Talk:Jacques Offenbach

Proposed candidacy for Featured Article

I'm hoping to take this to FAC, and would be glad of any preliminary input here. It was suggested just now that we should move some of the many IPA versions into a footnote, which I've done. My own initial thoughts, on which I'd be grateful for comments, are (i) that there's a helluva lot of explanatory footnotes and that we could advantageously lose a few, e.g. 7, 12, 16, 17, 18 and 29, and (ii) the long and to my mind not very good Elegy by Clement Scott might be better blitzed. Général Boum, Ssilvers, SchroCat and all comers: comments hugely welcome. Tim riley talk 11:26, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

SchroCat

I think I agree with the Scott removal. I don't think it adds anything of real note to the article. In terms of the footnotes, I'm always a big fan of them for closely related detail which doesn't reach the level of being in the article. If they fit that broad and rather woolly classification, leave them in would be my advice. - SchroCat (talk) 11:52, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

SSilvers

(1) I will be sad to see the whimsical, lighthearted Clement Scott piece go. It seems like a fun example of... that sort of published elegy?; perhaps there could be a link to it in the Legacy section. But I agree that removing it frees up space for a smaller image that gives a more probing perspective on Offenbach's legacy or reputation. (2) I also think the last Strauss cartoon is not helpful. It seems to be saying that Offenbach (as of 1871) did not deserve his higher reputation as compared with Strauss, but what does that add to Offenbach's article? We also have another image of Strauss higher up. I bet there are better images to illustrate the Legacy and reputation section. (3) I need time to read through the notes, but looking at the first one Tim noted, #7, I don't see what it adds and would be inclined to remove it. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:23, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

I have had grief at FAC before about excessive quotations, and Clement Scott's doggerel runs to nearly 400 words. I suspect I'd get it in the neck from Gog the Mild if I left that screed in place. Tim riley talk 13:13, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

I was not clear: I am agreeing that we *should* remove it, although I shall miss it (at least until it is replaced by something better). -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:29, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

I think the cartoon is suggesting that Strauss has outweighed Offenbach, whose supporters are struggling to level the scales, but it isn't all that clear, and I agree it doesn't add much to our understanding. The top and bottom of it is that Strauss was operatically a one-hit wonder (though what a one hit!) except perhaps in German-speaking lands, whereas our man has a good handful of enduring hits to his name (though fewer than Sullivan, ahem!) Shall I remove the cartoon, messieurs-dames? Tim riley talk 12:53, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Now removed. There were problems with it at the FAC image review in any case. Tim riley talk 08:19, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Review of NOTES: #5 is a little confusing, as it does not support the statement made and, if anything, renders it dubious. Does Gammond support the facts introduced in the first sentence of the paragraph? There is not actually a ref for that sentence. #6: Isn't Harding more likely to be correct than Faris? Maybe cite Harding and footnote Faris? #10: Should it say that Nadar "joked" that it was 3,997? He had been composing operatic pieces for 8 years prior to 1855, and there were only 2,922 days (including leap days) in those 8 years, so if Nadar were taken seriously, Offenbach would have made such visits about twice a day, except for Sundays, from the time he began producing operettas to 1855. So Nadar must have intended the number as lighthearted hyperbole. #19 "Rondo" and "Rondeau" -- did we mean to spell it two different ways? #25: "Many of his papers were involved in" -- should that be "were destroyed in" or "damaged" or "lost"? We make it seem that they were co-conspirators. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:07, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for this. Note 5 adjusted; note 6 not sure one source is more scholarly than the other; note 10 - I think you're probably right, but I can't put in an editorial "joked", and have zapped the note, which doesn't add much; note 19 that's what the sources say; note 25 attended to. Bless you! Tim riley talk 12:34, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

4meter4

Would including a gallery of images at the bottom of the page be a possibility? This might be a way to include a link to the Clement Scott piece without taking up so much space. That's assuming there are other images worth including in a gallery of course.4meter4 (talk) 18:23, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm all for galleries and will have a look round for possible pix to add, but the problem with the Punch picture is that it has to be tall and pretty big to be legible and wouldn't sit at all well in the usual style of gallery. Tim riley talk 12:40, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

I agree that the Scott piece would not be appropriate for a gallery, though I would not object to including the Strauss cartoon there. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:31, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Cg2p0B0u8m

yes, I think note 12 could go if there is a reference to Yon and Lamb for the 300.Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 18:39, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Personally I would remove the Spiegl quote which is quite speculative (Lehar??) - the article deals with Offenbach's influence on others, and given recent Lecocq revivals we could expand the influences/differences on him or other French operetta composers. (I do sort of feel that the article presents a premise - Offenbach's influence on Sullivan and Strauss - and then takes a lot of time to deal with that, while later influences (Chabrier, Poulenc, etc) could be mentioned. But I would remove the Spiegl.Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 18:39, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

We shall have to agree to differ about the Spiegl quote, although if others concur with you I'll back down gracefully. I would love to add something about O's influence on later French composers, and have searched extensively to find something about his music vis-a-vis that of Lecocq and Messager but haven't succeeded. Hadn't thought of Poulenc - any thoughts on where to look? Tim riley talk 12:25, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Update

Notes 7 and 12 (as was) now blitzed. What about the notes that just give the original French text? Tim riley talk 12:36, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I have a busy few days. I will read the notes carefully later this week. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:32, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

