User talk:Anne Marie Jackson

David Barrett (musician)
I'm at my wits end about David Barrett (musician) page. This is not a promotion or advertisement. This man is doing as much for the blues in this century as Clifford Antone did last century. We're trying to understand your rules, but you have to admit, THEY'RE REALLY COMPLICATED!!!!! I just keep going around in circles trying to figure them out. What do we have to do besides show the ISBN's for 60! books he's written on the blues. There is no one else on this planet who has ever come CLOSE! to recording that much about the blues. Don't you see what happened in Katrina! We lost a major part of our American culture. This man works tirelessly. He gets paid didley squat!! He is NOT in it for the money. And it's not him behind this article. It's the people who see him and know what he's doing, like his students, which I am one of. I'm not getting anything out of this either. The blues is in a depression right now. If you're on Wikipedia surely you're educated enough to know that. He's one of the people, along with Mark Hummel (a Wikipedian). Mark travels all around the country doing harmonica blowouts, and David Barrett stays at home teaching people in a very humble position. It is not in the least controversial that he is literally the world's greatest harmonica teacher. All the great players today Mark Hummel, James Cotton, Rick Estrin, Joe Felisko, Dennis Gruenling, Rod Piazza, Billy Branch, Kim Wilson, ALL of them recognize him hands down as THE go-to guy for harmonica education. It's not about gathering together more students. He has 50 students a month; he sends people away! I am lucky to have made it in. On The History of Blues Harmonica, Joe Felisko, says "I have no trouble saying that this man is the world's best harmonica teacher." You don't understand how many miles ahead he is of anyone remotely calling themselves a harmonica teacher. You know, I am sure, that African culture relies heavily on oral tradition. With the way blues is dying out, so is it's oral tradition. The fact that David Barrett is carefully codifying everything about the blues is something that we CANNOT AFFORD in AMERICA to lose sight of. He is the de facto curator of American blues, storing every nuance of it on film, in interviews, in books, in transcriptions of Little Walter, and all the master harmonica players. Ask anyone of the players I have listed or who are in his musical company on his page, who the best teacher is and they will say David Barrett without hesitation.

Please do NOT close down this site because we don't know how to write it. Trust me. David Barrett doesn't need Wikipedia to sell, but America needs to recognize David Barrett's work to help keep blues thriving in this world. I'm not exaggerating here. This is incredibly important work. I am also a blues dancer, and travel across the country attending blues dance events. I see how small our community is. Please learn more about the truth about this man, before you impose your prejudices on this recognition of his contribution.

Sincerely,

Anne Marie Jackson Pleasanton, CA 415-215-2343

Anne Marie Jackson (talk) 06:54, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

*I have declined the 'speedy deletion' - I agree, it wasn't that bad. CORRECTION - see end

It could still be subject to other deletions, but at least there is time.

Also, worth noting that - in the worst case, if deleted, you could get a copy in your own userspace, and work to improve it.

So - the things that need work, mostly, are;


 * All facts need a reference - to a reliable source. Literally, all the information needs refs. Some examples of things needing refs are;


 * "At age sixteen local harmonica legend Gary Smith took Barrett under his wing"
 * "Early on he taught at Porcella's Music in Gilroy"
 * "Barrett is now the world’s most published author of blues harmonica lesson material"
 * "Since age eighteen Barrett has been teaching blues harmonica lessons full-time"
 * "Classes range in size from 20 participants to 250 participants"

...and many more. The person reading the article needs to be able to check that all these facts are true - and that means, we need a reference. If there is no reference - if this information has not been published elsewhere - then it shouldn't be on Wikipedia; it would be original research.


 * Some of the language is not appropriate for an encyclopaedia, and is not neutral. Examples include;
 * "a solid musical foundation" - opinion, not fact
 * "took Barrett under his wing" - too colloquial an expression. Stick to facts - encyclopaedic - eg "He was trained by..."
 * "Early on he taught at Porcella's" - how early is 'early'? see WP:WEASEL
 * "employs the top educators" - who says they're the top editors?


 * I suggest you considerably trim the "Bibliography". Wikipedia is not a directory, so long lists are not appropriate; even our (better) articles on the most prolific authors do not contain exhaustive lists of their work. Try to summarize, in prose, his key works.


