Talk:St Pancras railway station piano

Expanded history and gallery

I would love to have the History section extended, or maybe split of in a "Usage over the years" kind of section, with artists that played it, ideally with pictures. Maybe a picture gallery would also be nice. WikiEwout (talk) 17:34, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Racism

This is a false statement 90.246.122.174 (talk) 23:19, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

2024 public dispute

The whole section are a lie! It is word for word based on the "CCP" version of the events and not the truth 83.172.65.19 (talk) 06:16, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Not just a lie, but it is also making probably defamatory claims about Kavanagh. 110.174.31.46 (talk) 08:20, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

This whole passage is a lie, it's all wrong and is clearly CCP trolls abusing wiki. 82.19.5.245 (talk) 20:15, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

I have attempted to clean it up a bit 92.19.111.41 (talk) 23:58, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

While I do not agree with most of it, there is a germ of truth about obtaining a licence for commercial filming in locations, such as Railway Stations. However, in general, social media personal uploads are seen as exempt as they are not, uploaded in exchange for a fee. The user shares their upload for free and may or may not be rewarded by the social media company, with a share of generated advertising revenue.

My current understanding is that the Kavanagh viral video from 20 January, with over 9 million views has been suspended from sharing advertising revenue by YouTube. Potentially this may only be temporary measure, until the public complaints have been accessed and a management decision reached. Jaymailsays (talk) 08:03, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

dr. k uses his videos to promote and sell is courses and his merchandise as well as use his fame and subscibers for ad revenue.. even on some of his newer videos he shows emails he recevied and ther are clear add revenues to see from his youtube uploads. his youtube and his courses are all registerd under his company name DR K Media Limited a uk registered limited company. thus making him NOT a private uploader!!.. Akai1986 (talk) 21:51, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree. The main problem is that the section is not a proportional or representative representation of the event, especially the middle paragraph. This conflicts with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Due and undue weight. Therefore, I added an Undue weight warning: Template:Undue weight

I think the privacy aspects warrants some mention, but in a balanced way, and in broader context of not only law but also precedence. WikiEwout (talk) 22:09, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

I also applied for page protection: Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Increase#St Pancras railway station piano WikiEwout (talk) 22:16, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

The protection request has been approved and for the next 4 days the page is Wikipedia:Protection policy#semi protected. WikiEwout (talk) 09:03, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

The paragraph starting "St. Pancras Station, owned by HS1 Ltd., has implemented comprehensive policies to govern filming activities on its premises..." Was pure synthesis, and contrary to Wikipedia policy. I have removed it. Wikipedia does not base content on a contributor's personal opinions regarding the applicability of laws. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:32, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

yet again it is station policies as well as its a privately owned station. this facts are undeniable and part of the current incidend as the chinese group refers to their rights as well. just because some people dont like it that they where of chinese nature. the laws and regulations should and do apply to people of all nations and all races no matter religon political party or so on. Akai1986 (talk) 21:48, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

its is not a personal oppinion of laws. the laws apply to everyone no matter race, religion or political affiliation. there is no cherry picking of applicability of laws and policies.. !! Akai1986 (talk) 21:53, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia policies, and in particular Wikipedia:No original research, also apply to everyone. Which is why this material does not belong in the article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:00, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

and why does it not belong int he article as it i quote : Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. On Wikipedia, original research means material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published source exists" i do think the uk government and the owner of the railway as well as the UK railway website are a pretty reliable source.. or do you say the UK government lies about their own laws and regulations ? Akai1986 (talk) 22:02, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Please stop spamming this talk page with multiple post arguing the same thing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:07, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 January 2024

