Talk:Tosca

Historical context
I'd like to suggest moving this material from the Synopsis to the Background. It provides information that's not contained in the libretto, so isn't strictly speaking a synopsis. Moving it would make the synopsis a bit clearer and also bring it in line with the format of other opera articles. Any other thoughts on this? Thanks, OperaBalletRose (talk) 12:13, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * See this discussion about that issue. In terms of helping the reader, it's probably best placed where it is. Having it as separate subsection before Act 1 doesn't imply that it's in the libretto. Alternatively it could be in separate section. The Background section is about the background to the writing of the opera itself and its context in the history of opera and/or the composer's works. It's not meant to for background of the subject matter. Also, this is a Featured Article that went through peer review, FA review, and a lot if discussion along the way. While FAs aren't carved in stone, there needs to be very good reason to alter their structure. Voceditenore (talk) 13:17, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with Voceditenore re the Historical context. The matter needs to be right before the synopsis, but we can discuss the structure and what to call it.  Extensive modifications to a FA, where the lead editors and others who contributed are still active, should be talked about, not imposed.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:05, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm a bit leery about the 2K plus of plot exposition added by OperaBalletRose and will probably cut it back a bit, but I'm busy with other stuff. Especially Act I.  The casual reader does not need to know about the food basket, for example.  I see the plot synopsis as written not for the Puccini maven, but for the guy who has opera tickets, has never seen it, and is hastily reading the plot on the way to the theatre (hopefully not while driving).  Minor details are a distraction.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:11, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah - thanks for directing me towards the earlier discussion on this. Can quite see why the Background section isn't the place for Historical Context. Perhaps we could set it up as a separate section, then, as you suggest, preceding the synopsis? My only worry is that by including historical context in the synopsis we're mixing up fact and fiction. We're also referring to other narratives (Sardou's play), and historical figures (Libero Angelucci), which could potentially be a bit confusing. But I do appreciate this article is a Featured Article, and has gone through many revisions, so this is only a suggestion! thanks. OperaBalletRose (talk) 15:14, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the feeling was that the historical context section is necessary for figuring out the synopsis. I don't want to add it to the background section because that means moving it to the top side of the "roles" table.  I'm OK with renaming it, but feel it should not be moved.  Your contributions are valuable, and I'm glad people take an interest, by the way.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:23, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it could have its own section just above the synopsis? Otherwise we could call it 'Factual historical context' to distinguish it from the fictional narrative of the opera? As for my additions to the synopsis, I hope on the whole that they're constructive, but am fairly new to editing synopses on Wikipedia, so still learning about suitable levels of detail/tone etc. Any helpful feedback most welcome! I appreciate that the food basket is perhaps a detail too far, though thought it would be useful to include mention of Spoletta and Sciarrone, as they're both listed in the Roles section. OperaBalletRose (talk) 16:30, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The problem is, people are going to click in the Table of Contents on synopsis, and they'll never see the context. So I'd really like it inside the synopsis section.  As for your edits, there's nothing awful about them, they should probably just be trimmed a bit.  It's just style.  Don't worry over it, just remember we are writing for the general public.  I'll go through it and cut it back a bit or possibly someone else will.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:57, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * To me the synopsis is now getting too long. A synopsis should be a summary of the main themes and events of the plot, not a retelling of every detail of the drama. I'd be for editing it back to something more direct and essential. Also, the historical information provides a context for the events of the story which are tied to a very specific moment in history. Agree that it is probably most useful to the reader just before the synopsis. Cheers, Markhh (talk) 04:50, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with the current treatment and placement of the opera's historical context. I also agree with most of the synopsis expansion, although some of it needs stylistic polish (4 consecutive sentences in act 1 starting with "The", 3 of those with "The [...] Sacristan" – which shouldn't be capitalised). I can't see how a detailed synopsis can be described as a distraction. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:04, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Recordings section
The recordings section is meant to be a brief account of the opera's recording history, not a comprehensive list of every commercial recording or the place to slip in your personal favourite. Please also note that the addition of a recording which has not been "commended" in the source cited, cannot use that source as a reference. This is a featured article. There have been many discussions about the amount of detail to include in the article, its structure, etc. by many editors as the article went through peer review and the FA process. If your edits have been reverted, please bring the issue for discussion here on the talk page. Voceditenore (talk) 10:00, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Bond Film
In section 5.2 (subsequent productions), it's stated that "In Philipp Himmelmann's production on the Lake Stage at the Bregenz Festival in 2007 the act 1 set, designed by Johannes Leiacker, was dominated by a huge Orwellian "Big Brother" eye. The iris opens and closes to reveal surreal scenes beyond the action. This production updates the story to a modern Mafia scenario, with special effects "worthy of a Bond film".[54]"

