Talk:Carmen

Active discussions
Carmen is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on April 6, 2013.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
October 21, 2005Peer reviewReviewed
December 19, 2005Peer reviewReviewed
December 21, 2005Featured article candidateNot promoted
March 28, 2012Peer reviewReviewed
March 31, 2012Featured article candidatePromoted
Current status: Featured article

1820 or 1830Edit

Is there a need for an amendment, or at least a note about the date. The libretto gives the date of the action as 1820:

  • the libretto as uploaded on wikisource: http://fr.wikisource.org/wiki/Carmen_(op%C3%A9ra)
  • also my editions of Kobbé and Oxford Companion to Music give 1820
  • In recordings; ones I have where a date is given they are all 1820 (Wolff, Cohen, Fruhbeck de Burgos)

but my edition of Grove gives 1830... Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 21:24, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

No comments or objections, so I will make a change with a footnote. Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 23:22, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Standardization of the word GypsyEdit

If no one disagrees, I'm going to change all instances of "gypsy" to "Gypsy", as it's a proper noun. EDIT: Except for the one instance of "gypsy life" in which it clearly refers to the perceived lifestyle of the Romani people. Sailorknightwing (talk) 22:33, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Toreador or ToreroEdit

Shouldn't Escamillo be described as a Torero, rather than as a Toreador? Wikipedia claims that people fighting bulls in the arena are Toreros, Toreador is not recognised. "Asterix in Spain" has a specific note from the author saying that Torero is the real word, not Toreador. ;) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djingis Khan (talkcontribs) 18:42, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I suppose it's toreador because the opera Carmen is a fictional work of art, based on another work of art, not a documentary or academic study. The two words are used rather interchangably in the opera libretto, but in Merimée picador seems to be the word used for Lucas. Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 20:47, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
It would be odd not to describe Escamillo as Toreador when the most famous aria of the opera is called "Toreador Song" and features the word "Toréador" quite prominently. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:42, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
If Bizet's librettists had used the word Torero, that aria might have been far less catchy! Markhh (talk) 04:55, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Toreador may be archaic but it's an authentic Spanish word for bullfighter. According to Merriam-Webster it dates back to 1618. No idea if it was still current in Bizet's time. Markhh (talk) 04:39, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Just pipe a link on Toreador in the role table to Torero. That's more than sufficient and remains congruent to the word used in the opera and in the English translation of it. Per Cg2p0B0u8m, this article is about a 19th century opera, not a treatise on bullfighting. Which brings me to another point. Why on earth is this article placed in Category:Bullfighting? It isn't remotely about bullfighting, apart from the fact that one of Carmen's lovers is a bull-fighter and she's murdered outside a bull ring by her former lover, an army corporal. Voceditenore (talk) 07:48, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
How silly. I've re moved that category. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 11:25, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Article needs attentionEdit

Carmen is one of the most popular of all operas, and its WP article ought to do it justice. At the moment it falls a long way short of being an example of WP's best work. Among the most obvious shortcomings are:-

  • Chronic lack of citations in large areas of the article
  • Overlong and overdetailed synopsis - 1500 words. Needs reducing by about half, into a concise summary of the plot
  • The largely unattributed act-by-act descriptions of "Musical elements" need to be rewritten more succinctly and tied into specific critical commentary
  • The long list of Carmen-related films and stage shows has no justifiable place in this article, which should be about the opera; these films and shows are about aspects of the "Carmen" character rather than the opera. The list should be replaced by a prose paragraph, perhaps merged with the "Recordings" section, which mentions those films and shows closely related to the opera, e.g. Carmen Jones. The deteialed list, however, should be transferred to a sub-article, as is the case with the list of recordings (which also needs a lot of attention).
  • The structure of the article needs to be revised, to correspond broadly to the standard adopted for the opera articles that have already achieved featured status, e.g. Tosca.

