Talk:Don Quixote/Archive 1

Editors! This article Ais a major mess. What can we do?
I have been watching this article for some time now and I have noticed that while it is actively redacted its overall quality remains woeful, particularly in light of the extraordinary importance that the novel continues to have, in terms both of its seminal role in the history of modern (or proto modern) literature as well as the extremely important and enduring cultural significance of the charaters, the story and the many themes that permeate its pages. There is much excellent content here, but the organization is all over the place.

I've also noticed that the article receives a considerable number of anonymous or casual edits, which is a good thing, since partcipation is always warmly encouraged. But the absence of a clear structure or obvious outline means that, considered in the aggregate, the result of such constributions is often to make an already confused assemblage of facts, trivia, references and ideas even more so.

Further, it is clear that many people come to this page, perhaps making a plan to clean up its organisation, content and overall intent even more compelling. Don Quijote is regularly voted the best or most important or most influential, etc etc, novel of all time. As such it deserves a really excellent free public encyclopedic entry for people looking for information about the topic. I think many would agree that this standard has not been met by the current efforts.

There is a feature version of Don Quijote in Spanish, the link to which is indicated in the box above. It might be a good start to consider translating some of that content into English, and also to adopt some of the structure that has been arrived at on the Spanish language page. As this article has a long edit history, it is inappropriate to place a translation request. But perhaps a more informal approach could work, whereby a more stable structure and determination of appropriate content could be worked out through discussion. I invite your thoughts. And please feel free to tell me that I am way off base in my reading of the current article. Eusebeus 23:17, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree. Somebody needs to be bold (preferably with complete prejudice). One of the problems, though, is that this article is about:
 * Don Quixote de la Mancha, the common name of two significant Spanish books by Miguel de Cervantes,
 * Don Quixote, the assumed name of Alonso Quixana the Good in the above two books, and a famous character in both Spanish and world literature, *and*
 * the effect of the above mentioned books on English and world literature.
 * That's a lot of bases to cover =). Still, somebody ought to be be bold and neaten whatever's on the website at present, and then we can see where we can go from there. Gaurav 11:30, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

This article talks about everything, except for the book itself. What a load of poop. 201.19.202.103 22:20, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Quote
"There are many adaptations of the book, mostly designed to modernise and shorten the text. One such adaptation is authored by Agustín Sánchez and runs to only 150 pages."

The second sentence seems oddly placed at the beginning of the article, especially since a) the information is reiterated below, and b) nothing in the first paragraph says how many pages the non-shortened version is, giving nothing to compare to (and in fact, I skimmed the article looking for that information elsewhere and could not find it; I might have missed it, though). Cheers

Quote
Prominent quote from the article: " [Don Quixote] is generally considered to be the first novel and the best book in Spanish."

Is this true? Has there not ever been a book since the middle ages that 'bettered' (whatever that may mean when talking literature) Don Quixote? Man, that would warant hundreds of articles on Wikipedia on the psychological distress of writers in the Spanish speaking world who are devastated and humiliated by that fighting windmill called Don Quixote.


 * 1600s is not Middle Ages by any account. And yes, it generally thought the best book in Spanish (you can disagree, of course, de gustibus non est disputandum). Spanish is also nicknamed the "language of Cervantes", just as English is Shakespeare's. Characters, quotes and events in the book are a source of metaphors, symbols in Spain and Spanish-language countries. That doesn't mean that every or even most speakers have read it. But most of the educated ones know bits or pale reflections from it.


 * About the distress, top Argentinian (for some value of "top") author Jorge Luis Borges wrote "[somebody I don't remember], author of the Quixote". It is about an author that tries to recreate the book not having read it. He tries to get in the mindset of Cervantes to achieve the same output. Strange.
 * --Error 23:14, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * "Pierre Menard, Author of the Quixote". And it's stranger than that - after initially considering the idea of rewriting the book by mentally becoming Cervantes, Menard dismisses that as "too easy", and sets about trying to do it while still mentally remaining himself, albeit a version of himself capable of writing a novel in a centuries-old version of a foreign language he doesn't speak. It's all very strange and wonderful, and no summary does it justice. &mdash;Paul A

Spelling
Is it: or:
 * Don Quixote
 * Don Quijote


 * Yes :) --Error 23:14, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Bugs in "The Book" section?
I believe there to be at least two minor bugs in "The Book" section. At first I didn't realise the articles had these "Talk" meta-pages so I simply put my reservations in the main article (in parentheses). If this is wildly inapropriate, please let me know, and I'll edit them out and put them on the talk page for further discussion.


 * Hi, and welcome to Wikipedia. Please sign your comments by entering ~ ; that way we know who said what!
 * Indeed, it's considered totally inappropriate to put discussion into the main article. That's what the talk page is for.  If it's really necessary to put a comment into the page inself, you should hide it from view by putting   around it.  It will appear in the editing box, but not in the article itself.    &mdash; Chameleon Main/Talk/Images 22:18, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the heads-up Chameleon, I'll go read some FAQs before I do any more damage :-).


 * Right, the problems are:


 * The article states that "At the end of the second book, Quixote decides that his actions have been madness and returns home to die". In Johns Ormsbys 1885 translation and in a Danish translation from 1999, Don Quixote only has this insight on his death-bed, in line with the common belief at the time (of Cervantes) that the mentally ill would be cured just before they passed away. Also, the shepherd-idea is don Quixotes invention. It comes about because he is defeated by the curate (disguised as the Knight of the White Crescent) and wows not to take up arms for a year.


 * Secondly there's the thing about Dulzinea coming to Quixotes death-bed. This doesn't happen in either of the aforemented translations, but it might be true in other versions?


 * My english prose is not very good, but if someone could back me up on these claims (there's a Gutenberg-link at the bottom of the page), I'll try to do a rewrite of some of the sections.


 * Friism 07:52, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * If your info is accurate, feel free to work it into the article. In what chapter does Dulcinea come to him?  I've just had a quick look at the last chapter, and she's not there.    &mdash; Chameleon Main/Talk/Images 09:01, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * My understanding is that Man of the Mancha features the encounter, not the original book! -- Error 01:10, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Thats the problem - the article claims that Dulcinea appears at Quixotes death-bed ("the peasant girl he has mistaken for her, eventually, comes to his death-bed and acknowledges that she is, in fact, "his Dulcinea""), but this doesn't happen in either of the versions I've read/checked so far. I'll try to incorporate these changes soon. Friism 12:52, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Frism is correct. I have read Don Quixote, and Dulcina does not appear at the end, and becoming a pastoral shepherd is Don Quixote's idea, not Sancho's. I will make the changes. DaveTheRed 03:42, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * This is an interesting coincidence. Apparently the error of confusing the musical with the book in Dulcinea coming to Don Quixote's deathbed was there since August of last year. When I saw it (I had not edited this article in a while) I corrected it at then came to the discussion page to see if someone had discussed it, and find that almost as the same time I was correcting DaveTheRed was writing here that he would correct it...funny. --AstroNomer 03:55, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)

Disclaim spoiler before mentioning death?
I recently moved the spoiler tag above the paragraph that reveals Don Quixote's death. Friism astutely pointed out to me that Cervantes' own introduction to volume 2 reveals that Quixote will die in the end. I'm pretty neutral about this, but before I move the tag back, I thought I'd share my perspective...

