Talk:Mark Wigglesworth

Discussion moved from Moeron's user page

Originally located at the talk page for User:Moeron.

Hi

Could you tell me why you have not accepted the updated biography I put on Mark Wigglesworth. The one you have reverted to has used unreliable sources and I would prefer the fuller biography that was written on January 8.

Thanks, Mark --MarkWigglesworth (talk) 12:44, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

• I have reinserted some information that you removed; please state on the talk page for the article why these are unreliable and then these may be removed. You also removed a number of necessary items, such as the successor box, and changed reference templates; for this reason, it was reverted. BTW, are you a fan or actually the person in the article? -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 21:42, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, I apologise for having left some important technical aspects out of the edit. My computer skills are limited so I am grateful for your corrections in that regard.

I have two questions. Have you left out things that you have not been able to find citations for? If this is the case I can easily get those to you, especially if you could give me a better idea of what is considered a reliable source. I find it surprising that Wikipedia seems to value newspaper articles more than other aspects of the publishing media. If that is the case, of course I have to respect that, but I would have thought that there were other more trustworthy sources. It is a frightening world where we follow the 'it must be true, I read it in the papers' philosophy! Is 'Who's Who' considered acceptable, I wonder?

I feel an obligation to some of the orchestras, and operas, that you have omitted. I appreciate that it might be considered boring to read the list but Wikipedia is nothing if not extensive! Incidentally we should omit the double reference to the Kondrashin competition. My role with the BBC Symphony Orchestra also gets a repetition which, despite its different context, might be a waste of space

The unreliable source that is cited is No 14 from Shirley Apthorpe. This article was based on interviews that do not give both sides of the story. The specific matter at La Monnaie that she refers to is at present legally sensitive and so I cannot make any comment but until these issues are resolved, I think it is better to omit this reference. Once the situation is sorted out I would be happy to point you towards an appropriate citation.

I appreciate the opportunity to have this correspondence and look forward to hearing from you.

Mark Wigglesworth (MarkWigglesworth (talk) 23:30, 9 January 2009 (UTC))

• Okay, first off, you may want to read our guideline on "conflicts of interest" on articles; editing an article about yourself is highly frowned upon because it goes against one of our five pillars, that of always providing a neutral point of view. When I re-added your material, the only deletion I made of your material is limiting some of the orchestras you listed. Wikipedia may strive for being extensive, but it isn't a collection of all information. I suggest just highlighting three of the most important "things" (in this case orchestras), perhaps through citations, but not all of them. You say you have an obligation to these orchestras, so therefore they should appear on your page, but again, this goes back to being a conflict of interest.
• As for the unreliable source you mention, it is from a reputable publication and the sentence in the article comes from news, not commentary. Therefore, I don't see a reason why it should not stay. I would accept a following sentence that presents the other side of the story if you could provide a reliable source for it.
• I hope that may answer some questions you have about the edits to this page. I am going to copy/paste this over to the articles talk page so it can continue there. I will also direct some WikiProjects there so others can weight in on the discussion. If you have any other technical questions about Wikipedia, feel free to ask me. Cheers! -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 00:16, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Just offering a second opinion. Moeron is correct in the points he makes, most importantly those regarding conflict of interest. As per the guideline, please do not edit the article, but instead post any information or sources you think may useful here on the talk page and editors without a COI will endeavor to incorporate them neutrally.

• It is not necessary to list all orchestras involved with - the article should not be a pseudo-cv.
• Newspapers are not valued above other printed sources, provided those sources are third party. They are just a readily accessible source that are legally responsible for the information they print and as such are frequently cited because a level of factual accuracy may be safely assumed. I agree that the cited Bloomberg story is acceptable for the article. If there is a published news source offering an alternative presentation of the story, feel free to point if out here on the talk page.
• Material with quality citations should not be removed from an article. If the subject of an article takes issue with some material or sources therein, they are advised to take the matter to the Biography of Living Persons Noticeboard instead of editing the article themself. sassf (talk) 09:44, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for this.

I appreciate the conflicts of issue but am happy that the version as it is now is a bit more detailed than it was.

As to the issue of the unreliable source, the problem is that the people who can put another side of the story are at the moment honouring the legal confidentiality agreement that was put in place. It seems strange that something that is untrue should have to stay in the article, but when and where the full account is forthcoming, I'll let you know.

I'm grateful to you both for allowing me to understand a bit more about the philosophies and guidelines of Wikipedia.

Mark (MarkWigglesworth (talk) 12:22, 10 January 2009 (UTC))

I think we should remove the stuff about the controversy in La Monnaie, and just say that he served as music director for the 2007-2008 season. We have from the horse's mouth, so to speak, that the story is inaccurate, even if he is a source we can't quote. When dealing with bios of living persons, you can't be too careful (see WP:BLP).

I also think we should put the Career Summary section in the lead, and remove all the other section heads, It's not like its a 3000 word article that people will have trouble finding their way around.

If there is agreement, I will gladly make the change. --Ravpapa (talk) 18:44, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I think you're right about taking the La Monnaie stuff out. At the moment it doesn't seem like something massively relevant to such a short article and if it is contentious then perhaps it needs more than one source if its to be kept. I toyed with putting that career summary stuff into the lead actually, but not knowing anything about the subject (sorry Mark!) wasn't sure how much of a representative list of jobs that actually was. Therefore I agree with that being moved there. As for the sections, I like sections, but have no opposition to them being removed in this case. Leave the 'Career' heading though just to separate the lead out? sassf (talk) 21:53, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Questions

I set out to revise this article as we discussed and ran up against the Opera Factory. What is it? The source puts it in England, but Googling it finds it only in New Zealand - a music school and repertory group. Can someone out there enlighten me? Tnx, --Ravpapa (talk) 06:33, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Opera Factory was founded by the director David Freeman firstly in Zurich, then in London, in the 80s/90s. Here are a couple of sources:

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4158/is_/ai_n14854752

http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2008/mar/05/classicalmusicandopera

Thanks for everybody's input on this, Mark (MarkWigglesworth (talk) 12:31, 11 January 2009 (UTC))

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mark Wigglesworth. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070827101805/http://www.cmartists.com/artists/mark_wigglesworth.htm to http://www.cmartists.com/artists/mark_wigglesworth.htm

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 16:17, 3 June 2017 (UTC)