Jump to content

Template:Did you know nominations/Herbert Schachtschneider

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:26, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

Herbert Schachtschneider

[edit]
(
)

Created by LouisAlain (talk) and Gerda Arendt (talk). Nominated by Gerda Arendt (talk) at 21:56, 31 March 2019 (UTC).

  • Article created on 24 March as stated. Contains 2210 characters of prose, is neutral and sourced. Complies with core policies and contains no close paraphrasing [[2]] (I don't see how it could given the sources are in German). Hook contains fewer than 200 characters and is cited in the article. However, the source does say that he recorded Gurre-Lieder mit Inge Borkh und Kieth Engen and although I think that's okay, this may upset the pedantic. Is it interesting? Well, I suppose some people will find it interesting but I would've preferred something about his capture by allied forces. Still, good to go IMHO as soon as the QPQ is done.Ykraps (talk) 07:23, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the review. I am not sure why you'r mind that the source mentions his colleague singers, whom I'd mention if only Engen had an aticle, Inge Borkh was one of the most exciting sopranos of her time, and some readers may remember (she died last year). However, the who review comes under the header Kubelik, who is pictured on the cover, and unites three different recordings. Pedantics might rather complain that it's only "Ausschnitte" (excerpts) of Gurre-Lieder, but it's more than one Gurre-Lied, so should be ok. Will review later today. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:45, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
  • I read that as if all the compositions were sung as a trio but in any event, I'm not one of those pedants so as soon as you've done the QPQ, ping me and I'll GTG this nom. Regards Ykraps (talk) 15:31, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Ykraps, I reviewed now, s. above. Just for teaching: the set combines three recordings of music by different composers, at different times, with different people. Of the three, he sang only in Gurre, but that's a giant piece. No tenor in the Alto-Rhapsody (as one might guess by the title), and a different tenor (who was less praised) for Das klagende Lied. I liked the Gurre because of the praise, and because his other connection to the composer, but "UK premiere" is a bit awkward. Thank you for listening ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:06, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the extra info. All good to go now.Ykraps (talk) 04:41, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Honestly, a new hook is probably needed here: it doesn't seem to be intriguing that a singer recorded a song, isn't that their job? Ykraps' suggestion about him being captured during World War II is honestly better than what has been proposed here. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 07:50, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Please familiarise yourself with Gurre-Lieder, which - inspite of the harmless title - is a monster of a composition by one the 20th century's most influential composers. Not a song. - DYK is to promote knowledge that is not yet known. Many performers' articles are a vehicle to make also compositions known. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:42, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
But does the hook appeal to a broad audience? To be frank, a hook that requires familiarity with a niche topic rarely works out, especially in cases like this. There's probably a better way to present the hook fact and the current one isn't really working out. Being "a monster of a composition by one the 20th century's most influential composers" does not matter if this is a fact that is only known to opera circles and not the average reader. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:09, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
I am so tired of this, and today actually sick in bed. Please join the central discussion on WT:DYK#Opera role (where I said that I'd prefer 3 readers actually interested in the topic to 3000 who click and return.) I am here to expand knowledge, - there's a link to Gurre-Lieder for those who don't know. (I see I said that already.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:59, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
  • You need to capitalize "Cologne" in the hook. Jmar67 (talk) 22:03, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

This has been stuck for over a month now. Trying to propose a hook in the hopes that perhaps it can appeal to a broad audience:

