Talk:Friedrich Goldmann

Reference format

I'd suggest changing the reference format in order to make the article appear less cluttered, and thus enhance its readability, especially considering the amount of reference that keeps entering the article. From "Information (Source, year)", as it is now, to "Information

This seems to be the established format with the majority of related articles (late 20th century German / Austrian composers): Wolfgang Rihm, Helmut Lachenmann, Reiner Bredemeyer, Enno Poppe, Bernd Alois Zimmermann, Hans Werner Henze, Heiner Goebbels, Hans Zender, Georg Friedrich Haas, Aribert Reimann, Friedrich Cerha, Ernst Krenek and also post-WWII 20th century contemporary composers in general: Pierre Boulez, Iannis Xenakis, Luciano Berio, Ligeti, Brian Ferneyhough, Bruno Maderna, Alfred Schnittke, Péter Eötvös, John Cage, Morton Feldman, Steve Reich …

I'm also wondering if it isn't detrimental to the article if subjects that usually aren't featured in a general biography are reflected in excruciating detail: the city history of Chemnitz, barcodes of reissues of Deutsche Grammophone CDs …

I do not see how your argument about changing the reference formats from parenthetical referencing (the style established for this article on 25 November 2011) to one or the other of the several footnote styles (you do not actually specify which one) is specific to the needs of this article. If you are arguing that all articles should use footnotes instead of parenthetical referencing, then you should take your reasoning to the general discussion pages on Wikipedia citations. Personally, there is nothing I would welcome more than a single, uniform referencing style across all of Wikipedia, but to judge from discussions so far, this seems like a vain hope.

Regarding your somewhat narrower position about post–World War II music in general, and late 20th-century German / Austrian composers in particular, the guideline at WP:CITEVAR says, in part, "Editors should not attempt to change an article's established citation style merely ... to make it match other articles, …". Notice that this refers to the style established for the particular article in question, not all articles on Wikipedia, or some subgroup thereof. Consequently, your list is not really relevant to a discussion of the needs of this one article. However, in order not simply to ignore this point, I will counter your list with Milton Babbitt, Jürg Baur, Konrad Boehmer, Rob du Bois, Jacques Calonne, Herbert Eimert, Franco Evangelisti (composer), Johannes Fritsch, Rolf Gehlhaar, Lucien Goethals, Karel Goeyvaerts, Pierre Henry, York Höller, David C. Johnson, Mauricio Kagel, Gottfried Michael Koenig, Ladislav Kupkovič, John McGuire (composer), Mesías Maiguashca, Luigi Nono, Emmanuel Nunes, Michael Obst (composer), Henri Pousseur, Peter Schat, Roger Smalley, Karlheinz Stockhausen, Tomás Marco, Pierre Mariétan, Camillo Togni, etc., the composition articles on Abraham and Isaac (Stravinsky), Aquarius (opera), Il canto sospeso, Canticum Sacrum, Gesang der Jünglinge, Gruppen (Stockhausen), Klang (Stockhausen), Klavierstücke (Stockhausen), Le marteau sans maître, Momente, Piano sonatas (Boulez), Polyphonie X, Quatre études de rythme, Sonata for Two Pianos (Goeyvaerts), String Quartet No. 6 (Babbitt) (and the other Babbitt string quartet articles), Structures (Boulez), Symphony No. 3 (Davies) (and the other nine Davies symphonies), etc., institutional and organizational articles such as Studio for Electronic Music (WDR), Cologne School (music), New Simplicity, Oeldorf Group, and also core topic articles on Atonality, Experimental music, Modernism (music), Musique concrète, Neotonality, Postmodern music, Serialism, all of which use parenthetical referencing. In fact, if trying to achieve uniformity across topic areas were a valid argument, changing all of the articles currently using footnotes to parenthetical refercing would be more logical than the other way around. I think you must agree that this is a fruitless line of argument.

I am hampered in responding to your claims about clutter and readability by not knowing which type of footnote format you favor. However, from your past editing on this article I would guess that you intend long-footnote format (also called "full-reference footnotes"). In this case I would argue that on Wikipedia this usually means not including an alphabetical list of references, which I regard as crucial in an article like this one. Because long-footnote format results in a more or less random scattering of the sources, it is difficult to determine whether multiple appearances of one author's name indicates heavy reliance on a single source, or an expert author who has published numerous different items. It also tends to obscure references to online sources by not clearly indicating author's name and year of publication, which are more or less forced on the editor when adding references to an alphabetical list. I think most Wikipedia editors would argue that having both the complete reference sources in footnotes and a complete alphabetical list is a case of clutter pure and simple. Given a choice between n alphabetical list of the references and not having one, I would argue for the former every time.

If on the other hand you mean to suggest short-footnote (SFN) format, which would therefore retain the alphabetical list of references, I see this as unnecessary complication for the reader, reducing rather than increasing readability. This is because finding the reference requires a two-stage click: first to the footnote, and then from there to the alphabetical list of references.

To address your second point, there are two conflicting philosophies: Deletionism and inclusionism in Wikipedia. You are taking a deletionist stance, and I am not really an inclusionist myself, so I can sympathize with your point of view. I think, however, that what is here of "the city history of Chemnitz" (recte: the city history of Siegmar-Schönau) can scarcely be described as "excruciating detail", since all that is added is "since July 1951 incorporated into Chemnitz". I could see dropping the reference to Chemnitz altogether, though more readers not actually from Germany are likely to know where Chemnitz is than Siegmar-Schönau, and the link to the latter takes them to the German Wikipedia, since there is not yet a corresponding article here on the English Wikipedia. I dimly recall that at some point an editor changed Siegmar-Schönau to Chemnitz, presumably on grounds that it has been incorporated into that city since 1951, but it was not so when Goldmann was born there, so it is incorrect to give Chemnitz as his birthplace. There was, I think, a brief editorial struggle over this issue, and I have only just recently clarified this to the present reading. By all means make it clearer and simpler, if you can. As to "barcodes of reissues of Deutsche Grammophone CDs", there are no barcodes in the article at all. There are, however, catalog numbers, which are normal when supplying references to commercially released recordings. They do not belong in the main text, though, for exactly the reasons you mention: excessive detail and clutter. In fact, I find the inclusion in the text at all of this one mention of a recording distracting. What would simultaneously solve this problem and enhance the article would be a discography (divided into sections for recordings of Goldmann's compositions and recordings of Goldmann conducting music by other composers). Such a list keeps the tedious details of publication well out of the way of the main text, and yet makes these details available to the reader who requires them. Am I being too inclusionist here?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:59, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

