Talk:Steinway & Sons

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article nominee Steinway & Sons was a Music good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
June 27, 2012 Good article nominee Not listed

Coordinate error[edit]

{{geodata-check}}

The following coordinate fixes are needed for

Hamburg geolocation links to a map of Queens, NYC

SPECIFICO talk 14:16, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: I'm not seeing that. The coordinates below "Hamburg, Germany" in the infobox are those of the Steinway building on Rondenbarg in Hamburg, and I don't see any other Hamburg coordinates in the article. Could you be more specific about the location of the supposed error? Deor (talk) 16:51, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Hello. The coordinates seem OK but the link shows a map of the Queens, NY location. Did you try the link? SPECIFICO talk 17:12, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Hmm, that seems to be a problem with the WikiMiniAtlas rather than with the coordinates or with Wikipedia itself. I'll leave a message on the talk page of User:Dschwen, the creator of the MiniAtlas, to alert him to the odd behavior. I'm closing this request, however, since there is nothing wrong with the coordinates themselves. Deor (talk) 18:14, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Quick answer: the WMA centers and zooms onto the highlighted polygon data. I'll see if I can make this a bit smarter. --Dschwen 20:51, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Generally negative depiction of the artist program[edit]

I see an edit war developing over how to portray the artist program. I've seen a number of sources describing it as aggressive and even vindictive against artists who select non-Steinway pianos. If you want to support a different viewpoint you should discuss the sources Binksternet (talk) 00:55, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Well put. There is no basis for the whitewash of the "number of sources" you point out. I have ordered from the library a copy of Donald Fostle's company history, which is the top independent account and which this article almost completely ignores. I hop to have it soon. Syek88 (talk) 00:59, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Over half of the section about Steinway Artists is critical opinions/quotes about the Steinway Artist program. The other half is a factual description of the program. Therefore, the section is not balanced as it should be, per WP:BALANCE and WP:BALASPS. More detailed: The section has four paragraphs. The first two paragraphs are about the history of the Steinway Artist program and some facts about the program, e.g. number of artists, examples of artists, and so on. The last two paragraphs are critical opinions/quotes. This makes the whole section very unbalanced, because the section contains mostly negative opinions and almost no positive opinions about the subject. Another problem is that this article should be encyclopedically (as the article is part of an encyclopedia), which means that it should be based on facts. The opinions are not facts but opinions. Over half of the whole section is just a collection of opinions/quotes from various persons.
And contrary to Syek88 I don't think that authors/experts statements are holy. (And I don't see any author/expert as a "top independent account"). I can easily do as Syek88 does and write an article about Barack Obama and use here, so that we can compare a bunch of published sources and determine the proper balance for the article. only reliable critical quotes about Obama. And I can also write an article about Obama with only reliable positive quotes about him. Both articles would be very unballanced, also if I used "top independent accounts" as references. The Steinway Artists section has quotes that are all criticizing the artist program so the section is very unballanced. I added the template to request just a little more balance. Best, Oldnewnew (talk) 01:22, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm thinking that only the facts should be presented here; i.e. no opinions for now. Any peacock sources and opinionated sources should also be removed. Thank you. – Epic Genius (talk) 01:25, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Articles about songs have quotes from critics. So do articles about books. A corporation should be no different. Facts need context; the quotes provide it. These are quotes from highly qualified historians and musicologists. You are unwittingly abetting a whitewash by a paid corporate shill. Please stop. Syek88 (talk) 01:30, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
I came to this article only because of the {{POV}} tag. So I went to remove the specific issue. Are there other quotes that should be added? Epic Genius (talk) 01:39, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
The tag was wrongly placed as a PR whitewash. If there are contradictory quotes - I haven't seen any - then they should be inserted. Syek88 (talk) 01:46, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
I think some contradictory quotes, if there are any, should be inserted. Incidentally, calling other editors PR people is not generally accepted unless the user publicly declares it on Wikimedia sites. Epic Genius (talk) 01:58, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Syek88 you don't understand. The problem is not the quote itself. The problem is an overly representation of critical/negative quotes. If you look at the articles about songs - and they are written in accordance with Wikipedia policy - you will find articles with a factual description of the song, and then afterwards quotes representing different views/opinions by various experts. An article with 40% factual description of a song and then 60% critical/negative quotes about the song is obviously unballanced. So is the Steinway Artists section. So stop telling that the quotes are from "highly qualified historians and musicologists", because that is not the issue. And by the way, David Liebeskind is an actual marketing expert so he overrules the "highly qualified historians and musicologists" statements about Steinway marketing. Best, Oldnewnew (talk) 02:00, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
I concur with Oldnewnew's observation above. Also, some positive quotes can be added. Epic Genius (talk) 02:02, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
And since this article is up for GA review, it's not a good idea to have either edit warring or POV-laden text. Epic Genius (talk) 02:02, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Getting the article to GA status is part of the terms of payment, I suspect. As for balance: balance does not require 50/50. It requires that the views of experts be fairly represented. De Ocampo and Fostle are not marketing experts but they are experts in telling us about the consequences of Steinway's marketing in the musical world and industry. Ignoring them is what 'unballances' (sic). Syek88 (talk) 02:11, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
NPOV also requires that all positions be fairly represented as well. I won't comment on whether the GAN is a paid venture. Epic Genius (talk) 02:15, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Of course they should. If there are contrary views, insert them. Their absence doesn't justify removing the de Ocampo and Fostle views. Syek88 (talk) 02:18, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Syek88: So how do you explain and justify this edit by you, where you deleted contrary views?????: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Steinway_%26_Sons&diff=656536867&oldid=656535446 I would very much like to hear that - especially after having read your comment just above! --Oldnewnew (talk) 02:41, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Epic Genius: Yes, and when waiting for the GA review I was keeping an eye on the article. And according to Talk:Steinway & Sons/GA1 "The article itself is close to being a "GA"" and the article already had a "Is it neutral? Fair representation without bias +". And the critical/negative quotes that Syek88 recently has spread different places over the article turns the article from being encyclopedical (based on facts) to just a collection of quotes representing one view. That concerns my, especially because the article was already categorized as neutral before Syek88 added quotes representing only one view. Another problem is that Syek88 doesn't follow the Wikipedia:Manual of Style 100% and I know that following the Manual of Style is an important part of being a GA. Best, Oldnewnew (talk) 02:38, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
I deleted the Diana Krall quote because you had only put it in there to offset the Michael Kieran Harvey quote, on which I am willing to concede. I had expected that it would not be disputed. Syek88 (talk) 02:43, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
That's a lie. I asked you about this edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Steinway_%26_Sons&diff=656536867&oldid=656535446 that clearly has nothing to do with Diana Krall or Michael Kieran Harvey's very unencyclopedic quote about suicide. Oldnewnew (talk) 02:49, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
I am sorry. That was a mistake, innocent I can assure you. I do not know what happened. I must have thought I was 'undoing' something else. I have no, and could have no, objection to it. Syek88 (talk) 02:57, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
It's difficult for me to believe that an undo edit and writing 22 letters in the edit summary ("stopping PR whitewashing") all can be a mistake. And whether it was a mistake or not I don't see such an edit as "innocent". --Oldnewnew (talk) 03:08, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
We'll I won't try to defend my own intentions; you are the one who has persistently dodged questions about whether you are being paid to be here (credit to you though for not denying it when it is obviously true). Be that as it may, I would be happy to re-insert it myself when the article becomes unbarred. For full disclosure, my only connection to this article is that I own an overly percussive Yamaha upright. Syek88 (talk) 04:00, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Quotes on the Steinway Artist program[edit]

The following is a list of quotes about the Steinway Artist program as a marketing exercise. The list shows that the Fostle/de Ocampo views which the article quotes are representative of a significant number of historians, musicologists and pianists:

