Talk:Jenny Lind/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

start

I'm glad somebody (Kingturtle) started a page for Jenny Lind. However, a quick survey of on-line bios of Jenny Lind seems to indicate that she wasn't exactly an orphan. Her family was poor, and couldn't always afford to keep her. According to one bio, she bought her parents a house once she had enough money. I don't have time right now to research/write a longer article, but she clearly deserves one. --Fred 13:59 17 Jun 2003 (UTC)

In 2003 researchers revealed that Jenny had a secret affair with the composer Chopin. See "Chopin and The Swedish Nightingale" by Cecilia and Jens Jorgensen. Ogg 10:34, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Verifyng research

I'm starting a new section here as this addresses a specific issue related to the previous section, Removing linkspam. It seems from the Icons of Europe website, that a considerable amount of research has been done. I would suggest that in providing references to verify any new assertions or corrections, that the sources actually used by the researchers on the Icons of Europe project be supplied rather than simply (and repeatedly) referencing their own web site and publications. One possible exception is this reprint, which is hosted on the site, and written by one of the project's directors for another publication:

Jens A. Jorgensen, 'On the trail of Mazurka in A-flat, opus 24, n° 3', Chopin in the World, April 2005.

That article seems to be reasonably well referenced. Note that not all references given on Wikipedia need to be available online, provided full bibliographic information is provided. Voceditenore (talk) 13:24, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Removing linkspam

I have taken out all the new edits with material from Icons of Europe. This may contain some very useful and important stuff, but WP cannot be used to promote an organisation, even a non-profit. It can be re-added but only in a way that follows WP policies. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:23, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be helpful if Jeandebeaumont replied to your concerns here? I'll put a note on his/her talk page. -- Kleinzach (talk) 09:53, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Jeandebeaumont left this comment on the page:
I have taken the research off as per comments by Kleinzach. But I can't figure out how to reply online at WP  :-) . Please help me at jeandebeaumont@mail.com Thanks, JdB
Perhaps Itsmejudith would like to write to him/her? -- Kleinzach (talk) 10:33, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I suggest to update the Jenny Lind information under the existing 'Early life and career' section, with fewer references. I understand that the proposed 'New research' section was overdone. The editorial quality control being exercised is appreciated. Jean de Beaumont (talk) 11:50, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Jean, welcome to Wikipedia! I've left you some tips on your Talk Page for future editing so you can avoid adding what looks like spam, etc.
Another more general point.... One of the problems with this article, long before the edits of the last few days, is the extensive use of external links in the body of the article instead of proper footnotes. They are not only distracting, but also give the reader no idea what they are linking to and why. I've already replaced a couple of these. One was to a commercial web site with a definition of "consummation" when there is already a wikipedia article on the meaning on the term. For definitions like this, it's always preferable to link internally. The others were ones like this: [1] which I replaced with ones that looked like this:
Frédéric Chopin, Chopin's Letters, Dover Publications, 1988, p. 372.
But there are still a considerable number of similar external links in the article which need to be cleaned up, re-formatted, or in some cases, removed. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 12:43, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
I'll reply here if that's OK with everyone because I think Jean and others are reading this page. The main policy that applies is the verification policy. Everything included in the article must have a reliable source. Examples of reliable sources are biographies published by reputable publishers. I don't know enough about Icons of Europe to say at this stage if it counts as a reliable publisher. It is the responsibility of people who want to add information to show that it has a good source. I must also say that I am very relieved that we are discussing this in a polite and friendly way. The requests for comment are a good idea too. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:47, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
As you are all probably aware, I put in the RFCs. It'd be a shame if a nice article like this was ruined by an edit war, although it does look like this is going to be settled in a civil manner. Mjroots (talk) 11:36, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Just for the record and for the information of other readers of this page, I have already thanked the above commentators on their userpages for the helpful feedback. Jean de Beaumont (talk) 12:35, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

RFCs

I'm not sure what it is upon which I am being asked to comment. Dlabtot (talk) 18:08, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the RFC as the issue seems to be settled now. Mjroots (talk) 12:04, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

George Jones

GEORGE JONES.- I would be interested to learn what the evidence is for Jenny Lind's "English suitor, George Jones" (the paragraph commencing "After Mendelssohn died ...). - I have not seen that name before. In her Memoir of 1891, however, there is a convoluted story about her short-lived engagement to "Captain Harris of the Indian army" in early 1849. There is new conclusive evidence that this captain was an invention (but a cover for CHOPIN). For example: British Army records on Mrs Grote's relative Cadet/Lt Claudius Harris stationed in India at the time; and the London press ridiculing Jenny Lind and her alleged fiancé, whom she then gave the assumed name "Mr Harris" (Punch finally ironises in June 1849: "So Betsey Prigg was right we find - There is NO Mrs. Harris!"). Jean de Beaumont (talk) 13:10, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I just had a look. I suspect someone inserted it as a joke. Elvis Costello (who wrote the mini-opera on Jenny Lind and Hans Christian Andersen), has sung with a country and western singer named George Jones. I did a google search and this assertion about her English suitor, George Jones, only appears on Wikipedia and its mirrors. I'm going to remove it. Best Voceditenore (talk) 11:31, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Follow-up The article had originally referred to a Captain Harris. I found the point where another editor substituted the name George Jones. It's here. He/she used a rather dishonest edit summary, describing it as "improving the sentence structure". I've reinstated the original assertion about Capt Harris with a {{Citation needed}} tag. Voceditenore (talk) 12:26, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, as I noted above on 16 March, new evidence shows that "Captain Harris" - only cited in Lind's Memoir of 1891 - was a fictitious name (designed to cover her plan to marry Chopin). Shall I revise it online (with NOPV proof) or show you a draft here first? Jean de Beaumont (talk) 06:45, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
You can go ahead to make the change, but it could be reverted if you don't have a good secondary source for it. I don't think the Icons of Europe website itself is sufficient as a source. Since it seems that there may be some debate about the facts of Jenny Lind's life, the article is going to need in-line citations to show what comes from where. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:48, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Sources

