Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera/Archive 42

Archive 35

←

Archive 40

Archive 41

Archive 42

Archive 43

Archive 44

Archive 45

Archives Table of Contents

Potential copyright violations on light opera articles

I've been finding a number of copyviols on light opera articles. The latest one is a synopsis of La poupée, an operetta by Edmond Audran has been taken in its entirety from Boosey and Hawkes. (We just had a similar problem with Les cloches de Corneville.)

We've been through this problem before with a series of editors who exclusively use online sources and don't take copyright seriously. In this case the editor is Ssilvers. I've suggested to him that he shouldn't copy and paste, that he should start using proper sources instead of unrealiable tertiary online ones, make sure articles are NPOV and not overhelmingly Anglo-American-centric etc. etc. but he doesn't agree. Perhaps it would be better if he put his case here rather than on obscure talk pages?

(Many of the articles on the lighter French and German rep. are sub-standard and need attention - if anyone has the time and inclination.) -- Kleinzach 02:19, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I had a look at La poupée. The section with the list of musical numbers from the English version needs to make clear that it applies only to the English version. In theory there's no use keeping it out until the French version can be added, especially since the operetta appears to have been quite popular in Anglophone countries. Ditto the US and UK performance histories. But... the main problem is, as you say, that it's taken from a potentially unreliable tertiary web site. It may be perfectly reliable, the chap who runs it sounds like he has access to the scores. But, when in doubt, best not to use them as the only source of information. By the way, I've seen the track list for the full recording in French by ORTF. It lists the operetta as being in 4 acts not in 2 Acts of 2 scenes each as in the English version provided.

People have different styles for writing articles. Some write the whole thing first and don't publish it until it's pretty much complete. Others work more... er... organically. Either can be OK. What is never OK, in my view, is to temporarily 'make do' with potentially unreliable sources, and to cut and paste verbatim from web sites, as an interim measure, whether they are reliable or not. It's plagiarism as well as copy vio and leaves the article open to having chunks cut out, or even the whole article deleted if it's extensive. In the case of the La poupée synopsis, it would have been better to leave it out, give a source in the external links for the benefit of future editors and signal the need for an originally worded version on the talk page. Best, Voceditenore 14:31, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I've asked Ssilvers - directly via his talk page this time - to let us know which of his articles contain copied-and-pasted material from other websites. -- Kleinzach 10:36, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

At La poupée, I inadvertently neglected to finish my task of rewriting the summary, when I first set up the stub long ago, but I have done this now. If anyone can improve it, please do. Thanks to Kleinzach for pointing this out. As far as I know, I have not made a similar mistake anywhere else, and I will certainly correct it if it comes to my attention. I have written several hundred full-blown articles on Wikipedia (not just stubs, like La poupée) and expanded hundreds more, and I am sure I have made some errors along the way. Please assume good faith. In the meantime, I believe that Kleinzach's premise, that complete descriptions of extremely successful English-language adaptations of European operettas should not be given, is wrong. These operettas were often as successful, or more successful in their English-language adaptations than they were in the original languages. In the case of La poupée, the operetta ran for over 500 consecutive performances in London and many revivals. Les cloches de Corneville was the most successful English-language work of musical theatre in its time. So, obviously, these translations and adaptations need to be described on Wikipedia. I think Kleinzach has been wrong in trying to prevent these articles from being expanded, and having the English-language translations and adaptations fully described. Please see the talk page at Les cloches de Corneville for a good discussion of this debate. Best regards, -- Ssilvers 13:05, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Ssilvers, you write: "As far as I know, I have not made a similar mistake anywhere else . ." but you've just done the same thing on Les cloches de Corneville ! You cut and paste an article by Raymond Walker [1] before I discovered it and you hurriedly rewrote it! -- Kleinzach 14:46, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

What is meant by an 'adaptation'? I'm not at all familiar with operettas, but my impression from reading the articles and talk pages is that what went on with La poupée and Les cloches de Corneville is not some genre change like Carmen and Carmen Jones or Elton John's Aida and Verdi's Aida. Instead, it seems to me that it is very similar to the various 'versions' of a single opera, especially those of Verdi and Donizetti who were frequently bouncing between France and Italy and/or trying to stay one foot ahead of the censors e.g. Don Carlos, Le duc d'Albe, Otto mesi in due ore, Simon Boccanegra, Un ballo in maschera. In which case, the material on a different version of an operetta, particularly if it was as successful, or even more so than the original should be in the article and not have to be artificially 'held back' until more information is available on the original version. If the article remains unbalanced for a while, there's no harm done, as long as the stuff that relates to a subsequent version of the operetta is clearly marked as such. Best, Voceditenore 14:40, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

An adaptation usually involved a new text rather than a translation, with the credit for the lyrics going to the English-language writer (e.g. The Girl in the Taxi), and the name of the original French or German writer disappearing. Sometimes the music was also rewritten, the credit shared with another musician, and the genre actually changed from (say) an operetta to a musical (e.g. Ein Tag im Paradies/The Blue Paradise). These light opera works were repackaged in a way that mainstream operas were not - usually without the involvement of the composer. The facts about them can be complicated - that's why the articles need to be based on proper sources.

