Talk:Charles Dutoit

Infobox consensus

The Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical music/Style guidelines says that infoboxes should not be used for classical music musicians, including conductors, without a consensus of editors on the talk page. This article has an infobox, but no discussion here. The same question arises for Yannick Nézet-Séguin, the Music Director Designate.

What do other editors think about infoboxes for Philadelphia Orchestra conductors or music directors? I am in favor of the infoboxes, especially if photos can be included. --DThomsen8 (talk) 12:10, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree completely. Dutoit and Nézet-Séguin are among the leading conductors of our time. Their relevant data is substantial and significant, and should be documented in the kind of organized structure that an infobox provides. Thnidu (talk) 18:16, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Charles Dutoit. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100215055954/http://www.montrealgazette.com:80/entertainment/Dutoit%20marries%20Montreal%20born%20violinist/2550656/story.html to http://www.montrealgazette.com/entertainment/Dutoit+marries+Montreal+born+violinist/2550656/story.html

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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:24, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Resignation from Montreal Symphony

I have reverted the deletion of material relating to Dutoit's resignation from the MSO. This information is fully sourced by standard newspapers of record -- The New York Times and the Montreal Globe and Mail. These are not organs of "tabloid journalism". Please do not remove this material without full discussion on this talk page. There is no dispute as to the accuracy of the facts. There is no question of libelous content. Thanks. --Jburlinson (talk) 19:26, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

I have again reverted the deletion of this material. Please do not delete this passage again without discussing on this talk page. The information is reliably sourced and is germane to the subject of the article, explaining why a long-term collaboration between MSO and Dutoit came to an end. There is nothing unfair at all to Dutoit in all this -- it was widely reported in the classical music press at the time. Leaving it out of the WP article denies the reader important information. Articles in Wikipedia are not puff pieces, they are encyclopedia entries. --Jburlinson (talk) 03:24, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Bullets in infobox

In Wikipedia Beta on a smartphone or other small mobile device, the "Associated acts" list in the infobox is so narrow that it's almost only one word per line, and the names seem to run together. I've added bullets (U+2022) to keep them visually separate. See this screenshot* to see how they ran together.

This is even more true with lists of people's names in other languages, where the reader may be at a loss to tell where one name ends and another begins. We really need a template for this.
--Thnidu (talk) 18:24, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

And the template we have doesn't work well there either: this screenshot (likewise my own work on my own phone just now). See Template talk:Bulleted list § Doesn't bullet in Wikipedia Beta.

* (that I made in my own phone just now from Wikipedia Beta)
--Thnidu (talk) 19:09, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Charles Dutoit. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101120024138/http://www.journaldunecreation.com/ to http://www.journaldunecreation.com/

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) 04:52, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Accusations and consequences

A consensus seems to be needed as to what weight is given in the lead to the above. I do not see the matter to be just gossip as User:146.52.252.124 said in their edit summary [[1]] as there have been real consequences to Dutoit's career. IMHO it is reasonable to mention the contents of a large section in the lead.SovalValtos (talk) 13:46, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

You are correct. This is not gossip and it is consequential. The IP user seems to think this summary is a summary of “his career”. It is not that. It is meant to be a summary of the entry that follows, and therefore should include the sexual assault material. On the other hand, I do think “several orchestras” would suffice in place of listing them. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 18:19, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Bmclaughlin9 I have made the alteration you suggested. Could User talk:146.52.252.124 please come to talk before removing the material from the lead yet again?.... I forgot to sign at the time of writing the preceding.SovalValtos (talk) 10:45, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree that the deletions are against policy. 2604:2000:E016:A700:2416:E975:8866:C745 (talk) 09:40, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

They are against policy and they continue. The editor in question needs to address this situation on this talk page or further action needs to be taken by WP admins.--Jburlinson (talk) 01:46, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

And even today they continue. 2604:2000:E016:A700:9DF1:D557:E223:6B90 (talk) 04:24, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Use of "comments" section from Slipped Disc

