This is an archive of past discussions about Richard Wagner. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Why is Wagner crying at the Rhein associated with his being moved to Dresden in this article? Dresden is on the Elbe not the Rhein. (98.14.178.109 (talk) 15:52, 22 May 2013 (UTC))
He's travelling to Dresden from France. The Rhine stands for the beginnings of "Germany" proper, as it were. The cultural context is the idea of "Die Wacht am Rhein" defining the difference between French and German identity. Paul B (talk) 16:05, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Wagner and the Nazis
I had added the statement given below which was deleted stating that it adds nothing new.
The composer and writer Howard Goodall states in his work 'The story of music' (2013) "In just 40 years the antisemitism and ultra German nationalism of the 1880s had evolved into the cancerous ideology of Nazism. Its no good pretending Wagner wasn't accessory to this slide to xenophobic vitriol. In one of his many antisemitic publications (Das Judenthum in der Musik (1869)) Wagner said "all contact with Jews was insufferable to any true German and that only their annihilation would solve the Jewish question" "[1][2]
This line explicitly states the influence of Wagner's works on the rise of Nazi ideology. It may therefore be essential for the text. thanks Robin klein (talk) 20:35, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Wagner says nothing about "annihilation" of Jews in Das Judenthum in der Musik. The specifics of what he does say and interpretations of it are included in the relevant article Das Judenthum in der Musik. He uses the phrase "self-annihilation" in the first edition, by which he clearly means ceasing to be Jewish - i.e. converting to Christianity. "The Story of Music" is a highly generalised source by a composer with no specialist knowledge of Wagner or the cultural norms and debates of the time. It is completely inappropriate for a featured article on such a highly contested and debated subject on which there are many detailed and specific sources. Paul B (talk) 20:43, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
I apologise if my comment on the deleted text appeared blasé -it came at the end of a long day. The points about Wagner's Jew-hatred and its possible connection to Hitlerism are already appropriately made in the article. But Goodall's text is way over the top - frankly it's nonsensical. His mistranslation of "Untergang" as "annihilation" - and his invention of the sentence which he attributes to Wagner in quotes - both mark him out, in the passage cited by Robin klein, as an unreliable commentator. As pointed out in the article Das Judenthum in der Musik, Wagner's writings on Jews were not even read by that many. (And I doubt are actually read by many today, even by those who 'know all about them.' For the record, however, I have read both the 1850 and 1869 versions, in both English and German, and they are balls-breakingly turgid). Wagner was never an active politician and was dead in 1883, six years before Hitler was born. Whilst there might be some point in including tendentious views like Goodall's in the article Wagner controversies (and even then only to refute them), to include them in the Richard Wagner article is clearly WP:UNDUE. The popular (and even occasionally scholarly) attempts to 'blame' the Holocaust etc. on Wagner are in fact a great victory for the Third Reich propagandists who annexed Wagner and other parts of German culture as part of their campaign to legitimise their regime. Seventy years later, we don't need to be taken in.--Smerus (talk) 04:00, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
References
^Goodall, Howard (2013) The Story of Music, Chatto & Windus ISBN-10: 0701187522
^Goodall, Howard (2013) 'The Story of Music', BBC; first broadcast 16th feb 2013
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)
What an interesting comment! I am delighted that RexxS has found time to divert himself from scuba-diving to consider Wagner. I certainly realise the implications of a 'bad faith' imputation, which I considered carefully, and used here for the first time ever, I believe, on Wikipedia. By asserting, however, that I make this accusation 'as soon as somebody raises something I don't like', and further more by calling me 'mean-spirited' and a 'smear'er, RexxS is adopting precisely the ad hominem arguments he purports to deplore, which perhaps puts his valuable contribution in context. Not, of course, that I am accusing him of bad faith.--Smerus (talk) 10:01, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
I cite (in case you somehow missed it, it's only a few lines above this) "Nobody's fooled by your mean-spirited attempt to smear Gerda". But is not RexxS able to defend himself?--Smerus (talk) 14:15, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
Yes, of course I can. Let me explain: If I called you an "ill-informed Luddite with the reading comprehension of a dead sponge", that would be a personal attack and ad hominem. But I wouldn't do that because I don't know you from Adam; you might be a really nice, intelligent, well-informed guy, but I wouldn't know. What I do know is that in the very first response in this thread, you maligned a respected editor who has not an ounce of bad faith in her - instead of addressing the issue of improving this article. The comment was mean-spirited. If you are telling me that was uncharacteristic of you, then fine; let's get back to discussing this infobox. --RexxS (talk) 16:08, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
