Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Composers/Archive 37

Archive 30

←

Archive 35

Archive 36

Archive 37

Archive 38

Archive 39

Archive 40

Charles-Valentin Alkan.....

....now up for FA review here. Best,--Smerus (talk) 19:15, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Request for arbitration on infoboxes

I have filed an Arb request here: link —Ched :  ?  17:23, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I've linked and spelled out the alphabet soup in the heading of this notice, which can be quite cryptic to people who don't often particpate in the "drama boards". Voceditenore (talk) 19:16, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Mega templates

I've reverted the upsizing of the navigation templates {{Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart}} and {{Ludwig van Beethoven}} to mega-sized templates and there is now some related discussion at Template talk:Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart and Template talk:Ludwig van Beethoven. Wider input there is welcome. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:49, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Olivier Messiaen at FAR

I have nominated Olivier Messiaen for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Toccata quarta (talk) 05:36, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Chopin

I am trying, along with other editors, to knock this article into shape. Part of the problem is that many of the citations are from sources only avaiable in Polish, or from old Encyclopaedia Britannica articles, etc, which often seem to tend to deal more in sentiment than in fact - not that it has been possible for me to check on the Polish sources, in any case. I have raised a query about quality of sources [Talk:Frédéric_Chopin#Jachimeck.2F_Hedley_as_a_sources|here]], if anyone is interested, hopnig to get agreement to re-cite where possible using modern English sources e.g. Grove, Zamoyski - other suggestions welcome). Any comments would be appreciated.--Smerus (talk) 13:24, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Peter Warlock

This is to make editors aware that an infobox was added to this FA article. For reasons which I explained on the talk page I reverted it. An editor has now reinstated it. --Smerus (talk) 09:36, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Segnalation

In the "list of articles every Wikipedia should have" there are nine composers of XIX century, and only one (Pierluigi da Palestrina) of pre-bachian "ancient music". I have suggested to add at least Dieterich Buxtehude. The talk is here. --95.232.195.147 (talk) 00:02, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Trying to argue there (and at "Vital articles") is a waste of time, because you'll always end up facing the usual "it's too Eurocentric bla bla bla" nonsense. Working on building this encyclopedia is a better use of one's time. Toccata quarta (talk) 04:22, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

2 Juan Hidalgos

• Juan Hidalgo dab per WP:TWODAB
• Juan Hidalgo de Polanco -> Juan Hidalgo (baroque composer) maybe?
• Juan Hidalgo Codorniu -> Juan Hidalgo (modern composer) maybe?

Was just wondering if we can do better here. Neither are refered to in this way, and the first is evidently primary. In ictu oculi (talk) 19:00, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm not an expert (by any means) on Spanish names, but if the full names are actually different, why are the present titles a problem? The DAB page is there for anyone who searches for the short name. P.S. It may be better to post to WP:CM as this project is no longer active. Kleinzach 00:13, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Mendelssohn hatnote.

If there is anyone still alive here, they may be interested in looking at this. Best, --Smerus (talk) 13:40, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

RfC on Chopin's nationality

There's an ongoing RFC regarding the nationality of Chopin. The discussion is at Talk:Frédéric Chopin#RfC: Chopin's nationality. Input from project members would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 07:13, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Wagner

Please note here an edit war being pursued by an editor who has a strong desire to add details of a concert by a Finnish rock band.--Smerus (talk) 14:07, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Free music on Wikipedia

Hi, I just wanted to let you know that there's a ton of free music available on Wikipedia here. Maybe it would be a good idea to somehow put a template at all the talk pages of composer articles, mentioning this resource? I'm not sure how to do that though. All articles in the "living person" category automatically are templated with a BLP notice, so it should be possible. Any thoughts?Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:02, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Frédéric Chopin - peer review

I've asked for a peer review of the article because its seems to risk at present gettng bogged down in side issues and needs a lot of work on some major aspects. Comments could help develop a consensus to assist editors concentration on the most important aspects. All opinions welcomed. Thanks, --Smerus (talk) 15:34, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Frédéric Chopin - GA Nomination/discussion.

