Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Giuseppe Verdi/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates

Giuseppe Verdi (listen up, folks; seriously)

edit

Self-nom, I guess. I'm nominating this article in order to convince myself that I've made a bona fide attempt to get it on the main page. I'm pretty certain it's not going there. So, you see, I'm doing this for selfish reasons: I propose to have a clear conscience after I'm done with the whole Verdi issue here. Let me assure you, though, that if getting myself embarrassed is what it takes to promote the Verdi entry, so be it. I don't mind. I don't mind at all.

I have seen the objections on the peer review page and I understand them fully, although I did find some of them pretty (expletive deleted) stupid. Now let me tell you what I think.

I think that the NPOV concept is a very good thing. In fact, it’s wonderful. Without it, we would all go to hell. However, with so many people contributing to the best and most informative source of information in the world today (I’m not kidding), it is inevitable that now and then things tend to get out of hand. Some of the contributors are, no doubt, sound thinkers and well-meaning people in general; the majority, however, will always be inclined to follow the rules to the letter. That’s one of the most annoying problems in any field these days: lots of people follow the rules to the letter and insist that others do so as well. Which is why there are neither artists, scientists, nor politicians today: just a lot of bureaucrats INVOLVED IN art, science, and politics.

Once in a while folks need to be reminded that it is the SPIRIT, and not the LETTER, of the law, that really matters. Without the spirit, the letter is worthless.

Now. The NPOV thing SHOULD be treated as some kind of, I don’t know, DOGMA - by most. However, once in a while, and only once in a while, someone who feels especially strong about CERTAIN THINGS should be, not merely allowed, but actually encouraged to express a point of view (within the boundaries of good taste, of course). Some folks had better remember that NOTHING in this world can EVER be presented without a point of view ANYWAY. Technically, any complete sentence IS a point of view. For instance:

The battle of Hastings occurred in 1066.

Yes, but only according to SOME people. There is plenty of disagreement about our dating methods, chronicles, documents, reputable sources, and so on. Is it commonly accepted that William the Conqueror kicked Harold’s ass sometime in the course of that year? Yes. Are there folks out there who disagree or (more commonly) HAVE NO OPINION? Yes. Conclusion: the fact that the battle of Hastings took place in the year 1066 is not a fact at all, but rather the majority’s POINT OF VIEW.

There are no facts without a point of view.

Let us now move on to the matter in question.

Unless one is determined to outdo the Pharisees in pedantry and hypocrisy, one would naturally agree that Philip Glass is not as good as Verdi or Wagner or Puccini. It is also pretty obvious to anyone who has any knowledge of opera and can appreciate it that not all of Verdi’s operas are equally brilliant. When pressed, a great deal of folks would probably admit that some of his pieces are actually pretty weak and generally boring.

Moreover. Avoiding making a distinction between “Rigoletto” and “Falstaff” IS tantamount to expressing a point of view.

Because it IS a point of view.

It is the Establishment’s point of view.

It cannot be commonly accepted since opera is not a common genre.

It is the Establishment’s fault that opera is in crisis today. It may therefore be a good thing, a quixotic thing, even, to contradict the Establishment’s opinion and re-establish the truth. Opera needs new blood; it needs new audiences; it needs young folks to buy tickets. If a young man or woman’s FIRST live opera is “Falstaff”, and not “Rigoletto”, he or she might NEVER AGAIN go to the opera. Ever.

Clear so far?

As I have mentioned before, I’m all for the NPOV thing. Seriously. However, I insist that in SOME instances, exceptions should, and MUST, be made. Yes: it is indeed my opinion, my point of view, my conviction that where opera is concerned, the Five Greats (Verdi, Wagner, Puccini, Bizet, Tchaikovsky) have to be given all the exposure they can get and THEY ABSOLUTELY HAVE TO BE HYPED. The reason I rewrote nearly the entire article about Verdi is the previous article was an insult. I can say no less. I haven’t made up my mind about the Wagner entry, but it SEEMS okay. The Puccini article is not an insult: merely a damn shame. The one about Bizet is short and stupid. The one about Tchaikovsky seems to have been written by a fatuous obese spinster with a Russian accent.

I give you my word of honor, ladies and gentlemen, that when I’m the one providing the hype, it (the hype) can be neither tawdry nor tediously heart-warming. As a Second Renaissance man, I know the value of good taste. Believe you me. If you still doubt me, read the (expletive deleted) article (READ it, don’t skim through it).