Well I will readily admit that, if, for example, I were to allege that your comments were (shall we say) "mean spirited" and an "attempt to smear", and, without any evidence, were to claim that (say) you always responded to those who disagreed with you with accusations of bad faith, that would certainly be an ad hominem attack - I should be fascinated to learn why it does not qualify as such when you apply these terms to me. Do tell. --Smerus (talk) 13:51, 19 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)
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)
As much as I mostly love infoboxes in any other article about some composers, I am unfortunately going to oppose it 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)
As you're obviously fond of ALLCAPLINKS, I'm going to suggest you read WP:LOCALCON which says: "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. For instance, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope." (and LOCALCON is a policy, btw). The community consensus is documented at MOS:INFOBOX (yes, it's part of the Manual of Style):
"An infobox template is an infobox that uses the template software feature. They are a broad class of templates commonly used in articles to present certain summary or overview information about the subject.
These boxes are designed to be placed into main articles related to the topic area, usually at the top next to the lead section.
...
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.
So, I'm going to suggest that you think again about trying to import a local consensus from a project to usurp a decision that properly belongs to a discussion on this very page. Your argument violates the consensus in both the applicable policy (WP:CON) and guideline (MOS), so you're going to need some pretty strong reasons to defend it.
Please feel free to supply the reference to where the use of infoboxes anywhere is "contrary to the strategic goals" of the WMF. And if you suggest it puts off new editors, I'm going to mock you for unsubstantiated speculation and ask where you got that made-up piece of misinformation from? --RexxS (talk) 01:47, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
Actually, I read WP:LOCALCON and I understand where you're coming from. So far, the infobox topic has been divided here. If there is a consensus to include an infobox, it may stay, but if there is no consensus, it may not stay. This is a controversial topic indeed. I have obviously expressed concerns about using infoboxes in the past, especially with regards to composers. My contention is that the info box should not go into the article because infoboxes can lead to edit wars between those with pro-infobox and con-infobox and various discussions involving it, as well as numerous RfCs on this matter. These issues have often lead to other issues, especially with the Georg Solti fiasco back in August, which led to Tim riley's temporary retirement and Andy Mabbett's topic ban from editing the TFAs of the day. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:41, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
Although I disagree with the way in which Smerus chose to voice his concerns, it seems they have been realized here. I apologize for suggesting the idea. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:08, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
I disagree with Smerus' assessment of Nikkimaria's advice to propose infoboxes on talk pages rather than adding them to articles without discussing them first. I think Gerda did the right thing. As to the infobox itself: it completely fails as a short summary of Wagner's significance – it is way too big/long. Some details: Cosima's birthname is much more interesting than her married name; some of his grandchildren and great-grandchildren are much more interesting than his children. What's with the bottom link "more details" to Template:Richard Wagner? Lastly, on the way the coding of infoboxes has gone recently: the proliferation of specialised templates like {{Plainlist}}, {{Collapsible list}}, {{Timeline-event}} makes infoxes certainly less accessible and editable to the average editor. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:46, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
To be clear, my suggestion (and, from the first post here, it would appear Gerda's also) was to post the infobox on talk instead of adding it to the article, rather than before. Smerus' fear appears to be that the former would become the latter. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:12, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
@Michael: We need the first two templates so that lists are marked as lists. It's not just infoboxes, of course, as anyone using a screen reader will tell you. I'm sure that Graham87 will say that he's quite comfortable with short lists with commas as separators, but as the list gets longer, marking it up properly lets him hear (if he chooses) something like "List of 8 items: First item: ... (eight items spoken) ... end of list". Some of our lists use <br /> to separate items and that sounds very annoying to continually hear "new line", and as a result that always needs to be changed. So although less experienced editors don't have to learn how to mark up lists to be more accessible - because others can do that for them - they need to understand that blocking efforts to improve accessibility on the encyclopedia really isn't doing a favour to our readers.