  • "That Steinway aggressively sought out and paid (in various forms) for artist endorsements must be stressed in order to combat an idealistic notion that the greatest flocked to Steinway simply because it was the best." - Stuart de Ocampo, musicologist, American Music 15 (3): 409.
  • "the genius of Steinways...ultimately lay in their ability to persuade millions of persons across decades and continents that in this realm of supreme subjectivity, individual variation, incertitude, and ever-changing conditions, there was an absolute best. The assertion, repeated often enough, took on the coloration of fact" - Donald W. Fostle, historian and author of a company history of Steinway, quoted by de Ocampo, above.
  • "The predominance of Steinway in the 20th century is as much a product of brilliant marketing as of engineering innovation." - Robert Winter, music historian, New York Review of Books, quoted at: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/09/arts/music-piano-versus-piano.html
  • "Beneath the patina of high culture was a rough-and-tumble world of bribes to music critics and shameless pandering to celebrity performers for their endorsements" - David B. Sicilia, discussing from an historical perspective in the Journal of Economic History Vol. 59, No. 1 (Mar., 1999), p. 245.
  • "As Fazioli has gained prominence in recent years, Steinway has removed several stellar names from its list for disloyalty. " - Michael Wise, New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/09/arts/music-piano-versus-piano.html?pagewanted=2
  • "It was enormously vindictive" - Garrick Ohlsson, concert pianist, on Steinway's actions in removing a piano from a concert hall before he was about to play, after he made positive comments on a rival manufacturer: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/09/arts/music-piano-versus-piano.html
  • "They are like a woman who is very jealous of another beautiful woman" - Yaara Tal, pianist, quoted at http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/09/arts/music-piano-versus-piano.html?pagewanted=2
  • "It is brainwashing ... It's as if the car industry were such that everybody was obligated to drive a Mercedes." - Andras Schiff, legendary pianist, on Steinway's marketing strategy: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/09/arts/music-piano-versus-piano.html?pagewanted=2
  • "They created all kinds of difficulties", Valentina Lisitsa, Russian pianist, on Steinway's reaction when she tried to play a concert on a rival instrument: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/09/arts/music-piano-versus-piano.html?pagewanted=2
  • "Steinway... zealously guards its reputation and relationship with Steinway Artists... It takes courage to swim against the Steinway tide..." - Brendan Ward, "The Beethoven Obsession", UNSW Press.
  • "The pianist that crosses Steinway commits suicide" - Michael Kieran Harvey, Australian pianist, quoted in "The Beethoven Obsession" by Brendan Ward, UNSW Press.

I would not suggest including all of these in the article. But the position needs to be represented, and the Fostle / de Ocampo quotes perform the task. Their quotes neatly represent the viewpoint of a wide range of sources about the role of Steinway's marketing, through the Steinway Artist program, in its commercial success. Syek88 (talk) 07:48, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