I believe it is obvious that most of your examples don't really match the previously suggested category of "late 20th C. German & Austrian composer" (half of them not even being about persons), so I'll take this as proof that footnotes are the format of referencing found most often in this category. Indeed the guidelines do say to not change the format just because of that - well, that's why we are discussing it now instead of me simply changing it. I'd guess the majority of readers of a biographical article in Wikipedia are mainly looking for quickly accessible general information, not for bibliographical details. If somebody is looking for the latter, it's still perfectly there in footnotes. So readability doesn't hinder references, while parentheses hinders readability. I guess detailed referencing of every possible "fact" entering this article (as imposed here by User:Epeefleche) serves mainly as some sort of preliminary verification (who says what's written somewhere is true, or doesn't contradict what's written elsewhere? for instance: A.Williams -> the Schnebel influence - I haven't found that anywhere else. It also doesn't really make much sense aesthetically and chronologically). The list of references is hardly a comprehensive bibliography on the topic - thus they just serve a specific purpose (which can be perfectly delegated to a body of footnotes). If this idea of the purpose of such an article here - a quick encyclopedic overview of the subject - is plausible, then any format of footnotes - even SFN - will greatly increase readability in that regard compared to parenthetical references which are just clutter if a partial bibliography is not what you are looking for.

As for the second part: a detailed bibliography and discography is surely desirable. Still, I feel a general biography could single out important recordings - as important commissions or other achievements are singled out too - and the mentioned Stockhausen CD is Goldmann's most important recording as a conductor of another composer's work by far (no idea how to reference that claim). A discography wouldn't hold that information. Still, catalogue numbers, barcodes, or any string of numbers doubled up with the ones found on the reissue hardly add any relevant information - unless put in a footnote (so this also supports what I said above). I don't mind dropping Chemnitz altogether as I fail to see a relevant connection to the reason this person has an entry here. --Planetdust (talk) 18:19, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

PS: The examples of composers I give is not arbitrary. Each of them (Germans and non-Germans) - and Goldmann too - has an individual entry in all 3 German encyclopedias quoted in the references: MGG, KDG and the single-volume Metzler's Komponistenlexikon (see references). --Planetdust (talk) 18:25, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

FWIW, my list is not arbitrary, either. The number of German post-war composers was deliberately chosen to equal the number in your own list, and I would be surprised if many of them are not cited in all three references you name, though I only have access to MGG myself. But we agree that this is not relevant to our discussion of reference formatting.

Though the Wikipedia guidelines treat them as if they were synonymous, it is important to distinguish between parenthetical referencing and author-date citation style. The latter can be used either in parenthetical references or in footnotes. In fact, the "short footnote" format defined by the template {{sfn}} uses so-called "Harvard" author-date citation format, even though Harvard referencing is a redirect to Parenthetical referencing and Wikipedia:Harvard referencing similarly redirects to Wikipedia:Parenthetical referencing.

I find it impossible to accept your contention that the use of "parentheses hinders readability". To borrow a passage from your own comments, do you really prefer:

I guess detailed referencing of every possible "fact" entering this article serves mainly as some sort of preliminary verification

to what you actually wrote (using parentheses)? Parenthetical referencing uses exactly this same method, with appropriate abbreviation. It is simply a matter of reduction. "The sky is blue (according to a statement on page 39 of John Smith’s 1975 book, The Colour of the Sky, published in Tegucigalpa by Evident Facts Publishers)" is progressively shortened, first to "The sky is blue (according to John Smith’s 1975 book, The Colour of the Sky, p. 39)", with the clear understanding that the full citation for this book will be found in the Bibliography (or List of References, or Cited Sources, or whatever it is titled). This can then be shortened still further to "The sky is blue (Smith 1975, 39)". What could possibly be more readable?! Any variety of footnote format places a series of obstacles in the text, requiring the reader to decide at each one whether to leave the text or ignore it and go on reading. Of course, putting full citations into parenthetical references would be awkward, which is why author-date referencing is the norm.

I think you can see my point, and that what we are really debating here are the relative merits of the author-date system versus full referencing. In practice, full referencing normally also involves some form of shortened referencing, in order to avoid the clutter caused by repeating all of the bibliographical details every time a source is cited. An example of this kind of clutter can be seen here. This really ought to be cleaned up, so that the source cited in footnote 5 is shortened upon its return in footnotes 12, 17, and 23. I think you can see the problem here is that, with the text subject to constant editorial change, it can easily happen that a new footnote reference to the same source is inserted before the footnote with the full citation, which should not be in shortened format, misleading the reader to scan the preceding footnotes in a attempt to find out what this cryptic source actually is.

Notwithstanding all of this, we are still merely debating the relative merits of different citation formats generally. What reasons for changing citation style can you offer that are particular to the needs of this article, or should we take our debate over to Wikipedia talk:Citing sources? There is also a "Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)" tab in the header to that talk page, which I would like to point out in case you have not already seen it. Amongst other things, it says of parenthetical citations that they "are simpler for new users to understand, are commonly taught in schools, and may be the style preferred by the relevant academic discipline".

On the other hand, I agree with your complaint about referencing every sentence separately. I don’t think that User:Epeefleche can really have intended this. It should be sufficient to collect all the references for a paragraph together in a single (parenthetical) citation at the end, unless there is some particularly contentious claim.

I would like to break out the discussion of a discography and comprehensive bibliography into a separate section, since this is really a different topic.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:14, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Dear all: Since there has been no further input on deciding on the final reference format for this article, I suggest moving forward as suggested. To recap: Footnotes will increase readability & resemble the standards currently in use with other similar pages (see first entry above for examples). Should there be any objections, please voice them until the end of next week. If nothing new comes up I guess we'll have reached consensus & I'll then move forward with implementing the suggested format. Thank you.Planetdust (talk) 12:13, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Influences

Regarding this section: "He was also personally acquainted with Luigi Nono, whose late style, along with the music of Edgard Varèse and Dieter Schnebel, influenced Goldmann's compositions according to his own admission (Williams 1995, 28)." (Removed by User:122.208.129.82)

I agree that it would be very good to have information on influences. However, this sentence doesn't make sense in the position in the text, doubles information given elsewhere in the text and is unlikely to be accurate chronologically (Goldmann probably had no exposure whatsoever to Schnebel in between 1959 and 1962). First and foremost though it contradicts influences given by Schneider, Nachtmann, Müller, Allihn and others who have written biographical articles on Goldmann. I'm especially suspicious of the information on Schnebel and Varese supposedly given by Williams, since they aren't mentioned as influences in the 5 biographic articles I've read. They also aren't mentioned in Williams' other, more recent text on Goldmann: Alastair Williams: Music in Germany since 1968. Cambridge 2013, pp. 217 … . At Jerome Kohl: Could you kindly provide the exact quotes from the Williams article you quote, especially since you claim to quote Goldmann himself? It's probably best to gather the sources here and get a more accurate picture before inserting individual bits and pieces into the text at random points.Planetdust (talk) 10:04, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

The passage in question reads: "The compositions of Friedrich Goldmann, born 1941, provide an interesting axis for many of these issues. Before German reunification he had worked and been educated in the GDR, but had attended Stockhausen's composition seminar at the Darmstadt summer school and was personally acquainted with Nono. Goldmann's commitment to new music is evinced by his acknowledgement of Varèse, Dieter Schnebel and the late style of Nono as influences on his music; in fact works by these composers were performed at the première of his own Third Symphony."

Regardless of what you, I, or the anonymous IP editor may believe, Tempo is generally considered a respectable publication and, in Wikipedia terms, a reliable source. It is not acceptable to simply remove claims that are well-attested, and even worse to delete the source itself from the reflist. The correct way of dealing with this is to find another reliable source that supports a contradictory point of view, and present it along with the original. Alternatively, we may try to find a subsequent item by the same author retracting his former statement. Failing this, we must accept the information as given. If its placement is awkward to the narrative, then I suggest you move it to a more suitable position, but I respectfully insist that it be restored.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:14, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks for providing the passage. Now, Symphony 3 was written in 1986 - then, are those names given as influences on that particular work, that period or in general? With an oeuvre spanning more than 40 years, I might not be entirely wrong seeing it as misleading to identify its background with just a few names. Anyway, let's look at what other sources say: Nachtmann in KDG doesn't mention names throughout, but identifies a long string of influences, more or less linked to different creative periods: serialism, guided improvisation, cluster techniques, "the bourgeois tradition of sonata forms" ... For his 1990s-and-beyond ensemble and orchestral works, he names Messiaen, Scelsi and the late Nono, but then refers to concepts rather then names again: spectralism, modal and "classicist" elements… Schneider in Bärenreiter-Metzler Komponisten-Lexikon (2003) then identifies him with a "tradition of 'absolute' composition" and a specific "inheritance of German music: a preference for musically adequate ("materialgerecht") and thoroughly researched craftsmanship and rationally justifiable technique." The early phase is described in almost the same words as Nachtmann's (serialism, clusers, guided improvisation …). As "role models" he then identifies Stravinsky, Webern, Boulez, Xenakis and Ligeti (without linking them to a particular period). Specifically regarding the late 1980s and works since the 1990s he names the late Nono, as well as "outsiders of the avant-garde" such as Messiaen and Scelsi, as "stimulations." I'd have to look up MGG, Grove and a couple of others again to see if we can identify a consensus on some names. I also recall having seen the string from modal elements to spectralism described as a specific interest in "French music" from Debussy to Grisey… That said, I've never seen Schnebel named elsewhere and it would be interesting to know which particular concepts of his music (or Varese's for that matter) should be considered influential. Schnebel's highly conceptual and experimental works seem to be quite an antidote for what we are looking at here. In the end (and in general) it might be more accurate to describe influences as concepts rather than to reduce them to a few names (despite the desire to craft such personalized narratives). As for placement, I'd suggest to expand the "works" section unless particular influences can be linked with particular events in the biography (such as Goldmann studying with Stockhausen in Darmstadt for instance) Planetdust (talk) 12:02, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

I absolutely agree that specific techniques and styles are more useful than mere names. It is nevertheless true that composers occasionally name particular persons as important influences, without saying precisely in what way they were influential. Schnebel is an especially tantalizing case because of the great diversity of his work, and not least because his influence could as easily have been in philosophical rather than musical dimensions. Given that Williams is a reliable source and appears to be citing Goldmann directly, failing to mention Schnebel's name would diminish the scope of this article, just as suppressing Williams's article because his testimony happens not to agree with your opinion amounts to dishonest scholarship. This other material you cite of course should be added (I don't have access to most of it myself, or I would have done so long ago), and I agree that the most appropriate place would be in the section discussing the works themselves. However, perhaps there might be some merit in naming the influential persons with whom he came into contact (especially where specifics of style or technique are not mentioned) in the biographical section—for example, it is helpful not just to say he went to Darmstadt, but also to specify who he came into contact with there. By the way, "consensus" among sources is neither necessary nor desirable, and I am not aware of any Wikipedia guideline that suggests otherwise. So long as those sources are reliable ones, the minority reports may be more valuable than the bland generalizations everyone keeps repeating.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 20:03, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not questioning the reliability of a source, but the obvious ambiguity of what it supposedly says - which you blatantly ignore if you go to the extent of accusing me of "dishonest scholarship" (I couldn't find a definition of this in the guidelines though). You yourself marvel at what that influence might be - "just philosophical"? From the quote given it is impossible to see what Schnebel or Varese might have influenced - Symphony 3, the programme surrounding its first performance in 1986, Goldmann in general… ? If you can't figure this out yourself, I don't see why you think these names or this source represent a significant view ("All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing significant views fairly, proportionately and without bias.") here. Adding random bits just because that's what was accessible to you can hardly be called "scholarship" at all. The problem is there are several interviews with Goldmann where he names anybody from Bruckner to Berlioz to Lachenmann, but presenting such finds as "influences" in a biographical article would create biased information, and thus be in violation of guidelines, as long as one is unable to clarify the context and extent of such influences. I also disagree that anything found needs to be added (see "significant"). Expanding the "scope" just for the sake of it thus is neither required nor encouraged by guidelines. Guidelines provide no exception for what you call "minority reports" - it's either significant, allowing for unbiased representation of an actual view - or it isn't. Planetdust (talk) 10:26, 26 October 2014 (UTC) Planetdust (talk) 10:24, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

