Talk:Gustav Mahler

anti-Semitism/antisemitism

There seems to have been a bit of a too-and-fro over this recently. FreeStateCosmos, rather than edit war, you need to discuss the matter here and explain why this article—written in British English—should ignore the spelling supported by the OED? Please discuss here, rather than continue to edit war. Thank you - SchroCat (talk) 15:36, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Want to contribute with sources:

https://www.holocaustremembrance.com/antisemitism/spelling-antisemitism

https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/anti-semitism-or-antisemitism Grimes2 (talk) 15:46, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

And? Just because some sources spell it differently, it doesn't mean all uses have to follow suit. - SchroCat (talk) 15:55, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

IHRA uses Antisemitism, JVL uses anti-Semitism. Grimes2 (talk) 16:04, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

OED uses anti-Semitism too. Given the article is in BrEng, it seems sensible to keep to the spelling of that. Either way, that user has broken 3RR and been reported. - SchroCat (talk) 16:06, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Agree. Grimes2 (talk) 16:07, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

I also agree. FreeStateCosmos prays in aid an article that asserts that there is no such word as Semitism, which is doubtless true, but there undeniably is a word "Semitic", and the phrase under consideration here is "anti-Semitic". One of our leading authorities in Wikipedia is Smerus, author of Jewry in Music, published by the Cambridge University Press. I'd be keen to see his views on this point, if he cares to look in. Tim riley talk 16:50, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

But the term Semitic refers to a group of languages. It was the 19th century Jew hater Willhelm Marr who established the use of the term as a signifier for Jews (most of whom actually spoke the European language Yiddish rather than the Semitic Hebrew). RolandR (talk) 15:46, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

This is incorrect. JVL, like most activists and scholars actually involved with this subject, uses the unhyphenated form. See, for instance, the JVL Statement of Principles, or the official statement JVL: allegations of being involved in or condoning antisemitism. RolandR (talk) 15:40, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

• FreeStateCosmos, you've been reported already for the five reverts on this article. Do you think your editing career is going to last long if you continue to ignore the norms of behaviour, particularly after thy have been pointed out to you? - SchroCat (talk) 17:01, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

  https://www.holocaustremembrance.com/antisemitism/spelling-antisemitism FreeStateCosmos (talk) 17:04, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

• Yes, as has been discussed above, just because some sources have changed their spelling does not mean everyone has or that everyone has to. - SchroCat (talk) 17:06, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism FreeStateCosmos (talk) 17:06, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Again, so? WP is written in many varieties of English, and this article in British English used the spelling of the OED. If you could respond in sentences, rather than pointless URLs, it may improve the standard of discourse somewhat. - SchroCat (talk) 17:09, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

This is pointlessly aggressive. Please do click the URLs, and read the compelling arguments for using "antisemitism". That's all I can say. I had no idea this minor edit would lead to so much hostility. FreeStateCosmos (talk) 17:25, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Edit warring without discussion is pointlessly aggressive. Trying to explain to someone that different spellings are used by different countries or groups isn’t aggressive. Even after you were asked to stop edit warring and discuss, you continued reverting. Even after you were told of the edit warring report, you continued reverting. If that isn’t pointlessly aggressive, then I don’t know what is. - SchroCat (talk) 17:30, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Pointlessly aggressive? This from an editor who has been persistently edit warring! Please! Passive aggression, anyone? And if you deign to read the article, FreeStateCosmos, you will see that "anti-Semitism" (or antisemitism) is not mentioned. The phrase in question is "anti-Semitic" and the argument that there is no such word as Semitism is irrelevant. Tim riley talk 17:35, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

This is more accurate: antisemitism. FreeStateCosmos (talk) 17:36, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Just checking: can you actually read? The word "antisemitism" is not used, as you have repeatedly been told. Tim riley talk 17:38, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

@RolandR: You have stated there is a consensus on this issue; could you please link to where that consensus was achieved? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:13, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