Wikipedia:No original research is core Wikipedia policy. It applies regardless of whether a contributor agrees with or not, and understands it or not. It isn't open to negotiation here.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
people keep removing the laws and regulations involving the incident and thats an important factor to know why there was such an incidend and what was the background. here the removed part of the incident St. Pancras Station, owned by HS1 Ltd., has implemented comprehensive policies to govern filming activities on its premises. A recent incident involving YouTuber Brendan Kavanagh brought these policies to public attention. Kavanagh, who claims his streams generate a nearly seven-figure yearly income, fell under the classification of commercial content creators..The incident involving Kavanagh also raised considerations under UK SECTION 6 of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). This regulation grants individuals the right to revoke consent for being filmed, as demonstrated by a Chinese group at St. Pancras Station, and beyond individual consent and data protection, the incident highlighted concerns related to UK railway bylaws and policies. Filming activities, as seen in Kavanagh's case, must align with regulations ensuring the safety, security, and proper functioning of railway stations.. Akai1986 (talk) 21:44, 29 January 2024 (UTC) Read Wikipedia:No original research. We do not include contributors' own interpretations of law in articles. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:53, 29 January 2024 (UTC) THERE is no interpretation of law if you would have read their policies. ! also i do think that the website of the government of the UK is a pretty CLEAR VIEW of the law !! it think you cannot make it more clear as the UK GOVERNMENT OWN WORDING AND OWN WEBSITE!!! Akai1986 (talk) 21:57, 29 January 2024 (UTC) as per wikipedia NO ORIGINAL RESEARCH.. i quote "'Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. On Wikipedia, original research means material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published source exists" and i think the website of the government of the united kingdom as well as the own website of the station owner as well as the united kingdom national railway organisation are in FACT RELIABLE PUBLISHED SOURCES!!! Akai1986 (talk) 22:00, 29 January 2024 (UTC) Wikipedia is not going to base its content on claims by you that specific laws apply to the specific circumstances concerning Kavanagh. Your claims are original research, as Wikipedia defines it. This is not open to negotiation, and I suggest you stop wasting peoples' time with this nonsense. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:06, 29 January 2024 (UTC) - drk. a commercial youtuber that uses his streams to advertise and commercialise his merchandise and piano courses with his content and social media registered under DR K Media Limited, a uk registered limited company = hs1 ltd. policies regarding commercial activities. - incident regarding chinese group demanded their privacy rights to be protected = uk GDPR applies.. all those issues are clearly written by the station policies and by the uk government links!! i suggest you are open to all information!. you keep the demanding THIRD PARTY ARTICLES online about their request yet you want to delete OFFICIAL GOVERNMENT policies and LAWS>.!! Akai1986 (talk) 22:11, 29 January 2024 (UTC) References

Chinese bloggers saying the Chinese tourists were wrong

Don't know if either/both of these are notable enough to reference in the article. They're being publicised by a mainland platform and therefore presumably OK with the censors (so far). Pages below are in Chinese, you can use Google Translate or similar:

• https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/SnbO8fxeN1jA_Wak0b989w
• https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/86HS2XnUkwYZxfSileRXaA

92.19.111.41 (talk) 13:01, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

weixin.qq.com is a social networking/blog site. Besides the fact it's in Chinese, unless any of those bloggers are notable, or their opinion is in some other way newsworthy, those links are not of use to the article. Marcus Markup (talk) 14:05, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

well the text of these posts seems to be being copy/pasted over lots of sites (creaders.net, sina, 6parkbbs, ujoy.net, 51.ca) and getting lots of reads; I don't know if that's because the bloggers are notable in some way. Need someone who knows more about these things to evaluate I guess (or wait till some journalist notices it and cite that?) 92.19.111.41 (talk) 21:37, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

No 'evaluation' required. We don't cite social media. We don't cite blogs. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:48, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Actually, there are exceptions WP:BLOG, I'd bet the mansion they don't apply in this case, though. Marcus Markup (talk) 00:33, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

They don't. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:48, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Wrong lemma

The lemma is wrong. There hasn't been just ONE piano in St Pancras for years. And in addition to Elton John, another celebrity, Andrew Lloyd Webber, has now donated a piano to the station. --Xocolatl (talk) 11:49, 2 November 2024 (UTC)