Is that last statement a joke, or just really ironic? Because it was used in a Bond film, namely Quantum of Solace, and not in just a passing way: a sequence of decent length is comprised of huge shots of this production. In fact it's so different from the rest of the film that it ends up being among the most memorable sequences in the entire movie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.107.216.109 (talk) 15:35, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Might be worth a footnote to set off the quote. We had no idea. I will look into it.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:50, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 164.107.216.109: that statement is not ironic but, if your description is correct, prescient. The production and the quoted article in the FT occurred more than a year before the release of Quantum of Solace. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:30, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Peacock words
WP:PEACOCK lays it out pretty clearly, and specifically mentions "famous" as a word to avoid. But people seem to wish to use this word, in one particular place only, in this article. The logic behind avoiding the word is very clear: it's subjective, and described what people might think about something rather than any objective fact about it. What is "famous" to you is not "famous" to me, and vice versa. So either we liberally add the word throughout every article, to describe anything that could be considered by anyone to be "famous", or we don't use it at all, unless it was used in a quote or other trivial exceptions. It was decided a long, long time ago that the latter option would be better, and this was written down in the manual of style.

"musicologist Joseph Kerman called it" is objective, concise, and verifiable. "musicologist Joseph Kerman famously called it" contains no additional information, only puffery. Is there some reason why you think this one fact, in this one article, should be exempt from Wikipedia guidelines? 200.83.101.199 (talk) 16:28, 14 February 2015 (UTC)


