Jump to content

Talk:Lang Lang

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

And still more bias - incredible, but not at all surprising for Wikipedia

[edit]

This article states the following:

"In 2001, after a sold-out Carnegie Hall debut with Yuri Temirkanov...."

This again is an utterly misleading statement. Why use the words "sold-out" for a Carnegie Hall debut, when nearly every single classical pianist who has played at Carnegie Hall for the first time has sold out.

This is as meaningless as saying a famous tennis player won Wimbledon on his first attempt after winning the most sets in the game!

It is interesting too that Lang Lang's first *solo* recital at Carnegie Hall (often the far more important recital for concert pianists) is not even mentioned in this article, despite the fact that the concert was panned by critics. How interesting that this critical part of his musical career is conspicuously absent. But I am sure Jeff G. will add it soon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.50.181.200 (talk) 07:41, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More bias

[edit]

This article states the following regarding Lang Lang:

He has been labeled by some critics as "Bang Bang".

For a classical pianist, and for anyone who understands the piano instrument, that's a very severe criticism. Yet curiously, there is no reference for this "fact" in the article.

How much would you like to bet that if I delete that line because it lacks sources, Jeff G., Wikipedia's resident musical expert, will decide he's had it, and will ban me from Wikipedia? I mean heaven forbid if someone should try and remove non-neutral POV from an article that does not agree with the non-neutral POV of Wikipedia editors! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.50.181.200 (talk) 07:28, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And more bias still

[edit]

I am sure Jeff G. is just grabbing a coffee before he bans me for good for removing two words from this article. Banning is the Wikipedia way. But while I still have a chance before the censors descend on the truth, perhaps let's look beyond classical pianists, just in case Jeff G. thinks I am being a "snob".

The Wikipedia article on Liberace states "His first show on local television in Los Angeles was a smash hit, earning the highest ratings of any local show, which he parlayed into a sold out appearance at the Hollywood Bowl."

Now here we have a very good use of the words "sold out" because in the above context it is clearly a neutral point of view. It relates to a specific concert in Liberace's career, of significant importance. There is a valid reason for the reader to know that the concert was "sold out".

But it appears (if we are to adhere to Jeff G.'s view) that the article on Keith Emerson (a revolutionary pianist in the rock/jazz intersection), should not mention that any of his concerts were "sold out" (even though I *know* that at least one was because I was there!)

How about Oscar Peterson, arguably one of the greatest jazz pianists that ever lived, if not the greatest....interesting, no mention of "sold out" concerts in his Wikipedia article either.

Goodness, if I was a person visiting Wikipedia and I knew little about pianists, and I was coming to *learn* (isn't that what Wikipedia is all about?) I would have to conclude that Lang Lang was the only pianist in the entire universe that could fill a hall! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.50.181.200 (talk) 06:50, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And yet more bias

[edit]

Goodness, even Victor Borge, the brilliant humorist of the piano, one of the greats that ever lived, has not had a "sold out" concert, according to Wikipedia. But Lang Lang has, and that's just fine, because that's a neutral point of view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.50.181.200 (talk) 06:37, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More Wikpiedia bias =

[edit]

Here are a few more pianists in Wikipedia where there is no mention of "sold out" concerts:

Georges Cziffra Sviatoslav Richter Claudio Arrau Glenn Gould Wilhelm Kempff

I guess Lang Lang is the only pianist in the world that has ever had a sold out concert. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.50.181.200 (talk) 06:34, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Last warning

[edit]

I have tried to remove just two words from this article, namely "sold out" - words which are not at all appropriate in an encyclopedia. They clearly represent a non-neutral point of view, because every great pianist has had sold out concerts. Here is the reply from Jeff G. (whose music credentials we are still waiting for):

"This is your last warning. The next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Lang Lang (pianist) with this edit, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 05:57, 26 November 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.50.181.200 (talk)

Where is Jeff G.?

[edit]

So where has Jeff G. gone? I removed *two words* from this article, namely "sold out", to try and make it at least *somewhat consistent* with all the other articles in Wikipedia on famous concert pianists, and to give it at least a *somewhat* neutral point of view, and previously Jeff G. removed the edit almost as fast as I could put it in.

