Talk:Erwin Schrott

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

Photograph needed[edit]

We cannot use images to illustrate articles about living opera singers, composers, and librettists unless they have been released under a free license. To improve the quality of those articles, contributions of good quality photographs which the photographers/copyright holders are willing to release under such a license are very much welcomed. You would retain the copyright of your work but grant permission for others to use and publish the photograph freely. You will be credited for your photograph, and if applicable, a link back to your website will be listed. If you can contribute a photograph under free license, please leave a note on the Opera Project Talk Page or email Voceditenore --Voceditenore 12:28, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personal life[edit]

I have just added a reference for this section which was created by another editor yesterday. This is a biography of a living person. ALWAYS provide a verifiable reference from a reputable source when adding statements about the subject's personal life. Note also that I have rephrased the text to avoid "time sensitive words" like "currently", "now", etc. as per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies). Voceditenore (talk) 06:20, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Recent deletions and reversions[edit]

Re the edits made by 200.115.248.66 and Ivy Moon (presumably the same person) with these types of edit summaries:

"As I said before, changes made upon request of a DIRECT INTERESTED PARTY; please, do not change, keeping in mind this is a living person's bio."

A few points here:

  1. That kind of summary for edits which repeatedly remove both text and references to reliable sources without discussing on the talk page is entirely inappropriate. Even worse were the previous deletions and multiple edits with no summary at all, which made it difficult for other editors to understand what was going on. Your edit summaries imply that you are either one of the "direct interested parties" yourself, or you have a close professional or personal relationship with them. Can I point out that the converse can happen. Anyone can claim that they are editing upon request of a direct interested party and do what they like to an article including adding even more inappropriate material than what you removed. That's why it's much better to discuss the issue on the talk page objectively and not simply resort to claims that your edits are "authorized" in some way by the article's subject.
  2. I happen to agree with you concerning most of what you removed. Firstly, the removal of detailed information about the child and the couple's "engagement" is fine and entirely in line with WP:BLP policy. The removal of the part about the cancellation of the Rosenblatt concert and its sequelae was a matter of public record, supported by reliable references, and neutrally worded. BLP policies cannot be invoked to remove text and references simply because the subject of the article finds it unflattering. Having said that, it is a very minor episode in Schrott's career, something which happens at least once in many singers' careers and tends to skew a short article. I'm quite in favour of removing it. However, there is no justification whatsover for removing the fact that Schrott and Netrebko have shared the stage several times, e.g. the concert in Puerto Rico, Don Giovanni at the the ROH, etc.
  3. This article is very short and lacks quite a lot of detail about Schrott's artistic career, as well as a public domain photograph. It would help a lot if it could be expanded in that direction, properly referenced of course, and neutrally written. An editor whose only "contributions" to Wikipedia are repeated deletion of material from a single article without discussion on the talk page tends to lose credibility with each deletion.
  4. Finally, the editor(s) mentioned above should thoroughly familiarise themselves with the policies and remedies outlined on the special BLP help page as well as those on WP:COI which has guidance on editing when you have a conflict of interest. Best wishes, Voceditenore (talk) 07:57, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Voceditenore's points, except that I feel there is no need to drop those two sentences and their sources. Furthermore, I find the indiscriminate reversal of previous edits, without regard to their merit, totally unacceptable.
I'm going to raise this issue for clarification and guidance at WikiProject Biography -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 10:52, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The subject has now been archived at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard without comment. I have restored a {{Fact}} tag, a reference and two pieces of text to produce a version which cannot possibly be disputed. I am now waiting for an explanation by Ivy_Moon or 200.115.248.66 before restoring the Rosenblatt episode. Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:02, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the restoration so far. Normally I'd err on the side of caution re giving the exact date of birth or even name of the child per BLP Privacy of Personal information. Incidentally, the current reference given does not state the child's name. However since the child's mother has a copy of all this information on her web site, I would assume these privacy issues do not apply. A better reference for the name can be found at http://www.annanetrebko.com/press/index.php (via this download http://www.annanetrebko.com/press/_pdf/News_Sept08.pdf) Voceditenore (talk) 14:28, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Once again Ivy Moon has deleted "Netrebko and Schrott have shared the stage several times in previous years." (with no edit summary and without discussing the deletion here). I have now added more specific information about two three of their appearances together referenced to verifiable, reliable sources. There is absolutely no justification for removing this again. Voceditenore (talk) 14:26, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

About the information and editing of the page referring to Mr. Schrott.[edit]

