Talk:Amadigi di Gaula

This article was created or improved during WikiProject Europe's "European 10,000 Challenge", which started on November 1, 2016, and is ongoing. You can help out!

A more relevant picture[edit]

Recently user:Taksen added a picture to the article that I replaced with a picture that holds more relevance to the article. Taksen then reverted my improvement with an edit comment of The Handelian police is busy again. Some issues to consider in this issue:

None of Taksen's edits are accompanied with reasoning as to why the picture he has selected should be in the article.
We have a duty not to mislead our readers. Taksen's generic Baroque theatre picture shows almost nothing of a Baroque theatre, and instead demonstrates a curtain painting (which may, or may not be original). The theatre in question in the original image is not even in a country that Handel visited (much less produced work for).
My initial edit explains why the picture I selected is a better choice. It demonstrates a scene at a theatre at which Handel was active at the time of the painting. Handel also produced works very similar to the action displayed in the image (masques).
Taksen: please have a read of WP:Civility and try to appreciate why personalising the issue ("Handelian police") is abhorrent at WP. If you cannot act civilly, and cannot provide reasons for your edits (a constructive edit summary for all of your edits would help other editors), then you should probably not be editing at WP.

Instead of simply reverting, could you now explain to the community why the picture you selected does a better job of illustrating the article than the one I selected? I have reinstated the image that has far more relevance to the article, and failing appropriate opposing reasoning, I propose that it replaces the original image in the article. Thank you. GFHandel ♬ 21:58, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Handellover and community (?), your picture is interesting, but it might show the hall and not the stage. It has as much relevance to the story of Amadigi as mine that at least shows a stage. If you believe the Baroque theatre picture shows almost nothing of a Baroque theatre it is impossible to argue with you. It seems to me a lot of the discussions on Wikipedia is about ego and not about relevance. I propose I add my picture tooo. There are very few baroque theatres left in the world. I don't see why this picture should be removed as being not appropriate.Taksen (talk) 05:30, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I personally agree with user GFHandel. There are many images available which have direct relevence to Handel. It therefore doesn't make sense to include an image here of a theatre which has no direct connection to either the composer or the work.4meter4 (talk) 09:21, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Possible copyright violation[edit]

With these edits, user:Taksen has copied text from external sources. For example:

After various deceptions, visions, and trials, the two lovers, Amadigi and Oriana, are finally united. Before then, Amadigi will slay Dardano, his companion turned rival, and Melisa, will stab herself finding her supernatural powers impotent against the power of love. (From [1].)
When the Spaniards first saw Mexico, they said to each other it was like the places of enchantment which were spoken of in the book of Amadis. This was in 1549. (from [2]).

As we are in danger of violating the copyright of the authors of those texts, I have applied the appropriate tags to the article. Taksen has been warned about simply copying text from sources (even with attribution), and it is disappointing to see that he is continuing the practice. GFHandel ♬ 21:14, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You had an easy job because I gave you the sources, as I mostly do. If they were from a book, which is not on your shelf, or as an external link it would have been okay? You could easily have changed these few sentences; I did not copy whole paragraphs and they are helpful to understand the complicated story. My main point: You don't wish to help, which is against the Wikipedia policy. You prefer not to improve but to delete - very typical for Wikipedia - and attack. You are trying again get rid of me so the realm will be yours. It seems to me you prefer text without too many pics, internal links, and change text in "simple wording" so you dont have to give references, very strange. Taksen (talk) 10:18, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it would not have been okay. What?!?!?!?! The damage that you risk doing to WP (via potential copyright violation) would have been the same, but the situation would have been much worse because it would have been harder to detect. Of course, all this could be avoided if you'd take the time and effort not to copy-and-paste text from secondary sources. Why do you do that? If you take the time to interpret the secondary sources in a way that benefits our readership, then I'm more than happy to help improve the text you add, however I'm not willing to work on any old text that you simply copy-and-paste into an article.

I did not delete the text that you lazily copied from sources—I flagged it. Do you understand that I have better things to do than follow you around fixing the mistakes you continue to make. You were warned against simply copying text from sources ten months ago, and yet you continue to do it. Why?

Taksen, I (and many others) have watched your editing style at WP for a long time now, and as has been pointed out on your talk page (on this, and at other Wikis), you are the one who is holding Wikipedia back by editing without attempting to follow policies or guidelines.

Comments like "It seems to me you prefer text without too many pics, internal links,..." indicate just how little you are acquainted with the policies and guidelines at WP. I like lots of relevant pictures in articles, and if you would take the time to read pages like Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking you would understand why linking things like California in a 1715 opera by Handel is nothing but bizarre.

Do you know what is very typical for Wikipeida? Editors who believe that just because they can create an account that somehow gives them the right to edit articles in any way that they like. I've seen quite a few editors like that, and they never (that's never) last. My heartfelt advice to you is to take a break from editing, have a thorough read of as many policy and guideline pages as you can (you can start at MOS and work down), and then come back ready-and-armed to work collaboratively with other editors—in a constructive manner. Trust me, you'll enjoy yourself much more than you currently are. If you need help understanding any of the policy pages you come across, please don't hesitate to contact me and I'll do my best to assist.