I suppose he as gone to the bathroom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.50.181.200 (talk) 06:23, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I get so sick and tired of Wikipedia editors who tell everyone that articles should have neutral point of view, when they themselves have *anything but* a neutral point of view, and in most cases they themselves have little to *zero* knowledge on the subject at hand.

As I said, it does not surprise me one bit that schools where I live FORBID students from using Wikipedia. Thank goodness.

Who is Jeff G.?

[edit]

Given that Jeff G. is acting as an authority on Lang Lang, could he please tell us who he is? What are his credentials, and what is his educational background.

Certainly my first edit to Lang Lang's page was a bit silly, but I was just fooling around because I was so completely surprised at how biased this article is. However, my second edit was serious. Based on the many other articles on concert pianists in Wikipedia it is clear that using the words "sold out" is not a neutral point of view. But Jeff G. clearly seems to think otherwise. So perhaps he can explain why the article on Lang Lang can speak of "sold out concerts", not at all unusual for any great classical pianist, while the articles on many other pianists, some arguably among the greatest pianists in the world, do not mention this fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.50.181.200 (talk) 06:16, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sold out concerts

[edit]

This article is one of many *blatant* examples of complete bias and unprofessional editing in Wikipedia. This article states that Lang Lang has given "sold out recitals". This is clearly a bias point of view. The Wikipedia article on Evgeny Kissin for example does not mention "sold out recitals". The article of Vladimir Howortize does not mention "sold out recitals". The article on Valdimir Ashkenazy does not mention "sold out recitals". The article on Van Cliburn does not mention "sold out recitals". The article on "Arthur Rubinstein" does not mention "sold out recitals". The article on "Maurizio Pollini" does not mention "sold out recitals".

But for some reason when it comes to Lang Lang, "sold out recitals" is suddenly importantly.

I tried removing the two words "sold out", and some anonymous person named "Jeff G.", whose credentials we don't even know, whose music background we don't even know, whose authority we don't even know, immediately reversed them and who threatened to ban me from Wikipedia.

I can see now why my childrens' teachers in school tell my children they will get ZERO on any assignment if they use Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.50.181.200 (talk) 06:08, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Education

[edit]

I think in terms of education it might very relevant to understand how many hours this pianist has practiced on average per year. Just: He started, and then he was famous, seems a bit short. If there is some official information about how many hours he put in (private practice and teaching), then that would surely help the other "piano" kids and their parents to make a decision about whether they want their child to spend 20.000 hours or more sitting in a little room. 137.226.181.93 (talk) 20:14, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From http://leadershipchallenge.typepad.com/leadership_challenge/2008/12/are-you-practicing-like-lang-lang.html : Jim: When did you start playing the piano? Lang: At 2 ½ years old. Jim: How many hours a day did you practice? Lang: For the first 15 years, 8 hours a day. Jim: And now? Lang: 3 hours a day. Jim: Every day? Lang: Yes. Don't know if that counts as a reliable source though. Here are some others: From http://www.scena.org/lsm/sm9-5/Lang-Lang-en.htm : LSM: How many hours do you practice a day? LL : Now it's two hours – before it was a lot! From http://www.attainmagazine.co.uk/index.cfm?fuseaction=news.story&newsid=720 and http://www.pinewoodschool.co.uk/calendar-news-and-events/blog/2011/5/26/lyndon-chen-plays-with-pianist-lang-lang-at-the-royal-festival-h/ : he didn’t want to practise the 8 hours a day that Lang Lang used to practice From http://www.successmagazine.com/lang-langs-journey-to-no-1/PARAMS/article/1011/channel/17 : often practicing the piano eight hours a day, stopping only for meals and sleep so I think the "8 hours a day" figure is fairly well attested to. 82.26.5.210 (talk) 14:11, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox

[edit]