I haven't read Don Quixote (either volume) yet. Researching the story, I started to read the Wikipedia entry and, without any warning, I'm told that he dies in the end! Doh! ;-) So from my point of view, it spoiled a little of the whole story, or at least volume 1 where, arguably, you're not intended to know that the the main character ends up dead before you begin volume 1.  Thoughts? -- Ds13 16:47, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Having thought about it, I whole-heartedly agree, the spoiler warning belongs before the "Quixote dies" statement. Friism 22:46, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * I read both volumes of this amazing book... I remember that at preface of volume 2 Cervantes already says that Don Quixote will be dead at end. Sincerely, I don't see why it spoils anything...


 * I don't thing the SPOILERS tag is necessary. As you pointed, it's early said in the book itself, and it adds not much. Another thing would be to say HOW he dies or what happens in the book. Anyway, being a classic as it is, I don't think anything would be such a spoiler.
 * It's like saying that Romeo and Juliet die at the end. (oops, sorry!) -- Marianocecowski 12:24, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * It's even mentioned in the contents, at least in the version I read - the final chapter is listed as "The Death of Don Quixote". However, people who don't know this might be annoyed if there isn't a spoiler warning, and having one can't hurt. --Philip Hazelden 5 July 2005 19:15 (UTC)

vandalism?
i removed the following  jaspreet singh jassi  which was randomly put in the the first paragragh after the TOC. Does this mean anything to anyone??? On another note; Don Quijote rules! The bellman 11:51, 2005 Jan 17 (UTC)


 * That's the main character of an Indian Telenovela based on Betty La Fea. No idea why it was put there.--Plumcouch 17:19, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

New Copy of Don Quixote found?
This may not be the forum for such a question, but so bet it: A friend mentioned to me that another draft of Cervantes' manuscript was found, and I've been scouring the news...for news. Is this true? Would someone direct me to information regarding this statement? And, of course, Don Quixote rules.

Believe me, this isn't true! --Daniel Eisenberg, editor of the journal of the Cervantes Society of America

No, if they had found a 400 year old draft of anything it would be on the front page of every newspaper---sdfjsl

"Best Spanish novel ever"
Why don't we just stick to the facts rather than put in something about how some people think it's the best story ever, which is simply adding personal opinion that can never be NPOV? If we can find references that show that Spanish-literature academics almost universally regard this as one of the greatest Spanish novels, then we could add that in, maybe specifying the academics. But simply saying "some consider it the best" (even with a cite to a trivial poll of 100 people from a book club) will always be POV, IMHO. —Cleared as filed. 17:00, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
 * See above, this is already discussed. We can stick to the facts, but the facts are: Some people consider this the best book in the Spanish language.  Is it a "trivial poll"?  It was cited by the BBC.  (The BBC is a distinguished British news source, in case you didn't know)  Yes, you can find websites that say that "Spain is the dumbest country", a concept that you so elegantly use as an example to boost your arguments, but those websites aren't going to get as much respect or attention from the BBC, and those websites won't be as credible as the BBC.  That statement has been in the article for quite a while.  Many Wikipedians have seen it and not removed it.  CanadianCaesar 23:15, 23 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I do know what the BBC is, but there are a lot of cases of the media putting more faith in a source than Wikipedia, which is supposed to be NPOV; BBC isn't and doesn't need to be. And just because other Wikipedians haven't bothered with it doesn't mean it isn't a problem.  (I have no problem with Spain, btw.  It's just to make a point that just because enough people think something doesn't make it NPOV.) Again, I'd have no problem with a referenced analysis on the novel's greatness by respected academics, but a British news organization citing a Norwegian book club poll isn't an analysis at all. —Cleared as filed. 23:22, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

This should not be an argument. Mr O'Rourke has his facts wrong, is all. The "greatest book" label is silly, of course, but the title has been earned due to the 2002 Oslo vote. This was not a random book club voting, but rather leading international authors. From the Guardian:

"In 2002, the novel was voted the best book of all time by a group of 100 writers, including Salman Rushdie, Nadine Gordimer, Wole Soyinka and Norman Mailer, in a survey organised by editors at the Norwegian Book Club in Oslo."

I am willing to submit to the opinion of Gordimer, Rushdie, Kailer inter alia. Bottom line: the fame of those who selected it should be sufficient for its inclusion in the article, and alleviates the NPOV suspicions cited above. See: [ [[User:Dottoreso|Dottore So]] 18:20, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Miscellany
I have removed the following lines from the para on the opening line:
 * En un Lugar…, says the french Don Quixote specialist Dominique Aubier, is an allusion to lugar not the village but the abstract idea of the jewish maqom. Don Quixote, she asserts is coded with hebrew kabbalistical keys.

It would be strange, and indeed unfair, if Madame Aubier were the only "specialist" to be referenced regarding this work. It must be noted that Mme Aubier is a specialist in finding kabbalistic messages in such diverse works as Hollywood films ('Bus Stop') and 17th century novels. One would, however, be hard pressed to recognise her amongst the leading Don Quixote researchers.Asav - It is not the right to remove that interpretation. It has been accepted by the Bar Ilan University, prof. Ruth Reichelberg confirms. She is a competent authority. As well as prof. Mac Gaha from Pomona University, California. Madame Aubier is a well known and respected specialist in Spain. I do not accept that the commun ignorant just erades what he does not agree with. I suggest to restaure the lines wich have been controled by a competent authority. Franck.

Response to above: We obviously want to avoid an edit war. I think that Asav's point is accurate. Setting aside Mme Aubier's satus, the fact is that an encyclopedia is not the venue for analysis of this kind. Dottore So 08:40, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Response to Dottore : The question is not at all about Mme Aubier"s status, but the fact that the concept of the jewish maqom as lugar and Don Quixote as a complete hebrew coded work has been verified by competent people, like prof Mac Gaha, Pomona university. Even if the result does not please to several kind of people or ideologies ("analysis of this kind") we have to be serious and objective and respect the results of this linguistic investigation.


 * Ummm, from a Mancha resident POV, I think "lugar" it is not reefered to "village", neither to maqom. When used as "el lugar", "the place", it means a village, usually the origin village of the speaker, (vamos al lugar -> let's go to the(our) town). When used as "un lugar", it would be better translated as somewhere, as it has clearly some poetic sense.
 * See the Diccionario of the RAEJclerman 14:14, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

I also agree somewhat on the "hebrew sense" that the book has in many places, but I think it is not very important due that the intended "hebrew keys" are not intentionally put as a secret message, it is more some cultural heritage from the jewish population in Spain (expelled in S.XV), that maybe seen from foreign people can be read as jewish keys, but in the space-time of Cervantes where normal elements in the culture.

