The previous versions were much too hagiographic, with overly granular and irrelevant details, as well as 'laundry list' text of appearances, which is meaningless, as all classical music artists make guest appearances in many locales. Too much of the previous text was very PR-like in nature. The purpose of Wikipedia is to present 'just the facts' and not be a publicity arm for any person or organisation. Please respect this principle. DJRafe (talk) 22:47, 8 June 2017 (UTC)Reply
- @DJRafe: I'm tempted to revert your edit, but I'll have to go through all this with a fine tooth comb. I may still revert and then re-implement some of your suggested cuts to remove non-essential details. Either way, this is a major reduction to a Good article, so closer inspection is required. ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:58, 8 June 2017 (UTC)Reply
- I went ahead and reverted your edit because now the sections are not even in the correct order, and I will try to go back through your edits as soon as possible. ---Another Believer (Talk) 23:00, 8 June 2017 (UTC)Reply
- I stand by my revert because your edit removed many inline citations and leaving unsourced claims. If you want to go through the article again, this time as a series of many smaller edits that would be easier for people to review, no problem. But this single edit, in my opinion, is not constructive to an article that has been promoted to Good status. ---Another Believer (Talk) 23:13, 8 June 2017 (UTC)Reply
It seems then that you did not 'go through all this with a fine tooth comb' before reverting. (I did, in my major edit.) Had you done so, you would have seen that I added very useful information on her Chicago Sinfonietta contract and a succession box, which was carelessly erased. The last is particularly standard regarding conductors. The text that I removed is excessively granular and irrelevant, more appropriate for a full-length book biography, should one eventually be published. I have never met Maestra Chen or seen her conduct, so I have no bias one way or the other towards her. However, based on the nature of the text and your edits, I can only infer that you have such a bias in her favour. If so, I need to point out this standard verbiage on Wikipedia:
- '......if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest or close connection to the subject.
- All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.'
The overall reason for the major changes, and resulting reduction in the article length, is that all of the details that I removed were and are not germane to a general reader who wishes to get the bare facts about Maestra Chen. Whilst I gather that she is a good conductor (and most probably a lovely person), to be quite blunt, she does not merit a Wikipedia article that is longer than the article on Otto Klemperer.
I made my edits with no malice aforethought. I edited to bring the article in line with the highest Wikipedia standards of objectivity. That is my rationale. However, in the interest of avoiding edit wars (and not wasting space on Wikipedia's servers), I am avoiding changes for now. But given that I have long experience in editing Wikipedia articles to meet standards of objectivity, I know what I am doing here with my edits. An honest examination will reveal that.
In addition, in terms of carbon footprint, it is not good practice to make incremental edits with articles. Each saved edit takes up new file space on Wikipedia's servers and does not erase past edits. (And, yes, I am aware of the irony of this reply further duplicating a file and adding to Wikipedia's carbon footprint.) It is best to make all changes in as few actual saved edits as possible. DJRafe (talk) 23:50, 8 June 2017 (UTC)Reply
- Alright, well I am more concerned about content than server space, so I'd still recommend a series of smaller edits over a major overhaul in a single diff. Sounds like the Otto Klemperer article needs to be expanded, but greatly reducing a Good article and introducing unsourced content is not appropriate. I'll keep an eye on the article to see if further edits are made. ---Another Believer (Talk) 00:00, 9 June 2017 (UTC)Reply
- @DJRafe: Thanks for reminding me about the succession box, which I added back to the article. This is a good addition to the article. Yeah, yeah, COI editing, I know. I've been around here a while, too. But my revert has nothing to do with COI. ---Another Believer (Talk) 00:06, 9 June 2017 (UTC)Reply
Actually, this is not a Good article, in terms of its quality. In fact, it is one of the most brazen examples of puffery and fluff I've seen on wikipedia, and I've seen too many of those on wikipedia in my time. Too much of the text crosses over the line into Facebook-like 'what I had for afternoon tea' text. As well, there is no point in having dated text like "In the 2011-2012 season she will conduct....", because (a) all guest conductors conduct somewhere, and (b) it is now June 2017. A wikipedia article needs to be concentrated and focused, and hit the most immediately relevant points of the subject. It is absolutely of no relevance whatsoever to read the laundry list of orchestras that Maestra Chen has guest-conducted. It is of complete relevance that she is the first female music director of the Memphis Symphony (and, for that matter, of the Chicago Sinfonietta).
None of my edits are disparaging to her in any way. They tighten the text. Tightening an article does not disparage a subject, when it cleans up the article and makes it easier to read. Article length, in of itself, is not a criterion for reversion. One can say a lot in a few words, which is my objective here. The problem with the earlier versions is that too many words say not enough, with all the peacock text that distracts from main points about her. The simplest of gedanken-experiments will reveal that. Read the previous version of the article, but mentally change the name of Mei-Ann Chen to the conductor you consider to be the worst and most overrated conductor around. All of a sudden, the puffery will reveal itself.
I stand by my earlier edit, for the simple reason that my edit is visually and intellectually more objective and less cluttered. (And that is not simply because I say it. If someone else besides me had made similar edits to tone down the puffery, I would have agreed with that person.) However, in the spirit of compromise, I have only done partial restoration of my earlier edit. DJRafe (talk) 15:56, 11 June 2017 (UTC)Reply
