Talk:Samuel Barber/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Formating the article

There's an irritaing amount of empty space at the top of this articel under the brief introduction - can someone sort this out - I can't see how to. 86.149.54.241 (talk) 14:00, 31 March 2008 (UTC) The 'Biography' title would need to be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.33.44.9 (talk) 15:47, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Downgrading to start

I am down-grading this article to start class. This article is poorly organized and lacks in-line citations. It has a lead which does not accurately summarize the article and needs to be expanded, and it is sparse in its biographical details for a composer of his stature. It also needs a much improved analysis/criticism section of his work.4meter4 (talk) 21:40, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

New York Premiere of the Adagio for Strings

On May 1 1939, the Adagio for Strings was given its New York premiere by the Orchestrette Classique under the direction of Frédérique Petrides, at the Carnegie Chamber Music Hall, now Weill Recital Hall. You may see fit to add this fact to your article. Mx96 16:58, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Popular culture

In the popular culture section of this article it is stated that Barber's Adagio For Strings has been remixed by DJ Tiesto. While it may have been remixed by Tiesto at some point (I am not aware of this remix myself), the dance version of Adagio For Strings was first released by William Orbit. However, it was the Ferry Corsten (another Dutch DJ) remixed version of the William Orbit song which made it popular. It may be the fact that both Tiesto and Corsten are Dutch dance music producers that has led to the confusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.253.148.190 (talk) 13:44, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Everything in this section as it now stands pertains to a single work, the Adagio. Thus, anything worthy in this section (be there anything) can be moved to the existing separate Adagio Wikipedia article or, perhaps, to a new Adagio section of this Barber article. In any case, in Wikipedia "Popular culture" is a euphemism for trivia, and I will delete the "Popular culture" section in due course. TheScotch (talk) 21:53, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps what is needed is a completely new article, titled "Barber Adagio for Strings Trivia", or better, "List of trivia involving Barber's Adagio for Strings". No doubt the real popular culture zealots will not be satisfied, and will instead want "List of trivia about the first bar of Barber's Adagio for Strings", "List of trivia about the second bar of Barber's Adagio for Strings", and so on, or even "List of trivia about the viola's first note in the first bar of Barber's Adagio for Strings, by nationality", etc., but I think we must draw the line somewhere. On the other hand, we could always invoke Wikipedia:Fancruft in cases like the one cited above (Dutch dance-music producers making Barber's Adagio famous at last? Give me a break!).—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:19, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Additional citations

Why, what, where, and how does this article need additional citations for verification? Hyacinth (talk) 04:57, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

There are four perfectly plain "citation needed" tags in the text, and one more in the footnotes.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 05:07, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Tag removed. Hyacinth (talk) 06:00, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Unsupported claims also removed.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 06:32, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Infobox

Arguably the info box here is redundant. It's also the wrong type (musical artist). Can we remove it? Thanks. --Kleinzach 08:31, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

No. It is not redundant, and it is not the "wrong type". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:14, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Kleinzach. The infobox serves no beneficial purpose. Delete per WP:DISINFOBOX.4meter4 (talk) 12:31, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Andy, infoboxes are a useful complement to biographical articles, providing a rapid "in brief" overview. Kleinzach, why do you think this is the wrong type of infobox and which type would be better? --Guillaume2303 (talk) 13:46, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

The musical artist info box is for popular musicians. Look at the way it is set up — it's not appropriate for composers. As for "which type would be better" almost any one! But this isn't relevant if there is no consensus for having it. (Please note that I am not against info boxes per se. I think they can be very useful for certain kinds of articles. I've made some myself for theatres etc.) --Kleinzach 08:35, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Kleinzach and 4meter4. The Infobox says nothing important about him as a composer (!) that isn't in the article. More relevant than place of birth etc. would be compositions, such as Adagio for Strings, Agnus Dei, but I see no room for them in the layout, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:58, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't know all that many infoboxes, but the scientist infobox has a line "known for". And if the current infobox is not satisfactory, it shouldn't be too difficult to make another one that is. Gerda is, of course, absolutely right that an infobox doesn't contain any info that isn't already present in the article, but it isn't meant to: its purpose is to summarize the info in an "at a glance" way. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 09:07, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