I am removing the infobox per this guideline.THD3 (talk) 19:30, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That was wrong to do. The infobox was not a "biographical infobox" but a "musical artist" infobox. Fanoftheworld (talk) 10:02, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I support the removal of the infobox. Musical artists boxes are not for classical performers. --Kleinzach 04:39, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The infobox did not look very professional and I think we are better off without it. Better to have a clearly written lead. Opus33 (talk) 06:24, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The decision was wrong! Now the article is a mess up!-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 12:44, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Additions

[edit]

Added information to two sections concerning performances and recordings. Dionysus ab (talk) 15:29, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Playing My Motherland

[edit]

This response from Lang Lang maybe worth translating:北京晚报：「郎朗白宫独奏『我的祖国』：诉说中国的强大」，报道并引述郎朗演奏后于部落格上发表的感想：「而后我又 独自演奏了我们中国人心目中『最美的歌』之一的『我的祖国』，能够在众多贵宾面前演奏这首赞美中国的乐曲，彷佛是在向他们诉说我们中国的强大，我们中国人 的团结，我感到深深的荣幸和自豪。」 http://www.zaobao.com/wencui/2011/01/taiwan110124si.shtml Arilang talk 04:46, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. LANG LANG: I feel very sad. You know, I very sad. And, you know, and I must say, disappointing. Because, you know, as a person, what I'm trying to do, and what my missions are, you know, making music. And, you know, I'm very honored that people inviting me to play in those great events and to connect us to classical music and to music, to Chinese music and to American music, to, you know, to world music. And once, you know, people use it as a political issue, that makes me really sad because I am a musician. I'm not a politician. http://www.npr.org/2011/01/24/133187969/Pianist-Lang-Lang-On-His-Controversial-Music-Pick

What is going on? In his own blog, he is Proud and honored, "中国的强大，我们中国人 的团结，我感到深深的荣幸和自豪。", why did he try to hide his "nationalist emotion" from Malissa Block? Arilang talk 07:24, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He is proud of being Chinese does not mean he supports CCP or anti-American, but the media hates him because they believe a Chinese proud of his identity is pro CCP and anti-American. This is stupid, Americans would just as proud when they play This Land Is Your Land on 4th of July. As I have stated before, Korean War anti-American propaganda was banned in China during the 1960s and 1970s. For a person as young as Lang Lang born after cultural revolution, the My Motherland song could be interpreted as Chinese version This Land Is Your Land. Is it really a crime to be proud to be Chinese? Seriously this McCarthyist/Maoist witch-hunt needs to stop. Jim101 (talk) 19:33, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Jim101, your statement "Korean War anti-American propaganda was banned in China during the 1960s and 1970s" is questionable, to say the least. Just look at 奇袭白虎团, English translation:The surprise attack on White Tiger Regiment, was one of the Eight Revolutionary Plays during the Cultural Revolution era, between 1966 and 1976. As far as I know, this play is about Korean War. Would you like to comment? Arilang talk 00:07, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That is Cultural Revolution propaganda, not Korean War Propaganda. I have to say I don't know much about Cultural Revolution propaganda, aside from the fact that this play was not created as part of the Anti-America Aid Korean propaganda campaign. Jim101 (talk) 01:25, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Though the choice of song and its ensuing controversy are worth mentioning, I do worry about the length of this section, and the resulting weight it places in the biography. Should we shorten it to a few sentences? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drivingmad (talk • contribs) 04:56, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to add

[edit]

that this whole episode is being taken far out of context. I'm glad, at least, the "controversy" section here and the President himself are not going to drop into such a ridiculous flame war. Lang Lang stated that the evening would be quintessentially American and it was. What American hasn't accepted that allies be warmly welcomed into our beautiful country "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses wishing to breathe free." and fought hard against those who'd do the nation harm? A few idiotic bloggers decided to turn a peaceful and joyous evening of unity and alliance into more propaganda, either Anti-US or Anti-PRC, and it was sickening to read.

The only controversial line of the entire song was noted in these few words:

"若是那豺狼来了 迎接它的有猎枪"

"If the cruel/wicked wolves come, we'll welcome them with hunting rifles."