No-one is suggesting that genuine information should be "held back" and not put in articles - even when (as in many cases) there is a bare minimum of information about the original work. However adaptations should be described as such - not passed off as original works. (Likewise members of the London or New York casts should not be listed as role creators, and English musical numbers not given as originals.)

Representing these works as failures redeemed by international (meaning English and American) success isn't correct either. The famous ones (Lehar etc) were produced throughout the main cities of Europe with huge numbers of performances. Operettas were big business everywhere.

Ironically, if the reader wanted to listen to these works today, the information about English adaptations would not be particularly helpful, because recordings are invariably of the original work, in the original language. -- Kleinzach 16:06, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I do not agree that the recordings are invariably in the original language. Also, where I have given the English-language song list, in nearly every case, it conforms to the song list at the Midi webpage that is referenced at the bottom of the articles, and that webpage contains links to complete midi files and often all the accompanying lyrics, as well as, often, cast lists from the extremely successful and obviously notable London productions. A marvellous resource! I originally though that it was obvious to the reader that the English language song-names were taken from the English-language versions, but on reflection, I agree that the articles should specify that the lyrics are taken from the English-language versions. -- Ssilvers 18:54, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

See the example of midi files by Colin Johnson for Les cloches de Corneville. There are no words. Some kind of electronic keyboard takes the place of the orchestra and a synthesizer fills in the vocal line. -- Kleinzach 00:19, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

If Kleinzach would work to improve these articles instead of merely criticizing the (I think) very useful information that I have added to these articles (or the fact that I have created them at all), it would be far more constructive. In every case, I have done my utmost to satisfy any concerns that he has raised. I wish he would stop making these accusations, and I think that an examination of Kleinzach's talk-page messages on all these various operettas, and his various edit summaries, will demonstrate are merely meanspirited. -- Ssilvers 18:54, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

. . . meanspirited. Hmm. That's an ad hominem attack. As before, Ssilvers responds to criticism with a personal attack and an attempt, unfortunately sometimes successful, to waste my time ( If Kleinzach would work to improve these articles . . .).

Here's another example from the talk page of Les brigands:

" Please don't do this kind of cut and paste from commercial websites. Use original, proper sources . . . " -- Kleinzach 07:49, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

"Thanks for the warning! Good job on the cleanup: You are continuing to follow my evil plan to the letter!  :)~ -- Ssilvers 14:01, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Assuming good faith in the case of Ssilvers means approving provocation directed at other editors in order to get them to work on intentionally sub-standard articles - a kind of 'benign' trolling. The fact remains that Ssilvers was caught red-handed, copying and pasting copyright material onto WP pages. -- Kleinzach 23:55, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I made a sincere (and, I think, very productive) effort to help out with the Opera Project's Jacques Offenbach collaboration of the month and continued to improve those articles afterwards. If one examines the edit history of Jacques Offenbach and the various blue-linked Offenbach operettas up to and about July 13 (the date of my above-bolded unsuccessful attempt at humor), I think it will be very clear that Kleinzach reacted adversely first, to some edits in the Offenbach article that were not even mine, and second, to my copying of a French song list into an article, where the source did not have proper French punctuation. If Kleinzach didn't think that the song list that I found was helpful, he could simply have deleted it, noting the problem and that the clean-up would be too time-consuming. Instead, he did the clean-up, and the above-bolded quote was my unsuccessful attempt at humor. His and my efforts together (and also the efforts of GT) resulted in significant improvement in the Offenbach and related articles on Wikipedia over the course of a couple of months. Nevertheless, he was so unpleasant about it that, since July, I have done my best to minimize any work on Wikipedia that might put me in contact with Kleinzach. However, the operettas that were extremely successful on the London stage in the Victorian and Edwardian eras are of interest to me, and I have created or expanded articles on many of the most successful ones. It is not easy to create or expand these articles, because there is often a limited amount of information available about them. As Kleinzach pointed out, Grove's hard copy versions do not even have an entry on some of them, despite their great popularity on the London stage. Kleinzach has identified some mistakes that I have made, and I have done my best to correct those mistakes. Let's try to to live in peace. -- Ssilvers 02:06, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Ssilvers still has an obligation to tell us exactly what text he has copied and pasted from other websites. Other users who have been caught doing this have been blocked when they refused to cooperate in removing it (e.g. Orbicle). He should go through his contributions and make a list.

