Talk:Julian Cochran

---

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 03:39, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Primary sources

Hi. I'm afraid I'm worried about the references used in this article - I've tagged it with Primary Sources, but that continues to be removers by various IP accounts, and it doesn't seem as if the problem has been fixed. As of this revision, there are three main sources being used: One is ABC FM, which is secondary, but is only being used to show that music by the subject has been played on the ABC. Another is composingnotes.wordpress.com, which is the artist's personal site - that's not a major concern, though, as it is being used to source claims about his musical style, and that doesn't seem an unreasonable piece to grab from the subject. The main concern is the third source: http://www.australianmusiccentre.com.au/artist/cochran-julian. The Australian Music Centre bio is identical to this article, suggesting that the use of that content here is a copyright violation. However, when that was first used here, it had no content - which leads me to assume that the biography was taken from the WP article, and I'm assuming that this was done by the subject. So again we're back to a sourcing problem - the bulk of the material is referenced to what is, at best, a mirror of this article.

I'd very much like to keep the article, especially given the subject, and my assumption is that sources on classical composers are hard to come by in mainstream media. So I'm hoping that the tags will help people to address the problem, as I've been unable to end any good sources yet. If anyone can identify good sources, I'd be very happy to work them into the article. - Bilby (talk) 06:24, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I've added back the tag for the same reason as before - I'd like to see this article kept, but it is almost completely reliant on self-published sources written by the subject. I belive Julian Cochran to be notable, so that isn't my concern, but I'm uncomfortable with the reliance on these sources for the bulk of the article. We need some independent sources to work with the main body, rather than just to show that some of his music has been broadcast by the ABC. - Bilby (talk) 15:07, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Dear Bilby,

Thank you for bringing attention to this page with a COI tag and asking for an independent review. As I am a professional pianist, classic music enthusiast and a person who got herself very well acquainted with Julian Cochran's music in the last two years (I am currently one of the contestants of the International Cochran Piano Competition), I decided to register here, triple-read everything and pitch in.

I see that the issue to which you brought attention to a few years ago (the article on the Australian Music Centre being the mirror of the Wikipedia one) no longer exists - the reference was removed from the Wikipedia page, as it was a mirrored reference. Also, after almost two years of playing Cochran's music and visiting a few lectures and concerts in Ukraine, I can say, that even if no references existed, the article would be neutral and completely objective. In this case, though, the information is heavily referenced, even more so than most articles on Australian composers out there. So, as a person who is quite proficient in this field, and after reading through the COI tag guidelines by Wikipedia, I decided to remove it - there is nothing in the article which warrants it being here.

If I am mistaken, and there are some objective reasons why the tag should be in place, please let me know. I'll try to get to the root of the problem, as I am currently very interested in the subject. And thanks for the tag again! As strange as it may seem, because of it I got better understanding and appreciation of Wikipedia, what it stands for and how it is populated with information. :)

Sincerely, Eugenia. (Lisztochek), 5:55, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

I think it is very interesting that a series of IPs and now a new editor have turned up to say that it is completely neutral. The problem is that you, and others, appear to have a direct connection to the subject. The tag is not meant to indicate that there is a problem, but to flag it for independent review. What we are seeing is not independent review, but removal of the tag by people who have a relationship with the subject. This means that we cannot tell if the material is, in fact, neutral. - Bilby (talk) 06:31, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Dear Bilby,

Thank you for your reply and for the brief explanation of the tag. I could not have imagined that the tag which is used, as I understood previously, only in critical situations could have been there just in order for someone to review the article. Also I am glad to see that you are editing the article and making it, hopefully, more neutral and objective. As someone very new to all of this, I doubt that I can do it to an exceptionally high standard. As for your latest comment - from reading your first complaint on this page, I gathered that you are a very objective and meticulous person. I was very surprised to see your reply being quite harsh towards a person you do not know. I hope that in the case of any future interactions, they will be kept civil, respectful and constructive.

Sincerely, Eugenia. (Lisztochek), 12:44, 14 May 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lisztochek (talk • contribs)

You are mistaken. The COI tag is not used in critical situations. It is used in any situation where there is a belief that the article may have been edited by people with a conflict of interest, such as yourself. It is important for readers to know that there is a risk that the article is biased, and for independent editors to be made aware that the article needs to be checked for bias. In this case, it appears that you have a conflict of interest in regard to the subject, therefore you should not be removing the tag until it can be independently evaluated.

