Jump to content

Talk:Burrill Phillips

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

COI?[edit]

I notice that a COI banner has been placed at the top of this article by User:Rms125a@hotmail.com. Surveying the edit history of the article, I cannot see which of the editors who have been active since its creation might be meant by this. Ignoring bots and anonymous IP editors, the complete list (in alphabetical order) is:

and of course User:Rms125a@hotmail.com and myself. Which of us is supposed to have some personal connection with the subject of this article? For that matter, since most of these editors have made just one or two contributions, who is the "major editor" to which the banner refers?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 02:38, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently I created this article as a stub over a decade ago. i don't even remember who Burrill Phillips is. I'm removing the tag until some explanation is placed on this page. Gamaliel (talk) 03:43, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to be from the anonymous IP contributions in 2006-2007 attributed to his daughter Ann Phillips Basart (who also write one of the sources cited in the article, though because it's a respected encyclopedia is presumably fair). I don't have time now to see if that even represents material currently in the article. Rigadoun (talk) 22:14, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The anonymous IP edits, or the New Grove article by Basart? If the latter, there are currently three inline citations, which I have just re-verified are correct according to New Grove 2; if the former, how extensive were those edits, and where/how are they attributed to Basart?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 03:17, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I was referring to the Sept 23, 2007 edit summary: "Restored the version submitted by Ann Phillips Basart, the daughter of the composer, herself a noted music bibliographer and music librarian at UC Berkeley. No copyright problem." The text included an attribution to her at the end. I imagine it was the article she wrote for Grove (I haven't checked), but the use of the word "submitted" implied that she had made those changes herself in a previous anonymous IP edit (which would possibly be COI). There's no real evidence that that's true, though, so I don't see the need for a COI tag. The other question is whether this has been sufficiently reworked since then (since I'm also not confident there was "no copyright problem," as that editor asserted), but you would probably have noticed that if you're looking at the New Grove article. Rigadoun (talk) 05:30, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I know nothing about this. —Wahoofive (talk) 05:42, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't lnow anything, either, but those anonymous IP edits "restoring the version submitted by Ann Phillips Basart" and adding the attribution at the end are traceable to an IP address near Frankfurt, Germany. There is a single (and substantial) earlier edit, from 5 September 2006, by IP 136.152.194.143, from Berkeley, California, but the anonymous Frankfurt IP could have been jumping to conclusions. The various quotations from Burrill Phillips's unpublished diaries are not found in Basart's New Grove article, and could only have come from someone with access to the manuscripts, possibly Basart herself (depending on where these diaries are held). This does not necessarily prove COI, since they may be in the Sibley Library archives, but it does mean that these quotations cannot be verified by publicly available means. Only scholars with privileged access could see them. Perhaps this is the object of User:Rms125a@hotmail.com's concern?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 06:45, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The article has been significantly improved, especially in tone, since I put the COI tag (see [1]). I think everything is OK now and we can move on. Thanks to everyone, especially but not only @Jerome Kohl, at this thread for your insight and hard work. Quis separabit? 13:47, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You are entirely welcome. I confess I have let this article slide for some time now, and your recent edits, User:Rms125a@hotmail.com, including those ominous banners, have returned my attention to an article badly in need of work. I have learned a few surprising things in the process, which always increases the pleasure of editing. Thank you, in turn, for turning on the lights.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:15, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Moresources tag[edit]

If he is in Grove I think that is good enough. Thoughts? Dlabtot (talk) 04:26, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That does seem sufficient, though by now several other sources have been added. Is that tag still in place?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 07:12, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Find a Grave[edit]

When I visited this article recently to convert its citation method from {{harv}} to {{sfn}}, I did some general cleanup and added {{Find a Grave}}, mainly because it shows a picture of Phillips and an obituary from an obscure newspaper, and it mentioned, new to me, Phillips' first name "Leroy". User:Nikkimaria then removed that template without giving a reason. I then cleaned up the article further, and restored the template, pointing to Template:Find a Grave/doc#As an WP:External link and WP:FINDAGRAVE-EL. Nikkimaria then removed the template again, citing WP:LINKVIO, which baffles me. What content at https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/92757847/burrill-leroy-phillips could be described as "carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright"? It seems that Nikkimaria misunderstands "rarely" to mean "never". -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:44, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The "obituary from an obscure newspaper" is likely to still be within copyright and lacks evidence of permission for being hosted there. Do you have evidence to the contrary? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:10, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously? (EOD) -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 14:24, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Burrill_Phillips&oldid=1209745694"