Talk:Krzysztof Penderecki

Western Audiences
How much of the Western audiences were keen to support anti-Soviet moves? Usually, you would expect the "intellectuals" to listen to this music first, and much of them has naive notions and support of and for the Soviets and communism. --

this is wikipedia (ie. your question is fine, but shouldn't belong here) 84.238.11.216 (talk) 00:10, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The strange (IMO POV) sentence the anonymous poster alludes to is still in the article, however. -- megA (talk) 15:51, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Jonny Greenwood
Apparently he has cited Penderecki as an influence - see here for example. Malick78 (talk) 20:17, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Armenian?
Someone can source this, right?Jjsciortino (talk) 05:31, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Apparently not. Google "Penderecki Armenia" and you get lots of hits, but zero that I can find that makes him in any way an Armenian citizen, resident, or anything else. Closest is apparently some Armenian ancestry, but so what. I'm taking these references to Armenia out.  --   Jack of Oz    ... speak! ...   13:24, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Infobox
Quite apart from there being an apparent consensus against infoboxes for composers, this one had several problems. Background colour was for "non performing personnel", which doesn't seem right. It's not clear why his "origin" and place of birth are different. Genre of classical music is unhelpful. Years active stated "1953-", so what happened in 1953? I removed it while I was extending the lead. --RobertG ♬ talk 16:54, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think an infobox as it presently is on the article is useful and helpful. 7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 21:07, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support I agree. I know this has been discussed, and I admit I have not followed those discussions, but it is hard to argue against the use of "infobox person" simply because that person is a composer. Opinion: Any person article should be initially entitled to an "IB person" and consensus should be required to delete it. Jmar67 (talk) 02:44, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Thakfully it has no basis in guideline, policy or pratice. No article is 'born' with anything and any addition should be considered as to whether it's beneficial or not. The knee-jerk addition of any element - prose, images or the formatting of trivia in the top right hand corner - needs to actively considered, rather than unthinkingly applied. - SchroCat (talk) 17:54, 1 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose The usual trivial factoids that don't explain anything of note that can't be seen in the opening line of the article. As always, while they're great on those who have held rank, or people with career stats to show, IBs on those from the liberal arts area is hard to see any benefit. - SchroCat (talk) 06:08, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 * An infobox is not meant to "explain" (anything) but to have key facts easily accessible. To my understanding, your revert of the addition by an IP was your first edit ever to this article? Could we perhaps assume in good faith that an IP has no idea that some here think that composers are somehow different from other creative minds, and no idea of guidelines and former discussions, or does all good faith end when it comes to infoboxes? - I still remember when I was a new user, and had no idea of watchlists and finding edit histories. - Everybody who knows me a bit, knows that I'd prefer an infobox, but also that I never edit-warred for one, and that I recommend 1RR for all edits except vandalism. If I made an infobox for Penderecki (but I never did, in 10 years of helping with this article), I'd include the list of compositions, and omit nationality. What I did instead (of the horrible waste of time arguing about something like this) was beginning an article. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:43, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I certainly don't need silly little lectures about good faith from someone defending an edit warrior who ignored the talk page and edit warred SEVEN times against three editors. Perhaps you should look at yourself and AGF over people who have a more flexible approach than you do; you seem to be deficient in that area. There again, this is an area you "don't discuss" anymore... except wherever you can crowbar it into a thread on someone's talk page, or an ITN thread, or by questioning my gf in your first comment in the thread. As to the substantive point of the thread, and ignoring the lack of gf, the key facts are accessible. They are in the first line of the lead, as they should be. - SchroCat (talk) 07:38, 1 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose for the very good reasons outlined by SchroCat. An article is not born with an infobox, it has to be added.  For it to be added, there needs to be a consensus.  It is unbecoming of someone to add an infobox without a discussion, and then expect a discussion when it is removed.  That kind of mentality is rude, obnoxious and not in the interests of collaborative behaviour.   Cassianto Talk  15:21, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment We are discussing it now. Certainly you get to weigh in.  Certainly everyone does.  But that it is subject to discussion is no reason, one way or the other, for a particular outcome.
 * And drop the attitude. Comment on the merits, not the editors.  We are all volunteers here. So be WP:Civil already.  7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 18:35, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 * There is nothing uncivil in the comment, so stop baiting and poking please. - SchroCat (talk) 18:41, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 * SchroCat Perhaps you missed this: "It is unbecoming of someone to add an infobox without a discussion, and then expect a discussion when it is removed. That kind of mentality is rude, obnoxious and not in the interests of collaborative behaviour."  I was not 'baiting you.'  I could make the same accusation in your direction, but WP:Dead horse.  