Talk:Cheryl Studer

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled[edit]

The article (text and photo) have been copied from the artist's home page, but probably without permission. Karl Stas 22:44, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see evidence of permission on that page, so I reverted to the last non-infringing page (leaving a very short stub). If permission was granted, please show evidence and restore the page. The image is identified as an unknown photographer on her official site, so it is unlikely to be in the public domain as listed. I've requested deletion. Rigadoun (talk) 19:46, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tone down of hagiography[edit]

I've begun the rewriting process to make it sound less like "PR", and to add citable references rather than just fan-page type links. DJRafe (talk) 05:43, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have you looked at this article recently? There are no fan page links anymore and it has been entirely rewritten already from reliable sources. And I don't think it reads like PR either.Nrswanson (talk) 15:36, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I saw that the page was reverted back to the version before mine. I will confess that I did not see versions prior to the most recent pre-my revision, but what I saw was pretty bad and appallingly subjective. The "references", with a very few exceptions, are all official bios from the BBC, agent pages, etc., and thus are not fully objective third-party references. In addition, the tone of what text remains is highly subjective, to put it kindly. It reads totally like a besotted fan's page, which is not what wikipedia is meant to be. (No doubt other artist/celebrity pages are probably much worse, but let's focus on this one for now.) In addition, the person who reverted the page has only Cheryl Studer as his/her only contribution with a sig name. IMHO, this person clearly has no concept that wikipedia is supposed to be "just the facts". If that person had bothered to note my revisions, s/he would have seen that I put proper citations to several of Studer's performances, and that I gave the accepted reference format for the citations that were truly third-party, and not PR.
As an experiment, I will fix the NY Times and Playbill Arts citations alone, but leave the rest intact. I am not a betting person, but I would be willing to bet that Gcdea will revert it back without giving the revisions any thought at all. Sorry for the rant. DJRafe (talk) 04:28, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I still disagree with such assertions on the article. The article's body really doesn't comment much on Studer's voice, with the exception of the opening paragraph where it does. And as Cheryl Studer was compared to Lottie Lehman in published journal articles I don't see that it is an over the top comment. Praising reviews mostly come from the New York Times review and opera news reviews listed. Those third party asseritions are mostly used to simply say where she performed and with what role. The fact that the shere volume of work is impressive is not really something that can be altered or influenced. And really that is what this article is, just a list of work done. What are they going to do, lie about what roles she did and with what company? Also, the language of this article is pretty much neutral with very little expressive language. It's pretty much just a list of dates and performances. What more do you want?Nrswanson (talk) 04:56, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Words and phrases like "graced the stages" and "return to form" are not neutral. In addition, it is redundant to have the list of performances (which, by the way, I fixed to make the presentation of titles look better) and some of the main text just repeating them (if in advance).
As an example of general style, let me use as an example one where, I will admit, I made some edits, namely the page for the movie Before Sunset. You can get an idea of the reference format and style in general from that page. I happen to be a fan of that movie, which is why I made edits to the page, but I did not use any hype-like language like "one of the 10 best films of the year" or something like that.
Going back to Studer, in addition, several passages are not concise, which is why I tried to clean up the English in places. In addition, I corrected spelling errors, which the reverter did not even bother to note. "Repetoire" and "Georg Solti" were misspelled, for two.
However, I will concede your point about the Opera News article (ref 2), which is indeed a proper article, and I will fix the reference format to reflect that fact. (I may as well make those spelling fixes in the meantime.) But again, we shall see if the whole article gets reverted.
In closing, you asked "what more do I want", fair enough. I want an article for Studer, or any other topic, that employs neutral language and presents the facts and relevant links. I have no particular bias one way or the other regarding Studer. I recognise that she is a major opera artist. That does not allow me to be flowery and subjective and turn the page into a fan-site wikipedia page, which is what the page essentially is. We may just have to agree to disagree on this page. DJRafe (talk) 05:39, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the phrase "returned to form" is a paraphrase from the Opera News Article and is a critical judgment by an established opera critic in reference to a series of positive reviews. (see section on reinstatement at the Bavarian State Opera). So I don't think it is irelevent but rather an important fact in this particular singers career. Particularly since vocal problems negatively effected her career in the 1990s. When dealing with artistic subjects a certain amount of descriptive language and artistic wording should be allowed as you are dealing with an artistic subject. Otherwise the articles loose a certain quality truth to them. As for the term graced the stages it can easily be altered but I don't think it influences the article negatively in any way by its presence or absence. Although it may be more interesting to read by leaving it in. Nrswanson (talk) 05:48, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have begun (again) to tone down the hagiographic, fawning nature of the text, such as follows: (1) The "references" from the page devoted to Studer are not objective, 3rd party articles that have passed through external review. They are from a fan page, and are not proper references. I have added articles from the New York Times as proper references where appropriate.
(2) The list of roles sung is in the manner of a "laundry list". wikipedia is a place to present notable achievements and awards of a given person, which have been retained in the text. It is not a place to list every single performance she has ever sung.
(3) Subjective NPOV text has been removed, because as I cannot repeat often enough, the purpose of wikipedia is to present "just the facts" and not to act as a fan page for any person or group. DJRafe (talk) 19:47, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DJRafe's edits[edit]

