Talk:The Rite of Spring/Archive 2

Piccolo Trumpet? Not in the modern sense...

The composer also called for instruments that, before the Rite of Spring, had rarely been scored for in orchestral music, including the alto flute, piccolo trumpet, bass trumpet, Wagner tuba, and güiro.

The score calls for a trumpet in D for the highest brass part. The much smaller modern Bb/A piccolo trumpet would have been unknown to Stravinsky in the early 20th Century -- while most modern-day 1st chair trumpeters do use such an instrument for this work (due to its many long, taxing high tessitura passages) it is inaccurate to state that it was scored for piccolo trumpet. Unless, perhaps, the D trumpet was known by that name contemporaneous with the era of the work -- possible, as instruments smaller and higher than the standard orchestral C or B-Flat trumpets were scarcely, if ever, used or available in that day. Unless there is some documentation cited for this nomenclature, I feel this sentence should be appropriately changed. StanislavJ (talk) 01:34, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

You're absolutely right that a modern Bb/A piccolo trumpet would have been unheard of when Stravinsky composed the Rite of Spring. However, because Stravinsky specifically calls for a "petite trompette en ré" (little trumpet in D), I think it's fair to say that Stravinsky had a smaller instrument in mind that would aid in high register playing and have a more piercing sound. Just because it isn't the Bb/A instrument commonly used today doesn't mean Stravinsky didn't see this smaller D trumpet as a type of piccolo trumpet. Sfcallahan (talk) 03:02, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Recordings (again)

The article now has a 'Recordings' section, but it's unclear if this is supposed to be complete or not, and if not on what basis the selection has been made. It's certainly not complete, as I'm listening to an unlisted recording now (Michael Tilson Thomas, Boston SO, 1972). --Ef80 (talk) 14:33, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Some articles on well-known classical compositions have separate articles for recordings (see, for instance, The Planets discography or Tristan und Isolde discography). On the other hand, arguably the most famous classical composition of all time is noticeably lacking in such a page. These new discography articles could presumably be complete because they have much more space, but somehow I doubt that they are in practice. Incidentally, does anyone know why these types of articles have started popping up?
The difficulty is that it would original research to change the heading to something like "Notable recording" if the list is only based on personal preference. On the other hand, the first recording, recordings of performances conducted by the composer, and recordings that got a reaction from the conductor (i.e. the Bernstein one) are actually legitimately notable in my opinion. Squandermania (talk) 02:38, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

There is good reason not to have sections titled "Notable recordings" or the like, but avoiding such has nothing to do with original research, a phrase tossed about Wikipedia much too freely. Original research is claiming to have discovered a new chemical compound or species of animal or folio of Hamlet, especially when no refereed academic journal can be found by the author in which to publish the article. "Notable recordings" is, on the other hand, an obvious violation of neutral point of view. — Robert Greer (talk) 13:29, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

That depends on how well it's written, Robert. What gets put on a list and what gets left off is inherently subjective, but it's possible to frame it in a benevolent and harmless way, such as: "The following recordings are well-recognized." For example, I doubt anybody would actually want to leave Kleiber's recordings off a list of Beethoven symphonies. – The Realms of Gold (talk) 14:08, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

The solution here is simple. Change the header to "Recordings". It's not for WP editors to decide which ones are "notable". A sentence may be added that the list is a partial one, if there is concern that "Recordings" implies a complete list. It might be worth spinning this list into a separate page "Rite of Spring Discography" with an appropriate table. As it is, it's getting awfully long as a section here. Cheers! Markhh (talk) 19:41, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have looked first. It already has the header title of "Recordings". But in any case I would agree that any general statement that the recordings listed are somehow better than other recordings should be avoided. Single statements with documentation regarding the merit of a specific recording by a well-acknowledged authority would probably be okay, but again probably best avoided except in the most indisputable cases. Markhh (talk) 19:44, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Density 21.5

It's a little odd that, in the middle of the section on Stravinsky's use of pitch, constant references to Varèse's Density 21.5 keep cropping up. "Like Edgard Varèse's Density 21.5," the article keeps saying. The comparison is never introduced; it just shows up, as if the reader should already know that understanding Varèse is important to understanding Stravinsky. Even though the reference to Density 21.5 may be appropriate, framing The Rite of Spring in terms of a different piece in the article on The Rite of Spring is awkward. If there is a compelling reason to continuously bring up this particular comparison, it should be introduced properly and have its own self-contained paragraph. I'd edit it myself but I don't know the Varèse piece. Can someone please take care of this? Thanks! — The Realms of Gold (talk) 14:03, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Premier - neurobabble

According to the article, "On the other hand, American science writer Jonah Lehrer discusses the possibility that when certain neurons responsible for perception patterns in sounds fail to find one, they may cause an excessive production of dopamine, which may result in a mental state close to schizophrenia and hence contribute to the rioting tendency."

This is pure nonsense. If this were true, then people listening to any kind of non-patterned sounds could develop mental states close to schizophrenia - but the most common non-pattern sound - waves on the shore - is thought to be calming, as is "white noise," also a non-pattern sound.

Finally, if his contention were true, then all audiences everywhere over time should have rioted, which is NOT the case; it is a popular orchestral piece around the world, yet there is no story of rioting other than at the first performance, which is itself a story of questionable provenance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Romddal (talk • contribs) 17:00, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Whether it is nonsense or not, there is a source given. Remember that "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true" (Wikipedia:Verifiability). My personal opinion is that your indignation is well justified, but step one has got to be investigation of the cited source, which is to popular science writer Jonah Lehrer, and a second-hand citation at that (from Irving Massey, not a neuroscientist but a now-retired professor of English and Comparative Literature): is it being quoted accurately and, if so, does it accurately represent the opinion it claims to be passing on? Assuming the citation passes this double test, step two is to find a more respectable author (preferably an accredited neuroscientist) who has also addressed this question. In the meantime, it is clear from the article that this is just one alternative viewpoint—several other views have already been presented.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:30, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

It was removed "as it has nothing whatsoever to do with the premiere of the Rite of Spring". Hyacinth (talk) 04:52, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Wish I'd noticed it didn't refer to The Rite. Would've saved a lot of verbiage. Thanks, Hyacinth.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 06:05, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Berliner Philharmoniker "Recording"

I see nothing on the rest of the internet to suggest that Simon Rattle ever made a recording of the Rite of Spring with the Berlin Philharmonic, much less in 2009. They did record this http://www.amazon.com/Stravinsky-Symphony-Psalms-Three-Movements/dp/B0017IYWE4 last year. Maybe whoever added the Simon Rattle/Berlin Philharmonic entry to the recordings got confused and thought that CD contained the Rite of Spring. In any case, I'm removing the Berlin Philharmonic entry from the recordings section. Jazzcello (talk) 16:46, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Idea for the composition

There is a recorded interview with Stravinsky on a Le Sacre du Printemps re-release (2010) where he explains that he first saw this pagan ritual and a dancing girl in his dream. I can't check information presented here, so could please someone double check if it was indeed Roerich's idea and he shared it with Stravinsky? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.35.64.97 (talk) 10:50, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Stravinsky's Reaction to Bernstein's '58 NYPO

There's conflicting reports of Stravinsky's reaction to the Bernstein (as there are with anything involving Stravinsky, but there you go). On a podcast from Sony Records in promotion of the recently released full performance of A Soldier's Tale (Stravinsky conducting), one of the musicians who played on that performance (Soldier's) said that backstage Stravinsky berated Bernstein several times over the Romantic leanings Bernstein applied to the tempos, inserting ritardandos where they aren't in the score (the difference can be heard clearly when comparing the Bernstein to the Stravinsky (w/ Craft) recording 3 years later).

With Stravinsky, nothing is cut-n-dried. Anything can be greeted with praise one day, condemnation the next, and often both are valid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Acroyear (talk • contribs) 02:43, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Ballet score

"The Rite of Spring is a ballet score"

- I know what you mean, but isn't this slightly specialized language? I alwyas think of the physical score, the actual book, rather than the piece of music, when I read that. Would you consider a reword?? Thanks Nevilley 20:50 Feb 15, 2003 (UTC)

I've had a go. Better? --Camembert

Yes, much, thanks! :) Nevilley 01:28 Feb 16, 2003 (UTC)

Excellent piece on Rite of Spring. I changed the word "claque" since that always means "applauders" or, "Clappers" who are planted to show support. Hope you don't mind it being edited prior to discussion, it seemed minor, but unclear as it stood. Calicocat 22:56, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

why was this peace so shocking for the audience, what made them riot? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.114.36.190 (talk) 18:08, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Because of the "intensely rhythmic score and primitive scenario", according to the article. Why do you ask, do you find this requires elaboration?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:18, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I personally think it does. It's probably not the place to address it in a Wikipedia article that essentially treats the ballet and the music score as two facets of the same event, but the "riot" begs some legitimate questions considering how enduringly popular and immensely influential Stravinsky's music became as a concert piece. Snardbafulator (talk) 06:20, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Stravinsky's undiscovered ballet

"The evening's program began with another Stravinsky piece entitled Les Sylphides." Should I be suing Sony Classics for omitting this important Stravinsky work from the allegedly complete 22 CD Stravinsky edition on my shelves? Probably not, as the work was Les Sylphides to Chopin's music. The Rite was followed by Le spectre de la rose and Borodin's Polovtsian Dances. See Canarina, John (2003). Pierre Monteux, Maitre. Pompton Plains, New Jersey: Amadeus Press. ISBN 1574670824. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help) page 43. I've put this article on my list for improving, but if anyone has time and inclination to get in first I shall happily give place. – Tim riley (talk) 20:57, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Expansion and improvement

Re the above, Tim and I have agreed to work on expanding and improving the Rite article. This will take a few weeks, during which the article may, temporarily, look a little odd, although we will try to keep it coherent for the general reader (it attracts around 800 viewings each day). Suggestions on the improvement are welcome, though as we are working within a particular structure, it would be appreciated if these were raised here on the talkpage, rather than merely bolted on to the article. At an appropriate time the redrafted article will be put up for general criticism at peer review. Brianboulton (talk) 15:44, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