From what I can see at the moment, I would say that the Jorgensen & Jorgensen biography, published by Icons of Europe, is a reliable source for the article. This is an important point to resolve at this stage, so if anyone disagrees, it should be thrashed out here and perhaps taken to RfC. Icons of Europe seems to be a new and small publisher, but a serious one. Other facts or surmises about Lind unearthed by Icons of Europe since the publication of the biography wouldn't seem to count as reliably sourced. My advice to Jean is to start working as soon as possible with some academic historians with a view to getting the new research published in good historical journals. Peer-reviewed journal papers are always good sources for WP articles. New research cannot be published on WP until it has been published elsewhere. Hope this helps. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:36, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Judith, many thanks! Icons of Europe will be delighted and your advice about "historical journals" is well taken. - Concerning your point "reliably sourced": It would seem that a good deal of the sources noted are reliable (e.g. N.W. Senior's letters; Paris and London press; and Meyerbeer). However, Niecks 1888 on 1848-1849 and later years (still widely used by scholars) and Lind's Memoir 1891 on 1848-1849 are indeed unreliable because of the cover-up of Chopin and Lind's romance. But once that is understood, Niecks provides a wealth of useful information and hints - the Memoir is awful to read and less useful. Even some of Chopin's letters have been incorrectly translated and annotated (notably 30 Oct. 1848 - Arthur Hedley is guilty on two key points). That's why a large effort has gone into cross-referencing the above bio/memoir with a large amount of newly discovered original source material from the period (including official certificates, Queen Victoria's private Journal, and unpublished handwritten Lind letters). - FYI, I have informed MusicalConnoisseur about my sandbox proposal for a similarly revised 1848-1849 section in the Chopin article (which includes other period sources seen from Chopin's point of view). Jean de Beaumont (talk) 17:19, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Many thanks Jean, but I am concerned that you are still thinking in terms of using letters directly. They are primary sources and should not be the main resource for an article like this. If you check the verification policy and the reliable sources guideline there is a great deal of wise advice that you will find instructive. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:36, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Noted! I will study that. I am beginning to understand :-) . Jean de Beaumont (talk) 20:55, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Louisa Cramptron

Thomas Crampton married Louisa, a talented singer and friend of Jenny Lind. Does anyone have a reference for her maiden name please? Mjroots (talk) 12:58, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Found the answer, it was Louisa Martha Hall. Mjroots (talk) 21:59, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Soup / Page layout

I came to this page and was surprised not to find a reference to the Jenny Lind Soup; without having to wade through the complete page history, is there a reason for this omisssion?

I also noted a few infelicities in the page's layout: I believe that starting an article with images on the left is frowned upon at Wikipedia (see: MOS:IMAGE), and on seeing this example it becomes clear to me why. Worse, there is a huge sea of white space at the bottom of the section "Jenny Lind's American tour"; this seems mainly due to the extraordinary length of the caption under Image:Lind London 1850 DAG LIT.jpg and also to the general overabundance of images in the article. I suggest the number of images should be reduced: why have two images of her signature? Why have several almost identical daguerreotypes (Image:Jlind2.gif & Image:Jenny Lind Lithograph.jpg and: Image:Lind root.JPG & Image:Image-Jenny Lind Lithograph 2.jpg. Once the unnecessay images have been removed, the remaining ones could probably be arranged without causing such huge white space to appear on the rendered page.

Lastly, I think the article should have the template {{Commons}} in the section "External links" — see Commons:Jenny Lind. Michael Bednarek (talk) 08:42, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I moved some images down further in the article and tried to streamline some of the image captions. Do we need ALL those 1850 images of her? Also, they should alternate left and right. I also added a few references. The article still needs lots more in-line references. There must be an obit in The Times? -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:08, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Much improved; regarding the images: see my comments above — they should be culled. Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:51, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

New file File:Johanna Maria ('Jenny') Lind by Alfred, Count D'Orsay.jpg

Recently the file File:Johanna Maria ('Jenny') Lind by Alfred, Count D'Orsay.jpg (right) was uploaded and it appears to be relevant to this article and not currently used by it. If you're interested and think it would be a useful addition, please feel free to include it. Dcoetzee 19:18, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Hypnotism & Jenny Lind

I know nothing about Jenny Lind, I am expert on the history of hypnotism and editor of the collected works of James Braid, the founder of hypnotherapy. However, someone with an interest in this lady might like to know that Braid recounts a curious story about Jenny Lind, which he repeated several times in his writings. See the page of my book linked to below.

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Vs35STwQYQoC&lpg=PP1&dq=discovery%20of%20hypnosis&pg=PA220#v=onepage&q&f=false

Elsewhere in the same collection of writings, John Milne Bramwell, another hypnotist and follower of Braid, writes, "The following is an interesting account, published in The Medical Times for September, 1847, by an independent observer, of the power possessed by certain somnambules of imitating language and song." He quotes the newspaper as follows, hope you don't mind me reproducing it in full but someone might find this useful in relation to Jenny Lind's biography,

On Tuesday last, the 3rd [of the month], MIle. Jenny Lind [a world-renowned soprano], accompanied by Mr. and Mrs. Schwabe, and a few of their friends, attended a séance at Mr. Braid’s for the purpose of witnessing some of the extraordinary phenomena of hypnotism. There were two girls who work in a warehouse, and who had just come in their working attire. Having thrown them into the sleep, Mr. Braid sat down to the piano, and the moment he began playing, both somnambules arose and approached the instrument, when they joined him in a trio. Having awoke one of the girls Mr. Braid said, although she was ignorant of the grammar of her own language when awake, that when in the sleep she would prove herself competent to accompany anyone in the room in singing songs in any language, giving both notes and words correctly – a feat which she was quite incompetent to perform in the waking condition. He then requested anyone in the room to put her to the test, when Mr. Schwabe sat down to the instrument, and played and sang a German song, in which she accompanied him correctly, giving both notes and words simultaneously with Mr. Schwabe. Another gentleman then tried her with one in Swedish, in which she succeeded.

Next the queen of song, the far-famed Jenny Lind, sat down to the instrument and sang most beautifully a slow air, with Swedish words, which the somnambulist accompanied her in, in the most perfect manner both as regards words and music. Jenny now seemed resolved to test the powers of the somnambulist to the utmost by a continued strain of the most difficult roulades and cadenzas, for which she is so famous, including some of her extraordinary sostentuto [sustained] notes, with all their inflections from pianissimo to forte crescendo, and again diminishing to thread-like pianissimo, but in all these fantastic tricks and displays of genius by the Swedish nightingale, even to the shake, she was so closely and accurately tracked by the somnambulist, that several in the room occasionally could not have told, merely by hearing, that there were two individuals singing – so instantaneously did she catch the notes, and so perfectly did their voices blend and accord.