@Nikki: Since the purpose of this page is to discuss improvements to this article, I think Smerus has a point, however badly contextualised. I would prefer to use the infobox here to see if it can be used in the article. We can actually chop and change it here and see if we can meet everyone's wishes. Personally, I think it's too big and contains information that doesn't fit with the requirement at MOSINFOBOX: "... keep in mind the purpose of an infobox: to summarize key facts in the article in which it appears. The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance. Of necessity, some infoboxes contain more than just a few fields; however, wherever possible, present information in short form, and exclude any unnecessary content." I'd be keen to work with anybody open-minded enough to explore a smaller, leaner version. If at the end, consensus says we don't use it, then so be it. It is possible though that something more palatable to everyone might emerge and be usable. --RexxS (talk) 04:05, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
I'm aware of the advantages of those templates for sight-impaired readers, although I think they may sometimes be overstated. My unqualified use of the word "accessible" was wrong; I meant "more difficult to create or edit", but reading your response, it seems to have been understood that way. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:50, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
I've been summoned here. :-) Yes, for short lists and/or short list items, commas are fine; plainlist should be used for anything else. The <br/> solution shouldn't be used at all. Graham8709:01, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
Trojan Horse, left here, intended for thereOppose/delete infobox from this talk page. This infobox is a Trojan Horse. Until there’s consensus for it to be here on the talk page, I think it should be removed. I'm surprised this 'biobox' issue has been raised again, so soon after the rejected Bach infobox proposal. Definitely not helpful for the project, and discouraging for new/would-be editors. --Kleinzach05:07, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
No consensus is required for an editor to post an example such as this on a talk page. Your continued attempts to stifle debate are symptomatic of someone whose arguments have no substance. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits10:37, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
Oppose for the formal record (assuming I'm allowed to comment whilst cowering from the denunciations of some of the above), and support Kleinzach's proposal to delete box from this page. What on earth, anyway, is the use or point of having an infobox on a talk page as a permanent feature? Not that I wish to start such a discussion here - please take the whole topic away from the Wagner talk page and article.--Smerus (talk) 05:17, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
Reacting to some useful comments in the above about the CONTENT I collapsed a bit more. - As I find two boxes here too confusing I stored the other in my sandbox, if you want to compare, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:19, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
I've made it a bit smaller, Gerda. Each of the infoboxes are in the page history, but I think I detect a preference among those commenting for the infobox to be as small as we can make it. We ought to be considering whether topics like "known for" are appropriate in a top-level summary, as they can be rather subjective and potentially unlimited. I mean, how do we decide what Wagner was best know for? --RexxS (talk) 16:42, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
Support I find the tenor of this discussion to be a bit shocking. It's not a legitimate response to the proposal to just say, "NO INFOBOXES EVAR BECAUSE OUR WIKIPROJECT DECIDED THAT!" Wikiprojects don't get to make up the rules about articles within their scope. It is not legitimate to oppose all infoboxes for all classical musicians just because they might be unhelpful in the abstract. Maybe we could have an informed discussion about what particular attributes of this infobox are or are not desirable and why. Too many non-notable occupations? Not enough notable works? These are legitimate reasons to oppose an individual infobox, but such problems can be easily fixed and an appropriate infobox selected. Perhaps there is even a legitimate reason why Wagner is a uniquely inappropriate subject for any infobox. What is not legitimate is to rudely attack someone who in good faith and in keeping with many (most?) other articles sought to add an infobox to an article – for acting in bad faith and being disruptive so as to prove a point, nonetheless – just because a cohort of editors decided that like classical music think all infoboxes are ugly or trivial and should be prohibited in all instances. It's equally not acceptable to go around canvassing the people who participate in your wikiproject to get them to sort of "enforce" the illegitimate local consensus upon which you arrived. Simply put, take a deep breath, chill out about your Wikiproject's internal, non-true-consensus-based rules, and try to consider this question from a broader perspective. AgnosticAphidtalk22:05, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