PS: the objective is to have the article as TFA on 29 May 2013, the centenary of the work's historic premiere. Brianboulton (talk) 20:39, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. :-) Stolengood (talk) 00:05, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

There is a 3-year-old argument about the use of Radiolab's unthinking repetition of the myth surrounding the premiere. The expanded and improved article should not use this radio program as a source. The passage that it supports is hyperbolic and has no basis in well-established historical fact. Simply citing Taruskin's dissent a few paragraphs later does not erase the damage that the Radiolab paragraph creates with its blind obedience to a thoroughly debunked campfire story. I would make the changes, but I don't want them to be considered "bolted on", especially in the event that some editor is attached to the idea of repeating this nonsense. Trumpetrep (talk) 22:52, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you. However, the whole section relating to the work's premiere and the subsequent performance history and reception remains to be rewritten; none of this has been tackled yet, and I can assure you that when it is, only the most reliable of sources will be used. This will be done over the next week or two, and it will be most useful to have your comments then. There are other sections, e.g. a "General background", and a summary of the recording history, still to be written, and the untidy "Adaptations and arrangements" needs a complete rethink. When the draft revision is complete, the "Under construction" banner will disappear ans a full appraisal of the article will be possible. Brianboulton (talk) 17:20, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

The discussion of the disturbance at the premiere should focus on the multiple first-hand accounts that Stravinsky provided, which clearly debunks the myth that Radiolab perpetuates. If the myth should be given lip service (although, it really should not in an encyclopedic article), it should come after the verifiable facts about the premiere.Trumpetrep (talk) 01:23, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

One last carp, and then I'll be quiet until the draft revision. In light of Jonah Lehrer's exposure as a fraud, the Radiolab episode becomes even more useless as a reference, since the section of the episode dealing with The Rite of Spring is adapted entirely from his first book. In the episode, Lehrer makes fallacious arguments, misstates basic facts, and provides no information that is of use to this article that cannot be culled from a legion of more reputable sources. Trumpetrep (talk) 01:53, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I have already said that the most reliable sources will be used in the account of the premiere - as they will indeed throughout the article. There is no question of Radiolab being retained as a source, when we have a host of contemporary accounts and analyses such as Hill's (2004) and Kelly's (First Nights, 2000), plus Stravinsky's autobiography, etc. Don't interpret a delay in dealing with this as being of any significance; two of us are working hard to get this article up to scratch, but progress may be uncertain at times. Brianboulton (talk) 09:47, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Outstanding work. Seems like it might be appropriate to break some of this material off into separate articles, particularly the section about the premiere.Trumpetrep (talk) 00:00, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Images

• File:Roerich Rite of Spring.jpg
• File:Riteset.jpg

There are problems with the use of the above images of Roerich's backdrops. Nikolai Roerich lived until 1947, so PD-art does not become available until 2018. Also, verifiable source information is absent from both image files. It is thus not possible at the moment to establish that these images are in the public domain in the US. If it can be confirmed that these images were published (as distinct from created) before 1923, then either or both could be used under a US-PD licence. Or, if a post-1923 source can be identified, a rationale for non-free use could be made for one or other of them. I am investigating the position, but until it is resolved I have replaced the Roerich lead image with a photograph of Stravinsky's "knock-kneed and long-plaited Lolitas". Brianboulton (talk) 14:27, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

• Couldn't a fair-use argument in accordance with the non-profit educational usage under 17 USC 107 be used? --ColonelHenry (talk) 21:24, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Probably, but we would still need a verifiable post-1923 source. However, I'm not giving up without a fight on finding a pre-1923 published source which would confirm the images as PD. I think it quite likely that Roerich's designs were published somewhere (book, journal etc) in the ten years following the premiere, especially around the time of the Massine revival in 1921. Brianboulton (talk) 23:24, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Later: I have found a reliable source (post-1923) for one of Roerich's backdrops, and have included this as the lead image under a fair use rationale. During the course of the peer review I will take further advice on this usage. Meantime, the Lolitas can be found in the "Premiere" section. Brianboulton (talk) 19:25, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Date of first performance

I have changed it from 13 May 1913 to 29 May 1913 as this is unanimously accepted in other sources, including the French Wikipedia page. 1juno1 (talk) 17:12, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Instrumentation

The instrumentation, as currently shown, is a mess. There exists no such thing as a "flute in G major" or "trumpet in D major" – such terminology shows a lack of basic understanding of transposing instruments. The listing speaks of a "large strings complement", but then gives figures which are only half the size of a standard symphony orchestra. The listing is also demonstrably incorrect in certain details (e.g. "two B-flat clarinets" – there are actually three). I intend to alter this listing to agree with the Boosey and Hawkes edition. Vilĉjo (talk) 00:48, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

In fact, all this information was perfectly complete and accurate prior to this edit by User:Brianboulton, which deleted authoritative material taken directly from the published score and replaced it with some dubious third-party online programme notes. Vilĉjo (talk) 18:35, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

infobox: absence of

The article has no infobox, so i added one. This has turned out to be unexpectedly controversial, so I am now reposting here the debate which has begun over this so it can continue in one place. Sandpiper (talk) 20:41, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Brianboulton posted to me:

I note that you have introduced an infobox, ignoring (and in fact deleting) the request that this not be be done without seeking consensus. There is an existing and long-established consensus with music articles that infoboxes are not added; you are welcome to make the case for an infobox in this instance, but should do it on the talkpage as requested, rather than by unilateral action. Please remember that there is no requirement for any Wikipedia article to have an infobox.

You mention that the article is confused as to whether Rite is a ballet or an instrumental piece. In fact, the first paragraph of the article couldn't be clearer on this point. The "confusion" lies with the infobox, which because of the box-ticking nature of the format in unable to provide an accurate and adequate description of the work. Another crime which the infobox commits is to reduce the beautiful Roerisch image to the size of a large postage stamp, surely no way to draw readers into the article?

You raise other points in your talkpage comments which are of some interest, and I would like to address these when I have a little more time. In the meantime I would ask you to delete the infobox, until the matter has been subjected to a discussion for consensus. Brianboulton (talk) 11:20, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Then I replied to him on his page, and he and another reponded:

hello. I was hoping you might get in touch, though unfortunate we should start in a confrontation. I saw the note in the text about infoboxes and duly read both the linked style suggestions and the talk page. The style suggestions linked specifically refer to articles which are the biographies of composers. As such I was a little at a loss to understand why it had been linked, because it would not apply to an article about a ballet. Did you add that? My own experience has been that although infoboxes might not have been adopted by policy, they are universally added to articles. What they do do, is create a quick reference point for anyone seeking specific basic facts.

I read the talk page too, and the only comment I could find there suggesting any sort of consensus on the subject was one posting asking for one to be included. As I see it, there is no evidence of any discussion at all on this matter, though I noted you yourself removed the infobox which had been in the article for some time. I left a comment there too, and I shall shortly have a look to see if anyone has commented.

Now I agree the infobox doesnt much help the scene image. My inclination is that the infobox needs some other image, I would have loved a program cover, or a closeup of something.

No, i dont plan to delete the infobox, because I dont see any evidence anyone except yourself disliked it. I fear you are being a little possessive about this article, (I see you have written much of it?). This is wikipedia, you know. Sandpiper (talk) 16:38, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I got here because I have been editing 'afternnon of a faun' and the Vaslav Nijinsky articles lately. So eventually I got to this one and was delighted to see a real genuine article already existed. In the case of 'faun', as I think I alluded to somewhere, the article has been split into separate articles describing the music and the ballet (in fact, two ballet articles, or stubs anyway, for the distinct productions). This isnt quite the same, because here the music was specially commisioned and grew up with the intention of adding dance, but on the other hand this article is beginning to get a bit long.Sandpiper (talk)

First, you are wrong in your assumption that infoboxes are "universally added to articles". There are certainly areas in Wikipedia where they are avoided, including nearly all classical music articles, be these composer biographies, opera articles or about other individual music pieces. The consensus among involved editors has generally been respected when such articles have been presented to the review process; infoboxes are not present in any of the 30-odd classical music articles which have reached featured status. There have of course been many discussions on this issue: see for example the Talk:Georg Solti page, and indeed my own efforts to find some compromise with the box-lovers, on Talk: Gustav Mahler.

but this is a ballet, not an opera, composer biography or indeed musical piece. I have come across issues like this before, where transferring from one project demarcation to another, suddenly someone has a strong view on how to interpret guidelines which is completely opposite to some other project. Perhaps you can better explain wy music feels it is unique in how it should be presented? Sandpiper (talk) 20:27, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

The fact that your box doesn't help the scene image is rather beside the point at issue. What do you think boxes are for? My view is that boxes can sometimes provide accurate summary information as a service to the casual reader, but in some cases they can mislead rather than inform. In this case, the box is solely concerned with information on the ballet to the exclusion of the concert version, and gives primacy to Nijinsky above the composer. Anyone consulting the box would be not only underinformed, they'd be misinformed. Please ask yourself the question: What does this box add to the article? On the matter of the lead image, the question is not so much about what is most suitable but what is available within the scope of the US copyright laws. The Roersch backdrop is presented under a fair use rationale; it is a lovely image, but if you can find one that is free, then by all means suggest it.

You suggested on my page that an objection to the box was that it spoiled display of the image, so i replied here on that. I dont understand how the box gives primacy to the choreographer over the composer since both are mentioned. Are you objecting to the box because it lists the choreographer first? If so, surely you should take that up on the infobox page. The music was designed to be a ballet, which as I undertsand it is unusual for music which becomes a ballet. As to boxes in general I was at first somewhat bemused by them but I see their advantages. Most of all, since some like to have them, I see no objection to their being present. Those that like to look at a checklist can do so, others can simply ignore it. I dont really understand why this is worth arguing about to remove them? They have beome a house style for wikipedia. I ask you, how do they detract from the article?

You raise the spectre of ownership. You should acquaint yourself with this guideline, which makes a sharp distiction between ownership and "stewardship". Having led the effort by which the Rite article was raised to FA and TFA status, I think it's my responsibility, not just my right, to see that changes to the article by subsequent (and not always well-informed) editors are consistent with the article's standing. This does not mean preserving the article in aspic, and changes for the better are to be welcomed. But the guideline does set out a protocol for such introducing such changes, in particular: "... the editor proposing the change should first take the matter to the talk page, without personal comments or accusations of ownership. In this way, the specifics of any change can be discussed with the editors who are familiar with the article, who are likewise expected to discuss the content civilly." Brianboulton (talk) 19:04, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I have noted a regrettable tendency on wikipedia for articles labelled as FA to indeed become aspicated. Eventually their cumulative errors catch up with them and they are changed. Frequently against the opposition of those who rewrote them last. I have already posted some serious objections to the content on the talk page, rather than this which I frankly thought would be uncontroversial and trivial. Its just a detail of presentation, not an issue of serious article content. Sandpiper (talk) 20:27, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I am very sorry to see that a single user is attempting to overturn the consensus established during this article's rigorous reviewing during its promotion to Featured Article. User:Sandpaper is, of course, entitled to his/her views, but the consensus is very well established, and we don't want a single editor attempting to impose his/her WP:OWN views as Sandpiper might be considered to be doing. Tim Riley (talk) 19:44, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Can someone please point out where this debate took place? As I mentioned somewhwere, thus far the only comment I have seen on this is another editor apart from myself requesting inclusion of an infobox. The genral coonsensus on wikipedia is that placing an infobox on a page is uncontroversial. Sandpiper (talk) 20:27, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I had a read of some of the debates mentioned. I see they state clearly that being a FA has nothing to do with either having or not having an infobox, so there is absolutley no problem adding one which is missing. Nor is the FA process in any way an affirmation that the absence or presence of a box is correct. So lets stop trying to claim that it is, shall we?

Nor does the project consensus matter. It is clearly stated in those debates - apparently in a RFC- that a project may have whatever view it likes, but that isnt binding on any article.

Heres a point for you to ponder which I didnt see in the debate. If I look at wiki on my mobile phone, the infobox appears just beautifully in the screen giving me the important main details of the article in a clear way. Much easier to assimilate than lines of miniature text close together. Those who claim it is purposeless, it certainly isnt on a mobile phone. What I see is title, picture, infobox details, then the text. It tells me in one screen the essentials on this subject, which is exactly how I want to see it. The infoboxes in themselves form a miniature encyclopedia.

I was also struck by a comment in the debate that the only thing appearing on my computer screen where the infobox ought to be is an embarassing blank space which looks bad. The only justification presented for removing an infobox is that it looks bad. Wrong, it looks bad without one. Arguing that a box repeats information shown elsewhere might be true but is also absurd. So what? Sandpiper (talk) 21:44, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

This response was also added on my home page from tim reilly:(Sandpiper (talk))

I wonder why you think your views override the consensus arrived at by numerous experienced Wikipedians, and why you feel free to revert their agreed versions on your own whim? I have just checked out your current project, on l'après-midi d'un faune, and I have counted 25 errors. I humbly suggest you attend to them, and leave fully-checked and agreed articles unmolested. If you deign to deal with Wiki colleagues I will gladly send you the list of errors in the Faun article. Tim Riley (talk) 21:42, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I already mentioned, please point out where on this talk page is the debate which you say has created a consensus for this page on whether or not it should have an infobox. For some of my other reasons, see the above. The consensus version of this article had an infobox, which was removed in this edit [1] on 22 August by Brian Boulton.

I know there are lots of errors in the faun article, and the least of them are the easiest to spot. Feel free to correct them rather than arguing here? It isnt my project! It is also a serious mistake for anyone to believe an article is ever finished. This one isnt. Sandpiper (talk) 22:02, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Happy to send a list of errors if you would like them. Tim Riley (talk) 22:13, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

better you correct them, surely, in a spirit of cooperation?Sandpiper (talk) 22:29, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Good heavens, no! I am not so arrogant as to assume that what seem to me to be errors are incontrovertibly so. I should much prefer to send suggestions to the main editor concerned. Tim Riley (talk) 22:45, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I see, you believe in beaurocracy rather than action, then. Fillibuster rather than concede error? Sandpiper (talk) 23:45, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

section breaker for convenience, comments by cassianto and responses to same

I took part in both the peer review and showed my support at FAC. I strongly oppose any infobox within this article. Personally speaking, I do not find them helpful. Infoboxes seem to pander to the lowest concentration span. Their premise seems to be that readers can't absorb the key facts from extended text, or that they want isolated factoids hammered into a prefabricated shape. They judder against the lead as a summary of the main text, but are prone to deceive (not by purpose, but in effect). Infoboxes are at loggerheads with WP's goal of providing reliable, deep information about the world; they intrude between readers and their all-important engagement with the opening of the main text.

• Undisciplined expansiveness: A maximum-inclusion approach to fields that leads editors to place repetitive, sometimes downright silly information in the box. (There needs to be clear, prominent advice about not using every single field in every circumstance, and rather the need to ration the information, shaping it to the context.)
• Visual degradation: The way infoboxes squash the text to the left, particularly on smaller screens, and restrict the sizing of the lead picture.
• Prefabrication: The prefabricated feel infoboxes give to articles: here's quick and dirty info if you can't be bothered to read on—the very name of the boxes says it all.
• Disconnected particles. Their domination of the very opening of an article with chopped up morsels that seem to contradict the continuous, connected form and style of the running prose. (If the justification is that adding an infobox provides both genres, the problem is this utter visual domination at the top—and see the next point.)
• Uncertain benefit for readers: The failure of anyone who promotes infoboxes to explain how they are read. (Do readers look at them first, before embarking on the lead? Does the existence of infoboxes encourage readers not to absorb the main text? Do readers hop from article to article looking only at infoboxes—an argument I've heard put for retaining blue-carpeted linking practices within infoboxes? Do readers just glance quickly at the infobox and then read the article proper—in which case, what is the relationship between the infobox and the rest, and does the former reduce the impact of the latter through pre-empting basic information that the reader will encounter in the running prose? What functionality is missing when an article does not have an infobox?)
• Better as lists: The fact that infobox information seems, in design, to be for comparison between topics. (If this is the case, the information would be far, far better in a WP List, where the form is much better suited to comparison, and the relationship between lead and table can be made to work very well indeed; see Featured lists for what I mean.)

If an Infobox was present at PR I would have requested its deletion. -- Cassianto^Talk 01:52, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for getting back on this, because I do personally find it rather hard to understand why people so vehemently oppose infoboxes. The fact that this matter has not been settled long since shows that there are clearly people who love infoboxes and people who hate them. When I first came across the tendency on wikipedia to start cluttering pages with boxes of all sorts I was a little bemused by them. I came to the view that they did no harm, they are merely an alternative way to present information, so why should I veto someone else's preferred way to do this?

I cannot agree with your aesthetic objections that infoboxes spoil the look of a page. First, I note that universally even the objectors to infoboxes choose to place a picture on the right of a page, which is the most obvious thing which an infobox does too. It is merely an expanded frame. Second, I think you would have to agree that the effect on formatting of a page when an infobox is present is rather mixed. The really bad problem with formatting is created by a long table of contents on the left of a page, which tends to create a big white space to its right. This does not seem sufficient grounds in anyones mind for banning a table of contents. The infobox can help with this problem, because it tends to extend downwards on the right of the page into the white space, as indeed it does on this article. This is obviously less the case on a narrow screen, but first I find the whole world is moving to ever wider and wider screens, and second at no width does it make matters worse.

You say,Infoboxes are at loggerheads with WP's goal of providing reliable, deep information. I dont know where you get this view of wikipedias goal?

Deep information may be one goal but it is absolutely not the only one. Wikipedia aims to meet the differing knowledge needs of all individuals. In fact, the biggest problem this article has is that it is way too detailed. Wikipedia's problem is not a shortage of information, but how to present information simply for those who have not an hour to spend reading an article. The difficulty is in one article to create something which will satisfy someone with 30 seconds to spare, someone with 5 minutes and someone with 5 hours. I always reckon an article needs to be written with a one sentence definition of the subject, a short introduction which includes those points essential for someone who wants to drop his abstruse knowledge into a couple of sentences of dinner table conversation, and the entire article for someone who needs to create a researched essay on the subject. To keep enumerating points again, first I dont see how technically the presence of an infobox interferes with any of these functions of different parts of an article, but second it has a real role to play in presenting systematically highlight information.

The question of a house style is very important. Although wiki currently tolerates two styles I do not believe that it should, and the only solution is to insist on adding an infobox to every article. People have argued that an inofbox can be trivial, and perhaps so. However its presence on the basis of maintaining the customary article style outweighs any disadvantage of having a box with negligible content. It will presumably at least contain a picture and caption in standard format, is that objectionable? How exactly does having information presented in this alternate way prevent a reader learning from an article?

One of the most compelling reasons for having an infobox I have seen is the mobile phone. Having now crept forward technologically to the point where I have a smart phone with internet capability I find I sometimes look at wikipedia other than on my nice big monitor. Whatever happens to the technology, phones will remain small because they have to be easy to carry, so we will be forever stuck with small screens. The absolute enemy of a small screen is arbitrary presentation of basic information littered within tiny text which is on the borderline of your ability to read. I say this because whoever uses a phone will always select the smallest text size they can just read, so as to get as much of the whole visible at once. If the only people who ever got anything from an infobox were mobile users, this by itself would justify insisting that every article must have one. I was stunned the first time I opened an article and saw the infobox on screen in front of me, tailor made to present the essential facts in a narrow screen format. Perhaps the infobox format can be tweaked, but it so happens wikipedia invented a means to present basic information about a subject before the existence of the technology which needed it. The complete set of infoboxes from all articles is a miniature encyclopedia in itself and an exceptionally valuable resource.

You say that had an infobox been present you would have requested its deletion on review? On what grounds? Ok, you have made your aesthetic views clear, but my understanding is that the criteria for good articles on wikipedia expressly leave out of consideration the issue of whether an article has an infobox or not. You do not therefore have a right to object to an article being accepted as one of the best on wikipedia on those grounds. Or to put it roundabout, wikipedia has agreed that having an infobox on any article conforms with its guidance on the best article style.

I really don't understand your argument that infoboxes deceive. How?