Frédéric Chopin is currently a good article nominee - any one who wishes to start/contribute to the diuscussion is welcome to do so.--Smerus (talk) 13:09, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Hermann Haller

Is there anyone who can help me to translate this page from German to English? I wrote this page in German a couple of years ago. Haller was a very good composer, he studied with Nadia Boulanger. --Cygnebleu (talk) 19:47, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

the Younger/Elder

Shouldn't "the Younger/Elder" be consistently capitalised when part of a name? Compare the examples listed at Younger. Contrast List of Renaissance composers. I have corrected two instances already, but there are also some bluelinks which need to be moved and the problem seems widespread around Wikipedia. Perhaps a bot could be employed to replace all instances of "the younger" and "the elder" with "the Younger" and "the Elder"? What do you think? --Florian Blaschke (talk) 14:41, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Priscilla McLean

Greetings WikiProject Composers, I was wondering if I might request some eyes over at Priscilla McLean. I think the subject's notability could be better presented. I also think some of her work is mashed into the Life section where it could probably go into a separate section about her career. I regret that I don't know much about musicians of this type. A contributor there is interested in improving the article, but there might be a conflict of interest, and I've had to remove some effusive language from the article. Rather than be discouraging, I thought I could ask a related WikiProject to contribute a few eyes. Thanks all! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:54, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I have had one eye half-open on her article (as well as that of her husband, Barton McLean) for some time now. So far, I have restrained my editorial hand because, as you note, there is a fairly active editor on both articles who may have a COI, but is evidently for that same reason very well-informed. Perhaps the time has come to be a little more assertive.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 03:05, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Cleanup needed on List of string quartet composers

I was just quickly browsing this list (to see if the Jennifer Higdon Quartets were mentioned and noticed that many of entries have what appear to be attempts at setting up references but which are instead external links inside the list proper, with some odd wording, examples can be seen below:

• Roberto Gerhard (1896–1970): two string quartets (1950–55; 1960–62) [1]. Three earlier quartets at least are lost.

• Alexandre Tansman (1897–1986): wrote nine (one lost, replaced by Triptych) ([2] for most of that, Fanfare review of a recording for the rest)

I think that a thorough clean up of the entries and referencing is needed. Graham1973 (talk) 02:40, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

No infobox for composers?

While Clara Schumann has an infobox her husband Robert Schumann does not; neither do Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov, Johannes Brahms or Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky.

• If there is an infobox for composers, please send me the link.
• If there isn't, is there a reason why not?
• If it's an oversight, would somebody with more wiki-programming savvy than me {I know: I} like to create a decent one?

Who's game? Cheers! Shir-El too 12:54, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Shir-El too, yes there is lots of discussion in the archives at WP Classical music. In ictu oculi (talk) 19:12, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

See, e.g.,here for detailed, and often heated, discussions on the topic....--Smerus (talk) 19:45, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! Will check it out. Have a Good One! Shir-El too 06:51, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Russian American composer BLP

I started this as a stub after the release of the Viola Concerto & Violin Concerto. But not at all sure what is happening here. Can someone look in please. In ictu oculi (talk) 19:10, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

• Well, it looks like Igor Raykhelson or a good impersonator of him has rewritten the article. But WP has strict rules about people writing their own bios (WP:AUTO) which you could cite in heavily editing or even reverting the present vesrion. This version has no citations and a lot of WP:PEACOCK and thus could in any case be edited to deal with these problems appropriately - although you might get more of the same from IR or his persona......--Smerus (talk) 19:38, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

It looks to me like the October 2013 IP edit was either vandalism or an attempt to hijack the article for another individual of the same name. The recent IP edit is then perhaps our subject attempting to reclaim the article for himself. The last good version seems to be from November 2012, when it was referenced and neutral in tone, so I'll revert to this one and see what happens. --Deskford (talk) 20:07, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

