Template:Did you know nominations/La cour de Célimène
- The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: rejected by rʨanaɢ (talk) 01:45, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
La cour de Célimène[edit]
- ... that the opera La cour de Célimène, composed by Ambroise Thomas, will be staged for the first time in nearly a century and a half by Wexford Festival Opera in October 2011?
Created by GuillaumeTell (talk) Self nom at 22:49, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
The lengthy plot synopsis section comprises about 75-85% of the article and is entirely unsourced. Without having a source, we have no way of verifying whether the plot synopsis has been "lifted" from another source, thereby creating copyvio or close paraphrasing problems. Also, the hook fact, which claims that a planned future staging in October 2011 will be the first staging in a century, is not precisely supported by the source. The source merely states "The surprising thing about La cour de Célimène is that it has been performed so little since it was first produced ... in 1855. ... The neglect of La cour de Célimène for nearly a century and a half is difficult to understand ..." More significantly, the only source for this claim is the web site for the production company responsible for the planned October 2011 staging, i.e., not an independent reliable source for this extraordinary claim. Without substantial improvements in sourcing, this article cannot be promoted. I also have concerns as to whether a hook promoting an upcoming stage production could be perceived as promotional in nature, or possibly a violation of WP:CRYSTAL. Cbl62 (talk) 23:00, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
- I meant to source the synopsis and have now done so. If you want to compare my reduced version to the original, you need to get hold of the Opera Rara recording.
- Wexford Festival Opera, with which I have no connexion whatever except that I've been paying to see their productions for many years, is a respectable organisation that specialises in reviving neglected operas. Feel free to google Wexford + La cour de Célimène and you will discover that all sorts of travel companies from all over the world are promoting trips to Wexford to see operas such as this one.
- "This extraordinary claim" - what is extraordinary about it? Every year, lots of new operas are premiered. Most of them fall by the wayside, but every so often long-forgotten operas are revived. Sometimes the revivals are welcomed and resume their place in the repertory, sometimes everyone agrees that they are rubbish.
- Promotion. As I explained above, I am not in the business of promotion. As a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Opera, I am in the non-profitmaking business of creating or collaborating in the creation of articles about operas for the benefit of Wikipedia's worldwide clientele. Take a look at The opera corpus.
- Two things could help overcome my concerns. First, if this opera hasn't been performed in over a century, there must be some reliable source for that fact other than the Wexford web site, which is not independent for these purposes. If there is another source, please furnish it. Second, your new edit regarding the plot synopsis states that it is a précis of the in the booklet for the Opera Rara recording. Given strong concerns that have been raised of late about copyvio and close paraphrasing appearing in DYK, this is a problem. Please address the extent to which your synopsis is borrowed, paraphrased, etc. from the Opera Rara booklet. Cbl62 (talk) 04:13, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
- OK, here's a quote by Richard Langham Smith in the recording's booklet, published in 2008: "Why did this forgotten gem have such a short run, clocking up a mere 19 performances? The piece seemed to have everything going for it and we can now, at a distance of a century and a half or so, re-examine a work from which many clearly derived not only amusement and pleasure but some intellectual stimulation." A century and a half takes us back to 1858 ("or so"), so it's possible that the 19 performances at the Opéra Comique were spread over a few years after the 1855 premiere. Note also that the Almanacco, cited in a ref, has only one entry, the premiere. It does not show any other first performances of the work in any other location. I might add that it's difficult to prove a negative.