The statement is significant because Williams attributes it to Goldmann himself. It is unusual, even rare, for an ascription of "influence" to be amply explained. A clue offered by a composer gives people a starting point to discover what he might have meant. I have never heard Goldmann's Third Symphony, nor have I seen the score (I know only his First and Fourth Symphonies, and a few other works), but if I do make its acquaintance I would like to know as much as I can about what was in the composer's mind when he wrote it. Of course I do not know what the nature of Schnebel's influence (if any) might be, but I surely will not be looking for it if I am denied knowledge of the fact that the composer mentioned him. It is dishonest scholarship to deliberately ignore problematic evidence instead of answering it, and even more so to expunge a source containing such evidence, which constitutes censorship. This is not writing "from a neutral point of view", it is biasing the available evidence for or against some agenda. However benevolent the intention, it simply must not be done. Puzzle over the names of Varèse and Schnebel all you like—I shall also puzzle over Nono's name, which crops up again in Williams's very short section on Goldmann (four pages, the same length as his earlier essay in Tempo) in his new book. According to this book, Goldmann merely "became personally acquainted with Nono in the early 1960s"; according to the Tempo article, however, Goldmann was actually influenced by Nono's late works, but in what way? By Nono's fascination with spatialization? By his use of live electronics? By his tendency to concentrate on one interval type for entire compositions? By his treatment of timbre? By his approach to rhythm? None of this is clear, but knowing that we are looking for something makes it more likely we will find it. Exactly the same thing applies to Varèse and Schnebel.

The question of "expanding the scope" of articles throws us right into the middle of the inclusionism debate. I don't think I count myself as an inclusionist; I would rather take each case on its own merits. In the present case, Williams's Tempo article is, in my judgment, not only valuable enough to include, but provocative enough to stimulate some real thinking about the subject. The present debate is eloquent testimony of this.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:21, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

This thread has gone quiet now for nearly three weeks. In the meantime I have gotten to know Goldmann's Ensemblekonzert 3, from the recording by musikFabrik. A marvellous work, but more to the point it opens with a burst of chords that could almost be a quotation from Varèse's Hyperprism or Octandre. If Goldmann already confessed to the influence of Varèse by 1986 (as Williams's 1995 article suggests), then it is plain to my ears, at least, that the characteristic Varèse sound is still present to some degree in Goldmann's music twenty-two years later. In the meantime, I do not see any evidence has been brought forth to contradict Williams's claim. Isn't it time to restore the citation?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 01:26, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Taking into account the criticism of placement, I have restored the material about stylistic influences cited from Williams 1995, only I have now put it in the section on the works.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:19, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Happy New Year. The restored claim had been removed temporarily for several reasons (see above), which are still waiting for clarification. I suggest we leave it like this until substantial references have been presented IN SUPPORT. The contradicting ones have been presented earlier, together with an explanation why this interpretation of the reference is at least ambiguos. Planetdust (talk) 08:13, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

This will not do at all. There has been no contradictory evidence offered to support what looks to me like nothing more than your personal belief that a source which to all appearances is reliable cannot be so. There is nothing wrong with keeping that claim, and then presenting after it reliable testimony that Goldmann never said any such thing, was joking when he said it, or that contrary views even exist. Since we are getting nowhere with this, I am seeking the opinion of a third editor via the 3O page.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:55, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

WP:NOCONSENSUS states: "In discussions of proposals to add, modify or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit." – No consensus means, the edit should be restored. Always remember to WP:Revert_only_when_necessary. As Jerome said, "The correct way of dealing with this is to find another reliable source that supports a contradictory point of view, and present it along with the original. Alternatively, we may try to find a subsequent item by the same author retracting his former statement. Failing this, we must accept the information as given. If its placement is awkward to the narrative, then I suggest you move it to a more suitable position, but I respectfully insist that it be restored." 68.7.95.95 (talk) 15:10, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 19:08, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

First of all it is clearly a false statement that no contradictory evidence has been offered: it has, see talk - just read it again in case you purposefully forgot about it. Also, there were two members who had undone repeated attempts of Jerome Kohl to single-handedly install the disputed sentence although providing no valid points against the objections raised in the discussion. Since I and another user had undone Jerome Kohl's insertion, there is no consensus to add this. WP:NOCONSENSUS shall apply, thus the passage has to stay out in order to restore the state prior to the insertion, which is Jerome Kohl's.Planetdust (talk) 13:35, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Where is this coming from, PlanetDust? It clearly is a false statement that it is a false statement that no contradictory evidence has been offered. It has not. Your "evidence against" is only that there is no other source that confirms Williams's report. Absence of corroboration is not proof that the information is false, and Williams is plainly a reliable source. Since I notice no contribution here from the other editor (an anonymous IP) who originally removed my contribution, I have no way of knowing his or her opinion on this entire discussion—only your view and mine until the requested 3O opinion from 68.7.95.95. As he or she confirms, you are free to add a refutation following Williams's claim, provided you can find a reliable source to support it. Personally, I would welcome presentation of a dispute in this way, since it would show that some critical thinking is going on, and not just bland repetition of platitudes. If you wish to take your opinion further, please feel free to seek support from other quarters, such as at Wikipedia:Editor assistance. I have no problem with this, either, but in the meantime, let us abide by the opinion of 68.7.95.95.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 00:19, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Since I see that, contrary to 68.7.95.95's advice, you have chosen once again to revert my edit, Plantdust, and, contrary to my suggestion, you have not sought further support for your position, I shall ask the advice of other editors at Editor assistance. Please feel free to join in a discussion there.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 00:33, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

From that link, I was directed to post a request for dispute resolution, which I have done. This may now be found at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Talk:Friedrich_Goldmann#Influences.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 00:56, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Will write there. And I won't comment the nonsense on platitudes. I'd be the happiest person here if you were able to explain any of the influences you try to install with something beyond "to my ears." … I'm surprised you ask "where this is coming from" - usually, a person approaching the task of writing an encyclopedia entry would look out for what available sources (plural) say on a given point (and there are enough), instead of thinking: I found this 1 thing and unless I find something that says the opposite, I'll keep pushing it in there whatever it takes, even though I have no idea if it makes any sense or doesn't (Schnebel!). Seriously? (I'd like to see someone at an editorial meeting at Britannica say: "everything I bring up needs to be falsified, else it goes in"). With the effort you invest in this one little thing you could have consulted more sources (even just to evaluate the plausibility of this one) and made a valuable contribution to this article with a section of influences that is on the level of an encyclopedia. But obviously that's not what keeps you going here. I didn't write a section on influences so far because I'd need time to compare all the sources and get a paragraph together that is not as bizarrely biased as the one in dispute here.Planetdust (talk) 09:26, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

