Talk:Postminimalism

message: Postminimal, Post-minimal, Postminimalism, Post-minimalism???!??!? Someone help. 
Hyacinth
:Personally, I see no point in the hyphen, and have never used it. Kylegann 21:02, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't care one way or the other, except that it should be consistent. So I changed them all to postminimalism (just to indulge User:Kylegann ;-)  ) and moved the article. —Caesura(t) 21:32, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Spelling

message: Shouldn't the recent output of Glass and Reich be considered "postminimalist" by now? I am thinking of works like for example Glass's Concerto for Saxophone Quartet and his more recent Concertos or Reich's City Life, which brings me to Heiner Goebbels and his Surrogate Cities. Another postminimalist? -- megA (talk) 23:11, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes and Yes again.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.163.93.85 (talk) 20:09, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  more Postminimalists? 

message: John Adams gets the post-minimalist label while Glass IS STILL CALLED A MINIMALIST? Give me a break. Besides Adams WAS a minimalist for most of his career and is still much closer to the movement than Glass, etc...  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.163.93.85 (talk) 20:09, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: This is simply ridiculous

message: I strongly disagree with the editor who deleted the additions of my name (david toub) and galen h. brown to the list of postminimalist composers. Both of us have been referred to as such by no less an authority than Kyle Gann, and my intent was never self promotion but rather inclusivity. Several of the people on your list are folks most of us have never heard of, yet they're on there. That's fine, but you deleted Galen because he wasn't deemed significant enough by someone on Wikipedia-on what basis? Similarly, I was taken off because I don't have a wikipedia entry and it was felt I was self-promoting. This is nonsense, and I now see why Kyle is fed up with the inconsistencies and factual inaccuracies on wikipedia. --Dtoub (talk) 03:45, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I was not the editor who removed those two particular names, though I did remove two others not long ago, for the same reason. If there are reliable third-party sources documenting notability of any of these artists, including yourself, it should be simplicity itself to establish articles that would result in additions to this list turning up as bluelinks. This is the usual procedure on Wikipedia and, though it may seem "nonsense", there is a good reason for it: Simply inserting information that we "know to be true" amounts to asserting that we are knowledgeable Authorities, but all articles on Wikipedia are by design anonymous, and so everyone's opinion counts just as much as everyone else—experts and ignoramuses alike. Therefore, reliable, third-party sources are the only way to establish facts of any sort, including notability. Of course, it is not usually advisable for the subject of an article to attempt to write it him/herself (autobiography is strongly discouraged), but it is usually not difficult for the notable to find other willing hands to accomplish this task.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 05:05, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

text: CDs are not sufficient by themselves, though they may help—especially if they include liner notes written by someone other than the composer. Newspaper reviews of concerts are better, or published interviews, and articles in peer-reviewed journals are best of all (they need not be exclusively dedicated to the subject, so long as they substantively deal with it/her/him). All of these demonstrate that someone other than yourself is interested in your work. (Blogs, on the other hand, are not generally acceptable.) I wasn't sure whether we were speaking of composers or visual artists, to be frank (the names I recently removed were visual artists), but I think it ought to be slightly easier to establish credibility for composers. The inclusion of names in a simple list such as the one found here depend on whether articles elsewhere on Wikipedia have been established (hence the bluelinks). The tacit assumption is that, if those articles qualify for continued existence, there must be reliable sources cited there.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 02:07, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: An article and/or some reviews, a notable prize, a notable award or a grant from a known source or from a foundation, important public venues, and any other secondary sources that you can provide...Modernist (talk) 05:38, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

text: Re-added the lists with several references. More can be done for sure...Modernist (talk) 15:14, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Deletions

message: Why and where does this article need additional citations for verification? What references does it need and how should they be added? Hyacinth (talk) 05:53, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I see a few claims without citations, though whether they are sufficiently controversial to require them may be open to question. One suspects that the blanket banner was placed in response to the many names in the lists of postminimalists that are not verified as belonging in this pigeonhole. I pruned the music list yesterday, which had a great many specific challenges dating back to February. The list of artists does not have line-by-line challenges, but only half of them are referenced.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:52, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

text: Tag removed. Hyacinth (talk) 21:52, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: More footnotes