Talk:The Death of Klinghoffer

Edward Rothstein Review

The article contains this text:

"Some critics and audience members condemned the production as antisemitic, and appearing to be 'sympathetic' to the hijackers."

An Edward Rothstein column was listed as the source. However, the listed column never uses the words 'antisemitic' or 'sympathetic' (or any variants). Rothstein was certainly critical of the opera, but his column doesn't provide any support of the article text. On the other hand, there's no doubt that many critics and audience members have used those and similar words. A better source is needed here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacksheriff (talk • contribs) 21:02, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Richard Taruskin's Criticism

I don't think this article reasonably or fairly depicts Richard Taruskin's criticism of both the work itself and of those who attacked the Boston Symphony's decision not to program it. Excerpts:

"It was only a social contract that Mr. Barenboim defied [conducting Wagner in Israel], but he seemed to want credit for defying a ban. His act implied that the feelings of Holocaust survivors had been coddled long enough and that continuing to honor them was both an intolerable infringement on his career and an insult to artistic greatness. To agree with him, one had to stretch the definition of censorship way beyond that associated with Nazis, Soviets and Islamic fundamentalists, into moral terrain usually associated with forbearance or discretion or mutual respect...

"A month earlier, Mark Swed, the chief music critic for The Los Angeles Times, had expressed a similar opinion [about The Death of Klinghoffer], only slightly more decorously, when he boasted that, preferring answers and understanding to comfort, he had listened to the Nonesuch recording of Klinghoffer the day after the World Trade Center had collapsed. But whence this quaintly macho impulse to despise comfort (women's work?) and even deny it haughtily to sufferers? And whence the idea of seeking answers and understanding in an opera peopled by wholly fictional terrorists and semifictionalized victims, rather than in more relevant sources of information?

"Anthony Tommasini, in The New York Times, endorsed Mr. Adams's contention that his opera offers the sad solace of truth. What truth? The Death of Klinghoffer trades in the tritest undergraduate fantasies....

"Censorship is always deplorable, but the exercise of forbearance can be noble. Not to be able to distinguish the noble from the deplorable is morally obtuse." TheScotch (talk) 02:24, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

missing word

This sentence seems to miss a word:

"Fink further posited that the reaction of American audiences to the portrayal of the Rumor family was partly because it was sociologically accurate." Bazuz (talk) 21:31, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Corrected the article

Perhaps it ought to be protected now? It had obviously been subtly edited over a period of time by defenders of anti-Semitism, but really there's no debate, no controversy, just near-universal condemnation by those who are not anti-Semitic of a truly nasty piece of work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.96.230.11 (talk) 11:49, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

I repeat, please can the page be locked to prevent people defacing it repeatedly? It is ludicrous that the page of the composer has more criticism than is being permitted to remain on these pages. The opera is widely considered to be an anti-Semitic justification for the murder of those of the Jewish faith, and for Wikipedia to refuse to mention that here is simply dishonest. The simple facts of the matter are that this is not a mainstream, reputable work, and it has not ever been performed in a mainstream, reputable venue. The composer and his associates are pariahs. Wikipedia's big on consensus, and the consensus here is absolutely clear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.96.230.11 (talk • contribs) 17:39, 5 July 2014‎

Edits and edit reversions by User:77.96.230.11

When reverting his last series of additions to he article, I made it perfectly clear what my reasons were. The example below will suffice:

User talk:77.96.230.11 added the following:

"It is most famous for being a series of anti-Semitic rants, thinly disguised as an opera, and has been called 'the shame of the intelligentsia.' "

Statements of this sort appear to be nothing more than personal opinions, so without a reference to someone (critic/author) who stated that the opera is "a series of anti-Semitic rants" (or who used similar words) or without providing the source for the direct quotation 'the shame of the intelligentsia', this entry cannot stand as it is written.

Well then, why don't you help me rewrite it instead of reverting? I mean, are you suggesting for a moment that what I added was untrue, rather than just poorly referenced? This *is* a well-known piece of anti-Semitic hatred masquerading as an opera. That's why it has never been performed in any reputable venue. Wikipedia needs to be clear on this, because, as I said above, at the moment the article contains less information about the near-universal condemnation than even the page about the composer. It's clearly been nobbled.

Look, I read something about the opera and wanted to find out what all the controversy was about, so I googled it. First thing I read was the Wiki page, and I thought 'oh, that doesn't sound too bad'. Not really seeing what all the fuss could be about, I looked a bit further on Google and discovered that the Wiki article simply bears no relation whatsoever to the truth. It's all-but impossible to find anyone who'll even try and defend the opera on any grounds other than that anti-Semitism is to be praised. 77.96.230.11 (talk) 18:50, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

There are now two editors who oppose the additions which User talk:77.96.230.11 has made. Viva-Verdi (talk) 17:52, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

There are now three editors who have reverted these additions, all for exactly the same reasons. Viva-Verdi (talk) 17:56, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, and I am one of the three, and in full agreement with Viva-Verdi. We cannot and will not make unreferenced personal opinions in Wikipedia's voice. 77.96.230.11, if you can provide references for the characterizations you have been repeatedly trying to insert here, fine. If not, please refrain from edit-warring to add unreferenced, unencyclopedic, soap-boxing to this article. Voceditenore (talk) 18:23, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to add citation links, but pretty much everything I've said is covered either by sources already linked on the page, or by simple common sense. (It's simply a matter of definition, for example, that associating all Jewish people with Israeli actions, let alone murdering them for them, is anti-Semitism.) I'll have to try and find the source of the 'shame' quote.