It has been plain for some time that we are simply talking past each other. You don't accept my position, and I don't accept yours. I'm only sorry that 3O was not sufficient to solve this dispute. I hope that Dispute resolution will bring an end to this stalemate.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 04:39, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Hopefully. In the meantime, and for our entertainment:

For future reference, here's a list of some encyclopedic sources that explicitly identify influences of Goldmann's: Allihn, Ingeborg: Friedrich Goldmann. In: Konzertbuch, Kammermusik A-G. Deutscher Verlag für Musik, Leipzig 1988. pp.693-700 Amzoll, Stefan: Goldmann, Friedrich. In: Kammermusikführer. Bärenreiter, Kassel / Metzler, Stuttgart und Weimar 1998. pp.229-231 Nachtmann, Clemens: Friedrich Goldmann. In: Komponisten der Gegenwart (KDG). Edition Text & Kritik, München 1996 / rev. 2012 Neef, Sigrid / Neef, Hermann: Friedrich Goldmann. In: Deutsche Oper im 20. Jahrhundert: DDR 1949-1989. Peter Lang Verlag, Frankfurt 1992. pp.180-189 Ruf, Wolfgang: Friedrich Goldmann. In: Riemann Musik-Lexikon, Volume 2. Schott, Mainz 2012. p.259 Schneider, Frank: Goldmann, Friedrich. In: Komponisten-Lexikon. Metzler, Bärenreiter, Stuttgart / Weimar / Kassel 2003 Schniederjürgen, Axel: Goldmann, Friedrich. In: Kürschners Musiker-Handbuch, 5th edition. DeGruyter / K.G.Saur, Munich 2006. p.146 Stöck, Katrin: Goldmann, Friedrich. In: MGG Musik in Geschichte und Gegenwart, Personenteil, Vol.7 Fra-Gre. Bärenreiter, Kassel / Metzler, Stuttgart, 2nd edition, 2002. Sp.1237-1240

I believe New Grove (Müller) does too, I just couldn't look it up again right now.

Just for statistics: None of these mention Schnebel or Varese, one mentions Ligeti - most do mention Nono. Now, why do I think these omissions mean something? Schnebel is a composer that more often than not works conceptually and has expanded the scope of what composition addresses well into extra-musical territory (like providing directions for audience response in the score), none of which has ever been of Goldmann's concern (see the refs regarding "autonomous" and "absolute" by Nachtmann/Dibelius in the article). Also, note that Goldmann was East German and was slightly cut off of West German developments after 1961 (the wall). Naturally, he was familiar with Stockhausen's and Boulez's works (the influences most often given in encyclopedic sources) because he obviously studied them right at the source in Darmstadt - that is, before the wall. Goldmann's breakthrough works appear between 1969 and 1973. How likely is it that he has even been familiar enough with Schnebel's music at all before the 1980s so that they could have been of any influence? Which works might hint at anything in this direction afterwards?

There doesn't seem to be a source (including Williams!) that links any element of Goldmann's oeuvre with such an influence at all. Nothing we know about him would allow for such a conclusion. Judging by Schneider's analysis of Symphony III, there is no reason to believe Schnebel might have influenced just that particular work too (Schneider, Frank: Neubau mit Einsturzgefahr: Analytische Reflexionen zur Sinfonie 3 von Friedrich Goldmann. Melos 50, 02/1988). Also, Williams mentions the 3 named composers have been performed together with Goldmann's S3 at its first performance. That might explain how it happened these are named in this context, the more obvious Stockhausen and Boulez haven't. So - from a scholarly perspective (I remember you requested maintaining such, earlier on), how do we deal with this? Planetdust (talk) 15:42, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Nice list. I wish I had access to more than two or three of those. FWIW, the passage concerning influences from Müller's New Grove article reads: "Together with Dittrich, Friedrich Schenker and others, he emerged as one of a new generation of East German composers who opposed the conservative and apologetic aesthetics of socialist realism, and who stood for an advanced modernism. A member of the circle around Paul Dessau, his aesthetic standards were influenced not only by the Second Viennese School and Boulez, but also by Adorno and French structuralist philosophers such as Michel Foucault and Gilles Deleuze." I'm sure it will not be very easy to identify the influence of Foucault and Deleuze in Goldmann's music. As for the passage from Williams, let me remind you that it reads: "Goldmann's commitment to new music is evinced by his acknowledgement of Varèse, Dieter Schnebel and the late style of Nono as influences on his music". Williams does not indicate the form of Goldmann's "acknowledgement" of these three influences, but that word itself must signify more than a chance juxtaposition with them on a concert programme. BTW, why do you believe it is impossible that Goldmann could have had any contact with Schnebel or Schnebel's music? After all, Schnebel was regularly at Darmstadt throughout the 1950s, and was the editor of the first three volumes of Stockhausen's Texte. Does it not seem plausible that he might have met Schnebel through Stockhausen, whose influence you do not dispute?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:03, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Foucault/Deleuze: yes, impossible to prove through analysis. If someone does a dissertation and goes through a lot of interviews… Kontressowitz's recent monograph actually might have something on this, but I haven't read it yet (I have it here - and a brief look into the index: no Schnebel, no Varese, 2x Nono, 7x Foucault, no Deleuze though). Darmstadt: Goldmann was 18 when he attended Darmstadt. He tried again 1 +2 years later, but didn't get permission to travel. And then came the wall and he didn't have much access at all. Some Schönberg and Webern scores could be found in East German libraries, but the latest stuff from West Germany, the "enemy"? Impossible! I need to find the interview again where Goldmann talked about Darmstadt. Actually, Stockhausen and Goldmann had a detailed exchange through letters (some of which have been published by Dibelius & Schneider in "Neue Musik im geteilten Deutschland"), Goldmann sending Stockhausen scores for evaluation etc - so we are not looking at contact in person really, killing the possibility of "met through"-scenarios. A lot of Stockhausen's influence on G. rather clearly came after Darmstadt. Nono was a regular visitor to East Berlin as well as a close friend of Dessau's, so that's a wholly different situation. Around 1965, young Goldmann was still working his way between the moderate modernist efforts of Eisler and Dessau and serialism - a concept Schnebel had well abandoned by then. Goldmann's 1966 Trio for flute, percussion and piano is purely serialist - 7 years after Darmstadt! But of course he didn't stop there: His breakthrough is obviously "Bläsersonate" of 1969, which is sort of the unsung forming moment of European "postmodernism": how to use old forms or old material without repeating history (Müller's Adorno reference comes in handy here)? Much of what had already been addressed in this work (and Symphony 1 subsequently) has later been discussed regarding Rihm/von Bose/Trojahn et al or Schnittke's "polystilism": Goldmann wasn't performed in West Germany until 1976 or so, so a lot of the "postmodernism"/"Neue Einfachheit" debates simply ignored him for a while. So again, between the 50s and 70s Schnebel had very different ideas. That's why I can uphold there is an obvious reason this name doesn't come up anywhere else. Schnebel and Goldmann both were professors in Berlin at the same place & time: Goldmann beginning in 1991, Schnebel quitting in 1995. That's the first personal overlap I can identify.Planetdust (talk) 15:40, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I think you will find that Schnebel is mentioned elsewhere—in fact, in an article you have yourself cited, Schneider's "Neubau mit Einsturzgefahr". I haven't seen this yet, but a keyword search turned up Schnebel and I have ordered this from interlibrary borrowing. There are also two chamber-music works in Goldmann's catalog dedicated to Schnebel. The first, 6×10 Takte für Dieter Schnebel zum 14. 3. 1990 was composed a year before Goldmann became a colleague of Schnebel's at the Hochschüle der Künste Berlin. You might also take a look at this website article by Ekkehard Klemm. As for Varèse, Goldmann himself says (in that 1992 Positionen interview with Helga de la Motte-Haber) "Varèse hat mir übrigens … seit Ende der siebzieger Jahre unglaublich fasziniert und ich habe ja auch einige Aufführungen geleitet in der DDR. … Die technischen Ansätze von Varèse waren mir zunächst eher fremd. Aber es ist durchaus möglich, daß da manches unbewußt auch in meine eigenen Verfahren hineingeraten ist, ohne daß ich das immer ganz präzise reflektiert hätte." Is this not good enough for you?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:29, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm happy you begin to do some research. The Varèse bit is very interesting indeed, especially because it is linked to a specific creative period (late 1970s onwards). Thanks for digging this up! Goldmann actually became conductor of the Boris Blacher Ensemble of UdK Berlin in 1988, so the personal overlap there is 1988 until 1995. As for Klemm (a conductor), who doesn't claim to identify influences: he only worked with Goldmann once, shortly before his death. I was surprised to find him assume that Schnebel fits in a list of personnel associated with Berliner Ensemble. On this, I consulted Nina Noeske's monograph "Musikalische Dekonstruktion - Neue Musik in der DDR" (Böhlau, 2007) that has an entire chapter on the circle around Dessau & Berliner Ensemble (which Klemm refers too, but which he was no part of). I can easily find Henze, Nono, Reimann, Blacher & Lombardi in there, but no Schnebel again. Schnebel's biography in Komponistenlexikon doesn't indicate any relation to East Berlin either. In another monograph, von Massow's "Zwischen Macht und Freiheit - Neue Musik in der DDR" (Böhlau, 2004), there are 2 interviews with Goldmann (pp.165-198) where he gives details on composers from West Germany he met through Dessau in East Berlin: Nono, Henze, Blacher, Reimann. He is pretty specific about these, for instance he talks about the impossibility of getting hold of scores legally and how Reimann smuggled "Marteau sans maitre", "Lulu" and Mahler's 9th for him. Just to be clear: he doesn't claim being influenced - just having conversations and getting scores across the border.