{{Infobox person}} also has that parameter, and could be used here. Unless, of course, someone wishes to argue that Barber was not a person... Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:10, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

In what way do you suppose that {{Infobox musical artist}} as used on this article is not appropriate? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:10, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

The instructions on that template's page are full of references to "group" and "act". The value "non_performing_personnel" for the parameter |background= specifies "Non-classical composers, producers, songwriters, arrangers, DJs, engineers, and other non-performing personnel."
Striking the term "non-classical" on 10 April 2012 at {{Infobox musical artist/doc}} was done without much discussion. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:36, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

To reiterate my question, with added emphasis: In what way do you suppose that {{Infobox musical artist}} as used on this article is not appropriate? Minor quirks of the documentation are not a reason to sue a suitable template, and the removal of that term was not only discussed previously, but the required action not then taken, but also necessitated by that wording being demonstrably untrue. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:26, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

The documentation on the template in discussion read "non-classical composers" since the initial version of the template and you just removed it without discussion because you disagreed with it? You know how to search for "infobox" in the WP:CM archives. search results. Are you saying you want to relitigate that previously reached consensus?DavidRF (talk) 14:44, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I did not; I removed it because it was contrary to the outcome of the related RfC and, as I noted in my edit summary, because no such restriction is in place. Once again: in what way do you suppose that {{Infobox musical artist}} as used on this article is not appropriate? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:25, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Its because WP:CM has decided through numerous repeated debates that they don't want infoboxes on composer pages. Check the archives. The editors there don't want to have a separate long debate about it on the talk page of every single composer article. That's what wikiproject talk pages are for! If you don't like the established consensus, please go there an see if you can change people's minds. Thanks.DavidRF (talk) 19:01, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm fully aware of the views of a number of editors from that project. Clearly, you're not aware that, while some of them like to pretend otherwise, they have no special authority, according to core Wikipedia polices; and that the RfC that they instigated confirmed that. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:14, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Authority or not, what's in this infobox is easily found in the article, to call it "background information" is exaggerated. I would be happier without a box around almost nothing. If there was a consensus not to have boxes let's stick to it and not start a debate for every composer, it seems a waste of time. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:50, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

"what's in this infobox is easily found in the article" Yes, and? The purpose of infoboxes is to provide an at-a-glance summary of certain points from the article. Perhaps you weren't aware of that. You are now. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:31, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I try to be patient, it's getting harder with every repetition: What I see in the box is not what I am interested to see at-a-glance about a composer (any composer), facts about birth and death. I would want to see works. I would be happier without the box. Perhaps you weren't aware of that. You are now. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:45, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Just because you don't want to see such details doesn't mean the majority of readers don't. I'm utterly sick and tired of reading such utter shit about how "it adds nothing new" and so on. But AN INFOBOX IS NOT SUPPOSED TO HAVE UNIQUE INFO. Any 'new' info should be in the article too. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 22:01, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

What makes you think I give a flying proverbial about what makes you happy? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:05, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

OK. Point out that lack of authority there and bring in higher-level admins if you think you're in the right. I don't care. Your emphasis on "as used on this article" seemed to imply that these things can be litigated on an article-by-article basis. Nobody wants to repeat this discussion for every composer article.DavidRF (talk) 21:00, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

That lack of special authority is already made clear there. I suggest you (re-)read the closing summary of that RfC, in which you were a participant. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:31, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks to FuturePerfectAtSunrise for removing the box. I belatedly add my opinion that it should not be included here. Opus33 (talk) 16:54, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Given that most Classical music bios do not have infoboxes per Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical music#Biographical_infoboxes, I believe this article should not have an infobox unless and until consensus is achieved that it should have one - not the other way around. I am therefore deleting it.THD3 (talk) 21:08, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

That project guideline has no authority here. That was determined in the RfC instigated by members of that project. What other such articles have or d not have is also of no weight. Please address my above question: in what way do you suppose that {{Infobox musical artist}} as used on this article is not appropriate? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:46, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I think a more pertinent question is "how is the infobox you are advocating beneficial to this article?" As far as I can tell it adds nothing to the article other than useless repetition of what can be found in the lead.4meter4 (talk) 22:00, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

