Talk:Richard Freed

Article accuracy
As promised during the AfD, I have asked an OTRS correspondent who says that he is the subject of this article to check the latest version for accuracy. Here are his comments (with some personal details omitted):

For starters, I do not recall Saturday Review's having such a title as "contributing editor" (though Stereo Review did). I don't think "bachelor of philosophy" has to be spelt out: "Ph.B." would do. I would suggest again that someone at Wikipedia simply check the listings in Grove, Baker's, etc., and base the listing on what is found there. I am not a very important figure, just someone whose name is known within a fragment of today's public interested in music... Baker's, in which Slonimsky himself wrote every entry, is thoroughly reliable... If I can get to this small item myself I'll send something to you, but as things stand now the current Grove material is a tad more up-to-date, but not necessarily more thorough than what is in Baker's. If you can find the Richard Freed who wrote "Sex After Broccoli," that might be worth your attention. As the wonderful Anna Russell used to say, "I'm not making this up, you know!"

Participants in the AfD, recent editors of the article and anyone else with an interest are asked to consider these comments. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:57, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Death
He died five days after his 93rd birthday. --166.205.141.33 (talk) 16:17, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Readers can tell that from reading his dates of birth and death. Is there any reason to specifically mention it in the way that you keep adding? Cordless Larry (talk) 16:35, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

It's what it should say. --166.205.141.33 (talk) 16:37, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I disagree, as have and, who have also reverted you. You need to get consensus for this addition and it would help if you could explain why you think the article should state this. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:40, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

This is what it should say in the section explaining his death.
He died at his home in Rockville, Maryland on January 1, 2022, five days after his 93rd birthday. --166.205.141.33 (talk) 16:40, 10 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Why the emphasis on being 5 days after his birthday? Why is that significant? noq (talk) 18:01, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Copyvio
On 13 January, User:Aesthetic Writer placed a copyright violation notice on this article. The notice suggests an improper use of https://jwa.org/encyclopedia/author/freed-richard. The resulting reports show some trivial uses of the same phrases concerning Freed's job descriptions and career. This cannot constitute a copyright violation. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:02, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The entire article was copied from this website, but still, there was an invisible comment on top right here, before I removed it, then tagged and replaced. In case, it would be solved. --Aesthetic Writer (talk) 02:11, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
 * That was in 2016 when User:Noq added that template, db-copyvio, to the article. The creator of the article, User:Voxfax, then out-commented it, without objection by Noq. Today's article is very different from its state in 2016. In short: there is no copyvio now. Aesthetic Writer: did you find anything in your examination of the copyvio reports that supports the claim of a copyright violation? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:22, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The real question, Aesthetic Writer, is when the copyvio was introduced, and when, if at all, it was taken care of. If you can make that clear you'd save the admins a lot of work. But the really real question is why that article, which indeed was a blatant copyvio, was never deleted. Michael Bednarek, please check the history: the last edit I scrubbed was still a copyright violation; it was not just a few phrases or whatever. Drmies (talk) 03:34, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks Drmies, there is no infringing copyright for these job titles were cited, as for good reason. --Aesthetic Writer (talk) 03:38, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
 * This whole brief affair was a storm in a teacup. To revive an out-commented from more than 5 years ago without looking at the current state of the article was irresponsible. Further, 150 words or so at the source are not a creative work that would enjoy copyright – it's akin to a phone book entry – and today's revdels disrupt the editing history of this article and are unwarranted. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 09:16, 13 January 2022 (UTC)