There might be a better way to write that, but this is the only thing that comes to mind from the article that might have wide appeal. I also have to note that right now, some paragraphs are unsourced. Courtesy pinging the original reviewer Ykraps. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:58, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
Please no. Again, imagine it was like about your father, trying to give a hint at what he did the greatest. Sure. Nazi always generates clicks, but he was a creative person, and that should show. I said "tired of this" already --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:57, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
To be more precise: I am tired of you not respecting the judgement of others. The hook was approved, and while we know from many examples that you don't support telling readers about great works of art (such as Gurre Lieder), can you please restrict that personal view to nominations you review? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:01, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
I'm not sure I can add anything to this discussion. I can only reiterate what I have said above: Personally, I would've preferred a hook about his capture and would've clicked to find out more, whereas I probably wouldn't click if I saw the hook in it's current form. That's not to say others wouldn't find it interesting though. Whether something is interesting or not is subjective and I don't see how anyone can make a judgement like, "...interesting to a broad audience".Ykraps (talk) 08:22, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
I think what is often confused in discussions like this one (and there many many more) is "interesting to a broad audience" and "appealing to a broad audience". What I mean by "interesting" is a characteristic thing about this subject, or two, not a sensational detail which may cause more curiousity but tend to disappoint a reader. In other words, I go for what a reader should find interesting (here: Gurre Lieder, - a reader doesn't have to be familiar with the work, we do have a link) and new and good to know, not so much what is already known. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:48, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Sigh. Here's the thing Gerda. Just because a hook has been approved by one editor does not necessarily mean that others can no longer comment on it. You've been on DYK for several years, longer than I've been on DYK, you've surely have seen many instances of this happening. And I never said anything about not wanting others to know about art. On the contrary, I personally enjoy and appreciate multiple forms of art and many genres of music. It's true that "interesting to a broad audience" is a very vague criterion and there should probably be a discussion on that at some point. With that said, the goal of DYK is for readers to click on articles being presented, and I really can't see that happening much if we go with the original hook. Even the original reviewer admitted that this would likely be the case. I know and agree that pageviews aren't everything, but the goal of DYK is to introduce subjects and make people curious about them, not trying to make article subjects too niche for others to understand. Sometimes, it's better to reach a goal by not taking a direct approach: rather than telling them all about these things that they don't understand, try getting their attention with something eye-catching, then lead them to the article, where then they would learn more about these classical music facts. It would probably be more effective in accomplishing your goal of making people learn more about opera. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 10:03, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
I have seen some comments on hooks after approval, yes, better never as many as in 2019, and not predominantly by one editor, you. I sometimes approve inviting to find even better alternatives. - I disagree that the goal is to click, which causes sensationalism. Mention Nazi, mention crime, it adds 1k clicks, yes I know. My goal is to "introduce the subject", well said. Thousands were prisoners of war after WWII, - nothing personal about this singer. So, please no, still, unless someone finds a better hook to really introduce the subject, not say something that he has in common with many, - however "eye-catching". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:21, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
Minor correction: it's not yet 10 years that I joined Wikipedia. My very first article in August 2009 was deleted and then nominated by the one who helped me with the rescue. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:23, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
