Talk:Hector Berlioz

Edit warring

161.142.149.36, Can I suggest you cease edit warring and discuss your proposed changes. At present it doesn't look like there is a consensus for your edits; a discussion would certainly be the better course. - SchroCat (talk) 16:57, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Fortuna imperatrix mundi Please justify your rollback (1309361372) of my edits, for which I have consistently provided constructive rationale. You have rolled back nearly an hour of my proofreading work, without providing any rationale. Having met WP:3RR with Tim riley, this seems very suspicious that a third-party would suddenly perform the very rollback action that Tim riley 3RR'd doing. See WP:ROWN. 161.142.149.36 (talk) 17:00, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Indeed. Now see WP:FAOWN. As for your "suspicions": SPI, or you're casting aspersions. —Fortuna, imperatrix 17:05, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Nasty failure from the anonymous editor to WP:AGF. This recent persistent editor also seems to imagine s/he knows better than all the reviewers about the writing. S/he certainly doesn't understand WP:ENGVAR, and though I don't suggest anonymous editors from Malaysia are incompetent, I do suggest named editors whose native language is the King's English (or AmE) may have some idea what they are doing. Tim riley talk 17:06, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Fortuna imperatrix mundi Exactly per the article you cited:

Editors are asked to take particular care when editing a featured article; it is considerate to discuss significant changes of text or images on the talk page first. Explaining civilly why sources and policies support a particular version of a featured article does not necessarily constitute ownership.

My edits, which primarily surround fixing missing adverbial commas (which are vital for clarity) and rectifying dashes, would hardly be construed as significant changes. In regards to WP:ASPERSIONS, do perhaps add pertinent rationale to your rollbacks in the future? It is ridiculous to omit one when you are aware that there is a possible editwar. Any competent editor would recognize the necessity of rollback justification. Tim riley (talk · contribs) I believe in-comment passive aggression and repeated unjustified rollbacks of my edits are far from WP:AGF on your part, too. Also, very mature of you to assume that the nature of my being in Malaysia directly implies non-nativity. May I direct you to WP:ADHOMINEM. 161.142.149.36 (talk) 17:20, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Truth to tell. I don't mind if your attacks are ad hominem or ad feminam. I should just like to get the text back to the agreed FA version without the fussy edits you have suddenly been trying to insert. Oliver Cromwell's words come to mind: "I beseech you in the bowels of Christ think it possible you may be mistaken". Tim riley talk 17:26, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Tim riley Irrelevant conclusion fallacy. And if I were to address your point on the edits: so, attention to detail is now "fussy"? And regarding to that nasty comment on IP-editing—I am intentionally refraining from logging in precisely due to the nature of this discourse. My account has been in good standing since 2016 and I am WP:XCONned. I was merely passing by and noticed several sections that were unclear due to incorrect punctuations. 161.142.149.36 (talk) 17:29, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Very well. If you can command a consensus here for your proposed alterations of the agreed FA text, so be it. Otherwise, Sir or Madam, I commend to your attention Clement Attlee's comment to Harold Laski "A period of silence from you would now be welcome". Tim riley talk 17:38, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

@Tim riley: I understand that this article is one of your finer contributions to the Wiki as a whole and I can empathize with your dedication to ensuring that any edits contributed to the article meets FA criteria. However, a primary intention for my edit was to fix the misrepresentation of Harriet Smithson's name, which WP:SURNAME very clearly explains. Here's a relevant article on Cornell's news page. Even the Wikipedia article on Smithson herself refers to her by her surname—i.e., Smithson. If one were to suggest that Smithson should instead be referred to as "Berlioz", I would pose the question: Are there actually any historical records of her adopting her husband's surname? A quick search on Google Scholar shows that there are only 137 results indexed referring to Smithson by her husbands name, and after going through all the indexed excerpts, none explicitly mention her adoption of the name, with the majority of recent articles only referring to her as "Berlioz" due to the subtitle of this book (ISBN 9780521545808). On the flipside, searching "Harriet Smithson" sans Berlioz on Google Scholar brings up 1130 hits—nearly 10x the occurrence of the former. Such is the case in your article itself, which addresses her as Harriet Smithson instead of Harriet Smithson Berlioz. Hence, MOS:SAMESURNAME would not apply to this case. I wish for this matter to be resolved posthaste, so let's come to a compromise: Let's agree on implementing this rectification of naming convention, leaving out punctuation editing, and instead seek consensus for that (disregard my edits on the dashes—there I am mistaken and I apologize; rather, may the consensus focus on the usage of adverbial commas instead). 161.142.149.36 (talk) 20:07, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

