This ridiculous nonsense by Antandrus regarding this article is just part of a three year denial about how he (in over 300 pages) and others who he uses to fake content creation to justify their nonsense and abuse of the Wikipedia process. If you notice, they don't risk exposing themselves by putting their content up at any process where outsiders could possibly notice the problem.

But yeah, it isn't a kept secret around here, and I floated around a document to many people here with at least 20 different pages written by Antandrus showing about a 40-60% word/phrase match with the tiny entries at Grove. At least, when he plagiarises he steals from a notable and (hopefully) reliable source (it is Oxford, after all).

Anyway, here is my analysis so you can see how Antandrus is willing to overlook what looks shady and iffy because it could potentially mean the jig is up for them all. Remember, Antandrus says: "and I've gone down line by line, and see no plagiarism, let alone the "cut and paste" you claim on his talk page." No, "oh, this has some problems that need to be fixed". Just an absolute -no- problem. That is laughably wrong and shows that Antandrus lied either about looking at the page are unable to see the obvious:



Plagiarism:

1. Article: He served from 1715 to either 1716 or 1721 (unknown) as the organist at Melk Abbey.[1]

Source: "From 1715 to 1716 (or possibly 1721) he was organist at Melk Abbey."

2. Article: During the 1720s he was in Vienna, where he may have studied with Johann Fux and was married on 27 January 1727.[1]

Source: "He married in Vienna (where he may have been a pupil of J.J. Fux) on 27 January 1727"

3. Article: On 10 May 1728 he took up the position he was to hold for the rest of his life, as Kapellmeister at the Esterházy court in Schloss Esterházy in Eisenstadt.[1]

Source: "and moved from Vienna to Eisenstadt to take up an appointment as Kapellmeister at the Esterházy court on 10 May 1728."



Misattributed or misleading attribution:

Article: Werner was evidently bitter about Haydn, and in October 1765, a few months before his death, he wrote a letter to Prince Esterházy denouncing Haydn for his putative slackness and laziness in running the Esterházy musical establishment. Werner succeeded completely in getting Haydn into trouble; there were unpleasant exchanges with the Prince's administrator Rahier, and the affair culminated in an official written reprimand.[12]

This is partly derived from Grove but not cited as such. Here is the pertinent passage:

"Predictably, strained relations arose between Werner and the much younger Haydn. In a petition of October 1765 to Prince Nikolaus von Esterházy, Werner complained of negligence in the castle Kapelle and the decayed state of the once strong musical establishment, blaming this on Haydn’s indolence; Werner made known that because of his great age he was unable to take matters into his own hands but had to rely on the intervention of others... Haydn was called to order by the princely administrator; the accusations of laziness caused him to keep his own thematic catalogue from then on."

Why is the above passage from Grove and probably not from the claimed source? Because here is what the claimed source says:

From the claimed source: "The Esterhazy archives preserve a letter of Werner's from October 1765, voicing serious complaints about his young colleague. He claimed that Haydn did not maintain discipline among the musicians... The Prince sent a letter to von Rahier, asking him to deal with it, and the administrator thereupon issued the notorious Regulatio Chori Kissmartoniensis.. in which Haydn was rebuked for the 'indolences and lack of discipline among the musicians,' and at the same time ordered 'to apply himself to composition more diligently than heretofore.'"

The non Grove source lists a bunch of items, but not one is "slackness" or "laziness", only Grove uses a characterization like that - indolence (meaning laziness).


The passage then claims that the same book source verifies:

The episode was responsible for at least two changes in Haydn's practice: he began to keep a draft catalog all his works (the "Entwurf-Katalog"),[12]

The footnote in the source says: "Landon... establishes the date of the document as November 3, 1765. He conjectures that this reprimand was responsible for Haydn's decision to start on his draft catalogue"

Conjecture and speculation turned into stated fact.


Then, the paragraph "Werner's period of semi-retirement began in 1761 when the Esterházy family hired the 29-year old composer Joseph Haydn as their Vice-Kapellmeister. The contract by which Haydn was hired shows the family's loyalty to their elderly musical servant by retaining him, at least on a titular basis, in the top post of Kapellmeister. However, after this time Werner's musical duties were limited to church music, and Haydn, 39 years younger than Werner, had the primary duties, with full control over the secular musical events of the household, including the orchestra.[11]" is cited to a page with a quoted contract.

