Talk:Robert Steadman/Archive 1

message: DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.
This archive page covers approximately the dates between October 17, 2005 and November 7, 2005.
Post replies to the main talk page, copying or summarizing the section you are
replying to if necessary.
Please add new archivals to Talk:Robert Steadman/Archive02. (See Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.) Thank you. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 00:07, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

message: This seems to be an edit war over whether to include links to Times Educational Supplement board threads purportedly involving composer.  Please discuss this question on this talk page for a bit. I've protected the article from edits for now.  The protection isn't intended to endorse any one version. --Tony SidawayTalk 18:07, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Protected

message: "British composer, conductor and educationalist."  I note that the BBC prefers the descriptor "Derbyshire music teacher".  There's not much evidence of notability here, and in places it certainly reads like a user page.  Is it indeed autobiographical, perhaps?  Alai 18:22, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  To me it seems that this guy is just a posh music teacher who writes interminably to almost every newspaper and web forum going (I found a Robert Steadman in the Guardian letters page and on the BBC).  Now he's found Wikipedia.  Hooray for us! --Tony SidawayTalk 18:33, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I think that's a bit harsh - he's written pieces for the Royal Philharmonic Orchestra, Evelyn Glennie, an anthem used at the Dunblane Memorial Service, etc. Sure, he might be a "posh music teacher" but I think this is a genuine composer who should have a page on here.
I have read the guidance on notability, and concluded that there is a very strong probability of autobiography here. By the criteria by which material should be objectively judged, this article does not merit retention, and should be deleted in its entirety. Posterity will tell whether this man's work is of any lasting value: certainly there is little evidence of it being taken up in significant levels of professional performance, mainstream commercial recording, or favourable peer review. What is the basis for inclusion, let alone an article of the scope and detail that is found here?
How famous does one have to be to be famous?  What's the criteria?  I'm just asking because the same 'persons'? who built this page have been busy adding Mr Steadman's name to lists of 'famous' people across Wikipedia.  He is one of the famous people of Basingstoke and  a famous student of Keble Oxford.  Now, apart from the TES, I have never heard of Mr Steadman.  I wonder how many residents of Basingstoke know of his musical work and his tireless campaigning on behalf of good causes?  I wouldn't dare suggest that he be removed from these lists - Mr Steadman is very fond of threatening legal proceedings and he has already accused me of stalking him.  He has even suggested that those 'stalking' him on the internet are sending him hate mail and I don't want to provoke him any further - see his threats against me on my user page.  I was just wondering if he does merit the celebrity status that he claims?Crusading composer 19:03, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

text: There's no hard and fast rule, just a number of guidelines, proposals, and ad hoc community standards (and on occasion, divergent individual ones).  Go to WP:AFD and you'll get a decent (if that's the adjective I'm looking for) feel for the nature of the process.  The WP:Music guideline I linked to in the section below seems the most relevant here.  Other common litmus tests are the "average college professor" (is someone more well-known than), various flavours of "google tests" (it doesn't look so good if you don't show up on the web, or only on your own pages), publication, appearance in the print media, etc.  Alai 20:06, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability 

