Talk:Johann Strauss II/Archive 1

Archive 1

Requested Move

His name was written with an "ß" and not "ss". In the German language, last names exists that can only be written with an "ß", not an "ss". Anything deviating from that would be simply incorrect, in any language. Therefore I propose to correct this mistake. Gryffindor

---

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one sentence explanation, then sign your vote with ~~~~

• Support. Gryffindor 23:39, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Strauss is how his last name is commonly written in English. Mark 02:38, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. As per Mark. – Axman (☏) 06:55, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Transliteration is not necessary for names written with the Latin alphabet, as per Use English. And it's nice to distinguish between Strauss and Strauß. But if there's a clear consensus among the people actually editing the article to keep it here I'm willing to defer to that. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 10:58, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose the creeping expansion of non-English characters in the English Wikipedia. older≠wiser 14:55, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
• Support--Schubbay 18:52, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
• Absolutely oppose The place to revise WP:Use English is there, not here. The distinction between Strauss and Strauß is between writing in English and in German; this encyclopedia should be written in English. Septentrionalis 23:14, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
• Support Darkone 01:18, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose —Wahoofive (talk) 05:53, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
• Support. "Use English" does not mean "misspell foreign names". --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 09:16, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Keep it at the English version of the name. Tree&Leaf 16:49, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
• Support, but "II" is also wrong. There are differentiated as Son and Father. --Geiserich77 17:12, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose: Both the websites of the official Johann-Strauss-Society in Vienna http://www.johann-strauss-gesellschaft.at/ and the international Johann Strauss platform http://www.johann-strauss.at/ have the spelling Strauss with ss. So there is no need to change the lemma. --85.180.148.170 18:23, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
• OPPOSE Not English. 132.205.45.148 19:47, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. I agree with the Gauss vs Gauß viewpoint. However, the actual German spelling should be noted in the introductory paragraph (just as we note that "Vienna" is called "Wien" in German). - grubber 21:55, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose Strauss is his (and his father's) name in English. [[1]] --Henrygb 23:58, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
• Support. This is not an English name. up◦land 09:57, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. In general, adding diacritics to a name when it is not normally done in English is no problem as long as the letter is still recognizable, as people who don't know the diacritic can easily ignore it. In this case, someone who does not speak German (after all, it's not the German wikipedia here) will probably read this name as Straub. Eugene van der Pijll 18:46, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose This is the English language wikipedia. We do not write Russian names in Cyrllic. CalJW 03:25, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
• Support --Stemonitis 13:51, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose The primary listing in the English language Wikipedia should use the alphabet with which English-only speakers are familiar and know where to find on their computers. The correct original-language spelling should also be given in the article and used as a secondary listing if the software permits it. –Shoaler (talk) 12:46, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. No Account 19:39, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
• Support. My mother, Joanne Strauss (ha ha ha) writes her name with "ss" because she wants to. Thus, if Johann wrote his name with a "β", then we should respect this and make the page that way. However, I also understand that this will cause difficulty for unknowing American searchers. Thus, I say there should be a page which lists composers who's names are written differently in English, and their correctly written counterparts. That way, everyone will be able to find Mr. Johann Strauβ I and II. –No Account 20:35, 18 April 2006
• Support. Putting his name as "ss" is just a factual error. Factual errors should be corrected at every opportunity. We're not talking about something in Russian or Chinese here. The β is part of standard ASCII set and can be typed and read without any special language things on your computer. Therefore, it should be used. Smyslov 18:14, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

How do we mark this two-year-old discussion as CLOSED? --FordPrefect42 18:43, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

Please make some more enquires on the spelling of his name before decision on move is made. Such as on the page Talk:Carl Friedrich Gauss, where it was determined that both Gauss and Gauß are acceptable in German, but in English only Gauss is acceptable through long, well-established conventions. Mark 02:38, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Note that in German, "the composer Strauss" has the unique meaning Richard Strauss, being the only one spelt with ss instead of ß.--Gwaihir 00:06, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