Firstly, I do apologize if I hadn't found a way to enter and/or post my reasons here before, but now I do, so I'll try and explain my point. It seems to me that you gather data on Mr. Schrott and include or leave out whatever piece of information pleases you, making this, which is supposed to be an encyclopedia, a place to publish articles that are somehow biassed just because you claim to have gathered that information from a reliable source. You said, and I quote: "Your edit summaries imply that you are either one of the "direct interested parties" yourself, or you have a close professional or personal relationship with them. Can I point out that the converse can happen. Anyone can claim that they are editing upon request of a direct interested party and do what they like to an article including adding even more inappropriate material than what you removed.". I don't see what kind of confirmation you would need, so as to know that I talk on behalf of a direct interested party. If you can think of a proper way to establish my credibility, let me know. But let me narrow down the previous quote a little bit so as to point out an interesting detail: "...adding even more inappropriate material than what you removed." Here you admit that what I have removed was -to some degree- inappropriate. When we first visited the article, not only were there links that linked to nowhere, but also you included some information about Mr. Schrott that was, at least, debatible when it came to the reason why to include it here, as is the case of the Rosenblatt episode. Regarding Mr. Schrott and Ms. Netrebko sharing the stage, please notice that I haven't made any corrections or remarks or editing when you inlcuded the when-and-where of their preformances together. The objection was towards the gossipy tone of just pointing it out and not refering to it as a professional aspect. All in all, I could say that the editing I have made was the result of an obection to what I found to be gossip-magazine-like information, not suitable for an encyclopedia article. I take Wikipedia and the information it contains to be a source of data worldwide, thus our concern about what information it includes regarding Mr. Schrott. I'm working on a summary of the conductors he has worked with, which I think is also of relevance for those seeking information about Mr. Schrott. As for the picture you want for the article, can you give me precise information on what you need so as to publish one on the page? How does one make one of the pictures to be "free license", as you need it? Is there one in particular you would want?

I apologize once again if I have failed to follow to the last letter the policies for editing, like not knowing of this discussion board where I could explain the reasons for my editing. The lack of comments and explainations when I edit contents, are not voluntary or with the intention of being pushy, but just a simple technical problem I have with some of the equipment I sometimes use. I'll make the utmost effort to keep these problems to a minimum. Ivy Moon —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ivy Moon (talk • contribs) 23:50, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find any point in your contribution above that would explain the repeated removal of the Rosenblatt episode. It happened, it is verifiably referenced, it is not libellous. As Voceditenore wrote, this kind of thing happens to a lot of high-profile opera artists —and not just singers—, and it is wholly encyclopedic to mention them; see Angela Gheorghiu & Roberto Alagna for two recent examples. I'm going to re-instate that passage.
If you want to expand the article with career or personal details (following the basic principles of WP:NPOV and WP:RS, you would be most welcome. I also recommed you use the Edit summary to explain the purpose of your edits. Michael Bednarek (talk) 10:15, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Ivy Moon When you say "you" are you referring to me (Voceditenore)? If so, let me clarify a few things:

  1. I created the article and added the information about his career and recordings. However, I did not add the information about his relationship with Anna Nebtrebko or about the contractual dispute with Rosenblatt Recitals. That was added (and re-added) by at least two other editors. I merely referenced it and provided the exact times and places where they had shared the stage.
  2. Re your comment: "Here you admit that what I have removed was -to some degree- inappropriate." is hardly detective work. All you had to do was to continue reading my comments above in the section Recent deletions and reversions to see that I explicitly agreed with you concerning the removal of the Rosenblatt dispute. However, other editors did not agree, and also present good reasons for their view. Editing Wikipedia articles is done by consensus and discussion not by edit-warring.

I sympathise with your desire to ensure that the article presents an accurate picture of Erwin Schrott's life and career, and I understand that you are a novice and tried to edit before you fully understood how to do it and what guidelines to follow. But, I'm afraid you have done more than simply "failing to follow to the last letter the policies for editing". You have not respected some of the most basic requirements of Wikipedia editors:

  1. to leave edit summaries
  2. to engage in discussion on the talk page before repeatedly removing material added by other editors which is factually accurate, non-libellous and referenced to reliable sources
  3. to observe Wikipedia's guidelines when editing with a conflict of interest.

I left a message concerning these issues with appropriate links on your talk page last November.[1]. You continued to ignore these guidelines yesterday when you once again removed referenced content without leaving an edit summary and without discussing it first on the talk page. I'm going to list some links below to guidelines and help pages. Please read them carefully before making any more edits to this article. It would also help if you would consistently edit under your user name (Ivy Moon) rather than using anonymous IP addresses such as this one.[2].

Best wishes, Voceditenore (talk) 11:27, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Married?[edit]

--Souri souri (talk) 18:43, 9 August 2009 (UTC)he is not married with Netrebko, because he is still married with a woman from uruguay[reply]

You're probably, at least partially, right; see "Enthüllung des Tages" (5 August 2009) (in German) — although I have some serious concerns about the reputability of that particular source. If true, the article about Anna Netrebko would also need to be corrected. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:41, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Erwin_Schrott&oldid=1206237345"