Talk:La Juive

Comings and goings
It seems a lot of material is being added to this article and then being taken away. Would it be possible to explain here what the problems are/were? (Just puzzled!) --Kleinzach 09:37, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I can't speak for others, but I removed a link to a list of performances at an external site. I did this for clear WP:COI issues.

The link was attached to a publisher who was promoting a revised version of this opera, not the opera as it was originally published in the 19th century. The information refering to this version (not the original version, but the particular publisher's version) was commercial, not encyclopaedic. The account that posted this inforamtion only posted other links to this particular publisher's site (see here ), and it appeared to me to be a clear case of WP:COI.

Other published editions of this opera exist and are being performed. It doesn't seem quite fair to only link to a list of performances which only use this one edition.Gretab 08:37, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Further information - The IP address which added the external link resolves to Frankfurt Germany. The publisher in question is Musik-Edition Lucie Galland, located in Weinsberg, just outside of Kassel.
 * The edition of La Juive is listed as Vol. I, La Juive, édité par Karl Leich-Galland, coproduit par Musik-Edition Lucie Galland et Alkor-Edition, Kassel, 2 vols. reliés, XIV et 974 p. ISMN M-006-50007-6, € 520,- There is also Vol. II, F. Halévy, Lettres, réunies et annotées par Marthe Galland, 318 p. ISBN 3-925934-37-5, € 62,-
 * Are Lucie, Marthe and Karl related? It would seem so.  This looks awfully like self-publishing and seems to confirm that COI is involved.Gretab 10:28, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe that the Galland version has a different synopsis than the traditionally used version. It would seem that the synposis here is being changed.  To conform to the Galland version? This seems like variations on a theme to me...Gretab 10:31, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I put a comment clearly refering to the removal of a link to a list of performances. I am somewhat puzzled by the reaction which is in part based on inferences that are wrong and which is refering to material and links, and removals of links I did never refer to in my comment. I am the author of the link to the performances. I am also the author of the other link refered to in the comments below. This second link was put on another page (Fromental Halevy) not on the page La Juive. I am not Lucie or Marthe or Karl, but I know these people. I have never removed anything from a Wikipedia page, in particular I did not remove nor do I know who has removed the synopsis on the page La Juive (I regret the removal and would suggest that the author of the removal puts it back as long as there is no clear copyright infringement, and perhaps rather contributes something to the remaining acts as the synopsis was incomplete). I regret that I have to explain all this, but the previous comments below do not seem to leave me much choice. I am an unexperienced editor of Wikipedia (putting the links was my first contribution). I like to presume, until clear proof to the contrary, that people contributing to Wikipedia have good intentions. My initial comment only referred to the removal of the link to the performances. I propose to keep the discussion about the two links separate. I am certainly interested to discuss the second link too, but would prefer to do this on the page concerned (i.e Fromental Halevy), in order to not mix things up (I can understand that there might be a COI issue in the link on the Fromental Halevy page - though I a feel that the issue could be solved by separating different interests; the possibility of a solution depends on the outcome of the discussion about the link to the performances). Let's deal with the link about the performances first. I do not understand the clear WP:COI concerning the link about the performances. Could someone explain this to me? The Wiki rules on this issue are high level principles - which is a good thing - and need interpretation. I hope this discussion will allow me to better understand the issues involved.--(unexperienced user) 06:55, 17 May 2007 (CET)


 * Hello, have you just opened an account under the name of 'unexperienced user'? As an uninvolved third party I have had some difficulty trying to understand this problem. Are there two versions of La Juive and if so what is the difference between them? Why is there a controversy about this? Best wishes. -- Kleinzach 05:16, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * All I have said refered to the english Wikipedia page La Juive. To the best of my knowledge there are not two versions of La Juive. I have put an external link on this page which features a list of performances of this opera over the last decade. Someone removed this link - I presume with good intentions - and I do not understand the reasons for the removal. I would prefer to have a relaxed discussion about this, please. (unexperienced user) 7:50, 17 May 2007 (CET)


 * OK I understand you have not open an account (maybe a good thing as it is 'inexperienced'!) but would you like to do so? It will be easier to help you if you do. I believe Gretab removed the link. I will ask her to respond to you here. -- Kleinzach 06:02, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The link was removed because it was a link to a specific edition of this work by a commercial publisher. The list was not a list of performances of the work, but a list of performances of the edition offered for sale by the commercial publisher.  I talked to an administrator about this and he agreed that the link was inappropriate because it gave undue weight to this one edition.  Other editions exist (the work is in public domain and anyone can make an edition) and performances of other editions should be included in encyclopaedic content, not just this edition.

