Talk:Berlin Philharmonic

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: No consensus to move. Angr (talk) 15:50, 11 May 2013 (UTC) Angr (talk) 15:50, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

– As a title in English, "Berlin Philharmonic Orchestra" is obviously the best.
 * Berlin Philharmonic → Berlin Philharmonic Orchestra
 * Vienna Philharmonic → Vienna Philharmonic Orchestra (being discussed separately now)

I have never seen BPO's records, CDs, DVDs, and MP3-sites written only "Berlin Philharmonic" in unfinished English. They are all credited "Berlin Philharmonic Orchestra" in decent English (below/above "Berliner Philharmoniker" in German). Apparently "BPO" is an abbriviation for "Berlin Philharmonic Orchestra" in English, not for its old official name " de:Berliner Philharmonisches Orchester ", in spite of the explanation in the header of the article. It seems that German people has been mistaking selfishly, though it may be only the result of edits of English persons who are not familiar about how popular Furtwängler BPO(VPO) and Karajan BPO(VPO) have been all over the world. For example, BPO and VPO conducted by Furtwängler and Karajan have been more and more highly evaluated in Japan and still now selling overwhelmingly and constantly more than other conductors and orchestras.

Berlin Philharmonic what? Vienna Philharmonic what? It is obvious that such a question, for example, cannot happen in case of "RCO", namely, "Royal Concertgebouw Orchestra", locally "nl:Koninklijk Concertgebouworkest".

"BPO" has been still now very frequently used as an abbriviation for "Berlin Philharmonic Orchestra" everywhere in the world, because "Berlin Philharmonic Orchestra" as well as "BPO" is already established as its global name historically. I mean, very very impressive Furtwängler BPO and Apollo-like Karajan BPO. Therefore, I have to say, BPO's title in English Wikipedia should be "Berlin Philharmonic Orchestra", not "Berlin Philharmonic", and, such a unfinished English title should be thrown away. English is not German.

Please see Wikipedia's Five Criteria; "Recognizability", "Naturalness", "Precision", "Conciseness", "Consistency". The title "Berlin Philharmonic" fulfills only "Conciseness" at best, while the title "Berlin Philharmonic Orchestra" fulfills other four criteria. Moreover, the problem of "Berlin Philharmonic what?" has been remained unless it is renamed to "Berlin Philharmonic Orchestra", "Berlin Philharmonic Brassband", "Berlin Philharmonic Eurobeat", "Berlin Philharmonic Jazz", or something else. So current unfinished English title, "Berlin Philharmonic", should be abandoned after all.

