek.php?id=17238
http://www.tex.hu/index.asp?page=event&IDevent=8016
http://www.metro.hu/kultura/szinhaz/cikk/102554
http://www.2zsiraf.hu/index.php?a=2_5&programid=380&PHPSESSID=69862...%3Fref%3DFuckonly.com
http://3kerulet.fidelitas.hu/index.php?
http://www.musicalinfo.hu/article.php?id=264
http://theater.hu/?mode=hirek&sub=H&cikk_id=2016
-unsigned edit by 24.93.115.165 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

That's fair enough, but it doesn't remove the need to edit for neutrality/accuracy/selectivity (for instance, the gushing quotations from positive reviews - I don't see the Dallas Morning News review of Liberty! The Siege of the Alamo [1]). There are a few other naughty omissions: if I'm not mistaken, all the books appear to be self-published through rebadged incarnations of iUniverse. And according to the Virgin source, Neighbors and Lovers was self-produced because no-one, not even on the amdram circuit, was interested. Gordonofcartoon 21:58, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Biography citation[edit]

{{fact}} tag restored.
1) We have no sourcing for the rest of the details - birthplace, education, world travels.
References have been provided for the background to John Taylor, the missionary. Taylor traces his lineage in his biography, "Feasting With Panthers". To ask for a authenticated full family tree is a little absurd and impossible. What's the point?

2) How exactly does Cox, Jeffrey, Missionary Writing and Empire, 1800-1860 (review), Victorian Studies - Volume 47, Number 1, Autumn 2004, pp. 108-109 ([2]) prove Bernard J Taylor's descent from the missionary John Taylor? Since it's a survey of writings of the early 19th century, unless JT was very clairvoyant, I doubt the guy mentioned BJT as a relative. Gordonofcartoon 02:49, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is pedantry of the worst kind. Is there a hidden agenda involved? The gratuitous comment on Neighbours and Lovers is sarcastic and pointless (as are the comments above), and suggest an animosity that is not in keeping with objective editing. The fact that he produced it himself proves nothing to its detriment, since it received highly favorable reviews, as have most productions of his musicals. There have been more than 40 productions of his musicals worldwide to date, and they have been translated into Spanish, Polish, German, Hungarian, Romanian and Italian. - unsigned comment by User:Artwinters (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
It's not pedantic to expect published proof of biographical claims. The only agenda is expecting that the article abides by the normal standards of verifiabiity, and isn't used as some self-aggrandizing promotional vehicle. Feasting with Panthers will do for the bio material. Do we have a birth year? Gordonofcartoon 14:13, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality and quotes[edit]

I've posted a Request for Comment on the neutrality issue. I started cleanup, but am unsure how to deal with the review quotes. While useful as descriptions of the works, they appear to be selected as a "best of " and come across collectively as promotional. How to deal wth it? Omit? Quote less extensively? Attempt to compile a representative overview of reviews of each work?Gordonofcartoon 14:08, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think Gordonofcartoon has done a pretty good job of editing for neutrality so far, and has shown reasonable neutrality of his/her own in doing so, but if he wants to compile a "representative overview of reviews of each work", why not use the Virgin Encyclopedia of Film and Stage Music as a guide. Or those magazines specialising in musical theater? With regard to the comments about Liberty, I have made some inquiries about the Dallas Morning News review of the production there. I have been informed that there was a bad (disparaging) review. However, the other daily newspaper (The Star-Telegram I believe) had a completely different take on it, suggesting that a group like Six Flags should make a permanent attraction of it in Texas. It should also be noted that the original profile presented neither review Artwinters 15:22, 30 June 2007 (UTC)Art Winters.[reply]

"Virgin Encyclopedia of Film and Stage Music as a guide".
That'd be good. I haven't so far been able to find a copy locally. This picking of individual reviews is always going to be problematical - which to choose? - and, even if you could sample the lot, how representative would that be? Now that I think of it, my local paper never, ever, gives poor reviews to local theatrical productions - it'd be bad politics in a small town - and I'm sure the same applies elsewhere.
I've also been looking at entries in Category:American musical theatre composers, and it is not standard to quote reviews. In comparison, their use here to describe every work in glowing terms comes across as extremely promotional, so I've removed them. Gordonofcartoon 02:19, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2013[edit]

The above discussions suffer from opacity: the first version was a direct copyright violation of the bio in the Virgin Encyclopedia of Film and Stage Music, and the copied content still provides the backbone of the article. The only question is whether to surgically remove those passages, or to speedy delete this as having always been a copyvio. Incidentally, most of the references discussed above, and those used in the article now, are not acceptable reliable sources. 99.156.66.72 (talk) 00:42, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As the resultant articles is quite clearly a derivative work, I'm afraid we couldn't really excise the content. I've also removed most of the links for the reason you describe. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:01, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problem removed[edit]

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: Virgin Encyclopedia of Film and Stage Music. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:01, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bernard J. Taylor. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 13:23, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bernardjtaylorfan[edit]

Bernardjtaylorfan who has made multiple edits could well be the person about whom this article is. Social media posts reveal that he listed the update and later incorporated an update about one of his collaborators. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.159.118.182 (talk) 22:00, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bernard_J._Taylor&oldid=1199361819"