It was the opinion of the administrator that the link should remain deleted, because of these issues.

I see that you live near Heilbronn (according to your IP address), one of the cities that programmed this edition and which was on the list. Are you certain that you had no connections to the publisher and had nothing to do with the publisher in question? I am having trouble understanding exactly why it is so important for you to have this link restored. Gretab 09:21, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Our external link guidelines are pretty stringent. It's not hugely relevant as to whether the link is commercial or not. It's just useless. It's only productions since 1999, and even if not those only using this edition, the list does not appear, and does not claim to be, complete. Hardly a useful link for the article now, let alone a useful link should this article ever be featured (which is the requirement, if you read the guideline). We shouldn't include links of limited utility like this: Wikipedia is not a link collection. Cheers, Moreschi Talk 10:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The link did not refer to a specific edition, but to a list of perfomances. The person who removed the link persists in mixing up the link to the performances and the link to the specific edition which was also removed, but on a different wikipedia page. Could we please discuss only the link to the performances of the opera La Juive. The list of performances of the link is to the best of my knowledge a complete list of all performances of the opera La Juive since 1999. I would be extremely surprised if these performances all used one specific edition. I am slightly puzzled by the fact that action is taken on the basis of mere assumptions. It is more important for me to understand why the link has been removed than to have the link restored. People working on Wikipedia should be careful when they add or remove information, both actions should be based on careful research instead of assumptions. Concerning the usefulness, that seems to me a matter of appreciation. I am not convinced that the link is useless on the basis of one person claiming so. (inexperienced user) 21:17, 17 May 2007 (CET)


 * The link was removed because it was attached to the site of a commercial publisher who was offering the edition of the opera for sale for a very expensive price. If you really want to add the the information, then add it to the article.  It seems to me that the commercial link is not appropriate, given the external link policy.  Why don't you add the list of performances, avoiding the entire issue of the specific edition?  Perhaps only the performances at major houses should be added, including those before 1988? Gretab 22:34, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Excuse me, but could you explain this statement, please? The person who removed the link persists in mixing up the link to the performances and the link to the specific edition which was also removed, but on a different wikipedia page.

Which Wikipedia page? And exactly how do you know this? Again, I ask: are you somehow connected to the publisher of this edition? Why is this so important to you? Gretab 22:47, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * You took away at least two links: one concerning the list of performances on the page La Juive and another one refering to new (and by the way critical, i.e. with a scientific focus) editions on the page on Fromental Halevy. There was no reference to a specific edition on the performance page (!), so I do not understand why you are refering in your answers to my questions about the performance link to a specific edition (by the way, I do know nothing about the prices of operas, but I would guess that the publisher you are refering to is not able and has no intention to make any profit out of its "business" - the prices of its webpage strike me as being just much to low for that). To answer your question: it is important to me because I would find it a bit strange when it were possible to take away links without any valid reason. I feel the information about the performances is valuable: it shows that the opera has been performed surprisingly often over the last decade (major houses are not that interesting because it's the mid-range houses which are sometimes more daring and innovative). I guess this is interesting information to those who follow the repertoire of operas. The performances before 1999 are available in the literature.


 * An interesting question this discussion raises is what means "link to a commercial website"? Again, I remind you that the page on performances of La Juive did not feature any reference at all to a commercial offer (!). Compare this to the following Wikipedia webpages and the links indicated hereafter which feature there:
 * 1. Mozart - third top link: http://www.mozartones.com/de/start/index.asp (a particularly interesting example for real aficionados of operas, don't try to get back to the previous page once you are there, it won't work - don't ask me why)
 * 2. Mozart - fifth top link: http://www.wamozartfan.com/ (nine selling offers on this page)
 * 3. Richard Wagner - top link: http://www.wagneroperas.com/ (you can see there a prominent link to a megastore),
 * 4. Handel - second top link: http://www.haendel.it/ (pictures of DVDs and CDs, fortunately without prices -  is this commercial or not? When you click on one, you'll get much more)
 * 5. Cherubini - top link http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03648a.htm ( a link to the Catholic Encyclopedia (!) with three very visible selling adverts from Google)
 * This was a random search which took me ten minutes. I do not dare to imagine what would come out when systematic investigations were done!! So, is the Wikipedia practice on this issue consistent? Should it be? What does this mean for the Wikipedia rules about COI? What does it mean for the link to the list of performances which has been taken away from the page on the opera La Juive? Any ideas? - (inexperienced user) 10:33, 18 May 2007 (CET)


 * Yes, there is plenty of spam on Wikipedia, and no, it should not be there, and yes, it should be removed whenever it is spotted.


