Talk:Jaime Laredo

Discography

Not exactly complete. C. Cerf (talk) 22:59, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Should the Page for Jaime Laredo have a Tag questioning the verifiability?

I have been editing pages of a number of Notable Bolivian Americans and came across the Wikipedia article for Jaime Laredo. I see there is a Tag on the entire page indicating that more cites are needed to establish verifiability. I would like to request that this Tag be removed in light of the following: 1-- Wikipedia guidance is to use the least intrusive editing where possible 2-- By putting the Tag on the entire page you call in to question the reliability, verifiability, and ultimately notability of this person. 3-- It is very hard to read the mind of the editor who placed this tag. If there are questions regarding a section, a paragraph, or a sentence in the Wikipedia page, why cant the questions be placed on the section, paragraph or sentence rather than the entire page. 4-- I did a quick review of the Wikipedia pages of other conductors of US orchestras to see how many References they have. This is what I found: Name of Conductor ----- Number of References

---

Gustavo Dudamel 50 Jaime Laredo 49 Gisele Ben-Dor 7 Andres Orozco-Estrada 26 Andris Nelsons 43

Of all of the above, only the page for Jaime Laredo has been tagged as needing additional references to establish verifiability.

Keep in mind that Jaime Laredo has been nominated for the Grammy about 8 or 9 times and has won once or twice. This in itself would normally be sufficient to establish verifiabilty.

Therefore, please review the above to determine whether or not the Tag should be removed. Thank you for your time and attention. Nome Hodas NomeHodas (talk) 20:21, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

Hello fellow editors:

I agree with Nome Hodas that it is time to remove from the Jaime Laredo Wikipedia page the {{BLP Sources}} tag. I see that editor Stefen Tower placed the tag on 1 February 2026 when the Jaime Laredo Wikipedia page had 32 references. Today, the Jaime Laredo Wikipedia page has 50 references, the same number as Gustavo Dudamel. The Tag doesn't make sense anymore, if it ever did. Moreover, the Jaime Laredo Wikipedia page was started on 30 December 2005 by editor Violin Girl. So, from 2006 to 2026, the Jaime Laredo Wikipedia page had NO {{BLP Sources}} tag--that is a period of 20 years. Then, in February 2026, editor Stefen Tower decided to place the tag. I see that at least one editor attempted to appease editor tower by finding more cites to reliable sources, but even that was not enough. I think that it is time for the community to weigh in on this. A Wikipedia page does not belong to one editor. It needs to have a consensus. Thank you for attention to this matter. Fika Lagom FikaLagom (talk) 23:00, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

What's necessary to understand is that the entire article needs to be sourced, and no article on Wikipedia is exempt from this. There are many passages in this article that are currently unsourced, thus the tag. This tag is not a "scarlet letter" - it is simply there to inform editors that more sourcing is needed.

To get the tag removed, editors need to find reliable sources to back up the content, OR, remove unsourced content, OR a mix of both. the Stefen 𝕋ower 02:20, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

What I see here is a nice article with just a few unsourced sentences. I think the scary {{BLP sources}} tag can be removed and replaced with several {{Citation needed}} tags (installed immediately after doubtful claims).
(The lead section usually doesn't need to be sourced. Cause it usually just summarizes what is said below.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 19:01, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

You have made some useful points, but I don't think it serves the Wikipedia to call overhead tags "scary". Also, the overhead tag is there because there are multiple passages that need sources, and is usually seen as better than hanging multiple {{Citation needed}} ornaments on the article. At any rate, if you genuinely believe the overhead tag should be replaced with multiple inline tags, have at it. the Stefen 𝕋ower 19:08, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

I am not interested enough in this article to do that. It is just that FikaLagom asked me to look at this discussion. Maybe you or someone else who placed the tag saw some serious BLP issues, but I don't see anything serious enough to warrant warning Wikipedia readers about possible violations. The template's documentation says it is intended for articles "in need of immediate attention", and this doesn't seem like such a case. --Moscow Connection (talk) 20:24, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

The article has multiple passages in the body that are not cited, and therefore it is indeed in need of immediate attention, although as we well know from practice, it sometimes takes a long time to resolve such tags. the Stefen 𝕋ower 20:30, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Per your coordinated efforts, and no requirement for me to do anything about a perfectly valid tag, I have pushed down the citation requests deeper into the article. In my view, this makes the article appear worse than before, but it's what you wanted, so... there ya go. the Stefen 𝕋ower 01:59, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. I think the article looks better now.
Our efforts weren't coordinated. The user notified me by leaving a seemingly random message on my talk page. Maybe he/she noticed me because I created "Ana-Maria Vera". --Moscow Connection (talk) 02:11, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

To be clear, I don't think you are part of the coordination. And the article looks way more tag-polluted than before, but again, they asked for it, they got it, Toyota. the Stefen 𝕋ower 02:15, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

I see... I would strongly advise NomeHodas and FikaLagom to stop coordinating their efforts. (Especially if they are one and the same person. In this case they should place the {{Alternative account}} template on their user pages immediately. Cause it is not allowed to have two accounts.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 18:05, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

To follow up, I have left a request at WT:WikiProject Classical music to see if anyone there would like to review the article for sourcing issues. From my viewpoint, there is an overreliance on primary sources, but since there is such an unusual aversion to overhead tagging, I felt there was a need to pursue an alternative approach. the Stefen 𝕋ower 23:21, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Statement: "He is also the president of the jury of the International Violin Competition of Indianapolis."

Citation: "Competition 2026 -- International Violin Competition of Indianapolis". violin.org.

The link in the citation simply takes you to the landing page for the competition. It says nothing about Laredo being the president of the jury.

That's the first source in the article. It is both an incomplete citation and an inaccurate one.

A random sample of other citations finds similar issues throughout. Stefen Tower is correct that this article is problematic. Trumpetrep (talk) 00:47, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

that has now been corrected with a citation to Violin channel ~2026-41536-53 (talk) 21:54, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Should Jaime Laredo Wikipedia page be classified as Low-Imortance or Mid-Importance for the State of Indiana?

Dear Editor Stefen Tower:

Yesterday, you downgraded the Jaime Laredo Wikipedia page from Mid-Importance to Low-Importance. I disagree with this downgrade. Please be reminded that Jaime Laredo is the president of the jury for the 2026 International Violin Competition of Indianapolis, a position he has had for many years. In addition, earlier in his career, he was a distinguished professor of music at the Jacobs School of Music at Indiana University in Bloomington, Indiana. Please reconsider your action, and return the Jaime Laredo Wikipedia page to mid-importance rating. Thank you. Fika Lagom — Preceding unsigned comment added by FikaLagom (talk • contribs) 15:32, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

To repeat my reply on my talk page, I didn't technically downgrade the project importance. It was set to an invalid setting "medium". At any rate, importance to a U.S. state is usually 'Low' for most people, noting that "low importance" does not mean "no importance". Also, this setting generally doesn't affect editor attention to the article, so I am at a loss for any need to increase the importance. The bottom line is that I will not change the setting. the Stefen 𝕋ower 19:13, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

There's no need to argue over the importance scale because the Indiana project spelled it out clearly. "Famous and notable natives or resident biographies" are categorized as "Low" on the project's importance scale.

To be considered mid-importance, people must be "Former federal and statewide politicians; sitting mayors" or "Important historical figures and events". Trumpetrep (talk) 00:52, 21 July 2026 (UTC)