• Might it not be a good idea to contact the person/persona in question and ask them what/why? There may be an innocent/ignorant reason for it, and this way the person knows a) their actions are not appreciated and b) they are being monitored. Cheers! Shir-El too 06:50, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Good point – it probably would have been advisable to attempt communication, though communication with IP editors is often difficult. Perhaps it's too late now? --Deskford (talk) 00:38, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Michael Berkeley

I notice that the article on composer Michael Berkeley has been moved to Michael Berkeley, Baron Berkeley of Knighton. Is this some exception to the rule that we don't generally include honorific titles in article names, or was this an inappropriate move? --Deskford (talk) 00:34, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

It is incorrect, per WP:COMMONNAME, and should be reverted.--Smerus (talk) 09:00, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

I couldn't fix this myself, so admin intervention is needed. Toccata quarta (talk) 14:20, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and done it. Antandrus (talk) 16:50, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Antandrus, or any other admin, could you please also move Talk:Michael Berkeley, Baron Berkeley of Knighton to Talk:Michael Berkeley. --Deskford (talk) 18:29, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

That's odd, I was sure I had selected that option. Oh well -- it's done now. Antandrus (talk) 19:49, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks all! For similar reasons, I suspect Gerald Tyrwhitt-Wilson, 14th Baron Berners probably ought to be moved to Lord Berners, but I can't move it due to article histories. --Deskford (talk) 18:03, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Done. Antandrus (talk) 22:05, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks again! --Deskford (talk) 00:04, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Popular pages tool update

As of January, the popular pages tool has moved from the Toolserver to Wikimedia Tool Labs. The code has changed significantly from the Toolserver version, but users should notice few differences. Please take a moment to look over your project's list for any anomalies, such as pages that you expect to see that are missing or pages that seem to have more views than expected. Note that unlike other tools, this tool aggregates all views from redirects, which means it will typically have higher numbers. (For January 2014 specifically, 35 hours of data is missing from the WMF data, which was approximated from other dates. For most articles, this should yield a more accurate number. However, a few articles, like ones featured on the Main Page, may be off).

Web tools, to replace the ones at tools:~alexz/pop, will become available over the next few weeks at toollabs:popularpages. All of the historical data (back to July 2009 for some projects) has been copied over. The tool to view historical data is currently partially available (assessment data and a few projects may not be available at the moment). The tool to add new projects to the bot's list is also available now (editing the configuration of current projects coming soon). Unlike the previous tool, all changes will be effective immediately. OAuth is used to authenticate users, allowing only regular users to make changes to prevent abuse. A visible history of configuration additions and changes is coming soon. Once tools become fully available, their toolserver versions will redirect to Labs.

If you have any questions, want to report any bugs, or there are any features you would like to see that aren't currently available on the Toolserver tools, see the updated FAQ or contact me on my talk page. Mr.Z-bot (talk) (for Mr.Z-man) 05:00, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Robert Ashley

An IP editor edited Robert Ashley to indicate that he had died, with only a Twitter post as source. I've no reason to doubt – the tweeter appears reputable – but I can't find any mentions in any reliable news reports. Maybe it hasn't been officially announced yet. I've reverted for now, but any extra pairs of eyes on this article would be useful over the next few days. --Deskford (talk) 05:33, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

See e.g. here - Lebrecht is a generally reliable source.--Smerus (talk) 10:29, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Someone later added a link to the blog of Ashley's biographer, Kyle Gann [3]. (Like Lebrecht's, its an ArtsJournal blog). I think that's authoritative enough for now. As for Lebrecht, I would never believe anything he writes without a second source to corroborate it. Voceditenore (talk) 11:09, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I did say 'generally'..... :-} --Smerus (talk) 11:14, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Yep. :). This from On An Overgrown Path and the accompanying comments pretty much sum up the chap, even has one from me, aka "anonymous". Voceditenore (talk) 11:30, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, both! That's a nice piece by Kyle Gann. Other news sources have started to report his death, mostly quoting the Gann piece. --Deskford (talk) 14:11, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Is Marty Cooper notable?