There have been so many discussions about this, that I can't find the specific one in which I participated. But for example, see this Move discussion. And it is worth noting that since the most recent discussion, many reliable sources have adopted the unhyphenated form in preference to the hyphenated form. Significantly, Associated Press altered its influential style book in 2021[1]. Other outlets which have adopted this usage in recent years include the New York Times[2], the BBC[3], the United Nations[4] and Dictionary.com[5]. RolandR (talk) 16:01, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

After much searching through archives, I have found two[6][7] of the many lengthy discussions I mention (and there are several others), which I think clearly show a strong consensus in favour of use of the unhyphenated form. I would add that, since these discussions, many other bodies have changed their usage to drop the hyphen - notably Associated Press, which notes "We changed our style in 2021 to antisemitism, not anti-Semitism. The past style was based on common usage. But some say that could give credence to the idea that Jews are a separate race. A growing number of Jewish organizations and others have moved to the style antisemitism",[8], the New York Times, which wrote "We are dropping the hyphen and lowercasing the S, which is now the style of The Associated Press and is preferred by many academics and other experts. Those who favor antisemitism argue that the hyphenated form, with the uppercase S, may inadvertently lend credence to the discredited notion of Jews as a separate race"[9] and Dictionary.com, which states "The closed and lowercase spelling antisemitism is now the preferred form. Jewish groups have long preferred the single word spelling, and many style guides, including those of major publications, have also adopted it. While Semitic is a current linguistic term for a subfamily of Afroasiatic languages including Akkadian, Arabic, Aramaic, Ethiopic, Hebrew, and Phoenician, the spelling anti-Semite falsely implies prejudice against all of the diverse groups of people who speak any of these languages. However, that is not how antisemite is used. Rather, the “Semite” in antisemitism is a euphemism for “Jew,” meant to lend a scientific air to the racial grouping of all Jewish peoples based on an outdated pseudoscience of race".[10] The rest of the world is finally catching up with the usage by academics and activists involved in this field, and Wikipedia should not lag behind. RolandR (talk) 23:45, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

One of those discussions ended with no consensus, and the other is another discussion to do only with the title of the article on the topic. Conversely, your arguments seem to be in favour of preferring one over the other across Wikipedia - this simply isn't the venue for that kind of conversation. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:24, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

While researching this, I came across an apparently relevant book "Seeing Mahler: Music and the Language of Antisemitism in Fin-de-Siècle Vienna" by K.M. Knittel [11]. The author actually discusses in the introduction why they use the unhyphenated form of the word. RolandR (talk) 16:09, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Happily, the preceding editor's failure to point to a consensus is of no matter as the word to which s/he objects does not appear in the article, as has been pointed out several times. – Tim riley talk 18:54, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Which word does not appear in the article? Are we taking part in the same discussion? RolandR (talk) 23:06, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

The word anti-Semitism/antisemitism does not appear in the article. You two were going back and forth about anti-Semitic/antisemitic.

Has there been a consensus established to prefer one over the other across Wikipedia, or was the consensus you referenced solely to do with the title of the article on the topic? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:57, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

There are currently 5 "anti-Semitic"s in the article. Johnbod (talk) 00:04, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

This is pedantic pettifoggery. The words antisemitism, antisemite and antisemitic quite clearly relate to the same phenomenon, share the same etymology, and are covered by the same multiple discussions - both on Wikipedia and in the world. To suggest that we need separate discussions and consensuses for each of these words is so mind-boggingly ridiculous that I refuse to give it serious consideration. RolandR (talk) 01:53, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