For an encyclopedic article, the question remains: having met Schnebel or not, which aspect of his works has been exerting influence on which aspect of Goldmann's works (if any)? Eventually, we (or somebody) will have to collect a list of influences/inspirations/links, starting with the general, oeuvre-affecting ones (according to most: Boulez, 2nd Viennese School, Stockhausen) and then getting more specific with shifts in Goldmann's aesthetics (1969 / late 1970s / late 1990s). Typically, an encyclopedic article on a subject (on which a wealth of sources exist) needs to evaluate and compare these and can't be allowed to single out one random find.- Planetdust (talk) 10:14, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I have never before come across a situation where an editor has so stubbornly rejected inclusion of a reliable source. It did not seem necessary to conduct research to prove that the source itself is not defective but, since you have insisted, I have begun looking. In the ordinary way of things on Wikipedia, all kinds of junk gets added to articles so long as there is some published source of whatever pedigree to verify it. At the most, an editor may insist on a cautionary "according to one author", but never have I encountered anyone who insists that, if even just one source can be found that fails to confirm a statement, the statement itself must be removed.

As for the issue of just what aspect of Schnebel's work did or may have influenced Goldmann, this is beside the point (or should be) so long as a reliable source—preferably the composer himself, naturally, but any reliable source—says this is the case. If another reliable source disputes this, then that source also should be included. This makes the discussion more lively, and also shows the reader that expert opinions may disagree. By the way, we have just as little information on how Nono's late works may have influenced Goldmann, as far as I can see. Only multiple sources saying they were acquainted and shared some unspecified aesthetic views. To me, such connections with Schnebel are far more obvious than with Nono.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:24, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Wait: because anyone pushes "any junk" into Wikipedia every day, you feel entitled to do the same? This is what it is about? Then this is probably the point where we should review the guidelines once again: Neutral point of view / prohibition of original research: "The inclusion of a view that is held only by a tiny minority may constitute original research." Williams is the only source presented so far to claim Schnebel has been an influence on Goldmann. So: "If your viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, then — whether it's true or not, whether you can prove it or not — it doesn't belong in Wikipedia, except perhaps in some ancillary article." Enforcing this policy, I suggest we bury Williams as long as we haven't done the necessary research to know what the "neutral point of view" on Goldmann's influences is. (I'm researching this right now - I just won't let you push me into entering my current state of finds as randomly as you tried to do before cross-checking and summarizing them into a meaningful paragraph, reflecting the current state of musicological inquiry on the subject.Planetdust (talk) 13:20, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

No, please read more carefully what I said: "In the ordinary way of things on Wikipedia, all kinds of junk gets added to articles so long as there is some published source of whatever pedigree to verify it." Note the words "junk" and "of whatever pedigree", which constitute a criticism, not an endorsement of what too often happens on Wikipedia.