You would not expect an account of an artist in a newspaper to be written by a person with a conflict of interest without disclosure, and nor would you expect that to be the case in an encyclopedia. Accordingly, readers should - at least - be made aware that an article may be biased until it is confirmed that the article is neutral. - Bilby (talk) 13:12, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Dear Bilby,

Though I am grateful for the explanation, I am well aware by now of how and in which situations the COI tag should be used. In case I was a person close to the subject, I would have agreed with you completely and used the Talk page to propose the changes to the article, if I thought that it needed any. Following the same logic and policies, you, as a person who put the tag in place, should have provided the reasons for the tag on the Talk page, and suggestions for possible changes, if you had any. As it stands, after the article and its sources were reviewed by an independent professional, as per your request, you insult an unrelated person you do not know with these baseless and impolite assumptions, while my sole interest is understanding of the situation and betterment of the article, as it is very close to my current interests. I do not see how registering or making edits at this time marks me as a part of some "conspiracy", actually, it is the only natural reaction in this case - to register and try to get to the bottom of this issue, being a frequent visitor to this page for more than a year now. Should you have something constructive to say, I will be happy to consider it and reply, any comments similar to the above, ignorant and accusatory ones, will be ignored.

Sincerely, Eugenia. Lisztochek (talk) 12:18, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

My comments are based on your statement of your involvement with the competition, which suggests a possible COI. If this is not the case so be it, but the COI tag does not mean that we know that there is a problem, only that there is cause to suspect one. Generally, to avoid any problems, we would expect the tag to be removed by someone with prior experience on Wikipedia, as that mitigates any risk of an ongoing issue. - Bilby (talk)

Thank you for clarifying and clearing up this unfortunate misunderstanding. I am sorry for the confusion and my harsh words towards you. Just for the future reference, should you need it: being a contestant of a competition dedicated to a particular composer (be it Cochran, Beethoven, Liszt or someone else) means only that a pianist is performing the works of an aforementioned composer, nothing else. In my case, I am not only playing his works, but am researching everything related to the subject. Also, while an experienced editor is always preferable, we all need to start from somewhere. I hope that you are not discouraging me from trying. All in all, I am very glad this issue was cleared. Take care! Lisztochek (talk) 14:23, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

I am an independent party. I have never met Julian Cochran. I follow his works only via the Internet. I am interested in this issue primarily because I think the COI tag was inappropriately used.

Wikipedia policies are not a matter of individual opinion. The policy for the COI tag is pretty clear as it states plainly: "Do not use this tag unless there are SIGNIFICANT or SUBSTANTIAL problems with the article's neutrality". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:COI

There were no significant or substantial problems, and therefore the tag should not have been be used. It is not meant to be used simply for the purpose of calling for an independent review.

The policy also states that like the other neutrality-related tags, if the COI tag is placed, a discussion should promptly be started on the article's talk page to explain what is non-neutral about the article. This was not done when the tag was initially placed or when it was re-inserted multiple times during the last few days.

70.210.66.20 (talk) 13:13, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

With respect, I'm aware of how the tag is used. I understand that you've been reading up on the guidelines, but things are rarely that simple. Had I have known what the problem with the article was, it would have been reasonable to have fixed it. Instead, the tag was added because it was very clear that there was a potential problem, but I did not have the background knowledge to judge the extent to which that was the case.

If you can, look at it from the other side. This article was edited by accounts with a clear COI, and appeared to be biased. The tag is suddenly removed by an IP editor, and then removed by what looks like a series of different IPs - without discussion - repeatedly. Then a new account turns up, with no prior record of editing on Wikipedia, and removes the tag again. The ideal solution is for someone with more experience on Wikipedia to remove it, as the possibility had to be entertained that this was a continuation of a long term problem. What we have instead is something that at least superficially looks like a problem we've seen both here and elsewhere on Wikipedia.

Keeping articles neutral when COI editing is a real problem and an ongoing battle. At times that might mean that the ideal solution is to leave a tag in place for a bit longer until it can be discussed or we can be sure that no issue exists by having someone with more experience make the call. - Bilby (talk) 13:27, 15 May 2017 (UTC)