You say above that "I would not suggest including all of these in the article. But the position needs to be represented". Well the position is already represented and is the largest part of the section:
"Steinway expects Steinway Artists to perform on Steinway pianos where they are available and in appropriate condition.[1] Artur Schnabel complained once that "Steinway refused to let me use their pianos [i.e., Steinway pianos owned by Steinway] unless I would give up playing the Bechstein piano – which I had used for so many years – in Europe. They insisted that I play on Steinway exclusively, everywhere in the world, otherwise they would not give me their pianos in the United States. That is the reason why from 1923 until 1930 I did not return to America. ... [in] 1933, Steinway changed their attitude and agreed to let me use their pianos in the United States, even if I continued elsewhere to play the Bechstein piano... Thus, from 1933 on, I went every year to America."[2] In 1972, Steinway responded to Garrick Ohlsson's statement that Bösendorfer was "the Rolls-Royce of pianos" by trucking away the Steinway-owned Steinway concert grand piano that Ohlsson was about to give a recital on at Alice Tully Hall in New York City. Ohlsson ended up performing on a Bösendorfer piano borrowed at the eleventh hour, and Steinway would not let him borrow Steinway-owned instruments for some time. Ohlsson has since made peace with Steinway.[1] Angela Hewitt was removed from the Steinway Artist roster around 2002 after she purchased and performed on a Fazioli piano.[1] After the Canadian pianist Louis Lortie was removed from the Steinway Artist roster in 2003,[3] he complained in a newspaper article that Steinway is trying to establish a monopoly on the concert world by becoming "the Microsoft of pianos".[1] A Steinway spokesman said, in response to Lortie's decision to perform a concert on a Fazioli piano, that "I don't want anyone on our roster ... who doesn't want to play the Steinway exclusively."[1]
The Steinway Artist program has been copied by other piano companies,[4][5] but Steinway's program is still unique in that a pianist must promise to play pianos of the Steinway brand
only to become a Steinway Artist.[6][1] The Steinway Artist designation restricts a pianist's use of pianos by other makers and implies an obligation to perform on Steinway pianos.[7]
The only thing you do by keeping on adding the quotes representing the same position is repeting the same position again and again. That makes the section unballanced. And some of the quotes you have written above on this talk page are not about the Steinway Artist program but about the piano industry's concept of endorsements. --Oldnewnew (talk) 09:54, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ a b c d e f "MUSIC; Piano Versus Piano". The New York Times. May 9, 2004. Retrieved February 4, 2015. 
  2. ^ Schnabel, Artur (1988). My Life and Music. Dover Publications and Colin Smythe. pp. 84 and 111. ISBN 0-486-25571-9. 
  3. ^ Ward, Brendan (2013). "24: Revealing the piano's full set of teeths". The Beethoven Obsession. University of New South Wales Press. ISBN 978-1742233956. 
  4. ^ E.g.: "Pianists". Bechstein. Retrieved February 13, 2015. 
  5. ^ E.g.: "Reference List". Bösendorfer. Retrieved February 13, 2015. 
  6. ^ Cite error: The named reference Cynthia_Wilson.2C_p._183 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  7. ^ Ratcliffe, Ronald V. (2002). Steinway. San Francisco: Chronicle Books. p. 133. ISBN 978-0-8118-3389-9. 
What is missing from your excerpt is the key link that Fostle and de Ocampo (and Winter) draw: that much of Steinway's success is attributable to its aggressive endorsement strategy. Without the Fostle and de Ocampo quote, the article just lists individual incidents involving individual pianists, without the broader view of the way in which Steinway has gained a commercial benefit from its behaviour. The Fostle/de Ocampo/Winter point is critical to the Wikipedia article. And there's nothing negative about the Fostle/de Ocampo/Winter views: they each rightly acknowledge that Steinway makes superb pianos, but they make the case that their market dominance is also due to successful marketing, in particular through the Steinway Artist program. The only thing "negative" about it is that it contradicts the official Steinway version of history, which you are trying to force on the article, that their market dominance is for no other reason than they make an excellent product. Syek88 (talk) 10:07, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
How about, to be safe, all quotes should be hidden or removed, per WP:UNDUE. Epic Genius (talk) 02:23, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