As for "burying Williams", should we also therefore bury Schneider? I have just gotten the 1988 Melos article by him, and it if it is not where Williams got his information, it endorses everything he says. We may also need to bury Goldmann, though, since Schneider obtains his information from an interview with the composer, published in the same article. FWIW, the Schnebel work specifically cited in that article is Sinfonie-Stücken, which is the piece that appeared on the programme with the premiere of Goldmann's Third Symphony in 1987. Schneider further says, "Die Freundschaften mit Nono und Schnebel basieren nicht zuletzt auf ähnlichen kompositionsästhetischen Überzeugungen und Versuchen etwa, den grassierenden Rückzugs-Bewegungen oder “Zurück zu”-Bestrebungen—verständlich als Kritik an dogmatischen, akademischen Erstarrungen der einst produktiven avantgardistischen Impulse—durch das Erkunden neuer Klangwertigkeiten und durch Fortschritte zu einem 'neuen Hören' wiederum kritisch zu begegnen. Dabei bilden Schnebels komprimierte Sinfonie-Stücke in stilistischer Hinsicht durchaus eine Gegenposition zu Goldmanns Rekurs auf die Gattung." From this it seems that Goldmann and Schnebel were personally acquainted at least as early as 1987, and the specific influence in the case of the Third Symphony may have been negative, in the sense that they addressed the same issue of accepting traditional genres, but drew different conclusions about how best to deal with it compositionally. This article also addresses my concern about Nono's influence, but appears to put it on an equal footing with Schnebel's. I thought you were already familiar with this article, since you cited it to me some time ago.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 19:58, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Sigh... "Gegenposition" means "opposite position" - there is not a single word on Schnebel being an influence. You fail to present anything from Schneider's article that endorses what you think Williams says. Your claims of what else it "appears" to say to you are either based on poor German language skills or on some more serious issues I'd prefer not to get involved with.Planetdust (talk) 07:44, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

From what I understand, Jerome Kohl refers to 4 distinct sources: A) Williams B) Schneider (1988 article) C) Goldmann (interview 1988) and D) his own deductions from A, B and C combined. It is not sound to use these 4 instances interchangeably:

1) B, C and D seem mixed up. D is based on counter-logical interpretations of B ("X is the opposite of Y, ergo they are related") and uses parts of C to read meaning into B which it doesn't seem to warrant on its own.

2) B and C obviously don't refer to A (chronology). So far nothing is presented here in which views expressed in A are substantiated by B. D contains a claim that C equals A, but since A doesn't cite C this would constitute an interpretation of C, a primary source, by a User: "Wikipedians should never interpret the content of primary sources."

3) A doesn't seem to note exact sources where it refers to influence. Thus in light of the information provided, A cannot be viewed as Secondary Source in respect of its discussion of "influences." This is true even where it refers to Goldmann because it doesn't identify the Primary Source of the statement.

4) As long as A doesn't cite B and C, it is also not Secondary Source in its relation to B and C - Thus it constitutes Original Research.

Best, Artur Berkut (talk) 09:57, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

All right, you have succeeded in blinding me with science, or at least mathematics. Indulge me as a simpleton, please, and explain again, more slowly, the issue from which this whole discussiin set out, namely (setting aside B, C, and D for the moment): how A (Williams) constitutes "original research" as defined on Wikipedia, because it looks very much like what Wikipedia:Reliable sources defines as a "reliable source". Reliable sources of course may well contain original research outside of the Wikipedia sense of the term but are validated because they are published in peer-reviewed or otherwise creditable journal, books, or newspapers. If Williams is Wikipedia-original-research, then I submit that all reliable sources are, as well, and therefore must be disqualified for supporting claims on Wikipedia. The consequence of this is that Wikipedia must shut down, because its internal guidelines forbid all of its present content. Am I missing something here?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 19:06, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

I can help here with clarifying one thing: This discussion didn't start over "original research" issues, but because Williams (1995) introduces a name as an "influence" that is not found anywhere else, especially not in what you present as his source. This - I happily concede - wouldn't be a problem if he had provided any explanation of his own on how it is one. But since he hasn't, it's just a singular find of no significance: Neutral point of view - Undue weight". From there I agree the structure of your arguing in this matter is pretty confused and despite its stunning wordiness surprisingly unhelpful towards creation of a section on influences. Planetdust (talk) 11:14, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Neither would it have been a problem if you had presented any evidence at all that Williams did not mean to say what he said, or that anyone else contested his viewpoint. I resent your personal attacks and abusive tone ("pretty confused", "stunning wordiness"), though I recognize their purpose is to distract from the weakness of your argument. This is rhetoric, not logical argument, and I refuse to engage in such tactics myself. I repeat once again: Williams is a reliable source and, even if his opinion is wrong, deserves to be heard. That is nothing whatever to do with NPOV (which means giving a balanced presentation of what reliable sources say—not editing them to fit an editor's agenda), and whether the weight of this source is undue depends entirely on how many contrary opinions there are. Lack of evidence for something is not evidence against that thing.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 16:38, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

After a day in the library - a question: You've said it before, but just to make sure we won't be talking past each other: when Williams (1995) speaks of Goldmann's "acknowledgement of Varèse, Dieter Schnebel and the late style of Nono as influences on his music;", he finds this acknowledgement in the Goldmann interview contained in Schneider (1988), correct? I'm asking since I looked up the other sources Williams lists, but could locate the names in question, together, only in Schneider's article, from which I conclude: this is Williams's source. Am I overlooking anything so far? Planetdust (talk) 11:26, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

No, this is only a supposition. Williams says that Goldmann acknowledges these three composers, but he does not specify where or when he made this acknowledgment. He lists a number of sources at the end of the article, including Schneider 1988. Since the same three composers are named together by Schneider, and are also mentioned separately (that is, one at a time, rather than all in one sentence) by Goldmann in the interview included in Schneider 1988, it is a possibility that Williams got his information from Schneider. He does not footnote this sentence specifically. (It is only on Wikipedia that every sentence—even separate words—are subject to this kind of verifiability. In peer-reviewed journals, the author is judged by the jurors to be reliable, and so citations are only needed on major issues, or statement that might seem improbable.) It is however also possible that he gathered this information from one or more of the other sources he lists, or from personal communication with Goldmann.