Taken IN context for once, this comes from a period in Chinese history when eight Western Nations simultaneously tried to conquer and divide China and were finally beaten after years of suffering under their Imperialism. It stands to ANYONE's reason that they would feel a need to mention they would not be victimized again. If the wolves try to return and pillage, they'd be met with fire. 1812 America was exactly the same against the Imperialistic British. The Allied Powers were exactly like that against the Axis invaders. It should be guessed, hypothesized even, that Lang Lang chose the piece to show how similar the nations really were, powers that started under heavy fire that overcame all odds and became a superpower to protect the world from future 豺狼.

It's a shame no one ever considers the pro-peace version of a person's actions. Jumping to proclamations of war is just too easy and too romantic isn't it? Either the pro-US bloggers and comments telling of how "Anti-US Propaganda" will not work, will only get America angry, or something else equally nonsensical are being added to the powder keg, or you have the accepting anti-US persons who "agree" with Lang Lang and believe that the country has fallen, has become "stupid", or that Obama himself is of those qualities. When can we be a technologically advanced civilization that understands that civilization requires being civil and cultured rather than being quick-tempered, loud-mouthed propagandists trying ever so desperately to find "the enemy" in every situation?

I apologize for posting such a long statement here of all places where the "controversy" hasn't actually spread. I would have posted in the proper blogs, youtube videos, or newspaper comments, but unfortunately, propaganda dictates such words would contradict and therefore have blocked me from doing so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.237.111.43 (talk) 17:53, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(I'm not good at English, so...)《我的祖国》(My Motherland)确切说来，并非政治歌曲。甚至都没提到美国(认为是反美音乐有些"自作多情")。

以下引自zh:我的祖國 (中國)，以供参考：

1.“……第三段歌词其实是最接近《上甘岭》影片的主题。不过词作者并没有明确提到当时的敌人是谁，使这首电影插曲脱离了电影情节和当时时代的约束。毕竟对中国人民来讲，朝鲜战争不是在自己的国土上进行的。中国人民也很少对征服他国有兴趣。……”

2.“……歌词中没有任何1950－1960年代的政治术语，是词作者的高明之处。……虽然描写朝鲜战争的影片已经不再风光，不过《我的祖国》却流传甚广，历久不衰。正如电影导演沙蒙对乔羽说的：你想怎么写就怎么写，我只希望将来这部片子没有人看了，这首歌还有人唱。……”

——虽然这是《上甘岭》主题曲，但歌词本身并没有局限于表达影片主题，"豺狼"可以随意解释。不过最重要的是，Lang Lang只是弹奏，并没有唱歌词，上纲上线有些过分了吧。--林卯 (talk) 13:05, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

5 Billion Viewers??

[edit]

There is no way that 5 billion people saw his performance at the Opening Ceremonies of the 2008 Olympic Games. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.59.188.58 (talk) 10:19, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

National Review online

[edit]

A Song and an Obscenity Jay Nordlinger by Jay Nordlinger.

Well, nice going, Lang Lang. In and around every dictatorship, there are official artists. The Nazis had them, the Soviets had them — all the worst have them. Lang Lang has chosen to be an official artist. Of course, the bad old USA has helped him a lot. He came here to complete his musical education. He studied at the Curtis Institute in Philadelphia with Gary Graffman. He has had the countless benefits of living and working in a free society. What a contrast with Lang Lang’s fellow Chinese who languish in laogai, that country’s gulag.

This is one pianist who stands with the persecutors, not with the persecuted. Wei Jingsheng, Gao Zhisheng — those are great Chinese, the pride of the nation. Lang Lang, and Hu Jintao, for that matter, are very different Chinese.

Arilang talk 05:44, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another negative piece of news:Pianist coming here hit sour note at White House Lang Lang performed Chinese anti-U.S. song

Quote:"At the moment, Lang Lang is making worldwide news -- and not because he is heading to Buffalo." Arilang talk 11:45, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Asiaone.com

[edit]
Well, some positive "opinion piece" to make the article more balance and neutral?