"These are legitimate reasons to oppose an individual infobox, but such problems can be easily fixed and an appropriate infobox selected" - no, there are "legitimate reasons to oppose" all infoboxes on some types of article, and many people do. That is not easily fixed, as this touring row demonstrates, and there is no "appropriate infobox" to resolve it. Johnbod (talk) 00:13, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
I conceded that there might be a legitimate reason that Wagner is uniquely undeserving of an infobox. And I could even see categorically deciding that maybe, for instance, the category of "people with significant accomplishments in more than one field" do not deserve infoboxes. Such a category arguably is disserved by an infobox by virtue of the tendency to emphasize the first listed accomplishment. But that's not what we have here, I don't think: the category of classical musicians, or composers or whoever it is, is a widely varied category with many people who individually might or might not have attributes that warrant infoboxes. And the wikiproject page about infoboxes doesn't actually provide a characteristic common to composers that warrants categorically excluding infoboxes. Plus, unless I missed something, nobody here ever explained why Wagner in particular shouldn't have an infobox. So that's why I think the article should have an infobox.AgnosticAphidtalk01:17, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Well, you have to admit you love straw men: "It's not a legitimate response to the proposal to just say, 'NO INFOBOXES EVAR BECAUSE OUR WIKIPROJECT DECIDED THAT!'" and "Plus, unless I missed something, nobody here ever explained why Wagner in particular shouldn't have an infobox." There are several posts here and elsewhere explaining the problems with infoboxes for composers. WP:IDHT is unconvincing. Toccata quarta (talk) 04:45, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
What's the substantive difference between "NO INFOBOXES EVAR BECAUSE OUR WIKIPROJECT DECIDED THAT!" and "<!-- please do not add an infobox, per [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Composers#Biographical infoboxes]] -->"? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits10:31, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Oppose for the usual reasons, endlessly rehashed elsewhere. Placing infoboxes permanently on talk pages doesn't seem a good idea to me (ever). It's not what talk pages are for, no one much will see them, & they are just as likely to be inaccurate, if not more so. If people want something for metadata, use a show/hide bar at the bottom of the page. Johnbod (talk) 00:03, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
This is, or seems meant to carry the weight of, a serious accusation. What has happened is tha an editor has advised relevant WikiProjects of the discussion, which is perfectly appropriate. Other editors are of course free to advise other projects if they feel so moved. Unless anyone is aware of anything that has been done which does not meet the guidelines at Wikipedia:Canvassing, this impugnation should be withdrawn and removed from this page.--Smerus (talk) 08:29, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
While I am concerned with calling the discussion here "disruptive" and that was wrong, all that said, the solution to selective canvassing is, I suppose, more selective canvassing eleswhere. Eventually everyone gets notified. WP:CANVASS is usually used as a stick to prevent "the people on the other side" from notifying those who might care. Let's all drop this stick. Montanabw(talk)22:59, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
I am not writing to, or participating in the section entitled 'Canvassing' (above). Unfortunately a message by me has twice been threaded into the discussion there against my wishes. [1][2] I hope this childish behaviour will stop. --Kleinzach22:37, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
Yawn
Same old topic, same old player. Though perhaps it a good thing in this case as a lot of people will check the take page on the FA day and see the mudslinging that keeps happening...but I'm too jaded to think anything positive will actually happen on this front... ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 04:17, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, I changed this back to the original No infobox. I don't know what you are supporting or opposing or yawning about. Infobox on talk was suggested, no more, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:25, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
No infobox is short for no infobox in the article. I read about the infobox on the talk page as linked above. It was removed since, but Wikipedia never forgets, never forgives ;)
Speaking of discussing it, I've tidied up the infobox to make it shorter. I've changed the list styles for compactness and eliminated the link to the navigational template. Perhaps we can actually discuss whether that is an improvement? --RexxS (talk) 16:42, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
Regrettably I've had to delete my own posting. [3] It was being repeatedly misplaced in the middle of the 'Canvassing' section above. [4][5]. I was not contributing to the 'Canvassing' section and I object to my posting being used to create the impression I was in the conversation when I was not. I assume this action was in reply to Smerus's demand that the ridiculous canvassing accusation be withdrawn. It's difficult to continue writing here if these tactics are used. --Kleinzach14:25, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
