Talk:George W. Byng

Info box
Full marks for purging the info box. Tim riley (talk) 16:13, 1 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you. As the edit summary notes, this was done per WP:G&S.  -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:37, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Issues with edits to this article
I am relatively new to Wikipedia and have created a few pages which have between them created little interest. There does however seem to have been much interest in this one.

First - thanks to Tim Riley for supplementing my original article with information from Parker 1925 which seems to have a lot more detail than the 1916 edition which I currently have.

I do have concerns about some subsequent edits:-

1. Use of "Byng" instead of "he" section "Musical director and composer" and maybe others:- I believe it would be better English in a paragraph to refer to "Byng" once only and then use "he" in sentences which follow. I have changed this back to how I had it which I believe reads better only to find that my changes have been edited out again!

2. American vs English dates in Death section:- Believing that the preferred date format is American - I used "June 29 1932" instead of the English 29 June 1932. However, curiously - again this is reversed out.

3.Introductory paragraph:- This is now far too wordy! The paragraph beginning "As a child" surely belongs in the "Early years" section. The paragraph beginning "In 1915" surely shouldn't be here at all.

I hope that as the originator of this article that I can continue to make my contribution to this without my changes being instantly reverted. This isn't much encouragement to new editors. After all - there was no such article just 24 hours ago!

I hope at least to stimulate some discussion between all those who have a stake in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard J Myers (talk • contribs) 17:26, 1 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep up the good work! This is an excellent start. Don't be discouraged by tweaks from experienced contributors. On the points you mention:
 * It's usual (and at FAC etc compulsory) to use the personal noun at the start of each para, with pronouns thereafter, if practicable.
 * Why American dates for an English article? Rather unusual. See the MoS: Manual of Style/Dates and numbers
 * The lead section should be a general summary of the entire article: see the Mos: Manual of Style/Lead section
 * Best wishes Tim riley (talk) 18:37, 1 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree with Tim. This is an excellent new article, and your continued additions to it are very welcome.  The changes that I made are all to conform it to our normal style for better articles.  Here is an example of an excellent conductor article: Adrian Boult.  We need pronouns to be unambiguous.  If you say only a person's name, then you can usually keep saying "he".  But if you introduce other names, then you need to restate the personal pronoun for clarity.  In Wikipedia, avoiding ambiguity is of paramount importance.  In every instance where I added the personal pronoun, there was a possible ambiguity.  For British people's bios, we need to use British date formats (BTW, I am an American).  Regarding the Lead section, please see WP:LEAD, which says, in relevant part: "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points".  Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:38, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Early life - orchestras
What instrument did Byng play in these orchestras? -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:21, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I understand it was the violin, but cannot remember where I read this and cannot not find any citation Richard J Myers (talk) 08:41, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Lead image
The Lead image in this article comes from this website, "The Gilbert & Sullivan Discography". When I clicked on the image, I saw that the "Fair Use Summary" stated in four places that the image is "used with permission" of the website owner. I thought this was dubious, so I asked the owner-editor of the G&S Discography, Marc Shepherd, if the image was copied with his permission. He stated that neither Mr. Myers nor anyone else had requested any such permission and, indeed, the G&S Discography does not own the copyright to the image and uses it under a claim of fair use. Marc does not have publication information about the image. Therefore, I removed the statements that the image was uploaded "with permission": See this, which shows the changes I made.

Mr. Myers, please check the other images you have uploaded to be sure that you are not stating in error that they are being used with permission. Thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:35, 1 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Fair use contains much of the relevant policies. Long story short, we can use it, in a limited fashion, but we cannot assume any permission. PS. Looking more closely, the image is from 1920, so it may be public domain. Per Template:PD-US, it may fall under "Works published in the U.S. before 1923.". --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 21:48, 1 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, if you can show that the image was published (for example in a newspaper, magazine or book) before 1923, we could use a public domain tag instead. I know that this image was published in Fred Gaisberg's Music on Record in 1946 (I no longer have this book), but I don't know if it was published before that.  -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:15, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Objection: I did request and get permission from this site using its contact tab as I remember and they said that I could use it as "fair use" which I did - so there should be no need to change its status Richard J Myers (talk) 08:46, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

-- Here is a copy of my email communication with Marc Shepard giving me permission to use this image. Why did you not check with me first! Dear Mr. Myers,

Thank you for your message, and for your kind words about the site.

I frankly do not recall where I got that image from; it was probably from the liner notes on one of the LP or CD re-issues. I may have scanned it myself, or a correspondent may have sent it to me. I certainly did not seek or obtain permission from HMV, assuming (which is likely) that it originally came from them.

