Talk:Berlin Philharmonic/Archive 1

Archive 1

Comment

In Grove's Dictionary of Music and Musicians, it says the Berlin Philharmonic Society was founded in 1826 (not 1862), and by Eduard Rietz. Does anyone know if there was any connection between the BPO and BPS? Peter / 2006-06-25.

Conductors list formats, and reasonings

Some possible formats below. ("A2" is the same as "A1", but having Furtwängler's two tenures on separate lines. "B2" is the same as "B1" but having the "current conductor" section be part of the chronology.)

A1) Reverse semi-chronological format

• Sir Simon Rattle (since 2002)
• Claudio Abbado (1989-2002)
• Herbert von Karajan (1954-1989)
• Sergiu Celibidache (1945-1952)
• Leo Borchard (1945)
• Wilhelm Furtwängler (1922-1945) and (1952-1954)
• Arthur Nikisch (1895-1922)
• Hans Guido von Bülow (until 1893)

A2) Full reverse chronological format

• Sir Simon Rattle (since 2002)
• Claudio Abbado (1989-2002)
• Herbert von Karajan (1954-1989)
• Wilhelm Furtwängler (1952-1954)
• Sergiu Celibidache (1945-1952)
• Leo Borchard (1945)
• Wilhelm Furtwängler (1922-1945)
• Arthur Nikisch (1895-1922)
• Hans Guido von Bülow (until 1893)

B1) Semi-chronological format

Current conductor as of 2006

• (2002-present) Sir Simon Rattle

Past conductors, chronologically

• (1887-1892) Hans von Bülow
• (1895-1922) Arthur Nikisch
• (1922-1945) Wilhelm Furtwängler
• (1945-1945) Leo Borchard
• (1945-1952) Sergiu Celibidache
• (1952-1954) Wilhelm Furtwängler (bis)
• (1954-1989) Herbert von Karajan
• (1989-2002) Claudio Abbado

B2) Full chronological format

Past conductors, chronologically

• (1887-1892) Hans von Bülow
• (1895-1922) Arthur Nikisch
• (1922-1945) Wilhelm Furtwängler
• (1945-1945) Leo Borchard
• (1945-1952) Sergiu Celibidache
• (1952-1954) Wilhelm Furtwängler (bis)
• (1954-1989) Herbert von Karajan
• (1989-2002) Claudio Abbado

Current conductor as of 2006

• (2002-present) Sir Simon Rattle

Comments

• Format A:
  1. It isn't encyclopedical, it's a blog format. Wikipedia is not a blog.
  2. A1 lists Furtwängler on a single line, breaking the timeline. It's sorted anti-chronologically but is bastardized with an alphabetical list format, neither fish nor fowl.

• Format B:
  1. It provides the encyclopedical chronological format.
  2. As a compromise with format A's wish of highlighting the current director, the non-TOC bold headers allow the reader to immediately find the current director. Format B1 goes deeper into this compromise by having the current director first, and the chronological order applied only to the list of *past* conductors.
  3. It clearly states the criterion used for the sorting, and the sort key, dates, are prominent and aligned.
  4. Listing Furtwängler twice isn't a bug but a feature, preserving the timeline and allowing one to easily lookup who was the director at any given date, whitout having to read the whole list to find the Furtwängler Easter egg.
  5. The As of syntax informs the reader of the last update and validity of this information, while flagging the page for a later update if local editors forget it.

-- ChronoOrder as 62.147.112.7 11:38, 12 July 2006 (UTC) updated with the split of A1/A2, and B1/B2 16:58, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

You've omitted format C, which was the original format on this and almost every other orchestra page (it's still there on most other orchestra pages). C is reverse chronological order with repeated conductors (such as Furtwangler) listed twice. I don't really care between formats C and B, but we should be consistent. I agree that repeated conductors should appear twice. Usually people are more interested in more recent conductors, which pushes me slightly towards C, but it's not a big deal. Grover cleveland 14:29, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I've added your C as "A2", to keep the cousins "A1" and "A2" together. The difference between A1 and A2 isn't trivial, but the divide between A2 and B remains wide and open to debate. For a fuller choice, I've also split B into cousins B1 and B2. I still think B2 is more encyclopedical, but someone could add compelling reasons for B1, and B1 could provide a larger consensus. -- ChronoOrder as 62.147.38.70 16:58, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Some points and food for thought:

1. Lists orders are usually based on the nature of the document, its public, and the service it provides.
   • On a blog, which is updated and read frequently by the same people coming back, it makes sense to adopt a reverse chronological order - but Wikipedia isn't a blog.
   • On commercial sites such as IMDb, they also list movies in reverse chronological order. This is because they reckon a majority of their visitors have seen or heard about recent movies, and will find them more quickly when listed at the top. And, for their DVD-selling ads, recent items generates more profit than older movies. But Wikipedia isn't a commercial site, and isn't selling orchestral records.
   • Universally, encyclopedias use chronological order, which is the more convenient to read, look up, and thus the more globally useful for all sorts of readers. Most readers of a Wikipedia article won't come back often. They either came to read the full article, or they're searching for a specific information.
2. On the one hand, I agree there should be, eventually, some consistence between orchestra articles. At some point, we should invite the editors of the other majors orchestra, from their article's talk page, to come here provide their opinions about the pros and cons.
3. But on the other hand, there should also be consistence with the encyclopedic purpose, and with the *rest* of the Wikipedia: chronological order is the one massively adopted on Wikipedia in every other domains: bibliographies, discographies, filmographies, etc. Should lists of orchestra conductors be the only ones in Wikipedia to be in reverse chronology, and why?

-- ChronoOrder as 62.147.38.70 16:58, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

1. chronological order is boring and not interest, because everyone has topical interest, which one is now conductor. 2. is it easier to added a new one. 3. it would be better, you'r registered as a normal user! Dontworry 18:03, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

1. Wikipedia intends to be an encyclopedia, not a glossy magazine. It doesn't matter if "chronological order is boring" (as you put it), it's standard, practical, and useful, and that's why it's used in every encyclopedia or reference book. On a related item, a phonebook too is a pretty "boring" format, but it's done this way for a reason: it works. Furthermore, about "topical interest, which one is now conductor" (as you put it), both format B1 and B2 prominently show who's current conductor; much more than your blog format, actually, where the reader first have to guess what's the list order, before interpreting it.
2. The format is supposed to be useful for READERS first, not just for editors; this is an encyclopedia, not a role-playing game. Furthermore, it isn't especially more difficult to add someone at the end of a list than at its beginning, you're making a mountain of a molehill. Last but not least, this list isn't something updated every day, or every week, not even every year. This point is nonsense.
3. Advice for advice: it would be better, you'r learned English as a normal user!
4. Thus, none of your "objections" is valid.
5. And you've provided no retort to the points I brought above.

-- ChronoOrder as 62.147.112.36 11:43, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Current conductor in lead

The lead is supposed to be a dicdef of sorts of the topic and a summary or digest of the article's main information, as well as an introduction, as per WP:LEAD. Thus, it's perfectly normal to have it mention who's the BPO's current director, as the article always did until now.

But it just dawned on me: the reason Dontworry has been recently and repeatedly trying to delete the information about the current conductor from the article's lead (diff of July 17 lead deletion) (diff of July 18 lead deletion), in violation of WP:LEAD, common sense, and readers' interest:

His only "point" for forcing blog format on conductors is that he allegedly wants to highlight who's the current conductor. Not only was this point refuted by the bold header and the first place offered by list format B1... but the very fact that the current conductor is told right from the article's lead was invalidating it, too. So, he's now trying to remove this useful information from the lead, weakening the whole article, just to manufacture a point in favor of blog format. Ouch.

IMO, since he refused discussion and mediation, there's no reason to "assume good faith" any more about him, and we can thus look into that sort of rationals for his otherwise inane actions on the lead.

-- ChronoOrder as 62.147.112.38 13:19, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Mediation

Hello, I have been asked to serve as mediator regarding the issue on presentation of data in the Philharmonic page. Mediation is a structured way to resolve disagreements by making conversation easier, with any party able to withdraw at any time. I don't have contact information for all possibly interested parties (some of whom don't have accounts). If you accept mediation, please leave a note on my talk page along with your email address or other preferred means of contact. --Improv 14:52, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Note: I'm the one who requested (and thus accepted) this mediation on Improv's talk page. After 5 days of refusing to provide arguments on this talk page, and more petty vandalism on the article, Dontworry rejected it on his talk page (diff). -- ChronoOrder as 62.147.112.38 12:19, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Lame edit warring

This has got to be one of the lamest edit wars ever. I'm protecting the page until both parties come to the talk page and talk about it. User:Angr 12:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Please note that Dontworry rejected the mediation I had requested (cf. above), and as you can gather from the above discussion (and lack thereof), he refused to discuss the matter, provide sensible arguments, or refute objections. Furthermore, he can barely read or write English, and is thus largely inapt at engaging in Wikipedia's discussion-based process. -- ChronoOrder as 62.147.112.38 12:26, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

incredible stupidity and ignorance

1. This guy/girl claimed, that only in his/her way conductors are listed.

2. In minimum of 80% of this list [[1]] (if an orchestra/artikel has such a list of conductors) you can see, it is in reverse form!

