Talk:Joan Sutherland

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Flag
Portal
 Joan Sutherland is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
Start This article has been rated as start-class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.
This article is supported by WikiProject Australian music. See also P:AUSMUSIC.
Assessment comments
This article falls within the scope of the Opera WikiProject, a collaboration to develop Wikipedia articles on operas and opera terminology, opera composers and librettists, singers, designers, directors and managers, companies and houses, publications and recordings. The project talk page is a place to discuss issues, identify areas of neglect and exchange ideas. New members are very welcome!
Start This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Arts and Entertainment work group.


Contents

[edit] NNDB?

Question: Should add the NNDB link for Joan Sutherland. All of that data is already on our page. Just wondering.

http://www.nndb.com/people/674/000083425/

Answered my own question: Everyone else missed the IMDB stuff. The NNDB link does not intrude on the layout. Someone else can cut it if they want.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Amorrow (talk • contribs) 18:19, 8 August 2005 (UTC+10 hours (AEST))

[edit] Controversy over racist remarks

I note there is no mention of Although, she does say she's sorry for saying in public in 1994 that she was not pleased to be interviewed in an Australian post office by a Chinese or Indian to get an Australian passport. - the controversy is recalled more than a decade later in an ABC Profile - note the lead position for the reference to the controversial remarks. Should the remarks be noted? Where - none of the subheadings really fit?--Golden Wattle talk 21:34, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I've added a link to the interview. I can't see one remark, now regretted, is particular notable.

Racism is racism ! Such disgusting attitudes should be exposed and pilloried for what they are. She has only expressed regret for uttering such heinous remarks 'in public'. Like most racists, these cowards use weasel words and scurry into dark corners to truly express their views. Leave the comment ALONE ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.241.81.186 (talk) 01:43, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Whoever keeps removing the controversy section can just STOP IT. Face the facts that such antiquated and disgusting racist thinking is actually a crime, and until she publicly apologises for uttering and holding such thoughts and opinions (instead of just regretting making them 'in public'), all wikipedia readers should know that she is racist !Now go and hand out some electoral flyers in St. Marys. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.241.81.186 (talk) 15:27, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh please! even if the controversy is to be noted, it certainly not should be written in the way you are posting it. Your hatred towards Joan Sutherland is very apparent, and yes, I, and others will keep undoing the changes you make, we might even protect the page from your vandalism, or even block your contributions... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.178.225.32 (talk) 06:26, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I have no hatred for Dame Joan. You will note that I do not touch any other section of her page as I do not wish to denigrate her achievements or talents. I merely wish for everyone to be aware of the truth. Whitewashing someones past does society no favours. The only protection that should go on at this page is with the controverst remarks put in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.241.81.186 (talk) 13:42, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I just came to this article for the first time, curious to see how the article covered that passport scandal, and I see it is not there. Someone has deleted it! It should be reinstated. Dame Joan got herself into controversy. Nobody else did it for her. She must live with her remarks. It is not the purpose of an article like this to filter out controversy. Please reinstate that information. Lester 05:31, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Looking at recent (last few months) edits including the controversy and reverting it out again - I feel the text covering the controversy was insufficiently neutral and was not supported with a citation. There are plenty of references avaialble and it should be posible to include the issue expresssed in appropriate language, supported with reliable references and meeting WP:UNDUE - ie not putting undue weight on the issue. I think - as per my previous remarks (I was formerly known as User:Golden Wattle) the issue should be included as it was still mentioned more than 10 years later - it was a notable controversy.--Matilda talk 05:16, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
The issue was definitely notable. I've re-added it, hopefully this time worded in a more neutral way. Thanks, Lester 20:05, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Can the impact of this comment be explained in terms of ppl decrying it etc. Otherwise it cannot be shown to be notable if no ramifications are demonstrated. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:32, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
I see the whole Controversy section was deleted. Regardless of what we think of the statement that Joan made, it is probably the most famous thing she ever said. It caused a general outcry at the time, inspiring many angry letters to newspapers. To include the quote in the article doesn't mean we agree with the sentiments of what was said. It was a strange thing for Dame Joan to say, but said it she did. I don't think we need to censor Joan's biography to eliminate any negative things she may have publicly done. The notability has been established by the writings about it over a decade after the event. It has also been established by the reaction at the time it occurred. Regards, Lester 11:17, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

