Talk:Kyung Wha Chung
| This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | This article is substantially duplicated by a piece in an external publication. Since the external publication copied Wikipedia rather than the reverse, please do not flag this article as a copyright violation of the following source:
|
Stop undoing my edits
editSome one is keep undoing my edits.
My edits are based on the book (Korean language) written by Kyung Wha Chung's mother about the endeavors of her three children, Chung Kyung-wha, Chung Myung-hun, and Chung Myung-wha.
My edits are based on FACTS and primary sources, so I recommend you do not revert it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.5.234.103 (talk) 00:07, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
seriously
editwho the hell is keep undoing my edits? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.5.234.103 (talk) 00:12, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
- Best to persist. Get a proper signon also and not "68.5.234.103". Kyung-wha Chung is a fabulous violinist. I rate her at the very top of her art. Wallie (talk) 06:56, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Hagiography should not be Wikipedia biography
editThe entire entry reads more like hagiography than any other Wikipedia entry I've ever read.
It suggests a U.S. classical music world hostile against Chung who almost magically triumphed over it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.52.106.39 (talk) 01:01, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
Disagree with BLP template
editI deprecate the BLP template and disagree with using it, both here and anywhere else on Wikipedia. It is non-specific, non-actionable, and non-helpful. The policy and conditions for removing it are as vague and useless as the template itself. Please folks, if you have an issue just edit the doggone article or at least detail your objection in the talk page. Otherwise let it go. As an experienced editor and frequent looker-upper I have seen BLP hundreds of times on hundreds of articles and it just p-m-o. So much so that I have removed this one template instance on this one article simply to make the point and out of sheer frustration.
Sigh...