For a compromise, I think the first English performance of the other Schönberg has potential, also perhaps the Berlin Mephistopheles. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:25, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
Nit-picking is bad enough, but what I see on this page goes beyond that. I am more and more astonished by Narutolovehinata5's obstructive and opinionated approach to DYK nominations. The statement "it doesn't seem to be intriguing that a singer recorded a song" and the question "does the hook appeal to a broad audience?" do not seem to be based on DYK rules. Gerda Arendt, I suggest we need to have a discussion about all this on the DYK talk page. If Narutolovehinata5 is allowed to go on like this much longer, many useful contributors such as yourself are just going to walk away. And that would be very bad for the project. Moonraker (talk) 11:05, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
The question "does the hook appeal to a broad audience?" is actually in the rules, though, it's at WP:DYK: The hook should include a definite fact that is mentioned in the article and interesting to a broad audience. Many hooks have been pulled due to discussions either at WT:DYK or at WP:ERRORS because consensus determined that the approved hooks did not follow this rule. Now, if there are concerns about the interpretation of that rule then indeed there should probably be a discussion about it on WT:DYK, as that rule is so vague that entire discussions and time have been wasted on how to interpret it and determine what makes a hook "interesting to a broad audience". Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 11:19, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
Don't be too generous with the indenting. Who knows how many more. - "appealing" and "interesting" don't carry the same meaning for me, appealing being has to create an immediate sensation, while interesting is about anything not boring. A hook should not say the sky is blue, is about all that requests. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:39, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
Imagine, HS was your father, and you went to a reception where you are known and introduce him: Would you say: this is my dad who was in long improsonment after the war? I'd say this is my dad who recorded Gurre Lieder with Kubelik, and they#D not admit they don't know Gurre Lieder and Kubelik but after wards ask Wikipedia ;) - In the German Wikipedia, where only one link is allowed, I'd think of something else, but here - I promote the other topics with the main topic, intentionally so. - I confess that during my first year with DYK, when I wrote about a Bach cantata on a weekly basis, it happened that I coldn't expand enough for 5 times, - then I'd write about some singer who performed in it and mentioned the singer with the cantata. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:44, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
That would be true if you went to a reception of music aficionados. But if it was a general celebration, you would say ALT1. I totally agree with Narutolovehinata5 and Ykraps on this one. Writing a hook that piques the interest of more readers will also deliver more readers to your page, where they can learn what they never knew about opera. (Although I must add that they won't learn very much, as this is just a start-class article giving a resume of his work.) Yoninah (talk) 14:27, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
Gurre Lieder isn't even an opera. Ready to give up explaining. Under no condition would the only thing I'd say be something about his time as prisoner of war. - I didn't even write this article, but feel I spent about five times longer on this nomination than writing a new one. For what? 500 extra clicks? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:31, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
Gerda, you don't have to spend more time on this. Just write an interesting hook that doesn't spout "name, rank, serial number" (aka singer, role, work). We are trying so hard to build DYK's reputation for interesting hooks. Why can't music hooks also be interesting? Yoninah (talk) 14:57, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
And please forgive my total lack of knowledge of the difference between an opera and a cantata. I daresay I'm like most of your readers on the main page. Yoninah (talk) 14:58, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Above, I suggested to use the English premiere, or the Berlin Mephistopheles. Befor wording something, I'd like to hear if that might work. - The rank/serial number comparison doesn't work. It's more a bravery medal. A few sing Siegfried, but fewer Gurre Lieder. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:19, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

