Talk:Treemonisha

Pronunciation

Could someone please indicate the pronunciation of the name Treemonisha? I don't think it's obvious for the average English speaker. It could be included in the first sentence of the article, which is the usual practice on Wikipedia. Also, if you add it, please mention your source (a pronunciation dictionary, for example). No linguistic intuitions and guesses please... Thank you in advance! Ursus Deorum (talk) 13:05, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Paragon production

That section seems like self-congratulatory writing and really does not belong in Wikipedia unless other productions are given appropriate space. The Broadway production and certainly the Houston production - which is the one available on video - should merit larger sections. -- kosboot (talk) 13:20, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Staged versions

There's no reason to enumerate every production that's a little different. If people think this is really necessary, then all operas should have it, and of course they don't. I'm willing to tolerate maybe 1 line for production, place and date. At least that will get rid of the Paragaon self-promotion which is against WP policy. -- kosboot (talk) 22:45, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Concur with pruning, although this is perhaps a bit drastic, there was useful information there, although it was way too heavy on the quotes. Also the references in this article are a complete mess, some of them are called "Notes", others "Citations", but the notes are actually citations. Needs a complete going over. See The Bartered Bride, for how these should be handled. I've already moved some of the random external links floating around in the middle of the text to the External links section. Voceditenore (talk) 23:49, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes and no. In general it makes indeed often very very little sense to enumerate each stage production of a musical work. However for works that are rather rarely performed (like in this case), it can make sense to name/enumerate the few ones.--Kmhkmh (talk) 09:41, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

I think this statement is inaccurate: "Deutsche Grammophon had previously released the audio version of this [Houston Grand Opera] production on LPs in 1976." The Deutsche Grammophon recording is not of the Houston production, but of the cast of the national tour: Balthrop is, indeed, the soprano, but the mezzo is Betty Allen, who sang the tour. Can someone find appropriate references and clarify this? I wouldn't dream of mucking things up by trying. 71.183.2.134 (talk) 02:22, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

There's another inaccuracy in the article. It claims Joplin won the Pulitzer Prize for Music in 1976. Ned Rorem won the award that year. Joplin was given a special posthumous citation, not the actual prize. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C5E:700E:300:D170:A6CA:C90A:173D (talk) 17:16, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Hmm. I'm not sure. I have the original LP and Betty Allen is credited as the original cast as Monisha in the first fully staged production of Scott Joplin’s Treemonisha at the Houston Grand Opera. Tour and original cast is insignificant with this production, I would imagine; considering she reprised the role on many occasion. Maineartists (talk) 02:49, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Finale plaigerised by Berlin?

In the feedback for this article, 92.237.77.96 wrote:

The Finale was Alexander's Ragtime Band,but,was plaguerised by Irvine Berlin,(common for him).When Joplin heard it he cried and so wrote a new piece A Real Slow Drag.

I doubt whether this is true; if the person can provide a citation, then it should be included in the article. -- kosboot (talk) 22:19, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Treemonisha. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cbmr.org/pubs/132/ragtime132.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070224171910/http://www.scottjoplin.org/biography.htm to http://www.scottjoplin.org/biography.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 16:52, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Substantial edits

An editor is making substantial edits to this article using different IP addresses. Many of the edits are not only unsourced, but not factual. Content is being removed, re-worded, re-written for no apparent reason. Sources (such as the NYTimes source) is being cited numerous times without proper multiple "ref name" application. Something needs to be done. I can't list all the inaccuracies within the edits here; but these are not helpful or even warranted. They seem to be only editing this article. Maineartists (talk) 21:02, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not crazy about them, although some of them are sourced. The edits are so intricate that one would have to revert all the edits and I'm reluctant to do that unless others agree. - kosboot (talk) 22:08, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Well if the too many additions are unsourced and/or problematic i'd support a complete revert. The overall correctness of our content takes priority over individual edits that might be helpful. If the IP (or any other) wants that material in the article, they need provide proper sources for it, otherwise it is subject to deletion.--Kmhkmh (talk) 11:19, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

OK. Well. So even as I type, the edits are still happening. Still unsourced; and numerous OR that should be challenged. Take for instance the very last few: "About the orchestration, Joplin's own notes have been lost (as, incidentally, has all of Joplin's first opera A Guest of Honor from 1903). Besides T.J. Anderson's initial reconstruction, there have been orchestrations from Gunther Schuller, whose version is behind the 1975 Deutsche Grammophon studio recording and the Kultur video of 1982, and Rick Benjamin, whose authentically scaled version for twelve instrumental parts made after twenty years of research is used on the 2011 New World Records studio production." - from the original - "About the orchestration, Joplin's own notes have been lost (as has Joplin's first opera A Guest of Honor, written in 1903). Besides T.J. Anderson's initial reconstruction, there have been orchestrations from several musicians, notably Gunther Schuller, whose version is behind the 1975 Deutsche Grammophon studio recording and the video made in 1982, and recently Rick Benjamin" These edits are confusing, misleading and seemingly practice editing with very poorly written content. When is this all going to stop? Maineartists (talk) 03:31, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

I've been trying to understand what the editor is gaining from their edits. They are not really adding information to the article, more as if trying to shape the article according to their personal style and thus getting very close to WP:OWN. Apparently this unregistered editor is not aware of talk pages. At this point I'd go for a full revert. - kosboot (talk) 13:07, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

I have extracted each edit from the summary history from this editor and carefully compared it to the former content. Regardless of any cited sources; it is clear that far too many changes are not merited or warranted - and in several cases are for the worse. Not to mention, as I said above: WP:OR. I first went to the Help Desk to ask how to use Twinkle; since I have never implemented such a tool at WP - but then thought better of such a drastic move on my part. During that time, the editor just kept making what I deemed unnecessary and pointless edits. I agree with kosboot's observations and would vote for a full revert; with the invitation for the user to bring their conversation and concerns here to the Talk Page and move forward to becoming an authorized contributor at WP. Maineartists (talk) 16:34, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