Unfortunately it seems Ssilvers intends to continue transferring copyright material to Wikipedia from other websites - only better disguised. That is a problem - not least because it is such a huge waste of time dealing with it. -- Kleinzach 23:38, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I have very little faith—the exact proportion is near zero—that any accusation Kleinzach makes is accurate. Obviously, a true copyvio should be corrected, but there is no copyright on facts. It may well be the description of an English-language adaptation omits significant details of the French original. The fix is to add those details, but the English adaptation remains valid too. Marc Shepherd 01:13, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I take exception to that. Ssilvers's synopsis of La poupée, was taken in its entirety from Boosey and Hawkes. Ssilvers admitted as much. Marc Shepherd should apologize for his unjustified ad hominem attack (and read Wikipedia:No personal attacks).

The personalization of the actual problems discussed above is precisely what has prevented, and is preventing, them from being solved. -- Kleinzach 02:15, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I entirely agree with Marc Shepherd above. As far as I can see from the above, and looking at a sample of the texts referred to there is not a problem to be fixed, and only one contributor has contended to the contrary. I suggest a period of silence on this topic would be welcome from everybody's point of view. As for the threat to block SSilvers, it is wholly inappropriate and is to be deplored. Tim riley 08:15, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Tim riley, please read the synopsis on La poupée on 13 October which is here: [2] then look at Boosey and Hawkes. (You will find they are identical.) After that please tell me: do you think WikiPedia's policy on copyright violations is unimportant and can be ignored? Do you think it matters if we include material that is still in copyright? Are some editors (your friends) exempt in some way from respecting copyright restrictions? (Please answer each question.) -- Kleinzach 08:59, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

It's always a fine line between plagiarism and valid referenced essays. I have collaborated with ss on a number of articles regarding performance at particular theatres, and have always felt that valid referenced material has been rephrased and added from multiple sources, that meets the requirement to avoid copyvio. I haven't experienced any problem with ss's work. Perhaps he should confine his 'works in progress' to his sandbox?

I feel the way forward is to end the personal and confrontational discussion here. Apologies would not go amiss, and I think ss has gone some way towards that. A simple note should be added to the talk page of any pages where there exists a problem, and the opportunity should be given to fix it. Block threats are not appropriate in any context, and it is not any individual projects function to consider them. If this continues it should go to WP:DR. Where it says, The best way to resolve a dispute is to avoid it in the first place. Kbthompson 09:22, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Kbthompson, you write " I have collaborated with ss on a number of articles regarding performance at particular theatres, and have always felt that valid referenced material has been rephrased and added from multiple sources, that meets the requirement to avoid copyvio" (my emphasis).

Does that mean that you think it is OK to copy and paste copyright material, then rephrase it and then put it in articles? Do you think that's what we should be doing here? Please think about your answer because it will help everybody understand the problem. (Contrary to what some people are suggesting this is not a personal matter. It's about the standard of our articles - even if I have had some unpleasant things dropped on my talk page from time to time.) -- Kleinzach 10:07, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

My suggestion above was badly phrased. Instead of 'welcome' please read 'beneficial'. Tim riley 09:28, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

You do like to put undue emphasis on people's words - which is part of the problem, and confrontation seeking behaviour. Personally, I like to tell a story about a place, or a building, that is supported by a wide range of sources. I read the sources, sometimes talk them over with collaborators, understand what is going on (often from limited evidence) and then try to synthesis from what I've got - that is following no original research. With regard to operettas, there really are a limited number of interpretations of plot, or tabulation of the scenes; and with the more obscure, a limited range of sources. To go beyond them is original research. There is a balance to be achieved in basing any text on available sources, and the quality of sources available - primary, secondary and tertiary.

I have no problem with you attempting to improve the quality of articles, that is the purpose of this collaborative environment. If you identify an article as being too overly based on one source, then please do take it up on the talk page. Simply and without confrontation. People are volunteer contributors and should be treated with some level of respect. In most articles it's a good day when they move forward from 'harmless' to 'mostly harmless'. Turning good faith attempts to extend articles into a personal crusade against an individual editor's text is verging on trolling.