An editor has repeatedly tried to include material sourced to the comments section of a post on SlippedDisc, a classical music blog run by Norman Lebrecht. Wikipedia policy is very clear on this. From the policy statement, Wikipedia:Blogs as sources -- "Posts left by readers may never be used as sources". The material in question comes from posts left by readers of the blog in the comments section. These are NOT reliable sources, no matter how much they claim to have personal information about the subjects. To cite such comments is a violation of WP's Verifiability policy, which reads, in part: "Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book, and also claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published media, such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs (as distinguished from newsblogs, above), content farms, Internet forum postings, and social media postings, are largely not acceptable as sources." Please note that "internet forum postings" are not acceptable. Please stop using these comments as sources. Thank you.--Jburlinson (talk) 22:53, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

The same editor continues to insert material sourced to a blog's comments section. Anyone who runs a blog knows that the comments posted by readers are unverifiable. This back and forth reverting has gone on too long. If we cannot reach an agreement about this, we will need to turn to a dispute resolution process. Please see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution for more details. I suggest that we try a moderated discussion on the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard.--Jburlinson (talk) 04:58, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

I have just posted a request for dispute resolution at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard. Here's the link -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Charles_Dutoit I ask all interested editors to take a moment and present their side of the story on the noticeboard. Thanks for your willingness to discuss.--Jburlinson (talk) 00:54, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

The request for dispute resolution has been closed for the following reason: "Closed as not meeting the prerequisites of this noticeboard. The filing editor states accurately that User:Petrov2017 is not engaging in discussion on the article talk page. However, discussion on the article talk page is a prerequisite to discussion here. Participation here is voluntary, for editors who have tried to discuss and have not agreed; editors who do not discuss cannot be dragged here. See the essay on failure to discuss, and the edit-warring policy. Options for the filing party (and other editors who agree with them) include filing a report at the edit-warring noticeboard after providing a warning." After sharing this with Petrov2017, I intend to warn him that my next step is to file a report at the edit-warring noticeboard. It's still possible to resolve this through negotiation on this talk page, and I urge Petrov2017 to participate.--Jburlinson (talk) 02:24, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm butting in uninvited

For what it's worth, Petrov2017 left this on my talk page--

I need to report vandalism from Mr Freshacconci. I have tried to post some edits (some of them are awards, prizes and honours.....far from being "vandalism") and one quote from a newspaper with references.
Mr Freshacconci has been attacking me with "vandalism"  and disruption because Mr Freshacconci  does not like what I am posting. How can I be attacked of the sort? Please, wikipedia, read my posts. You cannot agree with this. 
This is unfair, and illegal. Petrov2017 (talk) 20:31, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

As I did on my talk page, I urge @Petrov2017: to discuss the matter here. It is, of course, possible to achieve consensus without their involvement. Just a reminder that M. Dutoit is alive. BLP sourcing must be strictly adhered to. Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions may be imposed by an uninvolved admin. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 00:24, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your message and involvement. I, too, have urged Petrov2017 to participate in the discussion on this talk page, and am at a loss as to why he chooses not to, while he seems happy to discuss things on various editors' talk pages, including my own. I tried to open a dispute resolution process, but it was closed down due to Petrov2017's non-participation here. I've considered reporting this on the edit-warring noticeboard, especially since it appears that Petrov2017 is now trying to edit under a different IP, but I'd do that only as a last recourse. It would be much better to work through the issues here.--Jburlinson (talk) 00:40, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

FYI, already discussed at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Charles Dutoit. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:37, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

USE OF THIS TALK PAGE

Once again, an editor is making changes in the article that are not supported by reliable sources. This editor has been asked many times in the past to discuss these issues on this talk page, but has never done so. I'm creating this section in order to make it easier to respond to requests for clarification and justification. Please stop making edits until your issues have been discussed here on this talk page. Thank you. --Jburlinson (talk) 02:56, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Charles Dutoit, one allegation of sexual misconduct to discuss

I want to bring to your attention a quote in discussion regarding an allegation against Charles Dutoit. This, in my opinion, does not belong in a Wikipedia biography.