- Copyvio: Perhaps I could email you the synopsis in the booklet, which is a great deal longer than my potted version, and you can compare the two? --GuillaumeTell 10:37, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
- I do understand that proving a negative is difficult. But without an actual, reliable, and independent source confirming it hasn't been staged in 150 years, the assertion really constitutes original research. For this reason, I don't think the hook can be passed, even if we resolved the synopsis/sourcing issue. Please understand that there are many editors out there grumbling (often loudly) that we have historically been too lax in what we allow to be featured on DYK. I love opera, too, but I don't think this one meets DYK standards. That said, I won't put a firm "no" on this yet. If others wish to chime in on the discussion, they can do so. Also, if you are able to significantly improve the article and come up with a different hook, we could take another look. If none of that has happened in a few days, I suggest this be closed as a "no." Cbl62 (talk) 17:15, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
- Copyvio: Perhaps I could email you the synopsis in the booklet, which is a great deal longer than my potted version, and you can compare the two? --GuillaumeTell 10:37, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
As a regular DYK contributor and reviewer, I thought I might chime in. To Cbl62 I would suggest that you withdraw any accusations of coi/promotion against GuillaumeTell who has been a highly valuable and prolific contributor to opera related articles on wikipedia since 2005. He is one of the founding members of WP:WikiProject Opera. Now to comment on the issues raised. First of all, wikipedia does not require citations for plot synopsis, even in Featured Articles as it is assumed that the work itself (i.e. the opera libretto, movie script, novel or what have you) is the source for the plot synopsis. Second, given the international press coverage already given to the upcoming Wexford production (just do a google news archive search) I don't personally feel that WP:Crystal is being violated in any way. Unfortunately, none of the press coverage I have found specifically supports the hook fact. The articles state that the opera has been "rarely performed" but no press report has called it the first modern revival. I personally believe that Wexford Opera is correct in stating this fact given the company's reputation and the lack of evidence to the contrary. Undoubtedly, reviews of the October 2011 production will substantiate the hook fact/content on the Wexford website. Opera News and Opera magazines will both cover the production and I would imagine point out in their articles that this is the first staged modern revival. As it is, Cbl62 is strictly correct that the hook fact is not directly supported by any independent sources at the present time. Unfortunately, those are the rules and the hook can therefore not be promoted. (In future you may wish to wait to create articles like this until more sources emerge. Undoubtedly press coverage will increase over the next couple months leading up to the production, and then of course reviews in the press once it opens.) However, I personally see no reason for Wexford Opera to lie and would personally support promoting the hook through a WP:IAR ruling.4meter4 (talk) 21:08, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
- I certainly didn't intend to make any "accusations" that the nominator/creator was engaged in COI or trying to promote the show. No reason to think Mr. Tell is connected to Wexford, but we've generally been wary of hooks about unreleased or about-to-be released entertainment events (typically movies) and products. But in any event that wasn't my reason for rejecting the hook. My reason for rejecting the hook is more fundamental -- there's simply no reliable, independent source for the hook fact. Even the Wexford web site doesn't say what the hook says. Cbl62 (talk) 00:30, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
- The Wexford Festival is of international repute. Anything they produce should likely be considered as highly notable. I also checked Wild and Charlton's book on the OC's repertory. It was never revived by the OC. Also, Letellier's book has an entry for it with no mention of a revival, and he usually mentions revivals if they exists. But of course this is again negative evidence, which is all I suspect we will find. --Robert.Allen (talk) 23:57, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
- Perhaps this is useful: Laura Claycomb writing in the Gramophone categorizes this as "an extremely rare opera" that "is never performed." (see [1]). --Robert.Allen (talk) 00:12, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
- The Wexford Festival is of international repute. Anything they produce should likely be considered as highly notable. I also checked Wild and Charlton's book on the OC's repertory. It was never revived by the OC. Also, Letellier's book has an entry for it with no mention of a revival, and he usually mentions revivals if they exists. But of course this is again negative evidence, which is all I suspect we will find. --Robert.Allen (talk) 23:57, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
- I certainly didn't intend to make any "accusations" that the nominator/creator was engaged in COI or trying to promote the show. No reason to think Mr. Tell is connected to Wexford, but we've generally been wary of hooks about unreleased or about-to-be released entertainment events (typically movies) and products. But in any event that wasn't my reason for rejecting the hook. My reason for rejecting the hook is more fundamental -- there's simply no reliable, independent source for the hook fact. Even the Wexford web site doesn't say what the hook says. Cbl62 (talk) 00:30, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
- I appreciate all the efforts to save this, but I don't think there's sufficient reliable, independent sourcing to support the fact asserted in the hook. Absent better sourcing, or a different hook, I don't think this hook can be promoted. Cbl62 (talk) 22:56, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
- Seeing this late, I wonder why we can't find a different hook stating the "negative", something like "... that no staging has been recorded since its first ...?" --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:17, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
- I don't think that works either, because there's no reliable, independent source that says that. But if there's a consensus among others reviewing this nom that I've treated it too strictly, folks should speak up. Cbl62 (talk) 05:12, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
- I am not the author. If I was I would go for a hook which is sourced and let readers discover the upcoming revival in the article. Strictness is advisable, being watched by some who think, not to turn a passive mode to active is plagiarism. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:34, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
- I would support revising the hook to meet User:Cbl62's objections to the wording. We have sources that would support something conveying very much the same idea. --Robert.Allen (talk) 09:15, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
- I am not the author. If I was I would go for a hook which is sourced and let readers discover the upcoming revival in the article. Strictness is advisable, being watched by some who think, not to turn a passive mode to active is plagiarism. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:34, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
- I don't think that works either, because there's no reliable, independent source that says that. But if there's a consensus among others reviewing this nom that I've treated it too strictly, folks should speak up. Cbl62 (talk) 05:12, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
Excluding the synopsis, the article has only 1000 chars or so. Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:21, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