GFHandel ♬ 22:47, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

I don't see much of a discussion. If you go on, I probably will give up, so you can collaborate with Mr. Riley on the article that had 70.000 readers a month a year ago, without a GA.Taksen (talk) 11:51, 11 October 2011 (UTC)Taksen (talk) 22:43, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't tease me unless you mean it. I'm very happy to collaborate—but only with editors who have a good working knowledge of the policies and guidelines that are essential for the promotion of an article to GA. Articles that have irrelevant pictures, poor English, are over-linked, and contain text that has simply been copied from secondary sources will never be promoted to GA. GFHandel ♬ 22:47, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry I am more interested in history, baroque and geography than in all the rules and guidelines. I am working in four Wikipedias, and the practice is different in each one of them. I stick to making references, so everybody can check which books, or articles I read and websites I visited. Taksen (talk) 23:11, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for admitting to everyone why you should not be editing at Wikipedia (at least not for a while at this Wikipedia). If you are going to work regularly here, then you should have some sort of working knowledge of the policies and guidelines—especially when it has been pointed out to you that you are not following them. Two things:

Do you see how adding citations from a printed book (e.g. Dean & Knapp) makes it nigh on impossible for other editors to analyse your work (a source that is very difficult to obtain for the average editor)? Since you (unfortunately) now have a proven record of copying-and-pasting text from secondary sources, it is essential that you take the time to learn the policies involved, and to be extra careful with the information you add (mainly because it can take an awfully long time for someone else to confirm the source). I'm begging you: please have a good read through Wikipedia:Copyright violations (and the various sub-pages).
Claiming ignorance because of the differences in practices on four different Wikis doesn't wash in this case. Could you point to one of those four Wikis that does allow the copying-and-pasting of whole sentences from secondary sources? If not, then your point would be moot, wouldn't it?

I'd rather you were honest and admit (what is obvious to everyone) that you simply couldn't be bothered to take the time to get a working knowledge of the policies and guidelines for editing at WP. Do you understand how that is off-putting to other editors (in terms of working collaboratively)?

GFHandel ♬ 23:43, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me you like to behave as a mother-in-law, telling me what and what not to do. I have enough experience here. I'm interested in adding to the content. Each one of us has his talents, don't you think? Some people just improve my English and don't complain. It seems more to be a habit. But, the articles I have been working on were translated from Dutch into English, German, French, Frisian, Lower-Saxonian and from the English into Spanish, Portuguese, Italian, Greek, Hebrew, Polish, and probably Korean and Japanese too, but I can't read their characters. Because my English is average the articles can also be understood by people from, excuse me, Kazachstan. (I dont think I should start working on Simple English). Please keep your self busy with the content and find some else to argue with because of my limited English, and don't fool me again. You could have ordered the book on internet (they will be happy, and send it within a few days).Taksen (talk) 07:29, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Taksen, Wikipedia is operated by the Wikimedia Foundation, which is based in California. The Wikimedia Foundation is not above the law, so the content on Wikipedia must conform to American copyright law. Copying long strings of words from a source, without quotation marks, as you did is a borderline copyright violation even when the source is given. Moreover, it is a case of plagiarism. Wikipedia does not allow copyright violations and plagiarism, and if yo do not understand this, this is not the right place for you. Studies have shown that a lot of students do not understand plagiarism and do it innocently. The same is obviously the case for many Wikipedia editors.

When a Wikipedia article contains the words "this scene was famous originally for its spectacular effects the coup de theatre then was the use of a real fountain spraying real water" and a source contains precisely the same words, and when a Wikipedia article contains the words "amadis de gaula by garci rodríguez de montalvo is among prose what orlando furioso by ludovico ariosto is among metrical romances not the oldest" and a source contains the words "amadis of gaul is among prose what orlando furioso is among metrical romances not the oldest", then these are obvious cases of plagiarism. There are only two clean ways of solving the problem: Finding out that it was actually the source that plagiarised Wikipedia at some point (unlikely), or removing the content altogether. A third, less clean, solution is to rewrite the content. (In cases of clear copyright violations the third is not even an option.) Hans Adler 09:25, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Magic(al) opera[edit]

Perhaps magical opera or "magic" opera should link magic opera/Zauberoper or another opera genre. Or fantasy.

Magical redirects to the Anthropology and Religion magic (and may later target the [[Magic] disambiguation. --P64 (talk) 17:52, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Amadigi di Gaula. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140714210600/http://www.philharmonia.org/winton-dean-on-teseo/ to http://www.philharmonia.org/winton-dean-on-teseo/
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111006085329/http://www.donaldcorrell.com/amadis/preface.html to http://www.donaldcorrell.com/amadis/preface.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:11, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Roger Norrington[edit]

It might be worth mentioning that what was apparently the first professional performance since the eighteenth century was given and broadcast (by the EBU)in March 1985 under Roger Norrington.Delahays (talk) 14:10, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

At the moment I'm 400 miles away from any (for me) accessible copy of Dean and Knapp Vol I. So I have to guess what exactly Dean may mean about the lack of harmonic balance across the score. My guess at the moment suggests he might be drawing attention to the the very large proportion of Act I written in Bb and closely related keys. I find this very effective and helpful to the dramatic situation and in no way harmful to the structure. Perhaps Dean will turn out to have the common sense to have blamed it on Melissa. It might have been worth expanding the point in a sentence or two.Delahays (talk) 22:18, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]