Talk:Lorenzo Perosi

message: creater of article wrote: "This article was written by Leonardo Ciampa on 29 July 2005. It is not under copyright; i.e., it is in the public domain and may be freely copied or reproduced in any fashion, provided that the name of Mr. Ciampa is given due credit."
:If it is in the public domain, then Leonardo Ciampa has given up ALL rights to the content. There is no exception. Wikipedia users can, and probably will, remove his name from this page. It may be argued that the attribution data is still in the history, however that's a bit moot.  If Mr. Ciampa wishes to retain credit on the article, then Public Domain licensing is the incorrect choice. Some type of With-Attribution licensing would be more appropriate. Eclipsed 20:33, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: All text on Wikipedia is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License. (See Copyrights for details.) Madder 21:13, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Public Domain, no exceptions 

message: Grove has 20 December for the birthdate; unless there is a competing source I'm putting it in (I find it to be pretty reliable). Antandrus  (talk) 03:01, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Birthdate

message: Grover, so now you have a personal vendetta against me and Lorenzo Perosi?  Why does it disturb you so much that Monsignor Perosi was the most important Italian composer of sacred music during Pius X's cardinalate in Venice and, subsequently, reign as Pope?  Every major source agrees ... but you don't, and you keep insisting on throwing in  tags.  This immature behavior is, sooner or later, going to catch up with you.  Meanwhile, show me the source.  Find me one significant piece of writing that contradicts Perosi's turn-of-the-century fame.  (Jeesh, some people have too much time to kill.) LorenzoPerosi1898 01:28, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Immature Vendettas 

message: ::::Grove, you who follow every article I edit ... articles that previously you never went anywhere near ... but as soon as I touch them, there you are ... I gently remind you that Wiki keeps track of these patterns.  Any admin, whose attention I would bring to the issue (and I will later today) will see that you're following me around in an attempt to antagonize.  I, however, plan to completely ignore you and anyone else on Wiki who wants to bait me in such a way -- and I say that publicly to all Wiki editors, so that they might be emboldened to do the same.  Wiki is a place to share knowledge, not to bicker whenever you or someone with similar behavior feels like fighting. All too often the person baited is the one who gets blocked -- again saying this to all Wiki editors, that they might beware of this monstrously uncivil behavior. Wiki is a unique and wonderful place to exchange knowledge, a place that I plan on enjoying for some time. LorenzoPerosi1898 13:17, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  In[[civil]]ity and Baiting 

message: LorenzoPerosi1898 I would like to point you too WP:OWN this is not your article, as soon as you it the save button on the page you lost your "ownership" and please reread WP:NPOV which tries to have unbiased articles and just report facts. Those facts should also be Neutal or be backed up by more than one source. I could add a section about how stupid George W. Bush is and cite a few liberals such as Cindy Sheehan and use those as "facts" but in the larger scale that is not true but with the POV that i had it is. please make sure that you follow WP:NPOV Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 14:59, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: My observations

message: Dave, you did not even both to look at Moeron's edit and his comment.  He made a revert claiming that the "source" didn't back it up.  He did not read the source.  He did not and could not have received Ciampa's biography in less than 24 hours.  You guys really protect each other, don't you? LorenzoPerosi1898
:Who is Dave? Anyway, what I protect is the encyclopedia. I've never come across Moeron as an editor before and have no connection with him (or her?) whatsoever. I see you are just as quick with the accusations as ever though. Gwernol 21:16, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, I apologize for the "edit comment". I looked at your sources, like you said we should, and thought you were quoting the exact line, which did say "the most popular". I made a easy mistake on that one and I am humbled by it. That said, there are still contentions that there are other popular Italian composers of sacred music alongside Persoi, such as T ebaldini, that have made equal, if not greater, contributions to the scope of sacred music at the turn of the 20th century. -- moe.RON talk | done | doing 21:20, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Warming against Gwernol 

