Talk:Eric Lu

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Eric Lu. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160520084740/http://chopincompetition2015.com/news/0c57bc68-a199-4909-8506-30faa06de5a6 to http://chopincompetition2015.com/news/0c57bc68-a199-4909-8506-30faa06de5a6

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:59, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Specificity and tone

The recent changes from noting the particular prize and giving the year, to stating "prizewinner" and "at the age of" are not improvements. The specific prize is appropriate detail, the year is specfic and nonpromotional. If a source finds his age notable then cite it with inclusion. MrBill3 (talk) 15:54, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Sorry MrBill3 I'm inclined to disagree. Take a look at his Chopin Institute biography and this piece from The Guardian after his winning of Leeds among many, many other sources, and the tone in which these articles are written ("aged only 17", "one of the youngest laureates in the history of the competition"). Moreover, continue reading the article beyond the lede and you'll find that the article body text states the particular prize. Zingarese talk · contribs 01:29, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Works for me. Both arguments are valid. Go ahead and redo that edit. Best. MrBill3 (talk) 16:40, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Chinese name in lead sentence

@GuardianH: I don't believe the Chinese name belongs in the lead sentence. The sources you refer to are Chinese-language media, which naturally reference Chinese names for any Chinese-heritage subject. This is circular reasoning, as Chinese media covering a pianist of Chinese descent in Chinese doesn't demonstrate that his Chinese name itself has "made headlines" or has particular encyclopedic significance. The lead should prioritize how the subject is most commonly known in English-language sources, and as an American, Lu performs and is primarily covered as "Eric Lu". We should not include non-English names in lead sentences for most Western classical musicians of various ethnic backgrounds unless those names are regularly used in their professional identity or have been the specific subject of significant coverage in reliable English-language sources beyond merely being mentioned. The infobox already provides this information appropriately for readers who want it. intforce (talk) 00:13, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Image

@RachelTensions: I am reverting the continued restoration of the current infobox image per MOS:IMAGEQUALITY. This photograph is fundamentally unsuitable for an encyclopedia article for multiple reasons: the subject's face is largely obscured by a mask, making identification nearly impossible and defeating the primary purpose of a biographical photograph; the image quality is extremely poor, with low resolution, bad lighting and an unflattering angle; the inclusion of this image so deeply inappropriate that it might constitute defamation. The alternative image mentioned, while requiring zoom to see details, at least shows the subject's face and maintains basic standards of dignity. Even no image at all would be infinitely preferable to the blurry photograph, which actively harms the article's credibility and the subject's reputation. intforce (talk) 00:55, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Support keeping the image - While the image is blurry and has a mask, it really isn't that bad and to suggest that it "constitutes defamation" or is "deeply inappropriate" is a huge overreaction. There is absolutely no way that this image could cause such reputational harm as to actually count as defamatory under US law. It is the best image that we have of him and should be used until a better alternative is available. Truthfully, the blurry image of Eric Lu is higher quality than most of the stuff on WP:UBI. ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 01:03, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

From the guideline you've highlighted:
"Use the best quality images available." Unfortunately the masked photo is the best we've got.
"Poor-quality images—dark or blurry; video stills; showing the subject too small, hidden in clutter, ambiguous, or at an awkward angle; and so on—should not be used unless absolutely necessary." Again, unfortunately the masked photo is the best we've got, making it necessary.
"A biography should lead with a portrait photograph of the subject alone, not with other people."Even if the subject was recognizable whatsoever in the performance photo, it is a wide, landscape photo of the whole venue, with multiple other people.

So what, exactly, about MOS:IMAGEQUALITY is prohibiting the photo of the subject wearing the mask?

The subject of this article is somewhat visible in the screen depicted in the performance photo, but if we're using that photo with the intent of directing viewers to the screen within the photo, we're into copyvio territory. The footage depicted on the screen belongs to someone else, not the person who took the overall photo. It's non-free content. If that's expected to be the focal point of the photo then it violates de minimus rules because the intent is that it is the focus of the photo, not just a coincidental inclusion. RachelTensions (talk) 01:07, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

I have just sent an email to his general management company HarrisonParrott requesting a freely licensed quality portrait. ObserveOwl (talk) 01:13, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Presenting an internationally acclaimed concert pianist with a degraded, face-obscured photo in his official biographical entry absolutely damages professional reputation. I have now cropped an alternative image from the performance at the Rady Shell in San Diego which, while distant, actually shows Eric Lu's face somewhat clearly during a professional performance. Infinitely more appropriate than a masked photo. The fact that WP:UBI contains other poor images is an argument for improving those articles, not for perpetuating substandard practices here. intforce (talk) 01:19, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

As Rachel said, cropping an image of a screen is a copyright violation and is not allowed. And no, it does not "damage professional reputation", the image is really not that bad. You are overreacting to a frankly silly degree. The image isn't great, but it's nowhere near as bad as you're saying it is. ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 01:22, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

• 
• File:Eric Lu performing at the Rady Shell, San Diego (cropped).jpg

The crop of the screen is a copyvio; in circumstances where it is a picture of a screen, the copyright belongs to whoever owns the footage appearing on the screen, not whoever took the overall photo. Therefore, this isn't a free image. RachelTensions (talk) 01:24, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

I would have to disagree that the image is "deeply inappropriate that it might constitute defamation"; it's a photo of the subject. It's not even the absolute worst quality of a photo on here, not in terms of image quality, posing, or angling. The "alternative image" that I assume you're talking about (him performing) is way less usable than this as cropping into him is way to grainy (even more than the subject photo) and cropping onto the screen is a copyright violation. As others have said, its currently the best photo of him, and the fact that his face is obscured by the mask doesn't preclude someone from identifying them: see the articles for Jeremy Cooney, Jim Gaughran, Althea Stevens, etc. Now should the image be replaced? Yeah, probably, but with an actual, freely licensed good (or good enough) quality photo. Saying the subject image is "defamation" is an overreaction, IMO. reppop^talk 01:26, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

I appear to be in the minority here, but I maintain my position that inclusion of this image is worse than no image at all. The examples you've cited are masked photos of substantially higher resolution that present their subjects in a dignified, professional manner: clear lighting, proper framing, and context appropriate to their professions. By contrast, the image of Lu is blurry, poorly lit, and awkwardly angled. I stand by the assertion that this image actively detracts from the article's credibility and fails to meet even minimal standards for biographical photography of a musician. This concern is particularly acute given that the article is currently featured on the main page, making this substandard image one of the most visible on Wikipedia today. I will defer to the consensus here, but I remain convinced that a blank infobox would be preferable until a proper image becomes available. intforce (talk) 01:33, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

You're the only one maintaining that, so it appears that the consensus here is to include the image. ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 01:36, 23 October 2025 (UTC)