This seems marginal, so I'm asking for help: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Martin Cooper. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 00:08, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Wagner again

I refer to the discussion at Talk:Richard_Wagner - 'Antisemitism in Wagner's writings'. An editor, DvUSR, is determined to unreasonably (in my opinion) add material relating to Wagner's anti-Semitism to the article. S/He I think seriously overstates the influence of Wagner on the anti-Jewish sentiments of his period, and insists on writing about Wagner's attitude to 'religious purity' (whatever that may mean). S/He seems to be working from a point that (to quote him/her) the article "unacceptably deëmphasizes the significance (and vitriol) of Wagner's writing," and notes that "The impression given by the article is of a common sort of prejudice, commonly shared among 19th century Germans" (which is indeed the opinion of vrtually all writers about Wagner). My opinion and that of another editor is that W's anti-Semitism is appropriately covered in the article, and to stress it further is WP:NNPOV. A third party has suggested referring the matter here, so the opinions of others would be welcomed. Thanks,--Smerus (talk) 14:14, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I'll just add that the claim that "...another editor [has the opinion] that W's anti-Semitism is appropriately covered in the [earlier version of] the article" is not correct: the editor in question, Michael Bednarek (talk), objected specifically to the inclusion of an additional reference to "Judaism in Music," and I agreed. Smerus and I need help arbitrating a different dispute, which centers on whether Wagner merely reflected the antisemitism of his day in Germany, or contributed to it (bearing in mind that Wagner was a man of considerable social stature --can you tell which side I argued for?). There is also disagreement about the wording in the sentence preceding the claim that Wagner had many Jewish friends. I have worked to justify and refine my points with references and argument (and quotations, when requested, as on "religious purity" -- see Talk:Richard_Wagner) after some initial boldness, but to no avail. To echo my companion in wikipedia-dispute, any help is much appreciated! Thanks, DvUSR (talk) 15:56, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for narrowing the area of discussion. We are now down to the question of "whether Wagner merely reflected the antisemitism of his day in Germany, or contributed to it (bearing in mind that Wagner was a man of considerable social stature)". However, in considering this issue, it is not merely to be 'borne in mind' by Wikipedia contributors whether or not "Wagner was a man of considerable social stature", but rather whether there is a) any citeable reference that this was the case, and b) any citeable evidence that if this was the case (or otherwise) Wagner had any substantial impact on the development of anti-Semitic ideas during his lifetime. This is the essence of WP:V - I am not sure whether DvUSR has grasped it.

DvUSR has not produced any references to substantiate either of these assertions. Indeed as pointed out by User:Stfg (at Talk:Richard_Wagner) the Poliakov quote provided by DvUSR " seems to say more about Poliakov's reading of the relationship between Wotan and the Christian God than it says about Wagner's views, much less about his influence." I believe this quote is not in fact from Poliakov, but is cited by the latter from some essay by Wagner himself, although DvUSR has not made this clear - but in any case I would go further - it in fact says nothing about Wagner's views on Jews or influence on anti-Semitic views of others. Actually it is entirely irrelevant to the matters at hand.

Every major modern source about Wagner, including those most highly critical of his anti-Jewish writings, points out that his anti-Semitic views were in line with those propounded by many of his contemporaries and derived from a long tradition. To cite only some of the sources given in the article references, read the works of Katz, Newman, Deathridge (2008), Conway, and Weiner. Moreover, see 'Fischer, Jens Malte (2000). Richard Wagners 'Das Judentum in der Musik' . Frankfurt: Insel Verlag . ISBN 978-3-458-34317-2'; which points out that the original edition of 'Judaism in Music' was in a magazine with a circulation of only 1500-2000 readers, that the second edition of 1869 was scorned by Wagner's associates (including Liszt) and that the essay was rarely reprinted.