We only need to look at who has been doing the replacing....but I would not to wish to raise the profiles of certain editors, however tiresome and disruptive they may be, by calling in the Heavy Brigade........--Smerus (talk) 14:54, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
I've restored it, per talk page guidelines, as it had been replied to. However, it was not moved - the redundant heading above it was deleted, also in accordance with such guidelines. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits15:20, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
I have again deleted my own posting. This was not replied to in the context in which it was placed. It was indented to form part of a thread that I was not participating in. I observe 1RR but this does not apply to deleting my own messages if they are abused. --Kleinzach22:18, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
It was replied to in the context in which you posted it; as a failed attempt to justify your canvassing. You frequently and arrogantly ride roughshod over such community norms: in this case alone: canvassing, deleting replied-to comments, posting new sections out of sequence. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits23:13, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
An infobox is there
If you "google" Richard Wagner, you get an infobox, some images, then:
Richard Wagner
composer
Wilhelm Richard Wagner was a German composer, theatre director, polemicist, and conductor primarily known for his operas.
Wikipedia
Born: May 22, 1813, Leipzig
Died: February 13, 1883, Venice
Compositions: Der Ring des Nibelungen, Parsifal, More
Movies: Parsifal
Spouse: Cosima Wagner (m. 1870–1883), Minna Planer (m. 1836–1866)
Children: Siegfried Wagner, Eva von Bülow, Isolde Ludowitz von Bülow
I confess that I would prefer something different, so put a suggestion at least on the talk page, if more is not possible. Try google for Bach and Carmen ;) - Like it or not: the infobox is there, - the question is if we design one or if we take what others do, mentioning a movie "Parsifal". (At least the link goes to the Syberberg film. I didn't provide the links above, look yourself.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:33, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for telling me, who said "Wikipedia" above as the source for the first line. Wikipedia can't be taken as a source for the infobox for Wagner, because there is no infobox, nor will be. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:59, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
Our conductor says that you have to repeat something 17 times to make it sink in. Here's #2: 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). - I certainly didn't initiate "this" discussion, being interest in content, and (still, even after Bach) believing that an article talk should be about improving the article ;) - I thought the advice was a good idea and wanted to see what happened. I still think it's a good idea. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:54, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
thumb|150px|left|Dies ist nicht eine Infobox.Gerda Arendt: " I certainly didn't initiate "this" discussion. Well, see the diff. [6]. " I thought the advice was a good idea and wanted to see what happened. ." So this is a happening rather than a disruption! Something to do with the treachery of images? This infobox is not an infobox, and all that stuff? "Er sieht, Herr Kommissar, das Ganze war halt eine Farce und weiter nichts." --Kleinzach06:00, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
I hoped (!) that the contribution of an infobox on the talk page, with respect for those who don't want it on the article page, would cause no dispute. I didn't expect it, given the previous discussions. I still think to have an infobox on a talk page when it is not wanted on the article page is a good idea, improving Wikipedia, worth pursuing and no waste of time, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:05, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
See my talk, - I have to sing today, we still celebrate Pentecost. - Planyavsky was "my" article, I didn't start a discussion but added an infobox, my wish to have one was not respected, see history, and even after discussions that some might call a waste of time the one we have now is not as I want it. - I started Stoepel, Bach and Händel. I had predicted that Stoepel would have an infobox by 2020. He has one now, not by me. - I didn't start a discussion here, I just tried to make an infobox available for those readers who will miss it on Wednesday, because it's the normal thing to have. You know reactions to the "discussion" that followed (more appeared on my talk). I predict that Wagner will have an infobox by 2020. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:48, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Try also respecting the fact that someone has English as their fourth language, or is less careful when editing talk pages than articles. "I respect a person"—that's commendable. But what does it have to do with infoboxes in the next decade? Toccata quarta (talk) 12:03, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
... that the Austrian tenor Karl Beck became a master baker after his singing career, which included creating the title role in Wagner's opera Lohengrin, was cut short by a deterioration in his voice? (DYK 22 January 2013)
... that baritone Karl Hill, born 9 May 1831, sang the role of Alberich in the first performance of Wagner's Ring Cycle at Bayreuth in 1876, and created Klingsor in Parsifal?