  • I was sure I picked the most unique (and thus interesting) fact, but obviously I am not up to the job. Pinging Ritchie and Eeng, per yesterday's chat, for help to a hook. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:29, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
    I hear and I obey. I won't be able to give this my full attention until late today, but rest assured I'll do my best. I'll start by scouring the sources for any history of sexual perversion, embarrassing medical conditions, and so on -- those are always the best click-getters ;). EEng 15:40, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
    To me the purpose of the hook is to lure the general reader (not someone with an existing interest in the subject area -- they'll click anyway) into clicking, and thereby being exposed to something new. Being captured as a German soldier per se is nothing special, but I do like the intersection of that with his musical training. It does take some convoluted explaining though:
ALT2 ... that German tenor Herbert Schachtschneider was captured by the British during World War II, and after being released in England stayed on there to be a pupil of voice trainer Hans Nachod?
I threw together a stub on Nachod. Gerda, I'm not sure if "voice trainer" is the right characterization of Nachod (teacher? coach?), so please check me on that. EEng 01:56, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
I suppose that could be a suitable compromise. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 04:27, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the offer, "pupil" is an old-fashioned word, the teacher is not better known than Arnold Schoenberg in the original hook (and the only thing our article tells us about him is that he created the tenor part pf Gurre Lieder, - the irony!), and it has now word about what the subject accomplished. He is passive in two ways. You'd say "to study voice with Hans Nachod". - I just added one of my impossibly boring hooks (Template:Did you know nominations/Six Motets, Op. 82 (Kiel) - "but I still don't really think that it's hooky") to the DYKSTATS, concluding that the interests of our readers are unpredictable. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:05, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
As I see I thought (how could I?) people would know the composer by the title, improving on that:
ALT3: ... that Herbert Schachtschneider, tenor at the Cologne Opera, recorded Arnold Schoenberg's Gurre-Lieder conducted by Rafael Kubelik? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:17, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
How well known the names are known has nothing to do with it. My thought was to intrigue the reader with the unlikely cause-and-effect of being taken a prisoner of war bringing the subject together with his future teacher in a foreign land. If the point of your A3 is that there's some special significance to artist A recording work B with conductor C, I have to agree with Naruto that that kind of hook fails utterly -- only a someone already steeped in the topic area will have any idea what the significance is, and such people will click anyway because it's an area of interest to them. Hooks need to appeal to people who know little or nothing about the topic area, or they fail to do their job. Anyway, A2 is the best I could do -- I admit it's not all that great but there's not much to work with here. I hope you will call on me again sometime and I'll be able to do a better job for you. EEng 08:01, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
Firstly, thank you!! Secondly, I strongly believe that whoever hasn't heard of Arnold Schoenberg will not enjoy a bit of the article in question. Thirdly, I believe as strongly that our readers can surprise us, such as 5k+ clicking on "Aus der Tiefe rufe ich" yesterday, - more than on the bolded article, - I conclude that they GO for the unknown. Finally: here's an ALT for a compromise
ALT4: ... that after Herbert Schachtschneider was a prisoner of war in England, he stayed in the country to study voice with Hans Nachod, and became a leading tenor at the Cologne Opera? - That teacher's article will need to grow ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:49, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
ALT4 is a little longish and I really don't know if the name of the person is necessary, given EEng's comments above. How about:
ALT4a ... that after Herbert Schachtschneider was a prisoner of war in England, he became a leading tenor at the Cologne Opera?
Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 09:21, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
ALT4b has two unconnected items. We can drop the name of the teacher, but can also expand, - found an interesting detailed source. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:30, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
ALT3b: ... that after Herbert Schachtschneider was a prisoner of war in England, he stayed there to study voice with a cousin of Arnold Schoenberg? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:37, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
I'd add back some detail to orient the reader:
ALT3c: ... that after German tenor Herbert Schachtschneider was a World War II prisoner of war in England, he stayed there to study voice with a cousin of Arnold Schoenberg?
EEng 17:04, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I prefer ALT4 without the name of his teacher. In this case, I'd also move the target article to a little later in the hook:
  • ALT4d: ... that after being held as a prisoner of war in England, Herbert Schachtschneider stayed in the country to study voice and became a leading tenor at the Cologne Opera? Yoninah (talk) 18:48, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Thanks for offering, but he had studied before, while this reads as if it was the first time. I'd be happy with keeping the Schoenberg connection, because much in the article is related to the composer. Schachtschneider almost "inherited" the Gurre Lieder from the man for whom they were written. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:00, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
  • New review requested, ideally from someone previously uninvolved in this discussion. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 09:42, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Fresh set of eyes: Article looks good quality if a little "list"y in parts (e.g. opera houses Schachtschneider visited). I prefer ALT3c from EEng for promotion (the target audience knows who Schoenenberg is and might be interested), although it's possible that "voice" should be linked to vocal music as a slight nit for readers who might not instantly understand what "studying voice" means. Purely optional thought, though. @Gerda Arendt: Can you confirm 3C is acceptable to you? SnowFire (talk) 21:12, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