Praise in China for Lang Lang's martial White House tune Mon, Jan 24, 2011 AFP

"You really voiced our thoughts..We do not want to see war, but we are really not afraid of war, and to defend our homeland, we are really not afraid of any great powers."...One of the comment by Chinese blogger. Arilang talk 12:18, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion piece, no evidence, not notable. I'll also remove the opinion of New York Times and The Wall Street Journal since outlining every media outlet's opinion is going into excessive details. Jim101 (talk) 15:52, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I also started a BLPN thread on whether opinion pieces should be included in a BLP article. Jim101 (talk) 21:52, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have read the BLPN thread, the comment is about balancing the opposing opinions and make it more neutral, not about "too excessive" in details. Arilang talk 12:23, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is a BLP article, and any libelous material must be removed on sight. You don't accuse people as Communist agents/siding with Communists/Fenqing without evidence, no matter how many positive opinions you have to balance out the negative viewpoint. Opinions isn't evidence. Jim101 (talk) 14:32, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Jim's approach seems completely correct to me, and not simply in the matter of BLP violations. I'd dispute the addition of any further details on this matter. Evidently, Lang Lang's White House "faux pas/dastardly insult" is enormously significant to a very small number of bloggers and journalists in opposite political camps. But we don't cite blogs, and we don't give undue weight to extreme or fringe views. In terms of the world's media as a whole - the mainstream - this seems to be rather a damp squib. Despite the newspaper links given above, coverage "worldwide" is actually quite scant. As it stands, the article covers this "controversy" in sufficient detail, and at a length proportionate to the article as a whole. Haploidavey (talk) 15:20, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]


The Christian Science Monitor

[edit]

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Global-News/2011/0126/How-pianist-Lang-Lang-stirred-up-trouble-for-US-and-China-at-a-White-House-State-dinner

Conservative commentators in the US and the most rabid nationalists in China share the view that Chinese pianist Lang Lang dissed America with a piano piece he played at the state dinner President Obama hosted for President Hu Jintao last Wednesday.

Already cited. Jim101 (talk) 05:28, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The China Post

[edit]

http://www.chinapost.com.tw/art/celebrity-news/2011/01/25/288962/Chinese-laud.htm

On his blog, (Lang Lang) wrote that playing “My Motherland” in front of so many dignitaries “seemed like I was telling them about the power of China and the unity of the Chinese.”

Arilang talk 05:03, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Means nothing. Telling the power (could also be interpreted as cultural attractiveness) of China does not equal to insult United States. He did not say "I want to show Americans that Chinese are better". Jim101 (talk) 05:29, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
而后我又独自演奏了我们中国人心目中“最美的歌”之一的《我的祖国》。 According to Zhang 2002 page 161, the "most beauty song" can be interpreted melody-wise. 尤其是在来自“五湖四海”的元首们面前演奏这首赞美中国的乐曲，仿佛是在向他们诉说我们中国的强大，我们中国人的团结，我感到深深的荣幸和自豪。 This sentence can also be interpreted that he feel the Chinese version of This Land is Your Land also told the world that there are no better time to be proud to be Chinese. This doesn't disprove his claim that he first choose the song because of melody, nor were you allowed under BLP guideline to synthesis an argument by placing two statements side by side when no other RS had done so. Jim101 (talk) 05:48, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The controversy just died...let it go people. Jim101 (talk) 06:18, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To improve the neutrality of the article, it is only fair to include Lang Land's own words, from his own blog, which is:“seemed like I was telling them about the power of China and the unity of the Chinese.”. Editors are not here to add their own interpretation into what Lang Lang said, or what he did not say. Editors are here to add content based on facts, not interpretation, and the best "reliable source" would not be Lang Lang's own words? Arilang talk 06:46, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Read the examples on WP:SYN and see why that doesn't work. Unless you have a source that explicitly say "Lang Lang official explanation is this but he also said that", you are conducting original research. I quote the guideline "If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be a synthesis of published material to advance a new position, which is original research." If you do not join the proud quote with his official statement, then the proud quote itself is not notable because it is open to a million different interpretations. If you join the proud quote with his official statement, you are implying he is not truthful, which no RS provided here have accused him basing that argument. Jim101 (talk) 07:06, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is not WP:SYN nor WP:OR, one minute he said this, next minute he said that, and all are based on reliable source. To be neutral, both statements are to be included, and let the readers decide which is which, what is what. No one is implying anything, and no one is interpreting anything. It is not our job to judge and pick between statements he made in his blog and statements he gave to reporters.

