This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Arnold Schoenberg article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Composers, a group of editors writing and developing biographical articles about composers of all eras and styles. The project discussion page is the place to talk about technical and editorial issues and exchange ideas. New members are welcome!ComposersWikipedia:WikiProject ComposersTemplate:WikiProject ComposersComposers articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Dance, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Dance and Dance-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DanceWikipedia:WikiProject DanceTemplate:WikiProject DanceDance articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Music theory, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of music theory, theory terminology, music theorists, and musical analysis on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Music theoryWikipedia:WikiProject Music theoryTemplate:WikiProject Music theoryMusic theory articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Austria, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles about Austria on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project.AustriaWikipedia:WikiProject AustriaTemplate:WikiProject AustriaAustria articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles
A new book on Schoenberg, by Harvey Sachs, was published this month. I added the book to "Further reading" and then, after the name of the book, I linked a review from The New York Times to it, with the words "review by composer John Adams." User:CurryTime7-24 removed the link to the review on the grounds that it was "unnecessary." I put it back, writing "Review is by a prominent composer and may be of interest to some." User:CurryTime7-24 again removed it, writing "Review isn't relevant here because this article is about Schoenberg, not Sachs' book on Schoenberg." I will not get into an editing war, so I will not put the review back again unless User:CurryTime7-24 or other editors concedes that it is reasonable to do so. I say "reasonable" because, even if another editor disagrees with me as to whether to include the review, I believe that Wikipedia editors should respect one another's contributions if they find them reasonable. Now I will list reasons why mine is reasonable.
1. Some will benefit if the review is there, while none will suffer a detriment. If a paragraph were unnecessary, then it should be removed, but my edit added only five words -- "review by composer John Adams" -- which could be reduced to one: "review." Therefore, readers' time will not be wasted.
2. Nothing in Wikipedia is "necessary." If we omitted Schoenberg's birth and death dates, anyone could easily find them by googling. The standard should not be whether linking to the book review is necessary, but whether it is justifiable or helpful.
3. The review, like most book reviews, devotes more time to the subject of the book, namely Schoenberg, than to evaluating the book. Therefore, it is relevant.
4. Even the portion of the review that evaluates the book is relevant. If a Wikipedia article has a bibliography, that is because of the assumption that readers will be interested in books on the subject. If readers are interested in a book on the subject, then they likely will also be interested in a review of the book to help them determine whether to read or consult the book.
5. As noted above, this is not just any review, but is one by a prominent composer, so it is quite likely to interest classical music aficianados. Maurice Magnus (talk) 23:41, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't dispute the possible merit of the review, although I haven't read it. But if what you say is true, it would be put to better use by being listed as an entry of its own under "Further reading" or, if it can provide useful material for this article, "Cited sources". —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 17:29, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I added it to "Further reading." Thanks. Maurice Magnus (talk) 18:05, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think that an infobox would improve the article. Many articles on peer composers have infoboxes. The source says that consensus is needed in the talk page before someone adds one. What do folks think? Glucosegeyser (talk) 18:20, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not a direct answer to your question, but there's currently an RfC going on at Wikipedia Talk:Manual of Style/Infoboxes about this subject very broadly, so some may be a bit twitchy... Remsense诉 18:39, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the heads-up. I should probably leave this to the editors with more experience in this area then... Glucosegeyser (talk) 19:01, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's fine! I'm mostly kidding. You may have this discussion perfectly well. Remsense诉 19:01, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]