Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Georg Solti/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose 08:58, 22 March 2012.

Georg Solti

 * Nominator(s): Tim riley (talk) 12:34, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I have brought articles on other conductors to FA, and Georg Solti seems to me among the finest of his generation. His career was strikingly varied, and perhaps more than many of his colleagues, his life story is interesting for more than purely musical reasons. As always I shall be glad of comments on the prose, the balance, the proportions and anything else. – Tim riley (talk) 12:34, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:21, 14 March 2012 (UTC) Nikkimaria (talk) 13:21, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Culshaw 1967 or 1968?
 * Amended (to 1967). – Tim riley (talk) 09:35, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * What makes this a high-quality reliable source?
 * I've replaced it with a ref to the Royal Opera House's website. – Tim riley (talk) 09:35, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * For newspaper/magazine/journal articles, be consistent in whether the author name is followed by a comma or period
 * Now consistent. – Tim riley (talk) 09:35, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Be consistent in how multi-author sources are notated
 * Done (I think). – Tim riley (talk) 09:35, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * FN 14, 99: italicization
 * Amended (two earlier refs removed, so these are now notes 12 and 97) – Tim riley (talk) 09:35, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * FN 25: publisher?
 * Added. – Tim riley (talk) 09:35, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Be consistent in whether page notations are spaced or unspaced
 * Done. – Tim riley (talk) 09:35, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * FN 61: missing opening quotation mark
 * Amended. (As above, now note 59). – Tim riley (talk) 09:35, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Use a consistent format for journals - compare for example FNs 78 and 81
 * Done. – Tim riley (talk) 09:35, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Compare FN 83 vs 84
 * (Now notes 81 and 82.) The punctuation? Both are as printed in the original. Strange, I agree. – Tim riley (talk) 09:35, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * FNs 2 and 107 appear to be the same.
 * Removed the one in the lead. – Tim riley (talk) 09:35, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Why does FN 113 not match the same source in bibliography?
 * Amended. – Tim riley (talk) 09:35, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I think (I certainly hope) I have picked up all the points you mention above. My thanks, as always, for your keen-eyed vigilance. Tim riley (talk) 09:35, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Looks good, will try to do a full review--from the looks of the lead and the first couple sections I may not have much to say. I made a few small formatting--feel free to revert. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:25, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * There are a few wikilinks that are repeated somewhat closely together, check Ludwig van Beethoven, Salzburg Festival, EMI Classics, Chicago Symphony Orchestra, and Moses und Aron.
 * Thank you: I'll check them all. Tim riley (talk) 18:47, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, I noticed you have "Moses und Aron" once and "Moses and Aaron" twice, was this intentional? Mark Arsten (talk) 18:40, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It was, though I dithered over it. I have tried to reflect the language in which the performances in question were given. At the Garden in the 1960s it was given in English. The Decca recording was, unsurprisingly, in German. The alternative would be to refer to it by its German title throughout and add "(in English)" at the Covent Garden mention, but that seemed to me to be making too much of the point. Happy to go with the consensus on this, naturally. Thank you for these points. Tim riley (talk) 18:47, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, I guess that's fine then, I didn't realize it was given in English at the garden. (that might justify the repeated link too).
 * "At about this time Solti dropped the name "György" in favour of "Georg"." Do we know why he changed it?
 * He doesn't actually say in his memoirs, but I get the impression that Hungarian names were not popular in Germany at the time. And most Europeans and Americans can manage "Georg", but "György" might have been (might still be) daunting for non-Hungarians to attempt. I believe it actually sounds rather like "George", but one mightn't guess it. Tim riley (talk) 19:24, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, I guess we'll just have to wonder then. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:30, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * "In Switzerland he was not permitted to work as a conductor, but earned his living as a pianist..." Do you know why he wasn't allowed to conduct?