I'll revert and leave a note for the user to register and use the talk page. (Btw, Twinkle is a very nice tool.) - kosboot (talk) 17:51, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

The unregistered editor who was reverted has complained at the Teahouse. The discussion speaks for itself. Wikipedia:Teahouse#Abuse_by_a_privileged_editor. - kosboot (talk) 20:35, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

I have left my comments. Maineartists (talk) 21:34, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

This is really getting out of hand now. The edit summaries are blatant; and the latest attempt at an edit is massively oppressive to creating a good article against keeping what is already there - and what has been agreed upon by the community editors. At this point, the article does not need such a heavy overhaul of construction; it never did. I do not know what this editor's intent is; but I think this article may need protection. Maineartists (talk) 12:03, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Unregistered Editor

In the hopes that you do visit the Talk Page, I would welcome you to open a productive discussion re: your edits on this article's page - and remind you of the thread at the Teahouse here: Abuse by a privileged editor and what other editors here at WP had to say about the matter and their advice shared. The advice given was to either come to the Talk Page and discuss your changes; or post one edit slowly so that other editors could evaluate your reasoning. Your edits as they stand are so massive and overwhelming to the article, that they are impossible to evaluate and in most cases come across as WP:OWN and without merit. Not to mention, when they are so large and cover such a vast amount of article space, they are more apt to be entirely reverted due to being unsourced - or if too many changes occur for unwarranted reasons. Wikipedia is a community effort, and your recent activity here at this page does not show any attempt at that understanding. I hope we can rectify this and work together to make this article better; which at present - does not really show a need to be improved. Which is why many pages have a Talk Page - to discuss reasons why editors believe they do or do not. We welcome yours. Thanks. Maineartists (talk) 12:19, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

The editor is just trolling at this point. Just revert and report would be the best option. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 12:23, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Yup. Thanks, ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫. I have the proof I need at this point. I appreciate the support. Maineartists (talk) 12:25, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Can we get a protection for this page while I compile the necessary info and links to bring this to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring? Unless someone can do it more speedily than I. Thanks. Maineartists (talk) 12:58, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

I have applied for a temporary semi-protection: WP:RFP#Treemonisha. D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 15:12, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Reported: WP:ANEW. Maineartists (talk) 13:33, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Here I am!

So, what don't you like exactly? I think I did a good job. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:D8:8F2C:3600:CD44:F39F:EF1F:F48F (talk) 14:38, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

I can stay for about 45 minutes, and then will have to continue tomorrow. It's late afternoon here in Munich. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:D8:8F2C:3600:CD44:F39F:EF1F:F48F (talk) 14:42, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

See the two sections above and respond to them, please. Theroadislong (talk) 14:51, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Well, on the subject of the orchestrations, which is a bugaboo for User:Maineartists, two are recorded and therefore prominent. The article at present discusses both properly, if thinly, I would say. I would be happy if anyone wants to add detail. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:D8:8F2C:3600:CD44:F39F:EF1F:F48F (talk) 14:59, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

On the subject of the New York Times piece I added, it is not at all clear why anyone would object. It's a constructive review. Harold Schonberg wrote it within hours of the stage premiere in 1972, in a rare instance of the NYT sending someone down to Atlanta. His comments are quite right, imho, even if he does start with the negative. Among other things, he points out that Treemonisha is not a "ragtime opera" and he discusses the range of styles and elements Joplin used. That's all helpful Wikipedia content, isn't it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:D8:8F2C:3600:CD44:F39F:EF1F:F48F (talk) 15:13, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

I have to go in five minutes. Will come back tomorrow. Please leave any specific things you want me to address, and I'll tackle them in the morning. Cheers.

Firstly, you are making all these edits with which several editors disagree. Yet you continue without wanting to discuss it. Wikipedia is created by consensus, not by one person deciding they are correct. - kosboot (talk) 15:28, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

"All these edits" — yes, I made a lot. The page needed them. I made them blissfully unaware of your concerns (or existence). Your first move was to undo everything wholesale, or a "full revert" as you called it, and you did so with a "Twinkle" lock. Dispicable! Now I'm doing nothing else on Wikipedia but working on your concerns. As for consensus, perhaps we can get there, but you must point to a specific passage you don't like. I'm signing off for today now, and will come back tomorrow. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:D8:8F2C:3600:CD44:F39F:EF1F:F48F (talk) 15:41, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

[edit conflict]: First, I have no idea what "bugaboo" means; and second, I have no specific interests in one particular sections of this article. I do agree that you have contributed constructive content to this article: Gramophone magazine (April 2012), etc. No one here is arguing these contributions. The manner in which they are administered; and the overwhelming accompanying structural, or should I say: reconstructuring of grammar, terms, definitions, etc are highly questionable. Paired with your good faith content; it is impossible to work with you as community editors. Which I might add, we are not here to work for you: "Please leave any specific things you want me to address, and I'll tackle them in the morning." Since you brought up "Orchestrations", I can find several instances where you have changed the grammatical structure so unnecessarily to the point where the content now is questionable and debatable; and in some cases: grammatically incorrect or verging on a personal point of opinion. It would be best at this junction to simply add content slowly, with a strong source to back the claim, without unnecessary grammar corrections that may be seen as questionable or non-constructive. Best. Maineartists (talk) 15:51, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

As far as Twinkle is concerned, if you registered (and you should, because you'd receive notifications), you'd see that any user can enable Twinkle. - kosboot (talk) 21:33, 13 October 2020 (UTC)