By even if I have had some unpleasant things dropped on my talk page from time to time are you implying that I have done that? Anyway, as I say time out. I think everyone would benefit from some quiet time. Kbthompson 10:52, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

One of the problems in this... er... 'discussion' is that copy vio has been mixed in with criticisms about the article's focus, emphasis or whatever. The latter is potentially a moot point. But the former is a not. I'm just going to confine my comments to the copy vio issue:

1. Tim riley wrote: "As for the threat to block SSilvers, it is wholly inappropriate and is to be deplored." Kleinzach can't block anyone. It was a warning about a previous case, where admins (unbeknownst to the Opera Project) indefinitely blocked a user for repeated copyright violation. Actually, once the OP was notified of this, they went to bat for the person, who at the time claimed he didn't realize he was doing anything wrong. See the discussion here. Nevertheless, it caused a lot of disruption and work to fix everything. Many articles were reduced to stubs. Some were completely deleted.
2. A few months later there was another incident where copyright material from giuseppeverdi.it got pasted into nearly 20 Verdi articles. Again a lot of disruption and work to fix it.
3. All that (and the resultant bad feeling) can be avoided by using a sandbox to get it right first. I cannot see any justification for pasting verbatim copyright material into the main article to be 'fixed' later.
4. An effective, and perhaps less 'personalized' way to signal copy vio when it does happen is to add this Template with the exact URL where the stuff was copied from on the actual article page. It tends to attract more attention and result in a remedy rather quicker than something on the talk page.

All the best. Voceditenore 11:07, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Several complaints are getting mixed together here. There's no dispute that Wikipedia must respect copyrights. SSilvers said that the example cited was inadvertent. In light of his very long track record of excellent work here, I believe him. In general, the threat of blocking/banning is a heavy stick that should be brought out only in extreme circumstances. Issuing threats instantly warps the discussion, and usually not in a helpful way.

The complaint about NPOV is an exaggeration. Because we are all volunteers here, we work on what interests us. If the article about a French operetta has too much emphasis on the English-language version, the appropriate fix is to add the missing information, not to criticize the original editor for being Anglo-centric. Lots of Wikipedia articles have gaps. No one has suggested that the French version should not be covered. But none of us can command other editors to go out and do the research. The details will get filled in when someone with the interest gets around to it.

Likewise, there is nothing categorically wrong with relying on Internet sources, as long as copyright is respected. Granted, those sources are often inferior to print sources, but not invariably so. Obviously, we shouldn't be repeating patent nonsense just because some website says it. But at the same time, we shouldn't be castigating editors for using online sources, just because it's theoretically possible that a better source exists somewhere else. It's quite common for articles to start out totally unsourced. Then sources are added, but not the best ones. And later on, better sources are found, and the poor ones are dropped.

You can either encourage editors and calmly suggest improvements. Or you can bully/yell because they didn't do precisely the research you would have done yourself. Marc Shepherd 15:11, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Marc Shepherd. I have been collaborating with Ssilvers since I joined Wikipedia in the beginning of April. The accusations made about him are just wrong. All of the material in Wikipedia comes from other sources - otherwise it would be WP:OR. What is research and what is copyvio depends on how the sources are used. Ssilvers finds and uses many sources that I have not been able to find, and he has helped me to improve many articles. His research, as far as I can see, is generally of very high quality. The fact that he made a mistake in the La Poupee article only proves that he is a very busy editor who has contributed a wealth of information to Wikipedia. He corrected that error as soon as Kleinzach pointed it out. I also disagree that there was any copyright violation in the Les cloches article. It is clear that Ssilvers is very concerned with a high level of quality in wikipedia articles. I recently collaborated with him on articles about Florence St. John, Letty Lind, Nellie Farren, Maritana, and Phyllis Dare, to name just a few. He has added dozens and dozens of articles about Edwardian musical comedies, composers, writers, and producers of the Victorian and Edwardian eras when there were no articles about these things at all a year ago. I am glad to see that people have put a stop to this witch hunt. Broadwaygal 15:28, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, everyone, for your kind words. I can confirm that I have never intentionally copied and pasted unedited copyrighted information into Wikipedia unless it was under a claim of fair use. I apologize again for the error that has been identified, and I will work hard to see that it does not happen again. Best regards, -- Ssilvers 15:32, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

There have been some rather wild statements here. I've been at pains to be circumspect. I have not made any ad hominem attacks. As Voceditenore has noted I've never threatened to 'block' anyone, nor did I make any other kind of threat. I am not an admin - and have zero interest in becoming one. My focus is one hundred percent on the project here.

To those of you from the Gilbert and Sullivan and Musical Theatre projects: This is the Opera Project. The contributors here are writing about original works, the composers and librettists who created them, and the cultural setting within which they worked. Please respect this, just as other people have respected the orientation of the projects to which your group belong.