It is also only a speculation, but certainly very possible, that Williams read that passage in Schneider, and interpreted it differently from its intended meaning. But without knowing for certain that this was Williams's source, it would be original research to claim this is the case. If you wish to insist on the most extreme caution in this case, I suggest the sentence be quoted from Williams, followed immediately by Goldmann's remarks on Varèse from the two interviews from 1988 and 1992, then Schneider's remarks and Goldmann's own words about Nono and Schnebel from the 1988 article. All of these should be direct quotations, I think, unless you agree that any of it can be paraphrased without altering the meaning. We will then have provided all of the hard evidence we have been able to discover, and any conflicts or ambiguities will be up to the reader to decipher. Naturally, more evidence may be discovered in the future, and the passage can then be amended accordingly, but until that happens, I cannot see what better course of action can be taken. Do you agree?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:14, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't quite agree for the following reasons: I checked the other sources Williams gives and it is in the interview printed in Schneider (1988) that Goldmann mentions Schnebel, Varèse and Nono in one paragraph. None of the other sources mention Schnebel. Williams - unless I have overlooked it - does not refer to personal interviews. This specific combination of these 3 names is very idiosyncratic. He doesn't name Boulez, Stockhausen etc. Why? If we meet this specific triplet of names with Schneider (1988) AND Williams (1995), who does refer to Schneider: how likely is it that his source on this is NOT Schneider (1988)? Btw. you also claimed "Tempo" was a peer-reviewed journal - could you kindly quote the section of their editorial statement that would say that? Thanks. Planetdust (talk) 18:42, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

We may well agree between us that Williams's opinion was likely based on or strongly influenced by Schneider, or even that it was a misinterpretation of things said by Schneider or by Goldmann in the interview included in Schneider's article, but we are not "reliable sources", by Wikipedia's definition, so we are not permitted to draw such conclusions in the article. All we can do is accept Williams's sincerity in presenting his opinion. I have still not seen all of the sources Williams cites (Dibelius, for example), nor was I present at the conference he mentions, where he heard the presentation of a paper still unpublished in 1995, and who knows what other information gleaned from informal conversations with unknown persons. Remember that, on Wikipedia, "the threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth". Beyond this, of course, we are obliged to present as much further information as we can find, verified by reliable sources. If these sources contest Williams's honest opinions, then well and good. If they plainly demonstrate his error, this is also fine. But it is not grounds for omitting his statement.

In answer to your question about Tempo, their procedure for submissions is outlined in their "Instructions for Contributors", a PDF document. You will see that they do not publish anything anyone sends them, but only consider submissions that must be reviewed to determine that they meet the editors' criteria for acceptance. This is what "peer reviewed" means.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 00:19, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

So Tempo's editors don't say "peer review" anywhere, correct? Anyway: Let's assume Tempo is at least an academic journal. Peer-reviewed or not, academic articles are required to identify all sources, including unpublished material and personal interviews. [Here] is a simple introduction to that concept. If Williams was sloppy in footnoting, that doesn't mean he didn't intend to write an academic article: he does list his sources. "Verifiability, not truth" - indeed: Williams refers to a statement (Goldmann's) that is not his own, and this by academic standards requires reference. In order to avoid producing original research, we need to stick to Williams's sources in carefully weighing his reliability in regards of Goldmann's acknowledgements. In Williams's sources, ONLY in Schneider (1988) these 3 names appear together, and there they do in a statement by Goldmann himself. It is about programming one concert (which Williams identifies too), but not about influences at all. Then, the statement can only be based on a wrong translation from German. It's just a mistake, not even an "honest opinion." Guideline: "Even the most reliable sources commit mistakes [...], such as [...] getting some detail wrong. Such mistakes, when found, should be ignored."

At this point I'd like to make this perfectly clear: You don't have achieved consensus on using Williams as a source on Goldmann's "acknowledgement" of influences. Even if I don't say this every day or week in the future, I don't retract from this discussion and I don't agree with you that an isolated, insignificant, obviously faulty source must be included against NPOV policies: "If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents; if a viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, IT DOES NOT BELONG IN WIKIPEDIA regardless of whether it is true or not." As far as I know nobody has EVER cited Williams (1995), including Williams himself. Not significant = no inclusion.

Don't get me wrong. I want a broadly referenced section on influences and am happy to discuss its form with you in order to find a compromise. But if your view on including Williams' statement boils down to "it has to be included, no matter what", than it's really hard to see how a compromise could be formed on these grounds? Obviously there is no consensus on inclusion. I'm sure the Williams article holds a lot of relevant information, and you did present other sources unambiguously supporting the idea of Goldmann being influenced by Varèse and Nono, among others. Would you be open to work on that? - Planetdust (talk) 09:14, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

What are you suggesting, including half of Williams's statement? I want to see a reason for its exclusion. You have offered none. Reliable sources are reliable sources, and you seem not to have convinced anyone—not the Third Opinion, not the moderator of the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard, nor anybody else as far as I can see—that Williams's article is anything but a reliable source. Your editing has been labelled tendentious by the dispute moderator, and I have let myself be dragged into a long and fruitless discussion trying to persuade you that you are wrong. I cannot and will not continue to waste my time in these exchanges. I have made my point, more than adequately, I think. It is time to seek help at a higher level.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:35, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi guys, your 3O here again. Has this been resolved? If not, maybe I can try helping again. Jerome, from what I'm reading, Planetdust is giving a pretty clear reason for the exclusion of Williams' statement. Planetdust is claiming the statement is a view held by an extremely small minority, and per policy WP:UNDUE, should not be included on wikipedia. This is a very strong reason, and I apologize for overlooking this policy in my earlier response. Jerome, do you agree this is a viewpoint held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority? - 68.7.95.95 (talk) 13:06, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

No, I do not. One in five or ten sources is not an "extremely small minority", even if it were not for the pedigree of the source, and besides, the disputed elements in the article by Williams are also supported by other sources, notably by two interviews with the subject of the article (who is of course by definition a minority, perhaps even an extremely small one, but undeniably importanta;; the same). This has been discussed at far too much length at WP:DNR, where my reasoning on this particular issue can be read (if you have the time and inclination) in archive 106. A mediated solution was offered there, to which Planetdust failed to respond. I do not regard his obduracy as constructive editing, and will not waste my breath arguing with him any longer.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 01:04, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Friedrich Goldmann. 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/20140819090319/http://www.degem.de/news/nachruf-friedrich-goldmann.html to http://www.degem.de/news/nachruf-friedrich-goldmann.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.edition-peters.de/cms/englisch/edition-peters/komponisten/friedrich-goldmann/kammermusik_924.html?composer_id=140
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151020063929/https://www.edition-peters.de/cms/front_content.php?composer_id=140&changelang=2&lang=2&idcatart=102 to http://www.edition-peters.de/cms/front_content.php?composer_id=140&changelang=2&lang=2&idcatart=102

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:44, 30 November 2017 (UTC)