3. I can't believe, that WP-admins support such amazing behaviour of a crazy user, instead to kick out he/she! Dontworry 18:17, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

1. Nope, I provided in the first section of this page the negative points of the blog format, and the positive points of the regular format, and justified each of my moves. You're the one who simply claimed your way was right, tried to impose it without debate, and used agressive and insulting edit summaries to do so.
2. Because some other orchestras have cut-n-pasted this format without minding what's the best format, doesn't mean it's set in stone and can't be debated and changed now. Furthermore, 99% of Wikipedia uses chronological format for lists of works and people, just like reference books and encyclopedias.
3. You're the one who broke every wiki-rules at every turn, and not just on this article. I hope you are aware that all your actions remain permanently logged, because I have been advised by the mediator that I could send your case directly to the Arbitration Committee, where they can ban you.

-- ChronoOrder as 62.147.36.103 13:24, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not supporting either side. I don't really care which order the conductors are listed in. What I do care about is that the edit warring and name-calling stop. The fact that the other user prefers the other order does not make him or her either stupid or ignorant. Persisting in making personal attacks against other editors can get you blocked. User:Angr 19:18, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion the attack comes first from him/her and this unregistred user tells me always about his selfmade creative rules and accuse me of vandalism - it's like a story from Kafka or King. Can you explain me, why this gay/girl don't change before all the other list from where I'd above tell you? Dontworry 22:00, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

About "why this gay/girl don't change before all the other list from where I'd above tell you" (as you put it): because we're not like you, we don't go on a rampage changing things on a personal whim without first debate and deciding what's the proper format to change things to. As has been explained above:

• We were first supposed to do our homework and debate the two formats here, listing pros and cons, clearing up the debate.
• As a second step, as said above, we would have notified the editors of the other orchestra pages to come here see our arguments, and provide theirs, to get a consensus on the final format for conductors lists.
• And then only, we would have harmonized all orchestra pages with the best format for lists, agreed upon by all parties.
• Sorry if such rational, democratic process seems so mind-blowing to someone such as you with his own private direct line to Truth, but that's how us foolish mortals do those things in those parts.

And at any rate, you can not support your argument by invoking the fact that I didn't went and unilateraly changed all others orchestras pages while a debate about the best format was taking place here: doing so would have been a serious offense against due process. So you're accusing me of not having committed the sort of offense you'd do, that's hardly a point.

-- ChronoOrder as 62.147.36.103 13:46, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps both of you could explain why it's so all-fired important one way or the other. Why on earth does it matter to either of you whether the list is from newest to oldest or oldest to newest? User:Angr 05:54, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

"Both" ?? Er, could you please see the large talk section at the top of this page, about formats:

• Since July 12, I have listed there the 4 possible formats, annotated them, explained why blog format isn't useful, consistent, or encyclopedical, and why the regular format is. Not to mention side details about expliciting sort criteria, and "As of" syntax. At least, I can say I have a fully exposed rational basis for defending this.
• But you're right that the other party never explained his urges, he simply stated that "chronological order is boring" (above), and that "wrong is wrong" (on his talk page), which is hardly solid ground for his persistent vandalism of the article. (Many of his reversions have been made back to a 10-day old preferred version, cancelling all later progress of the article, which is destructive and qualifies for vandalism.)

-- ChronoOrder as 62.147.36.103 13:24, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

It's impossible to discuss something with such a chaotic and maladjusted user! If you are not able to answer or to discuss in a correct way, let it be! (Discussion should be in a "chronological" way - tells me someone ;-)) Dontworry as 84.176.90.47 16:07, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

The current conductor should be mentioned in the lead sentence. The list of conductors should be chronological, oldest to newest. Wikitacular 20:50, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Why? (In a short sentence, please.) Dontworry 11:11, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Why not? Crimson Shadow 18:05, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

If you wish to change, you must explain why, not me! ;-) Dontworry 07:39, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

No, Dontworry, you also have to explain. Both sides have to explain why their preferred order is so important it's worth edit-warring about. User:Angr 15:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't know about Wikitacular, but I support it since quite simply it's encyclopedic. Crimson Shadow 16:36, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

If it's so simply, I'm sure, you can tell us a source about this "evidence"? Dontworry 06:42, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

• Sources? Well, what about almost every encyclopedia and reference book in the world? Try some, them big books often have some purty piccies inside.
• It should also be noted that, according to your (ir)rationale, we should also write articles in reverse chronology, starting with the latests exciting news about the topic, and ending with its boring birth. (Another Dick, but no less than Philip K., got Counter-Clock World (1967) outta that conceit, after all.)

-- ChronoOrder as 62.147.113.250 06:56, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

The format outlined above called "B2: Full chronological format" not only reads better, but it looks more professional. As stated above, this is not a glossy magazine.