There is no evidence, in fact, that Wagner was a "a man of considerable social stature" whose opinions carred any wieght with the general population, or that he was major force in the contemporary anti-Semitism of German speaking lands; and certainly his writings had a minute effect on the population compared with the activities of Adolf Stoecker and others (with which, incidentally, Wagner refused to associate himself). For these reasons the Wikipedia article on Wagner should be reverted to its former status unless convincing, and referenced, counter-arguments can be produced against the above. Thank you. ---Smerus (talk) 07:58, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

I shall have more to add when I have more time, but as a partial reply I would say a few things. First, the quote I provide in the talk page is of course from Wagner himself (hence the note to check Poliakov for the citation), and its purpose was to support the edit's reference to Wagner's views on racial purity. Next, citing entire books from the article does not provide support for the claim that Wagner's vitriolic antisemitism, ready to hand in the mentioned 'Judaism in Music', is fully commensurate with his countrymen, and did not "contribute" (the word from the edit) to them. Of course whether Wagner's views had some basis in his surrounding social context is not the issue, but rather whether he in any way contributed to antisemitism in that social context. I find the claim that Wagner's opinions carried no weight with the general population incredible (and note that the claim of "contribution" is weak). Finally, this dispute is over a (now heavily refined) one sentence edit of mine, and should be viewed in the context of the sentence that follows it, which emphasizes Wagner's "many Jewish friends." --DvUSR 16:08, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

As your quote is from Wagner, it would be helpful to give the actual source, (from which essay?) rather than refer to it at second hand. If the quote merely serves to show that Wagner had views on racial purity, it repeats what is said elsewhere in the article, and it says nothing about his influence on others, which is the essence of this discussion. The books I have cited explain exactly why Wagner was repeating received views, rather than exerting any such influence, and I am afraid you cannot simply dismiss them because you disagree with them. It is by no means incredible that the opinions of an opera composer known to only a few of his contemporaries (remember this was in the days before broadcasting) should have had little or on effect on those of his countrymen; and the fact that you find it 'incredible' is WP:OR, your own opinion and not relevant to Wikipedia. You are the person who has asserted that Wagner influenced his countrymen, and you should therefore provide evidence for this or desist. The diagreement may be about one sentence, but it is one sentence which gives an inaccurate and extremely misleading representation of Wagner's role in the history of anti-Semitism. If you cannot provide evidence for your assertions, you should give way gracefully. Please read carefully WP:V.--Smerus (talk) 08:58, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

And here, just to make sure that DvUSR gets the point, is something of what the authorities actually write (sources as per the article) - there are very many more examples I could cite:

'[Wagner's] ideas took on connotations that were already grounded in the repertoire of racist, xenophobic, misogynist and homphobic inagery central to his age.' Weiner (1997) p. 11.

'We thus have philological proof that Wagner's anti-Jewish invective drew upon the sources available to him, although it stemmed from private motives.' Katz (1986), p. 18

'The readership of [the first edition of Judaism in Music] was in any case relatively small - it cannot have been more than a couple of thousand - and of its readers, few can have empathised with, or cared one way or the other about, Wagner's arguments.' Conway (2013), p. 264.

Both Vaszonyi (2010) pp. 90-5 and Conway (2012) pp. 258-264 illustrate clearly how Wagner 'lifted' his many of his ideas about Jews from Heinrich Laube and Theodor Uhlig. Amongst the major books dealing with anti-Semitism in the 19th century which do not even mention Wagner in passing, so irrelevant was he to the topic, are Hannah Arendt's 'The Origins of Totalitarianism', and Julius Carlebach's 'Karl Marx and the Radical Critique of Judaism' (1978).

I hope I have made my point, but my reservoirs of citation are by no means exhausted :-).

Best, --Smerus (talk) 14:36, 13 April 2014 (UTC)