That said, I very humbly ask those of you who feel the least bit pedantic to stay the (expletive deleted) away from the article. Seriously. You want to be all neutral about a composer – do Beethoven or Brahms or Mahler. Leave Verdi alone.

What, after all, is the main purpose of an encyclopedia? Isn’t it to provide information? Well, I have news for you. The implication that “Aida” and “Falstaff” are equal in value as works of art is NOT information: it is bureaucratic (COMMONLY ACCEPTED term for bovine excrement deleted). Ricardo the Texan 05:12, 23 October 2005 (UTC) (aka Ricardo the Impressionist)[reply]

  • Oppose - POV. KingTT 05:29, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, as per KingTT. Sentences like "In it, Verdi's artistic generosity is at its highest. Unspeakably beautiful melodies are tossed right and left, passages of celestial beauty scattered like pearls and never repeated, numerous arias, duets, trios and a quartet follow one another in an unceasing celebration of musical genius; passions vibrate; comedy and tragedy merge seamlessly." are just unacceptable in an encyclopedia. The article is strewn with POV comments, and because of your rant above, I see no reason to believe this will be improved. Furthermore, the article has problems unrelated to POV. Entire sections, like the one describing "Verdi's role in the Risorgimento" are unsourced, despite making questionable statements. There is also an untagged image. Whether or not you appreciate it, NPOV is a foundation issue for Wikimedia, and is not negotiable. Wikipedia is not a soapbox designed to fulfill your agenda, and will most definitely not allow a POV article to become featured. Therefore, if you can not adhere to NPOV, which I strongly recommend, "I very humbly ask you to stay [...] away from" Wikipedia. Superm401 | Talk 06:02, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per above. If you feel the need to write a POV article on Verdi, please do it elsewhere. See also Wikipedia:What is a featured article, and note especially point 2d - a featured article, by definition, is required to be NPOV. You yourself admitted that this is a POV article; how can it ever be featured if it does not meet the basic criteria of a featured article? PacknCanes | say something! 06:27, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object For one, you've faulted by making a desperate plea for the NPOV status of the topic, right here on FAC. 1) Remove text in parenthesis and make it flow with the text. 2) arguably, the greatest opera yet written Arguably? according to whom? 3) It may have been Giuseppina herself Is this your point of view? See Wikipedia:Avoid weasel terms. 4) Lead is too short, double the size 5) why should you compare his birth to Richard Wagner? 6) Parents' names? 7)His greatest works (e.g. Rigoletto, La Traviata, Aida) --> His greatest works, the Rigoletto, La Traviata, Aida... 8) Based on a play by Victor Hugo --> 'Based on a play by author Victor Hugo. Fix these and similar errors first before I review again. =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:22, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object - I listened up, and I seriously object. If I'm reading a Wikipedia article I want to know the facts and just the facts. If I'm sufficiently interested I'll explore deeper and then make up my mind, safe in the knowledge that nobody but me has the right to make up my mind. Don't presume to tell me what the "greatest" opera is, or tell me that music is "unspeakably beautiful". The article reeks of POV and of all the thousands of articles on Wikipedia I don't see why the rules for FA consideration should be changed for this particular one, simply because you feel passionate about it. Anybody could make a similar plea for their pet subject. We've managed to create some outstanding articles about some highly significant subjects and we've managed to keep it neutral, so if you're serious about the article you need to accept this is policy, and either improve the article or move on. The paragraph quoted by User:Superm401 (above) is nauseating. You know what's required or else you wouldn't have fatuously begged your case at such length, so I won't bother directing you to the relevant policy pages. If you leave the article as it is, other editors will eventually prune the POV from it. If you care about the article, perhaps you should be the one to do the pruning and your nomination might have some chance of success. I absolutely agree with every word of every previous objection. Rossrs 10:47, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support if only for the gutsy stance you took even though you knew it would not be a popular opinion. It took a lot of courage to do what you did, and not many people would do that. Although personally I would remove POV, I think your stance could fall under Wikipedia:Ignore all rules OmegaWikipedia 17:08, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your interpretation of the ignore all rules guideline is appalingly wrong. Ignore-all-rule is about cutting through red tape, and is absolutely not applicable to this situation, which is about overlooking significantly quality issues when choosing featured articles. Your support is utterly vacuous →Raul654 23:12, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Omega, the idea is to support or oppose the article on its own merits, not on the gutsy stance of its author. If you truly believe that the article, as written, meets Wikipedia's standards for Featured Article, and that it is an example of Wikipedia's very best work, you should expand upon your support vote. Rossrs 11:38, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I'm a musician; I love Verdi. But this will not do. Aside from the obvious POV issues—which are not appropriate for a neutral encyclopedia—the article is full of sparse and choppy paragraphs and lacks sufficient references. There's a lot of woodshedding to do before this one is ready for the Main Page. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 18:46, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep up the good work! The Quixotic Quest continues, and there’s yet some hope for a Second Renaissance! My 2 Percent Theory works like this. Take a whole bunch of people, selected and/or grouped based on ANY OLD criterium. They can be graduates of a certain not-too-prestigious school; or lesbians of a certain age; or hockey players; or writers; or politicians; or farmers; or lawyers; or just a whole bunch of folks from a certain neighborhood who decided to get some air last Tuesday and got wet because it suddenly started raining. It doesn’t matter. ANY old group. Chances are, 2 percent of them are worth one’s time, the remaining 98 being merely reluctant followers, the proverbial dead weight. And that is fine: because the so-called dead weight WILL contribute, at least in part, to the birth of the NEXT 2 percent.