Is Don Quixote a translated work?
There is a theory stating that El Quijote was not originally written in spanish, but in catalan language, and was translated because of censorship. This was not a special case but the norm at that time. Two kinds of proof are given:
 * Historical evidence of one Joan Miquel Sirvent who fits in, Cervantes being the usual translation for the name Servent. Plus evidence that other candidates don't match known data.
 * Several dozens of blatant translation errors present in the text. I give only three examples:
 * When they are selecting books to be burned, someone asks "¿quien es ese tonel?" (in english: "Who (which person) is that barrel?") that does not make any sense in that context. Catalan original would have been: "Quin és eixe tomell?" (in english: "Which one is that small book?". The spanish sentence would then be a literal, but erroneous translation (quin->quien; és->es; eixe->ese; tomell->tonel). The translator had misunderstood the seldom used word "tomell", and commited a syntactic error by properly translating "quin".
 * When Don Quijote is again sane, he "pasó graciosísimos cuentos con sus dos compadres" (in english: "He passed very funny stories with his two friends", this does not fit the context. The original would have been "passà comptes amb els seus dos companys" (in english: "He settled up with his two friends"). The translator having added the word "graciosísimos" to clarify "cuentos" in an attempt to make it understandable. The error is in not understanding the idiom "passar comptes" and translating, correctly, those two words but not their meaning as a whole.
 * In several places the expression "porqué me lo sé de coro", or similars are used (in english: "because I know it of choir"). This being a wrong translation of "Perquè m'ho sé de cor" (in english: "because I know it by heart"). Again the translator has missed the meaning of an idiom and translated its constituent words individually. "cor" can mean "coro" (choir) but also "corazón" (heart). The idiom does not exist in spanish.
 * I don't think that history is much credible. I think it has more to do that spanish in that age wasn't quite the same as the one we use now, and thus the renditions on modern spanish sometimes are not 100% right. -- (drini's page| &#x260E; ) 02:36, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
 * That kind of argument is a catch all that would cover anything without need for further explanation. Yet "pasar cuentos" or the other many errors mean nothing in spanish at any century.


 * Of course, it is a translation from Cide Hamete Benengeli :).
 * About de coro, DRAE:
 * coro4.
 * (Del lat. cor, cordis).
 * de ~.
 * 1. loc. adv. p. us. De memoria. Decir, saber, tomar de coro.
 * Diccionario Critico Etimológico Castellano e Hispánico gives de cor in Gonzalo de Berceo, Libro de Aleixandre, Apolonio, de cuer en Siete Partidas, de coraçon in Aleixandre, Bocados de Oro and Primera Crónica General. De coro is in Antonio de Nebrija and "ya es frecuente en autores del S. XVI".
 * Please note that Gonzalo de Berceo is 12th century. About 16th century you are right, there are many books with similar errors. At that time all books writen in catalan had to be compulsory published in spanish. Complaints about this abound (Antoni Beuter, 1546; Lluís Ponç d’Icard, 1572; and many others).
 * My argument is that de cor and similar forms have a long history in Castilian (and in Occitan). --Error 01:21, 4 November 2005 (UTC)


 * About the other errors, can somebody check the recent edition by the Academies? I browsed its prefaces and editing Don Quixote requires a lot of work contrasting different editions and deciding on probable misprints.
 * --Error 22:55, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Some editions tried to correct several errors, thus giving an interpretation to the original. You should refer to the original version, available in facsimile form in the internet. The errors given here cannot be mistaken for typing or understanding errors (the text was read aloud to the typographer by another person). They are genuine translation errors.
 * From my reading of the preface of the Academies edition, you cannot take literally the princeps edition. It has several clear errors and many that incite doubt. --Error 01:21, 4 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Sorry, this is the first time I've heard about this theory. Do you have any supporting reference? 141.30.221.42 13:11, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
 * In the Catalan Wikipedia, they attribute it to some Bilbeny. --Error 01:42, 4 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Refutation of Bilbeny’s “conclusive proof” that Quijote was written in Catalan mentions La prova concloent que el Quixot va ser escrit en català by Jordi Bilbeny.
 * Please note that in this attempted refutation only one of the supposed translation errors is addressed. Text there is in english and basically contain insults to Mr. Bilbeny. There are literally hundreds of translation errors found in El Quixote.
 * In that web site (histocat), it can be found the copy of one of the first editions of "Don Quixote" claiming on the front cover to be "This time, fully translated".

Three more examples of errors:
 * "le dejó ir a la buen hora". Not a spanish expression. Doesn't mean anything. It is the wrong translation from catalan "El deixà anar en bona hora" which means that it was a well done thing to release him.
 * "medio despaldado estaba". Again, this is not spanish; it's the wrong translation from catalan "estava mig espatllat" which means that it was half broken.
 * "ser los historiadores puntuales, verdaderos y nonada apasionados". The word "nonada" not exists. "no nada" are existing words in spanish, but this is ungrammatical. Doesn't mean anything. It's the wrong translation from catalan "no gens" meaning not even the smallest amount. ("gens" is usually translated into spanish as "nada")

Converso origin
One hypothesis I have not seen in the article is that of a best-selling book from this year, I think. According to it, Cervantes is actually a Converso from the kingdom of León and the landscapes of "La Mancha" are from León (Sanabria?). Don Quixote would be full of hints of this. I don't remember the title nor the author but it is on every bookshop in Spain.
 * --Error 22:55, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Actually, my dad told me that Cevantes came with it during prison and Quixote was actually just a parody of all the other stories iof knighthood and stuff like that. - summerwind159

Not a very good translation
Hi, I think that the tranl

Removing links
Hello, everyone, I removed the links for the cabbalistic encoding within Don Quixote. Two of the links link back to Dominique Aubier's page - I couldn't find a second oppinion on her claims anywhere on the internet. As for Prof. MacGaha's article: he claims Aubier was nominated twice for the Noble Price - could find a source to verify that either, which makes the article doubtful in my eyes. If I'm wrong, don't hesitate and correct me. Best regards, -- Plum couch Talk2Me 17:47, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Nobel reference
Norwegians may like to be associated with the Nobel prize and/or institute, however, only the Peace prize is handed out by Norway, literature and all other except the Peace prize are both decided and given in Sweden.

The unauthorised sequel
is given no mention in this article! Salad Days 22:19, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Plot Summary
Why is there no plot summary for this work? Major characters (surely Sancho and Don Quixote de la Mancha are not the only ones). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by UAAC (talk • contribs) 17:54, 14 December 2006 (UTC).

Commas and quotation marks
i'm fairly sure the convention of putting punctuation inside the end of quotation marks is only when those marks are actually denoting somebody speaking. After all we are discussing (e.g.) the word "quixotic" not the word "quixotic,". I have reverted for now. Rawling 21:12, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Literature
It took me a while to work out what this section was for. Presumably it is intended as a list of sources for further analysis of the book/character and its cultural impact. What is Alice in Wonderland doing in the list?? Mooncow 19:31, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Influence on other authors/works - Waverley
Whilst participating in the current novels collaboration on Waverley (novel) I came across an article comparing Don Quixote to Edward Waverley which may also be worth a mention in this article too. The link is: http://www.h-net.org/~cervantes/csa/artics91/gaston.htm   Silverthorn 17:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup Underway
I have started in on the cleanup.
 * 1) I have added the plot summary section to be filled out.
 * 2) I have created a single cultural influence heading and then subheadings
 * 3) I have started to weed out some of the more dubious references. The fact that quixotic has entered the language does not mean that every band, singer or DJ who knows what the word means is making an explicit or noteworthy reference to the original Don.
 * 4) Cleanup of language and removal of a cartoonish image.

I think it would be a very good idea to use the Daumier and Picasso illustrations for this article if we can find them under GFDL. Eusebeus 19:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I have been bold and removed the Don Quixote Trivia section because it has become a pointless bin for even the most casual and insignificant reference to the book, characters, etc... If necessary, we could fork it into it's own article. The main focus of this article should be the novel and its legacy. With that in mind, I also think the lists of Quixote in the arts, movies, tv, and so on are also distracting and could perhaps be usefully forked. Eusebeus 12:09, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Significant changes and reflow/rewrite executed Jan 28-29 2007
I have made significant changes to the flow and contents of the article.
 * Added subheads; ordered list
 * Linguistic disambiguations, clarifications, and definitions
 * Rearrangement and editing of much of the text.