Unfortunately, in attempting to stream line the langauge you have altered the information to make it incorrect. Studer is one of ten children which is no longer clear in your wording which makes it seem there are only 9. Also, the comparisons with Lilli Lehmann are directly linked to the issue of diversity in repetoire. A link that you no longer make clear. I hope you don't edit all your articles like this because it changes the page to misleading or unprecise information.Nrswanson (talk) 06:08, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have corrected the family information; thank you for pointing that out. Since you mentioned the Opera News article and that sentence, I had to change that sentence about Lehmann becuase it was pretty much plagarised from that article. That is another major no-no on wikipedia. Furthermore, with respect, "descriptive language and artistic wording" lead to a very "slippery slope", because it raises the whole huge question of "with reference to what". The whole point of wikipedia is to present "just the facts" that can be verified and documented, as cannot be too highly emphasised. It is not merely on this entry, but on all entries. Perhaps that makes entries more "dull", in a way. DJRafe (talk) 06:16, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But how can you write an article on a singer without including the facts on her voice? Which isn't such an objective subject. So you have to go with critical reviews. That is common practice. Check out the opera wikiproject. You are getting into territory where you don't know what you are doing or wikipedia policy regarding reviewing artists. it's not like writing an article on a science topic. There is some movement for descriptive words. After all it is the voice and the artform that makes this person notable to begin with. Nrswanson (talk) 06:20, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I didn't originally write the Lehmann thing so don't blame it on me. Is it a direct word for word steal?Nrswanson (talk) 06:23, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know that you did not write the Lehmann comment. I tried to restore some of the description to fit what Scherer wrote, paraphrasing his text. (The earlier person who used the sentence from the article did indeed steal, since plagarism is direct use of the words of another person without proper citation.)
None of this is about you or me personally, and I certainly don't want this to become an e-war, since we both obviously have other things to do. I mean no disrespect to you at all. I wish the same treatment in return. DJRafe (talk) 06:37, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I totally agree. Just be careful your edits don't change info accuracy. Also, just letting you know as a member of the opera wikiproject, descriptions of singers voices by critics are encouraged to be included within articles by the project.Nrswanson (talk) 06:48, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I also want to thank you for improving many of the gramatical errors. Saves me the effort of doing it.Nrswanson (talk) 06:49, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The end of a career[edit]

"Tönende Stille" [dead link] by Frederik Hanssen, Der Tagesspiegel (22 July 2009) (in German) -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 14:06, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article is archived at Tönende Stille at the Wayback Machine (archived 26 July 2009) -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:52, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This strange article, no longer retrievable (how did it get past the paper's editor?), appeared five years ago and the evidence since attests to the contrary. It was a hoax with no substance to it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goustaff (talk • contribs) 01:22, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Problems with this article[edit]

I tried to correct the many issues I see with this article but they have all been reverted. First of all it is like a fan page, written in a tone of gushing adoration. It does not need to lead off with some critic comparing Studer to Lilli Lehmann for one thing, we could all search through reviews for our favourite performers and put them being compared to Caruso or Michelangelo or whoever in the lead. Then we have a silly statement "What follows is an all-too-brief chronology of the soprano's four decades before the public" before virtually every performance she ever gave is listed in great detail, far too much really. It is also peppered with unsourced statements that conductors were"impressed" and audiences "acclaimed" her, such statements should be removed without citations, and my tags for citations were also removed. Awards given need references. There are several links to youtube videos in the article which may be copyright violations,I took them out but they were reinstated, I think that is a serious matter and am going to raise it elsewhere.Smeat75 (talk) 12:55, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your comments here and your recent attempts to remove some of the worst puffery and peacock terms from the article. The article has been subject to this style of "editing" before (see above). It seems that Studer attracts this kind of fanatical adoring followers not only here but in other internet venues as well; it's unbecoming and dimishes the appreciation of a great singer.
Only now do I notice that the single-purpose account of User:Goustaff removed my contribution to this talk page while I was on holidays; that is an overt violation of WP:TPO and I've now reverted it. Frankly, User:Goustaff's string of bilious edits at Renée Fleming in April 2010 should have resulted in a block. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:31, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have restored your removal of the YouTube links and reduced the unsourced peacock terms. The editor Goustaff may have a conflict of interest. -- Diannaa (talk) 19:49, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
User:Goustaff has removed the link to the article on this page you put here again Michael Bednarek and has taken off the tags you put on the article and restored some of the peacock terms you removed Diannaa.Smeat75 (talk) 12:35, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a bit pressed for time for a few days, so I can't much about this deplorable situation. On the other hand, I'm certain that User:Goustaff's tendentious edits only serve to diminish Studer's reputation in the eyes of most readers and I hope Goustaff will stop digging a deeper whole for her/himself. As for Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive262#Youtube links in article on opera singer: it would help if the discussion there would be brought to the main flaws of Goustaff's edits – the YouTube links are IMO the least of the problems. Actually naming Goustaff there would also be helpful for others. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 14:11, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored the links to "independent blog and forum reviews" regarding Studer's current Adelaide's in Hamburg as a matter of some testament or another. Many Wikipedia pages of living and deceased artists contain such quotes. It shall be no different with Studer's page. I have accepted and understood the removal of several YouTube links. No such agreement, however, with the introductory paragraph referencing Lilli Lehmann. That shall remain, whether some agree or not. (talk), 11 June 2014) — Preceding undated comment added 01:30, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can confirm that the comparison to Lilli Lehmann was made in the Opera News article, which I am able to view on HighBeam. -- Diannaa (talk) 02:39, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Needs a re-write