message: Friends, i am brandnew to Wikipedia and have not edited any articles.  Naturally I have read all of the articles pertaining to Catholic composers, which is my area of avvocation.  I have read the "History" of the article on Don Lorenzo Perosi, and I am very surprised by much of what I saw.  I was hoping someone could explain a few details to me. 1) Obviously there was a lot of personal editing conflict between editors.  However, what I don't understand is, if an editor gives a fact that is easily provable in at least one written source, why does the history say "reverting to such-and-such version using popups," just because of personal acrimony?  For instance, in one of the versions of this article, Arturo Sacchetto the world's leading Perosi scholar is quoted as saying that Perosi wrote 3-4 thousand works.  This quote is corroborated in the biography by Merlatti, which I own, and that of Ciampa, which I consulted at my library.  Why, then, was the word "prolific" omitted from the article?  Hovanhess (sp.) and Pinkham combined didn't even write 1,000 religious works.  Why is it wrong to say that Perosi was the "most prolific sacred composer of the 20th century"?  He was, wasn't he? Thank you for your time.FriendOfCatholicMusic 19:18, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Edits made by sockpuppets of banned/blocked users are generally reverted as per WP:BLOCK#Evasion of blocks. -- moe.RON Let's talk | done 19:54, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I totally hear what Friend and InManus are saying.  Just look at the history of this Perosi page.  Like, tons of info was reverted out, yet no one could refute the veracity of any of it.  I agree that there was a sockpuppet with an overactive thyroid at work, here.  And all the editors got annoyed and pounced on the guy or girl.  But why does an uncontested fact -- for instance, that "Perosi was the most prolific composer of sacred music in the 20th century" -- why does a fact like that STAY edited out?  I mean, if I'm like reading the Article History correctly, a leading scholar said it's true, then two books back up said scholar.  And I mean, look at your own categories!  Look at Wiki's category for "Roman Catholic Musicians."  None of the people in that category wrote 3,000 pieces.  Most of them didn't even write 300, probably.  So how come all the swift reverts -- swish!!! -- but the facts don't get put back in? UneJolieMelodieViennoise 05:23, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a problem with "most prolific" though. There's no problem with saying that he was prolific, but the word "most" is a problem - who should decide if someone is the most prolific? He could be the most prolific in one place, but not somewhere else. And for how long was he the most prolific? And how do we know he was the most prolific? Because one scholar happened to think he was? It's a sweeping statement that should be avoided, and it's not from a NPOV. Madder 02:28, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And can I also point out that the users InManusTuas and UneJolieMelodieViennoise have both only made one edit to this date... and that's their comments on this talk page. Peculiar. Madder 02:30, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Dude, this is the 50th anniversary year of Perosi's death.  Attention paid to this article is not peculiar!  In any case, your latest revisions are awesome.  Let's hope no more vandals get to the article, and if they do, that it gets reverted to the current version.  Good show! UneJolieMelodieViennoise 06:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: People who are active on wikipedia are often (with good cause) somewhat suspicious of multiple new accounts that appear at the same time and edit the same pages, as this is behavior closely identified with vandals and other such problematic people.  Not an accusation, mind you, but something that is commonly scrutinized.--Dmz5 06:48, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Dmz5, although I cringed at this article being changed yet again, I looked carefully at each of your edits, and I respect & understand what you did. I have only one slight concern which perhaps you could address.  I thought to myself, "What the article doesn't get across is that Perosi, for a brief few years, had Elvis-like fame."  I immediately went to the Wiki article on Elvis, to see how the problem was dealt with there.  "Elvis Aron Presley (January 8, 1935 – August 16, 1977), often known simply as Elvis and also called "The King of Rock 'n' Roll" or simply "The King", was an American singer, musician and actor."  Inadequate so far; but I read on. "He remains a pop icon and is regarded by some to be the most important, original entertainer of the last fifty years."  See, you cannot omit "most important" if a person really was "most important" in some respect.  That is the only remaining aspect of the Perosi article that needs to be amended.  Let me state it in normal English, and you can suggest the appropriate Wiki-ese translation.  It's Italy in the 1890s.  Everyone's writing opera.  No one since Carissimi had written an oratorio of any appreciable fame.  Opera, opera, opera.  Now here's this Wunderkind, a really brilliant guy, and young.  And he composes these huge oratorios, based on the gospels, in Latin, fusing Renaissance and Baroque counterpoint with the Verismo orchestrations and sensibilities of the day.  What?!?!?!?  The word "galvanized" was one that you took out.  But what other word can you use?  Italy was turned on its ear, and not because I say it, but because the New York Times wrote in 1890-something (check the article) that Perosi's fame was second only to Mascagni.  And Romain Rolland wrote that it's difficult to give you an idea of how famous Perosi was. So in my humble opinion, somewhere in the first line some verbiage needs to be restored, indicating -- correctly -- that Perosi in his day was one of the most famous composers in Italy.  And famous really is the word.  Secondly, when discussing the oratorios -- where "galvanized" was taken out -- something else needs to be put in, because the oratorios caused nothing less than a sensation. Thank you for your work and intentions. InManusTuas 09:28, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I made some changes per your suggestion - I even found a web citation in the Grove re: his brief but enormous fame.  Thanks! -Dmz5 09:41, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As a sidenote, it's always interesting to see how many composers can acheive enormous fame during their lifetimes but fade so quickly - Italian music history in particular is full of such stories, although this is partly because Italy churned out composers like few other nations.--Dmz5 09:46, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Hey, your latest revisions are very nice.  Smooth!  The Grove additions are good; however, I wouldn't go too far with the date-of-birth thing.  I don't know of one person in history for whom an EARLIER d.o.b. is the correct one!  I don't own the Rinaldi biography; however, "someone" wrote that page 17 of that book explains why the December 21st birthdate is correct.  Personally I wouldn't touch it until reading said page from said book. I'm guessing that the Rinaldi bio is one of the "definitive" ones and that he knew better than we do. UneJolieMelodieViennoise 10:44, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, my suggestion does not necessitate reading the book.  I have read the Grove (which is easier to access than the book in question and is arguably inherently a more authoritative source) and it says something explicitly different.  I am propsing that we acknowledge there is an unsettled matter.  We should not ignore easily available sources in favor of a source that only one editor of the page has actually seen.--Dmz5 11:09, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi.  I read what you did.  Bravo.  You do wonderful work, and the Perosi article deserves it. (For comparison, take a glance at Dean Martin.  YIKES!!!!.  P.S. Should it be scholarship suggest or scholarship suggests?  Thx, UneJolieMelodieViennoise 18:38, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is difficult to evaluate claims that come from books that users have limited access to, but of course it is dangerous to insist on web-based sources as they are not always available/accurate.  Luckily for music articles, we have the Grove online.--Dmz5 19:03, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Questions about this article 