I didn't say we need separate discussions, I simply answered your question. I would like to see an answer to mine though. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:17, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Quite so, and to repeat a point made previously with regard to Shmuel Almog's objection that there is no noun "Semitism", there certainly is an adjective "Semitic". Moreover, in rendering the attitude of Judaeophobes as a hyphenated and capitalised "anti-Semitism", the Oxford English Dictionary is following the lead of, among others, The Jewish Chronicle. It is ad rem to point out that the hyphenated and capitalised form is prescribed by the only other two dictionaries on my shelves: the Bloomsbury and Chambers. A distinguished Jewish musical scholar with whom I have had the privilege of working prefers the term "Judaeophobia" (capitalised as in our own Wikipedia article where it is given with the spelling "Judeophobia) to "anti-Semitism/antisemitism", and I think it in all respects more suitable. He writes, "as regards anti-Semitism I seek to limit use of this word to its strict late-nineteenth-century sense, when indeed the word was coined by Jew-haters to give a respectable, quasi-scientific cover to their reformulation of traditional Judaeophobia as a political movement dedicated to rescinding the civil rights that Jews had received..." – Tim riley talk 07:59, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Quote

The original quote is "I am thrice homeless, as a native of Bohemia in Austria, as an Austrian among Germans, and as a Jew throughout the world. Everywhere an intruder, never welcomed." I think the text using the part of the quote is changing the meaning of his words. He lived in Jihlava, where was a german speaking majority at the time (so called Jihlava language island), so he felt as an intruder almost only because of his jewish origin as in the whole world. Bohemia didn't very contribute to it (it was the first country in the world who acknowledged Jew nationality in the census, the situation of Jews was always above average compare to the rest of Europe). On the contrary in Vienna was a strong antisemitism and he was seen as a some czech Jew here, so twice intruder. 46.135.20.12 (talk) 23:25, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Are you talking about the section Gustav Mahler#Family background? Mgnbar (talk) 00:10, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

The source says: "Bohemia was then part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire; Mahler's native tongue was German, and he ranked as an Austrian subject of Jewish descent. He was thus from the beginning affected by racial tensions: he belonged to an unpopular Austrian minority among Bohemians, and to an unpopular Jewish minority within the Austrian one. Throughout his life, he felt a sense of exile. He once said: 'I am thrice homeless, as a native of Bohemia in Austria, as an Austrian amongst Germans, as a Jew throughout the world. Always an intruder, never welcomed.'" I think the relevant section of the article accurately and succinctly represents the source. Tim riley talk 08:11, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Infobox

I note the old discussions about an infobox from 2012 and before. However things have changed at Wikipedia and the old editors have moved on. Is it time we had a debate about adding an infobox? The usual way is to get consensus one way or the other, now, on the talk page rather than simply shoot the idea out of the water as one editor did in 2020. Thoughts welcome — Iadmc♫^talk  20:34, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Don't let's do this. You will (eventually) discover that nothing much has changed. Johnbod (talk) 21:19, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm asking for opinions and yours is noted. Thanks. Others' opinions may differ. It is telling that Mozart has an info box, though, along with a large number of other composer articles. — Iadmc♫^talk  03:13, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

A waste of time and space. You can't put anything useful in an info-box for a composer. You could put conducting posts held by Mahler, but that's not what he's famous for now. You could say he wrote symphonies and songs but that's not helpful to the reader. The majority of composer FAs don't have an i-box for that reason. Tim riley talk 07:12, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

The composer infobox would be used which is minimal. Here's what I propose:

Gustav Mahler
Gustav Mahler, photographed in 1907 by Moritz Nähr at the end of his period as director of the Vienna Hofoper
Born	7 July 1860 Kaliště, Kingdom of Bohemia
Died	18 May 1911 Vienna
Works	List of compositions

— Iadmc♫^talk  08:20, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

As you can see it is simply the image with some biographical info added in. It won't damage the FA status as far as I can tell — Iadmc♫^talk  08:27, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

The problem with that is that it doesn't do what an info-box is intended to do: to sum up the main points of the article. It even (bizarrely) takes the reader away from the article to another article altogether. Not helpful to the poor reader! Tim riley talk 08:51, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

It is what was agree to by the composer group, assuming there is consensus at the talk page. I'm feeling no love for infoboxs here though so I'll probably move on — Iadmc♫^talk  11:10, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