How does an infobox intrude between a reader and the introduction? If I look at a page I will usually read the introduction, ignoring the infobox. Alternatively, if I am after a specific fact, like who wrote the ballet, I will look at the box. These are separate and complimentary tools for imparting information. You suggest separating infoboxes from articles, but surely that amounts to forking the entire encyclopedia? How could such dual pages be kept in sync and up to date, how could you justify the gross reduction in user friendliness of having to seek two different pages for two different needs. The whole idea of a wiki page is to be all things to all men. If a reader is willing to learn more, its there ready. I am a little concerned by the attitude to readers implied by a comment like here's quick and dirty info if you can't be bothered to read on, which suggests readers ought to change to become academics, rather than it being our duty to help them as they are. Sandpiper (talk) 10:13, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

This article has a hidden comment at top (seen by those who edit it, but not by those who simply read it) which is

Before adding an infobox, please consult Wikipedia:WikiProject Composers#Biographical infoboxes and seek consensus on this article's talk page.

The article had no infobox and this note when it went through both a detailed peer review (PR) and FAC. None of the many experienced editors who reviewed it at PR and/or FAC objected to this note, and none expressed the need for an infobox. Thus I have reverted the recent removal of the note. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 17:57, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Can you please advise how many of the reviewers were aware of the existence of this comment text hidden in the wiki markup which does not appear on page? The note links to advice about biographical articles, saying it is pwermitted for them not to have an info box. This isnt a biographical article but one about a ballet, so can you advise how it is relevant?Sandpiper (talk) 20:20, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

PS I also see no consensus to date for addition of an infobox (or removing the note) here on the talk page Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 18:03, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

The infobox was arbitrarily removed without discussion. Can you advise where consensus was created for its removal?Sandpiper (talk) 20:20, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

The infobox was removed by me. This was not an "arbitrary" action, it was fully considered. It was done as part of the article's preparation for FAC, in full knowledge of and respect for the existing consensus that infoboxes are not included in articles of this nature. If the consensus was otherwise I would have included an infobox regardless of my personal feelings on this score. The consensus against infoboxes is not confined to music articles, incidentally; many articles on literary works avoid them. These consensuses have developed over time and may not be fully documented as you would like, but they are real, nevertheless. I respect your right to make your case, but suggest that writing at such inordinate length, while being blind to the reasoning of everyone else, is not the best way of going about it. I will be happy to work with you on ways of improving the Rite article, or on any classical music article that falls within my fairly wide field of intetest, but on this particular issue I do not propose to engage further. Brianboulton (talk) 01:01, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I have read some of the items you linked discussing infoboxes, where the point was clearly made that the only consensus which matters is one on the page of the article concerned. The views of projects do not count. All the history of this article I have read shows an implicit and even explicit acceptance of an infobox up until the point you removed it. This rather places the emphasis on you to demonstrate a consensus exists here for your actions. Some text was added to the article warning off people reinstating an infobox, which mentions some policy in support. This smacks of an attempt to wikilawyer the debate by false quotation, since the linked item explicitly refers to biography articles rather than any other kind (ie its irrelevant), and it actually states what I just repeated, that the only consensus which matters is the one established about this specific page. No consensus was established to remove the infobox and then a spurious warning was added to deter anyone objecting to the change?Sandpiper (talk) 09:03, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Dear Sandpiper, please see the "Expansion and Improvement" section above, where on July 27, 2012 Brianboulton announced his intent to improve the article to FA with the goal of it being TFA for the 100th anniversary of the premiere. There was an infobox which was removed on August 23, 2012 diff, which is what Brianboulton is referring to. Although various editors discussed the article and potential issues with it since July 27 on this talk page and on the peer review and Featured Article candidate pages (PR closed Sept. 2 and article was promoted to FA on Sept. 11, these are linked in the Article History above), no one objected to the removal of the infobox or asked that one be added back. That is the consensus you seem not to get - many experienced editors looked at this and offered many points of criticism and suggestions for improvement, but every single one saw the lack of an infobox as a non-issue. Looking at the article history and history of this talk page, you first edited the article and talk page (at least as User:Sandpiper) only a few days ago.

It has been established by debate that the presence or absence of an infobox is officially a non-issue when considering suitability to be an FA, so I dont see how a lack of comment on this point helps your case? Someone has now objected. Sandpiper (talk) 09:03, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

As for your request above "Can you please advise how many of the reviewers were aware of the existence of this comment text hidden in the wiki markup...?", I have no idea, but I can say that YOU had no problem finding it and removing it, and I assume that most other reviewers edited the article and so saw the notice. In general, if I could give you some advice, please limit your comments - see WP:TLDNR Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:07, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I only saw it because I looked at the very start of the article where I would expect an infobox to be and only saw it because I was editing to insert one (after, incidentally, reading the talk page where the only comment on infoboxes was supportive). Why would anyone else notice? I regret that I seem to be repeating certain points, but people posting dont seem to notice where certain responses to the points they make have already been made. Sandpiper (talk) 09:03, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Sandpiper, since you raised the issue last week, the following editors have expressed an opinion on including an infobox: Four are opposed (Brianboulton, Tim Riley, Cassianto, and myself (Ruhrfisch)) while one is in favor (Sandpiper), which seems a pretty clear consensus against inlcuding an infobox. As I already mentioned, none of the peer or FAC reviewers saw a need for an infobox, and as this article has been viewed over 112,000 times in the last 90 days (since it became an FA) and no one but you saw the need to try and add an infobox or comment about it on this talk page, the consensus is clearly in favor of no infobox. I frankly have much better things to do with my limited time than argue with you, Sandpiper, so this is my last comment on your prolixity. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:05, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree that this article is better off without the infobox, which contained only redundant information, created ambiguity, interfered with the opening image and was prone to contain errors and typos. The article Lead contains an excellent overview of the articles and is not enhanced by the infobox. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:25, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Monopoly of wisdom

It is sad that a single user thinks it legitimate to overturn the work of knowledgable editors and the many reviewers who have peer reviewed this article and later approved it for FA - i.e. Wikipedia's highest standard. There is a consensus that classical music articles do not have infob-oxes. I have corrected Sandpiper's well-meant but misguided intervention. Tim Riley (talk) 21:57, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I think if you read the posts above, you will see that I have addressed your point. I dont understand what sadness has to do with it, Peer review does not pass judgement on whether or not an article needs to have an infobox. This is explicitly excluded from consideration. As i understand it RFC on this point has decided that the view of a project is not relevant. The existing infobox on this page was removed without any debate by tim Boulton. All i have done is put it back. Perhaps you could show me where the question of an infobox for this page has been debated? Sandpiper (talk) 22:08, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Your posts are very, very long, but insofar as I understand them they miss the point that it it a long-standing convention that Classical Music articles in general (with exceptions, e.g. operas) do not have an infob-ox, a fact well known to all who review them for PR and FAC. It is indeed sad that one editor feels free to overturn this long-lasting consensus. Tim Riley (talk) 22:18, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

No, I do not. I read the debate linked by tim boulton. It would seem there is a long history of misinformation about this point and much debate on other pages. The result of lengthy consideration and requests for comment on this issue were that 1) FA ignores the issue of whether or not there is an info box. Either way is equally satisfactory. 2)The opinion of a project has no bearing on any particlular page, whether that project claims it or not. 3)The consensus which matters is that established on the talk page of the article concerned. Where is it? All I see is that a few months ago Tim Boulton removed an infobox which had been there for years? Sandpiper (talk) 22:27, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Who is this Tim Boulton? A product of a fevered and disordered imagination? Tim Riley (talk) 22:37, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

That was the only part of my post to which it was possible to make a reply?Sandpiper (talk) 23:42, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Im curious, just exactly what is the FA position on using references praising the subject of an article from websites which are offering that article for sale? Just thought I should ask a knowledgeable editor. Sandpiper (talk) 20:59, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

As noted before, specifics are helpful. Can you please give the reference(s) in question? By the way, this passed a ref check at its FAC. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:32, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I mention it above also. In general, claims within the article about the music's ubiquity are not supported. The particular sentence: The work has since become a staple in the repertoires of all the leading orchestras, and has been cited by Leonard Bernstein as "the most important piece of music of the 20th century".ref name= Bernstein"The Rite of Spring at 100; The History". Carolina Performing Arts: The University of North Carolina. Retrieved 12 August 2012./ref. By the way it has passed FA? yes, you pinpoint the problem exactly. Sandpiper (talk)

recent edits to descriptions of later performances

[copied from talk pager of User:Sandpiper for reply here]

With reference to your recent edits on the Rite article, I have copyedited and slightly shortened the material added in respect of the abandonment of the Nijinsky choreography. I have also trimmed the Nijinsky image caption by removing information of no relevance to the Rite. I am unconvinced that your rearrangements in the Performance history section are an improvement; there is much in favour of a simple chronology, and I think this issue needs further thought. I have left it alone for the moment, but I'll get another view on this. Meantime I have realigned the Massine image to its associated text. Brianboulton (talk) 21:56, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I have also amended your alterations, and in detailed explanation: you accidentally included the same sentence twice: You said 'the reasons for its abandonemnt..' whereas I see no evidence the ballet was abandoned, it simply didnt get performed: "..had been lovers..."It is unclear to me what was the exact state of their relationship at this point: 'Diaghilev distraught..', witnesses said he was, which rather explains why this was so serious: 'on tour..' It is significant that the marriage happened while Diaghilev was not present and able to interfere. The books I read comment it is remarkable that Gunsbourg who Diaghilev had placed in charge absolutely did not take the action Diaghilev would have expected, but instead did everyhthing he could to expedite the marriage. '..Fokine had resigned..' It is necessary to explain he was no longer working for the company, and had left in a big row, before we can say he was re-hired and had leverage to demand conditions: '..Prisoner exchange..', he wasnt just released, Diaghilev expended a good deal of effort to bring this about involving many world figures, and it is necessary to have some form of words implying the effort involved, and mention the US tour to indicate that he did resume working for Diaghilev. One could continue and explain that Nijinsky seems to have been rather piggy in the middle between Romola and Diaghilev at that point.

