Jump to content

Talk:Regina Spektor

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

Lead - when she began writing songs

[edit]

In the lead, the following sentence is confusing:

When she was 9 years old, her family emigrated to the United States where she continued her classical training into her teenage years; she began to write original songs shortly thereafter.

It's confusing what timeframe "shortly thereafter" refers to. Based on the rest of the article, it seems to mean after the emigration not after her teenage years. Can this be clarified? --BLebow4500 (talk) 17:18, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Regina Spektor. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 21:28, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

She's Russian-American

[edit]

For some reason, this page is hovered over for years by people wanting to describe this person to our readers as "American" rather than "Russian-American" in the lede. Can't agree.

It could be debatable since she came at nine years old. That's sort of in the middle. Let's think about this.

If you're born in Russia and come to America at age two, then Russia hasn't really impinged itself on your consciousness. You won't remember anything about Russia. You can barely talk, so although Russian is your mother tongue, you may readily lose it and speak English with total intuitive fluency. A reasonable case could be made for calling you "American", I guess. I don't know if I'd buy it, but I see a case.

If you're born in Russia and come over at age twenty, then Russia has really impinged itself on your consciousness. You not only have lots of memories of Russia, your entire life up to and into adulthood was shaped by your experiences -- all in Russia. Your will probably always speak with a slight Russian accent, and think in Russian. Anybody who emigrated to the United States at age twenty would be described as a "Russian-American" -- would have to be. I've written a couple articles such as Patrick Byrne Magrane -- he came over at age 18 or 19, and I described him as "Irish-American". Had to, otherwise you're cheating the reader.

Well, age nine is somewhere in the grey area there, I guess. One difference is agency -- come over at 20, you do so of your own will. Age nine, not. Does it matter? Don't see why it should. YMMD.

Other than that... the woman surely has many memories of Russia. Enough of her life passed in Russia that her perceptions and experiences that shaped her took place there. The questions one finds the answers to as one grows up -- "what is a school? what is a store? what are friends like? what is a country? what places do people live in? what work do grownups do? and so on -- were answered in a Russian context. She lived there until she was almost on the cusp of adolescence. Her language centers became fully formed and set in Russia -- I'll be she still speaks (not sings) with a perceptible Russian accent, although maybe not.

I note the article says "She grew up listening to...famous Russian bards like Vladimir Vysotsky and Bulat Okudzhava". Sounds like a Russian girl to me.

I think when you have a person who was born and partly raised in Russia, lived a quarter of her life in Russia (the quarter where she was being formed as a person in important ways) and whose mother tongue is Russian -- how is it a service to the reader to not tell them right off that she is Russian-American? Does that really aid the reader in quickly getting a handle on this person? I think the burden is on editors who do not want to state this information to make a case for not doing so.

I'm not very interested in technical issues of current citizenship. We are not the passport office. I'm interested in helping our readers understand the subject. I'm also not much impressed with "well, they can read the whole article and get all the info". Ledes have a purpose. One is to help the reader get a quick handle on the subject of the article without, or before, drilling down. Herostratus (talk) 05:26, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has contested and reverted, so fine. We'll go to an RfC. Herostratus (talk) 16:24, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: is Regina Spektor "American" or "Russian-American"?

[edit]
RUSSIAN-BORN AMERICAN
*Summary: Consensus exists for the use of the phrase Russian-born American.
  • Reason The editors who participated in the discussion almost unanimously agreed that Russian-born American was the appropriate phrase to use. Certain editors have gone further and found sourcing to support this, which should be added to the article when the change is made. Exemplo347 (talk) 16:39, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Should Spektor be described in the lede as "an American singer-songwriter and pianist" or "a Russian–American singer-songwriter and pianist"? Herostratus (talk) 16:53, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

[edit]
  • Russian-American, my reasoning given in detail below. In summary, she was born in Russia, speaks Russian as her mother tongue, and half her growing-up was in Russia so that a considerable part of who she is was formed in a Russian context. (She's also ethnically Russian, Russian Jewish to be precise). The article quotes her saying "I'm very connected to the [Russian] language and the culture". All this we communicate to the reader by saying "Russian-American". Technicalities of what passport she currently carries have little bearing; the reader wants to know who she is. Herostratus (talk) 16:53, 28 February 2017 (UTC) N.B. Russian-born American is acceptable to me, although not quite as good IMO. Herostratus (talk) 00:54, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Russian-American It seems to be standard practice on Wikipedia to describe immigrants as having a double-barreled nationality, regardless of whether or not they hold dual citizenship. The main exception is for people who repatriate to their parents' nation of origin; thus Ted Cruz is not Canadian American, George Romney is not Mexican American, and Louisa Adams is not English American, because all were born abroad to American parents. We don't normally hyphenate a person's nationality due to their heritage only, but that's irrelevant in the case of Spektor, who was actually born in Russia. --DavidK93 (talk) 15:58, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • American per WP:OPENPARA. The pages that show the birth country or ethnicity are violations of the policy. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 19:28, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, the Manual of Style is explicitly not policy, and we are free to blithely ignore it as the mood takes us. Secondly, WP:OPENPARA says nothing of the sort: Birth and death places...can be in the lead if relevant to the person's notability. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:33, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Threaded discussion

