Talk:Dorothy Taubman

Coordinate Motion Theory
Hi Folks! I'm preparing an exigesis of Taubmans theory of coordinate motion for this article. This has been difficult until now, as only anecdotal evidence was available with a great deal of it from prejudiced or inaccurate sources. However, enough information has appeared in print aside from the lectures she and her assistants give at annual symposia that it has become possible to digest them here. Wish me luck!Laguna greg (talk) 17:47, 26 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi All. I've finally finished the exposition, but it's awfully long.  Does anybody think this should be a separate article?  And I'm still working on references for the theoretical discussion.  Cheers! Laguna greg (talk) 19:54, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Explanation of the Technique?
I've reverted an edit from Ravenswing that removed the introduction to Taubman's technique, for the following reasons:

1- In fact the information is properly sourced in the notes below. Please check next time before you revert.

2- A brief introduction to her technical innovations will help the reader understand the controversy that made her famous.

3- Many articles in the biography section include information about the theoretical discoveries of famous people in addition to links to more detailed articles; this should be no exception. The "technique" material itself is too brief to stand alone as an article.

4- This article fits in more than one category, and articles about famous musicians include information about all their professional activities, including teaching, theoretical developments and recordings of their perfomances.

And very last, I don't appreciate that fact that all this materials was just deleted ad libitum, and not removed to the talk page for discussion and review. You have no idea how much work went into gathering and writing it all, and you just erased it for no good reason!Laguna greg 19:13, 3 May 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laguna greg (talk • contribs)
 * I've just reverted your edit. To take your points, and toss in a thought or two of my own: (1) I see that you're an inexperienced editor, and may not have reviewed WP:V prior to editing.  Presuming you haven't, allow me to quote the key element: "Attribute all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." (emphasis in the original) Claiming that there is an (unidentified) reference somewhere in the reference section is insufficient; you must use an inline citation. (2) Two more links you ought to review, if you haven't, are WP:UNDUE and WP:COATRACK.  The sections I excised were far from "brief" -- they were lengthy, superfluous parts already summarized, in an article where genuine biographical information on Taubman is already dwarfed by information on her technique ... which is not the subject of this article.  This isn't an essay defending Taubman's methods, but a biographical article, the only proper focus of which is on biographical details.  (For those who do wish such an essay, the references section provides numerous works to review.) (3-4) The remaining information already describes Taubman's teachings and the controversies in great detail, and really too much detail. Moving on, the final link you should review is WP:OWN.  You putting work into this article doesn't mean you're the final arbiter as to what goes in or not, and in what detail or not.  (If that were the case, please note that I'm the creator of the article -- which fact doesn't make me automatically right and everyone who might disagree with me wrong.)  Having made over a hundred times as many edits on Wikipedia, I have a pretty good handle how much work goes into article creation and improvement, and a bit more civility is in order here.  It is not that I had No Good Reason for my reversion; it's that you don't like the reasons I gave.  You're not compelled to do so, of course, but that doesn't invalidate the edits.   Ravenswing   19:38, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

An article on Einstein with out discussing relativity would be woefully incomplete. Scrubbing a well-source article on Dorothy Taubman to remove any reference to her work is equally incomplete. PianoPedagogue (talk) 18:45, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree: an article without even mentioning Taubman's technique would be inadequate. Happily, the article does mention it.  And that's as far as relevant policies and guidelines permit: this is a biographical article on Taubman herself, not on her technique.  Even an article on the technique could not sustain the meandering, turgid, impenetrable jargon in which those sections were drowned ... and which, since you chose the example, was several times larger than the amount of space given in Einstein's article to his theories of relativity, a body of work I hope you'd concede society holds in vastly more regard.   Ravenswing      22:27, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Writing an article on Dorothy Taubman without mentioning forearm rotation is akin to writing about Picasso without mention cubism. It misses the point entirely. PianoPedagogue (talk) 02:04, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * It appears that you're missing the point, but no matter. In any event, if you'd like to discuss Taubman's technique in whatever prose and at whatever length you like, feel free to create a blog or personal fan page.  Articles on Wikipedia, however, are required to meet several content standards.   Ravenswing      17:46, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Dorothy Taubman. 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/20110726182555/http://www.golandskyinstitute.org/about/doctors-entry/dr._william_a._pereira to http://www.golandskyinstitute.org/about/doctors-entry/dr._william_a._pereira

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:37, 16 December 2016 (UTC)