An encyclopædia is supposed to be authoritative, and to be authoritative, it needs to be correct. "Strauss" is a tolerated mis-spelling of Strauß, just as (IPA:) /straus/ is a tolerated mispronunciation of /ʃtraus/. Both are frequently encountered, but still not exactly correct. It harms no-one to spell it Strauß, so let's spell it right and stop arguing about it. The unfamiliar appearance of "ß" is solved by the use of the {{Foreignchar}} template. Any other arguments about it being "not English" seem to be just xenophobia. --Stemonitis 13:51, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

An Encyclopedia is supposed to be a digest of knowledge in a format accessible to the common person, who is a native of the lanugage it is written in, and no other language, to help them understand the subject. If the subject is Chinese, and the article is written half in Chinese because of your fussiness, no knowledge is imparted, and confusion reigns. An encyclopedia is *not* an authoritative source, it may list authorities however. It is frequently used inappropriately as an authority however. 132.205.45.110 19:15, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

It's not xenophobia, it's common sense. If this goes through I will expect and require that all articles about foreign nonEnglish entities be moved to THE FOREIGN NON-ENGLISH NAME. Even if it's in Arabic, or Tibetan. Otherwise it's verging on racism. 132.205.45.110 19:15, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Firstly, Chinese and Arabic (except Maltese) are irrelevant to this discussion, since they use entirely different writing systems. Secondly, where there is an English name, we use the English name; nobody's arguing about that. It's just a question of what to do where there isn't an English name. Since a personal name does not usually exist in foreign-language variants (there's no way we'd call the article John Ostrich), there is only one spelling available. In this particular case, the discussion concerns whether or not the long-standing usage in many English-language texts of the spelling "Strauss" is a good enough reason to overturn the German spelling of "Strauß". Chinese doesn't enter into it. --Stemonitis 08:16, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Request not fulfilled due to lack of consensus. Rob Church ^Talk 19:18, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I have to admit being somewhat annoyed about this. Consensus is utterly irrelevant. It's a factual error. While I can understand making such concessions to the western letter set for names in Chinese or native to the Cyrrilic alphabet, there's no excuse for this one. As it stands, Wikipedia is upholding a factual error. His name wasn't Johann Strauss, regardless of consensus or CD covers or popularity. It just wasn't his name. Why don't we change it to Straus? Or Strows? Might as well. Sorry about the sarcasm but I find this whole thing a bit on the ridiculous side, and very frustrating that a factual error stands and will not be corrected. Smyslov 17:18, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Come on, the discussion is settled now for almost two years, so let it rest in peace. Concerning facts, you are wrong: the Strauss family nowadays insists on the name being written with double-S, not "ß", see: [2]. --FordPrefect42 21:05, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not usually one for letting factual errors rest in peace! This may seem like a trivial nitpick, but I've never been more frustrated with Wikipedia. I am most adamantly not wrong, no matter what the current Strauss family desires, it is impossible to go back in time and alter reality. Johann Strauß did not live nowadays, so what is done now has nothing to do with what happened in the mid-19th century. If the Strauss family wants their name spelled that way now, that's their choice, but it's not possible to change the past. I have seen his autograph with an "ß" in his own handwriting. Smyslov 13:30, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Jnr or II

I know that Jnr is probably more common than II to distinguish him from his father, but I've put him here, because there are actually three Johann Strausses - III was the son of Eduard Strauss, and, while not a very well known figure, we might have an article on him one day. --Camembert

It is extremely disappointing and frustrating to see the contributions of others being wrecked by vandals. Luckily there is a revision history page to back up what was not damaged.

copywrite laws anyone?

correct me if i'm wrong but check this site.... http://www.classiccat.net/strauss_j_jr/biography.htm and tell me if someone cut and paste plz. ty. --Rey

That's legal under the GFDL. – flamurai (t) 01:43, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)

Spelling

I gather that the trend in modern German orthography is moving to de-emphasize the use of the ß, but for this article, shouldn't it be noted that in his own time, his name have been spelled Strauß? Ellsworth 23:45, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

FWIW the current German Wikipedia article's title uses ß. Joestynes 09:26, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The German spelling reform of 1996 deprecrates the use of ß after short vowels; it's still used after long vowels and diphthongs (au is a diphthong). Even the common nouns Strauß "bouquet" and Strauß "ostrich" are still spelled with ß. And names aren't affected by the spelling reform anyway. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 09:16, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

