Talk:James MacMillan

Biography assessment rating comment

The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. --KenWalker | Talk 04:47, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Page move

May I move this article to James MacMillan (composer)? I suggest it because "musician" is somewhat ambiguous, and while he is a fine conductor I think he is most notable as a composer. Also, I've just read WP:MUSTARD#Disambiguation. All those against speak now! I'll leave this message here for a few days to allow any objections to be raised, then I'll sort it out. --RobertG ♬ talk 13:27, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the move. MUSIKVEREIN (talk) 14:33, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Done! Thank you. --RobertG ♬ talk 15:01, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

POV concerns

I have no objection to Wikipedia documenting MacMillan's perceptions of attitudes to Israel. But I have two reservations about this way of doing it. Firstly, it gives them undue weight - James MacMillan is a classical composer, not a populist figure nor a statesman. And secondly, if an editor is truly writing from a neutral point of view, it should be impossible to tell from that person's edits what their viewpoint is. I think it is possible to discern 129.215.24.119's sympathies. This worries me somewhat, particularly on a WP:BLP. --RobertG ♬ talk 10:56, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the "Political Views" section of this article in light of the WP:BLP policy concerning immediate removal of an entry without discussion when an article is poorly sourced and devoid of a NPOV. As noticed by RobertG above, the text in this section gives the clear point of view of the original author, 129.215.24.119, and is potentially libelous.

For example, when user 129.215.24.119 wrote the following, "MacMillan has attacked the cultural boycott of Israel ... and leveled accusations of antisemitism against a number of Muslim organizations which oppose Israel[7]," one can see clearly the POV of the author through his language in using the words "attacked," and "leveled." Moreover, the Internet publications that are sourced discuss Mr. MacMillan's feelings concerning the administration of one international arts organization and not the politically controversial issue of a "cultural boycott of Israel" as a whole.

The NPOV and sourcing in this section are highly questionable within an article regarding a living person and I have removed it for this reason.Purellification (talk) 16:23, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

(i) Name (ii) Clemency

(i) User:GuillaumeTell has mentioned that this page could (should?) be simply titled James MacMillan - after all that page is merely a redirect to here. I see his point. Any thoughts? almost-instinct 19:00, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

(ii) Clemency (opera) is currently a redlink; I'm about to put together the basic info from online sources. Anyone with any further material? almost-instinct 19:00, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved to James MacMillan. Favonian (talk) 17:43, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

---

James MacMillan (composer) → James MacMillan – My reason: James MacMillan at the moment is just a redirect to this page - no need for the qualifying "(composer)" bit of the name almost-instinct 17:19, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support All others listed at James McMillan (a dab page) are Mc not Mac, so this is indeed apparently the only use of James MacMillan on Wikipedia, so the current title is unnecessary disambiguation. Don't forget to update the James McMillan dab page after the move. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:37, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Sufficiently different from James McMillan that the disambiguation can be removed in favour of hatnotes. Jenks24 (talk) 18:10, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support. A no-brainer, for sure.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:21, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 20:00, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 20:05, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
• Hmm. I guess I support, although isn't Mc/Mac very easily confused? I think I would prefer the target page to redirect to the disambiguation page. I'm in the minority though, that much is clear. Cross porpoises (talk) 18:44, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

A hatnote can handle that. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 19:12, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Infobox

Why does this article not have an infobox? It's standard practice for people. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:26, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

I take it you did not follow my suggestion to first read Wikipedia:WikiProject_Composers#Biographical_infoboxes before asking this question. You will find the answer there, or at least, part of the answer.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:28, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Please take what you will. Other editors may be interested in your "response". Isn't MacMillan a person, like any other? [1] Martinevans123 (talk) 21:32, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Since you ask, no, he is not "just like any other" person. He is a composer of so-called classical music, and that makes a huge difference. This is the main focus of the position paper to which I have pointed you.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 00:59, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

That's a position paper? I thought it was a style guideline summary. The division between so-called classical and so-called popular music has never been totally clear to me. Many other musicians seem to manage very well with info boxes. They might even be used to contain examples of the composer's work, that would be very useful. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:59, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Call it what you like. The point is that a substantial number of editors working on classical-music articles disagree with you about the desirability of infoboxes, and their position is stated succinctly in that document. They also make clear that they understand Wikipedia policy and guidelines neither require nor forbid infoboxes, and request that a discussion leading to consensus be conducted before adding infoboxes to articles on classical-music composers. If I understand you correctly, you are arguing for an infobox in this case for three reasons: (1) the division between "classical: and "popular" music is not clear to you, (2) [articles on] "other" musicians manage with infoboxes, and (3) examples of composers' works included in an infobox would be useful. I don't see that your inability to understand the difference between "classical" and other categories is relevant (given that this distinction is widely made, regardless of how sharply it may be defined), the second point merely gainsays the assertion in the project's statement that the situation for classical composers is indeed different from other musicians (why do you think they are wrong, and you are right?), leaving your third argument. On this point, I do not believe an infobox is either appropriate for or capable of containing the large number of musical examples (say, at least ten) that would be necessary to give a fair summary of the compositional output of a composer like MacMillan. How would you propose doing this: scores? recordings? And why do you think an infobox should include such detail, when it is meant to replicate in an abbreviated form the summarizing function of the article's lead? Surely this is the kind of thing that belongs either in the body of the article, with ample discussion, or in the "external links" section, as is the case with so many other composer articles.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:41, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

These were ideas and observations, not "my argument". I find it interesting that you see part of the problem as being with "my inability to understand". Once again you mention "a document", but I really still don't know what that is. It does not seem to be what you've linked to above. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:50, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps it is a browser issue, if you are not linking to this section:

Biographical infoboxes [edit]

Main page: Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Infoboxes § Using infoboxes in articles 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.

