Talk:Weiße Rose (opera)

This article was created or improved during WikiProject Europe's "European 10,000 Challenge", which started on November 1, 2016, and is ongoing. You can help out!

A fact from Weiße Rose (opera) appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 25 September 2008, and was viewed approximately 1,417 times (disclaimer) (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that Udo Zimmermann's opera, Die weisse Rose tells the story of Hans and Sophie Scholl, a brother and sister who were guillotined by the Nazis for leading a non-violent resistance group?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2008/September.

Wikipedia

Opera

This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Opera, a group writing and editing Wikipedia articles on operas, opera terminology, opera composers and librettists, singers, designers, directors and managers, companies and houses, publications and recordings. The project discussion page is a place to talk about issues and exchange ideas. New members are welcome!OperaWikipedia:WikiProject OperaTemplate:WikiProject OperaOpera articles

Germany Low‑importance

	Germany portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Title

Why was it decided to use a transliterated title instead of the original Die weiße Rose? I read the guidlines differently. Those guidelines mention the Latin alphabet, and the article about the letter in question (ß] states it is. Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:38, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We could do that, although both are used in published sources. I don't care either way.Nrswanson (talk) 13:40, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Changed it. —Nightstallion 18:07, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moving the article may have been premature and not fully thought through. It seems to me it should also be spelled the same way the group is spelled in the English (White Rose) and German articles (Weiße Rose), namely with a captial "W". The obvious precedent for the opera article is the name of the article for the film Die Weiße Rose.

As for sources which use different spelling ("ss" instead of "ß", "w" instead of "W"): these sources need to be critically appraised. Usually, their reliability must be heavily discounted if they are English-language sources — of course they prefer "ss". Secondly, even German-language sources may legitimately use the transliteration in certain cases: a) if it's spelled in upper case as there is no (recognised) upper case "ß"; b) if the sources originate from a time or place when/where the use of "ß" was/is deprecated, e.g. Germany after 1941 officially stopped using it until 1945 (that's why the primary sources use "Weisse Rose"); Switzerland doesn't use "ß" except in rare circumstances. Thirdly, the usual caution, just because it shows up in web searches doesn't mean it's correct.

The upper case spelling of the adjective "weiß" follows usage for adjectives as part of a proper noun; see the German examples of Blaue Peter, Grüne Minna and, again, the consistent use in Weiße Rose where a careful distinction is made between "Weiße" as part of the group's name and "weiße" to denote the colour.

I suggest the article needs moving again, to Die Weiße Rose (opera), analogous to Die Weiße Rose (film). Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:22, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge

Regarding the {{Mergeto|White Rose}} (Merge Notice): 1) I think the discussion for that proposal should be here, not at White Rose. 2) There's nothing to merge; the section Die weiße Rose (opera)#Background is a straight lift from the article White Rose and it should removed from the opera article, along with both images. The opera article refers to the the main article, and that's all there should be. Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:22, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. I think some background information is essential in order for the non-linear plot to make any sense. Maybe it should be reworded to be substantially different from the other article and/or significantly shortened. Also, I don't see anything wrong with including some of the same images. Nrswanson (talk) 10:50, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly agree with Michael Bednarek. In fact, I'm going to be bold and delete the "lift" from White Rose for now. Copying wholesale chunks from one Wikipedia article into another is a real no-no unless the articles are to be merged, which clearly isn't the case here. (It has to do with establishing authorship, copyright etc. - can't find the relevant WP guideline at the moment, but there definitely is one.) Possibly a a substantially different and significantly shortened version could be then added to a background section, although I'm not sure it's necessary. The picture has to go too as it is under "fair use", and I don't think a strong enough case can be made for also using it here. In any case, if someone wanted to use it, they'd have to write a completely separate FU rationale. Voceditenore (talk) 10:59, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Title (2)

The title of Zimmermann's opera is actually "Weiße Rose", without "Die". Although the title is probably used quite often with "Die", including in opera reviews and magazines, the work's publisher is quite clear about it: first version, second version, both versions on one page.

I suggest the page be moved to Weiße Rose (opera). Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:21, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further sources at Talk:Udo Zimmermann. Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:24, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I said at Talk:Udo Zimmermann, I completely agree with Michael Bednarek. Grove may be the best overall opera reference book around but it is not Holy Writ. The publisher's title should trump them, particularly for a 20th century opera, and particularly when Grove itself is inconsistent on the issue. It should be moved to the title under which it is published and performed. Explain the occasional reference to it as "Die weiße Rose" in a footnote. That's what they're for, ;-) Voceditenore (talk) 08:21, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... it seems odd to me that there would be such a consistant error across numerous sources. However, given that the actual recording of the work is titled "Weiße Rose", I too am now persuaded to change the title per Michael's suggestion. On a side note, I think it may be possible that the original version may have been titled "Die weiße Rose" but the revised version was renamed just "Weiße Rose". I recall reading something like that somewhere but for the life of me I can't remember now where it was (if I remember correctly it was an article in German). If that's the case it certainly would explain why several different sources have used Die weiße Rose and others just Weiße Rose.Nrswanson (talk) 21:08, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not that odd. Observe the oft repeated error of calling Salieri's Europa riconosciuta L'Europa riconosciuta. I'm going to edit the page to change the name in the header and add a footnote. Voceditenore (talk) 08:44, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio removed

I have removed several chunks (including the synopsis) which were closely/paraphrased and in some cases verbatim copy from http://www.peabodyopera.org/essays/berlin03/. Editors are invited to re-expand the article in their own words. Voceditenore (talk) 12:40, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These are two completely different operas

Zimmermann wrote two different operas:

1967/1968, [Die] weiße Rose, „Oper in acht Bildern“, libretto: Info Zimmermann, the first version of this one (1967) was called Die weiße Rose, the second version (1968) Weiße Rose → de:Weiße Rose (Zimmermann, 1967/68)
1986, Weiße Rose, „Szenen für zwei Sänger und 15 Instrumentalisten“, libretto: Wolfgang Willaschek → de:Weiße Rose (Zimmermann, 1986)

According to Sigrid Neef („Ein Jahrzehnt später schuf Udo Zimmermann eine dritte >Weiße Rose<, die in keiner Beziehung zu ihren frühen Vorgängerinnen steht, es sei denn in einer: der einer kritischen Absage.“ – „Und so wurde Udo Zimmermanns dritte >Weiße Rose< keine Neufassung, sondern gegenüber den beiden Vorgängerinnen von 1966/67 und 1968 ein vollständig neues Werk“) and Kloiber („Dagegen hat das 1984/1985 komponierte, neue Werk mit dem gleichen Titel mit diesem »Gesellenstück« keine Textzeile und keine Note gemeinsam und verfolgt eine ganz andere Intention.“) Zimmermann did not reuse any words or music from the first opera. --Rodomonte (talk) 09:18, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]