Next, Jenny having been told by Mr. Braid that she might be tested in some other language, this charming songstress commenced ‘Casta Diva,’ and the ‘A la Bell a mu Ritornella’, in which the fidelity of the somnambulist’s performance, both in words and music, was most perfect, and fully justified all Mr. Braid had alleged regarding her powers. She was also tested by Mlle. Lind in merely imitating language, when she gave most exact imitations; and Mr. Schwabe also tried her by some most difficult combinations of sound, which he said he knew no one was capable of imitating correctly without much practice, but the somnambulist imitated them correctly at once, and that whether spoken slowly or quickly. When the girl was aroused, she had no recollection of anything which had been done by her, or that she had afforded such a high gratification to all present, by proving the wonderful powers of imitation which are acquired by some patients during a state of artificial somnambulism; she said she merely felt somewhat out of breath, as if she had been running.

--HypnoSynthesis (talk) 11:33, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Dickinson can write her own letters, thank you very much...

Ssilvers can "fix" whatever is factually incorrect, but selectively removing elements of a very short letter, from a well-known poet, is silly, and rather tendentious.

By the way, the italics and the paragraph breaks were in the original letter; my, how presumptuous, you little Wikityrant! Mysweetoldetc. (talk) 22:16, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

You seem to have made numerous transcription errors. Other sources do not show the italics. Also the letter is far too long. Other sources do not show the paragraph breaks. If you insist on including such a long quote, it may be deleted. Please keep quotes as short as possible. This quote already takes up a good chunck of the article. Also, please be WP:CIVIL in your discussions on Wikipedia. -- Ssilvers (talk) 13:10, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Attention: the Phil S. Silvers Show
"You seem to have made numerous transcription errors." Errors? Then name them, dammit!
"Other sources do not show the italics." Supply the sources; I provided mine. Or is that too much to ask? Talk about intellectual incivility!
"Other sources do not show the paragraph breaks." So what? My source does, and it makes for easier reading and comprehension.
"If you insist on including such a long quote, it may be deleted." In other words, this Wikityrant will tear down an insightful firsthand account by a youthful contemporary of Jenny Lind - Emily Dickinson, no less - if certain portions of the letter are not edited out, to the little tyrant's satisfaction!

This has little to do with the length of Dickinson's letter: that's a red herring. The point is to remove elements that are not complimentary to Lind. As Voltaire said: "To the living we owe respect. To the dead we owe only the truth." Mysweetoldetc. (talk) 22:00, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Dear Mysweetoldetc.: (1) Transcription errors: You omitted quite a few words like "oft", transposed words, etc. Run a comparison of the two versions, and you will see. Or just compare your original version carefully to your source (and either of the sources I mention below) and you will see that your transcription of the text contained numerous omissions and other errors. (2) I have put back in the italics based on this edition: Letters of Emily Dickinson, Volume 1, ed. Mabel Loomis Todd, Roberts Brothers, 1894. I see that different editions disagree about which words (if any) are in italics in the letter, so I beg your pardon. (3) Italics and paragraph breaks are not shown in the transcription shown in: Emily Dickinson's Reception in the 1890s: A Documentary History by Willis J. Buckingham, University of Pittsburgh, 1989, ISBN 0822985152. Indeed, I have seen no source that contains the paragraph break before "Father". (3) You misunderstand my statement above: It is not I who will delete the long quote, but possibly other editors, based on our content and style guidelines. This is because the quote was far too long (and may still be too long), and the whole section on the American tour is too long and gives undue weight to this portion of Lind's life. If I understand your comment above, you are saying that I have removed "elements that are not complimentary to Lind". I don't think this is so. What have I removed that is critical of Lind? My intention was to shorten and streamline the quote by removing repetitive material and the incomprehensible (at least to me) statement about "a little too excess of monkey", which I don't think would add anything to our readers. However, I think that other editors might find the entire quote to be unnecessary or would move it to a footnote. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:05, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Dear Silver - I'd make three points here. First, as to "monkeys", ED's inclusion of her fathers reaction to Jenny Lind is best left as it is; it's part of the historical record, if you will. To remove this is to "correct" her commentary. This is an egregious intervention; let Dickinson speak.
Second, if you can find commentaries from a number of contemporaries of Lind, then you can list short, epigramatic portions of these quotes. If not, then Dickinson's quote stands as a unique and engaging - and as always with Dickinson, highly perceptive - evaluation of Lind.
The "too long" complaint and the "undue weight" are silly. See undue weight: it's about giving equal time to the Flat Earth hypothesis and to arguments against the human causes of global warming. It's not applicable here.
And finally, it's telling that you chose to put a block on the "undo" function when you edited my contribution. That wasn't very straight of you, was it, Silvers? And say hi to Courcelles and Company Mysweetoldetc. (talk) 18:47, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, so I can't block anyone or anything. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:29, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

American tour

The American tour section is much too long for the size of the article. It is now 1,102 words out of a total of 3,457 words – nearly a third of the whole article. By contrast the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography devotes just 85 words to it in an article of 2,047 words; the Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians gives it 15 words in an article of 701 words. The Times obituary gives the US tour 55 words out of a total of 1,789. Even the New York Times, which naturally has a certain local focus, gives the American tour only 594 words in its 3,000-word obituary.

It would be best, in my judgment, to move the whole section to a separate article, and boil the details of the tour down to a maximum of 300 words for the main Lind article. Happy to have a go if there is a consensus on this. Tim riley (talk) 05:53, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

That seems sensible, although it would be fine with me if you ran over your 300-word target, assuming that the rest of the article will be gradually expanded. All the best! -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:12, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Tim riley that the length of the section warrants its own article. I agree that he should go ahead with this if he's happy to do so. Jack1956 (talk) 06:47, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Now done. Please dive in and edit the new spin-off article and/or the condensed section of the main article. Tim riley (talk) 20:07, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I gave it a once thru. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:49, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Images

There was an earlier exhange (above) to the effect that there were too many images. I wonder if any editors share my view that the two mug-shots "Last images of Lind before coming to America in 1850" clutter up the page to little effect and could with advantage be removed? And could we prune the very long captions of the lead picture and the one in the Early life section? Grateful for comments. Tim riley (talk) 08:07, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree on both points. Suggestions for the captions:
  1. First U.S. Daguerreotype of Lind, 14 September 1850, Mathew Brady Studio, New York City
  2. Daguerreotype of Lind, c. September 1850, New York City
  3. The Grand Opening at New York's Castle Garden on 11 September 1850, lithograph by Nathaniel Currier
Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:26, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

OK, but the first caption should mention that her friend took the image. As for the Castle Garden image, I like the caption that you used in the American tour article.. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:43, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Date of birth

Do other editors think the footnote about d.o.b. is worth keeping? I relegated it to a footnote from the main text, but as it is uncited I am inclined to blitz it. Grateful for views. Tim riley (talk) 21:06, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

If you think it is dubious (that is, if none of the major sources discuss this), I would agree that it should be removed. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:40, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Reference problems

Footnote 3 references "Rogers", but the full cite seems to have been dropped out. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:43, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Fixed.