DBaK

Should "Légion d'honneur" be italicized? Certainly it should be consistently capitalized, which currently it is not. But as it is in Gurt Foreign, as we academics call it, are italics not appropriate? But then ... what do I know? (And yes I do note that the target article is, horrendously, called "Legion of Honour" but I am not even, as they say, Going There. I am asking merely about the correct, French term here.) Best to all, DBaK (talk) 12:07, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

That depends on whether it is a proper name, the MoS opining "A proper name is usually not italicized". Gog the Mild (talk) 12:42, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Good point. Now consistently Romic. Tim riley talk 16:08, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Lovely, thanks both. Also for Sorting Out the CapitaliZation. DBaK (talk) 21:49, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Later 1860s

User:Tim riley or anyone: it is stated in this section that Le château à Toto is a revised version of Le pont des soupirs (citing Lamb), but neither of those articles state the same. Is it just missing there, or am I misreading this? -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:48, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

You are indeed misreading it, but that's my fault and I'll redraw to make all plain. There were three new(ish) pieces in 1868, not two as you have taken the text to mean. Tim riley talk 08:11, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, it is clear now. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:41, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Nationality

As Germany did not exist as a nation during the early period of his life, could he be more accurately be described as Prussian. After all he had settled in France before Bismarck had succeeded in unifying Germany. 786john (talk) 20:48, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't think that would help. People who know what Prussia was, know that it was a German state. People who do not know what Prussia was (the majority of our readers), will get far less information from the substitution of Prussian for German. Instead they would immediately get a wikilink to a subject that is tangential to Offenbach's article. So, at least for the lead sentence, I think German is a far more helpful description. Note that, at the beginning of 2nd paragraph of the lead, we state specifically where he was born in Prussia, and we confirm this, with a cite, in the text below. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:38, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

"German-born French composer" is appropriate. For people born prior to the emergence of modern nation-states we usually use their overall cultural and linguistic affinity, e.g. Vivaldi is "Italian" rather than "Venetian", Martin Luther is "German" rather than "Holy Roman Empire" (imagine!) We do something similar with Handel, calling him "German-British". Antandrus (talk) 23:47, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

I plead on the side of accuracy, Offenbach was born in 1817, two years previously Cologne was part of the French Empire. A few years prior to that Jews were not allowed in Cologne after night fall. He spoke French as well as German, it is pertinent to ask if he was at all German. 195.213.231.206 (talk) 05:27, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Infobox

I added an infobox to the Wikipedia page, and I strongly believe that it should be on this page. I do not know why the infobox is not already on the infobox, as other composers in general (e.g. Ludwig van Beethoven, Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, Frédéric Chopin) greatly benefit from the addition of an infobox, rather than simply an image. Why can we not have an infobox? Wcamp9 (talk) 02:05, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, in violation of the longstanding direction of Arbcom, you inserted an infobox into an existing article (a Featured article!) without first raising a WP:CONSENSUS to do so. You also ignored the comment on the edit screen of the article that says: "Before adding an infobox, please consult Wikipedia:WikiProject Composers#Biographical infoboxes and seek consensus on this article's talk page." The composers Wikiproject has stated: Many members of this project think that Infoboxes are seldom useful additions to articles for many reasons, including:

1. They often give trivia undue emphasis and prominence at the head of the article
2. They tend to become redundant (by duplicating the lead)
3. They can, conversely, become over-complex and thus vague, confused, or misleading, often compounding errors found elsewhere in the article, e.g. by confusing style and genre, setting forth haphazard lists of individual works, or highlighting the subject's trivial secondary or non-musical occupations.

They think it is normally best, therefore, to avoid infoboxes altogether for classical musicians, and prefer to add an infobox to an article only following consensus for that inclusion on the article's talk page. Particular care should be taken with featured articles as these have been carefully crafted according to clear consensus on their talkpages. (See the Request for Comment about composers' infoboxes and earlier infobox debates.)

WP:INFOBOXUSE states: The use of infoboxes is neither required nor prohibited for any article. Whether to include an infobox, which infobox to include, and which parts of the infobox to use, is determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article. While sports and politician bios can benefit from infoboxes, as a Signpost report notes: "Infoboxes may be particularly unsuited to liberal arts fields when they repeat information already available in the lead section of the article, are misleading or oversimplify the topic for the reader". I disagree with including an infobox in this article for these reasons, and the others mentioned below: first, the box misleadingly emphasizes less important factoids, stripped of context and lacking nuance, whereas the excellent WP:LEAD section emphasizes and contextualizes the most important facts about the subject; and second, as the key information about the subject is already discussed in the Lead, in the body of the article, and in the Google Knowledge Graph, the box is a 3rd or 4th mention of these facts. Particular problems with the box that you added include: (1) it begins, controversially, with the name "Jacob", which is not the name by which he is generally known (you also stuck that at the top of the article and I shall be deleting it unless there is a consensus to retain it), and may not even be his birth name, as the article later explains -- IBs should not include controversial content; (2) his date of birth, date of death and country of birth are given in the first sentence of the Lead, and his city of birth is explained at the beginning of the 2nd paragraph of the Lead, so the IB is largely redundant; (3) his place of death is not a "key fact" about him -- it is stated later in the article and is not necessary again; (4) the link to his list of works is given elsewhere in the article, and the Lead section better contextualizes and explains his key works, so encouraging the reader to immediately click away from the article to this long list of works is not helpful and is better in the works section, where it belongs. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:04, 22 July 2024 (UTC)