I am prepared to do a significant amount of the work necessary to raise the standards of this article but before beginning I would like to establish a broad consensus for the approach indicated above. Brianboulton (talk) 21:53, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with your proposals, Brian. This article has bugged me for a long time, and many thanks for being willing to take this on.;-) I especially agree re the list of "adaptations". I'm on favour of hiving it off to a separate page (referenced additions only) and summarizing a few of the key adaptations, which minimally require having used Bizet's score, in this article. However, I'd still give it a separate section with a link to the hived-off list at the top of the section. Or possibly in a section titled "Recording history and adaptations". They wouldn't fit easily into a section simply titled "Recording history". I'd be happy to do the separate page for adaptations, if you think that would help. Just give a shout when you think it's an appropriate time to split it off Voceditenore (talk) 11:19, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
I think this is a good proposal. As about 2 or 3 years ago I made many corrections and additions to the article, so I am probably not the most objective to comment further.
However, I think most of the ‘adaptations’ can be simply disposed of.
It sounds ambitious to cut the synopsis by half – there is a lot of incident relevant to the plot, are readers really put off by the length?
For the music descriptions I am probably the main culprit, maybe there are better sources to use (I cannot yet find my notes of exactly where each sentence was adapted from).
'Recording history' is always dangerous because everyone can find positive reviews for their favourite recording.
I am not sure the piece is that bad in terms of overall content, but it certainly will benefit greatly from re-phrasing and structuring and general polishing. Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 00:38, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
  • I agree that not all the content is bad, but the main work on the article was done years ago when standards of what qualified as "best work" were less clearcut, especially with regard to citations. Having worked on the Bizet biography and Les pecheurs de perles, I have plenty of relevant sources, and I think that Les pecheurs provides a reasonable structural model. I will be working on this project in fits and starts, as I have other things going on, but I'll probably begin by expanding the Background section and developing "Writing" and "Composition" subsections. I'd be surprised if it is not possible to limit the synopsis to 800 words or so without sacrificing anything of significance, but we shall see. Brianboulton (talk) 12:46, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
I'll be happy to help. The article says hardly anything about the spoken dialogue, I notice, and there's a comparison with The Tales of Hoffmann in that it was tinkered with - to its detriment - by both Ernest Guiraud and Fritz Oeser. --GuillaumeTell 18:22, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I have begun adding and reorganising material. The article will look distinctly odd for a while, so I have placed an "under construction" banner to alert people. Some images have been removed, pending reconsideration of their best positioning and, in some cases, whether they are necessary. I would prefe it if editors did not add back material, at least until the mai redrafting process is complete, though of course any queries/problems can be raised on this talkpage. Brianboulton (talk) 21:38, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: Good wishes to a conscientious IP, but there is no point at the moment in making editorial changes to the lead, as this will need to be completely rewritten when the main text redrafting is complete. Brianboulton (talk) 11:39, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

final comment...Edit

I must apologise for not noting this before in previous comments, I had not read through the link. The source cited:

is Guiraud’s arrangement. I realise it may be difficult to simply change to the 1875 vocal score (linked on IMSLP) if the Schirmer is already referenced (although the 1875 should be added), but at the minimum the source should be marked as what it is. Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 20:46, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I chose Schirmer's edition of Guiraud's version as the basis of the numbers list for largely practical reasons. First, it is easily accessible (on the IMSLP page the PDFs can take ages to arrive); the Schirmer edition has a link direct to each individual number, whereas the other versions require endless scrolling to reach particular items; finally, the Schirmer edition carries an English translation which may be useful to readers. I agree we should specify more fully the nature of the source, and I have done this. I will also add a bit in the External links section to indicate the alternative versions available through IMSLP. Brianboulton (talk) 15:41, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
Fine - the Indiana link is very user-friendly. Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 21:49, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Theatre of the premiereEdit

The theatre where Carmen was first performed, the Salle Favart, has been removed from the article as redundant, but the theatre is not mentioned anywhere in the article. The Salle Favart, as the theatre of the opera's premiere, is specified in on pp. 92 and 178 in the 2005 book by Nicole Wild and David Charlton, Théâtre de l'Opéra-Comique Paris: répertoire 1762-1972 (Editions Mardaga, ISBN 978-2-87009-898-1). The company known as the Opéra-Comique has performed in a number of different theatres since its founding. If one looks at the table of notable premieres in the article on the company, it will be more clear why the terms Opéra-Comique and Salle Favart are not synonymous (except perhaps in the minds of contemporary opera goers whose memories or knowledge of the company do not go back to these earlier periods). In fact, from 1887 to 1898, after the premiere of Carmen, the company used a different theatre (at that time known as the Théâtre Lyrique, but now known as the Théâtre de la Ville). Moreover, the Salle Favart, which first opened in 1783, has not been used exclusively by the Opéra-Comiqe. For example, it was used by the Théâtre Italien on several occasions: from 1802 to 1804, 1815 to 1818, and 1825 to 1838 (see Grove Opera, vol. 3, p. 867). Thus, to specify the theatre that was used for the first performance of Carmen is not actually redundant. The Salle Favart is not mentioned anywhere in this article. but it only adds four words to add it. Is it really so detrimental to include it? --Robert.Allen (talk) 09:01, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