I am sorry that a sentence was inadvertently copied twice. The problem with your proposed addition, which you apparently fail to recognise, is the inclusion of irrelevant detail. Please remember that the subject of this article is The Rite of Spring, not the relationships between the various individuals in the Ballets Russes. For example, it is not relevant to this article that the Ballets Russes was in South America when Nijinsky married, nor are the details of his release from house arrest. If you want to work on the Ballets Russes article, or on those for Diaghilev or Nijinsky, you can expand on these themes, but here we have to keep to the point of this article and, because we are writing an encyclopedia article, not a textbook, we are required to be brief. I have trimmed again, but left a little more in about Fokine.

It may be that this article is a bit long and so will need to be trimmed somehow. About this particular point, the article I first read gave the impression the choreography was a failure and was abandoned for artistic reasons. Whereas the choreography seems to be written about as ground breaking and a milestone in the history of dance (eg Hill said this, I was reading this morning). It is thus very important to explain the compound cirumstances which surrounded it not being performed again, and indeed why people thought it worth the trouble of re-staging it years later. As you say, the article is about 'the rite of spring', and if it is necessary to cut something I would suggest eg the first paragraph of 'background', which is purely biographical detail about Stravinsky. Or, Like Stravinsky, Diaghilev had initially studied law, but had gravitated via journalism into the theatrical world. Does that belong in the Diaghilev article? I dont see similar detail about Nijinsky? I remind you that this article is THE article about this important choreography. Sandpiper (talk) 09:46, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I notice that we also have a stylistic issue with regard to writing, you like sentences with lots of ;: and chopping up clauses, I prefer sentences written out to minimise clauses. The univers notwithstanding, life continued unabated - Life continued unabated notwithstanding the universe (hitch hikers guide to the galaxy, douglas adams.)Sandpiper (talk) 09:46, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Not sure I understand your point about the Hitchhiker's Guide. The prose style of the article is established, and your additions will if necessary have to be edited for consistency. I will return to this discussion after the holidays. Bearing in mind the need to resolve differences in the interest of improving the article, I trust you will refrain in the meantime from any editing which might be preemptive or contentious. Brianboulton (talk) 22:09, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Its an example which sticks in the mind. In general a simpler sentence structure is easier to understand though it may be less artistic. Wikipedia seeks to inform, not baffle. How effective is this article at informing those of us less literate? As to editing, I will contiue to work on the article at my convenience, as seems to be your plan too. You did not comment on my explanations why I made the edits I did. Sandpiper (talk) 23:37, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

As to rearranging the order in which different productions are listed: I have stated above that I believe the article must include descriptions of the choreography, and indeed I see someone above had posted such a request before. To do this it is necessary to treat each production individually because there are several versions. As things stood it was not clear which production was happening where. This article already made a distinction between concert and ballet performances, but then interleaved these in a way which made it very hard to track. See also my comment above that it appears one concert is listed as a ballet. Can you tell which performance is which choreography in the 'other choreographies' section? The big problem I see with this article is that Nijinsky's choreography was revolutionary and game changing, deserving an article in its own right, but it is being virtually overlooked because of the considerable success of the music as a stand alone concert piece. Sandpiper (talk) 23:05, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

The answer to your question: "Can you tell which performance is which choreography in the 'other choreographies' section?" is yes, except in the case of the 1946 Australian premiere where the source does not give this information. I am checking whether this was in fact a concert performance. But that is a separate matter; I will not be able to give further thought to the organisation of the performance history until after the holidays. It may be a matter for consensus discussion. Brianboulton (talk) 01:27, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

miscellaneous comments (problems with article despite FA acceptance)

A few days ago I came here because I was interested in how well developed the article on the Nijinsky ballet 'Rite' might be. I was initially pleasantly surprised, well I still am. However, I could see some problems with the article and started listing them here, which is something I customarily do with articles. Sometimes I fix them, sometimes i dont: it is necessary to understand how a big article works before making major changes. In this case its a recently created FA, so it should be perfect. It isnt. There are some factual and NPOV errors, but the biggest problem is that this is a perfectly good article about the concert piece 'Rite of Spring', but not about the ballet 'Rite of spring'. If this article was split so there were separate articles on each then material here might suffice to cover the music. Its rather long, so as someone above suggested perhaps it already ought to be split into more smaller articles.

I note the intent of those working on the article that it feature on the front page on the 100th anniversary of the first performance of the ballet, an excellent idea. Yes, the ballet. This strikes me as a serious problem, because exactly where this article falls short is ballet. Rite was not a concert piece to which a ballet was added, but a custom written ballet score which had the dancing dropped. It seems to me that this article fails the comprehensiveness test, because it lacks major details describing the ballet choreography and its importance. Comprehensiveness is a difficult thing to judge for an external referee not immersed in a subject so I can see why this was passed, but in my opinion it should not have been. The article gives the impression Nijinsky's choreography was a failure and this is not true, but it helps to explain why assessors were misled. (from what I could read, Kelly gives a much more rounded description of the actual premiere than is apparent from this article, which references him extensively. Hill essentially says Stravinsky lied about his role in the choreography. Where do we discuss the choreography?) If people still want to get this onto the front page, then someone has to fix it. (of course, I'm sure lots of pages have been fronted on wiki with omissions and mistakes, but do you want to join them? Youre surely not here for the cudos of writing a front page article?).

I admit to being biased here, because I was interested in the coverage of Nijinsky on wikipedia (although three months ago I knew nothing about him). This article does Stravinsky proud, but Nijinsky you trash. This probably has a lot to do with Stravinsky having a long career after this point, whereas Nijinsky went mad. Not to deny Stravinsky credit for what he did, but to properly attribute credit to Nijinsky who has not had the benefit of publicity over those years to remind the public in person of his achievements. So some article bias is understandable, it just isnt acceptable.

I am very very unimpressed by the attitude expressed here that since it was passed FA recently it must be perfect. This is a classic example, but my own favourite is the FA on Francis Harvey VC, which might best be described as a pack of lies from start to finish. Granted, state sponsored lies, but the evidence his Victoia Cross citation was incorrect is now clear and documented. Wiki likes to follow the official line, but even there the article had serious factual errors as passed FA. Who would know? Now, by contrast, the B grade article on the battle of Jutland is really pretty good. It even manages to deal with the same official coverups affecting the unfortunate (or perhaps lucky) Major Harvey. A hero was needed. Sandpiper (talk) 00:11, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

By the way, I'm also right about the infobox. Whatever happens here, its going to arrive at some point because of the technology issue. Get out your phones and see how a box presents info. Wiki cannot ignore that. Sandpiper (talk)

Infobox (see debate below)

No infobox? Is this a ballet or a piece of instrumental music? The article seems confused on this point. It starts by saying it is a ballet, but then most of the article is about the music, not the dance. Generally the more important thing in a ballet is the dancing, not the music? So I guess we add a ballet infobox, but...

Consensus is against an infobox (see below) and in any case there is no requirement for an infobox for FAs. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:48, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Nijinsky could play?

I see there is a footnote re stravinsky's comment that Nijinsky could not play music. Apparently he got good marks at the Imperial ballet school for music. Also Buckle's Biography of Diaghilev (p251) refers to a photograph taken by stravinsky of Ravel and Nijinsky playing four hands at the piano.(although I suppose this only proves he could sit at one in the company of expert musicians). I think I read something which said he was a lot better at playing music than reading it.

This is an article about "The Rite of Spring", so the focus should stay on that. Stravinsky's claim is quoted and is important in the context of the artistic work. Then in a note we learn that "Nijinsky's sister Bronislava Nijinska later insisted that her brother could play a number of instruments, including the balalaika, the clarinet and the piano." What else is needed? Keep the focus on The Rite of Spring... Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:55, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Set design, article doesnt describe it

The set. Roerich seems to have done a number of designs for the set, and there seem to be several scenes? [2] seems to have several of his designs, including different versions of the set currently shown in the article. Is this the right one? Shouldnt there be rather more description somewhere of the actual sets?

1. Since Roerich has not been dead long enough, any works of his have to be presented under a fair use claim, so the number of designs and versions that can be shown here is very limited. See WP:NFCC.
2. As I have mentioned elsewhere, there need to be reliable sources that discuss the set / designs, not just Sandpiper who thinks the article should say more about this - see WP:OR
3. Another aspect to consider is that Roerich's set presumably was used for only 10 performances (6 in Paris, 4 in London). The article describes 20 or more productions (depending how you count), plus it mentions that there have been over 150 total productions. Should all these sets be described in detail? (Of course not). The common factor (and I believe source of the greatness) is the music / plot, not the set or costumes or performers. I think this is an argument that can be applied to many of your other comments. See also WP:WEIGHT. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:37, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

No description of the choreography- oops!

The choreography. Long description of the music, but what about the choreography? This must exist, because the ballet has been reconstructed.Sandpiper (talk) 19:17, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I see Buckle writing in his boigraphy 'Nijinsky' p.311 says "I am convinced that even Diaghilev and Stravinsky did not entirely appreciate the Blake-like vision or recognise how far ahead of his time he was, and I acclaim 'Le Sacre' not only as a masterpiece, the climax of Nijinsky's career, but also as a seminal work, a turning point in the history of the dance, the ballet of the century." Anyone seriously think this sentiment is reflected in the text?Sandpiper (talk) 08:30, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I am a bit concerned that the article simply refers to 'the ballet' all the time, whereas in fact there are at lest two different Ballets, one by Nijinsky and one by Massine. In other instances completely separate articles are used for different versions of the same libretto. How different are the two versions?Sandpiper (talk)

Reasons alleged why this ballet had so few performances

The Nijinsky ballet only had a few showings, but I am left uncertain why this was. Diaghilev was perfectly happy to put on controversial shows, in fact he delighted in doing so provided the fuss boosted ticket sales. I do not know from the article whether rites was a financial success or not. Matters were greatly complicated by Nijinsky's marriage shortly after these performances when the company toured south america, Diaghilev immediately sacked Nijinsky, which left him without a choreographer, and he had to go crawling back to Fokine who had resigned in a blazing row after Diaghilev started asking Nijinsky to choreograph. As conditions for returning to work for Diaghilev he demanded a huge salary and specified in his contract that none of Nijinsky's works would be performed again. Nijinsky returned to the company in 1916 or so for a tour of America, but I can't see anyone considering putting on such a large scale modern production in such an undeveloped ballet market. They did stage 'faun', but before Nijinsky himself got there to supervise, Massine was not very well received in the role. Nijinsky was also preoccupied with developing a new ballet, Till Eulenspiegel. After returning to Europe he managed another foreign tour where he was increasingly disturbed mentally, totally lost it and was irrecoverably mad for the rest of his life. There was also the disruptive problem of WW1. So all in all, circumstances conspired to prevent any further performances of the original ballet. Diaghilev was the man for staging revolutionary shows, so if he couldnt or wouldnt do it, no one else could. Was the ballet unacceptable to audiences, or simply dropped because of bad timing? Diaghilev later revived it with Massine, but as I mentioned before, how similar or different are the two versions? Although there are a few years between Nijinsky's and Massine's versions, this might be looked upon as Diaghilev's best attempt at restaging Nijinsky's work at the earliest opportunity.