Anyway, please have a look:File:PVA battle song.ogg Arilang talk 08:32, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is WP:SYN because Lang Lang said a lot of things during the debate, and being proud of Chinese has nothing to do with the debate of insulting US. Read the example in WP:SYN:

The UN's stated objective is to maintain international peace and security, but since its creation there have been 160 wars throughout the world.

And read the what will happen if you add that quote in

Lang Lang was first quoted saying playing "My Motherland" in front of so many dignitaries “seemed like I was telling them about the power of China and the unity of the Chinese", but then denied that he intended to insult the United States.

At minmum you are giving undue weight to a one quote out of many Lang Lang says. At worse you are implying proud of being proud of Chinese equal to insulting United States. Unless you have a RS that say Lang Lang insulted US because it is wrong to to tell the world how powerful China is, to be neutral you have to paste everything he said during and after the controversy, or you are giving undue weight to a statement that has no significance. Jim101 (talk) 14:02, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Epoch Times

[edit]

http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/content/view/50081/

Tang Baiqiao, a well-known human rights activist and international affairs expert, commented: “Lang Lang is self-contradictory in his responses. ‘Powerful China and a unified Chinese people,’‘has nothing to do with anything else,’ ‘the strong feelings for the motherland,’ ‘don’t add political themes to the arts,’ all suggest that he is fully aware of the background and is confused about the difference between China and the CCP.

Arilang talk 08:54, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He says, she says. Even in this partisan news report it acknowledged that a lot of people believe he is innocent and a lot of people believe he is not. Furthermore, the role of Epoch Times in starting this controversy is noted in this Washington Post piece. Jim101 (talk) 14:09, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Down the road maybe a new wiki like Communist China Anti USA propaganda in White House State Dinner Incident? Arilang talk 15:05, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia:Notability (events)...All I can say is that after no one protested or picketed his latest performance, it is going to be an uphill battle to keep that article from deletion. Jim101 (talk) 06:18, 28 January 2011 (UTC)] Jim101 (talk) 15:26, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not too sure about that, so far Beijing has not said anything yet. Hm... Arilang talk 20:46, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Epoch Times Chinese

[edit]

http://www.epochtimes.com/gb/11/1/30/n3157528.htm 中华全国青年联合会网站的资料显示：郎朗是全国青联副主席(网络截图)

郎朗有中共官方高级头衔 学者：中共直属附庸 The fact is, Lang Lang is a Chinese government official, shouldn't this "official government capacity" be included in the lede? Arilang talk 22:47, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As long as you just state his title as 中华全国青年联合会副主席 (Vice President of All-China Youth Federation), no more no less, then it is fine. Actually it is not fine, Vice President of All-China Youth Federation is a ceremonial post that has almost no power, so unless he is the president, you really can't put it in the lede...put it somewhere in the body. Jim101 (talk) 23:45, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A vice president is a vice president, and All-China Youth Federation is an old(since 1949) and well established body, supported and funded by the Chinese government. "Power" does not come into the equation, it is the prestige, the honor, so it should be mentioned in the lede. I doubt that international celebrity like Jacky Chan and Zhang Yimou were "vice presidents" too? Arilang talk 00:58, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Then you need to put the entire award section into the lead. If it is honor, then there are a lot of awards Lang Lang has. It is only when that VP post has political power then you can highlight that post alone in the lead. Jim101 (talk) 01:27, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Editor should not confuse everyday awards with official capacity. Lang Lang's official Chinese government capacity is Vice President of All-China Youth Federation, and look at this ACYF official web page:http://www.qinglian.org/about/guanyuqinglian6.jsp ,