Please review and compare to previous changes for glaring wikisyntax.

PlasticDoor 19:14, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Article layout and extraneous matter
1. It has been noted that the article does not follow the encyclopedic wikipedia conventions for Novels entries. I agree. In my initial attempts at cleanup, I focused only on clarification of the existing entry (grammar, logical ordering, etc.) Much of the lead-in was subheaded under "Overview"; that, it is agreed, should be in the Lead-in. Plot summaries need further development. The history also needs more development. There is a substantial amount of information on the Spanish WIkipedia location, albiet it is deemed by some commenters there to be too overburdened and dense.

2. There is too much extraneous matter in the form of lists which are better purposed as redirects to their own articles. These lists interrupt the flow and readability of the main article. Subentries such as that about Foucault is not relevant to this main article. The article on Foucault should instead be referencing the Quixote article.

3. I also propose that a redirect page be created under the heading "Quijote" because that is the Spanish conventional spelling present-day. This would be to assist/provide cross-reference to non-English speakers who do not use the "ex" form of the spelling. (NB-could arguably be trivial.)

--PlasticDoor 16:15, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Translation of opening sentence
This article contains a rather poor translation of the opening line in Don Quijote.

"In some place in La Mancha, whose name I do not want to recall, it was not so long ago there dwelt a gentleman of the type wont to keep an unused lance, an old shield, a skinny old horse, and a greyhound for racing."

In English translations I remember it being translated as "In a village of La Mancha, the name of which I do not wish to recall, there lived not long ago a gentleman (more specifically a nobleman) of those who keep a lance in the rack, an aged shield, a broken-down horse/hack and a greyhound for racing" Angryafghan 20:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

"lugar" = "village". And,according to professor Francisco Rico, "de cuyo nombre no quiero acordarme" means in modern Spanish "the name of which I can't recall". (I was in class when he told it at "Literatura española medieval" at UAB -Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona). Marc--83.33.1.9 (talk) 19:00, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Sources section needs work
I agree that the Tirant is a source for the Quijote, but is only one of many other listed, and is somewhat of an anomaly in relation to other chivalric romances due to its realism. I'd be happy to help expand the "sources" section since it needs some serious work. Bewtros 03:32, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Section order and format
I moved the "see also" section to its normal position at the end of the article text but prior to references, simplified a few titles, and removed the non-standard level one titles. No other editorial material was added or removed with this edit. It would be nice to have the bibliographic section at the end (following references) with current English editions included. It looks like most of the ones listed in the commented out bib. are Spanish editions. Also, the whole cultural legacy area makes the article large enough (currently 51k) to consider making it a separate subarticle. --Blainster 20:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

What translation to use?
I had changed something using the Raffel translation, which was changed because "the first one [translation of the first sentence] sounded better" (see history). However, whoever changed this should change the entire sentence to the translation they are using and ALSO change the reference, since I was quoting from the published translation and we can't change this at will. I'm not familiar with the Grossman translation, which may be our best bet, but the Shelton one is a bit old-fashioned, if still helpful in places. Bewtros 21:04, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, so I just looked at the Grossman translation and there is a gross error in the translation of the first sentence, as it reads "Somewhere in La Mancha, in a place whose name I do not care to remember, a gentleman lived not long ago, one of those who has a lance and ancient shield on a shelf and keeps a skinny nag and a greyhound for racing." A "lugar" is not the generic "place" but rather a population of specific size--something like "town" or would be more correct since the RAE states a lugar is "menor que villa y mayorf que aldea".

So, I'm proposing we use either the Raffel or some other more correct translation throughout the article for the sake of continuity. Bewtros 21:15, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * There are many ways to translate lugar. Place is one of them. Please wait for consensus before imposing edits upon cited sources. Ronbo76 21:39, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * This is true. However, almost every Spanish edition of the text notes that lugar is not used in the general sense of "place" but rather the following taken from the authoritative edition by Francisco Rico:  lugar: no con el valor de ‘sitio o paraje’, sino como ‘localidad’ y en especial ‘pequeña entidad de población’, en nuestro caso situada concretamente en el Campo de Montiel (I, 2, 47, y 7,93), a caballo de las actuales provincias de Ciudad Real y Albacete. Seguramente por azar, la frase coincide con el verso de un romance nuevo.   I will wait for others to confirm this reading before making changes, but anyone who has a knowledge of early modern Spanish and has read an annotated Spanish original would agree.  Bewtros 22:06, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm Spaniard and I've read the book and according to the Arroyo's text notes the Spanish word 'lugar' must be translate in English as 'village or small village' (page 89 in the Castalia's edition 'lugar': pueblo pequeño) (Don Quijote de la Mancha I, Castalia didáctica. Text notes by Florencio Sevilla Arroyo). And, according to the RAE (www.rae.es) the third meaning of 'lugar' is 'ciudad, villa o aldea'. As a modern Spanish speaker I use 'lugar' as a place but in Modern Spanish also exists the word 'lugareño/ña' that according to the RAE: "1. adj. Natural de un lugar (población pequeña). 2. adj. Que habita en un lugar (población pequeña). 3. adj. Perteneciente o relativo a los lugares o poblaciones pequeñas." The Collin's Dictionary translation for place (5th meaning: place, with the sentence "En un lugar de la Mancha..." translated as "Somewhere in La Mancha" is also wrong. (Toni) 83.37.77.194 (talk) 09:17, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Translation of first sentence modified without correcting reference
I'm writing since what we have quoted as Raffel's translation of the first sentence is incorrect. Raffel's translation reads "In a village in La Mancha (I don't want to bother you with its name) there lived, not very long ago, one of those gentlemen who keep a lance in the lance-rack, an ancient shield, a skinny old horse, and a fast greyhound" (p.13) and not "In a village in La Mancha (whose name I do not care to recall) there lived, not very long ago, one of those gentlemen who keep a lance in the lance-rack, an ancient shield, a skinny old horse, and a fast greyhound." I can see the previous user's logic in changing the translation, but if we agree that that's the best way to put it (another option would be to change the preceding paragraph) we should acknowledge that the translation we have is a modified version of Raffel's translation and not his translation as it appears in published form. Bewtros 22:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Concur amigo. Please make the change. Morenooso 01:11, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Edith Grossman question
Hello, in the section about "Editions in translation", the text talks about other authors whose work Grossman has translated. Is that really necessary, because the article is about Don Quixote, and I'm sure that the other people have translated other works too. -- Kyok o  03:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think it's necessary either. If others agree, it should be cut, as the article could use some trimming! Bewtros 21:24, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Madame Bovary
Can someone explain to me please how this is a re-telling of Don Quixote? Madame Bovary is a bored provincial wife married to an idiot. What does this have to do with DQ? I cannot see this comparison at all.SmokeyTheCat 14:08, 30 May 2007 (UTC) If no-one explains this in a week I so I will delete this reference.SmokeyTheCat 11:19, 13 June 2007 (UTC) Okay, deleted.  SmokeyTheCat   •TALK•  13:45, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Like Quixote, Madame Bovary is stuck in a boring provincial town and uses books to fantasise about a more exciting life (in her case, she reads works of French Romanticism rather than tales of chivalry from the Middle Ages). Like Quixote, she confuses literature and life, leading to a series of adventures (in her case love affairs) which end in disillusion and death. (I'm also surprised Dostoyevsky's The Idiot hasn't been mentioned; Prince Myshkin is also modelled on Quixote). --Folantin 11:19, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Could we have a source for the Madame Bovary? I will remove it for now: please cite an accepted scholarly source for the claim if reinserted. I think there is too much tendency to view every quixotic character or picaresque novel as somehow inspired by the original. That is too much of a stretch in my view for a credible encyclopedic treatment. Eusebeus 12:12, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Flaubert's debt to Cervantes is common knowledge, but if you insist . --Folantin 12:17, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Yup, that'll do. Eusebeus 12:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Name Translation
there's about 50 conversations about the translation of the first line of the novel, and 0 about the remainder. i.e., the novel's title is translated from spanish 'don quixote' to english 'don quixote'. 'don' in spanish is the same as 'sir' in english. 'doña' being the feminine equivalent. its the same as the british calling their historical/political figures 'lord' and 'lady'. even american media put 'sir' in front of paul mccartney and elton john. but the same respect isnt afforded to spaniards/hispanics who are traditionally given the title 'don/doña' in spanish media. translating 'don' as 'don' may give many non-spanish speakers the impression that quixote's first name is 'don' (its even worse when 'doña' is misspelt as 'dona' and put in front of a woman's name, so some may think that that's the spanish version of 'donna' and part of her name). the same situation occurs in translating titles from other language, and many westerners assume that that's part of person's name. i cant do anything about those instances, but i can say something about this. the title should be revised to accurately indicate the title. but dont go as far to translate 'La Mancha', because 'The Stain' doesnt sound like a good place to be from.4.230.153.57 00:59, 25 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid the title should remain as, if only because of 400 years of tradition in English translation (Shelton, the first translator, translated the title as The Historie of the Valorous and Wittie Knight-Errant, Don Quixote of the Mancha. Moreover, Don Quixote is what Don Quixote names himself in the novel--Cervantes is ridiculing the fact that a lower nobleman (an hidalgo) treats himself as if he were a caballero, a higher noble that actually does deserve the title 'don.' Thus the joke in the text's full title, "El ingenioso hidalgo Don Quijote de la Mancha." The disconnect between 'don' and 'hidalgo' would have been immediately apparent and humorous to contemporary Spanish readers. I also doubt that there would be much confusion with the character's first name being "Don." Bewtros 21:02, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Question about source of ballet plot
Someone wrote the following: "Georg Philipp Telemann wrote an orchestral suite entitled Don Quichotte and an opera called Don Quichotte auf der Hochzeit des Camacho, based on an episode from the novel.