(ec): What you call "another article altogether" is the list of his compositions which would be part of this article if it was shorter. It also seems to "sum up" his achievements as a composer best. If "compositions" looks too neutral (but I like it exactly for being neutral and not an editor's choice of favourites), we could be more specific and name groups of works (symphonies, song cycles) or even individual works (Kindertotenlieder), - compare Aaron Copland. I am not against mentioning other key facts from his life, such as occupations and organizations; "conductor" and "director of the Vienna Hofoper" for example should show in parameter-value pairs where readers may expect them and search, and not in the image caption. Iadmc: very few people are only composers, and {{infobox person}} is therefore often better than the limited {{infobox classical composer}}. Technical suggestions: Vienna - as a current capital - needs no link, and the repetition of his name in the works parameter is not needed. - I wrote this far in reply to Tim riley, but to you as well, Iadmc. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:20, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

I think we are all very, very well aware of G. Arendt's views on i-boxes. Tim riley talk 13:06, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

@Tim riley I really think you guys are out of step with the modern Wikipedia. Infoboxes, when used well, are now part of the culture. I'll hang around a while to see if others turn up to voice an opinion. Btw, writing someone off just because "we are all very, very aware of" their views is bad form. — Iadmc♫^talk  14:31, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

I think you might not think so if you knew what G. Arendt has put those who disagree with her through over the years on this point. Cautioned for bullying by the Wikipedia authorities and nearly barred. She always promises not to intervene in discussions about i-boxes and then invariably does so. Tim riley talk 14:46, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Everybody is allowed an opinion which should be considered equally with others (even if they are opposed to your views...) Or if they have history. Respect is the word! I will respect the consensus here after a decent respectful debate. Other people may want an infobox. We are however at an impasse at the moment and need new blood. I have asked over at the composers group and will ask at WP classical music and WP musicians — Iadmc♫^talk  15:08, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt True that few are only composers but most are primarily composers or at least known as such. I see your point though — Iadmc♫^talk  14:35, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

I've modified the box per Gerda's suggestions — Iadmc♫^talk  15:15, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

I STRONGLY agree that an infobox is warranted. Basically every other category in WP uses them, and the arguments for why this tiny corner is somehow different are unpersuasive in the extreme. PianoDan (talk) 16:02, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Would you STRONGLY say what you would put in an info-box for a composer? Tim riley talk 16:16, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

I am, as it happens, working on the article on Robert Schumann, which has an info-box. It was there when I started work on the article, and I am not so arrogant as to remove it merely because it seems to me to serve little purpose. It does no harm even though it repeats only what is in the lead. Equally, I think those who insist that all articles must have an info-box (which is not Wikipedia's policy) should consider how arrogant they are being. The Schumann article is at PR for anyone interested in making a constructive contribution. Tim riley talk 16:33, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

@Tim riley I'm not insisting on anything. Merely opening discussions as required by Wikipedia — Iadmc♫^talk  17:39, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm sure you aren't, but there those who do, emphatically and brooking no opposition. By all means look in at the Schumann PR and also the Igor Stravinsky FAC just opened. Tim riley talk 18:32, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Ooh. Worked on Stravinsky some years ago... Will pop in. I have commented on the PR at Schumann, too — Iadmc♫^talk  19:22, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Just an observation: you didn't remove the infobox, but you changed it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:46, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

I have never seen any rational reason given for removing an infobox. I know that there are people, who it is not necessary to name, who have a passionate hatred of them, apparently based on personal taste. But I do know a rational reason to include an infobox: the dustbin problem...

The dustbin (AmE "garbage can" or "trash can" (also used in the UK), pronounced UK: /ˈdʌstbɪn/, Japanese ゴミ箱, also used in Hong Kong sometimes) is the collection of nominal factoids, whether trivial or significant, which populate the parenthesised portion following the noun phrase, or sequence of alternative noun phrases identifying the topic of the article . There is a very long tradition of starting an article on a person with their name followed by parenthesised dates, but this has plainly got out of hand, and I recall reading at least one WP:essay on this. Search engines typically produce a "summary" for identifying a topic, by removing all parenthesised bits from the WP:lead, sometimes with disastrous results. So apart from the dates, all of this information is best presented not in linear text form, and the obvious existing place to put it is the infobox. Precisely because information in tabular form is easily scanned, people who are not interested in pronunciation (for example) can easily ignore it.