typo?Edit

"Among those who attended one of these later performance was Tchaikovsky" -> "performances"? almost-instinct 09:42, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

fixed, thank you --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:01, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Project operaEdit

Carmen
opera in 4 acts by George Bizet
 
Célestine Galli-Marié, the protagonist of the premiere in 1875
Librettist
LanguageFrench
Based onCarmen, novella by Prosper Mérimée
Premiere
3 March 1875 (1875-03-03)

Project opera developed {{infobox opera}}, an infobox for operas. Please help discuss, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:58, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

To clarify, members of WikiProject Opera have developed an infobox for possible use in opera articles. Whether to add this as an option to our Article Guide is being discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera#Opera Infobox update. – Voceditenore (talk) 07:20, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
After the discussion which had been open for two weeks, {{infobox opera}} has now been added to our article guide as an option for articles on individual operas [1]. Voceditenore (talk) 15:54, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

While the picture is suitable (though the medium is not explained), this is another example of a badly considered infobox. The genre is wrong (as baldly stated) and it doesn't include information that the first-time reader might reasonably want to know. These infoboxes will continue to be badly implemented until the box protagonists start asking themselves what the boxes are actually supposed to accomplish. Kleinzach 07:47, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

The box appears to be functioning perfectly; providing a handy summary of salient information about the subject. You say the genre is wrong, which is easily corrected, though you don't say what it should be. You also claim that "it doesn't include information that the first-time reader might reasonably want to know", but don't explain what you believe that to be. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:41, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
In response to this and other discussions about "genre", I have changed the showing to a more neutral "description" for now. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:12, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
After several comments, back to genre, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gerda Arendt (talkcontribs) 16:34, 15 July 2013‎
I was bold and changed the opera to List of compositions by Georges Bizet#Stage works, to have his other operas available here, besides the footer navbox, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:12, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Shouldn't the infobox summarize the topic of the article? Readers need only to click on Bizet's name for list of works, let alone find it at the bottom of the page. Cheers, Markhh (talk) 18:49, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
It should show key facts at a glance. A navbox is at the bottom. In the current article, it's on the side ad at the bottom. I find infobox + navbox more attractive than two navboxes, and the image, of course ;)
But now there are two navboxes, top and bottom, and no infobox at all. Unless I'm confused which is always a good possibility. Cheers, Markhh (talk) 20:40, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Navbox expandedEdit

With the edit summary "Collapse navlist, the default state for this template", the long-standing navigation box {{Bizet operas}} has recently been changed in this Featured Article to display Bizet's stage works in a collapsed state after being here for some considerable time uncollapsed. That uncollapsed state was introduced on 19 December 2011 by User:Kaldari with the edit summary: "setting to expanded=Operas since the content is short and there is no possibility of it interfering with other images or content on the page". As far as I know, that edit has never been questioned, much less reverted. The documentation at {{Composer navbox}}, the basis of most Operas by composer templates, does indeed express a preference for collapsed display, but only because an uncollapsed display might interfere with other page elements. This concern has been adequately considered by Kaldari in the decision to use the template uncollapsed. I agree with that decision and suggest to restore the template to the uncollapsed state. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 07:59, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Personally, I greatly prefer it closed, since I think all these links to his other operas are distracting to readers. (A reason similar to why I find the Infobox opera so distracting.) Yes, they are useful when you need them, but why display them when you don't? In fact, it's the feature of the Composer navbox that I like best about it, that these links are hidden. It's essentially a simple portrait of the composer without all the other bits that distract the reader from the lead of the article. The other characteristic I like about this template, is that, since it mainly only displays the composer's image, it acts almost like a logo that establishes a brand, whether it be, for example, a Donizetti, Bizet, Verdi, or a Puccini opera. The brain takes it in quickly, recognizes the brand, and moves on the article itself. Logos are usually simple and not distracting. Do you spend a lot of time looking at the Wikipedia logo? No, you hardly even notice it. Even so, it serves an important function, telling you where you are. Then there are these infoboxes. I don't mind Infoboxes that have something to say, but when they don't, then I think we are better off without them. I view the list of links similarly. It is distracting when it is displayed. When hidden, it's still there, so it is very useful, but only when you need it. If not, I prefer the white space. --Robert.Allen (talk) 09:22, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Drive-by kudosEdit

