Talk:Earnest Andersson

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by AirshipJungleman29 talk 15:45, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

Andersson in his youth, c. 1896

• ... that Igor Stravinsky said of the death of his student, Earnest Andersson (pictured), that it "just shows I shouldn't teach"? Source: In Stravinsky in the Americas: Transatlantic Tours and Domestic Excursions from Wartime Los Angeles (1925–1935) by H. Colin Slim, p. 240
  • ALT1: ... that Earnest Andersson (pictured) was, according to his son-in-law James Sample, a greater composer than Charles Ives? Source: In "Lessons with Stravinsky: The Notebook of Earnest Andersson (1878–1943)" by H. Colin Slim, p. 349, n. 87
  • ALT2: ... that despite calling Earnest Andersson's (pictured) music "very, very idiotic", Igor Stravinsky may have envied his student's facility for composing melodies? Source: Ibid., pp. 350, 352
  • ALT3: ... that the music of Earnest Andersson (pictured) was referred by Igor Stravinsky as being "very, very idiotic" and also having "good musical value"? Source: Ibid, pp. 347, 350
  • ALT4: ... that Earnest Andersson (pictured) was a successful inventor, businessman, amateur athlete, race car driver, pilot, photographer, radio operator, pro golfer, and composer, despite little formal education? Source: Ibid., pp. 330, 332, 336
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Hilda Hilst
  • Comment: QPQ later. Trying to find a PD image of Andersson to add into the article. If I find one, expect to see it added to this DYK nom. Added PD image. QPQ coming later today. Done!

Created by CurryTime7-24 (talk). Self-nominated at 23:10, 19 October 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Earnest Andersson; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

Interesting substantial article, on fine sources, no copyvio obvious. The image is licensed but doesn't work well with the Stravinsky-based hooks as he was older when taught by him. I am not happy with the hooks, but will approve the original if we can't agree on something else. My problem with it is that is says very little about the subject. The hook saying most about him is ALT4, but that is almost too rich, - how about mentioning fewer items with a bit more weight, such as the patents for packaging machines making him a millionaire, accomplished amateur athlete, professional golfer, amateur photographer of Hollywood film stars? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:58, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

The lede says he was "born to a Swedish immigrant father". No mention of the mother? Kablammo (talk) 11:41, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

No. She was American, possibly of non-immigrant stock. Slim doesn't elaborate or clarify. What you see in the article is all he gives. Andersson never seemed to mention his mother—it was his father's heritage that he repeatedly expressed pride in. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 16:17, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: Thanks for taking the time to review this! There's enough material to come up with more ALTs, which I can present tomorrow. ALT4 is a bit much, but paradoxically I felt that was part of its appeal—Earnest was nothing if not a prodigious achiever! As for their angle, I know you prefer informative ALTs, but I prefer something that grabs a reader's attention. By the way, it's fine by me if you prefer to omit the image. Was trying to find PD images of him in later life, but I'm unsure of whether the one I found would qualify. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 02:50, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. Offline sources accepted AGF. I approve ALT4. However, I - as a reader - would be more impressed by him photographing Hollywood stars then just "photographer", - I mean: a few pinnacles might show him better than a long list of unspecific things. I understand that you have little time, and this is just for a day, so perhaps not worth the effort. Up to you. The image shows him better than all our little sentences could, even his musical ambition ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:31, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

It's no problem at all. If you can wait until tomorrow, I think I can wring a couple more ALTs for your consideration. :) —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 07:29, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

I can wait, promoters also wait then, please ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:50, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Stravinsky's work

A long listing of Stravinsky's work does not belong here, it just an attempt to bolster the thin reputation of Earnest's compositional career. An extremely tenuous and changable connection through one not very reliable reference (Slim). The onus is on the original author to justify all this padding for just one tenuously connected (at worst disliked) compositional pupil. Comments anyone? Dr.gregory.retzlaff (talk) 02:11, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Please make up your mind and decide whether to discuss this subject here or at your talk page. I left you a message there already, but the tl;dr version is you seem to be a new user who misunderstands the purpose of templates. Also, Andersson has no reputation as his works have not been performed since at least Sample's death and what reception there has been in the last 50 years has been invariably negative. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 02:20, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

I apologize for slipping up on writing what where, here seems to be the place. So you agree Andersson has no reputation and his works have not been performed since his son-in-law died, and the little reception his work has had in the last 50 years is negative. That seems to be the conclusion of reading the article, and I agree. So perhaps we should remove the long Stravinsky listing from this article linking him to Andersson? Dr.gregory.retzlaff (talk) 02:26, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Andersson is included in the Stravinsky template because he was the only person to study with the composer for an extended period of time and kept meticulous record of his lessons. In addition, Andersson provided essential financial and personal support to Stravinsky and his wife in the early 1940s; his function became similar to that occupied by Arthur Lourié in the 1920s, or Robert Craft starting in the late 1940s. Again, there are many subjects included in the Stravinsky template. They are there not because of their perceived quality, but because of their relevance to Stravinsky and his music. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 02:35, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

I think for navigational/relevance purposes, the navbox has merit. Perhaps it should be collapsed by default, though—I suspect Andersson's inclusion is more useful as a navigational destination (people will come to this article because it is on Stravinsky articles), than a beginning. Aza24 (talk) 02:48, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Andersson's connection to Stravinsky is rather minor, and Andersson's composing career was pretty much a failure, so pumping up his poor reputation by including this complete listing of Stravinsky's work (with no connection to Andersson) is not constructive.

Dr.gregory.retzlaff (talk) 02:52, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

OK, they belong in the Stravinsky template. But the Stravinsky template does not belong here, is my point. Besides Stravinsky called his work "very very idiotic" and other non-complimentary terms. I imagine Stravinsky would not appreciate his being lumped in here, and it does not belong here. And, the Slim writings are not a very good reliable source; no other sources (such as a source quoted in Slim) have been brought up. Virtually the whole article is based on Slim's opinions, and a few newspaper clippings of reviews. Stravinsky putting up with Anderrson for awhile to make money does not make Andersson successful (it did not).

Dr.gregory.retzlaff (talk) 02:48, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Inclusion in a template has nothing to do with your estimation of a subject's personal success or whether the template's main subject would have approved of them or not. Again, you seem to misunderstand their purpose. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 02:59, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

OK then tell me why it should be included. And you can't use the circular arguement that Andersson's name is included in the template because he is important and has a Wikpedia page, and then argue that he has a Wikipedia page because he is important enough to be included in the template.

Or, tell my why this template should be on here, the justification. Onus should be on your to justify it's inclusion. Not using a circular argument. Dr.gregory.retzlaff (talk) 03:13, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

My guy, are you OK? —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 03:17, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

These templates are purely for navigational reasons. Given that Andersson's article has seven paragraphs devoted to Stravinsky in the article, its logical that a reader may want to know more about Stravinsky, so there's a way for them to do that. Its completely harmless, and again, can be much less visually intrusive if it is automatically collapsed. Aza24 (talk) 05:07, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Quite generally: if an article is linked from a navbox, the navbox should be in that article. I see no reason for an exception here. It's collapsed at the bottom, and does no harm. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:13, 6 December 2023 (UTC)