There is a ref to "Mercer-Taylor", but the full cite is missing. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:08, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:19, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Commemorated in music

The American Tour section notes that Lind toured the Southern states. This may have inspired the traditional American fiddle tune "Jenny Lind". In Bill Monroe's autobiographical song "Uncle Pen", he notes that "He played an old tune called 'Soldier's Joy', and the one called 'Boston Boy', but the greatest of all was 'Jenny Lind', to me that's where the fiddle begins." Jofield (talk) 23:34, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

"Mademoiselle Lundberg"

I wonder about the dancer at the Royal Opera, "Mademoiselle Lundberg", who according to the article playd a part in the discovery of Jenny Lind as an artist. Her first name is not mentioned, and it should be. Was Lundberg perhaps this dancer: https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fredrika_Lundberg ? --85.226.45.30 (talk) 12:16, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

No idea. Can you find any reliable sources that confirm it? -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:16, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Well, this article describes Mademoiselle Lundberg as the principal dancer at the Royal Swedish Opera. Fredrika Lundberg was a dancer at the same Opera in 1804-1828 - as a premier dancer in 1812-1818 - and the seem to be the only dancer at the Royal Opera at that time by the name Lundberg. The reference for the article in Swedish Wikipedia is reliable for that, at least: it does not mention the incident to Jenny Lind, but if the Mademoiselle Lundberg in this article was a dancer at the Royal Opera in cirka 1830, then Fredrika Lundberg would be the one, because according to the reference in Swedish language wp, she was the only dancer in the ballet by that name. --85.226.45.30 (talk) 14:06, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
That is probably right, but we cannot make that inference on Wikipedia. See WP:OR#Synthesis of published material for more information. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:47, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Jenny Lind, Glasgow

Regarding this edit by User:Ssilvers: I know about WP:V and WP:RS, but who else could the people of Glasgow have had in mind when they named that area? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 14:25, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

If you have read WP:V, then you must know very well that we may not add assertions without citing a published source that states that there is such a place named for Lind. A newspaper article must have referred to it. The stub article Jenny Lind, Glasgow, probably not a notable topic, had three references, two of which were dead links. I updated one of the links, but the other is very dead. I put the assertion back in with the Glasgowguide ref, but that is probably not a WP:RS, and if anyone disagrees, then the assertion can be removed until a reliable source is cited to support it. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:03, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Pub in Sutton, London

User:Sufcmad: I see that you added that an eponymous pub was built in 1854 to commemorate Lind's visit to Sutton, London; today it is called the Nightingale. You cited: Goodwins, Sara (2004). Sutton Past and Present. Sutton Publishing. ISBN 0-7509-3424-7., but you left out the page number. If you can locate the page number, this information should go under the Legacy section. Thanks!-- Ssilvers (talk) 15:47, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Jenny Lind. 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) 08:21, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

The Greatest Showman

Lind is portrayed in the highly fictionalized 2018 film The Greatest Showman as developing romantic feelings for Barnum, which is completely ahistorical. What, if anything, should we say about it here? -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:01, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

I think mentioning the film in the section "American tour" will be helpful to many readers. Suggested text at the end of the section: "Lind's tour is a central plot point in the 2017 film about Barnum, The Greatest Showman". This could be slightly expanded in a new section in the article Jenny Lind tour of America, 1850–52, below "Legacy"/"Memorials", "Stage and film": Quote: Lind's tour has been a central plot point in several works about Barnum. The 1980 musical Barnum and the 2017 film The Greatest Showman feature a fictionalized account of Lind's and Barnum's relationship with romantic undertones."https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2017/12/greatest-showman-hugh-jackman-p-t-barnum-jenny-lind "The Greatest Showman: The True Story of P.T. Barnum and Jenny Lind" by Betsy Golden Kellem, Vanity Fair, 22 December 2017. Improvements welcome. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 07:44, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Good. Thanks! I've added it here (and also Barnum) and will also add it to the Tour article, but even there I don't think it needs expansion. -- Ssilvers (talk) 08:53, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Identification of Mother's Religion Would be Helpful

The article states that “Lind’s mother had divorced her first husband for adultery but, for religious reasons, refused to remarry until after his death in 1834.” The author needs to identify the religion that condemns divorce after remarriage but which thinks living with a man outside of marriage and having an out-of-wedlock child is acceptable. Could it be that Lind's mother was motivated not by religion but by a desire to avoid termination of alimony payments from the prior husband?71.209.231.42 (talk) 20:58, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

That's what the dnb said, without further detail. Nevertheless, the "religious reasons" phrase seems unimportant, so I have removed it. However, divorce was an open and notorious social blot in the 19th century, while out-of-wedlock children could be explained as being a "niece" or whatever. -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:51, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Biographical Dictionary of Swedish Women futher reading deleted

@Tim riley: Please motivate why deleted and maybe even better discuss it in the project Project Women in Red section Biographical Dictionary of Swedish Women - Salgo60 (talk) 15:52, 24 August 2020 UTC

