Talk:Audubon Quartet

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Classical music

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

If you feel tempted to change this article, please be sure to review Wikipedia policies regarding neutral point-of-view (NPOV) and basic editing procedures. It appears that some of the people directly involved in the legal dispute have altered this page to adhere to their personal narrative while ignoring basic formatting and editing standards. There really needs to be section here about the lawsuit, but it needs to be written by a disinterested third party, and not by one of the people who is personally involved. VTDoubleE 18:26, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I politely request that you do not edit this page without at least familiarizing yourself with how Wikipedia works. This is not the appropriate place for snarky commentary and one-sided attacks. I would like to see both sides of the issue presented here, but in order to do that, people need to exercise some self-control. VTDoubleE 17:02, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not believe Wikipedia's policies preclude quoting from an official judgment entered by a court of law, simply because such judgments, by their very nature, are not "neutral." I have no personal interests whatsoever at stake here. I am perfectly comfortable with a reference for the Audubon Quartet, which omits references to the lawsuit altogether. I cannot, however, accept references to the lawsuit which seem to try to sweep the essence of the judgment under the rug.

13 August 2007

Contrary to what has been claimed earlier on this web site, there is no "ongoing" litigation. The parties reached a settlement in early 2006, and the case was finally closed in February 2007. 151.199.118.211 02:15, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, they do not preclude you from quoting court opinions, but I think there is a better place to discuss the lawsuit and its findings. What's there right now seems out of place. Secondly, when an appropriate place is found, you need to cite your references appropriately. Otherwise, how does someone know that's what it actually said? I certainly don't want to sweep anything under the rug. I think the lawsuit needs to be discussed here because it is an important and interesting part of the history of the quartet, even if it isn't the nicest story in the whole world. I, for one, would really like to see both sides stories presented in an unbiased, objective fashion. The reason that I asked people directly involved with this issue to refrain from editing this article is because I saw that Mr. Shaw had made some changes. I don't believe he is in a position to write objectively about this topic. I think the same should go for people who have taken one side or the other in this issue.

You are correct that the litigation has ended; please be sure to add a citation for this. VTDoubleE 02:49, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Audubon String Quartet appears to be no more

http://www.audubon4tet.com/

I do not seem to be able to edit the article, but it should reflect the dissolution of the group. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pslatts (talk • contribs) 00:54, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Audubon Quartet. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 09:21, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

IP and other editors lacking User pages

IP editors are of course very welcome to edit here. And as a registered editor, I also understand that at times, by accident or intent, registered editors also may end up doing work from an IP address. All good.

However, at a contentious article, one where there are differing ideas as to what the content should be, it is helpful:

for appearances sake, for editors participating to have a User page with at least minimal content, so that your User name does not appear in red, an appearance which can bias an incoming editor against your work (because many vandalising visitors and other single-article editors present thus); and
for sake of communication, to work from your registered account, rather than an IP address, both for the foregoing reason, and because it makes communication easier.

As well, when one is a registered user, your description of yourself at your User page can be a way to make clear your interests and capabilities, and so perhaps avoid conflicts based on misperceptions—for instance, visiting mine would make clear I have an academic but not academic or performing musical background, and so am not a part of this group. (In fact, I was a musician when young, and so bring a little classical musci background to the editing.) In the same vein, by visiting the User page of User:VTDoubleE we might learn that, contrary to what the name seems to imply, s/he is not a Virginia Tech student, and so not intimately associated with this southwest Virginia musical ensemble (and so not one who might need to take care with regard to WP:NPOV).

Bottom line, in a contentious article, it is best to be as up front as possible about interests, relationships, and editing aims, and to make communication as easy as possible. In this regard, I will do all communicating about this article at this Talk page (and not answer anything about it at my User Talk page). Cheers, see below. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 19:02, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disclaimer

I am the editor who will be toggling between the "in use" and "under construction" tags at this article into the near future. I am an academic, and so a formalist about encyclopedic content—all information verifiably sourced, no violations of WP:Original research or WP:Verify. As well, to be clear: As an academic, I have visited the university community in southwest Virginia where the title quartet was based (Blacksburg, Virginia), and so have ties to that area. However, I do not have a personal relationship with any member of this group, early or late, and so have no personal stake or side in any dispute that has occurred. (In my parlance, I have "no horse in the race".) Otherwise, my views and aims for the article are set out below. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 19:02, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Accuracy of article to published history

The article clearly presents a selective history of the group. I have no horse in the race, and if anything, might be most sympathetic to the four artists present in the group at time of its disbanding in 2011. That is, if there is any latent bias I have to guard against, it would be to favour the group and article as it currently appears. (This statement and my editing initiative are therefore, in some sense, a declaration against interest.)

However, the published work on this group makes clear (i) that the composition of the quartet changed at a point in time, with its lead violinist changing, (ii) that the reorganization was contentious, and (iii) that the acclaim of the group lies in part, in the earlier era of the group that is not represented in any fashion in the article. This history, information, and news was notable enough to have been the subject of a National Public Radio piece, and published information appears in a variety of other sources as well.

To begin with, today, I am going to restructure the article in standard fashion of a musical group. I will also add what information I can to identify the date and composition of the group picture, and I will add a Further reading section that has relevant, high value articles so that a good encyclopedic article can be written.

Bottom line, whatever injustices might have been a part of the evolution of the group, the article must present as accurate a perspective as the published sources allow. One cannot ignore or rewrite history—including through factual admission—based on ones perspective of those in the right or in the wrong. Cheers, Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 16:11, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am choosing the articles on the Amadeus Quartet, the Takács Quartet, and the Lindsay String Quartet as the articles to parallel in terms of the Audubon Quartet article's ultimate structure and composition. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 19:02, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]