  • Well, this here project (Wikipedia, I mean) is actually doing BETTER than 2 percent. I sort of expected it. Miracles are never complete if you sort of expect them, I guess. Thus what we have here is an incomplete miracle. I see six votes, and already one of the six happens to be a member of the elite – and that’s 16 percent rather than 2. Thank you, Omega.
  • As for the rest. I realize Verdi doesn’t deserve this; it’s disrespectful to use his name and legacy in such experiments. However, what’s done is done, so I might as well put together a bit of a summary (should more votes follow, I’ll revisit it; and should the results strike me as amusing, I’ll consider publishing them in my next book, I guess).
  • So! This attempt to promote Verdi’s legacy has been shot down, chivalrously, by –
  • Someone named KingTT whose Wikipedia contributions and expertise are summedup in this section of his user page: “What I’ve done. Uh . . . nothing much.”
  • Someone called Superm401 whose contributions to this well of knowledge consists entirely of two article stubs, one on the Grace Building in New York, the other on John Lovewell, Jr. and who, paraphrasing me, asks me to stay the (expletive deleted) away from Wikipedia. That, I assume, is because he’s in charge around here.
  • A night radio announcer down in Raleigh, North Carolina, called PackNCanes, whose interests, by his own admission, are limited to hockey, transportation, and geography, and who is fond of bureaucratic phraseology (“do it elsewhere”).
  • A 22-year-old “electronic engineer” (whatever that means) from Bombay, India, named Nicolas, who claimed that if (!!) he’s reading Wikipedia (!!!), he wants (!!!!) “to know the facts and just the facts.” Here’s a fact for him: folks should not be so conceited, self-righteous, self-important, and/or fatuous when they’re only twenty-two unless they figure they would not mind becoming intolerable bores by the time they’re thirty.
    • Speaking of facts, it was not Nicholas who said he wants to know the facts. That was me. Get your facts right, stop being such a jackass, and get down off your soapbox because your utter rudeness does not sway me one bit. Rossrs 21:29, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • You didn't spell my name correctly, you didn't ask me to clarify what an EE does, you completely misread my post, and chose to attack me because I am 22. Great! You've made yourself more of a troll now, and have completely blown your chances for getting this article featured. =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:31, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ah! Vindictive, aren't we? Yes, sir, you're the boss around here. This isn't about the article, is it? The entire Wikipedia project's sole purpose is to make sure that folks respect you personally and view you as a figure of authority. What was I thinking. Ricardo the Texan 18:19, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Vindictive? I don't hold a grudge against you. I've only spoken the truth which needs to be bluntly told. Infact, I was kind enough to list some sentences and how to modify them. You unfortunately think I am/we are on some kind of vendatta campaign. Well, if you do take care of our objections, we'll lift our objections. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:43, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • And the one musician gal from Florida who claims she loves Verdi (loving him from Florida suggests a long-distance relationship; the nearest semi-decent opera house is in Philly; quite romantic, though hardly credible) and cites choppy and sparse paragraphs in my article.
Featured article candidacy. Serious business.
  • Object on the following grounds: One: only TWO sources are referenced, and there are NO inline citations to ANY references. Arguments of style and neutrality aside, I can't see how an article could be an FAC with just two references, and certainly not possible without inline citations. I only bring this up because I've seen it brought up in many more featured article candidacy debates, and the debaters here seem to want to rant about neutrality, rather than citations. My own work in such matters is mixed, admittedly, but I HAVE been working to better cite my own sources. Two: no mention of the string quartet or the "Four Sacred Pieces." (though I will grant that this is a minor quibble, but I would like to see mentioned that Verdi DID write music aside from just the operatic works, and the Requiem, which leads me to) Three: no mention of the controversy surrounding Verdi's requiem (though I'm hard-pressed myself to find a source at the moment) - the story goes that the Requiem was quickly met with controversy for sounding "too operatic" in ways that some felt were inappropriate for a religious work (although the counter argument is that "too operatic" can hardly be a surprise). Also, the article states that the Requiem was composed in 1869 in honor of Rossini - both the dtv-Atlas zur Musik (in my 1992 edition published in Munich in association with Bärenreiter-Verlag) and the 1992 paperback printing of Theodore Karp's Dictionary of Music by Northwestern