Frankly, the characterisation of my edit as 'personal opinion' is silly, and makes me wonder if you're not some of the people who defaced this page in the first place - although I'll assume not, even if you lot can't abide by 'assume good faith'. Someone's clearly tried very hard to hide the fact that this opera is well-known as a fringe and lunatic piece of anti-Semitic hatred (and entirely lacking in musical merit) and it's rather shocking that Wikipedians are lending their support to a pretence that it is not. I can only assume that if you're acting in good faith then none of you are aware of the near-universal condemnation that surrounds this opera. I would suggest a little general research is in order. It's embarrassing to Wikipedia for this article to exist in this form. It urgently needs a complete rewrite, but really I'm not sure how to go about that.

Oh, and I apologise for my second revert - I somehow missed that it was a different editor, and thought it was the same person doing it twice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.96.230.11 (talk) 18:42, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

The problem here is that you have made a series of assumptions about this opera, an opera which (by the way) I do not know, nor have I heard a note of the music, and am totally neutral as to its merits or lack of same. When you make statements such as:

"is well-known as a fringe and lunatic piece of anti-Semitic hatred (and entirely lacking in musical merit)"

naturally, this begs such questions as "well-known" by whom?; or "anti-Semetic hatred": who feels this way? Certainly it is not Peter Gelb, the general manager of the Met Opera (hardly a fringe organisation), which is planning to present it in the 2014/2015 season.

The larger issue here, the one which I began to address on your Talk page and which you have now deleted, I see, is that Wikipedia articles should take a balanced view of any situation and, if applicable, present evidence from both sides. This article recognises the fact that the opera is controversial: it contains a section called "Controversy and allegations of antisemitism". That is where—if anywhere—fully referenced assertions such as the ones which you have made should appear, but unless they are direct quotations from notable sources, they need to be couched in rather more mature language.

The lead paragraph of the article should be purely factual. If there is controversy, that can be mentioned after the basic what and why. But your choice of language in that location could not be allowed to stand, and the three editors who reverted were acting in an entirely appropriate manner that is part of Wikipedia procedures. Wikipedia works on consensus obtained by editors, and that is the reason why I drew your attention to the 3-revert rule in the hope that YOU would address the issue on this page, and not go on blindly reverting (although I do recognise that you accept being in error on one of them).

If you continue to feel this way, your next step must be to find sources which support your statements. If you would like to post the following on this page, I am prepared to enter them for you, but using appropriate language. Please give me author's name, article title, publication, and publication date. If they are from internet sources, provide the full URL - just paste it in here.

Without further justification, continuing to add language of the type you made to the article today, will be reverted and, from this "Talk" page, Admins will have a good reason to have you blocked from editing. Viva-Verdi (talk) 00:25, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

PS: Per standard WP practice, please end your posts by using the four tildes, e.g. ~ , the appropriate key is located to the left of the "!/1" key on most keyboards.

Libretti? Synopsis? List of Arias?

Would it be possible to beef this article up with a list of articles and chorus numbers? It's surprisingly difficult to find something like this on Google, e.g. "Chorus of Exiled Palestinians" "Chorus of Exiled Jews", etc.

Also, sources to the libretti would be nice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.197.91.136 (talk) 03:56, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Some musical numbers are mentioned in the article. There's a track list of the Nonesuch recording at http://www.nonesuch.com/albums/the-death-of-klinghoffer, and of the Decca recording at http://www.deccaclassics.com/en/cat/0741899. I suspect the libretto is not freely available as it's presumably copyrighted. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 10:43, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Cheers. I was suggesting that maybe someone could integrate the track list into the article, and I'm too lazy. Yeah, I suspected that about the libretto. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.101.162.243 (talk) 01:25, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Actually, if you search for the entire Klinghoffer recording on YouTube, there is in fact the entire libretto in the video's info. I was surprised too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.59.155.108 (talk) 21:57, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Terrorist

The box under "Roles" describes four characters as "a terrorist". In the libretto's description of roles http://www.boosey.com/pages/opera/moredetails.asp?musicid=6372 they are merely identified as "MOLQI," "MAMOUD," "OMAR" and "Rambo." Why was this adjective added?

This is editorializing on the part of Wikipedia, and Wikipedia discourages the word WP:TERRORIST. It's certainly more WP:NPOV to leave it out.

It sounds like an editorial emendation to Adams' work. I think we should let the author speak for himself. It may be that "terrorist" is a conclusion that is left for the audience to arrive at on its own.

The Roles box doesn't refer to Klinghoffer as "a Jew", even though he definitely was one. --Nbauman (talk) 21:52, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on The Death of Klinghoffer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20151007075512/http://www.newstatesman.com/node/151815 to http://www.newstatesman.com/node/151815

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:10, 12 February 2016 (UTC)