Totally the same thing can be said in case of "VPO", that is, "de:Wiener Philharmoniker", "Vienna Philharmonic", and "Vienna Philharmonic Orchestra". NPThomas (talk) 20:24, 2 May 2013 (UTC), 22:36, 2 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Support. I agree entirely. English is not German. "Berlin Philharmonic" is an abbreviation. Rothorpe (talk) 21:28, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. -- NPThomas (talk) 22:36, 2 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Can anything besides an orchestra be philharmonic? --BDD (talk) 23:12, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * That's not the point. We understand that it means orchestra, but we prefer the full title. Rothorpe (talk) 23:22, 2 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Support because both styles are commonly used but that does not mean we should leave out the word "orchestra". It is like referring to the London Philharmonic Orchestra as "London Philharmonic" and the London Symphony Orchestra as the "London Symphony" - there would be little doubt that we are referring to orchestras. I note that there are several other orchestra articles in without the word "orchestra" in the title. BDD raises a good question; could anything else be described as "philharmonic"? Probably not. Green Giant (talk) 00:14, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The Everly Brothers? Rothorpe (talk) 00:28, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Well OK, I would agree but I need to rephrase that question: could anything else be described as "philharmonic" such that it would be appropriate to include the word "philharmonic" in their Wikipedia article title? I don't think I want to know the answer. Green Giant (talk) 12:42, 3 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose It's up to the orchestra to decide what name to use, not Wikipedia. Currently the official website uses Berlin Philharmoniker on its English pages, although the media often refer to it as the Berlin Philharmonic. It's worth noting that the German name has been changed from Berliner Philharmonisches Orchester to Berliner Philharmoniker. The Vienna orchestra uses the name ‘Vienna Philharmonic’ on the English pages of its website, see . The proposed name change for the Vienna orchestra should be listed per the usual procedure. Name changes should also be tagged on article pages. It would also be a good idea to notify WP:CM, which is the relevant project.  Klein zach  02:39, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment — Kleinzach's "Oppose" is definitely dangerous Nazism and cannot be valid, because Kleinzach means that it's up to German(Austrian) people to decide what English language English people should use, and it cannot be up to English people themselves what kind of English they should use. This is the heart of the matter. English peoples haven't decide what German(Austrian, Japanese, Chinese, and so on) language the German(Austrian, Japanese, Chinese, and so on) should use. Probably it is only German and Austrian people who cannot understand the principle of reciprocity in the world. For example, both of 'Deutsher' and 'Deutsche' are called 'German' by English people without any German people's instructions. Similarly, 'Deutschland und Österreich' are called "Germany and Austria" in English in the English world without any German people's directions. On the other hand, English peoples haven't decided what German-language German and Austrian people should use even if it is a word about English peoples or English countries. It would be very helpful to understand the point of the problem. In case of English name even of their countries where Germans and Austrians have been living for centuries, apparently it is not up to Germans and Austrians what English we should use. So, if Kleinzach's insisting is right, German and Austrian people had already had the right to rule the English world. What a many "Adolf Hitler"s are here! Therefore, before you(User:Kleinzach) oppose, please explain when German and Austrian people have got the right to rule the English world. Unless you could do it on secure ground, it is extremely obvious that your Oppose cannot be valid forever. At any rate, why can only German and Austrian people manage to force us to ignore the international principle of reciprocity? Has the World War III already begun? -- NeedsLove (talk) 07:25, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Godwin's law applies. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:01, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Perhaps my name counts against me? -- Klein zach  13:02, 7 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose per Kleinzach: The orchestras themselves determine their names, not Wikipedia (note that it's New York Philharmonic, not New York Philharmonic Orchestra). -- kosboot (talk) 11:32, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: Note that in the Library of Congress name authorities, the name used is: Berliner Philharmoniker - and this form of name is confirmed by numerous countries in VIAF. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kosboot (talk • contribs)
 * Comment — As I mentioned above, before you(User:Kosboot) oppose, please explain when German and Austrian people have the right to rule the English world. Unless you could do it on secure ground, it is extremely obvious that your Oppose cannot be valid. Germans and Austrians should be satisfied with ruling only the German-language world as English peoples have been satisfied with ruling only the English-language world. And then, the case of "New York Philharmonic" is a quite different matter. "New York Philharmonic" is the common abbreviation of three names at least; Philharmonic-Symphony Society of New York, Inc., New York Philharmonic Orchestra, New York Philharmonic-Symphony Orchestra, etw. Don't forget the complicated history of NYPO and don't confuse NYPO in USA with "de:Berliner Philharmoniker" in de:Deutschland and "de:Wiener Philharmoniker" in de:Österreich. -- NeedsLove (talk) 07:25, 7 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment The associated discussion about the Vienna Philharmonic was deleted by Green Giant . This is unfortunate, especially because the proposed move has not been notified on the article page, so readers will be unaware of this requested move.  Klein zach  22:59, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose. "Philharmonic" is a totally normal, natural, common way to refer to an orchestra. To me, it would be WP:ASTONISHing to see any other result but the orchestra at this page, or for the orchestra to land anywhere else. Red Slash 23:59, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment — Your "Oppose" cannot be valid, too, because you couldn't explain that "Berlin Philharmonic" is neither the abbreviation of "Berlin Philharmonic Orchestra" nor German-English that only replace "Berliner Philharmoniker" with "Berlin Philharmonic". In other words, if your opinion is right, it means that nobody have ever felt the necessity to use the wording of "Xxxxx Philharmonic Orchestra" and that "Philharmonic" cannot be an adjective. It's too ridiculous. You only mentioned that you can understand the meaning of "Berlin Philharmonic" as "Berlin Philharmonic Orchestra" or a group of the members of "Berlin Philharmonic Orchestra". Moreover, you couldn't explain at all that "Berlin Philharmonic" cannot be, for example, the argot for "Berlin Philharmonic Nazi". Both of "Berliner Philharmoniker" and "Wiener Philharmoniker" had been involved in Nazism. Don't forget easily one of the most cruel history of human beings and the cause of the various problems between US, UK, Israel and Muslims. See Boston Marathon bombings. -- NeedsLove (talk) 07:25, 7 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose – a) "'Berlin Philharmonic Orchestra' is obviously the best." is not a valid reason; b) lumping 2 orchestras together is confusing; c) the Vienna orchestra uses "Vienna Philharmonic" on its own website; d) contrary to the nominators assumptions, the term "<…> Philharmonic" is not uncommon. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:12, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment — Your Oppose is also only "Oppose" for "Oppose" and cannot be valid. Before you "Oppose", please explain that "Berlin Philharmonic" is neither the abbreviation of "Berlin Philharmonic Orchestra" nor German-English that only replace "Berliner Philharmoniker" with "Berlin Philharmonic" nor the argot for "Berlin Philharmonic Nazi" or something like that. Unless you could do all of them on secure ground, it is very obvious that your Oppose cannot be valid, because you only mentioned that you can understand the meaning of "Berlin Philharmonic" as "Berlin Philharmonic Orchestra" or as a group of the members of "Berlin Philharmonic Orchestra". -- NeedsLove (talk) 07:25, 7 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose - the suggested term would be a worse translation of de:Berliner Philharmoniker than the present. The German term speaks of a plural, the musicians, not of a singular orchestra. I would support a move to the original name, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:48, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, I'd accept that. What about Messrs Thomas & Giant? Rothorpe (talk) 11:30, 4 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment - Note the Carnegie Hall website (most often) uses the full English name "Vienna Philharmonic Orchestra" (see here --Robert.Allen (talk) 01:40, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * On the other hand, The New York Times seems to prefer the simpler "Vienna Philharmonic" (see here). --Robert.Allen (talk) 02:00, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment — Gerda Arendt's sham logic also cannnot be valid. Mr.Gerda Arendt, before insisting "Oppose", please translate "de:Berliner Philharmoniker" and [[:de:Wiener Philharmoniker into your best English by yourself. And don't forget that "de:Berliner Philharmoniker" and "de:Wiener Philharmoniker" are German languages, not English ones. And if your sham logic is right, before insisting "Oppose", please explain that "de:Berliner Philharmoniker" and "de:Wiener Philharmoniker" cannot have the meaning of "Orchestra" and that "Philharmonic"(not "Philharmonia") cannot be an adjective in spite of many examples like "London Philharmonic Orchestra", "Berlin Philharmonic Orchestra(BPO)" and "Vienna Philharmonic Orchestra(VPO)". Of course, as mentioned above, please explain that "Berlin Philharmonic" is neither the abbreviation of "Berlin Philharmonic Orchestra" nor German-English that only replace "Berliner Philharmoniker" with "Berlin Philharmonic" nor the argot for "Berlin Philharmonic Nazi" or something like that. Unless you did all of them, it is very very obvious that your Oppose with sham logic cannot be valid. It seemes that your telling us is only a bunch of nonsense. -- NeedsLove (talk) 07:25, 7 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Support Article titles should always be nouns, if possible. As 'philharmonic' is an adjective, we would need to append 'Orchestra' to comply with the policy on nomenclature. --  Ohconfucius  ping / poke 01:58, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Philharmonic can be either an adjective or an noun. See for example Longman's Dictionary of Contemporary English.  Klein zach  02:11, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Did anyone notice the example that that dictionary uses for the word? Apteva (talk) 05:03, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The fact that "Philharmonic" have to be like an noun because of the abbreviation or German(Aiustrian)-English cannot justify the current Germanlike names, unfortunetely. This fact only justify "Berlin Philharmonic Orchestra"(BPO) and "Vienna Philharmonic Orchestra"(VPO),　denying the current Germanlike names that brought violent abbriviations or reckless German(Aiustrian)-English. -- NeedsLove (talk) 07:25, 7 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Support all opinions that the current Germanlike titles should be renamed to "Berlin Philharmonic Orchestra"(BPO) and "Vienna Philharmonic Orchestra"(VPO). I don't know who can be opposed to such reasonable renamings. I have to think, only German and Austrian people can be opposed to these not-Germanlike naming, probably confusing with the case of "New York Philharmonic". -- NeedsLove (talk) 07:25, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Comment: Is it accepted procedure that each person's vote is negatively characterized by the same person? The user NeedsLove has commented negatively on all those who oppose but has not provided a convincing argument in support - just that we're all wrong and invalid. Seems to me that's some kind of violation and certainly not in the spirit of Wikipedia. -- kosboot (talk) 13:27, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose I freely admit that I've been biased by NeedsLove's disgusting behavior, which has rightly led to blocks. While I'm sympathetic to NPThomas, whom I can imagine is pleased by his or her behavior either, the current title is appropriate and WP:PRECISE. The rename would ultimately do no harm, but is unnecessary. --BDD (talk) 05:44, 11 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Procedural note. Per request, the discussion of Berlin and Vienna has been separated to each respective talk page. Apteva (talk) 02:24, 6 May 2013 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Article topic/Philharmonie
I am not sure what this article is about, and the name is no help. Is it about the orchestra Berliner Philharmoniker or their concert halls in the building Berliner Philharmonie or both? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:51, 3 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Please see the lead: "The Berlin Philharmonic . . . is an orchestra". -- Klein zach  12:49, 3 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I saw the lead. But the infobox shows the building, and the organ as an instrument is also rather connected to the building. How would the Philharmonie be translated? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:42, 3 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Philharmonic Hall, perhaps. But I agree that the article is essentially about the orchestra. Rothorpe (talk) 16:28, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * We have an article on the building; it's at Berliner Philharmonie. Angr (talk) 21:01, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't it make sense then to have an article Berliner Philharmoniker? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:05, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The hall article being at "Philharmonie" suggests it is known by that name in English, but the orchestra isn't normally known by its German name. Rothorpe (talk) 22:21, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I read comments above about the Library of Congress, and the name the orchestra gave itself ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:35, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah, exonyms and endonyms. Where will it end? Rothorpe (talk) 22:52, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Hmm. What has geography got to do with this?  Klein zach  23:18, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't know, but find "The orchestras themselves determine their names, not Wikipedia" a bit amusing. Remember "The Flying Dutchman". The author determines the name of his work? No. We have "common name". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:02, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