[edit]

An editor has reverted the article back to just "American" with the edit summary "she has the only one American citizenship, not dual Russian-American", and I believe this is the general argument that has been used over the years to keep this article to describing her as just "American".

This is rank pedantry IMO. (I suspect some kind of agenda, actually.) We are not the passport office. The reader cares who she is, not what papers are in her wallet. Suppose Alexander Kerensky (who lived at the end of his life in the United States) had acquired American citizenship (and maybe he did, don't know). Would it be proper to describe him as "an American politician"? Really? Would that be helpful to the reader?

Instead, let's talk this through. I do concede that it could be debatable since she came at nine years old. That's sort of in the middle. So let's think about this.

  • If you're born in Russia and come to America at age two, then Russia hasn't really impinged itself on your consciousness. You won't remember anything about Russia. You can barely talk, so although Russian is your mother tongue, you may readily lose it and speak English with total intuitive fluency. A reasonable case could be made for calling you "American", I guess. I don't know if I'd buy it, but I see a case.
  • If you're born in Russia and come over at age twenty, then Russia has really impinged itself on your consciousness. You not only have lots of memories of Russia, your entire life up to and into adulthood was shaped by your experiences -- all in Russia. Your will probably always speak with a slight Russian accent, and think in Russian. Anybody who emigrated to the United States at age twenty would be described as a "Russian-American" -- would have to be. I've written a couple articles such as Patrick Byrne Magrane -- he came over at age 18 or 19, and I described him as "Irish-American". Had to, otherwise you're cheating the reader.

So where does Regina fit? Well, age nine is somewhere in the grey area there, I guess. One difference is agency -- come over at 20, you do so of your own will. Age nine, not. Does it matter? Don't see why it should. YMMD.

Other than that... the woman surely has many memories of Russia. Enough of her life passed in Russia that her perceptions and experiences that shaped her took place there. The questions one finds the answers to as one grows up -- "what is a school? what is a store? what are friends like? what is a country? what places do people live in? what work do grownups do? and so on -- were answered in a Russian context. She lived there until she was almost on the cusp of adolescence. Her language centers became fully formed and set in Russia. (She does not have any trace of Russian accent, though.)

I note the article says "She grew up listening to...famous Russian bards like Vladimir Vysotsky and Bulat Okudzhava". Sounds like a (partly) Russian girl to me. The article also says "Spektor... has paid tribute to her Russian heritage... stating, 'I'm very connected to the language and the culture'".