I'm not sure which project you refer to or how familiar you are with English Wikipedia's conventions, but "Further reading" generally lists books etc, and online sources considered worth mentioning are listed under "External links". I think my colleague Ssilvers made that plain in reverting one of your earlier edits. We are reasonable and helpful people here, we like to think, and if you need guidance you have only to ask. Tim riley talk 16:20, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
Tim riley Ok I havent seen that remark and we now have Template:SKBL under "Further reading"on > 600 articles. Feels odd to have different headers dependent what media it is distributed on. If something is available both as a book and online you get a problem - Salgo60 (talk) 16:40, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
You never need to list a source in more than one category, and if a source is not used in the text, per WP:EL, one should only list it if it adds something especially helpful to the article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:48, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
Ssilvers/Tim_riley no problem with that in this case I think it adds value and my personal view is something like Wikipedia:Further reading
  1. its written by a Swedish Dictionary called Svenskt kvinnobiografiskt lexikon that focus on females and try to have good writers
  2. the author is Ingela Tägil who wrote her Doctoral dissertation "Jenny Lind: the importance of the voice for her media identity, a study of her artistry 1838-49" [2] same in fulltext 240 pages... for me her writing about Jenny Lind adds value sadly its just from page 219 that her dissertation is in English which maybe disqualify her as an reference in en:Wikipedia but that work is mentioned as a source in the above mentioned paper
- Salgo60 (talk) 06:08, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
This does not meet the description of Wikipedia:Further reading, which discusses sources with "detailed" coverage (usually books), not relatively brief encyclopedia entries. If there is some especially important information in this source, then add it to the article and cite the source. Otherwise, this source adds nothing. You said that you "now have Template:SKBL under "Further reading"on > 600 articles". This is an error, and it ought to be under ELs if at all; if someone investigates, these refs might be deemed WP:PROMO and removed. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:30, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
That seems to me a judicious and clear explanation of the facts. We should always ask ourselves 'What value does this bring to the reader?'. Tim riley talk 19:15, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
Feels better if you explain why a Doctoral dissertation on 240 pages and at least 20 pages in english is not further reading and dont add value... you started just deleting without a comment. I myself prefer reading the original written text and feel the comment "especially important information in this source, then add it to the article" cant be applicable to a Doctoral dissertation - Salgo60 (talk) 21:55, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
I think we may perhaps have a problem in communication here: I don't quite understand your English (which, I hasten to add, is about a thousand times better than my non-existent Swedish) but Ssilvers is right. If there is any information in your collection that would usefully add to what is already in the article, by all means add it. Otherwise, it is a work of supererogation to add mention of your collection. I concur with Ssilvers that there is a prima facie case for looking at your hundreds of plugs for your collection as WP:PROMO. You have added your links to as many as four articles per minute, which does not lend confidence that you have conscientiously read the articles to assess whether your links add any new information, but I am content not to pursue that point. Tim riley talk 23:52, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
The problem I feel is that a Doctoral dissertation on 125 pages at least some of them on English you cant do a summary....
  • Background me and SKBL if you are interested
    • The SKBL project was launched 2018 see Svenskt kvinnobiografiskt lexikon
      • 11 March 2018 I requested the Wikidata property Svenskt kvinnobiografiskt lexikon ID (P4963) see link
      • 19 march 2018 09.29‎ the Wikidata Property was created
      • 19 march 2018 12.15 the Wikidata item of Jenny Lind was connected
      • 17 februari 2020 I added Jenny Lindhs birth record to Wikidata link record "Klara church archive, Baptismal books about illegitimate children, SE/SSA/0010/C I c/2 (1817-1861), Picture id: C0056127_00038"
    • The english articles are translation of the Swedish --> if I have read the Swedish I know what is said in the English
    • In the Swedish Wikipedia we also have SKBL in the Authority file --> we have it on 1389 pages
  • We are right now also starting a discussion with the Professor Maria Sjöberg in charge of SKBL to do better Linked data and the Wikidata <-> SKBL connection better
    • if you can please explain why SKBL is not good enough for linking from en:Wikipedia I will tell her that... we got some complains on the english translation I sent that to the SKBL translator see tweet
- Salgo60 (talk) 10:36, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

There are hundreds or thousands of doctoral dissertations on Shakespeare. We do not list them. We list only the most important books about him. The Jenny Lind article should list only the most important sources. Now it appears that you have a WP:COI with the author of this source, and you should remove all the WP:PROMO links that you have added to this encyclopedia. I am beginning to think that I should search for them and remove them. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:05, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

You are accusing/threatening and I feel not very constructive.... we are speaking about Jenny Lind and I asked about some constructive feedback to the people at SKBL how they can deliver better material that is also useful for en:Wikipedia, if you have something constructive that would be interesting..... or maybe this is life on en:Wikipedia... My purpose is to Learn SKBL to move direction FAIR data and better use the possibilities with Wikidata/Wikipedia and also understand the possibilities with a Knowledge Graph. If we should succed with doing this in a data driven way we need to speak with each other... as you can see below that I have spoken with the Nobelprize people when they gave en:Wikipedia to much link rot If you check my wiki stats then you can also use your logic and assume WP:COI with
- Salgo60 (talk) 18:12, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia, WP:NOT a list of links. If you have something useful to add to an article, add it and cite your source. WP:EL discourages adding excess links. And what you added to "Further reading" is definitely improper there. I hope that was useful, as I think was my previous comment. If you don't find it so, fine, but I'm done. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:24, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Ok then we agree that we disagree you have her birth record above and in Wikidata if you missed it maybe that adds value... but I guess this is life in an open community were everyone has a different agenda. Good luck Wikipedia:Civility - Salgo60 (talk) 06:42, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Infobox

I do not believe that the infobox suggested for this article is helpful. Note that Wikipedia articles, including biographies, do not need infoboxes. Infoboxes should only be included where they are helpful, for example in sports or political bios. See WP:INFOBOXUSE and WP:DISINFOBOX. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:54, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Completely agree. Useful in some articles, but useless clutter here. Tim riley talk 09:19, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Another in agreement here: little merit in this case, which is just a repetition of basic facts from the lead. While here, I thought I'd just namecheck my one-time local pub The Nightingale, named after Lind, and on the corner of Lind Road, Sutton. There is also a Jenny Lind pub in Hastings, both of which may be useful to mention alongside the ships and creeks? - SchroCat (talk) 09:28, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
No need for an info box, which adds nothing to the article. Jack1956 (talk) 09:29, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
She needs an Info-box, the article looks outdated and is not long enough to look cluttered. (I think this is something that needs to be brought up to a larger wiki audience.)Benjamin.P.L (talk) 15:21, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
@Benjamin.P.L agreed and done. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 17:52, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Time for an Infobox

Jenny Lind
Soprano Jenny Lind by Eduard Magnus, 1862
Jenny Lind by Eduard Magnus, 1862
Background information
Born(1820-10-06)October 6, 1820
Klara, Stockholm, Sweden
DiedNovember 2, 1887(1887-11-02) (aged 67)
Herefordshire, England
Occupation(s)Opera singer (soprano)
Spouse(s)
​
(m. 1852)​