7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 18:54, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I didn't think you were baiting me, but I see AGF is as lacking here as it always is when the IB warriors come out to play. And no, you couldn't make the same accusation my way, not is you were being honest with yourself. - SchroCat (talk) 19:02, 1 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose: While sports and politician bios can benefit from infoboxes, most articles in liberal arts fields, as here, do not. See arbitration report: "Infoboxes may be particularly unsuited to liberal arts fields when they repeat information already available in the lead section of the article, are misleading or oversimplify the topic for the reader". I disagree with including an infobox in this article because: (1) The box would emphasize unimportant factoids stripped of context and lacking nuance, in competition with the WP:LEAD section, which emphasizes and contextualizes the most important facts. (2) Since the most important points in the article are already discussed in the Lead, or adequately discussed in the body of the article, the box would be redundant. (3) It would take up valuable space at the top of the article and hamper the layout and impact of the Lead. (4) Frequent errors creep into infoboxes, as updates are made to the articles but not reflected in the redundant info in the box, and they tend to draw vandalism, fancruft and repeated arguments among editors about what to include. (5) The infobox template creates a block of code at the top of the edit screen that discourages new editors from editing the article. (6) It would discourage readers from reading the text of the article. (7) IBs distract editors from focusing on the content of the article. Instead of improving the article, they spend time working on this repetitive feature and its coding and formatting. See also WP:DISINFOBOX. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:53, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose - as I have said on other occasions elsewhere- an infobox is not required as it contains nothing that isn’t in a well-written lead section. Dreamspy (talk) 21:00, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose – the comments of shrewd and long-established colleagues, above, make it clear why an info-box is a silly idea for a composer article. Fine for sportsmen, bishops, MPs etc, but wishy-washy for composers, and make Wikipedia look wet.  Tim riley  talk   21:09, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Can you summarize why composers should enjoy an exemption but not the others? What is it about composers that makes an infobox especially inappropriate? What do you mean by "wishy-washy"? And what qualities does a shrewd colleague have? Jmar67 (talk) 00:33, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
 * While this is tedious in the extreme for those of us who have been here many times before, I can understand that a newcomer might find this perplexing. For a start, I suggest you scroll down the discussion to the point where I inserted a link to WikiProject_Composers. You may then want to go back and read User:Ssilvers's discussion, which includes a link to the very useful Arbitration report on infoboxes.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 06:22, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I would say that IBs for those articles for people in the liberal arts, rather than just composers, are inappropriate. Fine for those with some formal career progression, (politicians, clergy, military, etc) or where there are official stats to show (sports, etc), but for writers, musicians, etc, their use is always questionable, if you look at the point critically. I've never seen a good argument as to why IBs are needed on such articles. I've seen a host of bad arguments, but no good ones. Jmar67, as you are supposed to be putting forward arguments to overturn the status quo, do you have any points as to why this article should be changed to include a box? - SchroCat (talk) 06:47, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I am honestly just trying to understand the problem, without having to wade through a flood of discussion. My general feeling at the moment is that an IB is innocuous, provided that it is well constructed and not overly sketchy or detailed. I simply do not yet currently understand the arguments made against IBs. That's not to say that I wouldn't subscribe to one or more of them if I understood the rationale. I support an IB here because I usually encounter them in articles I copy edit and think that "IB person" is a logical addition to an article concerning an individual. That's what it was written for. Jmar67 (talk) 07:46, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Without having to rehash all the same arguments that have been provided on so many other ocassions (given that there are so many points from so many people opposed to them), re-read Ssilvers's statement and then WikiProject_Composers; both of these provide some of the general points. I've seen too many people saying articles should always have a box 'because other articles do' or 'because I like the look of them' and other, similar arguments. That's no basis to add a list of factoids to the corner - de gustibus and all that. Where there is opposition to something, there needs to be a more considered and heavyweight argument to counter the opposition. Do you have any futher arguments to say why the status quo on this article should be over turned? - SchroCat (talk) 07:58, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
 * No. I will take a look at the references, particularly to discover why "liberal arts" is singled out as an exception. That currently makes no sense. Thanks. Jmar67 (talk) 08:15, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I mention liberal arts because that's the field in which I tend to work, so it comes to mind first. It's also an area where dross tends to be piled into IBs with no context (fields such as "influenced" and "influenced by", "notable works" and other such subjective trivia). IBs are a fantastic resource when used properly, so rank progression for politicians and soldiers put complex dates and details across really well; ditto for career stats for sportsmen (Shoeless Joe Jackson was on the front page a day or so ago - that's a good use of an IB, for example). But actors, musicians, etc? All largely pointless to include the box. Despite the lies I've read elsewhere, I'm a big fan of IBs, but only when they are considered fully and where they have an actual benfit to readers, not just as a knee-jerk 'all articles should have one' or 'they look wrong without them' - that sort of lazy thinking leads to a second rate product. - SchroCat (talk) 08:24, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I should also point out that I work exclusively in mobile view, in which the IB appears inline with the rest of the text. There have certainly been times when I thought a specific IB was too "busy". But I never object to seeing it per se. As such, the Penderecki article seems incomplete. Jmar67 (talk) 08:45, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
 * "seems incomplete" is too subjective a criteria though; the counter argument of "looks rubbish" is as (un)valid. Both points should be dismissed as readily as each other - WP:IDONTLIKEIT as the basis for inclusion or exclusion of an IB should be ignored (de gustibus and all that). There has to be better rationales than that to overturn the status quo. - SchroCat (talk) 09:28, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