That is not 'safe'. That is whitewashing and exactly what the corporate shill wants. Look at featured articles. They all have quotes. Syek88 (talk) 02:38, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Epicgenius, I'd ask you to please have a careful read of WP:UNDUE. It says "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources", and then cautions, rightly, against giving too much weight to minority views. Your response to this directive would be to delete the views of de Ocampo, Fostle et al? That would be contravening the directive, because instead of representing their significant viewpoints, it would completely ignore them. Of course, as I've said repeatedly, if there are contrary views - people who say that Steinway is successful only because it makes fine products - they should be represented too. The directive requires it. And if there were many many people who said that and demonstrated that Fostle/de Ocampo were wrong, the Fostle/de Ocampo view would be a minority and should be given less prominence if not deleted altogether. But in the absence of views in contradiction to Fostle et al, their view is significant if not unchallenged and must, in accordance with the directive, be represented. The directive leads to precisely the opposite result from that which you suggest. Again, please see the light: stop this abuse of Wikipedia by a paid corporate PR agent. Syek88 (talk) 08:06, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Don't you think that I've read the policy already? It says, Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements. Which is, having more negative than positive quotes in a text is an example ofundue weight.Epic Genius (talk) 14:25, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Epic Genius: I've tried over five times I think to explain to Syek88 that 'having more negative than positive quotes in a text is an example of undue weight' and linked to guideline sections about that, but he keeps ignoring that fact about undue weight.
And I agree with you about being safe. The big difference between Syek88 and me is that I prefer that the article contains facts instead of quotes with conclusions. An article containing facts is a neutral and very encyclopedical article. What Syek88 is trying to do is to pick out quotes with conclusions he likes and are from experts/authors he adores. It would be very easy for me to find quotes with conclusions from professors, deans, and other experts from universities such as 'Steinway pianos are the world's best pianos' and 'It's very important for Xxx University/Conservatory to be an All-Steinway School" and ad these quotes to the section Steinway & Sons#All-Steinway Schools. Right now the section Steinway & Sons#All-Steinway Schools doesn't contain quotes with conclusions and the section doesn't enforce readers any specific conclusions. More general: Quotes with conclusions enforce readers specific views/opinions, whereas facts gives a neutral description and let readers draw their own conclusions. Best, Oldnewnew (talk) 20:05, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Apply some epic genius to this question: if Fostle et al are not quoted, how will the article comply with the directive at WP:UNDUE to represent their views? Syek88 (talk) 00:18, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Another problem is that Syek88 is not completely honest when he uses quotes. I have checked some of the references. Quotes about Steinway's marketing in the past are presented in a misleading way so that readers will assume it is about Steinway's marketing today. This is a false way of using quotes. And quotes that present views that Syek88 doesn't like are simple deleted by Syek88, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Steinway_%26_Sons&diff=656536867&oldid=656535446. And above on this talk page Syek88 claims that his quotes are top expert quotes that are unchallenged, but that is not correct. First of all Stuart de Ocampo and Donald Fostle are not marketing experts - actually they have no education in marketing. Secondly, here is a quote from a real marketing expert (not only author) employed at New York University: "the Steinway Concert and Artists Program ... This program is one of the only pure product endorsements programs, as no artist is paid to play on or endorse a Steinway piano." Another problem is that Syek88 exaggerates some of the references he uses. But I think the biggest problem of them all is the first one I wrote about: That quotes written in a historic context is misused as quotes about Steinway's marketing today. --Oldnewnew (talk) 14:55, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
1. The only historical quote is Sicilia's. And I explicitly marked it as historical. Fostle and de Ocampo are talking about Steinway's position today, and link it to their long-term (both historical and current) marketing. 2. The only dishonesty is your insistence on editing an article about a corporation that is paying you to do so. 3. As I've said earlier, one need not be a marketing expert to give an expert opinion on the nature and ramifications of the Steinway Artist program. 4. Of course, I have no objection to you putting in quotes from marketing experts. 5. The fact that Steinway Artists are not paid for endorsements does not refute the Fostle/de Ocampo view in any way. Syek88 (talk) 04:52, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Your personal attacks based on guissing doesn't bother me. I'm not going down at your level and comment on these attacks. Let me try to explain that there are past tense and present. An example: "That Steinway aggressively sought out and paid (in various forms) for artist endorsements must be stressed in order to combat an idealistic notion that the greatest flocked to Steinway simply because it was the best." (author Stuart de Ocampo). The sought out and paid is past tense, so when did Steinway pay "(in various forms) for artist endorsements"? The quote is clearly taken out of a historic context - especially when there are references in the article saying that no pianist is paid to play on or endorse Steinway pianos and when Steinway Artists loan pianos from Steinway for a concert or recording session the artists do even have to pay Steinway for preparing, tuning, and delivering of the piano. --Oldnewnew (talk) 12:17, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