 * There is no blanket ban on using the word "famous" or in this case "famously". In this context it is appropriate. It has been described as such in numerous sources. See the archives of this talk page. And making a deliberately silly edit like this one to a featured article when your original change had been reverted by two editors is disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. Please cut it out. Voceditenore (talk) 16:44, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The talk page archive you linked to is not relevant, as it concerns the inclusion of the quote, not the use of the word "famously". Indeed, few things are banned on wikipedia, but there are very clear guidelines.  Why do you think they shouldn't apply here?  Why do you think that this one single fact needs to be described in this subjective way?  If it was "silly" to describe the opera itself as famous, then you must believe that a critic's opinion of it could be more famous, and more widely described as famous, than the opera itself.  That's clearly absurd.  200.83.101.199 (talk) 16:54, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * That discussion is not irrelevant. It lists and links to over 7 sources describing the quote as "famous". Voceditenore (talk) 16:59, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Having looked at the link to the archive and its links, and a few other things, I can see the point about calling the quote "famous"--so as far as I'm concerned "famously" is acceptable here. I do think (but this is by the by) that the commas around "La Tosca" interrupt the rhythm of the sentence and are unnecessary (punctuation not being governed by grammar), and that "French-language" is redundant, certainly in the lead. Plus, "dramatic" can go as well, IMO. Having said all that, yes, I agree that the multiple famous edit is pointy. Sorry IP, I'm not with you on this one. Drmies (talk) 17:15, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * So a quote about the opera is famous, but the opera itself is not? You'll have to give me a bit more of an explanation of your logic here as I'm just not understanding it. 200.83.101.199 (talk) 18:18, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah good, the IP has already responded here, making my post on his/her talk page redundant. I am extremely loath to weigh in on featured articles. However ... at the risk of offending absolutely everyone else ... I've examined the list of citations in that linked archived discussion and it's impressive. I believe this may be the rare case where "famous" is what (enough) sources say, by gum (although I suspect an element of geographical/recentist bias; I wonder whether this critic's line is well known on other continents?). My tentative vote for keeping it in the article, but I think it needs to be diluted in its force by the addition of several other weighty opinions. However, looking just at the lead here, I recognized another phrase as taken without attribution from one of those sources, and most of that third paragraph looks either POV or chatty. I recommend excising almost all of it. All except the fact the work continues to be frequently performed. Keep the reception stuff in its own section.  (And yes, that was a pointy edit. I don't agree with the IP that the word "famous" is totally verboten on Wikipedia - as is clear from what I wrote above about this instance - but it may well be that consensus has changed on the matter and the IP clearly believes it is absolutely banned.) Yngvadottir (talk) 17:20, 14 February 2015 (UTC) ... After a bit of added scrutiny, why aren't we locating it in the verismo tradition in the lead rather than just saying "melodrama"? The sources appear to be making a point of the debate about that style being the context of the dismissive remark. However, I reiterate - I stay away from FAs. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:37, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:PEACOCK lays out some very good guidelines, but it does say that its concern is the use of flattering adjectives "without attribution". There seems to be plenty of evidence that Mr Kerman's snarky comment is indeed "famous" and has been regularly quoted for some decades. In this case, the WP peacock warning seems not to apply. And of course, these WP rules, or warnings, are "guidelines", good ones, but they are not law and may not always apply in every situation. The intro to the Manual of Style is very clear on this (in bold). These types of words of often empty flattery are indeed best avoided or used with caution, but here it seems perfectly appropriate. Cheers, Markhh (talk) 18:09, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I do not see how it is relevant if sources use the word famous. We are never obliged to use the same words as any source.  You can find a source claiming that almost anything is famous - it's hardly a rare case where lots of sources do so - so should we describe everything as famous?  No, I tried that and it was rightly shot down.  You can find a source - a famous one! - which says that this opera is a shabby little shocker.  And those words aren't even listed as ones to avoid, so do we use them as if they are objectively true?  Obviously not.
 * I don't believe the word is forbidden on Wikipedia, I already said that. But we have a guideline called "words to avoid".  It doesn't say "avoid these words, unless you really want to use them", it doesn't say "avoid these words unless you see them in external sources", it says "avoid these words, because they neither impart nor summarise verifiable information".  The guideline is very long established, and I see no sensible case for an exception here.  200.83.101.199 (talk) 18:18, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

The quote is known world-wide. It is literally one of the most famous quotes about the opera. La Fenice's program notes for their production of Tosca highlights Kerman's quote. Ditto this second Italian source which explictly describes it "famous". Ditto this German source from the Berlin State Opera. Ditto this French article about a production in Besançon. Nor is this "recentist". Kerman wrote that in the early 1950s and it immediately caused a stir. And really, I dispute the notion that the lead is "chatty" and large amounts of it should be excised. Also, I find this utterly literal approach to Manual of Style/Words to watch very counterproductive, especially considering the preamble on that page:
 * Use common sense in applying it; it will have occasional exceptions.
 * The advice in this guideline is not limited to the examples provided and should not be applied rigidly. [original bolding]

This is not a case of "peacockery". You have to look at the context in which it is used in this article and look also at its place in the extensive published discourse about this subject. Yngvadottir, your mention of another "phrase taken without attribution" is rightly concerning. Which one is it? Voceditenore (talk) 18:30, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I struck that out after failing to find it when I looked again, including making my own book search. My apologies. What I would suggest were I involved in FA editing is to cut eveything in that third paragraph of the lead except for the last bit about its remaining popular and continuing to be performed widely and frequently - which continues the end of the second paragraph anyway. (Thereby reducing the prominence given to the "shabby little shocker" all other evaluative comments.) Instead, I would add to both lead and article a mention of verismo; it's apparently one of the key works for that style and that's important context for our labeling it "melodrama". I think. I would have boldly done that, but ... FA. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:45, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * "The quote is known world-wide" - sorry but that's nonsense. You talk like it's one of history's most significant utterances and that's plainly not true.  The existence of the guideline is exactly to prevent this kind of absurd "I think it's famous" "I think it isn't" unresolvable nonsense.  As for the context in which this quote is being used, it's in the introduction of an article in which its purpose is to illustrate that the opera was harshly described by some critics.  The fame or otherwise of the quote couldn't be less relevant.  "musicologist Joseph Kerman called it" contains all the necessary information.  200.83.101.199 (talk) 19:31, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I also note that, contrary to your claim, none of the four articles you posted describe the quote as "famous". The "second Italian source which explictly describes it 'famous'" is an extract of the first source; neither uses any Italian word for famous to describe the quote.  Even if they did, that would be of little relevance, but why do you feel so strongly about this that you'd make a false claim like this?  200.83.101.199 (talk) 19:43, 14 February 2015 (UTC)