yes fine, and thank you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:45, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Hi, I came by to promote ALT3c, but the hook fact needs an inline cite for this sentence: After the Allied landing in Normandy in 1944 he was taken into British captivity, from which he was not released until New Year's Eve 1948. I linked prisoner of war in the hook so it won't look so repetitious ("War"..."war"). Yoninah (talk) 21:59, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Whoops, sorry, my bad on not noticing that sentence wasn't immediately referenced. @Gerda Arendt: - is this fact in the offline / paywall'd German references to the sentence afterward? If so, , but please confirm.
  • That said, I've BOLDly returned 3C to its original form. The link to "prisoner of war" is irrelevant here, and I doubt it helps with the repetition problem anyway, which isn't really so bad - "World War II" is its own proper noun and isn't that comparable to "prisoner of war" really. (Also, Gerda would point out that the emphasis here should really be the opera schooling side anyway.) @Yoninah: Hopefully this is acceptable? SnowFire (talk) 22:09, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I pinged Gerda on her talk page and am waiting for her reply. @SnowFire: please don't use the green or gray approval icons until this is really approved. I've added a question mark icon until this is resolved. Reping @SnowFire: Yoninah (talk) 22:14, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
I'm sorry, can't really help, because that will be in the offline obituary which I never saw. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:41, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
  • (de-indent) Hmm, that's unfortunate. @LouisAlain: Can you confirm where the British captivity claim came from and add a direct reference after that sentence in the article? SnowFire (talk) 22:59, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
LouisAlain translated, so how would he now? I proposed an original hook which was referenced. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:02, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
I don't follow what you're saying? This should be an easy fix, just add an in-line reference for the claim. A non-English source is fine, no need to translate. SnowFire (talk) 23:04, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
But Gerda, this discussion found a far better hook for a general audience in the article. Now the problem is the fact needs to be sourced, or else removed from the article. Yoninah (talk) 23:06, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
All fine, only: I can't help you. I don't know where the source is. Assuming that it's in some offline ref is not enough for me. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:10, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
Which is why no such "assumption" is being made. We're asking the editor who added that claim. If LouisAlain can offer a reference, then we're good; if LouisAlain can't offer a reference, we'll either pull the DYK or have to cook up something else. No need for you to do anything. SnowFire (talk) 23:22, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
Trying again to explain that LouisAlain did not add the claim, but translated. The claim was added by an editor on the German Wikipedia which doesn't believe in inline citation. I therefor assume that it comes from the offline source. We don't have to cook up, we had a hook that was approved. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:38, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
The thing is, consensus has already determined that the original hook, while initially approved, cannot run due to various reasons. As for ALT3c, it really seems like the best option, and I'm skeptical that a variant that only mentions Schoenberg would be as appealing. Gerda, would it be possible for you to contact the German editor and confirm if the offline source indeed mentioned his past as a prisoner of war? Or would it be possible to find another source confirming it? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 12:20, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
I'm on travelling. Can you search for such a ref, and/or contact the German editor? Why should I work for EEng's hook which you want, even if I had time? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:33, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Good point. Other editors are trying to rescue this nomination and the nominator insists on sticking with an "already approved" hook about which the reviewer wrote: Is it interesting? Well, I suppose some people will find it interesting but I would've preferred something about his capture by allied forces. If the nominator doesn't want to come up with another hook that will be acceptable to the community, perhaps it's time to close this nomination as unsuccessful. Yoninah (talk) 18:53, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Gerda, if you had just explained the source of this more clearly and directly originally, this whole silly debate above could have been saved. A quick dive in the German Wikipedia article history made verifying this easy: see https://web.archive.org/web/20140223171013/https://www.mwk-koeln.de/images/04downloads/oton20.pdf

Er studierte bis 1939 bei Julius von Raatz-Brockmann an der Berliner Musikhochschule. Dann zog ihn die Wehrmacht ein. Gefangengenommen an der Invasionsfront in der Normandie, kam er erst am Silvesterabend 1948 aus englischer Kriegsgefangenschaft frei. Er blieb zunächst in England und nahm bei Hans Nachod in London sein Gesangsstudium wieder auf.

While it's bad form for the approver to also be involved in verifying their own verification, this nom has been open long enough. @Yoninah: Would you agree that EEng's ALT3C counts as verified now? Hopefully this won't require yet ANOTHER approver. (For the record, I am also against launching the original hook suggestion, but this is hopefully a moot point.) SnowFire (talk) 20:01, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes it does, SnowFire, and thank you for your work. I've just gone over and formatted the references. Footnote 3 is a dead link. Yoninah (talk) 20:39, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Thank you. Ideally, when I improve an article and nominate, I should study all refs, - ideally. Here, I just added what was missing. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:26, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Thanks, Gerda. All references are in place and the ALT3c hook fact is AGF and cited inline. Adding link for vocal music per SnowFire. ALT3c good to go. Yoninah (talk) 22:13, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Herbert_Schachtschneider&oldid=901916160"