University Press state that Verdi's Requiem was completed in 1874, in honor of Alessandro Manzoni, who died the year before. --JohnDBuell | Talk 20:34, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good points. However, the urgency I attempted to convey in the intro above is ignored. What do I need to say to get folks to understand? THE SHIP IS SINKING? We're taking on water, there are reefs anywhere we look, and you're concerned with painting the mate's bedpost? Get real. Opera is DYING. Puccini once said (and that's a VERY long time ago) that opera is finished because audiences are WILLING TO TOLERATE music without melodies and the public has lost its taste for melody. This is strikingly true when you consider THE VAST MAJORITY of today's performances in which conductors SLOW DOWN the tempi in order to satisfy their egoes - and this is taken as a matter of course by one and all. The performance of Tosca at City Opera, on a regular week night, took place in front of a house that wasn't even HALF-filled. They presented a new set which "updated" the action to Mussolini's times. Scarpia paraded in Nazi attire. This is supposed to be "modern." The orchestra was out of whack a lot of times. And you're concerned about REFERENCES? Sheesh. Ricardo the Texan 21:05, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • All of "classical music" (and I hate using the term) is dying, slowly, but dying all the same. Classical music sections in many music stores are dwindling (even Borders, which was one of my last great choices, remodeled and cut the section down to a small fraction of its previous size). This article would, if approved, be only the the THIRD classical composer to have an article reach FA. So in my opinion, you're preaching to the choir (thank (insert deity name here) for the CSO and Lyric Opera, both of which are doing well, not great, but well). In contrast to attempting to continue the POV/NPOV debate, I brought up items which HAVE impaired other articles for reaching FA status, and you still choose to be combative? --JohnDBuell | Talk 21:23, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Minor correction: it would be the sixth featured classical composer. Still, considering how many composers there are... Mindspillage (spill yours?) 22:39, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • You're right, and well spotted. Trying to make out all the names when about every other article is boldfaced, and the others are not can sure play tricks on the eyes. :) I only caught the two bold-faced ones (the two that have been featured articles of the day), and completely missed the three that are not. --JohnDBuell | Talk 23:07, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • The point (which seems to be getting lost on Ricardo) is that this article will not be promoted, no matter how bad the 'opera is dying' syndrome is, unless this article meets our standards for what a featured article should be. →Raul654 23:23, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object. There are lots of things wrong with it. Just on style, the information is vague (wonderful gift for melody? Every composer has that ...) Counterpoint is not how you exemplify it. Tony 02:02, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well no, everybody who has ever been called or called themselves a composer does NOT have a wonderful gift for melody, but it IS hard to quantify. This gets right back into the POV/NPOV debate (unless multiple sources are cited all saying Verdi DID have "a wonderful gift for melody," then it falls to the sources, not the editors here). And I'm not taking a high road or a low road, I'm just trying to stay OUT of the POV/NPOV debate here altogether. (blah, it'd help if I sign my comments) --JohnDBuell | Talk 02:57, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clarification (since a whole bunch of folks trying to shoot down the article in question seem to need it badly). In art, no matter what genre you happen to be dealing with, there is a nucleus, a principle matter, a little something that more or less CONSTITUTES THE ART PART in the finished product. The difference between the art part and the other parts is the art part cannot be taught. It can be awakened, developed, nurtured, ignored, honed, etc, but either you have it or you don't. In painting (to pick a genre at random) this nucleus happens to be the line and its offshoot, the stroke. In music, the one thing that cannot be taught (as oppose to the various technical matters including, but not limited to, orchestration, harmonization, counterpoint, voice, theory, etc) is melody. Despite the popular opinion (expressed by Tony here), there have been VERY FEW composes who could boast a genuine melodic gift. Less than twenty, in fact. In the entire history of music as we know it. There have been a sufficient number of plausible fakes, of course, of hacks who could compile and build melodies, etc - but not in opera. Poor Tony, like myself, was born in an era when a whole lot of people in key positions are confused about this whole issue. Folks don't know what a melody IS anymore. Opera may be dying (and is, in my opinion, well worth saving); but popular music (to pick a genre at random) has long been dead. Make no mistake. Popular music is dead. I don't know whether I should laugh, weep, or just shrug, when I hear the term "contemporary", or, worse, "modern" applied to today's popular music. The b-flat-square and its branches are so unbelieveably primitive that even Monteverdi, a 17th Century semi-innovator in his own right, would have been ashamed of them; and the actual style (monotonous drumming, one mode, usually fortissimo, used throughout each piece, no modulation) from which all of today's popular music stems, was devised long before I was born, and I'm nearly forty. I was sort of counting on the new generation to rebel against this boring state of things, but they have turned out to be far more conformist and philistine than my coevals ever dreamed of being.Ricardo the Texan 04:52, 24 October 2005

