This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article 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 article or visit the project page for more details.Classical musicWikipedia:WikiProject Classical musicTemplate:WikiProject Classical musicClassical music articles
About three-quarters of this article is devoted to a single controversy, which surely gives it undue weight. Is that really such a significant part of Mr. Wordsworth's career? Can it now be removed as stale, particularly as the article seems to be about little else? Kablammo (talk) 12:12, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If the section is to stay, I suggest deleting the quote associated with footnote 3, as this strongly-worded statement is but one opinion from a concertgoer whose expertise and standing is unknown. What the article really needs is a fuller description of the subject's career by someone knowledgeable. Kablammo (talk) 13:13, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For such a short article, the solution to a WEIGHT concern is to fill out the article rather than remove referenced material that is there. I would suggest adding more referenced material about the rest of Wordsworth's career. Shouldn't be too difficult. All the Gant material is referenced. If you don't like the concertgoer quote, then I would suggest adding a competing quote from someone who supported Wordsworth in this matter, if one can be found. The quote's "standing" is that it comes from someone who paid to go to the concert. Cheers. Grover cleveland (talk) 15:41, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the article needs to be filled in, and have asked for help at the project noticeboard. I also agree the Gant material is well-referenced. I think however the solution to allegations of incompetence by an unknown and probably upset person is to remove them. It is one thing for such a quote to be published in a news report on the controversy; it is quite another to give it prominence in Wikipedia. Kablammo (talk) 15:57, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the controversy section for a number of reasons:
We don't (or shouldn't) do "Controversy" and "Criticism" sections in BLPs. They introduce inherent bias and are tantamount to having a "Negative information" section. When was the last time you saw a "Praise" section?
Having 80% of BLP given over to negative information is pretty clear undue weight.
The incident detailed is actually rather minor. A biography is supposed to be representive of the entire life (and work for less notable people) of an individual. By extension, I don't think the details ought to return, even in a much reduced form.
