Talk:Richard Wagner

A few questions

A simple question to kick this section off:

• How should en dashes be used for page numbers? The article has both "261–3" and "276–278".

The references to letters are fairly inconsistent. We have the following four:

• Wagner (1987) 199 Letter of 21 April 1850
• Letter of April 1859, quoted in Daverio (208) 116
• Letter from Debussy to Pierre Louÿs, 17 January 1896
• Letter to Emile Naumann, April 1867, quoted in E. Naumann, Italienische Tondichter (1883) IV, 5

The Debussy letter reference has no "quoted in". Shouldn't the Naumann source be moved into the "Sources" section?

Lastly:

• He was once again assisted by the liberality of King Ludwig, but was still forced by his personal financial situation in 1877 to sell the rights of a number of his earlier miscellaneous works (including the Siegfried Idyll) to the publisher Schotts.

Are the words "earlier" (rather than "unpublished") and "miscellaneous" (rather than "non-operatic") necessary here? Toccata quarta (talk) 21:29, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

I suggest the format for citing letters should be: [source], [(date)], [page]. Letter from [x] to [y] dated [letter date].

Thus: Wagner (1987), 1999. Letter from Wagner to Liszt of 21 April 1850.

Page numbering formats should I think be: 261-3, or 276-8; 284-95; 295-301.

I have given a better (and corrected) source for the Rossini quote; will find a source for the Debussy quote.

You are quite right of course about deleting unnecessary words and, even better, replacing them with meaningful descriptors - I don't think it needs to await a reference here to make such corrections!! Best ---Smerus (talk) 16:27, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

What's next?

Is an FAC nomination next? Toccata quarta (talk) 10:45, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Well still a bit of cleaning up to do. I have never done FAC nomination before - do we ideally want to get it lined up for RW's birthday 22 May? Doesn't it go to Peer Review first? - I am vague about procedures - can anyone out there advise?--Smerus (talk) 15:27, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

You can have a peer review, but among the comments you have already had, you have effectively had one. I suggest that you ask Brianboulton if he feels it is ready. I note you have not yet dealt with all of my comments (or at least if you've considered and rejected them, you haven't said so).--Wehwalt (talk) 16:23, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Before we start to follow Wikipedia:Featured article candidates rules, there are a few things that I would like to sort out. As for a peer review, there has already been one done by User:Brianboulton, and there numerous comments on this talk page. It has been edited 420 times since User:Sjones23 made his FA proposal. Toccata quarta (talk) 16:32, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I haven't yet had a chance to catch up with all of User:Wehwalt's comments....so let's plough through the various bits and pieces and review the situation at the end of the month....... --Smerus (talk) 13:02, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

That sounds good. I'll give it another run through if you like prior to a nomination.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:06, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Titles

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Titles says that titles of books and pieces of music should be in italics, thus - Mein Leben, Parsifal. Titles of essays and other shorter works should be in quotes , thus - "A Communication to my Friends".--Smerus (talk) 23:23, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Rock music para

User:Wehwalt suggests removing. Removal of this section (which is already a lot smaller than it used to be) in the past has resulted in storms of protest. I think on balance it is worth retaining; I am almost inclined to add Tony Palmer's remark that 'if Wagner were alive to day, he'd be playing with King Crimson' but perhaps I will restrain myself....--Smerus (talk) 14:52, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Comments

Some time ago I replied to a comment that User:Smerus made on my talk page. As he has not modified the article on the basis of any of what I wrote there and has not commented on it either, I will repost it here, to be sure that he reads it:

Start of quotation

There are several things that are of concern to me:

(Disclaimer: English is not my first language, so that may influence my areas of focus.)

• "described as marking the start of modern music"

Wouldn't "described as the start of modern music" be better?

• At times there is "Ring cycle", but at others there is "Ring Cycle". I think the first form is better (as the second is not related to the work's full title in German).

"However, Wagner continued his correspondence with Mathilde and his friendship with (and support from) her husband Otto."

What is the "(and support from)" part supposed to convey?

• "Richard Wagner's Visit to Rossini (Paris 1860): and an Evening at Rossini's in Beau-Sejour (Passy) 1858"

This is missing an ISBN number. I found two at http://trove.nla.gov.au/work/10782590?versionId=46412229. Sources also differ on the use of a colon in the title; some use a semicolon, others a comma and some nothing instead of it. Some of them also capitalise the word "an".

• "Italienische Tondichter, von Palestrina bis auf die Gegenwart"

A Google search shows various approaches to capitalising the title of this work. Google Books also adds ": Eine reihe von vortragen" at the end of the title.

End of quotation

I would also like to stress that there should be a link to a sound file of the Siegfried leitmotif found in this article. It may seem redundant to musically learned people or those with perfect pitch, but I think you will change your minds if you place yourselves in the position of somebody who has little/no knowledge of the opera or can't read sheet music. Toccata quarta (talk) 23:44, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Apologies for overlooking - I lost myself in User:Wehwalt's comments.

1) "Ring cycle" / "Ring Cycle". This is a matter of taste, but if we have to go for one or the other I suggest "Ring cycle" (which allows for the shortened form Ring as well).

2) "described as marking the start of modern music" - seems OK to me as it gives the opera the 'weight' of a marker.

3) (and support from) - I will correct this.

4) Titles: As the sources seem to differ, I have no problems with whichever versions are preferred.

5) sound file link: It seems to me rather arbitrary to link these couple of bars when there are no soiund files which give an inidication of Wagner's musical style as he meant it to be heard. I don't see sound file links of this sort in other composer articles. I would be grateful for other opinions on this.

Thanks, --Smerus (talk) 08:14, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I still don't understand the "support" sentence. Toccata quarta (talk) 08:20, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

'However, Wagner continued his correspondence with Mathilde and his friendship with (and financial support from) her husband Otto.' Sorry, can you explain what is unclear about this? Best, --Smerus (talk) 10:21, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

"Wagner continued" implies Wagner continued correspondence with Mathilde and his friendship with her husband Otto. But is it possible "to continue financial support from"? I would rephrase it like this: "and his friendship with her husband Otto (who kept supporting him financially)." Toccata quarta (talk) 11:07, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Try the new version. Best, --Smerus (talk) 11:51, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

What now?

I feel that I have finished tinkering with the article for the present. Do others have changes they propose as regards FA status? When, in any case, should we submit - now, asking to keep the date of 22 May 2013, or nearer the date?--Smerus (talk) 08:02, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I may go through the whole article in the near future, and will post here or edit it if needed. As for WP:TFA, I would definitely go for 22 May 2013, if that date is possible. Toccata quarta (talk) 13:53, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I got distracted but hope to have another look at the article soon.--Peter cohen (talk) 19:28, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Lutheran?

Category:German Lutherans has just been excised from this article. Is that justifiable? Toccata quarta (talk) 12:21, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Now that I think of it, the article might mention Wagner's religious beliefs and practices; at the moment, it "only" discusses his philosophical affinities and Nietzsche's perception of his late personality. Toccata quarta (talk) 12:35, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I have added sometihng here as some of his late writings on Xtianity were already mentioned.--Smerus (talk) 14:12, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

NPV

Here are the passages that sound biased/"peacockish" to me:

• "to ensure musical coherence"

"With the goal of providing musical coherence" sounds better to me. The passage also seems to be unsourced.

• "mature"

This word makes three appearances in the article (and in one of them it appears to belong to an unsourced sentence), but there is no solid definition of it. (For an example of what I would deem an appropriate solution, I refer you to Kaikhosru Shapurji Sorabji#Mature works and symphonic thought, which I wrote.)

*"but cannot credibly be regarded" [emphasis added]

• "who proved to be a true friend"

Sounds like original research. "Who proved loyal" or "[text removed]" seems better to me.