... that Valery Gergiev, born 2 May 1953, director of the Mariinsky Theatre, initiated and conducted in 2003 the first complete cycle of Wagner's Ring staged in Russia for over 90 years?
... that Felix Draeseke, who died 26 February 1913, attended an early performance of Wagner's Lohengrin and composed the operas Herrat (1879) and Gudrun (1884, after the medieval epic)?
... that Fritz Reiner(pictured), born in Hungary on 19 December 1888, was preparing the MET's new production of Wagner's Götterdämmerung at the time of his death?
... that bass-baritoneHans Hotter(pictured), who died on 6 December 2003, was admired for the power, beauty, and intelligence of his singing, especially in Wagner operas.
... that Wagner's grandson Wieland Wagner (died 17 October 1966) is credited as an initiator of Regietheater, as a stage director and designer in Bayreuth?
I have restored a discussion last edited only two days ago, whose archiving was disputed.
I have also set up automatic archiving, so that such disputes should not occur in the future. A bot will now archive discussions that have been unedited for 14 days, removing any subjectivity from the process. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits09:54, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
I have no problem with the automatic archiving. I am missing any discussion of the dispute mentioned by Mr. Mabbett, for evidence of which I have sought all over - no one contacted me about it until I received this billet doux after the event. But why be mean-spirited on such a celebratory day - I forgive Mr. Mabbett for his peremptory actions from the bottom of my heart!--Smerus (talk) 10:35, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
I even forgive Mr. Mabbett his sour repartee - is there no end to my magnanimity? Now I see that he means to say that the discussion was not on this page, which of course I had naturally assumed it was, being the standard polite norm for Wikipedia. But I will just mention, in case any strolling reader be inclined to take Mr. Mabett's comments as an unanswerable crushng rejoinder, that no one ever disputed this topic with me. I can't spend my life hunting around article history pages in case something has upset Mr. Mabbett - indeed I suspect that might be more than a lifetime's work. If he has something to say, let him say it outright to me, and my opinion of him might even rise higher! --Smerus (talk) 11:31, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
At the risk of disturbing the peaceful, harmonious atmosphere here, can I point out that the bots do not archive chronologically (by last message). That's why I am opposed to using them. They also seldom keep to schedule. --Kleinzach12:54, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
But who can doubt that all involved in this conversation will gladly keep cooperative vigil together to ensure that the bot behaves? And if in the end we are dissatisfied we can always smile at each other and agree return to the traditional hand-made system to which, as far as I am aware, only one person has ever objected. --Smerus (talk) 13:01, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
I think my quoting Tristan will have delayed the archiving anyway. I see that Melot has been trying to show Marke where to look for vandals.--Peter cohen (talk) 13:50, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Oh dear, I see my compromise gesture of merely putting archive tags on the discussion has been reverted [7]. --Kleinzach00:43, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
As the archive tags have been removed, new comments are occasionally being added to the discussion. This effectively keeps the discussion open, long after the real debate has ended. Can someone please close it now? Otherwise it will become a permanent feature here. --Kleinzach00:24, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
It seems to me that if new comments are being added that the "real debate" hasn't ended. Your comment almost comes off as wishing to censor discussion, which I'm sure you don't intend. For the sake of harmony, please don't archive this discussion before the 14 days has elapsed. Thanks! AgnosticAphidtalk00:53, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
There is no censorship. If you are a late arrival to a discussion that has clearly lapsed, it's better to start a new one. --Kleinzach02:38, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
The bot is failing to archive on time, so I am reverting to the tried and tested old method of doing it by hand. --Kleinzach04:31, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
You may want to look at how the name Richard has been transcribed here (by 65.93.172.223). ˈʀɪçart would seem more appropriate. I'm not a linguist, German or otherwise, so I'm only logging a query for now in the hope of some feedback from more qualified individuals. 86.141.126.174 (talk) 18:42, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Wagner as German nationalist