 * He couldn't get a work permit for anything very much, and at first scraped a living in the grey economy until he won the piano competition, after which he was given a permit to work as a pianist. Tim riley (talk) 19:24, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, I see now, I'm not sure if that is clear in the article though. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:30, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll add a sentence, either in the text or as a footnote. Tim riley (talk) 19:35, 15 March 2012 (UTC) Done. Tim riley (talk) 11:06, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * "They married in 1946.[1] He wrote of her..." When did he write this, later in his life, I assume? Mark Arsten (talk) 18:57, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, in his memoirs, written in his last months and posthumously published. Do you think I should say so here? Tim riley (talk) 19:24, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, it might be helpful to state that it was in his memoirs. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:30, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It shall be done. Tim riley (talk) 19:35, 15 March 2012 (UTC) Done. Tim riley (talk) 11:06, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Just a suggestion, but it might be nice to have a brief explanation of the politics behind why he was "effectively stateless as a Hungarian exile" and believed "believed he could never return to Hungary". Mark Arsten (talk) 19:16, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The Communist regime was no keener than the earlier Fascist one to have him back, though it isn't at all clear to me from the sources why not. Residual anti-Semitism? A feeling he had sided with the West? I have wondered, but can find no reliable answer. The matter became acutely critical for him, as the US wouldn't give him a visa, and he had to delay his US debut until the German government gave him German nationality. Tim riley (talk) 19:24, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, well, like above, we'll just have to wonder. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:30, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for all these suggestions. I agree with them all, and will act on those for which I can produce a proper source. Tim riley (talk) 19:35, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support -- Alright, your responses to my above comments look good to me, I left a couple MOS comments below. I am more than willing to support this article's promotion to featured status. It is a beautifully written, comprehensive article, and is probably one of the best I've read in some time--great job. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:05, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * One quibble, at the end of the fourth paragraph of the Covent Garden section and in note 14 you have some linked terms inside a quote, I think that's frowned upon in the MOS, but that may just be a preference issue.
 * Also a MOS quibble: "seven of Shostakovich's 15 symphonies" I think it's frowned upon to switch between words and numbers like that.
 * I made a few small copyedits to punctuation and rephrased a couple sentences, but feel free to revert if you don't like my rephrases. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:05, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I think you're right about links from within quotes, and I try not to overdo them, but sometimes it seems unhelpful to the reader not to add a link.
 * Good point about seven/15. I'll amend. Thank you so much for your help and support. Tim riley (talk) 11:06, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Support: My comments are recorded in the peer review, at which all my concerns were fully addressed. The above comments are useful, and help to enhance the article still further. I saw Solti conduct Mahler, circa 1976, and by then I'd heard his epic recording of the Eighth: Lucia Popp, Arleen Auger, Heather Harper, Yvonne Minton, John Shirley-Quirk, a tenor whose name I forget—I remember them all (with that exception). But I ramble. All I can think to say now is that the bust of Solti in Chicago, in my view, looks nothing like him; maybe they did it on the cheap and used an existing head? No, seriously, all I can really say now is well done (again). Brianboulton (talk) 22:04, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for that support, and for your very thorough peer review. It is such a pleasure to find one's efforts improved by the perceptive suggestions of Wiki-colleagues. (As to the bust, all Frink heads look exactly the same.) Tim riley (talk) 22:09, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Images: File:Solti György sírja.jpg lacks an English description (I added a FOP tag). File:Georg Solti Monument.JPG is falsely labelled as both PD and non-free; for our purposes, it's one or the other (at the very least, the appearance of the image in PD categories is contrary to the NFCC- as an example of how I'd recommend dealing with images like this, see File:Notre dame de la paix yamoussoukro by felix krohn retouched.jpg.). However, regardless of this issue, the image does not seem to meet NFCC#8. Yes, the statue is discussed, but mere discussion of something does not justify a non-free image of it; equally, discussing a person in an article would not justify using a non-free image of that person. If there was sourced commentary on the artistry/appearance of the sculpture, then perhaps; as it is, it's just details about its location; sorry. J Milburn (talk) 00:24, 16 March 2012 (UTC) Please. It is your comments that keep misstating policy (and your continued incivility regarding not reading it is, also noted). Your comments ask questions not asked by policy, and make statements not supported by policy. Nowhere does NFCC#8 say that. In fact, "necessary," is almost never used in the entire NFCC policy except four times and not in any way relevant, here ("need" or "needed", 8 times but also not in the way your comments do), because "necessary" does not have consensus, and is against policy. Other hyperbole in your comments that are contrary to policy are "damaged horrifically." And no, I was not told that, it appears you are unfamiliar with the history of the article and what I was told? And no, my first point (in the immediate preceding comment) merely pointed to the latitude given to editors by policy. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:17, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I have warned the editor who put the image there that I didn't think it would survive scrutiny at FAC. Ought I now just remove the image? Tim riley (talk) 10:02, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that's the only option, really, unless you were able to determine that the statue is in the public domain (which seems unlikely). J Milburn (talk) 16:32, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks to Tim for his excellent work, and kindly allowing me to defend my contribution. It's my image and has been in the article and on the Pedia for a long time.  Obviously, I disagree that it is not fair use.  I guess I didn't realize this is a current controversy, see Non-free content/Cover art RfC.  I think the above interpretation is overly restrictive of educational content and, although, I don't have time right this minute, I would like to discuss it further.  For the time being, I am registering my objection. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:03, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * But, before we get into extensive discussion, about how visual art and its setting is markedly different from people, requiring different analysis, about how other FAC articles are similar in their use, and what is really required by NFCC#8, I have added more detail, and comment, and cites to the sculpture discussion at Georg Solti to address the concern. Please, re-review?  As for the more technical tag issue, the photo contains original elements with respect to the setting, so the current tags seem appropriate, as written (it would be odd not to require clear free license for those elements).  I agree about the categories, though, and would delete them, as needed. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:28, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I think this image is acceptable as a non-free image, as there is sufficient discussion of the sculpture in the text. If the problem is the background around the sculpture, you could crop the image.  -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:19, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I have modified the tags to address the issue (I think the setting is educational, as well). I think all issues are now addressed. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:28, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * This is completely the wrong way to approach the issue. "Hmmm, I want to use this picture; how can I modify the article so it meets the guidelines?" is not how we should be thinking. Intead, we should ask "Given that we want to use the minimal amount of non-free content possible, how little can we get away with here? What is required?" I concede that, now there is comment on the artistic style of the sculpture, the image does seem justifiable, but I still don't think it's necessary; the article is hardly horrifically damaged without it. (As an aside, there's simply no way it was justifiable beforehand. Alan, I can explain this in detail, if you like. It's not really related to any serious controversy short of the "controversy" as regards NFC generally; it pretty clearly wasn't OK as per the NFCC. Calling something controversial doesn't make it so. I'm sorry if this sounds unconciliatory, but we already have our compromise- the NFCC represent the compromise between the pro-non-free and the anti-non-free. We can't then try to compromise the NFCC with some third other position.) J Milburn (talk) 23:25, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Why is that the question, we should be asking? Your talking about a legal policy not an educational policy, and for a legal policy all that must be observed are the forms. You also, in an assuming-bad-faith-way badly misstate my position.  I don't want to "use the image." I want to increase the educational value of the article, with the image. Wikipedia's primary purpose is not free v. non free.  It is knowledge vs. not knowledge; education vs. not education; information vs. non information.  Since the image is now justifiable (whatever it was or wasn't before), it's not this FAC process that determines use but the ordinary consensus process, and this image has been deemed appropriate and educational in the article for over a year, by that process. And it does significantly so, including issues about reputation, legacy, honor, international importance, appearance of art and memorial.Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:20, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, are you now trying to say that we shouldn't be starting with the assumption that we should use the minimal amount of non-free content possible? It absolutely is not the case that "for a legal policy all that must be observed are the forms"; that's just wikilawyering. Where on earth are you getting that idea from? The NFCC have to be respected as much as any other policy; often moreso, precisely because of the legal implications. You seem to be making the claim that because this policy has legal implications, we're allowed to treat it more loosely than others, which is... weird. The false dichotomy between "knowledge and free" is an argument that'll get you nowhere- if it's needed, it's allowed. It's pretty clear that this isn't needed. Would the article really be severely lacking without it? I doubt it. Of the reasons you list, "reputation, legacy, honor, international importance, appearance of art and memorial", only one of them (appearance of the art) actually indicates that an image might be needed. You claim that the image was "deemed appropriate and educational in the article for over a year", but were you not told when the image was first added that it was probably too trivial to survive FAC? And yes, I most certainly agree that FAC can't go against "the ordinary consensus process", but nor can you; you may have forgotten that the NFCC actually have consensus. To repeat, we cannot say "well, the NFCC are at position A, but I'm at position C, so the consensus is position B". We have to go with the policy. If I'm misstating your position, it's because you're giving the impression that you have no idea what the NFCC are or say. J Milburn (talk) 11:53, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The nominator is clearly caught in the middle of this argument and it's holding up promotion of the article. As I don't consider myself an expert on non-free images and can see merit in some points on both sides, I'm going to ask for an additional opinion that I hope the nominator can act on and bring this to a close. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:59, 21 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment on non-free image. Ian asked me to offer an additional opinion here. With apologies to the nominator and the photographer, I must concur with J Milburn that the image does not meet NFCC#8. It simply does not add substantively to the understanding of the topic, which is Georg Solti. A case might could certainly be made for the image in the sculptor's article (or in an article about the statue, if there was one) but not here. Let's remember that FA status represents our best work, including our best application of policies and guidelines. I recommend that the image be removed. -- Laser brain  (talk)  02:04, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * This is far from the best application of policy, as "topic" in policy means topic for which the image is used in the article, which is "Honours and memorials" of George Solti. And of course, it does add "substantively" to that.  I thank Tim, kindly, for his time.  But enforcement of this policy here by the misstatements made is most regrettable, and far from Wikipedia's best work. Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:56, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I have removed the image, as instructed. Tim riley (talk) 08:55, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Most regrettable for the damage done to educational value, but they gave you no editorial control as allowed by policy; thanks again for your fine work. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:07, 21 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I am most grateful to Alanscottwalker for acquiescing with good grace to force majeure. If I may say so, his colleaguely attitude is in the best traditions of Wikipedia. Thanks too to all the editors who commented on this question. Tim riley (talk) 19:25, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * And you. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:29, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Tks all re. this discussion. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:00, 21 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment Very good article, and nearly there, but I think some of the critical comments should be brought out of the notes & put into a section on his style, which remains rather controversial. Was he not distinctive in insisting orchestras followed him on his beat, not behind it as usual?  The point might also be made that his age was ideal for an opera conductor, spanning exactly the golden period (which he helped to create) of studio opera recordings in terms of budgets, and arguably technology.  When I saw the contracts & royalties department at Polygram some 30 years ago, where the artists never penetrated, they had a large poster on the wall of "Sir Jaws" as they liked to call him, leaning forward conducting some intense passage. There was an added speech bubble saying "Give me my money and give it me now". Johnbod (talk) 05:13, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Interesting – thank you. I can't remember seeing any references to his insistence on being followed on, rather than after, the beat. The most likely source would be Donald Peck's book, but he doesn't mention the matter (he describes Reiner's and Monteux's baton techniques but not Solti's, beyond calling it "incisive"). I'll be interested to see if other reviewers think a "style" section would be helpful. I haven't put one in previous FA articles on conductors, but I'm happy to do so here if there is a consensus that I should. Tim riley (talk) 10:02, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't of course mean just "critical" comments by critics. Johnbod (talk) 12:51, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Quite so. Now I come to think of it, I did something of the