My view on such matters has been that publication of the photo on my website falls within the compass of fair use, and that if it does not, the worst that could happen is that HMV would ask me to cease and desist (in which case, of course, I would readily comply).

I am not suggesting that this should be your view; only that this is my own approach. You are certainly have my permission to use the image on my site for any purpose.

Warm regards, Marc Shepherd

On 4/4/2010 5:55 PM, Richard Myers wrote: Hi, I have recently been doing some research into the life of the early 20th century singer Ernest Pike (Herbert Payne) who sung on some of the earliest recordings of Gilbert and Sullivan operas.

What I am looking for is a picture of him that I can publish on the Internet. I first contacted HMV, but they wanted a large sum of money to release the few images that they had - and then I would still not be allowed to publish them.

Then I noticed that you have a picture of a group which includes him on the "1920 HMV Pirates" page of your excellent site (this site has been very helpful to me). So is this picture in the public domain, or did you need special permission from HMV?

Could I use this picture and/or have you any others that I could use? I would be very grateful for your help and any images you may have available in the best resolution possible.

Thanks in advance for your help and have a good Easter.

Regards Richard Myers (Staffordshire, UK)

Richard J Myers (talk) 08:50, 2 May 2012 (UTC) --

I have again emailed Marc Shepherd today and he has again given his permission. I am happy to forward the email conversation to anyone who cares to give me an email address. Here is the complete email sequence:-

Hi Richard,

Thanks for writing. You and Wikipedia can use any photo on my website at any time, as far as I am concerned.

Best regards, Marc

On 5/2/2012 5:44 AM, Richard Myers wrote: Hi Marc,

I trust you are well. It is a couple of years since your cordial reply to my request for "fair use" of a photo on your website for a Wikipedia article. Somebody on Wikipedia thinks you did not give permission. This reply is to your email to me of 2 years ago where you DID give me permission. I am a little "put out" by this. I trust this will jog your memory and that you will see that you did give me permission.

Kind Regards Richard Myers

Marc Shepherd wrote: Dear Mr. Myers,

Thank you for your message, and for your kind words about the site.

I frankly do not recall where I got that image from; it was probably from the liner notes on one of the LP or CD re-issues. I may have scanned it myself, or a correspondent may have sent it to me. I certainly did not seek or obtain permission from HMV, assuming (which is likely) that it originally came from them.

My view on such matters has been that publication of the photo on my website falls within the compass of fair use, and that if it does not, the worst that could happen is that HMV would ask me to cease and desist (in which case, of course, I would readily comply).

I am not suggesting that this should be your view; only that this is my own approach. You are certainly have my permission to use the image on my site for any purpose.

Warm regards, Marc Shepherd

On 4/4/2010 5:55 PM, Richard Myers wrote: Hi, I have recently been doing some research into the life of the early 20th century singer Ernest Pike (Herbert Payne) who sung on some of the earliest recordings of Gilbert and Sullivan operas.

What I am looking for is a picture of him that I can publish on the Internet. I first contacted HMV, but they wanted a large sum of money to release the few images that they had - and then I would still not be allowed to publish them.

Then I noticed that you have a picture of a group which includes him on the "1920 HMV Pirates" page of your excellent site (this site has been very helpful to me). So is this picture in the public domain, or did you need special permission from HMV?

Could I use this picture and/or have you any others that I could use? I would be very grateful for your help and any images you may have available in the best resolution possible.

Thanks in advance for your help and have a good Easter.

Regards Richard Myers (Staffordshire, UK)