What there needs to be (as explained to you elsewhere) is a third party source showing why it is notable. If all you have written above is correct, then there is a source saying so. Just stating it is so, and putting some media reporting an a single matter is WP:UNDUE, a violation of WP:NPOV. Feel free to add a source that states your assertions (it was strange, it has had writings about it a decade afters, it has had angry letters written) rather than engaging in original research. Shot info (talk) 02:47, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

  • It is not original research to note that the issue featured in an interview over a decade later and has thus tarnished her image long term. Furthermore it was mentioned ina parliamentary background report. The sources don't say why it is notable and nor do we but they do say it was controversial. They are relaible sources and thus it is not original research to refer to it. Wikipedia is not censored (either for or against inclusion if supported by a reliable source) - please review that guideline.--Matilda talk 01:23, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Sure, supply a source that says it was "controversial" and "tarnished her image long term". At the moment, all there is are newpaper reports saying she said it, and editors saying it was controversial and tarnished her image long term. You have just repeated what I have asked for, which is a third party source explaining the reasons it is notable. So far it seems to be atypical non notable "storm in a teacup" activity that possesses editors in BLPs periodically... Shot info (talk) 06:14, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
BLP? Backup Lightpath, Ballistic Limit Protection, Barbados Labour Party, Basic Layer Painting, Bell-LaPadula Security Model, Bible Literacy Project, Bombay Leprosy Project, Bombesin-Like Peptide, Bonded Logistics Park, Bromine-Loading Potential, Buddhist Liberal Party, Buoyant Line and Point Source, Bypass Label Processing? Please elucidate. Nunquam Dormio (talk) 08:17, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Guys! She is an old lady and she admits that she regret saying all that. Give her a slack, will you? What good does it make to write it in here? Everybody made mistakes in lives, sometimes we should learn to forgive and forget. Merry Christmas, people! But I still want to know what BLP means, sounds like British Labor party? - Jay (talk) 09:22, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
In future, will all editors of a biography of a living person please read the notice at the top of BLP talk pages and avail themselves of the relevant policies. Shot info (talk) 12:36, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
The policy states The views of critics should be represented if they are relevant to the subject's notability and can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to side with the critics; rather, it needs to be presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone. I saw that the section met those criteria - both the ABC and Parliamentary background papers are reliable sources, the material did not overwhelm the article, I see no evidence that she regrets the remarks - MONICA ATTARD: Do you regret those comments? DAME JOAN SUTHERLAND: I regret doing them in public. is not regret for making the remarks! Nor does MONICA ATTARD: I think that the comment that people were upset with at the time was the comment that... DAME JOAN SUTHERLAND: I mentioned that the lady that asked for it was Chinese MONICA ATTARD: Yes. DAME JOAN SUTHERLAND: She was and I can't help that and neither can she and we have a wonderful Chinese population in Australia and have had for years ... - she just didn't get it and OK she was elderly but it was a comment made in a speech to a public organisation not in private. Reports at the time otherwise are not available on-line as newspaper on-line material does not go back to 1994 - we thus only have the secondary source of the ABC bringing it up in an interview when she was well in retirement and the Parliamentary report referencing the controversy. It definitely was a controversy and perhaps indicated an end to her public speaking career. As a singer fine, providing political views such as MONICA ATTARD: Do you still think that all Republicans should be banished to Fort Denison? DAME JOAN SUTHERLAND: That was a spur of the moment answer to a battery of news people. That her views were sought was notable at the time - she was a prominent Australian and her views were noted. In fact in this instance she was an invited speaker to an organisation. It is not dissimilar from sports people being held accountable for their activities off the field.--Matilda talk 23:27, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