I would judge that the article at the moment gives the impression the ballet was received so badly that it was dropped. This may be completely false. Faun, for example, was very controversial but a complete sellout at its premiere and the extra performances in Paris. Sandpiper (talk) 10:01, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

So what was odd about the music?

I have been reading round this, and it struck me that despite the quite large chunks of this article talking about the music, I'm not sure the article explains why it was controversial. Several quotes saying it was, one way or another, but exactly what about it made musicians and audiences find it so alien?Sandpiper (talk) 03:23, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

This is a WP:FA and so has to meet all the FA criteria. Are there reliable sources that should be included and are not? Are there quotes that should be included which are in sources already cited? Specifics can be addressed, WP:I DON'T LIKE IT is much harder to address, and likely to be ignored. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:11, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I would refer you to the exchange below with tim Riley, where he says "Good heavens, no! I am not so arrogant as to assume that what seem to me to be errors are incontrovertibly so. I should much prefer to send suggestions to the main editor concerned." So I have. Since he wants this to be an FA and apparently has been one of the two main authors, I have taken his advice and posted it here for him to fix. I hope such advice was given on the assumption that action would then be taken, especially concerning shortcomings of an FA. Any article wishing to be an FA has to be a complete covering of the subject, and this one isnt. It is unfortunate no one spotted these omissions earlier. That I can see there is a problem does not mean I have figured out how to fix it. Sandpiper (talk) 08:30, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Stravinsky as self-publicist

A number of books seem to suggest Stravinsky at least at some points in his life was quite keen to put a gloss on events emphasizing his contributions and downplaying others. All in all, I think he might have liked the article. As an example, the line in the text " he was not dissuaded when Nijinsky's first attempt at choreography, Debussy's L'après-midi d'un faune, ended in controversy and near-scandal because of an overtly sexual gesture introduced by Nijinsky" seems to suggest that Nijinsky deliberately sabotaged faune by secretly adding a sex scene not originally part of it. He choreographed the whole thing, so in what sense could he have 'introduced' something to his own work? I see that one of the refs backing this line is from stravinsky, while the other from Kelly might even be quoting Stravinsky? Also, 'ended in controversy' is problematic, because it didnt 'end'. Then too, there is the issue that, as with rites, Diaghilev positively delighted in creating controversy, and it was clearly his intent to provide programmes of ballet which included items designed to be controversial. Fokine, at this point cast as the respected and boring establishment choreographer, originally joined Diaghilev because he wanted to break with the established forms and his work was seen as exciting and new. Diaghilev ('he') was unlikely to have been dissuaded about Nijinsky's ability when he had achieved a most satisfactory outcome. Sandpiper (talk) 03:23, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I see Hill p. 110 says that Stravinsky tried to distance the piece from its beginnings as a ballet, and to deny the contributions others had made to its creation. The article states that over the years Stravinsky published increasingly derogatory comments about others contributions, particulalry Nijinsky's, but from the article you would not realise that he was deliberately attempting to rewrite history when he did this. Rather, you would get the impression he started with a firm belief in Nijinsky, but as the choreography developed saw it was unfounded. Hill suggests it was only Nijinsky's ability that made it come out so well. Oh this is getting quite exciting, love a soap opera! Anyway, article emphasis seems wrong.Sandpiper (talk) 09:23, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Fantasia

The question of Fantasia and its relevance was discussed in the recent peer review, where brianboulton wrote "The connection with Disney's 1940 Fantasia is interesting but of only minor significance;". One or two others echoed these sentiments. I cant agree. The reason I know the name of this piece is because one of the worlds greatest entertainment geniuses chose to stage the ballet in one of his films, seen by millions of people at an impressionable age. Looked at from this perspective, the only reason we are here today discussing this is because Diaghilev suported the idea for a new ballet, paid for it to be written and staged a lavish and very expensive opening production in the heart of cultivated society, where it got maximum publicity, and because Disney did the same. Yet the article downplays both these productions, placing the emphasis on the music, not the choreography. The choreography made this music famous. Sandpiper (talk) 08:30, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Disney involvement is the sort of lagniappe which perhaps should be mentioned in the introduction, because this is why it is famous to most people. Sandpiper (talk) 09:23, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Incidentally, on the subject of the importance of opportunity in the development of anything, the article mentions Astruc who paid Diaghilev over the odds to have his company in his new theatre. Astruc, a long time supporter of the company went bankrupt on 17 November (Buckle, Nijinsky p.328). I'm not quite clear whether it was this season which bankrupted him, or whether there were other issues, but even Diaghilev said he was paying too much. So Astruc is someone else to credit for the existence of the ballet. Cost him his business empire, and I think it deserves a mention. Sandpiper (talk) 08:37, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Premiere

jennifer Homans, apollo's angels p.318 says " we know that diaghilev- no stranger to the value of controversy-deliberately stocked the house with the adherents of rival and feuding artistic factions who could be counted upon to create a rukus....Counting on Nijinsky's already controversial reputation,ticket prices had been doubled."Sandpiper (talk)

The description of the premiere says " there is general agreement among eyewitnesses and commentators that the disturbances in the audience began during the Introduction, and grew into a crescendo when the curtain rose on the stamping dancers in "Augurs of Spring". I was reading Kelly, and what I recall he said was that there was evidence the hecklers came armed with whistles, and the heckling began before the performance. The text implies that the heckling arose spontaneously as soon as people heard the music, whereas the source seems to be suggesting the events where pre-planned and really had nothing to do with the music or dance. He also again says that people with known polarised views were given free tickets, and that a number of people who reported on the riot on the opening night could not have been there. The press were invited to the dress rehearsal, which was well received. The riot was staged, though maybe it got out of control. Sandpiper (talk) 03:23, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

modern popularity

There are a couple of related lines in the article," It is very widely performed in the concert hall and is frequently revived on the stage" in the introduction and "Commentators have broadly agreed that, following enthusiastic receptions of concert performances in Moscow, Paris, London and Philadelphia, the work has had a greater impact in the concert hall than on the stage " under concert pieces, which do not seem to have any real substantiation. Is the work really 'very' widely performed compared to other popular pieces: has the music really had more impact on the concert world than the choreography has had on ballet? The quote attributed to Bernstein that it is the most important piece of music of the 20th century is supported by reference to a website selling tickets for their production. Do we take advertising now? In a FA destined for the front page?

The cameo paragraph about the 50th anniversary concert conducted by Monteux is very nice but somewhat undermined as an example of the piece's popularity since we also say Monteux hated it. In general there seems to be a shortage of hard information about its great impact. The evidence in this article suggests much more activity as a ballet. I dont know how big the ballet world is, but The Joffrey ballet seems to have been founded by someone obsessed with Nijinsky and his works. Rambert also went on to found a ballet company and she taught Frederick Ashton, responsible for much of the success of the Royal Ballet in London and a whole school of modern choreography. Sandpiper (talk) 20:45, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Australian production

Article has, "The Rite reached Australia in 1946, when Goossens conducted a performance of the ballet in Sydney.ref"Australian Composition 1945–1959". Australian Music Centre. Retrieved 18 August 2012./ref ". Ref seems to imply this was a concert performance not a ballet perfromance, but it is under the section about ballet performances. Anyone?Sandpiper (talk) 01:42, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Number of performances

The article says there were ten. Other sources seem to disagree and suggest eight (including some referenced such as the Joffrey ballet website). is there a counting problem somewhere? Are we counting dress rehersals where the press were invited (might account for two extra)?Sandpiper (talk) 02:18, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Kelly p,293-4 says there were 5 performances after the premiere, last on 13 june. Which would in fact make 7 paris performances including the dress rehersal where the press and noteables were invited. I think he is wrong, other sources suggest 5 public performances plus one rehearsal, six total. 29 may premiere, 2 june second performance (hill p.116)Sandpiper (talk) 08:41, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Walsh p203 dress rehearsal 28th. Full program les sylphides, rite of spring, spectre de la rose, Prince igor. p.211 last three performances were on 4,6 and 13 June.

published advertising flyer suggests there should have been ballet of some sort on the 9th. [File:Ballets Russes 1913 ballet programme.jpg]Sandpiper (talk) 09:57, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

The article said puccini attended the second performance on 30 may, ref kelly p.294. kelly does not give a date, but hill does as mentioned above and it isnt 30 May. The program at the theatre varied on different nights, kelly mentions p263 that ballets russes were alternating with performances of penelope by gabriel faure and possibly other operas.Sandpiper (talk) 09:09, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Advertising

The article is very heavy on phrases such as 'acording to Hill'. Hill gets at least six mentions by name in the article as a source of information, which I would suggest is a good five too many. References should be listed but not incessantly mentioned by name. We arent trying to sell his book. Arguably quotations should be named, not textual descriptions which have been paraphrased.Sandpiper (talk) 10:59, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Analysis of music

I see the article quotes Hill p. 62 as ' Hill says, "just as it is bursting ecstatically into bloom".' This is all very poetic but if we are quoting him it might have been more interesting to quote a more inciteful comment just above, "if the rites sensational impact on its first listeners was due to its assault on their nervous system, the work owes its longevity to the sheer guile with which it is composed", after he discusses the complex development of aforesaid bloom. Better yet, an explanation of how the music develops. The actual development is a factual, technical process, not a matter of personal opinion, yet this section is littered with opinions and quotations from individuals. Sandpiper (talk) 20:15, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Referencing

Anyone know what the third edition of Grout had to say about the derivation of the rite's name? The sixth edition does not appear to mention this. (though incidentally there is now a seventh edition, i think.) I suggest therefore an alternative source is needed, but of what? Sandpiper (talk) 00:52, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

FWIW, the latest edition of Grout is the Eighth (2010, ISBN 9780393931259).—Jerome Kohl (talk) 02:02, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Recent edits

I am sorry that, among a number of generally useful edits, you chose to reintroduce your infobox in spite of the above discussion. As to the other edits, I have made several amendments and corrections, including the conversion of one marginal addition into a footnote. Can I ask that, when making future edits, you use the standard English convention with regard to capitalisation, and also that you comply with the existing reference formats, in particular with regard to page numbers and ranges. Page ranges require ndashes, not hyphens. Brianboulton (talk) 22:07, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

no doubt. Ruhrfisch commented on my talk page that five editors had expressed a dislike of infoboxes and thus I should desist. I find it regrettable that the only one of those editors who has made a significant contribution to the article is yourself. As to changes to the article, I do the best I can. I am sure you will agree that content is more important than details of spelling, grammer or reference formating. There are many more people here capable of fixing these mistakes than generating content. You yourself seem much better at these details than I. I find it regrettable that no one has commented on the now quite extensive list of problems I have identified with the page. It would seem there is little point trying to discuss a problem, just make edits.