This is well written and very helpful (I just read it because I'm about to attend a performance). Thanks to whoever did the main work here. Opus33 (talk) 00:45, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Music fragments need attributionEdit

The first two of the (very nicely selected) musical fragments need attribution. It isn't fair to the artists to include their work without at least indicating who is singing and where the performance was recorded! 67.241.72.139 (talk) 14:16, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

If you are referring to the Musopen clips, unfortunately it is not known who is singing on these tracks, just that they are Public Domain. I believe I've heard these kinds of higher-quality Musopen recordings are from some 1970s record label that went bankrupt and made its recordings PD. --Morn (talk) 14:51, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Frankly, I think it would be better ...Edit

... to have a pic from the opera on top of the page, not the composer. It is pretty boring to see Mr. Verdi in 40 opera featured as the first one. If someone googles for Carmen, he or she wants to see Carmen. Therefore I propose to put a picture of an actual opera production on top.--Meister und Margarita (talk) 00:03, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

yes, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:25, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Why this stupid editing war?Edit

There are two editors who wish to remove mention of either the Habanera or the Toreador Song as among the best-known arias of this opera. Why? They both are and that is a well-known fact! Kostaki mou (talk) 01:39, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Opera-comique versionEdit

(Apologies - I can't figure out accents on my laptop.) It would be so nice to have a section detailing specific differences between the original opera-comique version (with extensive dialogue) and the version with the composed recitatives (the one customarily performed). -- kosboot (talk) 18:07, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

It's not that straightforward. I've seen the dialogue version (used in the movie), a through-composed version (Sarasota Opera) and a hybrid version ( for example, Carmen used spoken dialogue shortly before the Sequidilla) at the Atlanta Opera. Apparently it's up to the production how they mix the versions together. The big difference is that the through-composed version often cuts lines from the original. For example, in the spoken-dialogue version the innkeeper asks E. to describe his feelings during a bullfight. In the through-composed version, E. simply launches into the Toreasor song without any prompting. Other things vary. Opera historian Ernest Newman said in his early-twentieth century book that the complicated ending of the Toreador Song, where the three girls vie for E.'s attention, was customarily cut. Nowadays every production I've seen includes it. 2001:558:6011:1:11B7:55ED:94CC:AC2C (talk) 04:41, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Infobox opera picEdit

I added this classic poster for Carmen to the Infobox opera that is in the collection of the Library of Congress. Yes, it is brash and colorful with dancing, quite in keeping with the title role of Carmen, and the bold blue and red evoke her hot and cold character. I find the new pic to be awfully dull by comparison. But perhaps the poster is more to American tastes. --Robert.Allen (talk) 08:02, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

  • BTW, the first sentence calls it an opera, so why was this removed? --Robert.Allen (talk) 08:09, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
My pic choice is shown above, showing a person, not some Arabic scene. "Opera" should return, "Carmen" could be a person, a poem, a play, ... - please say "Opera" on top. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:30, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Three editors, three different pics. Not too surprising! --Robert.Allen (talk) 08:39, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
The colours in the Los Angeles poster evoke in me indeed more Americana than Carmen associations. The Galli picture is already in full length in the article, as it should be, so the crop can't be used again for the infobox. So I used the one linked in most other Wikipedias. As I explained in my edit summary, Carmen is an opéra comique, but I think that placing that in the infobox will lead to unnecessary discussions ("comic opera? RLY?" – example provided on request). This is one of those cases where the infobox mechanism fails (|influenced by= and |influenced= in other infoboxes, now removed, are similar). Thanks for correcting my faulty mention of the other librettist. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 10:14, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
The opening words of the article are Carmen is an opera in four acts.... If that's good enough to start the lede, then "opera" should be good enough for the infobox. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:02, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
I would try the complete Galli picture in the infobox and swap the present poster image to its current position, and find room for the composer's head. I used the crop above to not abuse space on this talk, but there seems to be plenty of white space next to the TOC. I would also like to know what Brian thinks. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:34, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

