Talk:The King's Consort

Edit War

I have restored the version of the article which is being repeatedly reverted by User:Jbl5988 but have made two changes. I removed the name of Hannes de Vries, who is no longer the manager and I added a reliable source for the name change from Gramophone Magazine. The Retrospect Ensemble web site (previously given as a citation for that) doesn't state that it is the new name for the King's Consort. Jb15988, you are engaged in an edit war and are going to be blocked if you continue. You have now made 5 reverts in 24 hours. If you have valid reasons for repeatedly deleting both text and valid references from reliable sources, please discuss them here. Voceditenore (talk) 12:47, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• User:84.59.16.14, if you are a different person from User:Jbl5988, this applies to you too. If you are the same person, please read this policy page. If either of you has a personal or professional affiliation with The King's Consort, please see the guidelines for editing under these circumstances. Voceditenore (talk) 13:49, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your efforts to keep the verified facts in place. One correction: Hannes de Vries is indeed the manager of The King's Consort. Viola Scheffel (listed in the original article) held that role until recently. I do not have a verifiable source except to suggest calling The King's Consort's registered office and confirming. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.253.40.180 (talk) 20:01, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

It's a minor point, so it's probably best to leave the manager's name out if there's no verifiable source for it. Voceditenore (talk) 20:05, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• Once again "another" anonymous editor, User:84.58.241.211, has made the exact same deletions as User:Jbl5988 and User:84.59.16.14. Both IPs trace back to Düsseldorf. One more reversion by any of these editors (or a related IP) will result in this being taken to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Once again, discuss your reasons for your repeated removal of material from this article. Voceditenore (talk) 20:14, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• Yet another removal of the material by Jbl5988. At first these removals looked like vandalism, but it's becoming pretty obvious that the problem is with the reasons why Robert King was replaced as music director. Jbl5988, if you are Robert King or a person close to him, please read the Biography of Living Persons Help Page for how to proceed. You cannot continue like this — edit-warring, using IP sock puppets (if, as I strongly suspect, you are also editing as User:84.58.241.211 and User:84.59.16.14), failing to communicate with other editors and refusing even to leave edit summaries. Worse, one of the edit summaries by 84.59.16.14 was deliberately misleading, describing the deletion of an entire paragraph plus its references as an "important update". You are going to end up blocked and will have no opportunity to put your case. Please... Voceditenore (talk) 23:40, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

After the sixth reversion of this page by Jbl5988, I have reported this to WP:ANI.Nrswanson (talk) 20:54, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Recent edits

I have removed a comment from the article to the effect that the cited press reports were "misleading". That is a personal judgement and until published sources, independent of the current King's Consort or Robert King, which say that the original articles cited were misleading and/or inaccurate can be cited, it doesn't belong in the article. Secondly, it's pretty obvious that this article is being edited by at least three editors who may be affiliated in some way with either Robert King or the current King's Consort. Please read the guidance at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest before making further edits to this article. Voceditenore (talk) 19:17, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

MISLEADING PRESS REPORTS

Recent edits Certain press reports are provably misleading. As two such examples, the press report quoted as a source in this Wikipedia entry which states that TKC is "mort" [dead], and another more recent one in Fanfare magazine stating that TKC has been "dissolved" are both inaccurate. That is not "personal judgement" but provable fact. That TKC is performing is evidenced by concert tickets being on sale at a) the Amsterdam Concertgebouw (see their website), b) in Madrid Auditorio Nacional (see that concert hall's website) and c) in Lucerne (see the Lucerne Festival's website for its 2010 Easter Festival).

At least one of the misleading "source" references has been added to this Wikipedia entry by someone believed to be closely connected with the newly-named Retrospect Ensemble - see Wikipedia: Conflict of Interest. As to the suggestion that "it's pretty obvious that this article is being edited by persons who may be affiliated in some way with either Robert King or the current King's Consort", Voceditenore could follow that same advice and not make "personal judgements" without some form of proof. Those contributors might be making additions to the entry so as to ensure that it is a) current and b) factually correct. Wisdomperson (talk) 23:42, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing in the current text of the Wikipedia article itself that is misleading, as far as I can see. The press report in Gramophone at the time quoted verbatim the text of a press release from the King's Consort Board of Trustees, which described the situation as it was at the time. At that time (May 1, 2009), there was no longer an ensemble performing under the name of the King's Consort. Several months later the trademarked name reverted to Robert King and he has now reconstituted an ensemble which will perform under that name starting next year. All of this information is in the article.

Personal judgements in the Wikipedia article as to how the earlier press articles could be misleading in retrospect (no pun intended) are unencyclopedic. However, if you find a published source independent of Robert King and the current ensemble which states that, or states that the contents of the King's Consort Board of Trustees' press release were not accurate at the time they were published, by all means add the reference to the article. Presumably once the newly constituted King's Consort starts performing again, there will be more press coverage.

And, yes in the past it was pretty obvious that the article was being edited by at least one person close to the Retrospect Ensemble at the time of the name change, and I edited out the unencylopedic aspects of their additions as well. I'm probably the only substantial editor of this article who isn't affiliated with either group. The Conflict of Interest Guidelines are there for a reason. Once again I strongly recommend that all editors with any affiliation to either group read them and follow them. Voceditenore (talk) 07:17, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Misleading Articles Whether misleading or not at the time, it is does not seem very helpful to someone coming to this article ("The King's Consort") for the first time to find a reference stating that that the "TKC" is 'mort' when the main text states quite clearly that it is not (with next year's announced concerts to prove it). Nor does the reference to a piece in "The Gramaphone Maagazine" help since it is apparently no longer accessible on the web. If a source reference is necessary at that point in the article, the piece by Ivan Hewett's 29th April piece in the Daily Telegraph (www.telegraph.co.uk/culturecritics/ivanhewett/5244855/Retrospect-Ensemble-the=born=again-consort.html)is more accurate. After describing the birth of "Retrospect Ensemble", the last para. made it clear that Robert King, was even then, released from prison and, having regained the right to the name, intending to take up the baton again with the group under its original name.

I suggest that Voceditonore, in the spirit of accuracy and objectivity on which he prides himself should replace the two unhelpful/currently innacurate references by the piece in the Telegraph. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ongaku-aikouka (talk • contribs) 12:51, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I have replaced the previous Gramophone reference with one from page 13 of their April 2009 Issue, which is also online. I have removed the gobuz reference (not originally added by me) as it was a. in French, and b. redundant to the more reliable Gramophone source. I have happily added the Ivan Hewett article as a reference as suggested by Ongaku-aikouka above. Voceditenore (talk) 13:42, 19 November 2009 (UTC)