I went ahead and added an infobox. The vast majority of articles about people contain Infoboxes, the jury is in at this point and MOS:INFOBOX indicates that they are the preferred way to display helpful information. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 17:50, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

I went to see it. You didn't say how it looked, nor that it disappeared. Last year, I asked the arb candidates if they think we still have infobox wars. I wish their general answer "no" was true. I agree with you that an infobox would be a good additional feature to help the casual reader but you may meet users who think an infobox is an invasion of their "beautifully crafted" article (the quote taken from a 2012/13 discussion, The Rite of Spring). Today, we can look at Witold Lutosławski for a model. I use infobox person for all people. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:17, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
I support the addition of an infobox to this article. Mjroots (talk) 18:44, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
@Gerda Arendt: I've included the infobox here so it is visible, when I posted it hadn't yet been removed. My mistake. As for those who object to it being an invasion of their "beautifully crafted" article I would direct those individuals to WP:OWN. As a note, starting 1/26/23 I will be offline for many months and will need someone else to take up the charge. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 19:00, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
@Tim riley: out of fairness, would you like to discuss your objections here? -- Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 19:25, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Oh, dear! G. Arendt again! I used to regard her as a friend, but she was sanctioned, as I recall, for her bullying (me and others) about info-boxes, yet she still persists, despite repeated promises not to comment further on the matter! I-Bs are excellent when they contain useful information, and unhelpful when, as here, they don't. That is Wikipedia's agreed policy, but some (naming no names) insist on ignoring it, and demand that every article must have an I-B. I have in the past three days revised three articles which had I-Bs and I have not sought to remove them, as they serve the purpose prescribed by our Wikipedia policy, which you may like to read: MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE. Tim riley talk 19:41, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

@Tim riley: Ok... So the bulk of your response was a WP:PA on another user which has nothing to do with the case at hand. Not sure how there is no useful information in the infobox? It tells where and when she was born, where and when she died, her age (which is not in the article at all) and a link to her spouse. How does that in anyway detract from the article other than the fact that you just don't like infoboxes?
additionally you have personally promoted a number of articles to WP:GA status. You will note that they ALL contain infoboxes that are virtually identical to this one. So based on your argument, the infoboxes should be removed from those articles since they contain no useful information... --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 19:52, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
Please read the policy carefully. I-Bs are to be considered article by article. Tim riley talk 20:00, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
I don't disagree, but if 2 infoboxes display the same information, it makes no sense to say it is helpful on one article and completely useless on another. Maybe consider that for other users, particularly those on mobile devices, the infoboxes are quite helpful. Adding them may not be required (I don't dispute that fact), but it certainly doesn't hurt. I would encourage you to consider that while you may find them pointless, others find them quite useful. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:16, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
As a rule (not invariably) I leave an I-B in place when I overhaul an article, even when I think it is otiose. It's really a matter of common courtesy to previous editors, even when I disagree with them. Contrariwise, I cannot recall a reciprocal courtesy from I-B zealots when descending on an article without an I-B. Tim riley talk 20:39, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
It really is telling how much of your responses are just personal attacks. You still aren't talking about the merits but are instead name calling. What exactly is so bad about adding this infobox? You just keep saying those in favor are mean, uncourteous zealots... -- Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:56, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
What a horrid thing to say! How dare you accuse me of saying that those in favour of I-Bs are "mean, uncourteous zealots"! I say no such thing: merely that there are some who demand IBs in all articles, in defiance of WP's agreed policy. I have no more to say to you as you adopt so aggressive an attitude. Happy editing, and I hope not to have to interact with you again. Tim riley talk 21:09, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

It's time for an infobox... Not having one makes the article look outdated and undermines the importance of having one. It shows Jenny Lind as a person and not as a topic. It also doesn't make the article "look cluttered." or confusing. That same argument could be made with any article on a person. It's long overdue to update and I believe she is significant to justify one. --Benjamin.P.L (talk) 22:54, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

  • I recommend reformatting this RfC and asking for include/exclude comments in the survey section and for those who wish to debate they can proceed to the discussion section. I would urge editors who have participated in previous discussions to AGF and refrain from personal attacks and avoid WP:BLUDGEONING the discussion. This will make the RfC easier to digest for newer editors and make it easier for the closing editor. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 21:25, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
    Good points all around. Going to redo this as a properly formatted RFC. -- Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:30, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
    @Tim riley, Gerda Arendt, and Mjroots: per Nemov I have reformatted this into a proper WP:RFC below. If you could please chime in with your WP:!VOTE to include or exclude the infobox. Thanks! --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:44, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
    The Manual of Style says: "Whether to include an infobox ... is determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article." While sports and politician bios can benefit from infoboxes, most articles in liberal arts fields, as here, do not. See Signpost report: "Infoboxes may be particularly unsuited to liberal arts fields when they repeat information already available in the lead section of the article, are misleading or oversimplify the topic for the reader". I disagree with including an infobox in this article because: (1) The box would emphasize unimportant factoids stripped of context and lacking nuance, in competition with the WP:LEAD section, which emphasizes and contextualizes the most important facts. (2) Since the information in the box must already be discussed in the body of the article and the Lead section, and likely has also just been seen in a Google Knowledge Graph, the box would be a redundant 3rd (or likely 4th) mention of these facts. (3) The IB's overly bold format would distract readers and discourage them from reading the text of the article. (4) Updates are often made to articles but not reflected in the box (or vice versa), and vandalism frequently creeps in that is hard to detect because of the lack of referencing in the box. (5) Boxes in liberal arts biographies like this attract fancruft and repeated arguments among editors about what to include. (6) IBs in arts bios distract editors from focusing on the content of the article. Instead of improving the article, they spend time working on this repetitive feature and its coding and formatting. -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:12, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Inclusion of Sources

The first paragraph of the article needs links to the sources cited. The rest of the article is cited well, however.

Additionally, I am not sure about a few of the sources that have been cited. One is a journal from 1999:

I would understand if a newspaper article from her time period had been cited, but one from 1999 does not make sense. Newspaper articles tend to be either the summary of one person's research or opinion; thus, were it a period-derived article, it would be revealing of the public opinion of the time. However, the opinion of a journalist from 1999 does not shed meaningful light on the subject.

