Talk:Church Music Association of America

message: I think that the title "Church Music Association..." is a bit misleading, since this organisation only represents one church. Why isn't it called the "Catholic Church Music Association" (we'll spare them the Roman prefix)? I notice that they feature an Anglican Use on their website. Do they co-operate with other churches? Ausseagull (talk) 14:59, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Inclusive?

message: I did a little copyediting - typos, minor rewording, and the like.  These rewordings are just suggestions; please revert or change them if you like.
A few things:
*Please go into edit mode by clicking "edit this page" on the CMAA article page.  I've left some comments and questions in the article.  In case you haven't run across this before, you can insert editorial comments within the article text like this: .
*The article uses passive voice a lot: "was held," "was elected," "was named," "was drafted," "were chosen," "was attended," "became editor," "the location has been CU."  I've always been taught My teachers always insisted that active verbs made prose stronger.
*"The first general meeting of the CMAA was held in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, August 28, 1966 at the conclusion of the convention held in conjunction with the Fifth International Church Music Congress sponsored by the Consociatio Internationalis Musicae Sacrae, an international sacred music federation founded by Pope Paul VI in 1963."  That's quite a mouthful.  How about "In 1966, the Consociatio Internationalis Musicae Sacrae, an international sacred music federation founded three years earlier by Pope Paul VI, sponsored a convention in Milwaukee, Wisconsin in conjunction with the Fifth International Church Music Congress.  At its conclusion, delegates held the first general meeting of the CMAA."?  (Note the linking of important terms.)
I know you haven't had a chance to do much with my earlier suggestions (not that you're obligated to), so I'll stop here. Peirigill 22:31, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I'm so sorry for waiting so long. I'm working through addressing these points. Many changes already made I've made many changes. Cmaa 21:45, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyediting

message: :Image:David-CMAA.gif 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 ensure 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 21:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:David-CMAA.gif

message: Dear fellow editors, 
Thank you for your contributions to this article.   In case any of you are new to Wikipedia, I invite you to review "The file pillars of Wikipedia", which outlines the principles behind the encyclopedia.
I say that because some of the text in this article sounds like promotional material, and does not express the neutral point of view which Wikipedia strives to maintain in all articles.   Any opinions (favorable or not) stated in a WP article should be attributed to the sources which have published them.
It might be helpful for some editors to review the pages about what Wikipedia is not.  Among other things, Wikipedia is not a place to promote anything.   It is intended to present articles containing reliably sourced facts -- that is, facts already published in some reliable, independent, third-party source.   As much as possible, please cite sources.
Some of the references in this article do not really fulfill the proper purpose of a reference.  The purpose of a reference is to present a citation which supports the facts asserted in the article.   But some links being added as references do not do that; they are mere general web sites about persons referenced.   If proper references cannot be found to support assertions, editors are free to remove unsourced material in order to conform to WP's quality objectives. 
Thanks again for expanding this article. --Chonak (talk) 03:07, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Promotional tone