Die Hochzeit des Camacho, an early opera by Felix Mendelssohn (composed in 1827) is based on the same section of the book on which Telemann based his opera."

As a matter of fact, it is my recollection from studying the book in school that the plot of the ballet, i.e., Kitri's wedding, does not actually appear in the book at all. Can someone clarify this? I seem to recall that I was told that this incident was just made up by someone else. The ballet receives its title not due to an incident but because it takes the theme from Don Quijote - namely based on the theme of his love for Dulcinea.

If it is in fact based on an incident from the book, I would appreciate it if someone would cite the chapter so I can look it up.

Thanks. 65.14.60.2 07:10, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes it does appear, in Part II of the novel. It was probably omitted in your studies because you pretty much have to read an unabridged version of the novel to find it. It occurs more than 500 pages into the book (the complete book is between 900 or 1000 pages, depending on how many footnotes are included, and on whether or not how many words the translator of the novel uses). In the book the bride's name is Quiteria, not Kitri, the barber is Basilio, and the rich man that Quiteria is engaged to is Camacho, not Gamache.AlbertSM (talk) 21:48, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Don Quixote (character)
We have articles about Sancho Panza and Rocinante, but no articles about the title character. Let's work on it.

Lovelac 7 04:31, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I second that. He's the main character and the title; he needs at least his own page. Paperbullet (talk) 19:20, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Dulcinea
"'Dulcinea' (...), nor does she actually appear in the novel."

Who wrote this absurd???[Special:Contributions/201.19.89.182|201.19.89.182]] (talk) 21:14, 25 December 2007 (UTC) I guess he means that Don Quixote never personaly saw Dulcinea, only Sancho really sees her…

Eating disorder in Don Quixote?
Which character appears to have an eating disorder as suggested in this article? Or does this refer to the mention of pica? Quixote's ascetic diet? or Sancho's gluttony and occasional vomiting. I notice that in the Norton Critical Edition there is an essay entitled: "Anselmo's eating disorder" by Professor Wey-Gómez. I don't recall anything of the sort from that episode but I do not have access to the essay to clarify. --Homo loquens (talk) 18:56, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

According to the William Sheldon's somatotype theory, Don Quijote is clearly an Ectomorphic (thin, long and fragile, brainly and introverted) and Sancho Panza is an Endomorphic (fat, soft, and round body type, fond of eating and sociable). (Toni) --83.37.77.194 (talk) 09:18, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Don Quixote's influence on Karl Marx's Das Kapital
The section about influence in literature points out the influence on a work by Michel Foucault:

"The novel plays an important part in Michel Foucault's book, The Order of Things. To Foucault, Quixote's confusion is an illustration of the transition to a new configuration of thought in the late sixteenth century. Quixote, by confusing semiology and hermeneutics, attempts to apply an anachronistic epistemological configuration to a new intellectual world, a new episteme, in which hermeneutics and semiology have been separated."

However, Marx had already quoted a similar example from Don Quixote a century before Foucault's ideas. I'm not implying that Foucault was necessarily influenced by Marx that particular way but I think adding Marx's example can complete the idea of "influence on literature" better by providing a bit of more context. English's not my first langauge, though (as you may have noticed). So I'm just leaving this note as a little "request".--Quinceps (talk) 05:40, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

faen —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.146.69.69 (talk) 19:37, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Fuentes
I can't really see that Carlos Fuentes rather stale joke has anything to do in a paragraph on possible co-writers. If it at all belongs in this article it would be in a section on the novel's influence of later literature. — Linkomfod (talk) 03:54, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

"El Compinche"
I have removed the reference to Cervantes as "El Compinche". The way it was included was rather frivolous and even insulting, reducing the name of a great literary figure to the level of an article that one might find in People Magazine or Entertainment Weekly. AlbertSM (talk) 21:40, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

"El Compinche", is like "The Nigga" or "Da Gangstaz" (which "street friend") or something. i know cuz i speaker spanish, specifically venezuelan.....but, el compinche" lol! hahahah what retard put some like that --Venerock (talk) 16:59, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Filling out the summary
I was just rereading Don Quixote in the Norton World Masterpieces anthology, and they cut tons of important stuff out. I came onto Wikipedia, mostly because I'm lazy, to try to figure out what was left out, but the summary is very barebones, mostly vague references. One earlier comment said the summary would be filled out. I might lend a hand at one point as best I can, but I have two specific requests. Norton leaves out the naming ceremony and the battle for the shaving basin. To me, those are two basic iconic things associated with Don Quixote. I think the summary needs a lot of filling out, but two integral facts to also include are the naming ceremony where he's first called the Knight of the Sad Face or Woeful Countenance (I've seen dozens of translations, so maybe the original spanish there which I do not know) and where he steals the shaving basin -- iconically that's the helmut he's always depicted wearing, so I think it needs a mention, even if it's just brief.F. Simon Grant (talk) 17:53, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Tirant lo Blanch as a source
As User:Bewtros already noted in 2007, Tirant lo Blanch is indeed mentioned several times in Don Quixote, but so are many other works. Tirant's being a source should be properly referenced. Without proper referencing it shouldn't be a whole section in itself. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 08:19, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

