Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Khatia Buniatishvili COI editing?[edit]

Looks like a PR piece, written by a succession of single use/single article accounts. - Pianosoon (talk) 10:46, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

  • not only that, but the photo is suspect. It seems the same photo was already once deleted as without copyright permission. It was then reuploaded by a user claiming it was their own work - and remains the user's only upload to WikiCommons.--Smerus (talk) 12:16, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
The article is written mainly by two users, Eka-eka-eka92 in 2013 and SamSClassical in 2014, neither of whom (if they are different people) has bothered to register. To me this looks like hired work. I'm not sure what one can do about this, other than point out that many of those sources are suspect (certainly not the performer's website). kosboot (talk) 12:36, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I don't think there's any mileage in looking for paid editing. The article is promotional in tone and needs clean-up, but there are enough sources, even ignoring the primary ones, to indicate notability. @Kosboot:, I think you're misread the article's history. Eka-eka-eka92' edits (diff) are entirely to do with pictures. SamSClassical's (diff) are more extensive, but the article was already at 10,394 bytes before he started, and he actually reduced its size, for example, removing the crufty paragraph that began "Performances are available via social networking sites". I've tagged it {{Peacock}} and {{Copyedit}} (for=tone). --Stfg (talk) 14:27, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
    • The subject is clearly notable. I have a feeling the article was promotion from the very outset. [1] Some sources on her 2014 London performances.[2][3][4] Pianosoon (talk) 16:03, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I was quite alarmed to see the selective collection of reviews of Buniatishvili's recordings, inaccurately representing the critical response. Consequently, I have inserted into the article some stark contrary opinions from Gramophone, which I felt were necessary to balance the cherry-picked praise. There are other scathing reviews too - and Syek88 (talk) 07:21, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Ji Liu (pianist)[edit]

Alerted on my talk by DJRafe, who cleaned up Ji Liu (pianist), I reverted once and went to the talk, but it needs more. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:48, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Symphony No. [X] pages[edit]

See discussion I initiated at Template talk:Symphonies by number and name#Disambiguation pages?. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:15, 26 February 2015 (UTC)


Take a look, if you will, at this page: I wonder if the many books all published by the same publisher are each legitimate references source in context, or whether we are perhaps being used by a publisher as a free advertising platform. I don't know the books myself so I am not sure; maybe someone else has better information? Thanks, Opus33 (talk) 19:33, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I spotted that too. The publisher is Kahn and Averill. A week or so ago I reported User:Kahn and Averill at UAA and it was blocked as a spam account. Will look into this one now. --Stfg (talk) 20:08, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes, this account is doing nothing but adding books from that publisher to articles. --Stfg (talk) 20:45, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Advice taken and SPI raised. --Stfg (talk) 00:35, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
I see from here that Morris Kahn was a founder of Kahn and Averill. I also see that he died in 2014 so he's either editing from the grave or someone is impersonating him. --Deskford (talk) 01:04, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. What is SPI? Opus33 (talk) 04:10, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
SPI = Sockpuppet investigations, e.g. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Kahn_and_Averill. Looking through the links, at least some of the books appear to be useful and appropriate as "further reading", but there's an obvious conflict of interest as the publishing house is adding links to their own publications. Antandrus (talk) 04:27, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes, this, for example, is a good addition. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 07:44, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Kahn & Averill is an excellent music publisher, from what I've seen. In most cases, their books have definitely place in our articles, as sources or "further reading". To me, it's hard to call their editing "spamming". --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 07:58, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────The books listed in biographical articles under a "Writings" section which were written by the subject are fine. A few of the "Further reading" ones are useful, but most are not, e.g. Mozart and the Pianist added to Mozart, which is essentially a guide for pianists on how to play Mozart's piano music. They are never appropriate to be added as "Sources" or "References", unless they have been actually used as such. Yes, this is spam, regardless of the worth of the publishing house, and no doubt prompted by the fact that they have just launched their new website. I'm going to leave him a note saying that given the obvious COI, he needs to suggest additions on article talk pages and let uninvolved editors assess whether they are worth adding. Interestingly the new name he appears to have chosen is Morris Kahn, the founder of the publishing house who died last year and apparently had no children. Not quite impersonation, but unless he's a nephew... well... Voceditenore (talk) 08:08, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

... he needs to suggest additions on article talk pages and let uninvolved editors assess whether they are worth adding is a sensible solution and a good advice for that account, I would say. Thanks. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 08:26, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Actually, I take it back that a "Writings" section for books which were written by the subject is fine. Not exactly. What this user did was replace the information about the date and publisher of the first editions of the books with information solely about their reprint (often many years later) which is very misleading to the reader. See Pierre Bernac for example. I've since rectified that one. But their other changes to "Writings" sections need to be fixed if they haven't already been reverted. Voceditenore (talk) 10:41, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Your advice on their talk page is excellent, Voceditenore. Yesterday I went through the contributions and removed a few of them, including the graded guides for pianists. But it was difficult because, as Vejvančický says, many of the added books appear relevant and useful at first sight. In the end, I retained far more than I removed. But this is clearly spamming: this and the previous account did nothing except add listings of books published by this publishing house, and this one, for example, is blatantly a plug. I won't be removing any more of them myself, but would welcome another one or two pairs of eyes on this. --Stfg (talk) 11:02, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
I have to agree that linking newer and still available editions by an account connected to the publishing house is likely spamming. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 11:11, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm going to gradually check all their additions of "Writings" sections and restore or change the information to the first editions. I personally find using the {{OCLC}} template much more useful than ISBN for situations like this. An OCLC number takes you directly to the WorldCat entry which allows you to view all the editions and formats of a particular work with their dates and publishers. ISBN is basically a commercial book identifier, and in my view can be appropriate for indicating the specific edition of book used in a reference, but not much else. Voceditenore (talk) 11:40, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Just wanted to add that I've also noticed User:Morriskahn adding entries for Kahn & Averill publications. Perhaps someone should block him? kosboot (talk) 13:53, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
kosboot, User:Morriskahn is pretty obviously a sock of the already blocked User:Kahn and Averill. I imagine this cuurent incarnation will also be blocked following the SPI here. Voceditenore (talk) 14:06, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for showing that to me, VdT. kosboot (talk) 17:27, 2 March 2015 (UTC)