A personal taste reason for composer infoboxes is that I want to see composers' signatures. I just fished out a couple of cherished scores: "Beethoven, Sonaten-Album" pub. Bosworth & Co. Leipzig early 20C, with the composer's signature under the growling portrait, and "Valses Nobles & Sentimentale" pub. Durand, with Maurice Ravel's signature in an otherwise text only cover: his Slonimsky rating is "great French", but surely his Adjective would be "meticulous" and that shines through his signature. Samples

Just a personal note to Tim Riley: no, I really don't need evidence that either Ludwig or Maurice could write. Imaginatorium (talk) 07:09, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

There is a case for the signatures that artists use on their works being included, but none for composers. If you are interested in seeing them, fine, but (this may seem a shocking suggestion) you'll just have to look at the article. They can't possibly be called a "key fact" for composers. Johnbod (talk) 13:03, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

I am sadly way too late to this discussion. But since I am here after all: As someone who just came by to read for myself, I was irritated when I did not see an inbox on this article, so I switched to this TP to check.

Representing more the average reader than the average editor here, I am very much in favor of adding an inbox for two main reasons: (1) Consistency. Browsing most articles of renowned composers of the era, they all have an inbox. Therefore I'd say that this is a larger community-established precedent that this article should follow too. Not having one feels off. (2) Brevity. There are readers who come in for a quick scan of key data, and others who want to read more. In my case, I wanted to quickly cross-check during which years our friend Gustav lived and where, to cross-check at a glance who his contemporaries were. Instead, I had to parse through a bunch of prose. One may find my particular use case too fringe, but since most other articles have settled on a specific set of fields for composers, I believe it has already evolved enough to have the vast majority of such quick uses covered. DracaenaGuianensis (talk) 04:55, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

TLDR: I really can't grasp how can an infobox harm an article.

I would like to argue that an infobox does add to the article, and more, to the overall purpose of Wikipedia, which I quote:

Wikipedia's purpose is to benefit readers by acting as a widely accessible and free encyclopedia

given that it makes very relevant key facts (Birth date, death date, birth place, death place, ocupation, most famous compositions (I'm sorry, but, yes, his second symphony is a tad bit more famous than his lost works, or even his uncompleted piano quartet), burial place, alma mater, posts held, family information) more difficult to find, thus, less accessible.

I know that, as per, MOS:IBX all of this information in within the article, but having to make the effort to find it is a loss of time for the reader only interested on the straight facts.

And, even assuming that this is not the case, and having a clear tabulated template with all of the person's information is somehow not useful for the average reader, to the people that oppose an infobox, what harm is there in one? If you don't want to read the infobox, just, don't. As simple as that. It even makes the rest of the article more readable, as the lead section's width is smaller (see [12] this very famous TeX Stack Exchange post).

For mostly-readers-but-sometimes-editors like me, it is really strange that this article does not have an infobox. Today, it turned what would have been thirty seconds of my life spent in the following manner:

• I wonder where did Mahler die?
• I shall go to Wikipedia
• Oh, he died in Vienna!

into:

• I wonder where did Mahler die?
• I shall go to Wikipedia
• Oh, this article does not have an infobox, strange!
• I will create one to help the community out.
• Oh, it was removed. Why?
• Oh. I see...

I see that some people refuse to accept it, but it is expected of basically every Wikipedia article to have an infobox. I ask the those against the infobox: Which articles of similar importance to this don't have one? And please, do not give me an example in which you are also actively blocking the infobox being created.

Furthermore, the lack of consensus for 12 (!) years, maybe warrants an attempt to get a third party involved.