The Strauß dynasty is written with 'ß', independent from the modern orthography, because this is not valid for proper names. Also with us, Johann Strauß is distinguished by father and son and not by I and II. So the true name in german is Johann Strauß, Vater, or Johann Strauß, Sohn. In the english version of www.aeiou.at both are distinguished as Johann Strauß, the Elder and Johann Strauß, the Younger. -- I hope to help --K@rl

True, but note that pre-1900 there were no standartized rules of orthography in German at all, so there is no spelling superior to the other. It is true, that a lot of modern dictionaries (not all, though) have the Strauss dynasty written with ß, but both the websites of the official Johann-Strauss-Society in Vienna http://www.johann-strauss-gesellschaft.at/ and the international Johann Strauss platform http://www.johann-strauss.at/ spell it Strauss, as common in Austria. On the other hand, Johann Strauss' own signature [3] clearly shows an ß. --85.180.148.170 18:23, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Hello! I have been asked to give here my statement: I have an originally signed autograph by Johann Strauß. It is signed by Strauß with an ß-letter at the End. My parents live in the house in the 2nd district of Vienna, where Johann Strauß II (son) has been born and where Johann Strauß (vather) lived. On the top of the entrance is also a sign where "Strauß" is written on it. Greetings from Vienna, --Andreas.poeschek 19:03, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

In Austria, the name ist mostly spelled "Strauß", even though in the 19th century both spellings were common (partly depending on which founts were used in printing). Nevertheless, a friend of mine who is a descendant of Johann Strauß Snr and Eduard Strauß also spelled his name "Strauß" until he officially had it changed to "Strauss" because of his many contacts to England since "ß" is unknown in English. For the very same reason the Johann-Strauss-Society of Vienna spells the name this way. On the other hand, in English language literature the spelling "Strauss" is indeed in use (e.g. Peter Kemp: The Strauss Family. Portrait of a Musical Dynasty. ISBN 0-8593-6265-5). Whether an English language encyclopaedia should use the one spelling or the other I cannot decide, but I do think that the sort of spelling common in the country of origin should at least be mentioned. --80.109.27.92 22:24, 24 October 2005 (UTC) (Wolfgang Glock)

Strucz János

Is Strauss's surname originally Strucz? I've been wondering what does this caricature mean. --Kazamatsuri 19:46, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Of course not. The text beneath the 1883 caricature translates:

Strucz János is nobody else than Johann Strauss, Schani, translated into Hungarian, the prototypical Viennese Waltz composer, hardly conceivable without Vienna, and owes all his artistic successes to the genuine, authentic Viennicism, which lives and weaves in his fibers. He has requested for his dismissal from the Austrian state federation, and intends to magyarise himself. Now it's your turn, "old Steffel": replace the organ sound at your feet by clinking spurs, put a red feather into your hat instead of the empirial eagle and let yourself grow a long mustache, kerém alásan! But stop, dear Steffel, why do injustice to you? You belong to the most dignified clergy and have sworn celibate, you are an old, unmarried bachelor for centuries and you remain one, otherwise the old spinsters would not rub against you. Strauss however is not an old bachelor. He already left two life companions behind himself; the one took the dear God, and the other one? - well, you know the strange story! Now his large artist's heart longs for a third, and since he is already in changing things, who cares if he changes faith and affiliation at the same time!

If I got that right, "Steffel" here refers to St. Stephen's Cathedral, Vienna. --FordPrefect42 22:09, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Legacy

"Many distinguished Strauss interpreters include Willi Boskovsky who carried on the 'Vorgeiger' tradition of conducting with violin in hand as is the Strauss family custom"

What does Vorgeiger means? I'm quite good in German and don't know it, and I didn't find it in my German dictionary nor Duden (2000). I also asked someone who belongs to the German nobility who also never heard of the word. Give an explanation or delete it! Victor b04 19:27, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

It means principal violinist. The description of "conducting with violin in hand" actually says it all. --FordPrefect42 22:09, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Works

Perhaps the "list of works" section should be moved into an actual list of works article. The current list seems to take up a good bit of the page, and it is quite incomplete. Maybe the current list of works section could become a "list of famous works" or something of the sort. --24.125.2.22 14:42, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Facts, Anyone?