Miss Jenny Q Chai posted this quote on the blog slipped disc on December 22, 2017. "When I was 17, still a student at Curtis, I went to see Charles Dutoit and (Martha) Argerich with Philadelphia orchestra, after the concert, I went back stage to see Argerich. Instead of her, Dutoit greeted me with the utmost friendliness, wrote Love and big kisses and signed my program, then ran his hands all over my body and tried to kiss me and stick his tongue in my mouth….. Argerich and their daughter was there. They saw it happening! They just gave a look. Like kind of a disgusted, but it’s normal kind of a look." Original text from slipped disc, December 22, 2017

The Guardian took part of the quote and printed it, word for word on December 22, 2017 Pianist Jenny Q Chai said Dutoit “then ran his hands all over my body and tried to kiss me and stick his tongue in my mouth” when she was 17, after a concert in Philadelphia.Ref.# 32 in the biography

Then, several witnesses came forward, on the same original source Slipped Disc.

“I was with Jenny at the Argerich/Dutoit concert when this happened and what she’s now claiming in the media is totally untrue, and completely exaggerated….first, she wasn’t 17, she was 19…. I felt it necessary to say what I personally know about the case of Jenny Chai.” Dec. 25 "I...also recall the incident in question. … happen to remember things very similarly (reference to previous eyewitness)….in terms of way this was being recounted at Curtis in the following days both by Jenny and by others who had witnessed it all. I can say one thing for absolute certain, though: the incident occurred in late 2002, not 17 years ago like Jenny claims.” Dec. 27 "I heard similar things from former Curtis students about Mrs.Chai.Also about her behaviour towards other famous people at Curtis.” Jan. 12 I realize we consider a newspaper like The Guardian a reliable source but with these facts, do we still do so in this context? The Guardian omitting part of the quote and the witnesses’ accounts is not a fair policy since both quotes come from the same website. Any opinions? Gabala (talk) 11:02, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

The "witness" reports on SlippedDisc are provided by individuals commenting on a blog post. Blog comments are not considered reliable sources by Wikipedia. This is considered "User-generated content". Please see Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources for detailed discussion. Hearsay from Curtis students is most definitely not a reliable source. If you can substantiate your claim against The Guardian with a reliable source, please provide that source. The fact that The Guardian did not report on the blog comments is actually evidence of The Guardian's higher standards. In addition, Chai's allegation was reported by the Chicago Sun Times, USA Today, the Philadelphia Inquirer, and NPR, among others. None of these sources mentioned the blog comments, because such comments cannot be considered reliable.--Jburlinson (talk) 00:31, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

References

Charles Dutoit: allegation by Miss Fiona Allan

I want to add a segment at the end of this subject. Miss Allan said back in December 2017 that she had complained to the Boston Symphony about her allegation against Charles Dutoit. Even though the investigation brought on by this allegation proved her to be "credible", it also stated that she never complained to the orchestra, as opposed to what she maintains today. There is a discrepancy of information which is important to point. Gabala (talk) 12:37, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

This is odd. The source you provide from the Boston Globe states: "The BSO investigation, which was conducted by an independent investigator, confirmed Allan’s account of the alleged assault and also found three other women who “credibly described incidents in the 1980s and 1990s in which they too were victims of sexual misconduct by Mr. Dutoit.” What more do you want? The Boston Symphony itself confirmed the assault -- and then they uncovered three more victims!!! If you dispute the BSO's investigation, please find a reliable source to support your contention.--Jburlinson (talk) 00:39, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

I understand your point-of-view, but what if a major newspaper publishes an article by copying from a blog? This was my point. The Guardian wrote exactly what is written on the blog slippedisc.com If we are to go according to what you say, blogs are not reliable sources.Why did the Guardian do it then? I am not in total agreement with what you say and hope other editors will write on the subject as well.Gabala (talk) 15:01, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

I did not say that blogs are not reliable sources. I said that the comments sections of blogs are not reliable. What is more important, Wikipedia has guidelines that say that blog comments are not reliable. I have directed you to these guidelines before. SlippedDisc is a blog by Norman Lebrecht, a well-known commentator on the classical music scene. Although I don't always agree with Mr. Lebrecht, I'm willing to acknowledge that his blog posts are reliable most of the time. However, the comments to these posts are NOT reliable. Anyone who has hosted a blog knows that the comments from readers are unverifiable. They cannot be used as reliable sources for wikipedia.--Jburlinson (talk) 22:36, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

References

‘Section too long’ tag

The relevant section ‘Allegations of sexual assault’ is certainly much too long - getting on for half the page - not only out of proportion, but mostly tabloid-style and non-encyc.

I am proposing a much-shortened version, supplied here with the cites numbered as of today (2/10/19):

Dutoit has been accused of sexual assault on many female colleagues over several decades.[20][21][22]

Some of these were named in a detailed report by Jocelyn Gecker of the Associated Press on December 21st 2017. They included opera singers Paula Rasmussen,[25] and Sylvia McNair,[25] and pianist Jenny Q. Chai,[27][28] working with the Philadelphia Orchestra. A singer from the same orchestra claimed that Dutoit had assaulted her on four occasions. Some doubt was cast on the testimony of the last two claimants by the president of the Philadelphia Orchestra Association.[29]

The revelations prompted more women to come forward in 2018. One of them was British theatre administrator Fiona Allan, who claimed he had assaulted her when he was guest conductor of the Boston Symphony Orchestra.[31] The BSO judged Ms Allan’s complaint to be credible, and revoked an honorary title they had awarded Dutoit.[32][34] Others included French soprano Anne-Sophie Schmidt,[35] interviewer Mary Lou Basaraba,[14][36][37][38] and Canadian soprano Pauline Vaillancourt, as well as some anonymous claimants.

Comments and critiques invited. Valetude (talk) 17:44, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm willing to support an abridged version of the current section; however, I'm not comfortable with the proposed line: "Some doubt was cast on the testimony of the last two claimants by the president of the Philadelphia Orchestra Association.[29]" This is not what the referenced source actually says. For example, Jenny Chai's name isn't even mentioned in the source. I would propose replacing it with: "In 2017, The Philadelphia Orchestra Association discontinued its affiliation with Charles Dutoit and removed his honorary title of Conductor Laureate."

I would also re-instate the following from the 2/10/19 version of the article: "Several other orchestras either cancelled engagements or severed ties with Dutoit, including the Boston Symphony Orchestra, the San Francisco Symphony, the New York Philharmonic, the Sydney Symphony Orchestra, and the Chicago Symphony Orchestra.[42][43][44][45] "On December 24, 2017, the Montreal Symphony Orchestra announced that it had launched a sexual harassment investigation by an independent third party after receiving a complaint against Dutoit from a woman not named in earlier accounts.[47]" "The Royal Philharmonic announced subsequently, on January 10, 2018, that Dutoit had left all roles with the orchestra with immediate effect.[48]" "In January 2018, Canadian CBC Radio/CBC Radio Two adopted a policy of no longer crediting Dutoit as conductor when they played recordings of music he had conducted; they did this rather than remove the recordings entirely from their broadcasts.[49] WRTI-FM (90.1), while a local Philadelphia classical radio station, decided to not play his recordings, for an indefinite period.[50]" --Jburlinson (talk) 02:53, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

References

Fixed

I took out all the excessive detail. I am surprised it was even allowed here in the first place, all of it being one-sided with no counterpoint. In addition, most reputable sources will not identify the victims of sexual assault. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 20:40, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Reliable sources

"CD'S available in music stores, youtube, amazon" as noted in a recent WP:Edit summary are not Reliable, so I deleted the extensive listings, but an editor has restored them. Sources have been sought since 2018. I again deleted the section in hopes the above editor or someone else can provide the required sources. This is the Discussion part of WP:BRD. Hoping for further discussion, or, better, the sources. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 20:39, 24 January 2022 (UTC)