(UTC)

  • Some perspective, just in case. One of the October featured articles was about a character based on another video game character. It met all the proper criteria. Apparently, relevancy, or relevance (choose your poison) isn't one of those. How very symbolic. Thunder and lightning. Ricardo the Texan 04:59, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • As I already said once above, importance/notoriety are not considerations when determing if something should be a featured article. A potential featured article must meet all of the criteria listed at Wikipedia:What is a featured article - notice that fame is not one of the criteria. So, to reiterate a phrase I coined - pretty much an article that could survive a listing on the Votes for Deletion page could theoretically become featured articles. All it takes is someone to put enough energy into that article to get it up to the propery standards. →Raul654 05:25, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, Ricardo, you're right. It is kind of pathetic that you couldn't address even a single objection preventing a world-renowned composer's article from being featured, while A Link to the Past was able to get the article of a fictional character no one even liked chosen. I guess we can see who's the real fan and who's just pretending. Superm401 | Talk 05:55, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Most things in this world that have any genuine spiritual value have appeared and continue to exist despite the unceasing objections from people whose outlooks are similar to yours, sir. Including, I hasten to add, Wikipedia.Ricardo the Texan 08:14, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • As I've said, Verdi is renowned composer, and he deserves that reputation. I certainly don't object to his music, or believe it has no spiritual value. I was merely pondering your incompetence in attempting to get the article featured. It certainly is not due to any fault of Verdi, who is by far notable enough. Superm401 | Talk 19:52, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The article is amazing. Honestly. If I could, I would perhaps move a thing or two around, but I adore the way this article has been crafted. It definitely deserves my vote. --Winnermario 20:28, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object Rigoletto is, arguably, the greatest opera yet written. Really? According to whom? Although his orchestration is often masterful, While I agree, I do not read Wikipedia for editor's opinions. A good start would be toning down the POV. - orioneight (talk) 02:36, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not because the contributor is abusive towards the reviewers and has reacted negatively to criticism that the article must fail: it's because the article is poorly written and structured, and falls far short of 'comprehensive'. Next time, please write only a minimal amount at the top of your nomination. Tony 02:47, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object: Great music, I agree Verdi is cool, although Mozart gives him a run for his money. This article is so POV it made me smile, someone has written this for a laugh; but for an encyclopedia it is really dreadful, it's awful, it needs to be edited of all POV, then extended considerably, the political implications of his works could be an FA on their own. The descriptions of his operas are to brief, and lacking in information on plot, theory, ways of interpretation etc. If the nominator is serious (and I doubt this) in his wish to see this featured, he need to do a great deal more research. Giano | talk 11:35, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object. POV problems abound. For example, "Although masterfully orchestrated, it lacks the melodic lustre so characteristic of Verdi's earlier, great, operas." – says who? Please attribute these statements to actual people rather than leaving the reader guessing. Extraordinary Machine 14:13, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Giuseppe_Verdi/archive1&oldid=1136458716"