-- Marc Shepherd New York, NY

Richard J Myers (talk) 11:27, 2 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Mr. Myers. That clears up the "permission" issue.  Marc Shepherd wrote: "I frankly do not recall where I got that image from; it was probably from the liner notes on one of the LP or CD re-issues. I may have scanned it myself, or a correspondent may have sent it to me. I certainly did not seek or obtain permission from HMV...."   So, you see, Shepherd does not own the copyright, and he cannot give you permission to use the image – It's like my giving you permission to sleep in the White House because, as a taxpayer, I "regard" it as my right.  He regards it as a "fair use" image.  Fortunately, so do we, and we are using it under a claim of fair use, which is fine.  But "permission" can only come from the copyright holder, the D'Oyly Carte Opera Company (or possibly HMV). You don't realize it, but I have fixed the image description so that it should now pass muster when the Wikipedia image experts get to it.   -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:42, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank-you for keeping the image. Following my original email to Marc Shepherd 2 years ago, I had originally counted it as fair-use myself and that is the key reason that I uploaded it, so I don't know why there was any need for change in its status. Richard J Myers (talk) 14:56, 2 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi. Everything is fine; there has been no change in status, whatever that means.  I merely corrected the fair use summary for the image in this edit, which shows the changes I made.  You don't need to worry; I am just trying to explain to you, for future reference, what "permission" means under the copyright law and here at Wikipedia.  "Permission" means the permission of the copyright holder, rather than any purported permission from people who do not own the copyright.  For "fair use" images, we do not need permission.  See fair use to understand more about this - it has nothing to do with permission at all (that is, permission is not part of the criteria for being able to claim fair use).  See also WP:Fair use.  If, however, you can get permission of a copyright owner to use their image under certain licenses, then you can upload a "free" image to Wikipedia.  The procedure for getting permission to do that is here: WP:Requesting copyright permission.  I hope this helps you in the future.  All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:40, 2 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I'll just chip in again that if we can trace the original publication (or verify that the author died prior to PD-70, now at 1942), we may be able to discard fair use and replace it with a public domain. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 17:12, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi: I have used the same picture for my article about Ernest Pike two years ago. At that time I emailed EMI - they were not very co-operative. They had three images of him for which they wanted £100 GBP to digitise and even then they would not allow me to publish them online. I have no reason to suppose that the picture in this article is one of those as it it is does not contain a full portrait. My suggestion is that I email EMI again and ask them what the source of this photo is, who the author is and when the author died. I could do this next week - but don't expect a quick answer back! Richard J Myers (talk) 15:08, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Guardian angels or obstructive reactionaries?
Dear Richard (if I may?), we ancient inhabitants of Wikipedia mean no harm and much good when we put in our oars. As a collaborative enterprise Wikipedia has developed its own rules, and we are all, newcomers or serial offenders like Ssilvers and me, bound by them – not always to our delight. But I hope you will think it worthwhile to go on adding your excellent – and excellent really is the word – new material. If we tinker with your prose it is only to keep it in line with Wikipedia's Manual of Style – not, it must be said, the world's clearest or most user-friendly style guide, but there it is. Anyway, I am much enjoying your articles on early recording artists, and I look forward to more. Tim riley (talk) 21:22, 2 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I second what Tim says. Your articles are excellent contributions, and we are just trying to help you negotiate the style guidelines of this encyclopedia.  But I would be remiss if I did not point out that Tim is more ancient than me.  Happy editing!  -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:46, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi Tim Riley and Ssilvers. Thank-you both for your kind words. I am very touched by what you have said. Sometimes I accept that I can over-react a little to things especially at the moment. So perhaps I misunderstood your motives. I believe that your edits, now that I see them complete, are very much for the best and look forward to working with you on similar such articles in the future. I do have further new articles lined up, the next of which requires further research before there is sufficient material to be able to give a good narrative of the persons life. I am starting to use the Manual of Style when I have the time to read it (and it is quite large!)- my style of writing to date has been loosely based on other good articles that I have found. So perhaps I do need a Guardian angel after all! So I wish you both well and have a good May Bank holiday (UK only) weekend.Richard J Myers (talk) 13:12, 3 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Richard. Nothing in Wikipedia is perfect - we all just keep trying to make it better.  It's a very interesting exercise and can be fun and challenging.  These talk pages are central to our process: You can raise a question, and everyone can debate it until we reach a WP:CONSENSUS on the best approach.  After six years here, I learn something new about Wikipedia every day.  Working on a high quality article that goes through all the stages (Stub, Start, C-class, B-class, GA-class and FA-class) gives one a much better feel for Wikipedia style, because the GA and FA process requires a through review of the article by experienced Wikipedians following a set of style and content criteria.  If you look at User:Tim riley's user page, you will find a link to his impressive list of Featured Articles: those are some of the best examples of high-quality articles (particularly about musicians) in Wikipedia. They are super style and content examples. Happy Editing!  -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:06, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Byng's Death
When researching the article I sent off for (and paid for) his death certificate. I opened this at breakfast whilst eating my cereal and was shocked by what it said. I find it difficult to believe that someone who was such a prodigy and who had had by any standards such a successful career could end his life in such a way. The certificate added the phrase "while of unsound mind". I did not put this in the article as I think this to be a judgement on his mental condition based on early 20th-Century attitudes to mental illness. Maybe he had had some personal shock in his life, or maybe he behaved a bit oddly due to early-stage Alzheimer's and his family panicked and put him in an institution. It's all speculation of course and perhaps we shall never know. Richard J Myers (talk) 13:31, 3 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree. You already say that he was in an institution, so "unsound mind", aside from being an outdated diagnosis, is redundant.  What the "death" section does need is some information about where he is buried, or if he was cremated, if that information is available.  Usually we name the cemetery if that information is available.  Did he ever marry?  What instrument did he play in his early years with orchestras?  All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:13, 3 May 2012 (UTC)