 * (after ec) On the question of having the quotation in the lead, I am inclined to repeat what I said in August 2010: "(1) Tosca has always attracted adverse critical opinion in spite of its popularity with audiences; (2) this significant fact should be included in the lead; and (3) Kernan's well known remark is a graphic way of making the point clear, whether he is considered "distinguished" or not." I also recall Wehwalt's comment: "Very often a quotation is worth a thousand words of analysis, and in a lede, we are to be pithy." I believe these arguments still hold good. However, I don't personally feel that "famously" is a necessary part of the wording, and would face its excision with equanimity, if that is a consensual decision.  I can't accept Yngvadottir's view that the whole third paragraph of the lead should be chopped, except for the last few words, but her  suggestion that "verismo" should be mentioned in both lead and text is a valid one, and as soon I have a little more time I will attend to this. Brianboulton (talk) 19:49, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

 * I have no problems with 'famously' given the context discussed above, or with the lede as a whole. Mention of verismo somewhere would however be appropriate.--Smerus (talk) 21:42, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Why do you think the guidelines about words to avoid shouldn't apply here? 200.83.101.199 (talk) 23:14, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * IMO, If one is going to say "famously," it shouldn't be that difficult to come up with at least 3 significant citations to where the sentence has been quoted, leading to its "fame." kosboot (talk) 00:27, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, but you can do that for a massive number of things. Do we put the word "famous" next to everything ever described as such?  We have guidelines that say no.  Why do people think the guidelines shouldn't apply to this one particular statement?  200.83.101.199 (talk) 01:17, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I am traveling and do not have the source in front of me, but as I recall it is the source that claims that the quotation is famous. I am not aware of many sources that say it is not famous (you see the tail-chasing potential in such articles, I hope), thus it is not POV. It is justified in the text as it explains why that quote, and only that quote, is present in the lede.  It is not an obscure statement grabbed from some virtually unknown journal by a desperate Wikipedia article writer.  Like Brianboulton, I will accept it if the community decides to remove it, but I don't think it should be removed.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:57, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * You're seriously saying that because there aren't sources saying it's not famous, then it's not POV? You're seriously saying that?  200.83.101.199 (talk) 02:57, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Do you have a more policy-based reply?--Wehwalt (talk) 06:05, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I've outlined my reasons at length. Now seriously.  You think there might be a source that says a quote is not famous?  And that if there isn't, then that entitles you to use peacock words?  In 12 years of editing wikipedia, I genuinely think that's the most bizarre argument I've ever seen.  200.83.101.199 (talk) 12:22, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