message: I don't want to reopen the conflicts that apparently wracked this article a couple of months ago, but I simply had to comb through the biography and remove all the repeated assertions that this priest and that church is "famous" and "important."  This article is, in my opinion, very well written (if perhaps a little too enthusiastic), and I feel that it is made immeasurably better by keeping out these small but unencyclopedic details.--Dmz5 08:12, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Dmz5, although I cringed at this article being changed yet again, I looked carefully at each of your edits, and I respect & understand what you did. I have only one slight concern which perhaps you could address.  I thought to myself, "What the article doesn't get across is that Perosi, for a brief few years, had Elvis-like fame."  I immediately went to the Wiki article on Elvis, to see how the problem was dealt with there.  "Elvis Aron Presley (January 8, 1935 – August 16, 1977), often known simply as Elvis and also called "The King of Rock 'n' Roll" or simply "The King", was an American singer, musician and actor."  Inadequate so far; but I read on. "He remains a pop icon and is regarded by some to be the most important, original entertainer of the last fifty years."  See, you cannot omit "most important" if a person really was "most important" in some respect.  That is the only remaining aspect of the Perosi article that needs to be amended.  Let me state it in normal English, and you can suggest the appropriate Wiki-ese translation.  It's Italy in the 1890s.  Everyone's writing opera.  No one since Carissimi had written an oratorio of any appreciable fame.  Opera, opera, opera.  Now here's this Wunderkind, a really brilliant guy, and young.  And he composes these huge oratorios, based on the gospels, in Latin, fusing Renaissance and Baroque counterpoint with the Verismo orchestrations and sensibilities of the day.  What?!?!?!?  The word "galvanized" was one that you took out.  But what other word can you use?  Italy was turned on its ear, and not because I say it, but because the New York Times wrote in 1890-something (check the article) that Perosi's fame was second only to Mascagni.  And Romain Rolland wrote that it's difficult to give you an idea of how famous Perosi was. So in my humble opinion, somewhere in the first line some verbiage needs to be restored, indicating -- correctly -- that Perosi in his day was one of the most famous composers in Italy.  And famous really is the word.  Secondly, when discussing the oratorios -- where "galvanized" was taken out -- something else needs to be put in, because the oratorios caused nothing less than a sensation. Thank you for your work and intentions. InManusTuas 09:28, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I made some changes per your suggestion - I even found a web citation in the Grove re: his brief but enormous fame.  Thanks! -Dmz5 09:41, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As a sidenote, it's always interesting to see how many composers can acheive enormous fame during their lifetimes but fade so quickly - Italian music history in particular is full of such stories, although this is partly because Italy churned out composers like few other nations.--Dmz5 09:46, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tone 

