Talk:Michael Steinberg (music critic)

Weasle words, characterizations, and edit wars

Having witnessed the recent edits by IP 96.233.44.231 and user:THD3 I thought I might throw in my two cents. First, just a note of caution to remember the WP:3RR rule so that nobody gets in trouble for edit warring. Second, to THD3, I don't think the statements removed by you are weasel words; as they are neither vague, misleading, or ambiguous. Third, these unsourced evaluative statements are original research, which in my view is worse than weasel words. IP 96.233.44.231, what you may not be aware of is that wikipedia has policies on making critical judgements. As editors we can't put forth our own evaluations on a particular person's art, writing, etc. To do so is against policy. What we can do, is quote or summarize the evaluations of other authoratative sources with propper attribution. TJD3 was right to remove the statements he did as they were unsourced opinions added by IP 72.93.248.20. This article certainly need not be bland though, and it could use some evaluation of Steinberg's work. I would suggest trying to find some published sources on Steinberg, either in books or periodicals/newspapers, and add some quotes.4meter4 (talk) 12:48, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

It more of a peacock-term issue than it is a weasel-word issue. Statements like "unusually learned", "not infrequently sharp" are not encyclopedic facts and shouldn't be stated on wikipedia without attribution. Often its enough to just let the body of work stand for itself, but if more color is desired see WP:PEACOCK for how to inject commentary like this into an article by quoting other people. Much praise was written about Steinberg when he died. Finding good quotes should be like shooting fish in a barrel. Here are three obits found with a simple google search: [1][2][3]. There's probably more.DavidRF (talk) 03:07, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Copyright problem

This article has been reverted by a bot to this version as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) This has been done to remove User:Accotink2's contributions as they have a history of extensive copyright violation and so it is assumed that all of their major contributions are copyright violations. Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. VWBot (talk) 05:27, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Copyright problem

This article has been reverted by a bot to this version as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) This has been done to remove User:Accotink2's contributions as they have a history of extensive copyright violation and so it is assumed that all of their major contributions are copyright violations. Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. VWBot (talk) 12:49, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Birthplace

When Michael Steinberg was born (1928) Wroclaw (Breslau) was already in Poland (since 1918). Therefore he was NOT born in "Breslau, Germany." 207.237.0.39 (talk) 16:26, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

sic taduisses. Perhaps, you should buy new history books, or read the Wikipedia-article on Breslau ("Following World War I, Breslau became the capital of the newly created Prussian Province of Lower Silesia in 1919"). --13Peewit (talk) 02:23, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

British Period

According to Nicolas Slonimsky, Steinberg lived in England from 1939 to 1943, before ever coming to the US, a fact that seemed obvious to anyone who ever heard him speak English. He had a prominent British accent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.237.0.39 (talk) 16:34, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Bibliography

I looked for some books by Steinberg, but the bibliography of this article is very, very short. (Well, there is no bibliography at all in most articles of the English Wikipedia) I would like to find here

• Listening to Reason. Culture, Subjectivity, and Nineteenth Century Music
• Judaism. Musical and Unmusical, just for instance (both cited in Nussbau, Political Emotions). --13Peewit (talk) 02:31, 13 January 2014 (UTC)