Talk:Pacific Symphony

Early history of orchestra: Where is Keith Clark?
I found it surprising that no mention of the orchestra's founder, Keith Clark, can be found on the orchestra's website. After doing a little research, I found it even more shocking that this was the case as far back as 1989 (see referenced article by Martin Bernheimer in the Los Angeles Times).

I decided to greatly expand the history of the orchestra before Carl St.Clair's music directorship. I used only publically available sources and have tried to make it as fair and unbiased as possible.Westofpch (talk) 00:35, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the changes made at 00:12, 13 February 2008 by 67.100.87.115:  This very large deletion of prior work is, in my opinion, suspect and seems to violate Wikipedia's "neutral point of view" policy by deleting potentially unflattering history about the orchestra while leaving the niceties. I found the information originally written by Westofpch to be well-written, well-referenced and unbiased. In addition, the suspect edits -- if allowed to remain -- left no context for either the Board's decision not to renew Clark's contract or for Spisto's contract with the musicians (let alone clarify who Spisto was in the first place). Because of this, I think it best to re-instate the complete history including all elements, flattering and unflattering. Ferdidi (talk) 00:14, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Stale article needs work
Added "update", "refimprove" and "advert" templates. The article seems to break down into two sections. Work from mostly 11 to 12 years ago, by just a few editors, that perhaps goes into too much detail (tighten the copy, fewer examples, refine the lengthy details) about the ins and outs of the main person responsible for creating the Symphony. At least this work has references. In the decade since, there is just a handful of random and completely unreferenced facts (for now, we can only assume they are facts) and thoughts, reading more like an advertisement for how great the newer (actually, nearly 30 years in the job) person is doing. Also, is the subject really the Pacific Symphony? The first section goes into too much detail about the woes, but at least they are the woes of the Pacific Symphony - the subject of the article. After that, it is more an article about the fantastic achievements - much of it in ongoing work (no dates nor citations, so maybe not "ongoing"?) with multiple orchestras that are not the actual Pacific Symphony - of the second music director. Jmg38 (talk) 00:39, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

puffery in last few sections
The last couple sections feel a bit promotional, using marketing type language. Is that something we should completely delete or just rewrite it?--Eatthecrow (talk) 20:40, 21 January 2022 (UTC)