Actually, upon further examination of the sources listed, there are many sources derived from modern newspapers and untrustworthy websites (e.g. apartmenttherapy.com, flightchic.com). It is best that the contributors who added these sources dive deeper to see where these journalists derived their information from and examining these more reputable sources. Soonersinger (talk) 19:05, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Newspaper articles from reputable newspapers, whenever written, are the bread and butter of Wikipedia. Also, where information is referenced in the body of the article, the summary of the same info in the WP:LEAD section is not usually referenced (again) unless it is controversial. See WP:RS for more information. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:51, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

RFC Include or exclude Infobox

I get that infoboxes are a thing, so formal closure is often requested on these RFCs, but this infobox just passed RFA without a cratchat. There is a clear consensus to include an infobox in the article. Concerns about redundancy of information, sandwiching of in the top sections, and other objections raised clearly did not have enough traction to convince more than a quarter of the participants. The Vector2022-based objection is novel, but again, did not gain any traction. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:58, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Jenny Lind/Archive 1
1862 painting of a seated woman
1862 Portrait by Eduard Magnus
Born(1820-10-06)6 October 1820
Klara, Stockholm, Sweden
Died2 November 1887(1887-11-02) (aged 67)
Herefordshire, England
OccupationOperatic soprano

Should an infobox be included or excluded from this article? (A sample of the infobox that would be added is shown to aide discussion. Note there is some discussion above by multiple editors including myself.) Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:34, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Survey

  • Include - I support including an Infobox as I find it a useful way to summarize the information in the article. It doesn't remove anything but only serves to summarize. Personally I was brought to this page when I looked up Jenny Lind on mobile to find out more about her. When on mobile, the Infobox is particularly useful IMHO. MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE also makes some great points, include Using an infobox also makes the data within it available to third party re-users such as DBpedia in a granular, machine readable format, often using microformats. Bottom line, the infobox would do nothing but improve this article. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:41, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Include but I suggest to use {{infobox person}} (with more neutral colours, compare Jessye Norman). Having together when and where she was born and died, plus key information as suggested, is standard for biographies, and doesn't happen in the lead. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:52, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Include Infoboxes are a valuable part of the user experience when navigating an article on Wikipedia. Data analysis of Wikipedia articles show that users find the information contained in the infobox valuable. [3] Making information easy to find and consume is one this project's highest priorities. It is understandable there's reluctance to adopt something new, but infoboxes have been around long enough that they are an expected part of the user interface. The example here is modest and an improvement to the article. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 22:02, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Include - Also suggest {{infobox person}} per Gerda Arendt's description above. - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 22:35, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Include If people believe it'll look cluttered, I say keep it short and simple. It's long overdue for one. --Benjamin.P.L (talk) 22:58, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Include per above. (Summoned by bot) Remagoxer (talk) 23:57, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Include per MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE. This article is long enough to warrant one. (Summoned by bot) Cessaune [talk] 00:24, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Exclude per my detailed comments in the discussion section above. This proposed infobox is entirely redundant, as it contains only facts that are already included in the Lede section (and also in the body of the article) or prominently later in the article in a more sensible order. My other explanations in the Discussion section above also apply to this unnecessary and unhelpful infobox. We are not robots and need not add redundant information to articles just because most other articles do it. -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:18, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
    • Your criticisms are true of all infoboxes. The very purpose of an infobox is to nutshell various "vital stats" that already appear in the article (except in rare cases where we are programmatically doing something novel and putting it in the infobox space, e.g. the taxonomic charts that appear in taxoboxes). In short, you are just railing against infoboxes in general, not making an argument for why this article in particular shouldn't have one.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:27, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Include, I personally think they make it easier for users to navigate and glean information.--Ortizesp (talk) 04:40, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Include per all of the above, basically. I agree with Gerda Arendt that {{infobox person}} would be better than {{infobox musical artist}}, of which the box above is not using any unique features, and which was intended for modern musicians.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:27, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
    As several users have supported infobox person by now, I switched to that for the RfC while the other can be seen just above. In detail: I trimmed unused parameters and delinked current capitals and countries. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:01, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
    The preference is also part of Project Opera's style guide. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:30, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Include - an infobox gives a quick overview of the subject of the article. It should only contain information that is in the article. Having looked at versions of the article with and without an infobox, the version with is much better. Mjroots (talk) 07:52, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Include - as per my longstanding blanket support for infoboxes. Glad to see the tide is turning. PraiseVivec (talk) 00:20, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Include - I find an infobox useful as it has the key information in one place. Where I need more details I can go ahead and read the sections in the article. - Mnair69 (talk) 04:50, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose addition. Parroting the a few pieces of information from the first paragraph isn’t overly helpful in aiding understanding. Countless studies show boxes draw the eye away from normal text, which is where readers will find useful information about Lind where it sits in context. (It’s the part people tend to ignore when they try and study which bits people read). Some think it looks better with a box; others think it looks better without; De gustibus and all that.
    I’ll add that the new 2022 Vector skin being implemented across the site, (particularly for readers), the list of contents is being removed from between the lead and the first section and moved to the left-hand side of the screen. This means that even an IB such as this pushes into the first section and creates sandwiching of images on some screens. And that’s before the IB gets bloated out by more drive-by editors who consider what they are adding is ‘right’. - SchroCat (talk) 22:48, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Tentatively Exclude per what I wrote at greater length at Talk:Claude Debussy recently. In short, when the only arguments are "support because they help readers" and "oppose because they don't help readers" or variations thereof, entirely based on personal preferences with no actual policy/guideline direction either way, I prefer to go with the personal preferences of the people who are most familiar with the subject and the sourcing (i.e. the main contributors to the article). Tim riley and Ssilvers look to be the main contributors to the current article, and Ssilvers already weighed in (the basis for my tentative exclude)., but I'm curious what Tim riley has to say. Also, other contributors like @Michael Bednarek, Smerus, Jeandebeaumont, and Photohistorian:. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:46, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
>User:Rhododendrites, Tim riley deleted this infobox and stated above on 25 January (which prompted this RfC): "... I-Bs are excellent when they contain useful information, and unhelpful when, as here, they don't...."
  • Exclude. For the following reasons (amongst others).
  • 1) Infoboxes usurp a high proportion of space when viewed on phones and therefore distract rather than assist such users.
  • 2) Redundant as essential information should be at top of lede. If loaded with additional secondary or tertiary information (eg signatures), as they consistently seem to be, infoboxes are simply distracting (and aggravate the situation outlined in 1) above).
  • 3) most importantly, the notion that their value lies in their giving quick access to basic information is in any case completely undermined by the fact that Google and other search engines have taken to using algorithms that extract and display WP lede info automatically on their search pages. Tap 'Jenny Lind' into Google or Bing and take a look. It's not any more necessary to even call up Wikipedia on your computer to obtain the information that infobox enthusiasts insist that infoboxes are essential for. Look at the way the internet is changing, and is going to keep on changing - infoboxes which were a fad on WP about 20 years ago have outlived any useful purpose. Sure, they have fans who enjoy living in the past, but probably Perry Como or Vera Lynn still have a few.....If we're concerned (as we should be) about the future of WP, the status of infoboxes is an utterly irrelevant distraction.