message: Could this be the source of the continued vandalism? 
http://www.tes.co.uk/section/staffroom/thread.aspx?story_id=2141626&path=/Opinion/&threadPage=1
Have a look at posts by "grouch" in particular.
Vhjh
Vhjh/86.136.239.9, can you make your talk page additions in some sort of chronological order, and sign them with ~~~~, please?  Thanks.  Firstly, "vandalism" is not synonymous with "edits you don't happen to like".  Whether they're appropriate, or accurate, is another matter, but this is an editing dispute, not vandalism per se.  I infer from that thread that a) Robsteadman on the TES forum at least claims to be the Robert Steadman of this article, and also claims not to be any of the BT Internet anons (such as yourself) largely responsible for this article;  accusations of "trolling" and "stalking";  various accusations from other forum contributors of self-promotion on RS's part.  And references to this talk thread, at which point the self-referentiality becomes quite epic.  I'm not sure how any of this particularly helps us.
: BT internet IP addresses for sure, and funnily enough, Robert Steadman's own website is hosted by BT internet. Coincidence?
Perhaps somewhat more material is whether Steadman meets any of the usual notability guidelines, e.g. Wikipedia:WikiProject Music/Notability and Music Guidelines.  If the main author of this article is indeed Steadman, or someone closely associated with him, then personally I'd err on the conservative side of these.  And if he's indeed notable, the tone should in any case really be cleaned up for "gush" considerably.  Alai 20:15, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that this isn't a vandalism issue.  The links are relevant though problems of unverifiability call their utility into question. --Tony SidawayTalk 14:26, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Mr Steadman gave permission to edit his wikipedia.  He claims that it is nothing to do with him and he has no idea who created it.  If it was me, I'd have some concerns that people - who he claims not to know, and who claim not to know him, have access to so much of his personal information.  I'd be interested to know why vhjh and 'other' contributors to this wikipedia feel that no one else has the right to add edits to 'their'page yet feel they have the right to stifle other editors by pretending to be administrators and actually deleting the entire contents of other user pages.  I have beeen repeatedly called a vandal, when all I have tried to do is to give users more information.  They seem to want to keep this wikipedia as a sanitised and official PROMOTIONAL shrine to Mr Steadman.  If their intention is to keep it clear of anything they disapprove of perhaps they could cut the content to:
Robert Steadman - composer
and a list of his musical achievements - without the biased congratulatory tone.
Crusading composer 23:28, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible source of these troubles 

message: I have emailed jwales and I request any other Wikipedia administrator to contact me to verify my identity via my web site. I ask that the entire article is removed - some of this discussion verges on libel, but I guess the smearing is what the original problem derives from. I had nothing to do with the page's creation but I request it is removed without any further delay. Robert Steadman86.136.232.69 12:09, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: While I am sympathetic to anyone who has been the subject of personal attacks in an article about them, please realize that Wikipedia is a collaborative project and the subjects of articles do not have "ownership" or veto authority over the existence or contents of the article which describe them or the institutions they are associated with. (Consider this the same as with the news media.) That said, Wikipedia has a number of excellent articles about prominent people, including controversies, which are kept from vandalism and smears by an army of dedicated volunteers. If we removed articles because they were vandalized, or because they contained material criticizing the subject (I'm not characterizing the edits to the article about you, just giving examples), Wikipedia would have very few articles.  MCB 01:37, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Verges on libel?  I'd say that verges on a legal threat, about which there's a rather clear policy.  And is also quite a stretch:  what precisely would be libelous, the widespread skepticism that the BT Internet user who created this article -- and seemed only interested in editing the articles on R. Steadman, R. Steadman's home town, R. Steadman's alma mater, and assorted others (to add references to Robert Steadman, that is) -- had nothing at all to do with R. Steadman?  But I'm inclined to at least try to oblige you:  there are enough concerns as to notability here, and even moreso with tone and unencyclopaedic content that listing the whole shebang on AfD and seeing what shakes out seems quite an attractive option.  Mind you, have to unprotect it first...  Alai 04:37, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

text: In that case unprotect it! I would like to point out the number of contributors to this discussion for whom this is their ONLY contribution to Wiki.... strange? 
I am requesting that the words prolific and educationlist are removed from the article. Robert Steadman is a part time teacher, if this is now how we are describing teachers then I would suggest that all teachers who have articles need to be informed to change their status on their articles. Also as has been mentioned before prolific is innaccurate, a search on Mr Steadman only results in articles from either this article or Mr Steadman's own website. Until other sources recognise Mr Steadman's work as prolific I request that this word is removed.
I see no problem with him referring to himself as 'prolific'.  He certainly churns out musical compositions - he has responded to every recent disaster.  Whether his work is actually any good is another matter - it could sound like your dad on his hanmmond organ - perhaps like mobile phone ring tones for all I know?  There is no doubt that he is a prolific contributor to the internet.  He posts almost continuously on the TES and writes to newspapers regularly.  It's because he spends so much of his time and mental energy on the TES website that I thought the links were important.  They reflect another side of Mr Steadman - one that he would like to keep separate from this promotional page, obviously.  
As for calling himself an 'educationalist', there has been some specualtion about this.  Although this page and his own website lists his education, there is no reference to his gaining his teaching qualification.  This is surprising, as he seems to list everything else.  Perhaps he uses the term educationalist because he is NOT a qualified teacher but a music instructor or coach?  I wouldn't like to say.  I don't know.  He has said that he is qualified, and what reasons could we have to doubt his integrity?Crusading composer 19:15, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request from the subject of this article for the article to be removed