For my part, I'm happy to accept Ssilvers' apologies. As he knows, there is no personal dimension to this. The problems here originated from copying and pasting. If there is no copy and paste, then we can all get back to building the encyclopedia without any further conflicts. Thank you. -- Kleinzach 00:26, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm having a little trouble comprehending the meaning of the second paragraph above. Members of the Gilbert & Sullivan and Musical Theatre projects are also writing about original works, the composers and librettists who created them, and the cultural setting within which they worked. Also, the works of Gilbert & Sullivan are considered operas, and that project is considered a subset of this one. Marc Shepherd 01:13, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, an independent descendant WikiProject with its own banners, guidelines, norms and orientation. -- Kleinzach 01:33, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Can I just clarify two things. Firstly, while independent projects do seek to improve the quality of articles from their own perspective, there is no ownership of articles. Secondly, this was the forum you choose for this discussion, effectively inviting contributions from other projects whose interests overlap in this area. Personally, I do not see the point of creating multiple articles on works and their adaptions. It should be made clear in the structure of the articles the delineation between the two (or more), but let's not clag-up wikipedia with stubs describing each stage in the life of a piece; better to have a well written and properly sourced article that reflects the complete history of a piece and the multiple viewpoints that may arise.

I am glad that while everyone may not have reached complete agreement, at least there appears to be an accommodation on the matter, and we can all move forward. Kbthompson 11:39, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Raising again the issue of separate articles for original works and significantly different adaptations - which had I thought been discussed perfectly satisfactorily here is a bit of a red herring. However I certainly hope we can move forward. That was what my last posting was all about. -- Kleinzach 00:25, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I remain totally perplexed about what Kleinzach is getting at. His accusations (rampant copyright and NPOV violations), if true, would be unacceptable regardless of the project in which they occurred. So, in this discussion, why harp on the fact that the projects are separate? What does that have to do anything?

There certainly is a tone of WP:OWNership in the post that is difficult to understand, and impossible to agree with. He writes as if certain people are "guests" here. Marc Shepherd 12:31, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:Gaming the system (Gaming the system means using Wikipedia policies and guidelines in bad faith . . ."). -- Kleinzach 02:30, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Might I point out, ever so gently, that, with regard to Kleinzach's imperious attempt to put the G&S people in their place ("This is the Opera Project. The contributors here are writing about original works, the composers and librettists who created them, and the cultural setting within which they worked. Please respect this"), very many operas are themselves adaptations of original dramatic works written by playwrights. The claim that you are writing only about 'original works' is a bit of a stretch. DionysosProteus 02:12, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Plácido Domingo article - Vandalism continues

As soon as the restriction period over, it has been 4 edits done by 24.222.2.179 and 84.44.145.179 to mess-up the whole article and change of his birth year again. What shall I do? Is it possible to ask for permanent restriction to protect the article? - Jay 14:16, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

It is by no means the only article subject to vandal attacks. The policy seems to be one of reluctance to have a long term blanket IP block for articles. I would suggest looking at WP:Vandalism and similar and start the warnings procedures against the culprit IDs. That way if, say, it is pupils at a particular school doing the attacks, it might get blcoked off altogether.--Peter cohen 11:56, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Peter, the reason why I asked for the article to be protected last month is because some people keep changing his birth date for reason, they were “invited” to Domingo’s secret birthday party – they claimed that Domingo was born in 1934 instead of 1941. Despite putting all the references to confirm that Domingo was born in 1941, those people insisted that we are all wrong. This is not a common vandalism like other articles. One of them changed back the birth date as soon as the restriction period has over. Anyway, the admin just extended the restriction until 14 January 2008, about 10 minutes ago. We will monitor again after the 14th. - Jay 12:10, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

The chap with the bee in his bonnet about Domingo's birth date, always edits the article anonymously, and from a variety of IPs which all trace back to Cologne Germany. On the advice from the administrators at the Biographies of living persons Noticeboard, I also removed portions of his comments on the talk page. Voceditenore 12:20, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Wiki DE - Domingo's article Here the guy said "You are wrong, I was present on his secretly celebrated 60th birthday in january 1994 in New York!!!" I had to edit in almost all Domingo’s article in WIKI to edit the year (not to mention fighting with him). - Jay 12:30, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot to say - I protected the page against anons. Tell me if it keeps getting vandalised - there's a possibility of sleeper accounts. Adam Cuerden ^talk 00:08, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Thespis (opera)

Just a note that this is moving towards FA, with any luck. Feel free to contribute, either to the peer review or more directly. Adam Cuerden ^talk 00:38, 16 October 2007 (UTC)