I hope I have avoided here any arguments on the basis of 'I like/I don't like' (although I am happy to declare that 'I don't like'). But I will venture the opinion that the great majority of 'pro' arguments above are based on 'I like', sometimes embroidered by irrelevancies, such as 'this article is long enough to warrant one' or 'they should have different colours'. --Smerus (talk) 19:08, 31 January 2023 (UTC).

  • Include. As a casual user of Wikipedia, I nearly always glance over to the infobox to find out things like a person's dates of birth and death. The arguments against having an infobox seem primarily to come from people who are opposed to them in general.--Eldomtom2 (talk) 11:18, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Exclude - There are many WP articles that benefit from an info-box, but this isn't one. Tim riley talk 12:05, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Include per many of the reasons that other users who agree have stated. Clear Looking Glass (talk) 00:24, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
  • (Summoned by bot) Include - Seems rather straightforward to me. The arguments by a few people opposing the inclusion of the infoboxes seems directed at infoboxes in general, but since we still use them almost everywhere it does not make much sense in this specific instance. If infoboxes obstruct the Wikipedia in general, that issue would have to be raised at a different avenue. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 06:13, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Exclude – By cutting and pasting the above infobox actually into the lead it is quite obvious that it should not be included. The infobox above bleeds into the life and career section of the article. This a violation of the guideline MOS:SANDWICH. The bleeding of the infobox out of the lead of an article, such as this, which is well developed, looks unprofessional. I agree with the editors, who maintain and have created this article, (e.g. Tim Riley, Ssilvers, Smerus, etc.) that in the case of this article with a relatively modest lead of three paragraphs that the addition of an infobox creates undo WP:PROPORTIONATE weight to certain facts of Jenny Lind's life. --Guest2625 (talk) 03:42, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
    I adjusted the image size to the normal upright, and dropped the husband information, to meet the sandwiching concern, which could also easily be corrected by moving the image of a grown-up woman on stage from right below the header "Early life" further down, and then have the lead image in the preferable size. An infobox being longer than the lead poses no more of a problem than a quote box or a side navbox would cause. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:38, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
    The current image size of the lead image is so much better without the infobox. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:35, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
Jenny Lind/Archive 1
1862 painting of a seated woman
Portrait by Eduard Magnus, 1862
Biographical data
Born(1820-10-06)6 October 1820
Klara, Stockholm, Sweden
Died2 November 1887(1887-11-02) (aged 67)
Herefordshire, England
OccupationOperatic soprano
Spouse
​
(m. 1852)​
I agree with Ssilvers. The number one purpose of the right-hand side of a biography's lead is to provide a visual identification of the article's subject. The article's current lead provides the best and most informative visual experience for the reader. The suggested infobox lessens the reader's visual experience and knowledge about the subject. Another possible infobox, which uses collapsing, addresses some of the above infobox's short comings. However, I still agree with Ssilver that the current lead is the best, and that it presents the clearest and most visually informative expression of the subject. I recommend before anyone makes their decision on one of the three possible leads that they place each possibility in the article to see how the layout will actually look and inform you visually about Jenny Lind. --Guest2625 (talk) 01:12, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
Collapsing is the opposite of at-a-glance, and we had a discussion about that in 2013. A user whose motoric is impaired said how he has to struggle to click the show button. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:33, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Include Infobox is decent and adequate. Grimes2 (talk) 08:58, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Include - I don't see why not. The votes in arguments in favour of inclusion are also more persuasive. Fad Ariff (talk) 13:02, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Include Makes important details more easily accessible. Yannn11 22:09, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Include - I appreciate infoboxes, and see no reason to not include one. HeyElliott (talk) 23:31, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

  • Can we please leave questions/comments about survey comments here? This will make the RfC easier to navigate. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 13:11, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
    There is already a Discussion section above. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:51, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
  • These are many words about the addition of a few lines, not taking anything away. I supplied the link to the discussion in 2019, when project opera gave up the former stance of recommending "no infobox" in its guidelines, and positively advised to use infobox person for biographies. Please read the discussion, and let's find a way to get to normal editing instead of repetitious RfCs. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:50, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
Your statement is disingenuous--the opera project just said that if you insist on using an infobox, you should use this one, not that one. Yes (and since you brought up your involvement), your persistence in working to add infoboxes, over the years, to articles where they were opposed by the article creators certainly has succeeded in driving away many good editors who used to work on WP arts articles but who could not any longer stand the systematic addition of this thoughtless and destructive feature. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:15, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
Do you have evidence for my "persistence"? Not that it belongs here, but your talk is closed for me. I admit that I added an infobox to Georg Solti, because I failed to look up who the principal editors were. I normally do, and leave the articles in peace, respecting their editors' wishes. I also fail to see how adding in a template together when and where Jenny Lind was born and died, and that she was a soprano, is a "thoughtless and destructive feature". The lead doesn't offer all this information, which brought us here. - I have this article on my watchlist, because I am interested in opera singers. I have written and updated many articles about them, such as Talia Or and, because they died, Jessye Norman, Edita Gruberova, Galina Pisarenko. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:09, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wiki Education assignment: 19th Century Concert Life

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 17 January 2023 and 12 May 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Emmak1032, Soonersinger, Kjm2025 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Jmares3218 (talk) 03:40, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Jenny Lind Pie

On the Shoofly Pie page there is a reference to Jenny Lind pie with a link here. Is that link valid? Is it the same Jenny Lind? Kevink707 (talk) 18:59, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Apparently yes, but you should do a Google search to confirm. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:07, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jenny_Lind/Archive_1&oldid=1200885618"