That argument goes, of course, for every single infobox anywhere on WP. Surely you are not proposing to remove infoboxes from WP altogether? Infoboxes are not supposed to present info that is not present in the rest of the article. They are intended to offer a quick overview for those who like/need that. That is the argument for improving the article by adding a clear and coherent infobox that you are requesting. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 22:07, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Not really. There are many useful infoboxes on wikipedia which give a better overall summary of the entire article, not just what is in the lead, or serve as a useful navigational tool to related persons or events to the article's subject. In this case, however, the infobox is merely redundant. For example, the infobox on the RMS Titanic provides an overview of the ship's physical characteristics which nicely summarizes a lot of details in that article at a glance. Likewise the infobox at George Washington provides an excellent overview of Washington's career which is more detailed than what can be found in the lead. These are articles where infoboxes have been utilized in an effective manner. The article on Barber, however, is not one of them.4meter4 (talk) 23:01, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

4meter4 has just removed the infobox, with the palpably false edit summary "consensus on the talk page of this particular article clearly indicates removal on the info box". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:12, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Not really. Of the 9 editors who have participated in this conversation 6 have indicated their inclination towards removing the infobox. Only 3 editors have indicated their support for keeping it. I also note that those wanting to remove the infobox are also the ones who have spent more time improving the article with references and adding content.4meter4 (talk) 22:25, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Time for you to read WP:CONSENSUS and WP:OWN. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:27, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

(squeeze) … and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Infoboxes#Using infoboxes in articles -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 08:41, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I am familiar with those policies. Time for you to read Wikipedia:Wikilawyering. It seems to me that the only time you will concede consensus is when you get your way. Further, I have made no owenership claims. I mereley think you are trying to use this and the Anderson article to push forward your own personal pointy agenda when it comes to infoboxes. I would be more likely to take you seriously if you actually had contributed some actual valuable content to articles you are adding infoboxes to. As it is, it feels more like drive-by editing for the sole purpose of stirring up conflict.4meter4 (talk) 22:35, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

If you;re familiar with those policies, then its time you realised you must adhere to them. Your ad hominem remarks are of no consequence. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:44, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Funny how everyone else is always wrong when it comes to your replies Andy. Please read WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. At this point I think WP:STICK also applies.4meter4 (talk) 22:50, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

More irrelevant ad hominem. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:53, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

More WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT.4meter4 (talk) 23:01, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

There are times when being RIGHT is not sufficient. Wikipedia also requires collaboration, and even if the article MUST have an infobox, repeatedly poking good editors over the issue is disruptive. The source of such continued disruption will eventually need to be removed from Wikipedia. Johnuniq (talk) 01:11, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the removal of the info box. Andy Mabbett's opinions on this have not changed since 2007 (see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Composers/Infobox debates). I see no real point in us continuing to argue with him about this. If there are disruptions to CM editing we will have to deal with them as necessary, and as they arise. Thanks to everyone for contributing to this discussion. Best. --Kleinzach 08:31, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I also agree that the infobox should be removed for the moment. Even though I am arguing in favor of an infobox, I have to admit that there is currently only a small minority of editors that are favorable to this. Consensus is not the same thing as unanimity and if it is not possible to convince other editors here of the value of an infobox, then so be it and this article will remain deprived of a helpful tool. Andy, I think it is time to throw in the towel, it's clear that we're not going to convince a majority of people here, so let's all get back to more productive things. :-) --Guillaume2303 (talk) 09:45, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Have a look at the first post in this section. We're discussing a proposal to remove an infobox which has been in this article since 2009. It is that proposal which requires, and has failed to achieve, consensus. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:48, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Thought we had decided eons ago (relatively) to can infoboxes for classical musicians? They add nothing, cheapen the articles, and are totally inappropriate. I'm surprised so much patience has been used in this discussion. HammerFilmFan (talk) 07:37, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

No; we had an RfC which found (among other things) that: "Infoboxes are not to be added nor removed systematically from articles. Such actions would be considered disruptive". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:18, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Apparently my word is missing. Have anybody of you took an encyclopedia in your hands, especialy the one of 1960's-1970's (I know Jimbo Wells did, and that how he came up with this universal project). So, to the point... Every Wikipedia section have an infobox for every article, that includes composers. Now, every encyclopedia in the past (and current time) has/have a picture and an info under it. Majority of the Russian postage stamps back in the USSR used to carry birth and death dates, so think of infobox as of a stamp. If not, at least think of it as an entry in the encyclopedia. What are we here for to built? An encyclopedia or a bunch of text articles, with some pictures scetered here and there?!--Mishae (talk) 23:29, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

