Talk:Brooklyn Philharmonic

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

Considering this article, http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/01/19/brooklyn-philharmonic-hires-music-director-and-aims-for-new-era/?ref=music, can somebody please change the artistic director section! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.251.234.29 (talk) 17:01, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the revisions made by 67.176.57.199, articles should not give minority views as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views. Wikipedia guidlines also state, "the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all." A statement that begins with “According to one critic,” does not conform to these guidelines. Original article referenced is one person's viewpoint, which is itself not sourced and is hearsay. Dispute resolution requests have been submitted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.173.236.68 (talk) 22:40, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, contrary to your assertion, the viewpoint is sourced clearly by the citation. It is a direct quote, not hearsay, from George Grella, a reputable critic, and published in the Brooklyn Rail, a reputable source. Second, you are taking that sentence completely out of context. This is not a situation like that regarding flat earth theory (the example given to illustrate the sentence you cited) whereby there is scientific consensus about objective facts and then a tiny fringe with no credibiily. This is a matter of subjective critical judgement. It is perfectly in accordance with policy to include the opinions of critics published in reliable sources, provided they are clearly presented as such, as is the case here.Sylvain1972 (talk) 18:01, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are many Wikipedia stated policies that are not in alignment with your assertions. To state one single critic's opinion as if it is factual does not conform to Wikipedia's NPOV policy. The statement you continue to publish is not factual. It is defamatory and libelous. Multiple dispute resolution requests have been made based on your edits. Wikipedia policy: "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.173.236.68 (talk) 05:51, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've listed a few more Wikipedia policies below that I believe illustrate that referencing one critic's viewpoint as part of the history of the Brooklyn Phil does not conform:

"There are many ways that an article can fail to adhere to the NPOV policy. Some examples are:

The article can simply be biased, expressing viewpoints as facts.
While each fact mentioned in the article might be presented fairly, the very selection (and omission) of facts can make an article biased.
Some viewpoints, although not presented as facts, can be given undue attention and space compared to others."

67.173.236.68 (talk) 06:06, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are simply mistaken. It is not stated as fact. The sentence clearly says, "according to one critic," and the citation names the critic. It is perfectly acceptable to include critical opinion when it is noted as such. One sentence does not constitute undue weight. If there is another critical viewpoint expressed in another reliable source, I would not not contest its inclusion. But this is a critical opinion from a reliable source that is clearly presented as a subjective opinion. Your deletion of it is inappropriate and not in accord with policy.Sylvain1972 (talk) 20:29, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your paraphrasing of the original article in the Brooklyn Rail is incorrect. Nowhere in that article does it attribute the canceling of the Brooklyn Phil season to the quality of the orchestra. Indeed, your edits are not factual and are libelous. I restate that dispute resolution has been requested, and I do hope we get a response soon so that this effort stops. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.173.236.68 (talk) 20:59, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article by Daniel J. Wakin in the New York Times (1/19/11) explains that the season was cancelled due to 'money problems.' No other reason is cited. This is a reliable source. http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/01/19/brooklyn-philharmonic-hires-music-director-and-aims-for-new-era/ 67.173.236.68 (talk) 21:08, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neither did my edits attribute the cancelling of the season to the quality of the orchestra, although I could see how you would feel that that was implied. So I have clearly separated the two assertions. Both are cited clearly. Sylvain1972 (talk) 20:22, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is the Brooklyn Philharmonic defunct? I note the verb "was" (not "is") in the lede paragraph.Frank Lynch (talk) 19:59, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Latest revisions by user "Frankonion" (16 June 2014) change tenses to past tense throughout. But still there is no reference that says it's gone. Frank Lynch (talk) 22:59, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Brooklyn Philharmonic. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:29, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]