I too would very much like to hear from Brianboulton, who brought this article to FA status. On the whole, it's preferable to use a contemporary image. The WPA poster is anachronistic and the large print at the top is is visually distracting. On the other hand, the current one is dull as dishwater. How about File:Carmen - illustration by Luc for Journal Amusant 1875.jpg, which I just uploaded? Also, I see nothing wrong with "Opera by Georges Bizet" at the top. That wording makes no visible reference to a specific sub-genre. It simply states what Carmen is—an opera. The opening sentence of the article says it's an opera. Just about anyone in the English-speaking world would call it an opera. The Royal Opera House calls it an opera. Even the old navbox listed it under the heading... er... operas. Opéra comique is simply a sub-genre of the over-arching genre of opera and is quite rightly discussed in the body of article. I think the current "opera-less" version looks silly and is potentially confusing. For the completely uninitiated reader: Is it book? A film? A play? Voceditenore (talk) 17:28, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! I was bold, restored the general genre Opera, which is also a category it's in, and tried the attractive new picture. Now people who want to compare can simply click on different versions in the history. Boldest part is that I add a third comment to this discussion, - hoping that I will be forgiven for not leaving just an edit summary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gerda Arendt (talkcontribs) 18:07, 30 August 2014
I think it now looks great!! Maybe this whole discussion will make us more aware of the need for additional visual interest within the articles, so just uploaded pix of all three of the singers at the premiere of La traviata in the Perf. history section. Viva-Verdi (talk) 18:17, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
I have just got notification of this. The Luc illustration added by Gerda is, I think, an attractive and acceptable lead image for the Carmen article, and she has sensibly restored "Opera" to the top heading. The Philharmonic Auditorium poster looks frankly awful and the 1875 poster, while more historically justifiable, lacks any real appeal. I suggest we leave well alone now. Brianboulton (talk) 19:03, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. Taking the risk that the arbitration enforcers will come after me for a fourth comment, I want to point out that thanks for the great pic should go to Voceditenore! I will go and hopefully find space for the images of the composer and the poster, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:29, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I like this 1875 one quite a lot. Plus, it has the important cigarette. --Robert.Allen (talk) 20:31, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

I will be in a minority of one by saying I don't think the picture should be featured at the top in this way. When you look at the original page in Gallica, http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b85274932/f36.item you can see it is from a satirical / comic magazine (the rest of that entry is colourized postcards).

I was also suspicious of the graphic style - it surely could not be from the 1870s, more Belle Epoque - in fact if you scan to the last page of this Journal Amusant edition from 1911 http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k5501597j/f1.image.r=carmen.langEN you can find the picture, with its caption ("Avec toutes leurs musiques viennoises, napolitaines et moscovites, il n'y aura, caramba! bientôt que moi de française.") – at a guess it is making fun of all the foreign music in Paris (Ballet Russes etc) by saying that the only french music left in Paris is Carmen. So I would prefer a more representative image of the opera! Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 22:15, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Who would have thunk that introducing an infobox with a selectable image would give rise to different opinions about the suitability of such images? @Cg2p0B0u8m:, you are not a minority of one – I agree. I would prefer the composer or the previously in that position shown premiere poster, but I'm not fanatical about it. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:51, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
I hope I am not fanatical either; but either of those would do nicely while a better one emerges. Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 18:54, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
More on the date of the cartoon. The BnF document linked (http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b85274932/) which includes the cropped version of the cartoon on page 36, also has an article by Louis Schneider on the 1,000th performance of Carmen (which was on 23 December 1904), besides the postcards etc, which proves that the material in this 36-page bundle comes from different years. (The Schneider article has the names of the cast of the performance written at the top of the first page)Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 10:25, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Infobox opera pic - againEdit

I personally find the current picture in the infobox to be too sexualised for a neutral encyclopedic article. I'd suggest the previous picture instead. Thoughts? –– ♫ Mara/Freya ♫ 18:51, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

