Talk:Peter Grimes

Development of libretto?

Can anyone remember the magazine--I think it was the New Yorker but am not sure--that had an in-depth article on the development of Grimes's libretto a few years back? Unfortunately the New Yorker has only the more recent issues archived online. I really want to put a proper write-up on this--what we have right now is pretty superficial. But I can't find a reference to the article anywhere. Clues? Dybryd 02:04, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You probably found these also, but if not: [1], [2] Fireplace 02:12, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I had found the Alex Ross review but hadn't thought to look on Usenet. Vickers' changes would be good to mention on the page as well.

Dybryd 07:03, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that Guardian article is tendentious and inaccurate. I have the source that the journalist cites--Humphrey Carpenter's biography--and the picture it paints of the libretto's development is very different from what the journalist suggests. I am inclined to rewrite this section using the bio, rather than this rather flippant article, as a source. Anybody mind? Dybryd 02:31, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I look forward to your re-write. Haiduc 12:31, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Troll at work

A troll has picked on this article (amongst others) with edits under various names (e.g. Phonecloth 554, Crowdsales jokesone, Jtjn6, Nnnn55, and more ad nauseam) in the general form "Revert to the revision prior to revision 999999999 dated 2008-08-dd hh:mm:ss by Will Beback…". If this troll attacks this article again and has not already been blocked, please report to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism immediately. Nunquam Dormio (talk) 07:09, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The troll is probably Primetime: see Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Primetime. Nunquam Dormio (talk) 07:27, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Music?

I think we need more info about the music of this opera in the article. Frigoris (talk) 05:47, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

File:Benjamin Britten 1945.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:Benjamin Britten 1945.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do?
	Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Wikipedia, so there is no rush to respond. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 01:27, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Poem or article?

According to the BBC documentary The Hidden Heart, it was an article by E. M. Forster about Crabbe that inspired Britten to write Peter Grimes, not the poem itself at first.--Hugh7 (talk) 22:32, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anomalies in the synopsis

In the pub scene in Act 1, we find "the fiery Methodist fisherman, Bob Boles, getting increasingly drunk and lecherous...." Really? Is this a joke? A Methodist drinking alcohol?

Yep - it's in the libretto. Presumably Montagu Slater was making a political point.

More significantly, Act 2 ends with Grimes putting to sea in his boat. Act 3 is described as happening in "the same [place], two days later". However, we are then told that “Grimes has returned after many days at sea.” HenryLarsen (talk) 13:49, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's a fair point, and down to an error in the synopsis. I've made a correction. Alfietucker (talk) 14:29, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

First Performance?

Information here from The Royal Albert Hall says this was the London Premiere in 1945: http://catalogue.royalalberthall.com/Record.aspx?src=CalmView.Performance&id=_Loniepogifiep ixo (talk) 15:37, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

According to that source, the "Four Sea Interludes" and "Passacaglia" appear to have been first performed in August 1945, yes.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:41, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:GEO

@Tim riley: I'm moving the discussion here, I don't want to edit warring either. But you are the one who have to defend your reverts, because you did not justify the Basel revert in Edit summary even once, and the justification for Zürich is insufficient – you cite a sentence from the Zürich article, but you don't take into account that it is against MOS:GEO. So I'm asking for explanation. FromCzech (talk) 18:29, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I infer that English may not be your native language. You are confusing "generally" with "always". The former means that there will be exceptions, and fidelity to our sources may be thought to represent one such. In the following sources and other books about Britten, Zurich is spelled with no umlaut:

Brett (1983), p. 94
Bridcut (2010), p. 156
Britten (1991), p. 1286
Carpenter (1992), p. 55
Headington (1996), p. 52
Hodgson (2013), p. 170
Kennedy (1981), p. 284
Mitchell and Reed (2011), p II
Pears (1995), p. 20
Powell (2013), p. 252
White (1983), p. 15