"musicologist Joseph Kerman called it" is objective, concise, and verifiable. "musicologist Joseph Kerman famously called it" contains no additional information, only puffery. I have yet to see anyone explain why this one quote needs to be described as famous. I have yet to see anyone explain why this one situation should be exempt from conforming to the MOS. I cannot for the life of me understand why one word with zero information content could be so important to anyone. Please, assume that I am educated but utterly ignorant, and just explain it to me. 200.83.101.199 (talk) 12:25, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It is accurate, and sourced in the article. PEACOCK deals with unattributed, this is sourced. Other sources say the same thing. The reader can verify it.  It conforms with policy and guidelines. I've explained to you the reasons why it's textually appropriate.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:05, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:PEACOCK says nothing about whether the words appear in sources or not. They are words to avoid, not words to avoid unless they happen to appear in the text of a source.  I am sure you can understand that if the source said his quote was "amusing" or "foolish", you wouldn't want to write "musicologist Joseph Kerman amusingly/foolishly called it".  Famously is in that same category of subjectivity.  It is thus inappropriate to report it as if it is fact.  And to say that it conforms with guidelines, when the guidelines specifically say to avoid the word, is just silly. 200.83.101.199 (talk) 14:41, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Both the principal editors have said we will abide by any consensus for change in the wording to which you object. That consensus has not yet been evidenced. Your POV, however strongly and sincerely held, does not overide consensus. Remember that Jane Austen (famously?) wrote: "Where so many hours have been spent in convincing myself that I am right, is there some reason to fear I may be wrong?" (Sense and Sensibility, Ch. 31) Brianboulton (talk) 15:44, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The consensus is described at WP:PEACOCK. I've asked repeatedly what the logic is for insisting on an exemption here, but no-one's explained it.  In particular, no-one has been able to explain the logic of implying that a quote about the opera is more famous than the opera itself.  200.83.101.199 (talk) 16:17, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The "consensus" on that page is that such words should be avoided. Not that they are prohibited under any circumstances or that they are never appropriate. Yet you insist on an absolutely literal and slavish obedience. Perhaps you should re-read the lede of that page. You seem to studiously ignore it:
 * Use common sense in applying it; it will have occasional exceptions.
 * The advice in this guideline is not limited to the examples provided and should not be applied rigidly.
 * So please don't lecture the rest of us what the guidelines mean. This is not a case of POV or puffery of the article's subject or anyone else. It is communicating to the reader that this is a famous and oft-quoted comment about the opera. This is not "our" point of view. It is encountered in multiple reliable sources in multiple languages and described explicitly therein as such. I leave it up to Brian and Wehwalt who brought this article to FA status to make the call. But really, I have rarely encountered such a counterproductive and wrong-headed attitude to article writing or to guidelines. Voceditenore (talk) 17:31, 15 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Good God, how long has this been going on? WP:PEACOCK is perfectly clear that it refers to language unsupported by references. When something actually is very famous, it is often misleading not to say so. Some things are very famous and it is not "puffery" to say so, just giving the facts. That includes this quote. But as it is a quote, it should be referenced in the lead, even if the rest of the lease is not referenced, per the usual convention. This won't be hard, using the references already being used. Johnbod (talk) 17:44, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Voceditenore: indeed, they are not prohibited, but they should be avoided. There will be exceptions, but there is no logic for an exception here. If the quote is "oft-quoted", then that is something objective and verifiable that you could say instead. "Famous" is just an opinion. Just like "shabby little shocker" is an opinion. Do you know the difference between an opinion and a fact? Or do you think that all descriptions found in external sources can be reported as if fact?
 * Johnbod: you have misread WP:PEACOCK, it seems. It does not refer to language unsupported by references.  In your opinion, this is famous.  In my opinion, it is not.  I assume we both agree, though, that the opera is a vast factor more famous than a quote about it.  So let's start the article by describing Tosca as "a famous opera".  Would it be misleading not to?  200.83.101.199 (talk) 17:52, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * This seems to be just a classic example of the knots people will tie themselves in to come up with post hoc justifications for reverting IP edits. If you'd all just admit that you don't like it when anonymous editors can see better how to write well than you can, then we'd at least all be on the level.  200.83.101.199 (talk) 17:52, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * No, we just don't like unconstructive edits. I've just been looking at yours, and though there is much good stuff, there are also unhelpful attitudes, and some that should be reverted. For example "best known for" is not puffery - it is usually rather the reverse - it is a factual statement, which should be referenced but in no way falls under WP:PEACOCK. If you want to find a term to entirely extirpate from Wikipedia, and it seems you do, may I recommend "renowned", which should hardly ever appear here. Sometimes it should be replaced by "famous". If you don't like these things, you should add a cn template if it is not clear that the thing is not actually very famous. It is clear you don't have consensus here, or for your general interpretation of the guideline, and you should take that to heart. Johnbod (talk) 17:58, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * renowned: known or talked about by many people; famous.
 * famous: known about by many people
 * It is clear that you're not willing to understand principles of good writing, nor to follow them when they are outlined clearly in a manual of style. 200.83.101.199 (talk) 18:30, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * There is more to good writing than you will find in a dictionary (not that I believe you found those definitions in one). "Renowned" is a word from American journalese puffery; famous is the better choice. Johnbod (talk) 22:56, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Both are bad choices. No-one has yet explained why they feel it is essential to use either one of them.  200.83.101.199 (talk) 23:13, 15 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I too agree that multiple tertiary sources support the inclusion of the word famous or famously. WP:Verifiability is upheld and WP:Peacock is not a concern per this reason. The "Puffery" section specifically refers to the lack of attribution as the problem with the word famous. In this case, attribution is not an issue. I strongly suggest that the ip actually carefully reads Manual of Style/Words to watch. Certain sentences come to mind: "There are no forbidden words or expressions on Wikipedia", "The advice in this guideline is not limited to the examples provided and should not be applied rigidly." "What matters is that articles should be well-written and consistent with the core content policies—Neutral point of view, No original research, and Verifiability." At this point I believe there is a clear consensus to leave the term famously in the article. Best.4meter4 (talk) 02:35, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The appearance of a word in a source never obliges us to use that word. "Famous" is an opinion, and core content policies preclude us from reporting opinion as if it is fact.  At this point I believe that core content policies might as well be entirely rewritten because so few people seem to understand them any more.  200.83.101.199 (talk) 03:37, 16 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Fwiw, I'm on the side of 200.83.101.199. Is it not the case that our articles are written primarily with a certain audience in mind, namely, people who know little or nothing about the subject?  Most authors of an article like Tosca would know quite a lot about it.  They've probably heard it numerous times, seen it sung live, and know a lot of the background.  They do not need to be told that Kerman's quote is famous; they already knew that.  But equally, newcomers to Tosca don't really derive anything of especial import by knowing the quote is famous.  It's certainly not untrue that it's well-known, but as friend 200 points out, there are many other things about Tosca that are somewhere on the well-known/famous spectrum, and we don't describe any of them as "famous".  Is this opinion, for that is what it is, actually more famous than any of the things that are objectively true about the opera?  If it really were the absolutely most famous thing about Tosca (it isn't), then perhaps we could say so.  But since it does not have that distinction, why do we single it out over things that are more famous than it?  And over things that are actually factual rather than opinion-based?