sort in Sir Adrian Boult's article here. Is that the sort of thing you have in mind? Tim riley (talk) 12:56, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Exactly that - in fact that's fuller than I had in mind, but excellent. With some conductors consistent critiques of style are hard to pin down I think, but not Solti. Everyone seems agreed as to his strengths and weaknesses, but differ on their overall net result - and of course he was more successful in some areas of the repertoire than others. I can probably dig up some pithy quotes from the Opera on Record book & the Penguin & Gramophone guides if needed. Let me know. Johnbod (talk) 14:41, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd still like to see what other reviewers think, but I'll start drafting a similar section for this article. Tim riley (talk) 17:31, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I comment on this below. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:13, 17 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment In the third paragraph of the lead, "reputation. . . for some time" is, it seems, unaccountably vague, as to who and time. Is what is meant: "fortunes," and "during the tenor of its immediate prior director"," "since 1955", "since 1910" or . . .? I see reference to an earlier celebrated decade and to debt, in the body of the article, but it does not really elucidate the sentence in the lead.  Thanks. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:07, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Redrawn (without mentioning poor Martinon). Tim riley (talk) 19:47, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Good. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:28, 17 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Support. I fully support this nomination.  The article is well-written, comprehensive, nicely illustrated and thoroughly researched.  One statement has been recently added that needs referencing: "It has twice been voted the greatest recording ever made, in polls for Gramophone magazine in 1999 and the BBC's Music Magazine in 2012."  As for a "style" section, it should only be added if there is well-referenced material that demonstrates that Solti's style was distinctive - lots of conductors are "incisive" or "intense", so it would have to describe something unusual about his style that is discussed, rather than just mentioned, by the commentators, as being important.  -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:13, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmm! You may find these google searchs on "Solti sledgehammer" and "Solti brutal" instructive. "Haitinck brutal" results all seem to refer to the composers (or Solti). Of course those are the negative views, mostly. Johnbod (talk) 03:19, 19 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the support and comments. The "greatest recording" poll was previously mentioned in the text and an editor though it notable enough to mention in the lead. I am open-minded on the matter, but I think the cited ref in the main text covers the pre-echo in the lead. I look forward to seeing what other editors think about a "style" section. Tim riley (talk) 19:30, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Quite right, Tim. I missed the refs in the body of the article.  I agree that it is fine as is.  -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:26, 20 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Support I think enough is said about his musical style without a need for a new section. The interested reader may pursue it further in more specialized outlets.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:39, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

*Support This meets the featured criteria. Thanks. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:28, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Delegate note -- Tim, can you point to a spotcheck of sources at one of your recent FACs, as one doesn't appear to have been performed on this one? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:11, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * User:DrKiernan gave me a comprehensive going-over at Featured article candidates/John Barbirolli/archive1 last month, and then, to my continuing guilt, most generously gave the Jacques Offenbach article another spotcheck and source review in advance of an FAC that subsequently keeps vanishing into the distant horizon. Tim riley (talk) 22:41, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Tks Tim -- Barbirolli's is recent enough to earn you a bye this time round. Now, although I'm satisfied with the checks and the level of support, and there's no specified minimum time for a FAC to remain open, I'd like to leave this one a little longer to give anyone else who's interested a chance to comment. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:40, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Review of source paraphrasing
 * Article: " A series of "Hungarianisation" laws were passed by the right-wing regime of Admiral Horthy" ; Source: "After the First World War, a series of "Hungarianisation" laws were passed by the Fascist regime. – not particularly severe, but could do with rephrasing
 * That one was actually the only I could find, and I checked every cited source not behind a paywall. Eisfbnore  (下さいて話し) 10:42, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for that. I'll redraw as active rather than passive, which is probably better in any case. Tim riley (talk) 18:57, 20 March 2012 (UTC) Later: done. Tim riley (talk) 22:27, 21 March 2012 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.