The hall is officially called the Berlin Philharmonie in English, see here. Gerda is arguing for all these names to be in German, but that isn't the way Wikipedia has done this in the past. If the institution itself uses an English version, we have always adopted that name for the English Wikipedia article. -- Klein zach  23:12, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * That link doesn't work for me. Rothorpe (talk) 00:14, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * It should work now.  Klein zach  04:18, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, yes. Rothorpe (talk) 11:26, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I do not stand up - as said above - for "all these names" in German. I vote for the original name in any language (not only German), if the translation (common name or not) is misleading. I would say to have a plural word translated to a singular is misleading enough. - In case of the mentioned opera it's worse than misleading, the author created it in German, The Grove mentions it in German, but here we follow the common name religion ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:25, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Gerda Arendt: Titles of compositions are completely different from titles of organizations. Please take your opera comments to the Opera project. Thank you. -- Klein  zach  06:46, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * This was only a reminder of my failed move request (that I though everybody knew), please forgive me ;) - Back to the Berlin orchestra: the German name speaks of people, in a plural term, the English "Philharmonic" (with "orchestra" or without) seems to mean an organization, right? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:13, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * No, Gerda, see for example here.  Klein zach  07:48, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * "Philharmonic" meaning "philharmonic players" is one (fine) thing, but you would still say "IS" an orchestra, while the equivalent German would translate to "ARE" an orchestra, "die Philharmoniker spielen", THEY play, - I see a difference. Please note that I didn't make a move request, nor will I. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:14, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Diversity
Surely there is more to be said about the Berlin Phil's attitude to women. The brief mention of its first female member doesn't seem quite to do justice to the issue, both historically and still (remarkably few female violinists for example at the Prom I went to at the weekend) 128.41.63.54 (talk) 13:23, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Berlin Philharmonic. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070804214410/http://www.sonybmgmasterworks.com:80/artists/berlinphilharmonicorchestra/ to http://www.sonybmgmasterworks.com/artists/berlinphilharmonicorchestra/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928040840/http://www.lcsun-news.com/apcontent/ci_6710364 to http://www.lcsun-news.com/apcontent/ci_6710364

