User:Smeat75/sandbox

Opérette Most modern biographers of Herod, and probably a majority of biblical scholars, dismiss Matthew's story as an invention.

Music
Opérette
 * Handel reference database - http://ichriss.ccarh.org/HRD/1727.htm
 * http://www.operette-theatremusical.fr/2015/09/20/operette-la-princesse-de-trebizonde/ operetta site in French
 * http://www.gfhandel.org/

Handel biography

Trump

 * "Fascist" speech

Fake royals
Georg Friedrich, Prince of Prussia German version French version
 * The use of noble titles by members of the House of Habsburg is illegal in Austria.

Templates
Template:Prussian Royal Family (edit · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages) This template has three major flaws, the first two of which are incorrigible.
 * a) It attributes princely titles to people who probably do not use them (e.g. the High Line architect Tatiana von Preussen) for reasons ranging from professional to legal or ideological. Because the vast majority of the people listed in the template are private citizens, meaning entirely obscure, it is impossible to verify whether they use the titles attributed to them by this template.
 * b) The template is meant to be a navbox ("a grouping of links used in multiple related articles to facilitate navigation between those articles") yet it completely fails as such. Only 10 out of 70 people named in the template are linked; the rest are bare names.
 * ) There are no sources verifying the existence of more than half of the people mentioned in the template. Most of the people listed in it do not appear anywhere else on Wikipedia
 * Weird thing, produces a template but clcik on it and it says no such thing exists

EU
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/oct/24/theresa-may-first-raise-option-brexit-transition-period-extension-eu

European commission vice-president, Frans Timmermans" The European Union is an instrument to help European people solve their differences at the negotiating table instead of the battlefield.

“The European Union is a guarantee that no British soldiers will have to be sent to battlefields in Europe again as they have so valiantly done in our common history. The European Union is the best guarantee for peace in Europe for the ages to come and for one of the biggest member states to leave is an incredibly sad moment." -

Caffeine
coffeebreak so removing all that but it will be in the revision history here -

Grove ref
for instance

More EU
Gove https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/michael-gove/michael-gove-vote-leave_b_9728548.html

Johnson German cars https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/14571296.boris-johnson-eu-tariffs-would-be-insane-if-uk-backs-brexit/

Davis https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/brexit/2018/07/all-times-david-davis-said-brexit-was-simple

https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/brexit/2018/07/all-times-david-davis-said-brexit-was-simple -

Music
http://www.bruzanemediabase.com/eng/Works -

Le Petit Faust March Marseille update --

Tchaikovsky on Huguenots -- Robert Ignatius Letellier The Bible in Music 2017- 1443868485

Giacomo Meyerbeer: A Reader. Newcastle, UK: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. ISBN 978-1-84718-388-0.

Robert Ignatius Letellier Operetta: A Sourcebook, Volume I 1443884251 2015

Letellier, Robert Ignatius (1997), The English Novel, 1660-1700: An Annotated Bibliography, Greenwood Publishing Group, ISBN 978-0313303685

An Introduction to the Dramatic Works of Giacomo Meyerbeer: Operas, Ballets, Cantatas, Plays, p. 195. Hampshire, England: Ashgate. ISBN 978-0-7546-6039-2

Opéra-Comique: A Sourcebook. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars. ISBN 9781443821407.

Letellier, Robert Ignatius (2010). Daniel-François-Esprit Auber: The Man and His Music. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars. ISBN 978-1-4438-2597-9.

Letellier, Robert Ignatius (2016-08-17). The Bible as Revelatory Word: 1 Scripture as Oracular Text (The Prophetic and Wisdom Traditions). Cambridge Scholars Publishing. ISBN 9781443899208.

Letellier, Robert Ignatius (2008). The Ballets of Ludwig Minkus. Cambridge Scholars Publishing.

Opérette

Existence of Jesus

 * “It is evident that if the personality and influence of Jesus disappeared from history, the birth of Christianity has still to be explained, and it is to this task that those who deny his historicity have applied themselves, with a confidence only equaled by the variety of their theories and the flimsiness of their arguments." Charles Guignebert

Read more at http://www.patheos.com/blogs/religionprof/2017/06/skeptical-of-mythicism.html#MbRlECARWLLkBuXw.99
 * Philip Jenkins "What you can’t do, though, without venturing into the far swamps of extreme crankery, is to argue that Jesus never existed. The “Christ-Myth Hypothesis” is not scholarship, and is not taken seriously in respectable academic debate. The grounds advanced for the “hypothesis” are worthless. The authors proposing such opinions might be competent, decent, honest individuals, but the views they present are demonstrably wrong.""Jesus is better documented and recorded than pretty much any non-elite figure of antiquity."

Read more at http://www.patheos.com/blogs/anxiousbench/2016/04/the-myth-of-the-mythical-jesus/#IGPQmrQ3pSPteW5M.99 Read more at http://www.patheos.com/blogs/anxiousbench/2016/04/the-myth-of-the-mythical-jesus/#IGPQmrQ3pSPteW5M.99
 * The attempts to deny Jesus’ historical existence are, for anyone acquainted with the relevant evidence, blatantly silly.https://larryhurtado.wordpress.com/2017/12/02/why-the-mythical-jesus-claim-has-no-traction-with-scholars/
 * https://larryhurtado.wordpress.com/page/2/
 * “The Real Jesus”in National Geographic

"I noticed when making a hurried visit to a local supermarket last evening that (just in time for Christmas) the current issue of National Geographic (Dec 2017) has its cover story: “The Real Jesus.”   “Mythicists” will be disappointed, as the author (Kristin Romey) dismisses the option in one paragraph.

She writes: “Might it be possible that Jesus Christ never even existed, that the whole stained glass story is pure invention? It’s an assertion that’s championed by some outspoken skeptics–but not, I discovered, by scholars, particularly archaeologists, whose work tends to bring flights of fancy down to earth” (pp. 41-42). Ouch!!

Or how about her quote of Eric Meyers (archaeologist and emeritus Professor in Judaic Studies, Duke University): “I don’t know any mainstream scholar who doubts the historicity of Jesus. . . The details have been debated for centuries, but no one who is serious doubts that he’s a historical figure” (p. 42)." Ehrman John Dickson (author)
 * "every single scholar of early Christianity...universally, as an entire body...(every) recognized scholar in that field of scholarship" does, [] "every single scholar of early Christianity that Doherty appeals to fundamentally disagrees with his major thesis (Jesus did not exist). This is completely unlike other works of true scholarship, where scholars are cited as having disagreements on various points – but not, universally, as an entire body, on the entire premise and virtually all the claims (foundation and superstructure")
 * https://www.ridley.edu.au/bible-theology/yes-jesus-existed-relax-can-still-atheist-want/ Mike Bird on Lataster


 * Education: B Theology (Hons); PhD Ancient History (Macquarie University) - thesis published as Mission-Commitment in Ancient Judaism and in the Pauline Communities.


 * Position: Senior Research Fellow of the Department of Ancient History, Macquarie University


 * Relevant specialization: Ancient history; historical Jesus; theology; New Testament.


 * Relevant publications:
 * 1) Christ Files: How Historians Know what they Know about Jesus
 * 2) Jesus: A short life

In a paper presented to the Society for the Study of Early Christianity: "In fact, I doubt that any of us could name a professional biblical or ancient historian who thinks Jesus’ existence is still debatable. Much more representative of the state of the question is the comment of Professor Ed Sanders of Duke University, one of the leading historical Jesus scholars of the last twenty years and no friend of Christian apologetics: ‘There are no substantial doubts about the general course of Jesus’ life: when and where he lived, approximately when and where he died, and the sort of thing that he did during his public activity.’ I think this sentiment would be endorsed by virtually everyone writing in the field today."
 * Views on scholarly acceptance of CMT:

"To describe Jesus' non-existence as 'not widely supported' is an understatement. It would be akin to me saying, 'It is possible to mount a serious, though not widely supported, scientific case that the 1969 lunar landing never happened.' There are fringe conspiracy theorists who believe such things - but no expert does. Likewise with the Jesus question: his non-existence is not regarded even as a possibility in historical scholarship. Dismissing him from the ancient record would amount to a wholesale abandonment of the historical method."
 * Huff Post Ehrman "Did Jesus Exist?"
 * Ehrman:"The reality, however, is that every single scholar of early Christianity that Doherty appeals to fundamentally disagrees with his major thesis (Jesus did not exist). This is completely unlike other works of true scholarship, where scholars are cited as having disagreements on various points – but not, universally, as an entire body, on the entire premise and virtually all the claims (foundation and superstructure)
 * Bart Ehrman (a secular agnostic) wrote: "He certainly existed, as virtually every competent scholar of antiquity, Christian or non-Christian, agrees".
 * Bart D. Ehrman states that the existence of Jesus and his crucifixion by the Romans is attested to by a wide range of sources including Josephus and Tacitus.
 * Biblical scholar John Dominic Crossan, highly skeptical with regard to the Gospel accounts of miracles, wrote in 1995

"That (Jesus) was crucified is as sure as anything historical can ever be, since both Josephus and Tacitus... agree with the Christian accounts on at least that basic fact."


 * Leading historian of ancient history Robin Lane Fox states "Jesus was born in Galilee".
 * Michael Grant (a classicist) states that "In recent years, 'no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non historicity of Jesus' or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary."
 * According to classical historian Michael Grant the idea that Jesus never lived is an "extreme view". He wrote

"If we apply to the New Testament, as we should, the same sort of criteria as we should apply to other ancient writings containing historical material, we can no more reject Jesus' existence than we can reject the existence of a mass of pagan personages whose reality as historical figures is never questioned."

According to Grant, "modern critical methods fail to support the Christ-myth theory", adding that the idea has been "annihilated" by the best scholars because the mythicists "have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary". Michael Grant wrote in 1977 that "In recent years, 'no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non-historicity of Jesus' or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary.""


 * Graeme Clarke, Emeritus Professor of Classical (Ancient) History and Archaeology at Australian National University has stated ""Frankly, I know of no ancient historian or biblical historian who would have a twinge of doubt about the existence of a Jesus Christ - the documentary evidence is simply overwhelming."


 * Historian Donald Akenson wrote "Yeshua,born in Nazareth,...after his death, was transformed into Jesus-the-Messiah, or, if you like, Jesus Christ."


 * Co-director of Ancient Cultures Research Centre at Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia Alanna Nobbs has stated ""While historical and theological debates remain about the actions and significance of this figure, his fame as a teacher, and his crucifixion under the Roman prefect Pontius Pilate, may be described as historically certain."
 * Paul Maier, professor of ancient history at Western Michigan University, is quoted by Hope as saying: "Anyone who uses the argument that Jesus never existed is simply flaunting his ignorance.It's about that bad."
 * https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Guignebert  Je fais toutes réserves sur les détails du récit évangélique, je ne crois pas possible de douter de l'historicité de la crucifixion

I thought editors here might be interested in the following quote from Paul Veyne,Did the Greeks believe in their myths? (Chicago, 1988, trans. Paula Wissing), p. 106 : "He was close, as a matter of fact, to a type of crank that historians who study the past two centuries sometimes encounter: anticlericals who deny the historicity of Christ (which irritates me, atheist that I am) and addled brains who deny the existence of Socrates, Joan of Arc, Shakespeare, or Molière, get excited about Atlantis, or discover monuments erected by extraterrestrials on Easter Island." Veyne, as he says, is an atheist; he is also a classicst, and though he specializes in ancient Rome, the book I've quoted from is one that's influential in the study of Greek mythology. --Akhilleus (talk) 00:30, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * "Most scholars agree that Jesus was baptized by John, debated with fellow Jews on how best to live according to God’s will, engaged in healings and exorcisms, taught in parables, gathered male and female followers in Galilee, went to Jerusalem, and was crucified by Roman soldiers during the governorship of Pontius Pilate (26–36 CE)"
 * "Mythicists as a group,and as individuals, are not taken seriously by the vast majority of scholars in the fields of New Testament, early Christianity, ancient history, and theology."

Van Voorst, Jesus Outside the New Testament "Contemporary New Testament scholars have typically viewed their arguments as so weak or bizarre that they relegate them to footnotes, or often ignore them completely...The theory of Jesus' nonexistence is now effectively dead as a scholarly question."

William Horbury, University of Oxford: "Defense of Biblical criticism was not helped by the revival at this time of the 'Christ-Myth' theory, suggesting that Jesus had never existed, a suggestion rebutted in England by the radical but independent F. C. Conybeare." ("The New Testament", in Ernest Nicholson, A Century of Theological and Religious Studies in Britain, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003, p. 55) John T. Townsend, Harvard University: "Zindler depends on secondary works and writes with the aim of proving the Christ-Myth theory, namely, the theory that the Jesus of history never existed." ("Christianity in Rabbinic Literature", in Isaac Kalimi & Peter J. Haas, Biblical Interpretation in Judaism and Christianity, New York: T. & T. Clark, 2006, p. 150) Maurice Goguel, the Sorbonne: "Negative as these [hyper-minimalist] conclusions appear, they must be strictly distinguished from the theories of the mythologists. According to the critics whom we may term minimalists, Jesus did live, but his biography is almost totally unknown to us. The mythologists, on the other hand, declare that he never existed, and that his history, or more exactly the legend about him, is due to the working of various tendencies and events, such as the prophetic interpretation of Old Testament texts, visions, ecstasy, or the projection of the conditions under which the first group of Christians lived into the story of their reputed founder." ("Recent French Discussion of the Historical Existence of Jesus Christ", Harvard Theological Review 19 (2), 1926, pp. 117–118) Alan Richardson, University of Nottingham: "The Christ-Myth theory (that Jesus never lived) had a certain vogue at the beginning of this century but is not supported by contemporary scholarship. (The Political Christ, London: SCM, 1973, p. 113) Hugo A. Meynell, University of Calgary: "If this account of the matter is correct, one can also see why it is that the 'Christ-myth' theory, to the effect that there was no historical Jesus at all, has seemed so plausible to many..." (An Introduction to the Philosophy of Bernard Lonergan (2nd ed.), Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1991, p. 166) ______

Editor who left

 * " rewrote this whole section with more accuracy and less bias"


 * Jenhawk saying that she has come to WP in order to write Christian sermons : "ethics in the Bible isn't really discussed in "parts" it's everywhere. The reader has to bring their own moral reasoning to the plate as well, but there is no part of it where that does not apply. There is a place for criticisms--but there has to be something there to criticize!  When I think of the Biblical ethic, I include the law, and the nature of covenant, politics, economics--there are ethical priciples in the Bible that apply to it all.  Foundational concepts like human value and human rights--the Hebrew Bible is what changed the view of mankind and protecting the weak, the stranger, the elderly, and women and children. See, that is shifting in our modern day as people move away from the biblical ethic; society is shifting to a utilitarian value of man instead. Soon, they will be knocking off people who don't earn their keep anymore!! The Bible teaches virtue ethics, and no, I don't think splitting this one into OT and NT is appropriate.  Ethically, the Bible has one ethic that runs through it--there is grace in the OT and Law in the N T and everything that's in the NT is built on what's in the Old. Theologically there's a difference in testaments  but ethically there isn't. I want to say what ethics the Bible teaches.  I want to write down the teachings that changed the world and made western society what it is today. I want to list--and describe--those ethical principles that are found in the Bible. That's what I want to do. That's what I'm thinking. Does that sound okay to you?  Thank you Jytdog.  Thank you. 17:36, 13 September 2018 (UTC)"
 * " Same-sex attraction spelled the estrangement of men and women at the very deepest level of their inmost desires."

Google trans
Stop aux traductions Google ! Bonjour,

Je salue vos efforts de contribuer un maximum aux articles de philosophie, ce qui demande du temps et du travail. Mais, s'il vous plait, laissez tomber les traductions d'articles de philo. à l'aide de Google et autres outils de traduction qui en plus de rendre les phrases totalement alambiquées et parfois même incompréhensibles, conduisent à d'innombrables fautes de syntaxe et même parfois simplement d'orthographe ! J'aurai aucun mal à vous donner des dizaines d'exemples de phrases qui seraient raturées de rouge par n'importe quel prof. de français. Par ailleurs, vous vous appuyez le plus souvent sur la version anglaise des articles de Wikipédia qui ne sont pas moins contestables que les autres versions (parfois ils sont franchement mauvais), et qui mal traduits n'apportent plus rien à la compréhension et discrédite le reste.

En outre, il y a maintenant une multiplication d'ajouts et créations d'articles sur le thème du naturalisme philosophique (naturalisme moral, Non-naturalisme moral, naturalisme métaphysique, naturalisme méthodologique, et je ne sais quel autre naturalisme encore en attente...) dont vous êtes l'auteur et qui rendent la compréhension du concept philosophique de naturalisme de plus en plus difficile au lieu de la faciliter. L'article "ethical naturalism" par exemple, se traduit habituellement en français par "descriptivisme" (article wiki encore inexistant), et il y a de nombreux écrits en français sur la question du descriptivisme. On parle de naturalisme moral plutôt en référence au sophisme naturaliste de Moore. Ce genre de distinctions ne peut évidemment pas apparaître dans la version anglophone.

Bien sûr, vous faites ce que vous voulez, et peut-être que vous me renverrez aux nombreux défauts de mes propres ajouts. Mais il n'y a rien dans ces ajouts qui ait été fait à l'aveugle à partir d'une traduction d'un autre article de Wikipédia. Je préfère prendre mon temps, et ne pas en "ajouter un max" pour coller aux articles du wiki anglophone. Il faut penser aux étudiants de philosophie qui vont tomber sur ces articles... Il en va un peu de la crédibilité de Wikipédia. Privilégions la qualité à la quantité.

J'espère que vous ne prendrez pas mal mes critiques (vous êtes susceptible je crois) et que vous tiendrez compte de mes remarques. Cordialement. --Nadjiwill (discuter) 27 janvier 2016 à 16:39 (CET)

Bonjour et merci de suivre mon travail. 1Depuis 4 ans et demi que je me sers de l'outil Google traduction jamais encore on ne m'a fait ce genre de remarque, bon il fallait bien que ça arrive, personne n'est exempt de fautes (syntaxe ou orthographe). J'ai cru comprendre que Wikipédia était une encyclopédie collaborative, pourquoi ne corrigez-vous pas ce qui doit l'être comme tout un chacun le fait par ailleurs? 11« Je salue vos efforts de contribuer un maximum aux articles ». Merci mais ça c'est du français Google. 111« J'aurai aucun mal à vous donner des dizaines d'exemples de phrases qui seraient raturées de rouge par n'importe quel prof. de français. ». (vous vouliez sans doute écrire : je n'aurais aucun mal etc.). Pour le reste de ce passage, merci de votre délicate et indispensable remarque (des dizaines! Comme vous êtes modéré, il y en a certainement des centaines). Eh bien donnez, donnez et on corrigera. 1111« et peut-être que vous me renverrez aux nombreux défauts de mes propres ajouts ». Vous vouliez sans doute écrire : et peut-être me renverrez-vous etc.). Eh bien non, je ne sais pas ce que vous faites et je n'ai pas l'intention de suivre ce que vous faites sur Wiki. 2Vous me renvoyez à l'article Paralogisme naturaliste où le nom de Moore n'est pas même cité. Quelle bonne occasion pour vous d'enrichir cette ébauche d'article et de la renommer du nom dont vous usez? 21« L'article "ethical naturalism" par exemple, se traduit habituellement en français par "descriptivisme" (article wiki encore inexistant) ». J'ai traduit cet article en le nommant naturalisme moral. Eh bien renommez-le si vous l'estimez utile, d'autant que vous regrettez qu'il n'existe pas d'article intitulé Descriptivisme. Eh bien si en fait mais pas sous ce titre. 22« vous vous appuyez le plus souvent sur la version anglaise des articles de Wikipédia qui ne sont pas moins contestables que les autres versions ». Il faut bien choisir une version, puisque toutes se valent m'écrivez-vous. Il y a une époque où je traduisais Shintoïsme d'État de l'espagnol dont je ne parle pas un mot et Shinbutsu shūgō de l'allemand sans compter quelques articles en néerlandais voire tchèque. Il va sans dire que lassé de l'attitude de certains contributeurs et opérateurs je ne me lance plus dans pareils travaux. 23« (vous êtes susceptible je crois) ». Ça m'arrive en effet, le plus souvent lorsque je suis victime de l'insolence ou du manque de savoir vivre des uns et des autres. Jamais par exemple je ne me suis permis ni ne me permettrai (oui, au futur) d'écrire un message tel que le vôtre à quel que contributeur que ce soit qui essaye de faire du mieux qu'il peut. Eh encore moins sous l'intitulé que vous avez choisi). 24« que vous tiendrez compte de mes remarques. ». Je ne crois pas, non mais je me demande bien de quelle position magistrale vous vous autorisez pour vous adressez à moi sur ce ton? J'ai quitté le portail Japon pour les remerciements que j'y ai reçus en réponse aux plus de 6000 articles créés, je croyais trouver la paix et la quiétude en philo : Loupé! Cordialement, LouisAlain (discuter) 27 janvier 2016 à 19:43 (CET) (et merci de ne pas me relancer). Comme prévu, vous prenez mes critiques constructives sur vos traductions comme une attaque personnelle et vous répondez sur les petites fautes de frappe ou de typographie que je commets sur une page de discussion... certaines de vos remarques étant incorrectes par ailleurs ("j'aurai" par exemple est au futur et non au conditionnel). Somme-nous bien sur une page de discussion ou me trompé-je ? (Je suis ici à la lettre vos conseils). Manifestement, vous ne souhaitez pas discuter intelligemment sur la pertinence des traductions Google des articles de philosophie. Pourtant le problème est évident ! N'importe quel enseignant ou étudiant avancé vous ferait la même remarque. Contrairement à ce vous croyez, il n'y a aucune raison de trouver la quiétude en philosophie, et encore moins du côté analytique où la discipline est stricte et fondée sur des connaissances précises et des arguments.

6 000 articles c'est en effet énorme. Vous en êtes à plus de 8 000 maintenant je crois... Vous avez opté pour la quantité et vous avez brillamment réussi sur ce point, Bravo ! Mais je parlais de qualité, et au-delà du style, de qualité de l'information donnée. Cordialement. --Nadjiwill (discuter) 27 janvier 2016 à 21:04 (CET)

J'ai répondu point par point (et numérotés à la façon de qui vous savez) à toutes vos suggestions mais vous pas, inutile donc de continuer. « vous ne souhaitez pas discuter intelligemment sur la pertinence etc. » : J'en suis bien incapable! Puisque je ne suis pas au niveau de la qualité que vous espérez du portail philo et que n'importe quel enseignant ou étudiant avancé etc. j'ai une bonne nouvelle pour vous : je me désintéresse de ce portail (articles « mal traduits n'apportent plus rien à la compréhension et discréditent le reste ». Bravo, vous m'avez convaincu et je vous laisse achever la traduction de naturalisme métaphysique dont je ne doute pas qu'elle sera bien meilleure et plus compréhensible que ce que j'en ai déjà fait. Par la même occasion, demandez-donc la suppression de l'article Philosophie britannique et Théorie de la substance comme l'a demandé un Heidegerrien aussi respectueux que vous du travail des autres. Bon, ça c'est fait, je vais voir du côté de quelques autres portails (Albanie, musique classique, ping-pong, que sais-je, il doit bien exister encore quelque endroit exempt d'importuns et autres fâcheux Clin d'œil.) LouisAlain (discuter) 27 janvier 2016 à 21:42 (CET) Si un contributeur exige de la qualité, il n'a qu'à la fournir lui-même et ne surtout pas embêter (mordre) les autres. Peso, des agressions comme ça, je supprime sans discussions, on risque trop de s'emporter si on y répond. Amicalement, --Yanik B 2 février 2016 à 17:42 (CET) Bonjour YanikB et merci de ton message. Dans un premier temps j'ai pensé faire passer ce message directement à la trappe puis par honnêteté intellectuelle je l'ai conservé pensant quil était toujours courtois de répondre à qui vous écrit, en discutant on doit pouvoir se comprendre. J'aurais mieux fait de suivre ton conseil. Crdlt, LouisAlain (discuter) 3 février 2016 à 12:39 (CET)

egregious exs

 * "In 1978 he took over the lodge in Das Rheingold" Karl-Heinz Thiemann
 * Carlo re d'Allemagna, said Durastanti created the lead "silent" role, then listed a recording with a soprano in the part and linked to reviews of her singing
 * Heinz Kruse "the box" in Das Rhinegold

Ricordi archives
Great pics, in categories