• "is without credible evidence" [emphasis added]

More to come (though not on this topic anymore). Toccata quarta (talk) 21:56, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

'Credible evidence' - the sources cited indicate that that the evidence is not credible, hence the citation is correct. This cannot be construed as either 'peacockish' or biased. Where an editor provides a source, WP:AGF should apply. There seems to be some problem with appreciation of English usage here: 'who proved to be a true friend' means exactly the same as 'who proved to be loyal'. Similarly 'to ensure/with the goal of'. 'Mature' is a standard dictionary word without 'peacock' overtones, it simply means what it says. Most particualrly I bridle at the suggestion, in the heading of this section, that the items selected are in any way NPV. A source is a source. If an editor has a counter-source, let him or her quote it. If we are going to nit-pick in this fruitless and petty way over all the wordings in the article which different editors don't especially fancy, we will all be wasting I think a lot of time. The essence it seems to me of WP is that we concentrate on the facts and verifiability. We will also risk sacrificing the work that many editors have undertaken in attmepting to get this article up to FA. (I point out by the way that none of the wordings raised by Toccata quarta, most of which were in the article when it obtained GA status, were ever objected to by any reviewer).

I would appreciate the comments of other editors on all this. Thanks, --Smerus (talk) 23:06, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I repeat what I said before—attribution is my main concern. Providing a source is not the same as providing attribution. "Mature" implies a level of quality, which necessarily leads to expressions such as "great", "outstanding", etc. Toccata quarta (talk) 23:15, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

On a slightly different note, the sentence about Liszt premiering Lohengrin appears to need another source. Toccata quarta (talk) 23:29, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

It's given in the existing citations, but I will add yet another.--Smerus (talk) 15:57, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Ambiguous

There are a few passages in this article that I find unclear (or might be unclear to others). Here they are:

*"with orchestral accompaniment"

I seem to remember the orchestration was done by Wagner, but not all readers may know that.

This is a reference to the Wesendonck Lieder. Wagner orchestrated only "Träume". The rest were orchestrated by Felix Mottl (Hans Werner Henze has done a more recent version). -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 22:57, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

• "integrated musical expression"

What does this mean? Is it the opposite of number opera? A wikilink may help readers.

*"Cosima Wagner, 28 March 1881"

This is a reference (currently #157). It lacks either 1978 or 1994, and mentions no page number. Toccata quarta (talk) 17:20, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Points 1 and 3 dealt with. Point 2 rephrased for clarity. Best, --Smerus (talk) 22:28, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for that, but I still fail to understand what "integrated" means in this case. Is there a synonym or wikilink that could make it clearer to me? Toccata quarta (talk) 09:13, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I am afraid it means only what it says; that leifmotifs increase the density of references which the music can evoke in the listener.--Smerus (talk) 16:16, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Density as in "quantity of motifs", or "motivic saturation"? Toccata quarta (talk) 16:32, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Richard Wagner as FA candidate

The discussion here contains a number of points, particularly in the recent reviews by User:SandyGeorgia and User:Gerda Arendt, which spark some general issues on which project members may wish to reflect and/or comment.--Smerus (talk) 15:42, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Words and Music

Gerda Arendt's claim that Wagner wrote the libretto for the Ring before he wrote the music is of extreme importance. It shows how he had emphasized conceptual narrative before he was influenced by Schopenhauer. After reading Schopenhauer, Wagner considered music to be absolutely primary.Lestrade (talk) 03:34, 21 January 2013 (UTC)Lestrade

Blockquote

This article contains a quote from The Perfect Wagnerite, which is meant to be a "blockquote", but is not displayed as one (at least on my computer). Does anyone here know how to fix that? Toccata quarta (talk) 21:25, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm.. it appears to be a consequence of the image on the left.....--Smerus (talk) 21:34, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Infobox