You are getting yourself (and your client) up in knots with this "historical" nonsense. The de Ocampo quote is clearly taking a present-day view of where Steinway is and how it got there. You have inserted a sentence saying that Steinway Artists don't get paid in monetary form, which is fine. No contradiction, no out-of-date problems. It all sits quite nicely together. Hopefully my Fostle order can arrive soon and I will get to work on the History section. Syek88 (talk) 00:13, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I know that you are obsessed about the subjective views of the two authors and that you doesn't bother about the factual information. Stuart de Ocampo is "taking a present-day view of where Steinway is and how it got there" BUT from what time of the Steinway history is the fact about paying pianists? The company is over 160 years old and the marketing strategies today is not the same as e.g. 100 years ago. But unfortunately you are an ignorant in the business field so I guess my comment here is alos nonsense to you. --Oldnewnew (talk) 02:42, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
It is nonsense: I don't understand a word of the ungrammatical screed you have just written. Maybe go for a walk, have a stiff drink to calm your nerves and re-write it. Syek88 (talk) 02:47, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Steinway doesn't pay artists today. So when did Steinway pay artists as Stuart de Ocampo says? Over 100 years ago? --Oldnewnew (talk) 03:18, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
That's better. De Ocampo doesn't say. Even if he is harking back to the past it doesn't matter. The Steinway Artist program is an historical program (whether under that name or not) and needs to be understood in an historical context. You have added a quote making it clear that no-one is paid today. That's perfectly acceptable and leaves the reader in no doubt. Syek88 (talk) 04:12, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
That's a problem. Then I'll leave the {{When|date=April 2015}} tag in the article until the answer is found. --Oldnewnew (talk) 22:58, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

The lead – Statement not in citation given[edit]

The lead says: Its status as the world's elite piano manufacturer has been secured in part because of the success of aggressive marketing strategies such as the Steinway Artist program,[1]

The reference provided is by Stuart de Ocampo and says: "That Steinway aggressively sought out and paid (in various forms) for artist endorsements must be stressed in order to combat an idealistic notion that the greatest of pianists flocked to Steinway simply because it was the best."