I was a fan of Studier's recordings in the early and mid 90s: but heard about this; I hadn't heard of her since.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/high-drama-as-opera-says-fat-lady-cant-sing-1189666.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.44.164.15 (talk) 12:12, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cheryl Studer. 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}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After 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 {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:45, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Cheryl Studer. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After 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 {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:27, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cheryl Studer. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After 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 {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:06, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Uncited material[edit]

Luluplatz, you need to stop replacing uncited and challenged material. If you continue to edit war, you will be reported and blocked from editing. This is even above and beyond your obvious WP:COI concerning this singer. If you continue your disruptive editing on this article you will likely be banned from editing it entirely. Softlavender (talk) 02:49, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You need to understand what is happening here. Yesterday I updated the page with some current information (about "Cavalleria rusticana" in Graz). As if on cue, one Michael Bednarek shows up to restore the page contents to a much earlier version thereby erasing relevant career information in the process. I undid the change. Then in walks one Gerd Arendt to undo my change. And so on. In other words, the editing war was provoked by those two. Like you but unlike me, both enjoy editorial impunity. As if not to be outdone, in you walk to proceed to erase even more content. I mean, you erased the singer's (incomplete as it is) list of opera and musical theater roles, labeling the content "unnecessary". I mean, really? This is wholly unacceptable behavior on your part and on the part of M. Bednarek and G. Arendt and I am asking you to restore all of the content from the page. What you and the other two are doing is flagrant abuse of editorial power. And it cannot go unnoticed. Why are you three so threatened by the contents of the page? Why would a small edit yesterday trigger this situation? These are questions worth thinking about and answering. Not by me but by the three of you. Luluplatz (talk) 05:57, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WP:V. -- Softlavender (talk) 08:47, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Luluplatz, as Softlavender has pointed out, you cannot add large swathes of completely unreferenced assertions. The fact that three highly experienced editors in this area have all removed the material ought to give you pause for thought instead of accusing them of "flagrant abuse of editorial power". Having said that, even if you were to provide inline citations for each of the many roles she has sung, such a list is both superfluous and not really appropriate for an encyclopedia article. It belongs on her official website. Ditto "future plans". The prose descriptions of her career as well as her discography already contain the roles she has sung.
Another note re the maintenance tags. I have tweaked this a bit and am going to remove {{COI}} and {{tone}} because while the content is overly detailed, even without the roles list, as it currently written, the tone and content is neither overtly promotional nor unencyclopedic. The COI tag is not meant to be a "badge of shame", but rather to alert readers and editors that the content may be promotional, and needs to be checked. {{BLP sources}} definitely needs to stay. I would also suggest that the article needs to be pruned for conciseness and copyedited for coherence—way too much name-dropping of conductors, for one thing, and cataloguing virtually every performance no matter how minor, e.g " Studer can be heard singing the "Ave Maria" from Verdi's Otello in the soundtrack to the 2001 Hollywood film, O. Voceditenore (talk) 10:40, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a problem with people tweaking the page here and there. After all I don't own the page and that's the Wikipedia model anyway. But I sense a double standard. Consider so many other singer pages that contain what you say is minutiae. And, at the expense of sounding "conspirational", the provoked editing war (likely done to get me to lose my account) needs to be looked into. I am, frankly, tired of the dynamic here. Luluplatz (talk) 11:10, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I am testing editorial impartiality and objectivity (and the presumed absence of double standards) by having removed the Repertory section (listing opera and musical theater roles) from the Renée Fleming page. Let us see how long the removal lasts and, if the change is undone, what kind of editorial intervention ensues to affirm consistency. I will also be looking at other pages for same.Luluplatz (talk) 11:29, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto for the Jonas Kaufmann, Anna Netrebko, Aprile Millo, Nina Stemme, Plácido Domingo and Kathleen Battle pages. As time allows and little by little, I will be looking at the content of other singer pages to help in the application of consistency across the board.Luluplatz (talk) 11:42, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I see that the deletions in the pages named above were reversed. The obvious implication is that my test passed. After noticing the reversals, I reintroduced the list of roles in the Studer page but it has since been reversed. This adds fuel to the fire of editorial double standards by a cadre of Wikipedia top level editors. I utterly fail to understand why it is acceptable to list roles in the Kaufmann, Domingo, Fleming, et.al. pages but not in the Studer page. I will leave it at that for now but, at the same time, I am not going away either, if that is the ultimate intention of this tedious and unnecessary excercise in abject hypocrisy. Luluplatz (talk) 14:45, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cheryl_Studer&oldid=1212747820"