message: 23.10.05 Now THIS is vandalism. I never had any attention of vandalising Mr Steadman's page - only making it balanced.  The gush was removed and I think that what was left was an accurate summary of Mr Steadman's achievements.  Mr Steadman thinks that I am his personal enemy and that I am carrying out some kind of vindictive stalking policy.  I'm not.  Perhaps when the editors of this page - Mr Steadman amongst them, see the difference between editing differences and pure destructive vandalism, they might want to aplogise.Crusading composer 14:29, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Reverted text to remove silly and childish vandalism. May I suggest that if someone has a substantive objection to the present text they raise it here FIRST? 'Educationlist' is bound to be a target (or legitimate object for revision, based on your view), but childish vandalism is not the name of the game. Bakewell Tart 14:54, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandalism

message: Please explain the source of your interest and knowledge in Robert Steadman. That might help the rest of us understand why you seem to be so determined to malign him and reduce a perfectly reasonable article to the smallest possible length. Robeaston99 12:11, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  For Bakewell Tart and Crusading Composer

message: The editor who continues to label Mr Steadman an educationalist needs to check the definition.  The term does not refer to one who works in education but someone who specialises in the theory of education.  Mr Steadman does not seem to have even a basic teaching qualification in his otherwise encyclopaedic list of accomplishments, so how he can claim to be an expert in the theory of education is beyond me.  The editor needs to stop reverting to 'educationalist' as this is a factual innacuracy.  
* True, but possibly a genuine error. - Just zis Guy, you know? 12:49, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't said that Mr Steadman has no qualifications - only commented upon the fact that he hasn't mentioned any.  Surely, someone who is such a committed 'educator' would mention his qualifications and list his experience?  If you look at the facts, Mr Steadman's 'educating' isn't really mentioned at all.  He graduated in 1987? and started working at his current school this year.  That's a gap of 18 years - he mentions a couple of part time jobs and his work as a freelance with an LEA - hardly worth the title of 'educationalist', is it?Crusading composer 22:58, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Ah, but you delete it without knowing whether he is or not? And the long form of the article does refer to university lecturing - o you know what that is? You also keep saying that Mr. Steadman doesn't mention - I do not believe such snide accusations to be in the spirit of Wikipedia - are you claiming the bulk of the article was written by Steadman? Can you prove it? 86.137.230.153 23:05, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Educationalist

message: Would those who keep removing or altering the term "Music Educator" please exaplin their reasons here. To me it seems that someone who teaches, lectures at a uni, gives workshops, etc. is not just a teacher, or a part time teacher but is an educator.Vhjh 13:27, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Teacher aptly covers all those things mentioned above. Others in education do not see the need for such showy titles as "educator" so why should Mr Steadman get this title?
How many university lecturers do you know who would like to be called a teacher? How many teachers would loike to be called workshop leaers? Very different skills and should they need to come under one title educator is surely better and more appropriate? Vhjh 18:19, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I take your point about the context of the quote:  certainly they should be "fit for purpose".  The separate review section may be a good idea for that reason, if there's a significant number of "miscellaneous" quotes on and critical evaluation of his work.  I don't see the harm in having a long(ish) list of descriptors;  there's not a single descriptor in any case -- and it's not as if the article is in much danger of being short, anyway.  And I don't follow your reasoning that "educator" is NPOV:  if no-one actually describes him this way, and he's commonly described in other ways, then according to the policy, it isn't.  Now personally, I don't see anything wrong with, or inaccurate about "educator" as a description, but that's a somewhat different issue from it being NPOV.  Alai 20:04, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Music Educator