 * I make these remarks against the backdrop of generally disliking "famously" in encyclopedia articles. I'm prepared to consider each case on its merits, but I believe we lose precisely nothing by removing the word "famously" in this case, and hence we gain precisely nothing by keeping it in. The principles of concision demand satisfaction.  Kerman's quote caught on because it's succinct and pithy, it's alliteratively euphonious, it's catchy, and it works. Plus, it has more than a kernel of truth in it.  People have been repeating it for those reasons, and newcomers to the opera and this article would remember it and also repeat it for those same reasons.  Not because they've been told it's "famous".  We'd never bold such a quote in a lede, would we?  That'd be be giving it way too much prominence, I hope you'd all agree.  Well, calling it "famous" goes too far down that same road, for my money.  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  03:57, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Clearly we don't all agree, and I think this has come up before. Johnbod (talk) 04:05, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I disagree with JackofOz. It's exactly for those readers who are not very familiar with the opera that the quote is characterised as "famous" (and so sourced). Without it, a reader might wonder why it is mentioned at all. As for the other famous elements, including the opera itself, which 200.83.101.199 : they are self-evident, which the quote isn't. I suggest 200.83.101.199 takes note and leaves this dead horse alone. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 07:35, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It is obvious why the quote is included. Terms of puffery make no difference to that.  The effect in this case is merely to make it look like the article was written for opera snobs, by opera snobs.  200.83.101.199 (talk) 11:19, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Your ability not to listen is astounding. Please re-read the section just above yours. As for debating points: you lose for using "it is obvious". And ad hominem arguments don't add any weight to your position. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:29, 16 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Without it, a reader might wonder why it is mentioned at all. Well, I could find you dozens of articles where we quote someone's opinion about the subject, but rather than saying "Elmer Merkin famously described it as Blah-blah-blah", we're happy to leave it at "Elmer Merkin described it as Blah-blah-blah". We don't seem too concerned about readers of those articles being left wondering about the point of such quotes.  So, that line of argument doesn't wash with me, Michael. Also, the point of the remark from Kerman was not for his remark itself to become famous, as you seem to be implying.  I'd be more than happy to mention that this remark is one of the most oft-quoted comments about this or any opera, ever; that is at least factual.  But - I hear you cry - doesn't that amount to the same thing as "famously", which is much more succinct?  No, in my opinion it does not. --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  03:10, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Few other quoted comments are as unexpected & surprising as J. Kerman's, so to signal that it has been quoted not by the selective whim of some editor (it does happen) but for its widespread currency, the word helps – I think. If anyone wants to replace "famous" with "widely quoted", I don't mind, but I agree that the current parenthetical insertion will lose its succinctness in any rephrasing along that line. Cheers, Michael Bednarek (talk) 10:31, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's worth doing on such a fine point. The reader understands "famously" in the context of opera, which is not likely to have as many fans as the NFL anytime soon. But if multiple sources use the word or a variant, are we to say that they are wrong, they do not understand the English language, only x percent of people have even heard of Tosca, etc.?--Wehwalt (talk) 11:58, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed. That the quote is, I suspect, now more famous than its author (or famous among a wider group) is another factor. My memory retains the quote, but not Kiernan, I'm afraid. No doubt there are all sorts or rude or dismissive things said about Tosca or any other work, so there needs to be some justification for including this one in the lead of the article. Consensus is now clear; I really think we're done here. Johnbod (talk) 15:26, 17 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Just as a suggestion, one could add to the quote that it was made in the early 1950s (the book is from 1952, and it's based on essays written in the preceding few years). At that time Kerman was a young man, a newbie critic, and the tolerance for operas (or innovative stagings of an old opera) being in any way risqué, deliberately theatrical/reinventing or holding the expectations of the audience over a slow fire was minimal compared to what it is today, when many opera productions deliberately play on the camp or titillating to some degree. Besides, I think Puccini was seen as a relatively light-weight opera composer at the time.