A great movie about Don Quixote
[http://www.lucafilms.es/The-secret.html El Secreto de Don Quijote. España 2005. 52 min. Color. Documental. Primer premio en la categoria de mejor documental en el festival de cine Las Duñas, Islas Canarias.] In 1605, the first part of Don Quixote— the most famous book in Spanish literature, and the most translated and read in the world together with the Bible—was published. Cervantes himself declared he did not write it but read a translation by Arabic historian Cid Hamete Benengeli. This might be the secret of its success, since Don Quixote might be a manuscript that was mysteriously discovered in Toledo, written in Arabic and maybe in... „another language“ ! Best documentary at film festival Las Duñas, Canaries Islands, Spain. Spain. 2005. 52 min. Colour. Documental. DV CAM. Direction, Photography and Editing: Raúl Fernández Rincón. Production: LUCA FILMS S.L. / Producer: Raúl Fernández and Alberto Martínez Shooting: Normandía, Madrid and Castilla la Mancha. Spanish, english subtitles.

Fact box: X or J
The fact box claims

Original title El ingenioso hidalgo don Quijote de la Mancha

I was under the impression that the original title used QuiXote (as in English) and that QuiJote is modern Spanish. If this is the case, it is misleading to refer to the modern Spanish title as the original title. Can someone clarify this? 88.77.156.126 (talk) 07:38, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Half of the Article is About Other Works
It looks like roughly half of the article is about other works, and not the ostensible subject of the article - the book by Cervantes. This is a bit excessive, don't you all think? Ekwos (talk) 21:06, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Quixotic
Is it just me, or does it seem both redundant and inappropriate to refer to Don Quixote as quixotic? Let alone twice in the same paragraph, which, no matter the word, would be over usage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.240.248.184 (talk) 23:55, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Automate archiving?
Does anyone object to me setting up automatic archiving for this page using MiszaBot? Unless otherwise agreed, I would set it to archive threads that have been inactive for 30 days and keep ten threads.--Oneiros (talk) 23:23, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅--Oneiros (talk) 11:09, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

The Curious Impertinent
I have just reverted to the existing version of the above, as translated by Shelton: available at this etext version. --Technopat (talk) 07:14, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Pronunciation
Are you sure that there's "ʃ" in the Dutch pronunciation? Also, I'm not sure about "χ" in the German and Scots pronunciations. Shouldn't it be "x"? Mountleek (talk) 14:35, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Read Pronunciation
It should be noted that the pronunciation in the article is American Spanish, with a particulary soft pronunciation of the "χ" (even softer than in English "h"..., almost no Spaniard would pronounce it so soft). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.42.13.179 (talk) 03:21, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

cultural refs split article
I move to split off the cultural legacy of DQ listing to a separate article in a bid to start a clean up. Other articles in this manner include Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc, Edgar Allen Poe, Sherlock Holmes and Alexander the Great. Any objections? Spanglej (talk) 01:17, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * This has been needed to be done for a long time. Maybe people will notice how little of the article is actually about the putative topic.  Ekwos (talk) 18:04, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Re the above, I have taken off the cultural impact listing to create into a "impact in popular culture" article, with added citations. I've cleaned up the citations, links, and headings a little. It needs a good copy edit. Best wishes Spanglej (talk) 03:30, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

This edit merely deleted several sections. No such "impact in popular culture" article was created. Some of the material was only copied to the user's private space on User:Spanglej/Don Quixote.--Sum (talk) 13:40, 16 September 2010 (UTC)


 * That's because I'm working to find citations and accurate infomation. There's no point in dumping a lot of unreferenced trivia into a list and calling it an article, in my view. I don't think 12 days is a lot of time elapsed in which to work up a new article. I would argue to revert the re-addition. I don't think it adds to the DQ article as is. Spanglej (talk)


 * A few months ago I needed to research Don Quixote for an upcoming stage adaptation I was working on. The most useful content of this article for me at that time proved to be the influences and legacy sections.  Sourced or not, those sections pointed me to contemporary interpretations of and references to the novel, and were an indispensable resource that efficiently jump-started my investigations.  Please take as much time as you need to find sources and corrections for the separate article, but until the new article is in place, please don't delete this massive trove of info. AtticusX (talk) 07:33, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

In Our Time
Rich Farmbrough, 03:13, 16 September 2010 (UTC). == File:Gustave Doré - Miguel de Cervantes - Don Quixote - Part 1 - Chapter 1 - Plate 1 "A world of disorderly notions, picked out of his books, crowded into his imagination".jpg to appear as POTD soon ==

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Gustave Doré - Miguel de Cervantes - Don Quixote - Part 1 - Chapter 1 - Plate 1 "A world of disorderly notions, picked out of his books, crowded into his imagination".jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on September 29, 2010. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2010-09-29. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :) Thanks!  howcheng  {chat} 17:56, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Split off article
I'll split off the "cultural refs" article tomorrow (see above discussion). Spangle (talk) 19:19, 27 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I have created the split adaptations article as Cultural influence of Don Quixote. It needs a lot more referencing. I will re-add the section on visual arts tomorrow. The article is framed in terms of 'adaptations' so that trivia such as TV episodes and single lines in songs etc (of which there is always a truck load) is not invited. Discussion, thoughts, help welcome. Best wishes Spangle (talk) 22:39, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Sigmund Freud
I read somewhere that Freud read Don Quixote one summer while a medical student or the summer before going to medical school and that the work had a great influence on the development of Freud's great work. Could that be included?--Oracleofottawa (talk) 00:54, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Don Quixote surely had a direct influence on Freud's reality principle. I will add details after research.

I noticed that Miguel de Unamuno (the great Spanish critic, among other things) does not get a mention on this page despite writing an important essay on the book, 'Our Lord Quixote'. No mention of it here, either - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miguel_de_Unamuno —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.31.7.21 (talk) 13:56, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Comments on inconsistencies in the novel?
Surely there should be a mention (if not a section) of the many inconsistencies in the book and theories regarding them? It was one of the primary reasons for differences in the vast number of later editions of the book. Lathrop is of the opinion that they were deliberate while Ormsby maintained that Cervantes did not care much about the work. I think it is of encyclopedic importance. Naumz (talk) 00:25, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Shakespeare
The article said:  Some theories exist that question whether Cervantes alone wrote Don Quixote.'' Carlos Fuentes raises an intriguing possibility that, "Cervantes leaves open the pages of a book where the reader knows himself to be written and it is said that he dies on the same date, though not on the same day, as William Shakespeare. It is further stated that perhaps both were the same man." ''. It did not belong into the section it was in, and in any kind, it is hardly relevant second hand source for a claim in weasel words. -- Zz (talk) 13:33, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Surely it's enough for one man to write all those great plays and sonnets in such a short space of time, without adding Don Quixote (and hence the mastery of a second language) to his achievements! Was Fuentes making some kind of Borgesian joke with that comment?