I have reverted user:Shot info's deletion for etiquette reasons. People add content to Wikipedia in good faith, and it takes a lot of time and effort to add properly cited material. To just come along and delete it is not giving other editors the respect they deserve. Deleting cited information should only occur in extreme circumstances, for example if Wikipedia was at risk of a defamation lawsuit, which is clearly not the case here, as nobody disputes what Joan Sutherland said. At the very least, the deleted content should be moved to the discussion page so the community can see and discuss it. That is the proper etiquette. It is not necessary for a source to say "this was very controversial". The fact the content was cited in many sources a decade later is proof of its significance in the profile of Joan Sutherland. Besides, the source did say that Joans comments caused "a general outcry" at the time, which is basically the same thing as the word "controversy". We have 2 books that mention it, we have a parliamentary report that mentions it, and an ABC biography/profile of Joan Sutherland mentions it. What more do you want? Also, user:Matilda raised many points (in the post above this) which nobody bothered to debate before deleting the content. Lester 09:44, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Simply put, the edit as it stands of clearly WP:SYN and rather than taking BLP out of context, I enourage you to review the point of the policy in reference to poorly sourced "controversial" material. Feel free to add in the source that say's it's "controversial" plus all the other points that have been raised above, and unaddressed by editors adding in the material - then who have problems with their points being ignored... Shot info (talk) 10:14, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
I believe that most of the editors represented in this section are not approaching the issue from a NPOV. Most (But certainly not all) of you have stated quite clearly your personal feelings on Sutherland's comments and then used this as evidence for your choice of action. Please remember that Wikipedia is not a place to judge people. The comments (which I must profess my ignorance of as I was a toddler at the time!) should remain if they are proved to be a notable incident in, and enhance the reader's understanding of Sutherland's Life. --Alexs letterbox (talk) 11:13, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment from outside observer The edit-warring here was brought to the attention of the Opera Project Talk Page. My personal view is that the 'passport remarks' are notable and should be included. However, they should not be given undue weight in a long and highly distinguished career, which I think putting them in a 'bespoke' section entitled Controversy does. It also makes for a very short section which is out of balance with the others. Instead, I added a section on her retirement years - Retirement years - and included it there (based on User:Lester's reasonably neutral wording). Of course, I have no idea how long it will remain, given the game of outraged ping-pong currently going on here. But nevermind, do with it what you will... ;-) Best, Voceditenore (talk) 12:12, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Addendum Note also that Sutherland was/is an opera singer. Although her comments received a fair amount of press in Australia at the time (and caused outrage amongst some), in my view, they are of less importance and relevance in terms of her life and career than they would be in a biography of an Australian politician or public official. Again, it's a question of balance C (talk) 14:01, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Then again, she moved into the political sphere with her support for Australia to remain a monarchy, and her opposition to the country becoming a republic. I think that a pop singer or high profile actor making similar comments (about Indians) would also be notable, even without any other political involvement. Anyway, I thank the people (above) for taking the time to make comments and contributions on how the article should handle this content. Cheers, Lester 03:59, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
I would support Voceditenore's wording as an appropriate level of coverage and would oppose attempts to remove it.--Peter cohen (talk) 18:45, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Voceditenore has my support too - Jay (talk) 01:24, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Russen Braddon?

Isn't it Russell (in the references)?

You are correct, anon. I've changed it. Nunquam Dormio 17:09, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Sutherland pack.jpeg

Image:Sutherland pack.jpeg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 15:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Superlatives

I went through the article and I removed superlatives as I saw fit and removed opinionated words and conjecture, such as "perfect" et al. I did this for the integrity of the article, not as an attack on Dame Sutherland, who, as you can tell from my name, is my favorite soprano. Thanks for understanding. Sutherland4l (talk) 06:37, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Joan Alston Sutherland

There is evidence for this name – see this Google search. Nunquam Dormio (talk) 07:01, 6 May 2008 (UTC)