Talk:Jean Sibelius/Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions about Jean Sibelius. 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.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Jean Sibelius. 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:

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) 10:49, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Shouldn't "oeuvre" be "opus"?

I'm no expert, just wondering... MikeYates (talk) 11:30, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Question withdrawn, having researched it! MikeYates (talk) 13:01, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Edit warring; July 2020

IP, please stop edit warring. If you have something positive that will overturn over five years of STATUS QUO and form a new consensus, you need to stop edit warring and discuss here. - SchroCat (talk) 19:25, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Survey: inclusion of Infobox

CLOSED

There is a consensus against including an infobox on this page. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia ^talk 12:49, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Starting a new infobox discussion, per a request at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure. Bach and Beethoven have infoboxes; Brahms and Tchaikovsky do not. This is for some reason a controversial issue, but I thought I would create this discussion as an uninvolved editor to hopefully resolve the ongoing issue that came up in this 2015 discussion; namely:

Should this article feature an infobox? — Preceding unsigned comment added by El cid, el campeador (talk • contribs) 19:25, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Survey

No, oppose. Hilarious that you acknowledge that it is a "controversial issue", yet go on to start the controversy by making the issue. And by "resolve the ongoing issue", you of course mean to have it your way and have an infobox added. There is no "ongoing issue", it has been decided that this article should not have an infobox. Please go and find something else to do. Cassianto^Talk 21:37, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Right - because my creation of a neutral discussion was clearly done in bad faith; in fact the whole point was to make your day a little worse. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia ^talk 00:40, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Support There is nothing unique about Sibelius that warrants no infobox. There is a precedent for an infobox on most composer biographies. And in response to the previous commenter, consensus can change, especially over half a decade. ~ HAL333 23:01, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

I try not to ask how people came to discussions, but there does seem to be a pattern of you turning up to these discussions shortly after Cass or me. My AGF only stretches so far, and disappears completely when there is an identifiable pattern to the interaction. - SchroCat (talk) 23:38, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Could you provide any examples? Nothing comes to mind. ~ HAL333 23:39, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

.... [1] and [2]. These are not coincidences; it is stalking. - SchroCat (talk) 23:46, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

That one time I edited Amy Adam's filmography 6 years after you was totally stalking. ~ HAL333 01:53, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Don't be childish. You’ve been warned on your talk page about stalking: I’m close to filing at ANI as it is, but if you want to play at being a smart arse then it’ll only backfire on you. - SchroCat (talk) 02:12, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Comment If you want to overturn a long-standing STATUS QUO and bring in a new consensus, you have to provide a rationale for making the change. Per the ArbCom ruling when they looked at IBs, you need to say why an IB is needed on this article, not just why you think they are generally a good idea. Do you have any reasons that relate to this article for why a box should be included? - SchroCat (talk) 23:38, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

I assume the same would go for those who oppose. They must provide specific reasoning as well. ~ HAL333 23:41, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

If you want to overturn the consensus, you need to provide a rationale. You haven’t. - SchroCat (talk) 23:47, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Comment I would like to see the infobox contain basic biographical data: birthplace/dateand deathplace/date. We should also include his wife Aino, who isn't mentioned in the lede, and a link to the list of his compositions. ~ HAL333 23:49, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

”I want” is your rationale? Please see Wikipedia:IDONTLIKEIT. - SchroCat (talk) 23:54, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Oppose infobox. While sports and politician bios can benefit from infoboxes, most articles in liberal arts fields, as here, do not. See arbitration report: "Infoboxes may be particularly unsuited to liberal arts fields when they repeat information already available in the lead section of the article, are misleading or oversimplify the topic for the reader". I disagree with including an infobox in this article because: (1) The box would emphasize unimportant factoids stripped of context and lacking nuance, in competition with the WP:LEAD section, which emphasizes and contextualizes the most important facts. (2) Since the most important points in the article are already discussed in the Lead, or adequately discussed in the body of the article, the box would be redundant. (3) It would take up valuable space at the top of the article and hamper the layout and impact of the Lead. (4) Frequent errors creep into infoboxes, as updates are made to the articles but not reflected in the redundant info in the box, and they tend to draw vandalism, fancruft and repeated arguments among editors about what to include. (5) The infobox template creates a block of code at the top of the edit screen that discourages new editors from editing the article. (6) It would discourage readers from reading the text of the article. (7) IBs distract editors from focusing on the content of the article. Instead of improving the article, they spend time working on this repetitive feature and its coding and formatting. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:23, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
Oppose infobox - for the reasons I have stated numerous times elsewhere - namely, that an infobox contains nothing that is not in a well-written lead and it does not encourage reading further into the article. Jack1956 (talk) 10:01, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

No view on need for infobox. But how can we possibly know "it does not encourage reading further into the article"? How big was the sample of users that enabled you to reach that conclusion? Did you employ a controlled comparison study, with dependent measures and a parametric statistical analysis? We might as was well say "it encourages readers to take holidays in Devon" or "it does not encourage readers to look at the sources" etc. etc. 2.30.105.91 (talk) 10:14, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"Life" section

The "Life" section, while very interesting and entertaining to read, is extremely LONG! Instead of having this one very-long section, editors might consider condensing it just a bit. Some of the sub-sections may work better if they were rewritten as their own sections. Some of Sibelius' professional life might be better served by merging it into the "Music" section.

I mention this only because some readers might exhibit some difficulty in reading such a long section, which might qualify as a separate article, with references to this one, in and of itself.

Just a few thoughts. What do you think? Erzahler (talk) 22:20, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Jean Sibelius Square

The article might mention the public park in Toronto, "Jean Sibelius Square". Toronto named the 1.22 acre park after the composer Jean Sibelius in 1956, after City Council was lobbied by members of the Toronto Finnish community.

There's a statue of the composer in the park.

References: https://www.toronto.ca/data/parks/prd/facilities/complex/151/index.html

https://westannexnews.wordpress.com/2012/06/04/jean-sibelius-square-park-official-opening-sunday-june-10-2012-at-330pm/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.174.140.196 (talk) 22:00, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Greatest composer

The article says: "He" (Sibelius) "is widely recognized as his country's greatest composer". I would argue that Sibelius is one of the greatest of all symphonic composers. ---Dagme (talk) 23:18, 12 November 2021 (UTC)