主席：王　晓:共青团中央书记处常务书记

副主席：

贺军科:共青团中央书记处书记
卢雍政:共青团中央书记处书记
王　曦:中国科学院上海微系统与信息技术研究所党委书记、常务副所长
邓中翰:数字多媒体芯片技术国家重点实验室主任、中星微电子有限公司董事长
陈雨露:北京外国语大学校长
于旭波:中粮集团有限公司总裁
潘　刚:伊利集团董事长、总裁
郎　朗:职业钢琴家
杨　扬:国际奥委会委员、国家体育总局冬季运动管理中心运动员
学　诚:中国佛教协会驻会副会长、福建省佛教协会会长
程　红:北京市人民政府副市长
纪　斌:中华全国台湾同胞联谊会党组成员、副会长
陈仲尼:香港青年联会主席、金鹰控股有限公司主席、富恒基金管理有限公司主席
郑志刚:新世界发展有限公司执行董事
马志毅:澳门青年联合会副会长、澳门泊车管理股份有限公司执行董事

齐兴达:清华大学学生会主席

The name list(Vice presidents) above tells us that this ACYF is not your small town Lions Club, nor your everyday Rotary Club. There are three Communist party Political Commissar, five(or more) CEO, Chairman or President of the board , and one Beijing city vice mayor. To claim that these people do not have "political power" is unreasonable to the least, because anyone who is familiar with Chinese politic would know that 中央书记处书记 is a very powerful political position. Arilang talk 02:05, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone who understand Chinese politic also know that it is Communist tactic of staying relevant by granting official titles to famous individuals without giving them any political power. (Who is the Party Chief in this organ?) Star power does not equal to political power, and there is also the possibility that the Communist give him this position just for the sake he is popular and shove him out of the way. This is not the place for idle speculation. I don't see why we should just highlight one of his official capacities when he is also an ambassador for UN, Time's 100 and a representative to Recording Academy, which is just as important. Jim101 (talk) 05:50, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Then we should have a subsection like "Official Capacities" listing all his official titles:

About this whole thing (the article as well as its discussion) looking like a fan page therefore being unworthy of a wikipedia article please add your remarks here:

[edit]

Anapazapa (talk) 12:02, 30 September 2012 (UTC) Nothing yet? Why? Anapazapa (talk) 12:07, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is typical for wikipedia articles on popular figures to attract fans. That is harmless if we maintain a neutral point of view and require reliable sources. (Heroeswithmetaphors) talk 00:52, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"the J. Lo of the piano"

[edit]

What exactly does that mean?
He has a big bum? He can't sing worth shit?
Is that description positive or negative?
I have no idea. I assume it's negative. 99.238.74.216 (talk) 22:29, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Concerthall at the Lincoln Center: New York Rhapsody

[edit]

Look & Listen:

--LH2016 (talk) 15:50, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Lang Lang (pianist). 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) 09:53, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 14 July 2017

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. (closed by non-admin page mover) QEDK (愛) 08:51, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

– Lang Lang (pianist) is clearly the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for "Lang Lang." If you google "Lang Lang" (with quotes), the entire first three pages (30 results) are entirely about the pianist, with no mention of the place in Australia or anything else. While it may have been a concern in 2006 (when the page was moved to the parenthesized title), his continued prominence in the music world is evidence of long-term significance. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:23, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Lang Lang. 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) 15:33, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Arm injury

[edit]

On April 12, 2017, Lang Lang announced he had a serious inflammation in his left arm, and was unable to perform as a result, thus leading to many concerts over the period of more than 4 months have been cancelled as a result. Now I don't know all the details as I don't really follow Lang Lang, but I do know that for a while, all of his performances were cancelled, with maybe the odd appearance at an event, not involving him playing the piano. But only recently did he start to perform again with the right hand only, while the left hand is played by one of the Lang Lang Foundation scholars. I feel this information is significant enough to be mentioned in the article, as it caused Lang Lang to cancel numerous amounts of concerts. I don't think I would be the right one to add this information, though, as my knowledge is pretty vague. But maybe someone more plugged-in regarding the situation would be better if they added the info to the article. Saltn'Pepper (talk) 10:37, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lang Lang. 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) 19:44, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lang Lang. 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) 11:21, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lang_Lang&oldid=1212390508"