Maybe you have been so preoccupied withspelling that you haven't noticed this: THERE IS NO DATE OF BIRTH. Great for someone doing a school project. networked.frog —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.173.58.11 (talk) 06:04, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Whoever you are, you might wish to consider withdrawing that remark. The opening paragraph says, and has said for a very long time:

• "Johann Strauss II (in German: Johann Strauß (Sohn), "Johann Strauss (son)"; in English also Johann Strauss the Younger, Johann Strauss Jr., Johann Sebastian Strauss) (25 October 1825 – 3 June 1899) was an Austrian composer known especially for his waltzes, such as The Blue Danube.". -- JackofOz 06:17, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Johann Strauss II/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Comment(s)

Press [show] to view →

==Composers Project Assessment of Johann Strauss II: 2009-01-2== This is an assessment of article Johann Strauss II by a member of the Composers project, according to its assessment criteria. This review was done by Magicpiano. If an article is well-cited, the reviewer is assuming that the article reflects reasonably current scholarship, and deficiencies in the historical record that are documented in a particular area will be appropriately scored. If insufficient inline citations are present, the reviewer will assume that deficiencies in that area may be cured, and that area may be scored down. Adherence to overall Wikipedia standards (WP:MOS, WP:WIAGA, WP:WIAFA) are the reviewer's opinion, and are not a substitute for the Wikipedia's processes for awarding Good Article or Featured Article status. ===Origins/family background/studies=== Does the article reflect what is known about the composer's background and childhood? If s/he received musical training as a child, who from, is the experience and nature of the early teachers' influences described? ok ===Early career=== Does the article indicate when s/he started composing, discuss early style, success/failure? Are other pedagogic and personal influences from this time on his/her music discussed? ok ===Mature career=== Does the article discuss his/her adult life and composition history? Are other pedagogic and personal influences from this time on his/her music discussed? ok ===List(s) of works=== Are lists of the composer's works in WP, linked from this article? If there are special catalogs (e.g. Köchel for Mozart, Hoboken for Haydn), are they used? If the composer has written more than 20-30 works, any exhaustive listing should be placed in a separate article. List is extensive but incomplete; should be in separate article. Separate article now created. --Kleinzach 03:56, 6 January 2009 (UTC) ===Critical appreciation=== Does the article discuss his/her style, reception by critics and the public (both during his/her life, and over time)? ok ===Illustrations and sound clips=== Does the article contain images of its subject, birthplace, gravesite or other memorials, important residences, manuscript pages, museums, etc? Does it contain samples of the composer's work (as composer and/or performer, if appropriate)? (Note that since many 20th-century works are copyrighted, it may not be possible to acquire more than brief fair use samples of those works, but efforts should be made to do so.) If an article is of high enough quality, do its images and media comply with image use policy and non-free content policy? (Adherence to these is needed for Good Article or Featured Article consideration, and is apparently a common reason for nominations being quick-failed.) ok ===References, sources and bibliography=== Does the article contain a suitable number of references? Does it contain sufficient inline citations? (For an article to pass Good Article nomination, every paragraph possibly excepting those in the lead, and every direct quotation, should have at least one footnote.) If appropriate, does it include Further Reading or Bibliography beyond the cited references? Article has references; few inline cites. ===Structure and compliance with WP:MOS=== Does the article comply with Wikipedia style and layout guidelines, especially WP:MOS, WP:LEAD, WP:LAYOUT, and possibly WP:SIZE? (Article length is not generally significant, although Featured Articles Candidates may be questioned for excessive length.) Lead is short; works list should be separate; footer materials need better organization ===Things that may be necessary to pass a Good Article review=== Article requires more inline citations (WP:CITE) Article lead needs work (WP:LEAD) Article footer material needs organization (WP:LAYOUT) ===Summary=== This is a nice article. The composer's life and music are covered well; critical and popular appreciation is evident. The works list is admittedly incomplete; it is long enough that it should be separated. The article's lead is short; it should be 3-4 paragraphs. The article contains a few inline citations; more should be provided. Article is B-class, might be argued to be A. A GA or FA review will require the above items to be fixed. Magic♪piano 03:39, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Last edited at 03:56, 6 January 2009 (UTC). Substituted at 23:29, 26 June 2016 (UTC)