Talk:The Beggar's Opera
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The Beggar's Opera article.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
Text is a modified version of the intro from http://www.uoregon.edu/~rbear/beggar.html.
That page says:
- This text was prepared by Richard Bear from a 1921 B. Huebsch edition of the 1765 text. The text is in the public domain; markup is copyright © The University of Oregon, 1995. Additions, emendations, or commments to: email@example.com.
I moved over only the text, and NOT any of the markup, which is under copyright. -- Dreamword 01:45 Jan 30, 2003 (UTC)
- It shouldn't matter that this is public domain. If an entry quotes something word for word, it needs more than a footnote. If this appeared in any form of print it would be labeled as plagiarism. It does not need to be taken down, but it does need to be made clear that the entry is almost entirely verbatim from a source and not written by any wikipedia editors. 220.127.116.11 (talk) 17:54, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Err... you are replying to a six-year-old comment. Check the dates above. In addition, note that the only copied text in this article is in the Synopsis, and what the above comment seems to be saying is that the source of the orginal text from the opera that is quoted in the synopsis comes from the annotated on-line edition cited. So there never was any plagiarism. Can someone archive the older comments on this page, please? Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:44, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry, I didn't realize that the comment was six years old, but it still raises an important issue with the article. The problem is that the article does not cite the text, rather it merely lists it as an external link. The list of characters and the synopsis are both directly taken from the source, which has been placed online by various universities. A few lines appear to have been omitted from the synopsis, but it is otherwise a direct copy. WP:PD clearly states that "Proper attribution to the author or source of a work, even if it is in the public domain, is still required to avoid plagiarism."
- I would change it myself, but I am not sure how to properly signify that the entire synopsis is a direct quotation. Perhaps, it should be prefaced with something along the lines of "The following synopsis is taken directly from Bear's 1995 transcription..." Maybe someone with a better knowledge of the play could rewrite the synopsis (as it is still somewhat lacking). Regardless, it must be clear that the entire section is a direct quotation, and a simple footnote does not emphasize this enough. 18.104.22.168 (talk) 06:36, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't realize that not only the text of the libretto, but also Bear's "Introduction" is quoted in the Synopsis. I agree that it would be much better to re-write the Synopsis using your own words to summarize the libretto. All you have to do is hit the edit button. Why don't you register on Wikipedia and establish a user name? Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:00, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Further to the above, Bear's introduction is copyright; this isn't made clear on the webpage with the text, but on the homepage of Renascence Editions is the message: "unique site content is copyright ©1992-2008 the editors and the University of Oregon". As such, I have deleted the synopsis. If any more of the article comes from the webpage - I'll have a look later - that'll have to go too. 22.214.171.124 (talk) 17:23, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Separate article for the film
i am in favour of making a separate article for the film. - Kleinzach 20:43, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Inspiration for the name Macheath?
Mac was a highwayman, and one of the most popular hangouts for such men was Blackheath, a suburb of London. The place must have been an inspiration for the character, but I wouldn't want to add that into the article without the proper citation, as it'd be OR.
- Well, James MacLaine was a notorious highwayman of the time. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:32, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Can we explain in what way this is a satire on Walpole and the Whigs ? -- Beardo 14:29, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Someone added a whole lot of unreferenced info to the article. If you cannot reference this information (see WP:RS it must be deleted. Where does this information come from? I tried to clean up the grammar and remove some of the hyperbole at least, but I have no idea if the new info is completely WP:OR. It also needs to be wikified. -- Ssilvers 15:50, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
I know this sounds dumb, but why dont we add the band called "beggars opera" for good measure. They got their name from the play.
- Yes, in the UK. Here's a fan site making notice of them. I'm not much of a wiki person, but I'm sure someone who would like to WOULD add this. -- Dwo shwoom (talk) 10:41, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
A fan site is not a WP:Reliable source. You need features about them in major newspapers, Rolling Stone magazine and similar major media, a book about them, etc. If their albums were popular, they must have gotten a significant amount of press. If so, you could write an article called "Beggar's Opera (band)" and cite those reviews and features. The way Wikipedia works, is that first you do research, like a research paper for school, and then write an article that is well-referenced. See, for example, this excellent article about a band: Phish. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:49, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Famous saying at the time
The introduction to this section announces "a list of the most highly regarded 20th century arrangements ...". Yet the list ends with three 21st century productions, one of which is a future production announced for 2011: how can a production that has not even taken place yet be highly regarded? Moreover, in my opinion announcements of future productions belong on news-sites, not in an encyclopedia. Regards. Francesco Malipiero (talk) 16:31, 29 November 2010 (UTC)