I have not checked on their spelling of the other city: perhaps you might care to do so. Tim riley talk 08:20, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The spelling of geographical name should be "always" consistent across Wikipedia and does not follow the specific sources used on individual pages. The word "generally" is explained in the very next sentence of MOS:GEO: "An exception may be made when there is a widely accepted historical English name appropriate to the given context. ..." – which is not the case, as the name of the city of Zürich has not changed in recent centuries. If you think Zurich is a commonname, start a RM on Zürich and don't fight for change here. But if the sources you cite generally do not contain diacritics, they are not a relevant source anyway. FromCzech (talk) 08:46, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please be serious: as if authoritative books about music are going to omit diacriticals in e.g. Furtwängler, Dvořák, Nuits d'été etc! They are omitted from Zurich because that is how it is usually spelled in English usage and always has been. See The Times here, The New York Times here and the BBC here. Tim riley talk 09:32, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, these arguments does not belong here, regardless of whether they are sufficient or not. As long as the Zürich page is name Zürich, this name is used within Wikipedia. That is what MOS:GEO says. FromCzech (talk) 09:42, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"This is an English-language encyclopedia, so established English names are preferred if they exist" (MoS). We follow that precept here. If you wish to argue the toss so far as the WP article on the city is concerned, pray do so. Tim riley talk 10:05, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is still the same name. Omitting diacritics does not make it a different name. You are ignoring what the common practice is. What is the point of making an exception for one specific name in one specific article? FromCzech (talk) 12:02, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please understand that I don't really care if the more common name is Zurich or Zürich and if the page is called Zurich or Zürich. But as long as there is a consensus that it will be spelled one way, I will go along with it and defend it, and you cannot put your personal preference over that consensus. FromCzech (talk) 12:11, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with this: we drop superfluous accents and other impedimenta in normal English text, and this seems no different. - SchroCat (talk) 10:13, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which MOS do you cite now? We maybe drop diacritics in "normal" English text", but we do not drop diacritics in encyclopedical English text. WP:DGUIDE. FromCzech (talk) 12:07, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am quoting the Wikipedia manual of style. It offers contradictory advice. You cling to one of its dicta and I to another. Tim riley talk 12:46, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That was reply to SchroCat, not you. But in your case they don't contradict each other because it is one and the same name. FromCzech (talk) 13:07, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are entitled to your own interpretation of the MoS; let us see if you can assemble a consensus for it. Tim riley talk 13:16, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the consensus how Zürich should be name within Wikipedia. But feel free to start a new discussion if you have enough arguments for it. FromCzech (talk) 13:31, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ahem! English really isn't your strong suit is it? See the words "no consensus" at the top of the discussion. Tim riley talk 14:07, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry I expressed myself badly, I didn't expect to be taken literally. The bottom line is that there is no consensus to change the name to Zurich. FromCzech (talk) 15:44, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No-one is changing anything from Zurich - and again there seems to be no consensus. Maybe doing busywork elsewhere would be a better use of everyone's time? - SchroCat (talk) 16:12, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is another of those cases of a 'bee-in-the-bonnet' editor, vainly tilting at their personal stylistic windmills. Such an approach is disruptive when combined with a lack of flexibility or common sense, which, rather sadly, seems to be the situation here. Time to move on and accept that usage differs between people, and the MOS, by virtue of being so badly written in so many places, is open to interpretation on the point. Surely, FromCzech, you can be constructive elsewhere, because I'm not sure you are being so here. - SchroCat (talk) 15:33, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Going into a personal attack and then instead of making factual arguments, saying that it's best if you leave it and go somewhere else, is not a good way to resolve disputes. The usage differs between people, so we have some rules for deciding what to use. I still haven't heard why the rules shouldn't apply to this particular case. All I can see are arguments why Zürich should be moved to Zurich, but that's not the point here. FromCzech (talk) 17:44, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Manual of Style is a guideline intended to help us do things sensibly. One guideline does not overrule another. MOS:DIACRITICS says "The use of diacritics in foreign words is neither encouraged nor discouraged. Use generally depends on whether they appear in reliable English-language sources.... Use of diacritics is determined on a topic-by-topic basis". The consensus on this topic, which I support, is not to use the diacritical mark in referring to Zurich. This should not cause an international uproar, as no reader will be confused, and if they follow this link: Zurich, they can see the national spelling. See also MOS:VAR. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:09, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"...topic-by-topic basis" – Zürich belongs to the topic of Geographical items, which is just a bit below MOS:DIACRITICS. There is no overruling, but on the contrary, the rules follow each other. The consensus on a topic is determined by what the target page is called. Therefore if we're talking about a lake, we use Lake Zurich and Lake Constance, but if we're talking about a city, we use Zürich and Konstanz. There is a presumption, albeit difficult to enforce, about a certain degree of unity within the wiki, and we should not violate it based on personal preference. If I don't convince you, then OK, three is a crowd and I give up. But the way you interpreted it, I still don't agree with it. FromCzech (talk) 18:36, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As Emerson noted, "foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds". We should expand our sense of the spirit of Wikipedia, rather than cherry-picking our favorite line from the MOS, whether or not it sensibly applies. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:18, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And what are those who go and it is worth their effort to revert such a trifle? Along with Zürich, I corrected one more geographical name (and not controversial compared to Zürich) and yet there was a user who immediately reverted it three times and only wrote some justification in the second of those three cases. Sorry, but my mind really isn't smaller than his. FromCzech (talk) 04:09, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure which of your bullying and erroneous place name edits you are referring to, but the editor to whom I believe you are referring is responsible for promoting 54 Featured Articles (all of which were reviewed by multiple experienced editors at FAC) and creating or improving thousands more to B or GA class. How many FAs have you put up where your interpretation of the MOS has been reviewed by experienced FAC reviewers? You don't need to answer, because I took a look at some of your impressive efforts. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:37, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop the personal attack. I have de-stubbed hundreds of articles and I don't understand why you would pick something from the very bottom of my work. But it doesn't really matter if I've accomplished something or if I'm a new user. We all contribute as we can, and no one deserves to be vilified for small fixes. On the contrary, the fact that someone has achieved great things here does not mean that he is right about everything and that the don't have to justify his reverts to Edit summary. FromCzech (talk) 06:00, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(I got curious because the discussion comes up again and again on my watchlist. I have no time to read all this.) My understanding is that we talk about whether to link to Zürich or Zurich for a performance of the opera, and I think the best option would be to do neither but link to Zürich Opera. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:32, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for commenting without bothering to read the discussion. No surprise, but a shame nonetheless. Tim riley talk 19:47, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of whether or not diacritics end up being used, it sounds reasonable and I'm all for it. But Basel and Antwerp are also named in the sentence, and there is no page for Antwerp Opera, so I don't know if it's allowed. FromCzech (talk) 18:40, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The production in Basel/Basle was probably at Theater Basel and the one in Antwerp probably at Vlaamse Opera. Even if not 100% certain, I believe that a link to a theatre would be more helpful than to a city. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:50, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It really isn't rocket science: why not link to the correct venues? They are detailed in the article, which anyone who isn't too arrogant or lazy to look up via the Wikipedia library can access. Alternatively I don't mind reverting this misleading edit. Tim riley talk 15:18, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
According to this, Basler Stadttheater was the venue in Basel on 6 May 1946, given in German, the Swiss premiere, - the same venue, just a different name. This Time article has that it was given in Antwerp in Flemish at the time mentioned. This suggests that the name of the venue was then Royal Flemish Opera (at least in English, but you have the French venues in French, so may prefer the name in Flemish, Koninklijke Vlaamse Opera [nl]). This Zürich record has that it was given shortly after Basel, with London singers performing in German, several times in June 1946 as part of the Zürcher Festwochen at the Zürcher Stadttheater, and that the composer was present at the opening of the festival on 27 May 1946. - That's all I can do; I will have time again on Monday. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:14, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Whoopee! I cannot tell you how much I look forward to further interjections from you. Tim riley talk 17:48, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just popping in to remind everyone, as I just did on their talk pages, that the WP:MOS is a contentious topic, which means everyone is expected to follow editorial and behavioural best practice. That means don't call other editors arrogant and lazy, refer to other editor's edits as bullying while disparaging their contributions, making passive-aggressive statements, or generally behave poorly towards those you disagree with. We all know how WP:DR works, and this ain't it. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:35, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that interjection, which I'm sure was meant to be helpful. Tim riley talk 17:44, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]