Milo8505 _(talk) 14:40, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

"it is expected of basically every Wikipedia article to have an infobox" just isn't true, I'm afraid. There are thousands, hundreds of thousand of articles that don't have IBs. It's also not true to say that there has been a lack of consensus for 12 years. For most of that time there has been a consensus not to have one. And the lack of an IB in absolutely no way stops WP being a widely accessible and free encyclopaedia - such hyperbolic claims are patently absurd. - SchroCat (talk) 15:28, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

First, of the 6,9 million articles on Wikipedia, more than 3 million have an infobox. Yes, there are millions of articles without one, but, with nearly half of articles having one it can be said that readers come to expect them.

Second, the person who reverted my edit (@Tim riley) said there is a lack of consensus. I want to challenge that.

Third, Are you claiming that making information more easily findable does not help the purpose of Wikipedia? I never claimed that the lack of the infoboxes stopped Wikipedia from being widely accessible or free, I claimed that they would help in that regard.

Fourth, could you tell me why an infobox would harm this article in particular? That is the most important part, as I can not find a single reason other than "X group of people really dislike them". Even Tim admits they do no harm! (in another article, I know). Milo8505 _(talk) 16:20, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

• If half don't have them, it's an odd claim that readers expect them: if it was 90 per cent, that may be a good line, but it isn't. So have you asked the readers? Have you seen any research that says people expect them? Even that isn't really a good argument. Expecting something doesn't mean a positive outcome. Asking whether something is beneficial and aids understanding would be a better starting point. You are free to challenge it, but as the last argument was slightly earlier this year and there have been no additional reasons or major changes to the article, it's difficult to see any new arguments coming up. The information is findable: it's on the page. Whether having trivial factoids in a prominent position, stripped of context in such a prime position, giving them extra weight really is beneficial is another matter altogether. there are very good reasons why IBs are flawed: they are listed in the archive discussions of several dozen pages on WP, but they start with what I have already said: that presenting trivial factoids stripped of context and nuance in a prime position does readers a disservice. The really important information on Mahler is in the first paragraph, particularly the opening line. - SchroCat (talk) 17:42, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

  An infobox would serve to highlight certain undisputable facts that need no context (like date and place of birth and death).

  Where did Mahler die? is a question that someone may try to find an answer to in wikipedia.

  With an infobox, that would take less than a second to find, and no one is being forced not to read the article if they want more nuance. It is true that information should be presented in a way that isn't misleading, but that doesn't only apply to infoboxes.

  I feel that when you talk about disservice to readers you are attempting to tell people how should they read an article, which is not the purpose of Wikipedia.

  You are intentionally making some facts about the article's subject more time-consuming to find in order to protect readers from themselves. I do not believe that is a good argument. Everyone is free to read, or not to read, whatever they desire.

  Your spirit, of suppressing information in the interest of the people is quite clearly contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia. Milo8505 _(talk) 18:21, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

• "highlight certain undisputable facts": Yes, they certainly do that, but whether that is a good thing depends. Is the place of birth and death really going to aid readers in their understanding of Mahler? From one point they are little more than trivia
• It's certainly possible that someone may want to know where he died, and it's mentioned in the article. But when someone hears his second symphony, are they going to be looking for his place of death as one of the first things? Is it one of the most important points about Mahler that you think readers need to know as one of the most important ten things about him? I would suggest not, but by including it in the IB, that's what you make it
• No, that's not what I am saying by any stretch of the imagination
• Again, no, that's inaccurate: that's clearly not what I am saying
• "Your spirit, of suppressing information in the interest of the people is quite clearly contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia": that's just hyperbolic nonsense. No information is being supressed, and it's disingenuous to suggest that's what I am arguing for or what I have in any way suggested.

You're misrepresenting what I've said to such a ridiculous degree that I'm going to step back from this and let others chip in. I refute most of your claims as nonsense that is a long way from what I have said - it's a farcical stretch to come to the conclusions you have based on what I have written; much misrepresentation may be a pseudo-smart rhetorical device, but I'll have no truck with it. - SchroCat (talk) 19:14, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

First, I'm sorry if I have offended you. However what I said in my post is what I interpreted from your reply.