Although I am not editing these days, I reserve the right to comment.....I suggest that, as there is nothing presently in the article which justifies W. being presented as a German nationalist, the category Category:German nationalism should not be attributed to him at present. I don't doubt that he asserted, to quote the article German nationalism, "that Germans are a nation and promote[d] the cultural unity of Germans." But in fact the extent and nature of W's support for German nationalism is not entire;ly straightforward. Although he could be very crude in putting down Jews, Frenchmen and others whom he disliked, his attitude to the Prussian Reich was ambiguous, to say the least. Really there needs to be a section [article? book?] discussing Wagner and German nationalism, tracing his changing attitudes from Dresden to the final years. I don't feel that an article should carry a category that it cannot intrinsically justify, although I appreciate that constructing the necessary section is not simple.--Smerus (talk) 08:36, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Nice to hear from you, Smerus. I think I understand your point, which is he was not a fan of the Prussian Reich; but that is not to say he was not in principle a German nationalist - which is, if I understand rightly, the "message" of Die Meistersinger. A section or article on Wagner and German nationalism is a very good idea - rather surprised it hasn't been tackled yet. Alfietucker (talk) 08:44, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Nice to hear from you, Smerus. I share your view regarding the category, which seems not even meant for people but for political movements, but will not fight it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:46, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Instinctively, I wanted to remove the Category:German nationalism when I noticed its addition. But after noticing several references in the article to Wagner and German nationalism, I refrained, although I agree with Gerda that the category might not be meant for cases like this. For that reason alone, the category should be removed. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 09:53, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
Apocalyptica
User:Ianatheling has now four times uploaded a lengthy passage about a show and recording by the Finnish band Apocalyptica featuring versions of music by Wagner. I have now reverted it (the previous three reversions were effected by others). There are of course numerous tributes by other musicians, both classical and rock, to Wagner and the article has limited itself, necessarily in my view, to a selection of these (stating clearly 'amongst....'). The article is about Wagner, and if anyone wants to start a separate article, e.g. List of Wagner tributes, such contributions would be acceptable and appropriate. But they do not belong in the biographical article, which would swiftly become overwhelmed by such additions, and which has obtained FA status by concentrating on central issues relating to its subject.--Smerus (talk) 14:03, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for having the common decency to explain your point of view on this issue. Previous removals of my edit had failed to offer such an explanation. I may not fully accept your rationale, but I do appreciate the points you have made. I accept that the Apocalyptica project is one of a large number of works which have been 'influenced' by the Richard Wagner. A Wiki page on tributes to Wagner may then be a solution. User:Ianatheling—Preceding undated comment added 15:16, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
Wagner is one of the most influential of composers in history. Even a separate article about his influences could easily be as long (if not longer) than the biographical/works article. I strongly encourage specific influences NOT to be put in the biographical article but in another article. If in 5 or 10 years nobody remembers or cares who was Apocalyptica, that says more about the group than it does about Wagner. -- kosboot (talk) 15:37, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
I do of course accept the obvious statement that Wagner is one of the most influential composers in history. However the line of argument that specific influences should not be included here, would suggest that the previous comments on bands such as Rammstein and Laibach should also be removed, since their 'right' to be included here cannot, at present, be proven to be any greater than Apocalytica. It had been the inclusion of these bands which had convinced me that a comment on Apocalyptica was within the parameters of this page. I would never dare to compare Apocalyptica with Wagner for their notoriety, but Apocalyptica have been playing their cellos now for 20 years, with growing world wide chart success. The comment that nobody will remember or care about them in 5-10 years is somewhat unlikely, and might suggest a level of biased ignorance. User:Ianatheling 18:48 18 November 2013 —Preceding undated comment added 18:55, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