I'm won't be much impressed with "well, they can read the whole article and get all the info". Ledes have a purpose. One is to help the reader get a quick handle on the subject of the article without, or before, drilling down. Herostratus (talk) 16:53, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The answer for this question shouldn't be based on philosophical categorization or personal preferences but on what sources say. That's supposed to be the way WP:BLP works, anyway. So the question should be reformed as: Are there more and better quality sources describing Spektor as "Russian-American" or as simply "American"? A quick googlefight produces both, but more in-depth evaluation of sources is obviously required. What to the sources currently cited in the article say? Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:29, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's an excellent point. But, I tried it, but I couldn't get much. I looked at all the refs in the article (there are 55) and only one directly characterizes her nationality: here where she's described as "Soviet-American". And that's it.
Many describe her background and say "born in Moscow" or something, or discuss her background in more detail, but don't say "Spektor is a ________". (Here we have "Spektor is a Russian Jew" and they say "is" not "was"... I really don't think they mean it that way. Here "A Russian Jew", same deal. I wouldn't count those.)
So good idea, but it didn't work. I could not get anything useful from Google Ngram. And getting useful data from Google would be difficult, tedious, and subject to error, so I haven't done it, although maybe we should.
Under the circumstances, I guess we're thrown back on our own brains. It's OK... there's a little more art to writing an article then just exactly counting sources slavishly anyway. We're allowed to make small leaps of logic in characterizing entities, provided we have a reasonable basis for believing that it's the best way to serve the reader by accurately describing the entity.
This one doesn't characterize her nationality. It's titled "Regina Spektor: On Growing Up A 'Soviet Kid'" and it says
"she and her family faced discrimination as Jews. 'You couldn't go to synagogue, but we did have little relics of religion passed down here and there'..." and "Spektor left for New York with her parents, knowing no English [emphasis added] and feeling like an outsider. For instance, she says she was surprised that her peers didn't act like World War II had just happened"} and she says "World War II was fought on [Russian] soil... Every single person was touched by the war in some way... It's very different having war on your soil rather than sending troops to some remote place, where the people don't really feel it. There are people walking around with an arm missing, a leg missing. It was just real visible wounds and stories of survival, stories of heroism, stories of destruction — that all the kids grew up with it all the time."
Little bit different experience than Brian Wilson or Annette Funicello or other people we describe as just "American", period, ya think? Why would this not matter to the reader?
BTW another thing to look at though is how we characterize other people in her situation (emigrated around age nine). This isn't a deal-breaker either way, but it's a data point. But I can't think of anyone like that. Herostratus (talk) 22:43, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if the sources don't characterize her as either "Russian American" or "American", then, per BLP, we shouldn't either. It looks like you have found good evidence, however, to support characterizing her as "Jewish-American". Not that that's necessarily a bad thing. Those even just flicking past the article will see that she was born in Russia and now lives in US. There isn't any real requirement to tag her as one or the other. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:00, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Can't agree with that. We characterize most everyone by nationality, in biographies. I always say "...was an American poet..." (or "German" or whatever). I think that's standard, and expected, and essentially required; certainly everyone does it anyway, and a good thing too. See MOS:OPENPARAGRAPH #3, "context".
I mean for Peter Beauvais I have "Peter Beauvais was a German television film director...." I do that because he was born in Germany, spoke German as his mother tongue, lived his whole life and had his whole career in Germany, and died in Germany. And it's key information. I may not have any sources that say, exactly, "Peter Beauvais was a German" in just exactly those words. So? He was German, and I don't see the benefit of not letting the reader in on this info.
As to "It looks like you have found good evidence, however, to support characterizing her as "Jewish-American", well, I sure have not. Yes I reported one ref that says "she is a Jew" and one says "she is a Russian Jew", but far more refs say "was born in Moscow and grew up partly in Russia" or whatever, without actually saying "she is ______." Let's not get bogged down in semantics. Herostratus (talk) 23:40, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

[edit]

The best way to solve this is to make a list of sources and see what they use to describe here. Here are some I found

  • Russian-born star "Regina Spektor: White lies and sad songs". BBC News. 21 September 2016.
  • Russian-American singer-songwriter "Pop: Regina Spektor at the Festival Hall". The Times.. Also at [1]
  • Russian-born singer-songwriter "Regina Spektor: Charlie Rose". Bloomberg.com.
  • Russian-American pianist "Regina Spektor's 'What We Saw From the Cheap Seats':". The Washington Post. 28 May 2012.
  • Jewish American folk-singer "Regina Spektor to return for encore Israel concert". The Jerusalem Post.

It would be helpful to look for more. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:34, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RfC result (from the section above)

[edit]

The result of the RfC in the section above (Talk:Regina Spektor#RfC: is Regina Spektor "American" or "Russian-American"?) was:

  • 5 for Russian-born American
  • 1 for Russian-born American as an acceptable second alternative to "Russian-American"
  • 1 for either American, or Russian born American "if important"
  • 1 for American

Since Legobot delists the RfC and removes the header when 30 days has expired from creation, the RfC is now over. It's clear that the consensus is for Russian-born American by numbers. IMO sources and strength of argument clearly support something like this also, although "strength of argument" is subjective.

Nevertheless, an editor is wanting to keep it as just "American", citing MOS:OPENPARA which is

  1. Only a guideline, and anyway
  2. like most rules is hedged about with "generally" and "mostly" and "usually", and anyway
  3. is ignored a lot for cases like this, from Charlize Theron to thousands of other cases, and anyway
  4. was addressed and refuted in the RfC.

The editor voted in the RfC (he was the one vote for "American") so they're aware of the RfC, so they don't have the excuse that they don't. So let's not edit war over this. I'm calling on any participants or passerby to defend the integrity of the RfC result, thanks. Herostratus (talk) 14:29, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Regina Spektor. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 06:13, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Regina Spektor. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 20:56, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:52, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Gabriel cover

[edit]

OK, I don't understand why there's no mention of Regina's cover of Peter Gabriel's Blood of Eden.

I feel like adding it without consultation, but I wonder what happened here? Is there something I need to know about her cover which appeared on And I'll Scratch Yours?

Please give feedback on this. I'd like to hear back by end of August 2021. If not, I might just add this little piece to the Wiki page.

Haryadoon1 (talk) 05:50, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Regina_Spektor&oldid=1210484592"