"Seems incomplete" was not intended as a supporting argument. I propose only that the IB here be restored because the editor was justified in using it in a person article, just as he is in adding anything else to the article. Discussion should then concentrate on the implementation of the IB, not to exclude that there might then be consensus to delete it. As long as Ludwig van Beethoven has an IB, that's the least we can do. In the meantime, I will do my homework and read the previous discussions noted above. Jmar67 (talk) 20:22, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Um... no. The status quo is that there is no IB. You have to come up with arguments to overturn that status quo. Not just general arguments for IBs, but why there should be one on this specific article. (That's part of the decision of the first ArbCom case on IBs). - SchroCat (talk) 21:07, 2 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose - infoboxes not needed for articles on composers. Also, all the information in an infox should already be in the lead. Jack1956 (talk) 21:32, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Lots of good reasons already given, I will just add a link to the Composers Project position statement.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:26, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment This is a general observation. In my own practice (part of which involves extensive professional writing), I find that a 'one-size-fits-all' approach is wrong.  I vary my formats based on what the case needs and the facts give.  Like a sculptor, I am trying to find the shape in the stone, not impose my will on the stone. Sometimes an infobox looks good and conveys useful information.  I think that rather than creating an overarching a priori policy, one should make an informed decision based upon the total situation. Rather than hashing out the generalities, we should look at what is (or could be) done with this article. 7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 20:29, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

FA push?
First of all, I would like to thank all of those who have contributed to this article. I am thinking about making this article as a featured article so we can feature it as a TFA on the main page for the 80th birthday of Penderecki, 23 November 2013. There are some things we need to do before this article is ready to be nominated for FA status. Here are some suggestions: All are welcome to assist in this process and if any of you have any further suggestions discuss them here. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:12, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Lead section - can be expanded upon to three or four paragraphs.
 * Biography - can be expanded upon as well with his early years, important compositions and works, and his life with other composers.
 * Works - we can also expand on it to include styles and Penderecki's composition history and styles as well, and also include at least some reception.
 * Citations - can be expanded upon with Polish-language and English-language books (this also includes English translations for Polish-language material)
 * Honours and awards - some of the listings can be reformatted to prose as well.

B-class revew
Failed for WP:POLAND due to insufficient inline citations. --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 03:22, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
 * This article is "good" but it's a long way from FA status.HammerFilmFan (talk) 18:47, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
 * It's certainly no more than B-class. It has lots of info, but also a lot of filler that should be deleted from a main article, like the Premio Lorenzo Magnifico award, and lots of the other awards.  You could put them in a list article, but they are crufty here. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:07, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Krzysztof Penderecki. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20110719040057/http://www.helmuth-rilling.de/programm.htm to http://www.helmuth-rilling.de/programm.htm

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) 17:34, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Krzysztof Penderecki. 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/20050627015817/http://www.usc.edu/dept/polish_music/composer/penderecki.html to http://www.usc.edu/dept/polish_music/composer/penderecki.html

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) 03:08, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Krzysztof Penderecki. 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.helmuth-rilling.de/programm.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110810031232/http://www.rheingau-musik-festival.de/data_files/ouvertuere_2008.pdf to http://www.rheingau-musik-festival.de/data_files/ouvertuere_2008.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120319205120/http://www.remusik.org/en/journal/interviews/3-110907/ to http://www.remusik.org/en/journal/interviews/3-110907/

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) 19:28, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Attribution
Text and references copied from Krzysztof Penderecki to There Will Be Blood, See former article's history for a list of contributors. <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 12:17, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Attribution
Text and references copied from Krzysztof Penderecki to Jonny Greenwood, See former article's history for a list of contributors. <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 12:45, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

IP edit warring over IB
IP, STOP edit warring please. Per WP: STATUS QUO and WP:BRD you need to discuss the proposed addition of the IB, not just edit war to force your preference. - SchroCat (talk) 22:22, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Seven Gates Of Jerusalem
It has a Wicki page but not mentioned here. His magnum opus. 98.144.238.191 (talk) 19:28, 27 February 2022 (UTC)