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 sourcedmust 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 within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
guidelines for writing and maintaining articles. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page
for more details.Classical musicWikipedia:WikiProject Classical musicTemplate:WikiProject Classical musicClassical music articles
Untitled
The article is not David Hurwitz's personal admiration page. Just as his reviews are often highly critical of a performer, so too must a bio sometimes be of him, if his viewpoints are not held as 'fact' - which of course almost all criticism is, by definition. If one is a critic, the critic also must be held to account for his views. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HammerFilmFan (talk • contribs) 07:30, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:COI you should not be editing it at all. Please take all concerns to this discussion page.THD3 (talk) 14:27, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
I have made edits to attempt to address your concerns, HammerFilmFan, while trying my best to keep it unbiased. I made sure to add inline citation wherever necessary.
@HammerFilmFan: it's been a long time but do you happen to have any references for content you previously contributed to this article? I think this article could definitely become less like fan page. Currently it is entirely based on this persons self-published information.--LeontinaVarlamonva (talk) 02:51, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I found some old suspiciously deleted references and restore them. Some links don't work but hopefully others can help fix and update.--LeontinaVarlamonva (talk) 03:24, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if I (as the main contributor) am being accused of having a "close connection" but this article is merely part of my improvements to many music critic articles on WP (see User:Aza24/Music critics). I have no connection to Hurwitz. As for references, I merely used what I could find and both The Brooklyn Paper and Amazon refs are secondary. There's no issue with sourcing basic life information to certain primary sources in absence of secondary. The "Musicological scholarship" section (which I did not write) is really the only "fan page" like content, and I would agree with removing entirely.
I don't know who removed all of the recently restored content, but it was much before I got to the article. I don't doubt its general accuracy, but I've removed its current inclusion as blatant OR. We need secondary sources that criticize him, not wikivoice using selected writings of his own do so. – Aza24 (talk) 05:34, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hah! such interesting double standards - Hurwitz's wikipedia article can be nearly entirely base on his own information and sources but others have to scramble to find "secondary sources" just to state the obvious? (which is that he is harsh and profane as his writings speak for themselves). Also, I have difficulty believing that someone truly unbiased and without conflict of interest provides this level of upkeep for what is basically Hurwitz fan page. But even that does not matter that much. What matters is that no one has the right to take all this information and wipe it clean. Feel free to rephrase but complete erasing is unacceptable and nonconstructive.--LeontinaVarlamonva (talk) 01:00, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your accusatory tone is not helpful nor productive. I update the YT count because no one else does… thankfully there is a program in the works to make such upkeep automatic.
Yes basic life and career information can be sourced to primary, but direct criticism can certainly not. As of now you are repeatedly inserting blatant OR which is a huge BLP violation. As before, if you can find secondary sources that have the criticism, by all means insert them. Aza24 (talk) 01:42, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've now removed all sources written directly by Hurwitz and their associated content. – Aza24 (talk) 07:26, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"he is harsh and profane as his writings speak for themselves" So what? Critics can be that way. Nobody has to be polite and mealy-mouthed if they believe something to be bad art. But, criticism of his alleged harshness should be reported in the article by way of references to sources criticizing Hurwitz, not as a personal assertion by one of us editing the article. Right? Pascalulu88 (talk) 20:38, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