I can only comment that, regardless of the rules, referring repeatedly to Harriet as Smithson just sounds very odd. I might flick through the Cairns volumes later on to see what he does. Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 20:54, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

161.142.149.36, I do not see a single edit that you have made so far, or any content that you are suggesting, that is an improvement; in fact, all have been inferior and detrimental to the article. As pointed out, the article uses British grammar and spellilng, Berlioz's wife's last name was Berlioz, so she has to be referred to by her first name, and all of the other changes are just your prose preferences, which strike me (an American) as American in style and/or inferior to the Tim riley version. Please stop WP:EDITWARring. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:41, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Ssilvers Thank you for your input. My edits were done to (1) change the mentions of "Harriet" to "Smithson" (please refer to the comment in my edits for further clarification — the person in question is almost universally and historically referred to sans "Berlioz"), which is the correct format pertaining to WP:SURNAME, and (2) to rectify punctuation as per MOS:COMMA and MOS:DASH. Adverbial commas are not chiefly American; rather, they aid clarification. If these are considered to have no value, or if consensus reckons that these edits are pedantic, I rest my case and shall refrain from further providing edits to Wikipedia. 161.142.149.36 (talk) 17:57, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

In regards to the edit you made to your own comment:

Berlioz's wife's last name was Berlioz, so she has to be referred to by her first name

No, she didn't adopt the name, even this article in question does not refer to her as "Harriet Berlioz" or "Harriet Smithson Berlioz", but rather, plainly as "Harriet Smithson". This would not fall under MOS:SAMESURNAME because we're not talking about something like Nancy Reagan and Ronald Reagan. Your comment on this matter is uninformed and categorically incorrect. 161.142.149.36 (talk) 20:24, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks to User:SchroCat, User:Fortuna imperatrix mundi and User:Ssilvers for sound common sense contributions. I hope this is the last of this disruption from the anonymous editor who imagines s/he knows better than everybody else. Tim riley talk 20:05, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Hey man, I've been nothing but constructive since the very beginning but you've not once addressed the legitimacy of the key points I've mentioned.

the anonymous editor who imagines s/he knows better than everybody else

That's not cool, and once again very ad-hominem. And at any rate, I've cited every source pertinent to any edits I've posited, while you have yet to systematically address the points I've mentioned. I'm trying my best... 161.142.149.36 (talk) 20:16, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Yo. The article went through a thorough peer review and one of the most heavily subscribed-to FA candidatures in recent memory; between them, they constitute ~20,000 words. I repeat: its collective reviewing constitutes around 20,000 words. Over twice the length of the article as it now stands. That's why you need to gain a new consensus. Not because they're irrelevant, but because so many eyes were on this before it was promoted, that you will need an extraordinarily strong consensus to make what might be considered to be cosmetic changes of style according to taste. —Fortuna, imperatrix 20:38, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

RfC on Name Usage for Harriet Smithson (Berlioz's Wife) and Adverbial Comma Usage

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

For context: The preceding discussion
Diff link: here
Succinctly: I propose systematically replacing instances that address Harriet Smithson by her given name “Harriet” with her surname “Smithson” and applying a small number of copyedits to better use adverbial commas and improve clarity. Rationale: according to WP:SURNAME, reliable usage should favor a subject’s surname where appropriate; a Cornell news item and the Wikipedia article on Smithson itself use “Smithson,” and the editor who made these edits reports that a Google Scholar search found far more independent references to “Harriet Smithson” (~1,130) than to forms incorporating her husband’s name (~137), with no clear primary-source evidence that she formally adopted “Berlioz.” For style/clarity I propose a few sentence-level changes already made in the draft—for example, changing “He never studied the piano, and throughout his life played haltingly at best.” to “He never studied the piano and played haltingly at best throughout his life.”; splitting “The elder son of a provincial physician, Berlioz was expected to follow his father into medicine, and he attended a Parisian medical college before defying his family by taking up music as a profession.” into two sentences (“The elder son of a provincial physician, Berlioz was expected to follow in his father’s footsteps into medicine. He attended a medical college in Paris before defying his family by pursuing music as a profession.”); adding a comma in “At the age of twelve, Berlioz fell in love for the first time.”; and changing “In 1854 Harriet died.” to “In 1854, Smithson died.” — all for better neutrality, accuracy of naming, and readability.
With these in mind, please do prefix your discussion and arguments with either Yes (1)/No (1) or Yes (2)/No (2).
Pinging those previously involved in discourse of the matter: @Tim riley, SchroCat, Fortuna imperatrix mundi, Ssilvers, and Cg2p0B0u8m:
Thank you, and have a good day/night ahead of you. :)
161.142.149.36 (talk) 21:11, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

In more, clearer details:

1. Should instances addressing Harriet Smithson by her first name "Harriet" be changed to "Smithson"? As per my argument:

   a primary intention for my edit was to fix the misrepresentation of Harriet Smithson's name, which WP:SURNAME very clearly explains. Here's a relevant article on Cornell's news page. Even the Wikipedia article on Smithson herself refers to her by her surname—i.e., Smithson. If one were to suggest that Smithson should instead be referred to as "Berlioz", I would pose the question: Are there actually any historical records of her adopting her husband's surname? A quick search on Google Scholar shows that there are only 137 results indexed referring to Smithson by her husbands name, and after going through all the indexed excerpts, none explicitly mention her adoption of the name, with the majority of recent articles only referring to her as "Berlioz" due to the subtitle of this book (ISBN 9780521545808). On the flipside, searching "Harriet Smithson" sans Berlioz on Google Scholar brings up 1130 hits—nearly 10x the occurrence of the former. Such is the case in your article itself, which addresses her as Harriet Smithson instead of Harriet Smithson Berlioz. Hence, MOS:SAMESURNAME would not apply to this case.

2. Should clarifications and adverbial commas be included as per previously edited? As per my edits:

   Old: He never studied the piano, and throughout his life played haltingly at best.
   Diff: He never studied the piano and played haltingly at best throughout his life.

   ---

   Old: The elder son of a provincial physician, Berlioz was expected to follow his father into medicine, and he attended a Parisian medical college before defying his family by taking up music as a profession.
   Diff: The elder son of a provincial physician, Berlioz was expected to follow in his father's footsteps into medicine. He attended a medical college in Paris before defying his family by pursuing music as a profession.

   ---

   Old: At the age of twelve Berlioz fell in love for the first time.
   At the age of twelve, Berlioz fell in love for the first time.

   ---

   Old: In 1854 Harriet died.
   Diff: In 1854, Smithson died.

   ---

   etc...

   
   161.142.149.36 (talk) 21:14, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

• This seems like a very convoluted RfC. If you want to compel a yes/no answer, my answer would be no to both - I don't agree that all the "clarifications" are such, and I don't agree that all instances of Harriet should be changed to Smithson. It does appear that there are sources to support Harriet having a post-marriage surname of Berlioz, eg her death notice (quoted here). Nikkimaria (talk)
• (1) No. (2) No. I agree with Nikkimaria about Harriet, and your "clarifications" are unhelpful: some are simply your personal preference, which I think make the prose less vigorous, while the others reflect American usage, in violation of MOS:ENGVAR, as this article uses British grammar and usage. -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:36, 4 September 2025 (UTC)
• This is something of a dog’s dinner of an RfC and it would be better closing it quickly.
  In terms of the questions, no to both, per the rationales of both Nikkimaria and SSilvers. The death notice, etc, shows a good case for retaining the existing format. The comma use is very American - completely inappropriate for an article in BrEng, so MOS:RETAIN applies here. Looking at the suggested comma changes shows some jarring uses of commas, to my BrEng eye. - SchroCat (talk) 04:04, 4 September 2025 (UTC)
• No and No. As to how to label Berlioz's wife we should continue to follow the usage in the main sources: the practice of Holoman, Macdonald, Cairns and Grove is to refer to her as "Harriet" tout court: they do not call her just "Smithson". As to the use of AmE-style commas, see the current edition of Plain Words, p. 249, on the use of commas with adverbs and adverbial phrases. For further examples of dispensing with such commas in BrE see Fowler (pp. 304 and 599 of the first edition, pp. 218 and 256 of the second, pp. 665 and 834 of the third and pp. 4 and 272 of the current edition). Tim riley talk 07:17, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

  If you're going to cherry-pick, at least opt to cherry-pick sources that actually support your statement. So you've cited Holoman, Macdonald, Cairns, and Grove. Let me categorically refute your claims via the exact same route you've chosen:

  Holoman, pp. 44–46, 132–134, 137, 140–143: "Miss Smithson"; and I'm not even a quarter-way through the book.
  Macdonald, throughout: 63% of instances that mention Harriet Smithson use both her given name and surname, rather than only "Harriet" or "Smithson",
  Cairns, pp. 2–5, 7, 9–15: "Miss Smithson" or "Smithson" — note that Cairns used the latter extensively on p. 13. His writing, especially in the incipient pages, predominantly and overwhelmingly selects "Smithson" or variants of it over the first name "Harriet".
  Grove sporadically intersperses "Harriet" with "Miss Smithson".

