This page is within the scope of WikiProject Classical music, which aims to improve, expand, copy edit, and maintain all articles related to
classical music, that are not covered by other classical music related projects. Please read the
guidelines for writing and maintaining articles. To participate, you can edit this page or visit the
project page for more details.Classical musicWikipedia:WikiProject Classical musicTemplate:WikiProject Classical musicClassical music articles
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present.
Should musicians having memory lapse in concerts be added as an entire paragraph in their biographies?
A brief summary of my long paragraphs: Should incidents like musicians having memory lapse in concerts be added to controversy, career or personal life section, i.e. notable as an entire paragraph in their biographies? (As currently, biographies only include long-term memory lapse as a one-sentence description) Also, seeking for GA Nominee Advice. Thanks a lot.
Since the community has not discussed this matter before, I am asking to clarify my confusion: I am currently working on
this classical pianist's biography, hoping to improve it to GA status. I just noticed two debates/discussions on its
discussion page on whether him having a memory lapse in a 2015 concert should be added to the controversy section. In the first discussion in 2016, the two editors (according to edit history) seemed to have reached agreement that the inclusion may have violated
WP:BLP trivial/gossip and it was not kept at last. In the second discussion in 2021, the other two editors didn't reach an agreement on the matter. So now, I am confused and want to know whether the memory lapse incident should be added to the controversy (or career or personal life section, as an entire paragraph) or not, and I want to get it resolved to one step forward meeting GA standards.
I have read some other musicians' biographies concerning memory lapse as references. I notice that although having memory lapse is a usual mistake in classical concerts, only a few musicians having long term (yearly) memory lapse were included as a one setence description in their career/personal life section, not controversy section e.g.
Vladimir Horowitz,
Anton Rubinstein.
It makes me doubt whether a one-time concert memory lapse is necessary to be included in the controversy section of musician's biography, and whether this may violate
WP:BLP. (According to previous replies in teahouse, it seems that this should not be included in musicians’ controversy section) Also, I am wondering if such incident is relevant/has the necessity to be included as an entire paragraph in musicians’ career/personal life section
Got it, thanks. Other experienced editors at teahouse suggested that I could look at biographies as references (if it has the necessity to be included as other section).
Currently in Wikipedia's biographies, I observed that only musicians having memory lapse in concerts lasted yearly are listed-- this makes me wonder if there's a general agreement on this kind of incident.
If I just take other GA or of high quality biographies' as references on quality, is it enough for me to promote it to GA.
Hi there, I've just committed to reviewing your article, so can speak more about it on the review page.
The people at the teahouse mean well, but these kinds of situations vary wildly between different pianists, so looking for comparisons may be misleading. If reliable sources are covering something in depth, it should be mentioned. As Nikkimaria says, it should likely not be a section in itself, and should be incorporated into a large narrative of the article. Aza24 (talk)17:23, 17 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Just a thought, if the lapse was especially notable, e.g. the performer suddenly played a different piece or did an amazing improvisation or etc, then I think it warrants inclusion; but rarely as a whole paragraph. Unless of course it is a regular feature of their performances. Again as pointed out, the
WP:RSs are key — Iadmc♫talk 05:32, 5 June 2024 (UTC)reply
The correct answer is that an article should reflect what reliable sources have written about the subject. If there is a good biography written after the incident, what percentage of that biography is devoted to the incident? The article generally should have roughly the same percentage coverage. It's likely that, apart from news-of-the-day commentary, a memory lapse would get very minor coverage which probably means it should not be mentioned in the article. Another way of looking at it is to ask what impact the incident had. Was there a medical examination? Did the incident lead to the cancelation of a concert? Did the audience riot? It's likely that the impact, after a few days of news coverage, was zero. Therefore, it should not be mentioned.
Johnuniq (
talk)
05:50, 5 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I'm very pro-infobox, but it seems that most of the active users of this project (and the opera project) are very much against infoboxes. I'm pro because eventually infoboxes will be replaced with information pulled from Wikidata, which will make them easier to use across different language wikis and will be easier to update (in the case of those that have changing information, such as populations). Having witnessed these arguments over time, I'd say it's not worth spending effort to argue. You can create infoboxes for articles you create and I feel that's the best use of your time, rather than modifying existing articles where many editors will disagree. -
kosboot (
talk)
15:18, 3 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I would disagree - infoboxes are important and useful enough (and basically universal on every other chunk of Wikipedia) that it's worth going through the effort to get past the roadblocks.
PianoDan (
talk)
16:00, 3 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Thanks for the comments guys! I was involved in the RfC over at composers group... I know about the arguments. PianoDan is right: we should keep going despite the effort and resistance— Iadmc♫talk 14:42, 4 June 2024 (UTC)reply
In his page, I fixed many of the phrases and made them less argumentative. Still, there's more that needs to be rephrased (especially under the Reception section), as well as citations that need to be added (especially in the introduction and Music section). I can't do all this by myself, so could somebody lend out a helping hand? Thank you.
This article has multiple issues, but seems notable enough to keep. There are no wikilinks, there are no references, there are no sections or section headers, there are inappropriate quotes, and it appears that the main editor is the subject of the article, which may be a self-promotion issue. Came across it and thought I'd post it here hoping it comes across the right editing team. Shotgunheist💬23:30, 11 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Hi @
Shotgunheist, nice job spotting this. I added two sources and there seems to be more out there so I agree (re the talk page) that notability is probably not an issue. The self-promotion is pretty bad, but perhaps salvageable thanks to Dan's culling. Aza24 (talk)22:37, 2 August 2024 (UTC)reply
Just created
Classical music lists, a
list of lists to help navigate this extensive topic. I probably missed some lists (specially if they don't have "list of" in the title), so please feel free to update the page directly if anything can be improved. Thanks for your help and input! — Gor1995𝄞15:41, 1 August 2024 (UTC)reply