Richard Wagner
Richard Wagner, 1871
Born	(1813-05-22)22 May 1813 Leipzig
Died	23 February 1883(1883-02-23) (aged 69) Venice
Occupation	composer theatre director conductor librettist years active 1833 (1833) – 1834 (1834): Würzburg 1834 (1834) – 1836 (1836): Magdeburg 1836 (1836) – 1837 (1837): Königsberg 1837 (1837) – 1839 (1839): Riga 1839 (1839) – 1842 (1842): Paris 1842 (1842) – 1849 (1849): Dresden 1849 (1849) – 1858 (1858): Zürich 1858 (1858) – 1862 (1862): Venice 1862 (1862) – 1864 (1864): Biebrich 1864 (1864) – 1865 (1865): Munich 1865 (1865) – 1871 (1871): Lucerne 1871 (1871) – 1882 (1882): Bayreuth 1882 (1882) – 1883 (1883): Venice
Known for	Bayreuth Festival Music drama as "Gesamtkunstwerk" Leitmotif Der Ring des Nibelungen antisemitic polemic Wagner controversies
Notable work	1840 (1840) Rienzi 1841 (1841) Der fliegende Holländer 1844 (1844) Tannhäuser 1848 (1848) Lohengrin 1853 (1853) Das Rheingold 1854 (1854) Die Walküre 1856 (1856) Siegfried 1857 (1857) Tristan und Isolde 1862 (1862) Die Meistersinger von Nürnberg 1868 (1868) Götterdämmerung 1876 (1876) Parsifal
Style	Romantic
Spouses	Minna Planer (1836–1866) Cosima Wagner (1870–1783)
Children	Isolde Wagner Eva Wagner Siegfried Wagner
more details
Signature

No, don't be afraid, I don't suggest to place an infobox in this article, a few days before it will be TFA, against the wish of the project and the article's main author. I only follow the advice Place infoboxes on article talk instead of article where their inclusion is disputed (per NYB), --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:18, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't see that this 'advice' has any formal validation whatever. It is just one editor's idea, and not a very good one, imo, as it will encourage some smartass to put the ugly column you have created on the main page. So merely placing this here at this time is I'm afraid Gerda uncommonly parallel to a provocative act of bad faith. Don't expect me to smile. --Smerus (talk) 19:37, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I heard "bad faith" before. Nikkimaria who gave this advice, quoting Newyorkbrad, is hardly known to be pro infobox. I think it's a reasonable advice, and I don't know what you mean by the main page. If you mean the article, I know many people who will know to revert. Now I smile, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:50, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Oh, let's sing the song of "bad faith" again. As soon as somebody raises something you don't like, Smerus, it's "bad faith" - even though it's advice that comes from two other respected editors. Nobody's fooled by your mean-spirited attempt to smear Gerda and you ought to be ashamed of yourself. --RexxS (talk) 20:38, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Smerus, that "ugly column" snark was completely out of line! Per MOS:INFOBOX: "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." Simply raising the issue does not warrant such an ad hominem attack as this. Frankly, I think it's ridiculous that some variant of {{infobox person}} is NOT used in this article. And frankly, I strongly FAVOR having infoboxes in any biography, they are quite suitable. But to the point, if you oppose something, remember WP:NPA and simply state your position without attacking others. Montanabw^(talk) 21:33, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

As it happens, I strongly favour the use of infoboxes, but I can see no point to this action than to try to drum up support when the article becomes FA and encourage an editor to move the box to the article space. If an issue has already been discussed it should not be disingenuously reintroduced. It's unacceptable and should be removed from here. Paul B (talk) 21:39, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

And look what the freakin' thing has done to the layout of the talk page! Paul B (talk) 21:40, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Believe me or not: I don't drum, I am a singer, - I fixed the layout that has to do with observation, not with a template, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:49, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Support the use of an infobox, like that proposed here, as useful to our readers and helpful in emitting metadata. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:31, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:COMPOSERS. Also, the use of an infobox for composers like these are mostly contrary to the strategic goals of the Wikimedia Foundation. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:07, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Canvassing

Note this canvassing (and this pointer to it); it appears that other interested projects have not (yet) been notified. The comment cited also makes accusations of disruption. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:31, 16 May 2013 (UTC)