message: Again, I do not want to open old wounds, but I feel I should point out that the Grove article includes a number of things this article explicitly says are incorrect, such as an alternate date of birth and a claim that he was institutionalized briefly in 1922.  Now, the Grove article is based on a dozen sources (though admittedly, they are somewhat old.)  This article, with its very specific refutations of those claims, is based chiefly on one recently published work.  Now, frequently new publications will come forward that make similar claims - "new scholarship shows that X was probably born on July 4, not July 3" and the like.  I propose that the strong wording in this article - for example, "he was not born on x date, as some believe, but Y date" and "he was not institutionalized, as some sources claim" - be altered to demonstrate that there is scholarly disagreement at the moment.  Currently, the article takes the POV that the new source is the only correct one in these examples.  --Dmz5 10:16, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey, your latest revisions are very nice.  Smooth!  The Grove additions are good; however, I wouldn't go too far with the date-of-birth thing.  I don't know of one person in history for whom an EARLIER d.o.b. is the correct one!  I don't own the Rinaldi biography; however, "someone" wrote that page 17 of that book explains why the December 21st birthdate is correct.  Personally I wouldn't touch it until reading said page from said book. I'm guessing that the Rinaldi bio is one of the "definitive" ones and that he knew better than we do. UneJolieMelodieViennoise 10:44, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, my suggestion does not necessitate reading the book.  I have read the Grove (which is easier to access than the book in question and is arguably inherently a more authoritative source) and it says something explicitly different.  I am propsing that we acknowledge there is an unsettled matter.  We should not ignore easily available sources in favor of a source that only one editor of the page has actually seen.--Dmz5 11:09, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi.  I read what you did.  Bravo.  You do wonderful work, and the Perosi article deserves it. (For comparison, take a glance at Dean Martin.  YIKES!!!!.  P.S. Should it be scholarship suggest or scholarship suggests?  Thx, UneJolieMelodieViennoise 18:38, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is difficult to evaluate claims that come from books that users have limited access to, but of course it is dangerous to insist on web-based sources as they are not always available/accurate.  Luckily for music articles, we have the Grove online.--Dmz5 19:03, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: The one reference that is sourced in the initial paragraph irks me: "According to biographer Graziella Merlatti, Perosi was the most prolific composer of sacred music of the 20th century. According to musicologist Arturo Sacchetti's estimate, Perosi composed 3,000-4,000 works. All of the sources (see Bibliography) agree that Perosi was the most influential composer of the Cecilian Movement, q.v." my question is, what is the book name by Merlatti and page number of this statement? -- moe.RON Let's talk | done 00:16, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice job messing up the intro. Now it is worse now than before. I give up! --Donut Shop Worker 00:21, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

text: The induction into the Accademia d’Italia (1930). Cilèa was miffed that Giordano got picked but not him!  However, the committee felt that Cilèa "hadn't written anything good in a while"! Of course, Giordano wrote little of importance after Chénier, so one sees a tad of hypocrisy! Young Kreisler 18:09, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

text: It seems to me that there is a copyright problem with this photo and its duplicate on Commons. The person who supposedly released rights to it does not appear to have owned those rights, and hence could not release them. I'd appreciate if someone familiar with the topic would follow up: I may be missing something. For en-wikipedia there may be a non-free use justification; Commons does not allow non-free use. - Jmabel | Talk 18:13, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  One of the references 

message: What is the context of this portrait?  Some ceremony?  Grover cleveland 15:18, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The induction into the Accademia d’Italia (1930). Cilèa was miffed that Giordano got picked but not him!  However, the committee felt that Cilèa "hadn't written anything good in a while"! Of course, Giordano wrote little of importance after Chénier, so one sees a tad of hypocrisy! Young Kreisler 18:09, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

text: It seems to me that there is a copyright problem with this photo and its duplicate on Commons. The person who supposedly released rights to it does not appear to have owned those rights, and hence could not release them. I'd appreciate if someone familiar with the topic would follow up: I may be missing something. For en-wikipedia there may be a non-free use justification; Commons does not allow non-free use. - Jmabel | Talk 18:13, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Picture of Perosi with Mascagni and Giordano