Now kindly explain why you feel chronological order is "boring". Oh, and also explain why you feel that your opponent in this issue should be "kicked out" despite the fact that it is you who uses destructive, vandal-like tactics as seen here: (your handywork). Crimson Shadow 01:14, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Summing up

Okay, the page has been protected long enough now and I think enough people have commented that a tentative consensus has been reached. From reading the above comments, it seems to me that the anon calling himself ChronoOrder, User:Wikitacular, and User:Crimson Shadow all agree that the conductor should be mentioned in the lead and that the list should be from oldest to newest. The main justification for this is that it's the usual style in encylcopedias. User:Dontworry is the only one arguing for newest-to-oldest order, and his reason for this is that it's more interesting to put current information first. Therefore, I'm unprotecting the page now and putting the list in full chronological order from oldest to newest, and asking User:Dontworry to accept the fact that consensus is against him and not to edit-war anymore. User:Angr 09:27, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. Now, could someone please archive the discussion on the matter? I would do it, but I don't know how to. Crimson Shadow 14:27, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Done. And see WP:ARCHIVE for instructions. User:Angr 14:38, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Main picture

Couldn't we find something better for the main picture? You can see the interior of the Philharmonie, but the orchestra is way too distant. Grover cleveland 16:03, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome to add a better image if you can find one that's freely licensed. —Angr 16:39, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

It's burning

The building is burning right now. Let's keep in mind to update it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.104.18.243 (talk) 15:47, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Better yet, let's wait till whatever happens has happened and we get a little perspective. This is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. See WP:RECENT. —Angr 16:22, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

List of members

I'm still unconvinced of the encyclopedic value of this list (and of the lists of members of sports teams too) but at least now that it has a source it might be maintainable. I've changed the flagicons for England and Scotland to the UK, though, as everyone else's flag is (presumably) for the sovereign country of their citizenship, not the subnational entity they grew up in. —Angr 09:24, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Ferenc Fricsay

I received an email request to add Ferenc Fricsay to the list of the conductors before Karajan. The person sent me this as a source: Fricsay, el dominio del ritmo, Stefano Russomanno, ABC.es. I can read Spanish and it does say that Fricsay was a conductor, but it doesn't clearly say whether his status in the orchestra was the same as Karajan's.

Since i am not an expert on the history of this orchestra, i'd be happy if someone with better knowledge would be able to clear this up.

Thanks. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 17:06, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Fricsay was the principal conductor of the Deutsches Symphonie-Orchester Berlin, not the Berlin Philharmonic. He may have conducted some concerts of the BP, but only principal conductors are listed in the article. +Angr 17:21, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

"Peacockery"

Someone who'd never heard of the Berlin Philharmonic deleted the phrase "widely regarded as one of the best orchestras in the world" as PEACOCK. I restored it. I hope we don't have to struggle with the teeners over this obvious cliché of adult culture. Are there any other grown-ups watching this page? --Wetman (talk) 01:01, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I am a grown-up and I have great respect for the Berlin Philharmonic, but just saying "Ooh, it's one of the greatest orchestras in the world!!!1!" is hardly grown up. Did you read WP:PEACOCK? It tells us we shouldn't simply say "widely regarded as one of the best orchestras in the world", we should show why it is. List the awards it's won, the positive reviews it's received, and source it all, and the reader will know how highly regarded the orchestra is without the uninformative "widely regarded as" sentence. —Angr 08:46, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Considering I live in Berlin and have attended their concerts myself, your assumption that I had never heard of the Berlin Philharmonic comes very close to being a personal attack. —Angr 08:53, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the comment about being the 3rd best orchestra, and any other judgement of value, even if sourced, shoud be removed because they sound un-encyclopedic. --Karljoos (talk) 00:24, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I think it's okay, but it probably shouldn't be the second sentence of the lead. I'd move it down to the "Awards and recognition" section. —Angr 12:01, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Although proper references are needed, it doesn't seem appropriate to just describe the BPO's reputation amongst orchestras by simply referring to two recent subjective polls in magazines. Anyone reading the article would take away the definite fact that the BPO must be the World's 2nd or Europe's 3rd best orchestra. What is needed is to convey more the general critical consensus amongst the public, critics and other musicians, e.g that the BPO is regularly considered to be amongst the world top orchestras and cite these as references only but don't give the rankings. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.105.186.7 (talk) 20:16, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

In popular culture

In my opinion, the last sentence of this section is not correct. The movie Taking Sides is about the denazification investigation concerning Wilhelm Furtwängler (who admittedly conducted the orchestra during the Nazi period), but the movie is not about the "relationship between the BPO and the Nazi regime". --Francesco Malipiero (talk) 15:43, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

File:Berlin Philharmonic rehearsing.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Berlin Philharmonic rehearsing.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests November 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 12:26, 15 November 2011 (UTC)