"aggressively sought out and paid (in various forms) for artist endorsements" is changed in the article to "aggressive marketing strategies such as the Steinway Artist program". First of all, Stuart de Ocampo's quote is only about the Steinway Artist program so the phrase "such as" is an exaggeration. Secondly and more importantly, according to David Liebeskind the elements of the Steinway strategy are "1) unparalleled quality, 2) a strong focus on the market's high end, 3) a comprehensive restoration program, 4) an art case and limited edition program, 5) the All Steinway School Program, 6) a strong dealer network, 7) a concert and artists program, 8) and a highly skilled work force." Stuart de Ocampo's quote above is only about pianists playing Steinway pianos and he even doesn't mention anything about marketing. Stuart de Ocampo doesn't say anything about e.g. the art case and limited edition program or the All Steinway School Program. Stuart de Ocampo writes about only 1 of the 8 strategy elements. Stuart de Ocampo's quote is misused, especially because Stuart de Ocampo writes in the same source that "Medals at fairs and international exhibitions were the basis of Steinway & Sons' early reputation." Stuart de Ocampo himself doesn't say that Steinway's "status as the world's elite piano manufacturer has been secured in part because of the success of aggressive marketing strategies". Actually, the truth is that he says in the same source that "the basis of Steinway & Sons' early reputation" is "Medals at fairs and international exhibitions". --Oldnewnew (talk) 17:12, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ de Ocampo, Stuart (1997). "Review: The Steinway Saga: An American Dynasty by Donald W. Fostle; Steinway & Sons by Richard K. Lieberman". American Music. 15 (3): 409. 
The purpose of a lead section is to summarise the article. The term "aggressive" is not only used by de Ocampo, but summarises the whole of the section on the Steinway Artist program which lists numerous examples of aggressive marketing. (There is, of course, no problem with aggressive marketing; any business is entitled to do it within the law). Further, comparing de Ocampo to Liebeskind is fallacious. De Ocampo, in an academic journal, was summarising a lengthy and meticulous work of research by Donald W. Fostle. Liebeskind was writing a short non-peer reviewed summary on a website that involves no critical interrogation of Steinway at all. De Ocampo's version is therefore far more trustworthy. Having deconstructed your points on their merits, it remains for me to make one point. It is extraneous but I can't help but make it. It is to point out the irony of you complaining about Steinway's marketing being described as "aggressive" when your behaviour on this very page is a very obvious example of Steinway's aggressive marketing. Syek88 (talk) 09:43, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
- First of all David Liebeskind's article was published in a journal by the New York University Stern School of Business, which the reference clearly states. It is also on the website of the New York University, but your guess "summary on a website" is false. The Stuart de Ocampo source is nothing else that a short book review, and the headline in the journal clearly says "Book reviews".
- However, I can remove your statement in the beginning of the article, because is it your own statement that is not 100% supported by Stuart de Ocampo. It is your own conclusion. Therefore, I can simple remove it per Wikipedia:No original research that states "Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not clearly stated by the sources themselves." Stuart de Ocampo writes "Innovations in piano construction carved out a unique sound for the Steinway pianos in the mid-nineteenth century. Medals at fairs and international exhibitions were the basis of Steinway & Sons' early reputation." And you are absolutely aware of the problem based on your own previous edit: changing "A Steinway spokesman said that Steinway naturally does not want anyone on the Steinway Artist roster who does not want to play the Steinway" to "A Steinway spokesman said, in response to Lortie's decision to perform a concert on a Fazioli, that "I don't want anyone on our roster ... who doesn't want to play the Steinway exclusively"" and you wrote it was "Replacing an inaccurate paraphrase ("naturally"?) with a quote"[1] Your statement in the lead is clearly much, much more inaccurate than the one you edited. So how do you explain that?
- Regarding being aggresive, the only aggressive person here is you because all you do is trying to talk Steinway down by adding "low" things like "the company hired detectives to spy on its workers, paid police for their backing, and evicted strike leaders from company housing" and quotes like "the pianist that crosses Steinway commits suicide". The quote here is almost funny to read in an encyclopedia because the quote clearly has no encyclopedic value. I suggest that you take your smear campaigns to articles about politicians that you personally don't like. --Oldnewnew (talk) 12:44, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
You show no intellectual consistency. In the section above you rail against the inclusion of quotes. Now you rail against statements that summarise what qualified experts say. That is not surprising to me: the only consistency in your behaviour is to your own wallet. Even putting your present argument at its highest, the most that could be contended is for the word "aggressive" to be deleted. There is no justification for deleting anything more than that. Syek88 (talk) 08:03, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
You lack of good argumentation just shows that I'm right. You try to attack me as a person and not what I write about the article. Wikipedia:No original research says "Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not clearly stated by the sources themselves."" and you cannot argue against my previous comment. --Oldnewnew (talk) 14:19, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
According to Wikipedia:No personal attacks, "Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor." According to Wikipedia:Assume good faith, "Unless there is clear evidence to the contrary, assume that people who work on the project are trying to help it, not hurt it. If criticism is needed, discuss editors' actions, but avoid accusing others of harmful motives without clear evidence." Your many personal attacks on me around on this talk page and in the edit summaries are violating Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Your many accusations at me for having harmful motives are violating Wikipedia:Assume good faith. This means that you have violated both Wikipedia:No personal attacks and Wikipedia:Assume good faith numerous times. (For your information/curiosity the majority of my edits in the Steinway & Sons article have been adding cite templates, restoring dead links, and adding references through the entire Steinway & Sons article. These technical adjustments count for hundreds of my edits in the Steinway & Sons article). --Oldnewnew (talk) 04:39, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Removing conclusion by editor per Wikipedia:No original research[edit]