 * All those ISBN references don't help - it makes it look 'spammy' - because all they actually prove is that the book exists; they don't help to verify any facts about the person.

I hope that helps.  Chzz  ► 07:31, 22 January 2011 (UTC)


 * NOTE: the article was deleted before I could decline the speedy. You should ask the deleting admin to give you a copy - that is, on User_talk:Malik_Shabazz.  Chzz  ► 07:36, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your message. It is very helpful a far as the article goes. I will do what I can to work on these issues. All of this information has been published by Mel Bay and we do have Mel Bay cited, so the same footnote would go to all of the facts you say need references. I appreciate very much the comments about summarizing and examples of the language that needs rewriting. That's helpful. I also appreciate how we can work on it and try again. (In the meantime, I'm supposed to be practicing my harmonica ! and this i like writing a thesis.)

On the confusing side: 1) I'm not even sure this message will get to you, since it is not clear how to make sure what I'm writing to you right this moment gets through to you as a message.2) I see so many other articles that have less reference in it and yet they're accepted. Is James Cotton's page accepted just because every musically educated person knows him? I don't know that there are any biographies written about him. Same for every other blues man or woman on Wikipedia. Why is there a double standard? It seems to me that it would be fair for me to imitate the style of another accepted article, yes? Is American blues to be left out of Wikipedia because no one writes books on them? A3) You say it's been deleted, but it seems still to be there. Did you do some quick edits that would help it be a bit more acceptable for the time being? If so, thank you.

I'm going to put another this time just so you know I have a response. I got a book on Wikipedia ("The Missing Manual"), and my education includes graduate school in English (which requires scholarly research), but I find this to be daunting, but I hope to be able to find my around more readily eventually. I will chip away at it. Again, thanks. Those are the most concrete explanations I've gotten so far, so it gives me something to work on. Back to harmonica practice now. David Barrett's work would be in vein if his students didn't practice!

Anne Marie Jackson (talk) 05:06, 23 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi.


 * Contacting people - putting the was a good idea, but, that gets the attention of any helper. Fortunately, I happened to notice it. To contact a specific person, you leave a note on their 'user talk' page. Mine is User talk:Chzz. There is also, usually, a link to that page at the right of peoples 'signature' - either saying (talk) or, as in my case, a symbol - which is the ►thing in my sig.


 * Other articles - maybe they are old. The rules have become more strict, and new articles are subject to more scrutiny. Or maybe they just 'slipped through the net'. There are lots of articles on Wikipedia that do not meet the policy requirements, and we're all working to fix that - please help! But, the existence of such 'bad' articles doesn't make a good argument for adding more. They need fixing, or in some cases nominating for deletion. See WP:OTHERSTUFF.


 * We have nothing against "American blues" or any other topic, but... yes, if there are no appropriate reliable sources, then we simply cannot provide verifiable information - so, we can't have an article. Wikipedia, an encyclopaedia, only reports on things that other people have already written about. We do not do any original research.


 * (un)Deleted - Sorry for the confusion there. It was deleted, but then the person deleting it had second thoughts and undeleted it; see the logs.

Wikipedia can be challenging, at first; it is big, and despite best efforts to keep it simple, it gets complex. However, I assure you that the first steps are the hardest; it is a steep learning curve, but once you get the basic ideas, it starts to make more sense.

Two suggestions, in reverse-order of importance,

1. I suggest you have a quick look at WP:PILLAR - reading that short page should give you a bit more idea of the Wikipedia guidelines in general.

2. - you can talk to other helpers, any time, with this link.

Cheers,  Chzz  ► 05:39, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Welcome and introduction
Hi, Anne Marie Jackson. This is NOT some automated message...it's from a real person. You can talk to me right now. Welcome to Wikipedia! I noticed you've just joined, and wanted to give you a few tips to get you started. If you have any questions, please talk to us. The tips below should help you to get started. Best of luck!  Chzz  ► 19:05, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Reply
I've replied to your message; see User talk:Chzz. '' struck - see below

 Chzz  ► 19:05, 23 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I've now moved that into my archive, User talk:Chzz/Archive_28.


 * Sorry about that; my talk page gets very busy sometimes, so I have to archive things quite often.


 * Please don't edit that page though; if you wish to contact me again, please start a new section on User talk:Chzz. Many thanks,  Chzz  ► 14:22, 4 February 2011 (UTC)