From the contract: "it is hereby declared that the said Gregorious Werner, in consideration of his long service, shall retain the post of Ober-Kappelmeister, and the said Joseph Heyden as Vice-Kappelmeister at Eysenstatt shall, so far as regards the music of the choir, be subordinate to the Kappelmeister and receive his instructions. But in everything else related to musical performances, and in all that concerns the orchestra, the Vice-Kapellmeister shall have the sole direction"

There is a lot of original research: "shows the family's loyalty".


Then some lovely synthesis:

That Haydn evidently did not harbor long-term bitter feelings about Werner is suggested[14][12] by the fact that in his own old age (1804) he published "six introductions and fugues for string quartet, taken from Werner’s oratorios".[1]

Source: "In his old age Haydn left a memorial to his former Oberhofkapellmeister with his edition (1804) of six introductions and fugues for string quartet, taken from Werner’s oratorios."

Nothing there suggests that it had the right to be contextualized as "not harbor long-term bitter feelings". Nothing in the "12" source suggests anything about "not harbor long-term bitter feelings". I don't really see much from source "14" that allows for the statement either. The statement basically applies a mental state to Haydn with nothing from the source. Then there is the "in his old age (1804)" copied over in addition to the rest.


But remember, this is a page with no problems and uses the sources correctly.

Funny, but I never heard of Gregor Werner before this thread.

So you see, children, you can learn something by reading Wikipedia Review.

I am not certain if the composer was responsible for this...

I enjoyed that, the determined smiles, the bouncing titties ... I just wonder who sculpted Jody Miller's hair.

You get a big Horsey kiss for that, Malley! Mwah! Mwah!

That clip is typical of American popular music.

The music is joyful and upbeat, but the lyrics tell a story of woe, tragedy, grief, and heartache.

If you try to make a recording of a sad ballad sung in a minor key, it won't sell.

The plagiarism claims you make do not meet the normal defiinition thereof - they are straightforward statements of facts, and, as such, are not copyrightable. Given the facts, indeed, it is difficult to come up with any rewording which you appear not to consider likely plagiarism <g>. Wikipedia is rife with real plagiarism, examples are not difficult to find, but using these as examples weakens the case.

Oh? How about this cute li'l Dixie chick (with the sexiest voice ever put on microphone)?

Is that in a minor key?

Key, shmey...who cares? She was gorgeous! She could sing the text of WP:AN/I and I would be happy!

I need to hook you up with a Roan Horse.

Presentation is not fact. Unless it is a raw list, those connecting words between dates and title are unique enough to be copyrightable, especially when it is a small work and you duplicate that small work.

The verbs are the same, the adjectives are the same, and neither are "facts".

It is ignorance like the above that is the reason why plagiarism is so rampant.

Yah, but how do you feel about it, Ottava?

Are you appalled?

Are you chagrined?

Are you disgusted?

Are you dismayed?

Spill the beans, m'boy!

Tell us the True Word that names your affective emotional state.

FTFY.

Actually, emotional states per se are never defective, although they may motivate foolish or inappropriate reactions to the situation at hand.

Discipline is about conscientiously choosing a functional response, notwithstanding one's true affective emotional state.

Sometimes the most functional response is to candidly disclose one's true affective emotional state, and let it go at that.

What better way to declare God's Truth (or the Ground Truth if you prefer)?

No. But neither is it in a major key (despite what is this site claims), and the music certainly doesn't seem "joyful and upbeat" to me.

An authentic version of the score is available from this site (Its authenticity can be confirmed by consulting this book). While the notes used in the first and last phrases of each verse are those of the D major/B minor scale, neither the melody nor the harmony ever establishes either of those as the key. If the melodic structure could be called modal at all, I think it would have to be called Mixolydian, but I'm not sufficiently familiar with modal music to know if that really is an accurate description.

Ah, another golden oldie …

Most of my songs are labeled "nixomiddlin" (or maybe "noxolividan").