After a discussion above in the section The lead – Statement not in citation given, and no good reason given by the editor Syek88, I am removing his statement in the beginning of the article, because is it his own statement that is not clearly supported by the reference by Stuart de Ocampo. It is Syek88's own conclusion. Therefore, I remove it per Wikipedia:No original research that states "Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not clearly stated by the sources themselves." The reference by Stuart de Ocampo actually concludes "Innovations in piano construction carved out a unique sound for the Steinway pianos in the mid-nineteenth century. Medals at fairs and international exhibitions were the basis of Steinway & Sons' early reputation."

Syek88 must be aware of the problem based on his own previous edit: e.g. changing "A Steinway spokesman said that Steinway naturally does not want anyone on the Steinway Artist roster who does not want to play the Steinway" to "A Steinway spokesman said, in response to Lortie's decision to perform a concert on a Fazioli, that "I don't want anyone on our roster ... who doesn't want to play the Steinway exclusively"" and he wrote it was "Replacing an inaccurate paraphrase ("naturally"?) with a quote"[2] His statement in the lead is clearly much, much more inaccurate than the one he edited.

In the section The lead – Statement not in citation given I pointed out the problem in the articles' lead and hoped for a constructive discussion. However, Syek88 haven't been able to give a good reason for his conslusion in the article. Instead he keeps writing personal attacks, which he also did write to the editor Epic Genius.

Syek88's purpose seems to be to try to talk Steinway down by adding "low" things like "the company hired detectives to spy on its workers, paid police for their backing, and evicted strike leaders from company housing" and quotes like "the pianist that crosses Steinway commits suicide". The quote here is almost funny to read in an encyclopedia because the quote clearly has no encyclopedic value. It seems like a smear campaign.