I think the current image is more representative of the topic - the opera is, after all, about seduction, so we would expect some sexualization. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:08, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
The current image is a fantastic caricature of Carmen down to the cigarette, whereas the other image could frankly be any character from the era. Given the content of the opera's plot/libretto I don't think the sexualised content is inappropriate or unwarranted. In fact, this picture is downright tame compared to portrayals of Carmen I have seen at multiple opera houses over the years, including the Metropolitan Opera. Check out the Royal Opera, London 2011production of Carmen for example. 4meter4 (talk) 23:51, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
The image is a good summary of the character, her iconography, her Importance in French opera. It's true to the piece, it doesn't seem to reduce Carmen merely to a sex object. It is mildly satirical, so you could argue with it on that basis as the lead image, it's witty in tone, not serious. I don't think it needs to be changed, but the portrait of Galli-Mariė in the classic Carmen costume might be a better choice. Markhh (talk) 13:26, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
I agree that the 1875 image is a very apt illustration for this article. While the previous image has the advantage of showing the role creator, I don't agree it would be a better choice as the lead image. 1) It's already used in the article; 2) as 4meter4 stated, it serves better as a representation of Galli-Marié than of Carmen. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 15:27, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Trivia section removedEdit

I have removed the recently added "Trivia" section with its sole contents:

In October 2014, the West Australian Opera announced that it would not stage the opera for the next two years because Carmen works in a cigarette factory and the opera company had signed a deal with Healthway, a government organisation that promotes health in Western Australia.[1][2]
  1. ^ Wynne, Emma: "WA Opera butts out Carmen over smoking themes after securing Healthway sponsorship", ABC News, 8 October 2014.
  2. ^ Tran, Mark: "Australian opera company drops Carmen over smoking scenes ", The Guardian, Thursday 9 October 2014.

Apart from violating WP:TRIVIA and WP:UNDUE, this utterly trivial factoid belongs (if anywhere) in West Australian Opera. It adds nothing to the reader's understanding of Bizet's opera and is particularly inappropriate in a Featured Article. Voceditenore (talk) 14:16, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Lead imageEdit

I'm not entirely happy with an image from a parody newspaper as the lead image - that's kind of like using the cartoons from MAD magazine or Viz to illustrate the subject they're parodying. I'd like to swap it for http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b8415848g/f1.zoom.r=carmen%20bizet.langEN - any objections? Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:02, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

I much prefer the current one frankly, per the comments by other editors in the section above (Talk:Carmen#Infobox opera pic - again). Note also, the Gallica one you suggest was painted by Prosper Mérimée in 1846, 30 years before the opera premiered. It was illustrating his novella, not the opera, and is also used (in an inferior reproduction) at Carmen (novella). It's completely unlike the opera's scenes—set in a middle class house complete with white tablecloth. The girl is dressed in white, and pleading with Don José, which suggests it depicts Micaela rather than Carmen. Voceditenore (talk) 18:47, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
I concur with voceditenore.4meter4 (talk) 00:09, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
So do I, I wouldn't even include it anywhere else in this article, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:40, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modifiedEdit

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Carmen. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:24, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Gypsy vs RomaniEdit

The article consistently uses the term "Gypsy". I understand that "some people consider [this word] pejorative due to its connotations of illegality and irregularity" and some Romani have even called it a slur. I feel it would be better to replace it with the less offensive, more neutral endonym "Romani". Venicedoge (talk) 16:50, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