Most 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.)

Is this different from what you found and, if not, which part(s) of it do you think is not relevant to the question of composer infoboxes?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 19:46, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't see that as a "position paper". It reads like a summary set of general and subjective views. Can you just explain to me here, in one sentence, why infoboxes are not suitable soley for classical composers? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:59, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

OK:

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.

Does that help?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 07:20, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

I could already realise that "confusing style and genre, setting forth haphazard lists of individual works, or highlighting the subject's trivial secondary or non-musical occupations" can apply to classical composers. But it seems to also apply equally to other composers, or even to musicians in general. So, no. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:08, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Too bad. As the tee-shirt slogan says, "I can explain it to you, but I cannot make you understand."—Jerome Kohl (talk) 07:32, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

You've not explained why points 1 and 2 apply more to classical composers than to any other article subject. Even point 3 can apply to other types of composer. All three reasons listed may help to ensure useful infoboxes (although it's too bad we have no concrete examples of where they have ever arisen). They may be perfectly valid concerns as to why more care should be taken with infoboxes for composers. But they're not reasons why infoboxes should be prohibited. If any of those three conditions apply, it might provide a reason to remove an infobox. But it would be more usefully a reason to simply improve it. They could even be added as checklists to all composer Talk Pages, if need be. And I'd be interested to hear what the others of the "many reasons" are. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:50, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

I am reluctant to reproduce here the entire contents of the archived discussion referenced above, in which the reasoning about the application to classical musicans/composers is set out in great detail. Have you read the referenced discussions here and here? If so, I am astonished that you would want even more reasons. It is not a simple issue that can be summarized in a single sentence. There is no question of "prohibiting" infoboxes. That is perfectly plain from the two opening sentences: "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." There has been no such discussion here yet.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:40, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

George Frideric Handel seems a perfectly reasonable example. Why is such an infobox not suitable here? Martinevans123 (talk)

Gustav Holst is an equally reasonable example. So are Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart and Arnold Schoenberg. Why are such lacks of infoboxes not suitable here? If you will reread the passage quoted in full above, you will discover the sentence "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." It is, in other words, to be taken on a case-by-case basis. The floor is open for discussion.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 03:50, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Oh yes, so it is. That didn't take long did it. But I think you'll find Summer has now gone. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:20, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Bibliography

I have commenced a tidy-up of the Bibliography section using cite templates. Capitalization and punctuation follow standard cataloguing rules in AACR2 and RDA, as much as Wikipedia templates allow it. ISBNs and other persistent identifiers, where available, are commented out, but still available for reference. This is a work in progress; feel free to continue. Sunwin1960 (talk) 06:50, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Work with Peter Maxwell Davies

MacMillan's biography mentions "his early work with Peter Maxwell Davies," but Maxwell Davies is not mentioned in the current version of this article. Can information about this be added to this article? 173.88.246.138 (talk) 02:34, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Catholicism in lede?

Any thoughts on this edit? I reverted and WBritten has reverted my revert, citing MOS:BIO. The relevant section there says "Ethnicity, religion, or sexuality should generally not be in the lead unless relevant to the subject's notability" (my emphasis). I'd maintain that MacMillan's Catholicism (or at least his religiosity) is notable, as it is a significant influence on his music. Dave.Dunford (talk) 13:25, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Well he does appear at List of Catholic musicians. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:32, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Besides priests, nuns, etc., none of the composers listed there have their religion mentioned in the lead. Macmillan's Catholicism is relevant, of course, and dealt with in the appropriate section of the article. A sentence mentioning it in the introduction, after the lead, is also an option. WBritten (talk) 14:12, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Eh?? Are you sure about that? Which section(s) were you looking at? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:24, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

To be clear, by lead I mean the very first sentence of the article. WBritten (talk) 14:29, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. And you exclude all priests, nuns etc. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:36, 1 May 2024 (UTC) p.s. I'm now wondering why Guglielmo Enrico Lardelli is in that list.

I exclude them because in e.g. "Italian Augustinian friar" or "German Catholic bishop" the religious denominations are part of the profession and not the nationality, unlike in "Catholic Scottish composer" or "Scottish Catholic composer". A "Catholic composer" is a composer who happens to be a Catholic, not a fundamentally different profession from that of composer alone. There are, however, significant distinctions in the duties and behaviors of priests and nuns from different orders and denominations. James MacMillan is neither ordained nor a lay priest, so his faith should be mentioned after the lead. WBritten (talk) 14:44, 1 May 2024 (UTC)