But to sum up, I remove Syek88's conclusion per Wikipedia:No original research that states that "Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not clearly stated by the sources themselves." and Syek88's conclusion is definitely not supported by the reference by Stuart de Ocampo. Actually Stuart de Ocampo concludes "Innovations in piano construction carved out a unique sound for the Steinway pianos in the mid-nineteenth century. Medals at fairs and international exhibitions were the basis of Steinway & Sons' early reputation." --Oldnewnew (talk) 14:19, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Please try to keep your posts concise. Not all of us are paid by the hour. Your deletion of multiple sentences from the lead was totally inappropriate. You presented an arguable case above, concerning the term "aggressive". Even though the term "aggressive" was in the de Ocampo article, I am happy to delete it in the interests of compromise. There was, however, no basis at all for deleting the remainder of the material which validly points out the view, supported by de Ocampo and Fostle, that Steinway's marketing success has had much to with its present-day position. As for a "smear campaign", there is no such thing. All I want to do - having seen this article listed next to mine on the Good Article Nominations page - is ensure that this article properly represents the history and present-day of Steinway, which is mostly, but not entirely, positive. When I first saw this article I was stunned at its state. Anything I add that you don't like is not a smear but a correction of your little advertising pamphlet. Steinway makes a fine product and the article rightly says so. Syek88 (talk) 10:20, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Again, again the only thing you do is trying to attack me personally, instead of talking about the problem in the article. As I said before, I don't waste my time on commenting on that because I think that your attempt to shift the focus from your edits to me as a person is just a part of your smear campaign.
Yes, Stuart de Ocampo uses the phrase "aggressively sought out" but does not say "aggressive marketing". Stuart de Ocampo concludes in the same source you provided that "Medals at fairs and international exhibitions were the basis of Steinway & Sons' early reputation." which means that you use the Stuart de Ocampo source in a false way.
If you really want to have the article listed as a Good Article the article was close to become a Good Article before your edits; according to Talk:Steinway & Sons/GA1.
And by the way, just because a source says that Steinway is e.g. a "brilliant" piano company doesn't mean that the word "brilliant" is acceptable on Wikipedia. It's easy to find sources with superlatives and so-called POV words, but these words are as I know not preferred to include in Wikipedia. Would you think it was correct, If I found a source (e.g. a newspaper article) saying that Barack Obama is an "idiot" and created a sentence with the word "idiot" and put it in the article about Barack Obama? --Oldnewnew (talk) 15:33, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
I have removed the word "aggressive", voluntarily - sometimes in life you need to pay people "go away" money. I have also added the Fostle reference to support the point about marketing being a factor in Steinway's success. I think we are done, so far as this issue goes. Syek88 (talk) 22:08, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

References

Comments[edit]

Saw this page on the list of GA nominations. Giving it a quick look-over, I think it relies far too much on primary sources. For example, the Patented Inventions section looks to be completely, or almost completely, original research by reviewing patent records themselves. Even legal patent experts have a hard time verifying in a court of law how legitimate/valid a filed patent is, its level of significance and so on - we definitely need secondary sources for this kind of thing. When I start looking at the References section, a large number of them are primary sources published by Steinway & Sons and its affiliates. CorporateM (Talk) 20:23, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

For your information: As of April 2016, none of the references in the article are primary sources or original research. All the references are reliable, independent, third-party sources, from books, journals, newspaper websites, legally uploaded YouTube videos, etc. Not Steinway websites. And all the references in the article are written using a citation template, like: cite book, cite journal, cite news, cite web, cite AV media, or cite AV media notes. --KJHis-JKHB (talk) 13:53, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
The person who nominated the article has been banned from Wikipedia. For that, for the reasons you give, and for the reason that this article is little better than a corporate pamphlet, I consider that the article should not be awarded "Good Article" status. Syek88 (talk) 22:04, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
For the curious reader:
Pyrotec after a complete review of the article: "The article itself is close to being a "GA"."[3]
CorporateM after no review of the article and after having failed to see reference No. 33 (Kehl, Roy F.; Kirkland, David R. (2011). The Official Guide to Steinway Pianos. The United States: Amadeus Press. pp. 133–138. ISBN 978-1-57467-198-8.): "article is not close to GA"[4]
Information about the nominator is an invalid reason. The good article criteria are outlined on Wikipedia:Good article criteria. --TheReferenceProvider (talk) 09:16, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
I don't think the article is sufficiently close to GA. I'm also suspicious of any account that is newly registered solely to focus on this topic. Binksternet (talk) 17:48, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Please WP:AGF, until you have something more than just suspicions (such as an edit that seems to have WP:NPOV issues, or something to clearly indicate WP:COI). Murph9000 (talk) 15:40, 27 January 2016 (UTC)