Note that my comment was conditional, so it's not necessary to use language which suggests engaging in argument. Generally for situations such as influences, what I've seen on WP is a small paragraph in the main article summarizing a few major influences which then points to another article where the influences can be enumerated and discussed. It might be worth it to start such an article (perhaps dividing classical/popular genres) using Rammstein, Apocalyptica and others. -- kosboot (talk) 19:06, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply, and I would agree that a separate page on the influences of Wagner upon modern music would be a very good idea, requiring considerable research to do it justice. --Ianatheling (talk) 19:49, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
It's certainly true that there is scholarship which attempts to argue that characters in his works are in some emblematic sense "Jewish", even though there are no actual Jewish characters in any of his operas. However, it's wildly exaggerated to say this is "known" or "proven". Personally, I find some of these claims moderately plausible, and others to be strained in the extreme. I don't think there is any real consensus of scholarship on the matter. However, if you read the relevant section, "Racism and antisemitism", you will see that this point is already made in the article. I don't think it should be covered in any more detail here, but you may wish to create a separate article to address the issue in more detail, which can be linked here. Paul B (talk) 21:53, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
Even if one does not agree with all this literature, it is undeniable that these negative characters - which are never openly qualified as Jewish indeed - are at least partly (and I'd say in big part) inspired by antisemitic characteristics and prejudices, that Wagner shared with many of his contemporaries. I don't think this matter should be treated separately, and I don't think an article on the subject would really be a good idea as it would gather its content from many different sources, and therefore risk to be too much of an original research. The "Racism and antisemitism" part does not have to be that much enlarged actually, but I still think a few references to Wagner's works are missing. Based on this very abundant literature, of course. Well, I leave you better judge on that matter... Lass mich wieder hinab! Schlaf verschliesse mein Wissen!— Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.171.203.250 (talk) 23:18, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
User:Luchador619 seems concerned to add certain rock bands to the article (without any citations). I have deleted, and redeleted this editor's additions, as it seems the issue was covered in the discussion on Apocalyptica (above, on this talk page), which ended in a concensus not to add names indiscriminately. A further additon by Luchador gave a 'citation' which however did not mention Wagner, and I have therefore again reverted it. Other editors' opinions are welcomed.--Smerus (talk) 15:53, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
Wagner's influence on Joey DeMaio and Manowar is fairly widely written about, especially DeMaio describing Wagner as "The father of heavy metal", which was in the reference given. But if you want something about more scholarly and one degree removed from DeMaio himself, I suggest:
Source added to article and now removed here for discussion
I have removed the book below which was added to the Sources section today. It was clearly not used as a source and has been only recently published. I leave it here for editors who may want to use it for future content additions to the article. As for the editor who added it... If you are at all affiliated with either the author or the publisher, please read WP:CITESPAM.
Syer, Katherine R. (2014), Wagner's Visions: Poetry, Politics, and the Psyche in the Operas through "Die Walküre", Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press. ISBN978-1-58046-482-6
Given the discussion of Wagner early in Ferguson's excellent economic history book The Cash Nexus, somebody may want to incorporate aspects of Ferguson's analysis. Wagner's later thinking has been discussed in the article and is well known, but The Ring of the Nibelung may reflect his earlier ideas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.49.20.187 (talk) 00:55, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
