Jump to content

Talk:La Petite Bande

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

Not neutral

[edit]

I have questions about the neutrality of user "La Petite Bande" who is editing this article, now the orchestra is fighting for survival. This looks like a soapbox approach to get support for their internet petition... Night of the Big Wind talk 18:27, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See this section: On 2 February 2009, Sigiswald Kuijken was awarded the Prize for Cultural Merit by the Belgian government.[9] The following day, the advisory committee of the Ministry of Culture made a recommendation that La Petite Bande's 600,000 euro annual subsidy be removed. Kuijken's students started an internet petition to save the subsidy which received 21,000 signatures.[10] The Minister of Culture at the time, Bert Anciaux, ignored the advice of the committee and restored the subsidy until 2012 (reduced to 590,000 euro). The ensemble has since started a charitable foundation, Support La Petite Bande, to make up the shortfall. Night of the Big Wind talk 18:29, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
User La Petite Bande added a discography. That is neutral. I asked to format it better. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:08, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That discography is from my hand after changing the copyvio discography placed on the Dutch version. Night of the Big Wind talk 23:05, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
User:La Petite Bande is violating at least two policies: 1) a username matching a real organization and 2) acting like an SPA. Other than that, I feel the tags are not warranted. Having money problems and seeking support is wiki-ok. PumpkinSky talk 23:45, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I welcome the choice of user name as an open declaration of affiliation. I commented the picture he added because 1) permission is not established, 2) it is not a good picture. I don't think a discography is promotional. To my understanding, User:La Petite Bande didn't not change the established article otherwise. Tags should be specific. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:50, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The 6-fold tagging is unwarranted. Which part of the article reads like an advertisement? Which particular "cleanup" issues need to be addressed? Whether it was edited by a contributor with close connections with the subject is irrelevant – what counts is what's on the page. How is the article not neutral? Which are improper references to self-published sources? What's wrong with the tone? Further: a discography cannot possibly violate copyright. I suggest to remove those tags. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 07:26, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
User:La Petite Bande has a WP:USERNAME problem, and probably a COI. But they didn't do anything to this article beside add the now removed picture, and the discography section, which Gerda has cleaned up. This tag bombing is unwarranted, and since others are saying so, too, I'm going to remove them. I'll also lend a hand in moving this article forward. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 09:12, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I personally find the tag-bombing bizarre. I created the article in 2010 as it was a red link in several other articles and have no connection whatsoever with this ensemble. The alleged "soapboxing" was (a) not added by User La Petite Bande, it was original to the article as I wrote it, and (b) is based on articles in the Belgian newspapers De Standaard and Het Nieuwsblad. This article has multiple high quality references to published reliable sources with independent editorial control. The only one which could be conceivably be considered "self-published" (although not by the subject) is the recording review in Music Web International, and frankly, it's really stretching this to call it "self-published" —it is a long established classical music site, and the author of the review is a reasonably well-known flautist and composer. Voceditenore (talk) 12:43, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Continuo

[edit]

The reference to an anonymous review of Haydn's The Creation has got a persistent problem, about which I have had a conversation with User:Br'er Rabbit elsewhere. This appeared in 1983, and is currently annotated as Continuo 6–7, which I interpret as vols. 6–7 of a journal called Continuo. As it happens, there were two such journals published in that time-frame, neither of which appears any longer to exist. The most likely candidate is Continuo: The Magazine for Old Music, which began life as Toronto Early Music Directory, then just Early Music Directory before changing its name to Continuo in the midst of its volume-1 run (1977–78). The other is Continuo: Journal of IAML (Australia), which began publication in 1971. Since volumes 6–7 of this music-librarians' journal fall in 1977 and 1978, this cannot be the one meant. Unfortunately, volumes 6–7 of the Canadian journal comprise either 22 or 24 separate issues (depending on who you want to believe about the number of issues per volume), covering the period 1982 to 1984. I suspect that "6–7" is meant to refer to page numbers rather than volume numbers, since that magazine did not publish long articles in serial format. However, that leaves the problem of identifying which of eleven or twelve issues in 1983 (divided between vols. 6 and 7) is meant. I have tried everything I can think of, without further success. Can anyone help with this?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:22, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I had added the ref when I was creating the article. It refers to this journal, page 42 in Volumes 6-7. Because it is only a snippet view I cant't tell you which issue. Note also that someone has later listed the author of the review as "Anon" which is not true. All the reviews appear to be signed, but the snippet view doesn't reveal the name. Voceditenore (talk) 07:53, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ah! I have seen this sort of thing before. Google Books often provides snippet views of journals scanned from library volumes where multiple issues are bound together. In this case, make that a pair of volumes. Because Continuo was paginated separately by issue (unlike many scholarly publications that are paginated continuously through multiple issues of each volume), the page number is useless without a corresponding issue number. That is, page 42 occurs in each and every one of the 22 (or 24) issues of the magazine bound together in that collection. I was the one who tagged the item as "anonymous", simply because an author's name needs to be given in order to fill that space in the listing. I found it unlikely that such a review would have been unsigned in Continuo (I used to see issues of it from time to time, so I do have some idea of its nature), but cannot determine who the author was. This magazine does not appear to have been indexed by RILM or Music Index, and is not on JSTOR's list of publications. My own institution's library does not hold this journal, and without an issue number I cannot obtain the article through interlibrary borrowing. The nearest library to me that does hold it is across the border in Canada. Perhaps the next time I am up there, I will stop by and browse Continuo in an effort to discover this information. In the meantime, Canadian editors are more likely to have access to this information than anyone else (since it was published in Toronto until 1991), so perhaps someone from that country can come to our rescue.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:08, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently, the Canadian Mennonite University holds several volumes: Periodicals List. Or one could ask the multi-talented Mat Redsell who claims he ran an "early music magazine Continuo". It would of course be simpler if a different source could be found for the claim that the group's 1982 recording of The Creation was the first to use period instruments. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 07:48, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually there already is another source in the article that references the claim, Kemp p. 22 in Gramophone (November 1997). Why not just leave the Continuo reference out? It's hardly worth the time and effort to track down the specific issue number. Often times when I start an article, I over-source and then go back later and prune the list. So prune away. :) Voceditenore (talk) 08:41, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on La Petite Bande. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:58, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on La Petite Bande. 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) 01:21, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:La_Petite_Bande&oldid=1253247213"