a) "pejorative, illegal, irregular, slur" – That's part of the reason why Carmen is a gypsy. b) Read the novella Carmen: EN, FR – Mérimée used Bohémiens, Gitanos, Gypsies, Zigeuner. c) Read the libretto: Carmen is mostly described as bohémienne, but also as zingara; how would you translate bohémienne? Bohemian? The customary translation for Carmen is gypsy. Rewriting literature according to modern sensibilities is counterproductive. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 22:58, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
I'm not trying to rewrite literature. I don't think most people understand the connotations of "Gypsy". I think a better way to get the message across that it has a connotation of "pejorative, illegal, irregular, slur" would be to make a note that "bohémienne" and "zingara" are used in the libretto and give an explanation of the connotations, rather than to use a particular translation that is considered offensive. Analogously, in Huckleberry Finn, the "n-word" is used over 200 times toward Jim. Many would argue that the use of this word was integral to the story and the message about Jim's personhood and racism that Twain was trying to get across. Do you think that avoiding using the "n-word" to describe Jim in the Wikipedia article is a rewriting of the story?
Venicedoge (talk) 16:50, 4 October 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.127.189.32 (talk)
The subject of this article is the opera Carmen. Following the text of novel and libretto, its title character is customarily described as a gypsy in English, and that link takes the interested reader to a lengthy article about Romani people, which in turn links to Names of the Romani people. Those articles are much better places to provide history and connotations of the term. As for Huckleberry Finn, I note that the article discusses Twain's use of "nigger" extensively, starting in the lead, and that the novel is mentioned in the article on that word, so I don't understand the premise of your point that Wikipedia avoids the word. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:12, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia avoids casually referring to Jim as the n-word, but does not avoid using the word altogether. Following that format, the article on Carmen would use "Romani" in casual reference to characters, but would also extensively discuss the use of the word "Gypsy" and its connotations within the opera (and libretto). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.127.189.67 (talk) 17:16, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Synopsis formatEdit

As far as I can make out, it's considered perfectly acceptable to subdivide this section into acts: [2]. It's also practical (for reasons that should be obvious?) and conforms with at least many other opera articles.151.177.62.193 (talk) 18:22, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Acceptable, yes; required, no. As for practicality, that depends: it does allow one to jump directly to the section on a particular act from the TOC, but it also increases the length of the TOC (and of course limiting the TOC depth to address that problem would also eliminate the advantage). Nikkimaria (talk) 19:38, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
OK. But this other editor called it an "inappropriate format change". I cannot see what's inappropriate. Being able to readily see what happens in what act or having a short TOC is a matter of personal taste. Or having manageable chunks of text or a TOC that can be taken in without scrolling. But shouldn't it be technically possible to make a TOC (or subdivisions of it) folding? Other things here can be made folding. 151.177.62.193 (talk) 19:45, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
By folding, do you mean collapsible? Yes, that is possible. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:07, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
Yes, collapsible. I can't search for instructions right now, but then that should solve the problem. Or? 151.177.62.193 (talk) 20:31, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
The template is {{TOC hidden}}. However, that solution is not without its own problems - depending on your screen size it may cause layout problems, for example. I'd like to hear Voceditenore's thoughts on the matter. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:38, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
Uninvited comment: "collapsed" comes with two problems, it often results in wrong position for links to a section below it (for a TOC, that's all sections), and physically handicapped readers may have a problem to uncollapse. - I prefer to treat the synopsis as one section. I never felt an urge to look at only one act. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:15, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
OK and thank you both. Seems like some unpaid technician would come in handy... (Perhaps I can add that I can feel an urge to look up one act – or to get fast to one act without having to scroll around. Just to illustrate the diversity.) 151.177.62.193 (talk) 22:49, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Since I was pinged... I really don't care one way or another. When 151.177.62.193| reverted me I just let it be. Per Nikkimaria, it causes some issues with the TOC (my problem). The counterargument is that section breaks make for easier editing of the synopsis. But this is a Fearured Article and the synopsis is unlikely to require any editing. Anyhow, you pays yer money and you takes yer chance. :-) Voceditenore (talk) 07:35, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Early revivalsEdit

Wagner praise? The following is citation from David Foil text for Carmen Black Dog Opera Library: "Wagner in fact abhorred Carmen. So intense was his dislike that it widened a longstanding breach between him and the philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche that would never heal"

Wagner name should be replaced by Tchaikovsky "who was an early fan of Carmen". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aditt (talkcontribs) 18:07, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

After the performances of Carmen in Vienna in November 1875, Hans von Bülow reported: "Wagner and Brahms vied with each other in extolling Bizet's masterpiece." (John W. Klein, "Bizet's Admirers and Detractors", Music & Letters, Vol. 19, No. 4 Oct., 1938, pp. 405-416 [p. 409]. JSTOR 727723. This article is cited by Mina Curtiss.) Could Wagner have changed his mind, after Nietzsche started using Carmen as a counterexample to criticize Wagner's work? According to Klein, the only evidence that Wagner disliked the work comes from Nietzsche and his friend Carl von Gersdorff. --Robert.Allen (talk) 01:31, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
Return to "Carmen" page.