If you are going to edit a featured article, it is up to you to maintain the standards of presentation. It is arrogant in the extreme for you to expect other people to tidy up after you because you are too incompetent or self-important to do the job properly yourself. As to your "quite extensive list of problems", only you seem to recognise them as such; differences of viewpoint are not "problems". You say there is "little point in trying to discuss a problem"; when have you ever raised a discussion in before making your edits? When, before the holidays, I asked you to pause so that outstanding matters could be properly discussed in the New Year, your responses was that you would "continue to work on the article at my convenience". Brianboulton (talk) 11:44, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I am sorry, I absolutely cannot agree. You are placing presentation above content. This is absurd. It doesnt matter how pretty an article looks if it is wrong. I do agree that this is a besetting problem with the FA process.Sandpiper (talk) 11:00, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Sandpiper, editing articles (especially FAs) and the Hippocratic Oath both share the same idea: "First, do no harm". The kind of problems you introduce with your edits would be enough to keep an article from beingpromoted at WP:FAC, until they were fixed. Please see Ownership and stewardship, especiually the section on Featured Articles. From looking at WP:WBFAN, I see that you have not nominated any articles that became FAs, so you might not appreciate the effort and attention to detail involved. Content is vital, but so is following the WP:MOS. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:29, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

As to the footnote, there is already another footnote regarding Nijinsky's musical ability which ought to be stated plainly in the text rather than being demoted to the end of the article. You think stravinsky's slur should be allowed to stand? I am not quite clear yet on the rehearsals situation, but it sounds like Stravinsky was overcomitted with other work at the time of the premiere and did not give it the attention it needed, thus leading to a last minute orchestral rush. Kelly says the choreography was waiting for the final music one month before the premiere. This article is very dependant on the story according to Stravinsky.Sandpiper (talk) 22:34, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I think that Stravinsky's possible mis-statement as to Nijinsky's musical abilities is fully explained in the final sentence of this paragraph. This is a marginal issue in relation to the subject of the article, and is in my view properly the subject of a footnote rather than cluttering the text. Brianboulton (talk) 11:44, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Stravinsky is heavily quoted as a source of information about the events, for example blaming Nijinsky as musically incompetent. Any court of law would take into consideration a witnesses track record of lying about the events if he is to be considered as a reputable source. All the books I have read call into question Stravinsky's reliability on the subject of The rite, because of his published track record of changing his statements. Grout's book 6th ed seems to make the point well, Stravinsky is most famous for writing three ballets, rather than anything else he ever did. Stravinsky clearly did not like the fact his best known works were so heavily reliant on other people. Sandpiper (talk) 11:00, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

revert

One of my changes you reverted was my substitution of a Kelly reference with one by Walsh ,"ref Walsh p.203, reporting Henri Girard, who played double-bass. Probably section after fig.53 in the Spring Rounds. cited in Truman Bullard, PH.D thesis vol I, 1971, The first performance of Igor Stravinsky's Sacre du Printemps, p.97-8. /ref " I did this because 1) the article is overreliant on Hill and Kelly, 2) Walsh cites the original source of the comments, which he says is this PhD. Oh, and he identifies the part which made the musicians laugh. Now that I felt worthy of a footnote. Sandpiper (talk) 22:59, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that this information is central to the article, but nevertheless I have formalised it into a footnote, citing both Kelly and Walsh - Kelly also cites Girard. Brianboulton (talk) 16:41, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Off the top of my head, I recall walsh implying it was HIS view which section was meant, but you may be right it was the PHd author.Sandpiper (talk) 11:00, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Incidentally, I do not think 'informed' better than 'wrote to'. Informed, in this information age tends to mean message arrives 30 seconds later. Cross europe mail would have taken much longer. You may feel some of my word choices are clunky, but they are intended to be precise. Sandpiper (talk) 23:23, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

This is pretty trivial. Change it if you want to. Brianboulton (talk) 16:41, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

It was just one example, I also didnt feel it worth a direct argument. But it is an example where the wording I inserted had a purpose which should not be lost in the interest of sentence flow. This concept is very important.Sandpiper (talk) 11:00, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I think more than one of the ref books comment on Stravinsky's conflicting and altering accounts of events, and his own claim to have had a faulty memory on certain details. They politely suggest, i think, that he never had a faulty memory and this was somewhat euphemistic. I dont see how admitting a 'faulty memory' on any aspect is immaterial to the credibility of his accounts, whatever it is attributed to? Should we adjust this to explain more clearly that the sources question how truthful are his reminiscences? I mentioned this problem above, without any response. Sandpiper (talk) 23:47, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't think this is an issue on which a neutral encyclopedia article ought to take a standpoint. The article already says that Stravinsky gave contradictory accounts of the genesis of the Rite, and summarises the differences. It also quotes Walsh's view that "the belated disavowal of Nijinsky's choreography, together with the denial of folk music influences, was part of an attempt by the composer, then in exile, to downplay the music's Russian roots and influences." I see no need to go further. While relevant as background, these surmises should not be elevated to a central issue within the article. Brianboulton (talk) 16:41, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I just said, we cite Stravinsky. We must take a view on his reliability as a witness. Simply citing him is telling readers we believe he is to be trusted. The other quoted sources point out his unreliability as a witness. Sandpiper (talk) 11:00, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

The article does not "tell readers we believe Stravinsky is to be trusted". That is misrepresentation by you. It records what he said, including that he gave differing versions, and also quotes a source's opionion as to why he may have rewritten the truth later. What it doesn't and must not do is follow your evident wishes and adopt a judgemental stance. Brianboulton (talk) 08:42, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Sandpiper, please see WP:NPOV about mainintaing a neutral point of view and WP:OR about not including original research. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:06, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Comments on some recent Sandpiper edits

These are identified from the article's edit history by date and time

• 2 Jan, 22.50: Dealt with per my note, above
• 2 Jan, 23.18: I'm not convinced that this detail is necessary, but I've no real objection subject to a bit of tidying, which I've done.
• 2 Jan, 23.35: The information that Stravinsky once set two poems by Gorodetsky, who also wrote a poem (which Stravinsky did not set) about a sacrificial maiden is very marginal. Personally I wouldn't include it, but I've compromised and put it back into a footnote.
• 2 Jan, 23.44: I have again restored the ascription. The reasons given in youe edit summary for removing it are frankly ridiculous.
• 4 Jan, 10.27: This is simple padding, which I have removed. In a summary encyclopedia article, background details need to be kept to a minimum; just because a fact is available is not a reason for adding it. Part of your problem with this article is your inability to resist adding bits and pieces, without any thought to the overall architecture of the article which can very easily be bloated by trivia or unimportant detail. This attitude is bound to generate hostility and makes cooperative editing impossible. I repeat what I have said before: if you have suggestions for improvements in significant areas of the article, then bring them here for discussion, and be prepared to compromise. Don't just add your stuff regardless.
• 4 Jan 11.03: The 35000 francs is not an official figure, merely one invented by an anonymous journalist whom Kelly quotes. The figure given by Gustav Linor in his review, quoted by Kelly, is 38000 which is probably more reliable; I have added this, though with qualification (it's in a different place in the sction). I can't see on either of the Kelly pages you cite the justification for saying that ticket prices were doubled, so you will need a new source for this.

I have no problems with your other edits. I hope that you will now decide to edit cooperatively, rather than insisting on your right to edit at will, regardless of the opinions of others. Wikipedia is not exactly bursting with editors willing and able to construct and edit classical music articles, and it is important that these work together to overcome their differences. Brianboulton (talk) 20:05, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Do you think that perhaps for the benefit of anyone interested, you could explain what you are talking about in each case, rather than referring readers to consult the edit history? I dont regard a confusing list as a good faith attempt to engage in discussion over problems with the article, which are diverse. For example, the first edit you mention seems to be my edit restoring something you took out, which I had inserted. Which note above covers this? If you are continuing to complain about a point already mentioned, why are we not discussing that where you first mention it... so we can see the collected debate? (but in fact, I think you are complaining again here about something you do respond to above. So why list it twice?)

I think the edit history referencing is a very convenient way of advising you or anyone else of the edits in question. There is enough verbiage on this page to deter even the most determined of third-party editors. I can add diffs to the references if you like. Brianboulton (talk) 14:43, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

You make some general comments, suggesting some of my additions are trivia. I cant precisely comment because you do not identify which points you mean. However, in one example earlier on this page I made a specific counter argument where I argued the facts I had added were more relevant than some of the background information already in the article. I can see places where it could be trimmed to make more space if necessary. I think, generally, the article will need to be split.

Your opinion that the facts you wish to include are more relevant than the existing background information is simply your opinion. As to splitting, you are fully entitled, if you want to amplify information on, say, the premiere, to create a subarticle on that topic to which this parent article can be linked. You can create other subarticles as you think fit, but this article has to cover in summary form all aspects of the Rite as a work of art. So it won't include everything that every source has said about the piece. It will provide a general picture. Incidentally, it is about time you showed a little respect towards the scores of hours of work that went into the preparation of this article, including the time spent on decisions about what to put in and what to leave out, and the effort to represent what the majority of sources have said about the work. If these choices are not always in line with your personal preferences, so be it. I have read many music article on Wikipedia which, had I written them, would have turned out differently, but unlike you I respect the choices that their editors have made. If I did wish to raise a point of principle, my first action would be to contact the main contributing editor, not to attack the article. Brianboulton (talk) 14:43, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I have already made specific suggestions about improvements above, and there have been no replies. I will not forebear to edit an article on the basis of discussing first when no one is discussing.

Please identify the "specific suggestions about improvements" that you believe have not been considered. If they are buried somewhere in your lengthy apologia above, I could easily have missed them.

The poem, I cant agree. Its obvious the sources think that it is where Stravinsky got the idea, one of the books explicitly states Stravinsky probably got the idea, consciously or unconciously, from this poem. The impression i was left with, which I did not want to overstate is that most probably Stravinsky knew exactly where the idea came from, but refused to acknowledge it. The book goes on about how stravinsky accidentally used a copyright melody in petruska and thereby lost 10% of his royalties. I can see where his reluctance to credit comes from.

The poem is a possible basis for Stravinsky's idea, which most sources don't mention. Its status as a footnote seems entirely in accordance with the reported facts. Once again, your "impression" or interpretation is irrelevant; WP article do not represent editors' personal views. Brianboulton (talk) 14:43, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Ascription? What? Ah, you mean I state above that the article refers by name to various authors too often. We are not an advertising site for book publishers. The text gratuitously mentions certain authors by name too often. What wikipedia editors are supposed to do is read a text and write a piece containing the facts but in new, non-copyright ways. We do not quote verbatim. Authors get mentioned in references, but not otherwise unless it is a direct quote, and not necessarily even then. Sandpiper (talk) 10:50, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia's view is that the "voice" of an article should not appear to be that of the encyclopedia or of individual editors. Citing a source does not fully resolve this; an opinionated editor can usually find a source to back up a statement. Ascribing particular statements to sources makes it clear whose view is being presented. FAC has been very strict on this aspect of presentation, particularly in regard to the analysis and interpretation of music or other works of art. Your observation about an advertising site for publishers is flippant nonsense. Brianboulton (talk)

Simple padding? You are referring to my adding that the theatre was packed? It seems to me this is very relevant to the fact there was an uncontrollable mob in the theatre. We dont mention, I think, that some of the audience was in standing areas, not seated. I think a read of the reports on football riots in the UK shows an interesting parallel, standing spectators were banned from games because it is much easier for a riot to occur in such circumstances. Aside from that, it makes it clear this was a very popular performance. Ticket prices doubled, yet still people are clamouring to get in. It is not a simple case of audience shocked by what is presented, people came deliberately because of the advance publicity with entrenched views. How is this less relevant than that Diaghilev studied law and music at college, or that Stravinsky's father was a bass? Sandpiper (talk) 10:50, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

This is, as I repeatedly say, a summary encyclopedia article about a famous musical work. It is not a newspaper report or gossip column. There is plenty enough existing information about the premiere to demonstrate its nature. A very brief account of Stravinsky's and Diaghilev's background seems entirely appropriate; the few facts provided are in no way disproportionate. Brianboulton (talk) 14:43, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

On the general question of discussion, may I point out that you began to edit this article without any contact with the talkpage or main contributing editors, and only began discussions when your initial efforts were challenged. Since then you have pleaded your cause at immense length; bludgeoning with words is not discussion. Neither is a defiant standpoint that rejects all arguments but one's own and challenges every contrary view any basis for fruitful discussion. Cooperative editing requires compromise; that means having respect for and accepting the validity of others' views. Thereby it is usually possible to reconcile all differences in a spirit of amity. You will note that of your edits, even when personally doubting their necessity I have accommodated myself to most of them, occasionally with a few adjustments of my own. That is compromise; is it too much to expect you to do likewise? Brianboulton (talk) 14:43, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Dispute

Its heavy reading trying to understand what the dispute is here, but I advise that you don't edit the article until its fully settled. Could somebody basically fill me in on the problem, I understand this is to appear soon as TFA.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 15:20, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Since the complaints essentially all are from Sandpiper, I will let him/her summarize them. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:03, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

The TFA nomination is still four months away, so that is not an urgent issue. I confirm that I will not be editing the article while this dispute continues and I trust that Sandpiper will do the same. Brianboulton (talk) 23:38, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

As Sandpiper has not yet responded, I will briefly outline the problem from my perspective.

Sandpiper appears to be unwilling or unable to edit collegially. He/she has twice tried to impose an infobox against the consensus, which he/she does not recognise. Sandpiper has made numerous edits to the text which, while not particularly significant individually, are likely to have a cumulatively adverse effect on the article, either by the accretion of unimportant detail or by affecting the neutral balance. I am not asking Sandpiper to desist from editing, merely that he/she shares his/her concerns before imposing edits, and shows some willingness to respect other viewpoints. Unfortunately the history to date has been one of adamantine refusal to accept any editorial viewpoint but his/her own, on even the smallest details, and "discussion", as you will observe, is swamped in verbiage.

I believe that a cooling-off period of a few days might be advantageous, and if Sandpiper is prepared to respond reasonably and show some spirit of compromise, I will undertake not to revert or revise his recent edits, up to this point in time. He must likewise agree not to continue to edit at will, but to bring suggestions here for proper discussion and consideration. This is a featured article; its stewardship is an important matter, particularly with a possible centenary TFA later in the year. It should not be allowed to descend into an irresolvable edit war.

Brianboulton (talk) 10:19, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I would expect Sandpiper to also promise not to edit while the dispute is going on. Infoboxes are often subject to disputes but in my experience it is usually the people who have written the article who generally decide upon that and will specifically state that they have a distaste for infoboxes. In such cases I would ask for a request for involved parties to try to illustrate some kind of consensus for or against using them. Adding trivial details to neutral well-balanced articles of course can seriously affect articles, but it depends on how trivial the content added is. Sometimes some extra details can be more comprehensive and valuable rather than trivial. Can you provide some diffs of the sort of content Sandpiper insists on inserting? ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 12:12, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

• I'll give a couple of examples. I would stress that in the interests of achieving some harmony I am not at the moment pressing for these to be changed.

• [3] My objection is to the words following: "...the theatre was packed". The quotation that follows, in my view, adds nothing. I would describe this information as "unnecessary" rather than "trivial".
• [4] This relates to some speculative information, not mentioned by most sources, concerning the origins of Stravinsky's inspiration. My compromise view is that this information is perhaps worth a footnote, but is not of sufficient status to warrant inclusion in the main text. Again, this is not "trivia" as such.

Brianboulton (talk) 17:47, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Lack of citations

There don't seem to be any citations in the entire introduction. In particular, there are some parts of the second paragraph that seem to need sources listed as they were new information to me.

This is my first post or edit or interaction on Wikipedia so I hope I'm doing it right.

SonnyWilliamson (talk) 09:21, 14 February 2013 (UTC)Sonny

Hi Sonny. Yep, you're doing it right, and welcome to Wikipedia. :) The introduction, or lede as many people here call it, does not have citations because it is supposed to be summary of referenced information in the body of the article. If you find information in the introduction that seems new to you, read through the body of the article to find where it is mentioned/discussed, and check the references for it, although remember that references may be at the end of the paragraph instead of directly after a particular sentence. If you find information in the lede which is not mentioned and referenced elsewhere in the article, go ahead and mention it here, and editors will take a look. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 09:47, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Picollo

I assume the word picollo in the text should be piccolo.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.221.137.61 (talk) 19:11, 15 February 2003‎ (UTC)

It should, and now it is. --Camembert 20:23, 15 February 2003 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

• "StravinskyIgor" :
  • {{cite book| title = Igor Stravinsky - An Autobiography| edition = Reissue edition| last = Stravinsky | first = Igor| coauthors = | year = Simon and Schuster 1956, Norton reissue 1998| publisher = W. W. Norton & Company| id = ISBN 978-0393318562 | pages = pp. 31, 40-41}}
  • {{cite book | title = Igor Stravinsky: An Autobiography | edition = Reissue edition | last = Stravinsky | first = Igor | coauthors = | year = 1998| publisher = W. W. Norton & Company| id = ISBN 978-0393318562 | pages = pp 40–41}}

DumZiBoT (talk) 19:02, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

The ISBN given in both citations belongs to the 1998 Norton reissue edition, "Originally published: Simon & Schuster, c1936./ First published as a Norton paperback 1962" (according to OCLC). The year 1956 in the first version is apparently a typo for 1936, but should not have been associated with this ISBN, except as a parenthetical note giving the provenance of the 1998 publication. I'll see what I can do to fix this in the article.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 04:00, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Players vs Instruments

Currently the instrumentation reflects the number of instruments required rather than the number of players. Should this be changed? 24.91.251.238 02:26, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

It looks fine to me; what do you have in mind? —Keenan Pepper 03:34, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

GA Re-Review and In-line citations

Members of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles are in the process of doing a re-review of current Good Article listings to ensure compliance with the standards of the Good Article Criteria. (Discussion of the changes and re-review can be found here). A significant change to the GA criteria is the mandatory use of some sort of in-line citation (In accordance to WP:CITE) to be used in order for an article to pass the verification and reference criteria. Currently this article does not include in-line citations. It is recommended that the article's editors take a look at the inclusion of in-line citations as well as how the article stacks up against the rest of the Good Article criteria. GA reviewers will give you at least a week's time from the date of this notice to work on the in-line citations before doing a full re-review and deciding if the article still merits being considered a Good Article or would need to be de-listed. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact us on the Good Article project talk page or you may contact me personally. On behalf of the Good Articles Project, I want to thank you for all the time and effort that you have put into working on this article and improving the overall quality of the Wikipedia project. Agne 01:52, 26 September 2006 (UTC)