You think your word was missing here, I don't. Differently from the the old encyclopedias you cite, this is online and linked. Barber has a picture, the lead contains the basic information. Fine for me, I don't like duplications, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:32, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Might as well delete leads from articles then, and just have a link with no summaries to spun out articles. Anything to avoid duplication right? ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 13:25, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, I prefer sentences that can carry ideas and perspective to a collection of terms, - a lead to a box, that is. We don't have to limit the number of characters here, differently from old printed books. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:58, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

The old encyclopedias I used as an example, so that people can get the point what I am trying to say, and apparently missed it either way. Maybe my example failed here, and yes, I do know its an online, but its also an encyclopedia. Therefore, in order for it to be an online encyclopedia we should keep the infoboxes, like with projects scientists for example. Why composers suppose to get some "special privileges"? Whats strange is that while some composers don't have infoboxes, some do. Under which consensus did we put an infobox for this article?:

• Lucien Capet

It should be either yes to all infoboxes, or no to all infoboxes! My point of view here is yes. If you guys objects to put any infoboxes on composers then remove the infobox from Lucien Capet and others that are tagged with the same kind of infobox. As I said above. its either yes or no question. If its yes, then lets put infoboxes on all composers. If the answer is no lets delete from the guy above, and others like him. Its very confusing for a reader, and for a user. Especialy for the user: Because he sees one composer with an infobox, the other don't have it, the third have a "please don't add an infobox via WikiProject Composers". Like, I don't think I am alone that sees a mess here. Let me know what you think guys.--Mishae (talk) 18:01, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I like infoboxes - quite handy to have important dates so visible. If people remove an infobox that I've placed then that's ok especially if they have worked a lot on the article in question. I placed infoboxes on lute composers (Dowland and Byrd) and I won't place anymore. I always wonder if the average person around Dowland's time would've listened to his music. I always like to think that was the case. I don't know, maybe a blacksmith or field labourer wouldn't. Insatiable curiosity might come into play, as it is now with me after someone removed my infobox. Sluffs (talk) 02:14, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Removal

The following section was removed (twice) from the article:

Vocal

In honor of Barber's influence on American music, on October 19, 1974, he was awarded the prestigious University of Pennsylvania Glee Club Award of Merit. This award was established in 1964 "to bring a declaration of appreciation to an individual each year who has made a significant contribution to the world of music and helped to create a climate in which our talents may find valid expression."

In September 1992, soprano Cheryl Studer, baritone Thomas Hampson, the preeminent Samuel Barber pianist John Browning and the Emerson String Quartet recorded the complete songs of Samuel Barber (with the exception of Knoxville: Summer of 1915) at the Brahms-Saal of the famous Musikverein in Vienna, Austria.

I am no friend of the section, especially not of vocabulary such as "prestigious" and "famous", but think it would have been better to demand citations and work on the wording, vs. deleting it. I don't revert more than once. Please discuss. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:01, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

I, too, await with interest a justification for the wholesale removal of the entire section, including one referenced and one unreferenced claim. The second deletion was contrary to WP:BRD, invoked by Gerda. I would like to see a justification for ignoring this (informal) guideline, as well.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 15:55, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

I do too, as Barber has been recognized as possibly the most important song composer in America in the 20th century. His songs are the largest and most important part of his output, and to leave them out entirely is a serious omission. However, the section deleted does not begin to present this in any meaningful or useful way. Laguna greg 01:43, 6 May 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laguna greg (talk • contribs)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Samuel Barber. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121210105243/https://www.curtis.edu/alumni/about-alumni/full-alumni-listing/ to http://www.curtis.edu/alumni/about-alumni/full-alumni-listing/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050411190345/http://www.glbtq.com/arts/barber_s.html to http://www.glbtq.com/arts/barber_s.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050411190345/http://www.glbtq.com/arts/barber_s.html to http://www.glbtq.com/arts/barber_s.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://artofthestates.org/cgi-bin/composer.pl?comp=102

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:21, 6 December 2017 (UTC)