In Popular Culture
Should an "In Popular Culture" section be added? I don't know a whole lot of references in famous things, but in The Sorcerer's Apprentice, a deleted scene shows Cage's character finding a Don Quixote book and remarking "Don Quixote?! I haven't read one of his works in, oh, 400 years!" or something of the sort. I feel that we'd need more references to Don Quixote in popular culture to have a section on it, but the above example inspired it. Venku Tur&#39;Mukan (talk) 18:36, 17 February 2011 (UTC)


 * There was a section on cultural references, but it grew too large and was split off to List of works influenced by Don Quixote. However, the brief mention of Don Quixote in The Sorcerer's Apprentice sounds a bit too trivial to be included there. It seems to fail the test described at "In popular culture" content. AtticusX (talk) 20:56, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Helping here: It's not "Don Quicks Oat"
Just helping the random high school or college student, or the ignorant who wishes to get edumacated (that's a joke, by the way), the name of the character is said like this: "Don Coyote".

Nevermind, I just realized "Coyote" and "Quixote" are both of Spanish origin, and a fella mind just say "Don Kai Yoat."

Okay, then think of, say, Don Key Yo Tea! There! Or, I suppose, Don Kai Yo Tea.

I made more of a mess than I should've. Thanks, Hanna-Barbera! Apple8800 (talk) 10:13, 6 March 2011 (UTC)


 * As I understand it, there are various legitimate pronunciations (see pronunciation section of the article). /ˈkwɪksət/ (quicksut) is one of them. Span (talk) 20:51, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Royal Spanish Academy, Don Quixote read out loud
I wanted to add this external link: http://www.youtube.com/user/ElQuijote A project through which spanish speakers around the world read Don Quixote, organized by the Real Academia Española, the royal academy for the regularisation of Spanish. I was not allowed as bots do not like youtube links :) If someone could add it, well, great

190.194.221.77 (talk) 03:53, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

suit of ice cream
"He dons an old suit of ice cream" - is this vandalism or some literary joke I haven't got? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.180.171.98 (talk) 03:09, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It was vandalism reverted. Feel free to check the history and revert it yourself. Span (talk) 08:40, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Birth of Modern Literature
I am terrible at wikipedia and don't have time to figure out how to do this myself right now, but I think the part in the plot summary about part 2 "often [being] regarded as the birth of modern literature" needs a citation, it certainly raised my eyebrows. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akyuun (talk • contribs) 22:59, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Working on plot. Stop me if you wish.
Hello visitors to the Don Quixote Talk page. I am going to do a major/minor overhaul of the parts of the article, beginning with "plot". If you have any objections, please raise them. I should mention that I am working with the work in various translations, and could use somebody with familiarity with the original.

I am basing my division of the book somewhat according to Samuel Putnam's work. The Four-book/part/volume structure of Part 1 seems to be a nuisance thematically, the first two sallies unevenly divided between part/books 1 and 2 and the adventures with Cardenio completely broken by the division of books 3 and 4 for, so I have ignored it.

Speaking of ignoring things, the plot section is noted as being too cluttered. I am going to have to justify the length by saying that this is a 900-page novel picaresque novel simply bursting with incidence, and will ideally look something like the article for the Aeneid, but could probably contain the length of the plot section of the Mahabharata article. --Artimaean (talk) 02:32, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Incongruities
Dear Readers,

I have just completed reading Don Quioxte De La Mancha and was wondering what book the person read who describes the conclusion to Part II of the novel. The "author" describes Quioxte coming to his senses, as well as other erroneous explainations. Quioxte never comes to his senses and is never on his death bed, but is said to escape again to complete other exploits -- all rumors the narrator has come to hear. Please, somebody with the time, energy, and mental powers must correct this balderdash as soon as possible.

Thank you, Donovan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmtracz (talk • contribs) 02:04, 1 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I am having trouble following your argument, and am still somewhat confused. But I shall respond as I surmise may have happened.


 * You may have only read Part One of Don Quixote. The novel was originally published as a one-off, and Cervantes only added Part Two after several years of complete silence. Part One is likewise divided into two major "Parts", adding to the confusion among discriminating the two parts. At times, the novel has continued to be published in two volumes simply for the large size of the work.


 * If I were to be honest, I would summarize the last chapters of Part Two (or Volume 2) as Cervantes rather angrily responding, even spleening, to somebody publishing an aesthetically inferior and spurious continuation of Don Quixote, and yes, the end of the Second Part ends with Cervantes heavily emphasizing Quixote's death, and condemning any future books, essentially, doing everything in his authorial powers to close of the character he wants to establish as his. There is a death bed scene--a rather long and drawn-out one which is rather famous in its own right. The chapter can be found many places, for example, here {http://www.gutenberg.org/catalog/world/readfile?fk_files=1823358&pageno=336}


 * Please respond if I am incorrect in either understanding your original query or you are still confused about the matter.--Artimaean (talk) 06:39, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Don Quixote language
"Cervantes wrote his work in a form of Old Castilian or Ladino, a Sephardic Jewish language derived from Hebrew and Aramaic and that became the medieval form of the Spanish language" That's completely foolish!!!! Don Quixote (the romance) is written in XVI century Spanish. Don Quixote (the character), anyway, try speak in a kind of old style language (an imitation, XVI century fashioned, of medieval language) because the influence of chivalry stories. But nothing about "ladino", which is a Spanish dialect, strongly differentiated and strongly influenced by local languages (Turkish, Greek, French, Italian, Arab, nor Hebrew neither Aramaic), spoken only outside Spain by Sephardic communities along Mediterranean Sea. Don Quixote is written in a blend of Hebrew and Aramaic? Who wrote this text know something about Spanish, ladino, Hebrew either Aramaic? Has he read Don Quixote? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.43.147.126 (talk) 09:53, 2 June 2012 (UTC) I agree with you. The claim that Cervantes wrote in Ladino is absolutely preposterous. Ladino is derived from Old Castillan but it is NOT the same as, or identical to it. Furthermore, no evidence or reference is used to support this unusual claim. I have inserted the appropriate tags accordingly. In my opinion, this paragraph also deserves a "factual accuracy" warning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.2.28 (talk) 08:40, 9 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I deleted this claim, as it is incredible in every sense of the word. -Lbarquist (talk) 12:31, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

article on Don Quixote in en.wikipedia
As of Oct. 13, 2012, someone has very casually interpolated new interpretitve content. I am an editor, but not in the field of Spanish lit. The casual interpolator sounds like an informed person, but he/she has devolved the article into unclarity. An expert needs to re-edit the Don Quixote page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fsprotaryfrazeehouseinc (talk • contribs) 02:54, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Is this image any use here?
Obviously, this is useful on the page on the opera, and the page on adaptations, but is it any use in this article? It's striking, at the least. =) Adam Cuerden (talk) 19:21, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Marx's take on Don Quixote
Quoted from Michael Heinrich's interview

Question: But which role then do individuals play in society?

Heinrich: We have to distinguish between individual persons and the possibilities of individuality. To make this more clear we can use an example which also Marx used in Capital in a footnote in the section on “Commodity fetishism,” where he pointed to Don Quixote, this famous figure of Cervantes’ classical novel. Don Quixote is living in the early 17th century and he has read so many novels about knights and their adventures (which he takes for the truth) that he himself wants to become a knight and finally travels around Spain riding on a horse with the armor of a medieval knight. His adventures, which sound very funny to us, mainly rest on misunderstandings. Why does it sound so funny? Don Quixote tries to realize a form of individuality which belongs to the medieval society. What he did would make at least some sense in medieval society, but in the post-medieval society of the 17th century his behavior looks crazy and stupid. The structure of society defines the forms of a usual, normal individuality. And the persons living in this society consider such forms mostly as quite “natural.” But two or three hundred years earlier the forms of individuality were very different because the society was different. I’m not saying that every person is determined by society, as persons can choose, and Don Quixote tried to realize a different form of individuality than the form which was usual for his times. But society reacts in a certain way, you are considered to be stupid or even mad and you become an outsider. When you want to avoid this, you have to restrict yourself to the usual forms of individuality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.84.68.252 (talk) 06:23, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Don Quixote and Islam
@ Rarevogel: What scientific publications echoed the work of Mr Tariq and Moslems influence of Don Quixote? If you have scientific references => no problem. No scientific references => it's no acceptable. No specialist Don Quixote evokes the idea. See for example Jean Canavaggio's work - internationally known specialist--St Malo (talk) 15:44, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * @ Rarevogel: Who between specialists Don Quixote confirm your story and presentation of the facts ? Without recognition by experts, it is non-encyclopedic assumption => no place on WP. --St Malo (talk) 19:27, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Picaresque category?
The article says that the book is written in the picaresque style, but does it belong in the WP Picaresque novels category or no? Aristophanes 68   (talk)  18:35, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

I give up. I have a Ph.D. in Spanish literature, which I spent my whole career teaching. And where picaresque novels originally came from. I am one of the leading Cervantes scholars in the world and was editor of the journal of the Cervantes Society of America from 2000 to 2008. And I can't say that Don Quixote is not picaresque? It's ludicrous to call it picaresque. No one who has studied Spanish literature would call it that. I don't know why I'm wasting my time. deisenbe (talk) 22:18, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Horrible article
All we need is the meaningless, ridiculous opinion of some pathetic leftist and we're going to pretend that Cervantes, the devout Catholic, wrote works of nihilism? You guys are such a joke. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.32.91.98 (talk) 06:30, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Title of DQ
The book does not have one title. There is one title for the first part, and a different title (caballero instead of hidalgo) for the second part. This difference is not trivial. See how the Spanish Wikipedia does it: they just call it Don Quijote de la Mancha. es:Don Quijote de la Mancha

Most readers of this article would be better served by using the modern spellings in the Spanish title, rather than the now-archaic seventhteenth-century spellings.

These changes I made in implementing the above were undone by @Jonesey95   deisenbe (talk) 14:15, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Number of Translations
The main article says that Don Quijote "has been translated into more languages than any book other than the Bible". On the wikipedia page for list of literary works by number of translations Don Quijote ranks ~35th with only 48 translations. This information is conflicting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.232.21.23 (talk) 06:28, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
 * That list is full of garbage. 253 translations of St. Exupery's The Little Prince? Give me a break. deisenbe (talk) 16:47, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 one external links on Don Quixote. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20110720140340/http://dmle.cindoc.csic.es/pdf/BEIO_2006_22_01_04.pdf to http://dmle.cindoc.csic.es/pdf/BEIO_2006_22_01_04.pdf
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070525180156/http://www.kcl.ac.uk:80/depsta/iss/library/speccoll/bomarch/bomnov05.html to http://www.kcl.ac.uk/depsta/iss/library/speccoll/bomarch/bomnov05.html
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20060903225311/http://etext.library.adelaide.edu.au/c/cervantes/c41d/preface1.html to http://etext.library.adelaide.edu.au/c/cervantes/c41d/preface1.html
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20131012064322/http://www.vanderbilt.edu/magazines/vanderbilt-magazine/archives/images/inclass_f05.pdf to http://www.vanderbilt.edu/magazines/vanderbilt-magazine/archives/images/inclass_f05.pdf
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130821001827/http://www.gutenberg.org/files/29468/29468-h/29468-h.htm to http://www.gutenberg.org/files/29468/29468-h/29468-h.htm
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20131102015252/http://www.gutenberg.org/files/2000/2000-h/2000-h.htm to http://www.gutenberg.org/files/2000/2000-h/2000-h.htm

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 18:47, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

2 Added Links, 1 COI
Note that confirmation of the connection of the Instituto Cervantes, Sydney to the Soundcloud page linked to for the podcast can be found at http://sidney.cervantes.es/en/special_activity.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zacha (talk • contribs) 06:34, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Translation
The article is rather poor. I don't have the time, but I think translating the much more complete spanish article would be better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.120.231.116 (talk) 00:52, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Don Quixote. 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/20060903225311/http://etext.library.adelaide.edu.au/c/cervantes/c41d/preface1.html to http://etext.library.adelaide.edu.au/c/cervantes/c41d/preface1.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:12, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Observation: lead sentence
The lead sentence currently reads:


 * Don Quixote ..., fully titled The Ingenious Nobleman Sir Quixote of La Mancha (Spanish: El Ingenioso Hidalgo Don Quijote de la Mancha, ...), is a Spanish novel ...

It may sound trivial but it seems very strange to say the common name is "Don Quixote" and then say the full title is "The Ingenious Nobleman Sir Quixote of La Mancha". Aside from the fact that sir is not even technically an accurate translation (it is really esquire), it make more sense to simply use don since that is what is being used in the abbreviated name. It is bizarre to be inconsistent.

Perhaps equally important, most sources that provide the full English-language title use don, i.e. "The Ingenious Nobleman Don Quixote of La Mancha". For example:

-- MC 2605:6000:EC16:C000:788F:7B8E:6EFE:4126 (talk) 04:14, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Future edits to this article
When I was in high school, we read a book about an apocalyptic future, which seemed to be the aftermath of a nuclear war, until someone pointed out that the copyright date was before nuclear weapons were invented, and therefore we could not be correct in our interpretation.

I imagine that someone, someday, will read about Don Quixote, assume that Cervantes was satirizing Donald Trump by creating a character who attacks windmills and is delusional, and try to edit this article to point out the "obvious", without feeling the need for a reliable source. Please don't. Don Quixote was written over 400 years before the Trump Presidency. Any similarities are just a coincidence. Thank you.

47.139.40.232 (talk) 05:15, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Images
Gustave Doré's illustrations are great, but they seem overused in this article. There are more illustrators of Don Quixote: c:Category:Don Quixote by chapter. strakhov (talk) 06:43, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Edith Grossman's highly acclaimed translation?
In section 2, Meaning we have: "Edith Grossman, who wrote and published a highly acclaimed English translation of the novel in 2003"

Acclaimed, perhaps, but not highly acclaimed, considering Edith Grossman.

Senra (talk) 16:04, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Don't know how to correct typo
I don't know anything about Don Quixote, but the article lists three different spellings for one name: Micomicona, Miconiconia, and Micomiconia, and I don't know which one it is. Quirk4 (talk) 01:12, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Related works in the template
Hi all,

I'd like to rejigger Template:Don Quixote a little - it seems odd to me that it includes some fairly marginal things (like Super Don Quix-ote) but not some of the major works which were influenced by DQ, though not direct adaptations - per List of works influenced by Don Quixote, these include The Knight of the Burning Pestle, Joseph Andrews, The Female Quixote, and Madame Bovary. What say you to another line on the template for works influenced by DQ? Obviously it wouldn't be exhaustive, but I think this is a part of the cultural impact of the novel that's worth including in the template. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 23:00, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Lathrop
Lathrop's translation is from 2011... at least, when I bought a copy, the copyright date is 2011. Is this the same translation listed here as 2005? Was it changed? I'm trying to pin down the discrepancy.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.47.30.202 (talk) 23:25, 19 November 2021 (UTC)