Talk:Arnold Schoenberg

message: A new book on Schoenberg, by Harvey Sachs, was published this month. I added the book to "Further reading" and then, after the name of the book, I linked a review from The New York Times to it, with the words "review by composer John Adams." User:CurryTime7-24 removed the link to the review on the grounds that it was "unnecessary." I put it back, writing "Review is by a prominent composer and may be of interest to some." User:CurryTime7-24 again removed it, writing "Review isn't relevant here because this article is about Schoenberg, not Sachs' book on Schoenberg." I will not get into an editing war, so I will not put the review back again unless User:CurryTime7-24 or other editors concedes that it is reasonable to do so. I say "reasonable" because, even if another editor disagrees with me as to whether to include the review, I believe that Wikipedia editors should respect one another's contributions if they find them reasonable. Now I will list reasons why mine is reasonable.
1. Some will benefit if the review is there, while none will suffer a detriment. If a paragraph were unnecessary, then it should be removed, but my edit added only five words -- "review by composer John Adams" -- which could be reduced to one: "review." Therefore, readers' time will not be wasted.
2. Nothing in Wikipedia is "necessary." If we omitted Schoenberg's birth and death dates, anyone could easily find them by googling. The standard should not be whether linking to the book review is necessary, but whether it is justifiable or helpful.
3. The review, like most book reviews, devotes more time to the subject of the book, namely Schoenberg, than to evaluating the book. Therefore, it is relevant.
4. Even the portion of the review that evaluates the book is relevant. If a Wikipedia article has a bibliography, that is because of the assumption that readers will be interested in books on the subject. If readers are interested in a book on the subject, then they likely will also be interested in a review of the book to help them determine whether to read or consult the book.
5. As noted above, this is not just any review, but is one by a prominent composer, so it is quite likely to interest classical music aficianados. Maurice Magnus (talk) 23:41, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't dispute the possible merit of the review, although I haven't read it. But if what you say is true, it would be put to better use by being listed as an entry of its own under "Further reading" or, if it can provide useful material for this article, "Cited sources". —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 17:29, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I added it to "Further reading." Thanks. Maurice Magnus (talk) 18:05, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Linking a review 

message: I think that an infobox would improve the article. Many articles on peer composers have infoboxes. The source says that consensus is needed in the talk page before someone adds one. What do folks think? Glucosegeyser (talk) 18:20, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Not a direct answer to your question, but there's currently an RfC going on at Wikipedia Talk:Manual of Style/Infoboxes about this subject very broadly, so some may be a bit twitchy... Remsense诉 18:39, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the heads-up. I should probably leave this to the editors with more experience in this area then... Glucosegeyser (talk) 19:01, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it's fine! I'm mostly kidding. You may have this discussion perfectly well. Remsense诉 19:01, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox?