Talk:Gustav Holst#RfC on removal of hidden comment

There really should be a page for this, one of Holst's masterpieces. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phil6875 (talk • contribs) 09:20, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

:Phil6875, feel free to create one! Nikkimaria (talk) 11:10, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

As a Swede living in Norway I have long been intrigued by the claim that Gustav Holst had Swedish ancestry. The claim is made without source in [https://www.britannica.com/biography/Gustav-Theodore-Holst Encyclopedua Britannica] as well as in other works of reference.

The Wikipedia article states tthat the Holst family was of mixed Swedish, Latvian and German ancestry, with Grove Music Online as source. Grove'sDictionary is not available to me. Since I doubt the statement of ancestry I aske whether Grove provides further explanation.

The Geni database includes Holst family ancestors living in Northern Germany and the Baltic region of Imperial Russia but none from Sweden. All names look German to me. [https://www.geni.com/people/Christian-Holstenius/6000000059617814942 The first recorded members] of the family were in fact pastors in the Rostock region of present-day Germany.

If we are to believe Geni several members of the Holst family lived in Riga in the 18th century. At that time Riga was a city dominated by German-speakers. Gustav Holst's ancestors there are correctly described as Baltic Germans. They were not ethnic Latvians.

Gustav Holst's grandfather [https://www.geni.com/people/Gustavus-Valentine-Johann-von-Holst/6000000003890720331 Guetavus Valentine Holst,] was born 1799 in Riga and came as a child to Britain with his parents. Like several members of his family he becake a professional muusician. The present article tells he added a fake von to his family name. Gustav Holst's daughter Imogen tells that by posing as a nobleman he hoped to increase his prestige and attract more pupils.

The Swedish version of this article has stated that

Gustv Holst belonged to a Swedish noble family, and Encyclopedia Britannica states that Gustav Holst's father (=Gustavus Valentine's son) was Swedish. Both these statements are positively false.

On the other hand, his first name Gustavus may be taken to be Swedish by English-speakers, and the Swedish king called Gustavus Adolphus (1594–1632) in English obviously inspired him to name two of his sons Gustavus and Adolphus (also written Adolph), rspectively.

With his false claim of nobility in mind, I now ask whether the claim of Swedish ancestry was also a fake. There seems to be no ancestors that can be positively identified as Swediish.

I don't know the answer. Does Imogen Holst tell more about the family ancestry in here biography of her father, and is there relable sources which corroborate the Geni database?

If the claim of Swedish ancestry was deliberately false it was well made. Few people, including encyclopedia authors, have reasons to doubt plausible statements of this kind. Roufu (talk) 11:28, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

The matter seems rather hazy. Imogen (1969, p. 1) says sans phrase that Gustav's great-grandfather was Swedish. Grove says "Holst’s great-grandfather Matthias (1769–1854) was born in Rīga, of German ancestry". The ODNB says "His great-grandfather Matthias (c.1767–1854) was of Scandinavian origin". Short (1990) says:

:Although the Holst family probably originated in Scandinavia, by the late seventeenth century branches were established in Poland, Germany and subsequently Russia, when in 1703 Christian Lorenz moved his family home from Rostock to Riga, in Latvia.

Unless something comes to light to suggest changing our text I suggest we leave it as it is. The nationality of Holst's great-grandfather, though interesting, is not, after all, the crux of the article. Tim riley talk 12:23, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

:It is interesting to see the various attempts to explain Gustav Holst's possible Swedish ancestry. In Sweden, where Holst is largely unknownm, it is presented as a prominent fact which, however, is not elaborated upon. Thus Sohlmans musiklexikon (Sohlman's Dictionary of Music, 5 volumes), 2nd edition, Vlume 3 (1976) describes Holst as am "English comoser and conductor of Swedish descent".

:Tim riley makes it clear above that the Holst family believed in their Swedish ancestry. This is one of the few things that can be said with certainty. A note note to that effect and a statement of the general uncertainty of the matter might eventually be added to the English-language article.

:Short, who looks to me like the best modern sorce, traces the family's Baltic German rooots in line with the Geni database, which is not a reliable source in itself. If one were to look futher for Scandinnavian roots one might go to the records of University of Rostock where the first recorded family member most likely studied. Rostock had numerous Scandinavian students at that time, and one could think that a few of them stayed in the area after graduation.

:More importantly, Tim's note above provides material for the revision of the Swedish Wikipedia article on Gustav Holst. That is my first priority. Roufu (talk) 10:59, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

:The print edition of The New Grove does not list any Swedish ancestry, only German - a great-grandfather born in Riga, Latvia and the emmigration to England by same. - HammerFilmFan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.12.90 (talk) 12:31, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

To User:Tim_riley, I have explained my edit now. I hope the reasoning makes sense to you. Zaslav (talk) 00:11, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

:OK. Please be sure to add edit summaries for any future changes to articles to save wasting other editors' time. Tim riley talk 07:44, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Was it 1914? I suppose we had better start with the basic facts... merlinVtwelve (talk) 21:57, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

User:MerlinVtwelve, why are WP:EDITWARring? Everyone knows that the First World War had already started by 1915, but what has that to do with this Japanese dancer or Holst's composition? Once you make a Bold edit, and another editor Reverts your proposed change, the correct procedure is to immediately open a Discussion about it on the Talk page, not to re-revert yourself. This procedure is called the WP:BRD cycle. If you continue to edit war, you may lose editing privileges. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:53, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

:Hi @Ssilvers before we go any further, I'd like to thank @Antandrus for defusing the situation.

:But I also need to correct a misconception. This wasn't a bold edit. What I was doing was correcting a mistake made by another editor, in the previous edit, under the guise of (as his edit summary claimed) 'tidying up'.

:When I first added this content, (last week I think) I had deliberately started a new paragraph with the words 'In 1915...' to distinguish the time period from the previous paragraph.

:This meeting between Ito and Holst should not be grouped with pre-war events. And it is a very critical point. The dancer, Ito, spoke French but not English, but was forced flee Paris with the outbreak of war. Arguably, World War One led to the creation of Op. 33, as Holst would not have met Ito otherwise, and not ever chosen to use Japanese themes.

:However with his edit summary of 'tidying up', this editor chose to combine the two paragraphs, therefore introducing quite a serious error, in my opinion.

:On the other hand, if this editor deliberately chose to combine my new paragraph with the existing paragraph, why did he not first raise this in a discussion on this talk page? I would have explained my reasoning.

:Does he operate under different rules? And if I am getting technical about this, then this (potential) edit war was started by the other editor, when he reverted my correction of his error.

:The other editor is of course, none other than @User:Tim riley, who left patronising and offensive comments when he reverted my edits.

:So, @User:Tim riley would you like to explain on the talk page why you felt free to combine the paragraphs without first discussing it on the talk page?

:Or was this an error on your part? It's not 'Rocket Science', as you might say.

:If other editors are wondering why I am using such a sarcastic tone with @User:Tim riley, it is because this is the most unpleasant editor I have encountered since the early days of Wikipedia. He has been consistently rude and aggressive towards me since my very first attempts at editing this article. merlinVtwelve (talk) 04:04, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

::I looked closely at the discussion. When TR reverted your first edit, his edit summary was merely "comment", as he had literally moved your proposed text into a "hidden comment" and stated that the problem was WP:CITEVAR. There was nothing patronizing or offensive about that. If you did not understand what he meant about WP:CITEVAR, you should have just come to the Talk page right away to ask for an explanation or clarification. That would have avoided all unpleasantness. It was your reverting without further discussion that caused all the problems. Then, after TR made [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gustav_Holst&diff=prev&oldid=1295949036 this smaller revert], you then re-reverted 3 more times before coming to the Talk page, which is unequivocally edit warring. If you had come to the Talk page to explain what you were trying to do, you would have received prompt feedback, as most FA articles are watched by multiple editors. Note that WP:AVOIDEDITWAR states: "Once it is clear there is a dispute, avoid relying solely on edit summaries and discuss the matter on the associated talk page" (emphasis added). -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:34, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

::MerlinVtwelve, comment on the content, not the editor please. There is absolutely no need to personalise the discussion from the off, so you would be best to think about striking all the parts of your comment that are about other editors and not about the content. It would be a step forward in defusing the thread from the start. - SchroCat (talk) 05:07, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Unfortunately I cannot ask the original author of this part of the article for comment: when the late and sorely missed Brian Boulton and I worked on the article to get it to FA, I mostly did the Life and BB mostly did the works. On reflection I wondered if the article should be tightened up by deleting the reference to the Japanese Suite. Imogen Holst did not find the work worth mentioning in her "Great Composers" biography of her father, and mentions it in passing on p. 36 of her 200-page study of his music where she describes it as "disappointing". The work is relegated to a footnote in Holst's published letters. I haven't got the 1995 Dickinson study on which BB drew for quite a lot of material about GH's music, but in his admirable 1990 study of Holst, Michael Short gives the work some brief attention: {{green|The Japanese dancer Michio Ito was working at London’s Coliseum Theatre at this time, and had asked Holst to write a work based on ancient Japanese themes. The result was the Japanese Suite; four brief dances with a prelude and interlude, founded on tunes whistled to Holst by the dancer. Despite its provenance, the suite has little in common with traditional Japanese music, and is more reminiscent of the Mendelssohn of the Hebrides overture, with occasional idiosyncratic touches of harmony.}} I think the work just about meets the notability criterion, and I recommend we keep the present text. The Japanese Suite does not warrant its own paragraph, and belongs where it is, in the "Folksong and other influences" section; the date of its composition is irrelevant. As to the recent editor's personal attack on me, I shall rise above it. Tim riley talk 06:39, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

::::@Tim riley Please accept my apologies, I allowed myself to get a bit emotional about this.

::::(That being said, I do think you could be a little more tolerant of others' errors in some of your interactions.)

::::Regarding the work itslf, yes it is extremely obscure indeed.

::::However, the somewhat unusual interaction between the dancer and the composer is also mentioned in the Holst biography by Jon C. Mitchell (p.135); and Concert Music of the Twentieth Century by Mark A. Radic (p.118). I think possibly it is also covered in some books on dance.

::::And I anticipate that op.33 may become less obscure over time. With the launch of Apple Classical a couple of years ago (mobile only, quite separate to Apple Music) many of the Holst minor works are now highly accessible to younger listeners.

::::I can count roughly 10 different versions of op. 33 on that service, going back to a fairly old one with Adrian Boult.

::::But if you think it's not worthy of inclusion, I won't object if you delete from this article. Cheers merlinVtwelve (talk) 08:35, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::I have said above that I recommend keeping the mention of the dancer and the suite. Boult, eh? I saw and heard Sir Adrian conducting Holst in the concert hall in 1971, but as you might expect, it was The Planets suite, not the Japanese one. Tim riley talk 08:44, 18 June 2025 (UTC)