 * Also, Kerman wasn't a very notable musicologist at the time; he would become a well-known one much later (which would help spread his one-liner far and wide as the book was reprinted). Then again, no problem with the quote in itself being there. 83.254.154.164 (talk) 21:07, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 2
I don't think by User:Markhh was an improvement. It changed
 * "While critics have frequently dismissed the opera as a facile melodrama with confusions of plot—musicologist Joseph Kerman famously called it a 'shabby little shocker'" to
 * "While critics have dismissed the opera as a facile melodrama with confusions of plot—musicologist Joseph Kerman referred to it as a 'shabby little shocker'".

By omitting "frequently", the sentence gives now the impression that critics "dismissed the opera ..." – surely not.

Then, omitting "famously" will open the door to further debates why this quote should be mentioned at all. The point is of course, as established at length above, that it is so famous. I suggest to revert to the previous wording. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 17:40, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I disagree that " critics" suggests "all critics". To me it means some or an unspecified number. "Frequently" sounds like a nonstop onslaught of negative crticism, which is certainly no longer true. The fame of Kerman's quip has been debated here at length and I have supported it in the past. But I have come to see it as giving him the de facto ultimate judgement on the opera, mostly because of his clever use of alliteration.  I look forward to hearing other editors. Best, Markhh (talk) 17:54, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay, one has to chose the hills one is willing to die on and this isn't mine. (I'm not sure how one comment constitutes a concensus on my edit, however, but there it is.) I do hope in time another way to summarize diffences of opinion on the quality of the work in the lead section may be found that can dispense with the snarky Kerman quip altogether. I don't dispute that the quote is "famous", but does that familiarity mean it is really insightful or helpful? I vote no. Cheers, Markhh (talk) 21:56, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I prefer the original prose, and I don't see anything wrong with the quote's current inclusion.4meter4 (talk) 00:35, 11 April 2016 (UTC)