 * This link in question does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became featured. To say otherwise of a hopelessly incomplete list of performances dating back to just 1999 is silly. If this were featured, it would contain at least the majority of that data. If you read the external link guidelines, you will see that this is the requirement, conflict-of-interest/spam issues apart.


 * It is not a question of when to exclude links, but when to include them. Wikipedia articles should contain as few links as possible. Wikipedia is not a link database. That is policy.


 * At any rate, surely improving the article is more important than wrangling over the inclusion of highly dubious links? I fail to see why this is so important. We need good articles, not links that add nothing. Moreschi Talk 08:46, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


 * There is no evidence that this edition is any more important than any other. The primary source manuscript is in the Paris Opera Library and any qualified scholar could have access to it to prepare an edition.  Several editions exist and are used for both performance and study.
 * The score of this edition is for sale for 520 Euros. The score of Verdi's Trovatore is available from Dover for 36 euros.  I hardly think that this edition would qualify as a "not-for-profit" enterprise.  However, you might have more information than I have on this.
 * If you really feel that this information is important, then why don't you add it to the article, without the commercial link? That way, the information is available without the possibility of conflict of interest and spam. Gretab 13:44, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I am fairly new to Wikipedia, but am surprised and appalled by the level of non-professionalism that is displayed here. Concerning the COI issue: Having the Grove listed in the Sources section of the "La Juive" article is promoting the Grove, which has an external link! This kind of reasoning is absurd, hence the mention of the new edition of "La Juive" is not only pertinent, but necessary. Otherwise every "source" section at the end of an article becomes COI. At this point, there is no mention of this latest edition at the end of the article. Did anybody ever wonder why "La Juive" has been revived over the last ten years or so? Also, qualifying a press which publishes a number of authors as "self-publishing" is, to say the least, inaccurate. Concerning the pricing issue, I am afraid, that there is a misunderstanding here. I very much doubt that Dover sells the complete musical score that the conductors of opera houses are using for 36 Euros! The score of "La Juive" mentioned earlier has 974 pages! Like the "unexperienced user", I urge the contributors of this forum, to research carefully what they are divulging before putting inaccuracies in Wikipedia. Tatagatha


 * The opera does not exist because someone's family member has decided to publish a new edition prepared by someone with the same last name. The opera has existed before and will exist after this edition has been forgotten. If this family of "Halèvy" experts are notable, you're more than welcome to write articles about them, as long as they can be traced to reliable sources such as "Grove" and the like.  "Self-publishing" does not count here. But expecting these people to have equal billing with the actual composer of the opera simply because somebody has gotten a photocopy of the score from the Paris Opera library is a bit much, I should say...Gretab 20:50, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Performance history section
I've gone ahead and added information to this section, using information from the German publishers site, omitting concert performances and those at secondary houses. Gretab 13:54, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Expansion
This is interesting (originally from The New Yorker). There's plenty to add and refine here. We should mention Mahler and Wagner. How about Eléazar being the last stage role Caruso ever took? --Folantin 08:51, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Also useful as a serious source! Thank you for that. Who wants to add this into what's already there? Gretab 21:39, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Featured picture scheduled for POTD
Hello! This is to let editors know that File:La Juive Act 1 set 1835 - Restoration.jpg, a featured picture used in this article, has been selected as the English Wikipedia's picture of the day (POTD) for October 24, 2021. A preview of the POTD is displayed below and can be edited at Template:POTD/2021-10-24. For the greater benefit of readers, any potential improvements or maintenance that could benefit the quality of this article should be done before its scheduled appearance on the Main Page. If you have any concerns, please place a message at Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day. Thank you! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:58, 6 October 2021 (UTC)