  Please refrain from biased arguments of factually incorrect statements without even bothering to verify your own sources. Just because I'm editing behind an IP doesn't mean I'm not a human capable of critically examining your sources. And may I remind you, the matter at hand isn't even regarding first name/last name usage in these books: None of the works you cited address Harriet Smithson as "Harriet Smithson Berlioz"—rather, this is an issue of adhering to WP:SURNAME, which therefore suggests that Smithson be used instead of Harriet.

  Regarding the relevant section you have cited from Plain Words, it overtly mentions that (1) sentence-initial adverbs are legitimate, and should be used if the sentence may be confusing without it; (2) as a rule of thumb, avoid if unnecessary. Hence, context matters; this is what this very RfC should be identifying instead. You still have yet to address the merits at hand.

  Quoting Fowler's Dictionary here when the dictionary was never meant to be used in this manner is an utter disgrace, and does nothing to back up your claims. Why are you citing page numbers instead of relevant entries? Regardless, the pertinent entry on the comma states the following:

  (a) A comma usually separates adverbs such as already, soon, however, and moreover when used as the first word of a sentence.

  Moreover, no further clarification is given regarding the definitive usage of adverbial phrases. However, examples of whether commas should be used with adverbial phrases are given as a case-by-case basis, for example, in the entry for no:

  Adverbial phrases containing no which negate the main verb in a clause must not be separated off by commas ...

  Your argument is biased and have once again been systematically conducted ignoratio elenchi. Please, I implore you: stop trying to win. 161.142.149.36 (talk) 09:36, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

  "stop trying to win" is something that you should also take on too, perhaps. So far four people don't agree with you. I suggest stepping back from the discussion and letting others have their say is the best course of action. Wikipedia:Walls of text don't help an RfC run smoothly - too many people are put off by having to wade through long tracts. - SchroCat (talk) 09:42, 4 September 2025 (UTC) Final sentence added in an edit at SchroCat (talk) 09:45, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

  @SchroCat: And yet: So far four people have yet to peruse the relevant sources to identify the validity of my arguments in question—which once again is happening right here. Why are you not addressing the factually incorrect sources above instead? I'm addressing the issue on hand, but it seems that those who have commented here are not serious about scrutinizing the details which contribute to the delivery of quality work. I will step back, provided that no more uninformed citations are used to commit contextomy. 161.142.149.36 (talk) 09:49, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

  And as to your mention that I may be guilty of WP:EGO, you're right. It's not about winning. It's about what's factually correct. So everyone should stick with the facts instead of permitting argumentum ad ignorantiam. Addressing WP:TEXTWALL: "Not all long posts are walls of text; some can be nuanced and thoughtful". 161.142.149.36 (talk) 10:02, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

  @SchroCat: Per my points above—citing from a BrE style manual—adverbial commas are not chiefly AmE. @Ssilvers: "some are simply your personal preference" — Which edits in question, may I ask, have been posited based on my personal preference? Really, which? @Nikkimaria: the source you have cited begs the question: Was she the one who chose that name for her death notice? Why were there no other records of her choosing to adopt her husband's surname when she was alive? Was it her choice? 161.142.149.36 (talk) 09:43, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

  There are indeed such records. Here, for example, is a letter attributed to the lady herself, signed "H. Berlioz". Nikkimaria (talk) 23:34, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

It doesn't look as though this editor is willing to read what people have written rather than what s/he imagines they have written. The sources, as I correctly state, refer to her as Harriet. You will find the occasional "Miss Smithson" in quotations (even a "Mlle Smithson" in one) but the norm is "Harriet". As to why I don't cite an article in Fowler – there isn't one. Presumably neither he, Gowers, Burchfield or Butterfield thought the matter worthy of comment. But all four omit the commas you demand in the extracts to which I draw your attention, and if it's OK with them it's OK with me. Next year will be the centenary of the first edition and I shouldn't be surprised if the OUP were to publish a fifth edition to mark the occasion. I have dropped Jeremy Butterfield a line suggesting that the matter might be addressed if there is a new edition of the great work. Meanwhile it would help matters here if the IP refrained from making up his/her own rules and passing them off as genuine – a spaced en-dash is as acceptable as an unspaced em-dash: see the Manual of Style, The Economist Style Guide etc. – Tim riley talk 10:38, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