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:00, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Berlin Philharmonic. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110609132228/http://www.berliner-philharmoniker.de/en/magazine/titelgeschichten/title-stories/story/neuer-intendant-der-berliner-philharmoniker/ to http://www.berliner-philharmoniker.de/en/magazine/titelgeschichten/title-stories/story/neuer-intendant-der-berliner-philharmoniker/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070929092347/http://www.ejpress.org/article/16386 to http://www.ejpress.org/article/16386
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070830041819/http://news.independent.co.uk/europe/article2900988.ece to http://news.independent.co.uk/europe/article2900988.ece
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.sonybmgmasterworks.com/artists/berlinphilharmonicorchestra/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:14, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Orchestra Ranking in Lead paragraph
Should the lead paragraph of this article contain reference to the fact that the orchestra is/has been consistently ranked in the top three recording orchestras in the world? It's easily referenced and seems like a major point of distinction among orchestras—and a prime candidate for lead paragraph inclusion. However other editors feel this is either not supportable or subjective: It is supportable by reference and WP:Opinion does not apply to referenced source(s) from professional recording critics. What am I missing? Lexlex (talk) 19:22, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

East or West Berlin?
I looked up this article to find the answer...and it doesn't say anything about the partition of Berlin after World War II, and what that had to do with the Philharmonic. This is pretty important information to include in the article. 68.173.24.203 (talk) 13:41, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:12, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Logo Berliner Philharmoniker.svg