message: I am fed up with Crusading composer and his continual attempts to sabotage a perfectly good article - asking to AfD a matter of hours after a previous one was defeated overwhelmingly due to its bad faith nomination. Every little thing he does to the page is an attempt to make Steadman look bad - a new section today for REVIEWS (plural) contain only one (in fact only half) of one review which only had negative comments.
Time for admin to step in an stop this mischeivous editor who is dangerously fixated.
Vhjh 19:15, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  I am fed up

message: In looking over the article, I cleaned up some spelling and ended up removing the entire Review section as a blatent copy from Steadman's homepage.  As far as the article goes, it could use a considerable rewrite to make it more cohesive -- it's very choppy in its current form.  Perhaps a temporary page could be created where the major players in this discussion could work together to create an article you could each agree on and leave off editing the main article until your issues are resolved?  I'd be happy to help work on tone and style to improve the article. --.:.Jareth.:. babelfish 21:36, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: RfC is "Wikipedia:request for comments".  I listed this article there as an on-going content dispute.  Often it's a good idea to try to get a third (or fourth or fifth...) opinion in these cases, given that we seem to have all the editing here being done by people with rather doggedly pro- and anti- Steadman positions, none of whom do any significant editing elsewhere.  (With me popping by occasionally, and in the "profoundly ignorant either way" category.)  Though perhaps wikidiction will set in and you'll all "go native"...  Jareth, your temporary version suggestion has merit I think, not so much because the "edit-warring" is especially bad here, but because it might enable people to sketch out a structure they could live with, without the pressure to instantly "correct" the live person of the page.  Vhjh, please note that you can't restrict editing of this page to those with a "genuine interest in this subject";  verifiability, notability, encyclopaedic tone, and NPOV also need to be satisfied here, and editors whose interest those are should be encouraged to be here.  Obviously "belittling", vandalism, etc, is inappropriate here, or anyplace else on Wikipedia.  Alai 23:42, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Response to RfC 

message: Can I suggest that the disputants try to agree on two things, first of all?
*What are the sources for this article;  and
*What the lead section should be.
A good lead section should have a definitional character;  it should sketch out all you really need to know about a topic, if your attention span is going to give out after a paragraph or two.  See Wikipedia:Summary style.  In this context, it should really quickly sum up what the subject is notable for, and give the basic biographical facts (only).  At the moment it's far too short, and gives no indication whether he's as famous as an educator as a conductor, say, and doesn't even allude to the political stuff that lobs up later on.  One then gets a paragraph of not-very-significant-sounding curriculum vitae, so that's not a good candidate for a lead, either.
Sources are important too:  several of the disputes seem to have arisen because one "side" is using sources that the other doesn't have access to (programme notes, etc), or doesn't accept is necessarily valid (is the TES website Robsteadman really the subject of this article).  This also goes to verifiablity:  as it stands, the reader, or the third-party editor, is essentially being asked to accept the word of one or the other, without being presented with a means of demonstrating the truth of either set of assertions.
I think if these are sorted out, a lot of the remaining concerns will be essentially matters of style and tone, and as such, much less contentious.  Alai 05:34, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  A modest proposal 

message: Interesting that Crusading composer has suddenly done a splatter of postings on other topics. Is this to gain some credibilty so that their continual vandalism and attempts to get this page removed are taken seriously?
I see they have also questioned an admin's neutrality! I can't see why this editor is still allowed to edit. 213.249.155.237 10:27, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Banning, neutrality, etc

message: I am not going to edit the article due to the hostility of the original creator/s but I strongly feel that some of the content of this article is inappropriate.
Mr Steadman is known, if known is the correct word, as a composer.  He is not notable in any way as a conductor or 'educationalist'.  I think it's fair to mention in his bio that he is a teacher and that he is a conductor.  IF this article is going to stray from the central premise of notability then I see no reason why it should NOT include details of his contributions to the TES.  After all, it is a forum for teachers and Mr Steadman's educational accomplishments and political beliefs are well documented on it.  Mr Steadman is probably as well known on the TES as he is for his composing and he certainly seems to spend more time posting on there as he does on his compositions.Crusading composer 21:42, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I assume, because Steadman has not been demonstrated to be notable in any of those areas.  Alai 22:43, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

text: No please answer the questions - you seem to be saying you know all aboutSteadman based on an internet messageboard - please enlighten us all. And why woul this cause embarrassment to the subject? Isn't that what you've been trying to do all along? That is your sole purpose - to belittle and embarrass the subject. Vhjh 22:49, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Your response overlooks several matters: 1. It does not follow that because I stand accused of acting in bad faith in nominating the AfD, I was actually acting in bad faith. That way of proceeding was suggested by another editor, and the subject himself (if the contribution was genuine) was also seeking removal of the article, although he took no steps himself to that end. The current consensus accepts that Steadman is not notable on two out of three cited grounds, and it is suggested by more than one editor that notability as regards the compositional work is marginal. I contend that there was a prima facie case to nominate the AfD, and I made that nomination in good faith. I am quite happy to accept the outcome. Why should I not be?   2. The point that I was making about the Political Activites section was that it is misconceived. You are not responding to my point, but pursuing your own agendum. As for the TES Staffroom being a poor source, you fail to make any case. It is virtually the only actual source that has been cited at all, and it is public and verifiable. There have been plenty of opportunities for the editors taking a contrary view to cite their own sources, but they have not.   3. If there is to be a section on political activities/stance/motvation (or whatever), then you are not entitled to be the sole arbiter as to what is relevant or not. Apart from anything else, we are discussing the work of a contemporary composer, who can speak for himself should he choose to do so. For all we know, the present slant of the article may be a complete fiction as regards the subject's standpoint. How are we to know otherwise? Bakewell Tart 10:44, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Your assertion assumes the very thing that has not been established. The present article cites no sources for its assertions about the political activities of the subject. It seems increasingly reasonable to assume that this is because they don't exist. I think the section should be removed if it cannot be substantiated, but I will take no steps to remove it myself. As for the reliability of the TES Staffroom, I regret that I cannot see why it is considered to be a non-source, or at best an unreliable one. One of the notable features of the TES Staffroom fora is that postings cannot be edited or removed by contributors, and the moderators will rarely remove a contribution, merely because it reflects little credit on its author. Presumably, the subject felt that he had something to say, so as to justify the investment of time and effort in making nearly 10,000 contributions, many of which appear deal directly with the subject of this section of the article, one way or another. The biographer of an historical figure would find such a rich and easily accessible resource a wonderful fund of knowledge about his subject, even if he ultimately concluded that his subject's political interests were of very little interest to anyone else. Bakewell Tart 11:40, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Politics 

message: DoesCrusading composer know anything aboutRobert Steadman beyond a few simple internet searches, the info on Steadman's own web site, this Wikipedia article and anything on TES? Please tell how you know so much about the man? Vhjh 22:38, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: So you have no knowledge beyond your TES based grudge? Well that speaks volumes. Vhjh 22:47, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Hence my suggestion that you (try to) agree what are verifiable, relevant, credible sources for his politics.  BTW, you could now also fix the section headings in the redraft (either of you, indeed).  Alai 23:27, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Do me the courtesy of acknowledging that I have and am making no attempt to introduce material from the TES Staffroom. The extent of my knowledge about the subject, and the sources of that information are really none of your business. How about you? Your interest in this man appears to be verging on obsessional. You imply that you have detailed and intimate knowledge of the subject, and quite extraordinarily (as you cite no source whatever) that your knowledge extends to a judgment as to whether the subject's political standpoint is self-evident from his composition and represents the only authentic statement to be found. I find that an interesting thesis, and would be interested to read an article that made the case. Bakewell Tart 11:01, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  TES