The nature of this whole reply insinuates that you have simply ignored chunks of my replies. Per my message above:

(disregard my edits on the dashes—there I am mistaken and I apologize; rather, may the consensus focus on the usage of adverbial commas instead)

This would explain the failure to comprehend the gist of my rebuttal. Also, your second and third sentences are categorically untrue. Please do peruse the texts again. Nice tu quoque, by the way. Terribly unprofessional behavior.

Meanwhile it would help matters here if the IP refrained from making up his/her own rules and passing them off as genuine

161.142.149.36 (talk) 11:01, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

We seem to be getting nowhere. This is clearly a case of "everyone's out of step except our Willie". There being no sniff of a consensus for a change I hope the RfC will be closed a.s.a.p. Tim riley talk 11:06, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

For what it's worth no-no. There are far more important things to be sorted out on Wikipedia. Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 13:11, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

• YES / MAYBE - It's common practice to refer to subjects with their last names, not first. Regarding the grammar edits, I don't see a problem with either suggestion. Darkm777 (talk) 18:52, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

• Not quite true with regards to partners. See the uses of "Hillary" in this section (and throughout. If you undertake a search, it highlights all the 61 uses of "Hillary", because it's confusing to refer to her as "Clinton" and just plain wrong to call her "Rodham" after her marriage. - SchroCat (talk) 19:25, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

  Not Applicable — First of all, your claim that this is "not quite true with regards to partners" is directly contrary to the first example given in WP:SURNAME. Secondly, you're moving the goalpost here and misrepresenting the issue at hand: Regardless of whatever other name Harriet Smithson is also known as, in this very article, she is never once mentioned to have adopted Berlioz's name. The issue isn't about WP:SAMESURNAME which you're arguing, but rather about WP:SURNAME. TLDR: My point is simply that nowhere in the article Smithson is referred to as Harriet Smithson Berlioz—rather, Harriet Smithson—and the change I proposed aligns with WP:SURNAME which directly indicates that "Smithson" should be used. Thank you Darkm777 for your sensible input; I appreciate that. 161.142.149.36 (talk) 15:26, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

  It doesn't run counter to the advice at all, but never mind. No goalposts being moved by me, but keep trying. - SchroCat (talk) 15:37, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

  "It doesn't run counter to the advice at all" — How so? What's the line of reasoning here? I really, really want to understand. Please enlighten me. 161.142.149.36 (talk) 16:20, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

The anonymous editor is again merely urging us to ignore expert usage: fortunately one can search electronically and doesn't have to turn the pages of one's printed copies. I think these figures are pretty much correct: in Cairns, Vol 2 we have 17 mentions of "Harriet Smithson", 3 of "Smithson" tout court (one of them in a quote), a good handful of "Miss Smithsons", mostly in quotations, and more than 200 mentions of "Harriet" tout court. I do not propose to waste any more of my time on a fool's errand in combing through the other source books as I know them well enough to know that it is the norm to refer to her as just Harriet rather than just Smithson. For Wikipedia to flout the norm is plain folly and makes our encyclopaedia look stupid. There is nothing more amateurish than to pose as knowing better than the professional experts. Tim riley talk 15:54, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

(1) WP:SURNAME, (2) this whole paragraph: argument from authority fallacy. May this discussion not fall prey to the Asch paradigm. 161.142.149.36 (talk) 17:01, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

Closure

We now have, I think, five opposes and no supports for the proposed alterations. Unless any uninvolved editor objects I'll close this RfC over the weekend (if another editor doesn't get in first). Tim riley talk 16:24, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The Critic

We read that Berlioz was a" composer and conductor." True, and a critic, according to Harold C. Schonberg the best of his time, maybe of all time. Would that be worth adding to the lead? Charlie Faust (talk) 20:28, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

I don't think it's what he is often remembered for today, but it would do no harm to mention in the the lead. Tim riley talk 06:34, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

He was known as a critic in his time, and his writings are still read. Charlie Faust (talk) 15:45, 16 April 2026 (UTC)