When you say:

But when someone hears his second symphony, are they going to be looking for his place of death as one of the first things? Is it one of the most important points about Mahler that you think readers need to know as one of the most important ten things about him? I would suggest not, but by including it in the IB, that's what you make it.

are you not, at the very least assuming the intentions of people visiting the page?

Yes, I do in fact agree that when someone first hears about Mahler it is the information on the lead paragraph that they are looking for, but that does not warrant eliminating other information (or burying it paragraphs deep inside the article).

What I continue not understanding is why do you object the mere inclusion of an infobox? The infobox (if correctly placed) does not remove the lead paragraph from the most important spot on the page on desktop, and appears after this paragraph on mobile, so it does not remove the lead paragraph from the most relevant position.

An bad infobox would elevate wrong, misleading or irrelevant facts to a prominent position, but a good one would be a quick reference for something quick biographical doubts that one might have. And I understand that this might come across as a infobox-on-every-article mentality, but that is not my intention.

I do not think that the article is bad in any way shape or form without the infobox, but I do believe that it would be better with one, because, as I have stated a few times over by now, it would make for a more useful article. It wouldn't cease to be a good article for those who want to read a moderately sized introduction on Mahler, but it would also be a good article for those in a hurry looking for a biographical fact _{(which is the situation I was in this morning and why I started this whole discussion. I tought that the article would be better with an infobox, and following WP:BOLD, I added one. I should have checked the TP, I know.)}

I think that the text of an article and the infobox are different things. The infobox is not a summary of the article, but rather a collection of organized information found in the article. When looking at the infobox for a person, in general, you find their basic biographical information, and then, information relevant to the reason they are on Wikipedia. In Mahler's case, I believe a good infobox would contain first, their important biographical information, an then, what he is known for: being a prominent composer of the late romantic era, and a link to his works' list. This, I know, is a simplification of the article and one might even claim that prominent composer of the late romantic era is maybe not the best description of his musical style, but, an infobox does not and should not substitute the text, which clearly explains who he was and what is he known for.

This infobox would however present this information, which is not necessarily the most important, but standardized in the template description, in a format that is, at least, widely used in the rest of Wikipedia.

As an example of what I mean: see J. Robert Oppenheimer's page. The infobox is huge with loads of fields, but, if you just looked at it, it wouldn't be a good substitute for the rest of the article - because it's not meant to be. What it is is an standardized collection of information about him.

TL;DR An IB does no harm and adds, at least, some value. Milo8505 _(talk) 19:57, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose infobox. While sports and politician bios can benefit from infoboxes, as a Signpost report notes: "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 the box would misleadingly emphasize less important factoids, stripped of context and lacking nuance, whereas the excellent WP:LEAD section emphasizes and contextualizes the most important facts about the subject. In addition, as the key information about the subject that could be included in the box is already discussed in the Lead and in the body of the article, the box would be a 3rd mention of these facts. Particular problems with the recently suggested box include: (1) It includes a pronunciation of his name. This belongs in the Lead, if anywhere, not in the box; (2) are his place of death and burial place really "key information" that the reader needs to see before reading the Lead section?; (3) the "occupations" will be clearer if the article simply starts off with the Lead section; (4) Era will be clearer if the article simply starts off with the Lead section. So, it seems like a largely redundant infobox that merely delays the reader in getting to the clearer, better contextualized Lead section. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:44, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

  Again, an infobox does not displace any information other than the Download as PDF button do. I'm not advocating for removing any of the great text already written, but there is no harm in the infobox. Milo8505 _(talk) 20:00, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

  An even better example than Oppenheimer: Freddie Mercury

  Would you argue that that infobox puts the bands Sour Milk Sea and Queen at the same level? Milo8505 _(talk) 20:07, 14 November 2024 (UTC)