Talk:Maria Callas/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

weight loss

Could we add more about her weight loss? It really had a significant affect on her career, if not her voice, and I think the article should mention the years when it happened and the weights she went from and to. I think this information is in Meneghini's "My Wife Maria Callas" and also Jellinek's "Callas; A Portrait".

Thanks!

tapeworm

I have reverted this addition. Please see: :http://www.urbanlegends.com/celebrities/maria_callas_had_tapeworm.html -- Viajero 10:58, 24 Aug 2003 (UTC)

voice

I think 1954 is too early a year to talk about the failure of Callas' voice. Many call 1957 the "last truly great year", noting that it began to go downhill the next. Even in 1958 many of her performances were excellent. No, I'd rather say that in 1958 her voice reached a point where she was no longer suitable for many roles. Crculver 11:49, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I'll have to check the dates on my old LPs, but my recollection is that from 1954 onwards one begins to notice the wobbly top. -- Viajero 12:18, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)


..that would be pure personal POV..aren´t there other reg´ferences?

Her technique was peccable. Even people who thought she was a fantastic actress felt her voice too often strayed from perfect form. Crculver 16:08, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

  • I agree, especially the late voice. But an article that didn't mention her dramatic gifts - which were, I think, undoubted - was a bit hard to take. - Nunh-huh 17:43, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Nationality and citizenship

I'm not sure, but according to the italian version of the article Callas had the italian citizenship form 1949 and from 1966 it was also a greek natiuralised citizen. She gave up the ameican nationality that year. did she kepp the italian one or she lost it after the divorce???

trivia

I have removed the "trivia" section. Sorry if my action offends anyone, but it contained not a shred of information that increases one's understanding and appreciation of Maria Callas; it was essentially just fluff. It is all well and good to mention in the article on the film Philadelphia that the protagonists were listening to a recording of hers at a given moment, but we don't need to document that minor factoid for posterity here. Wikipedia is not a dumpster. Viajero | Talk 09:09, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

PS Of course, if someone were to compile an article such as Opera in popular culture in an attempt to document those kinds of trends, that would be a different matter. Viajero | Talk 09:09, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I have no problem with the removal of this section.

Vivaverdi

  • I do take issue with your statement that the trivia section contained "not a shred of information that increases one's understanding and appreciation of Maria Callas." The only thing that's certain is that it did not contain a shred of information that increased your appreciation of Maria Callas. The fact that she may have exerted greater influence on pop culture than any other opera singer in history is hardly insignificant, provided you ascribe any significance at all to pop culture (beyond epithets such as "dumpster"). In the interests of NPOV, I would have given the trivia section the benefit of the doubt and let readers decide for themselves whether they found it helpful/interesting. I'm not interested in instigating a tug-of-war over it by re-inserting it, but Wikipedia is a reader / user's encyclopedia and does not necessarily have to adopt the rigidty of a scholarly musical publication in terms of how its subjects are cross-referenced and/or placed in context. Mdleonar 10:37, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Tape worm

Did she have one?--Light current 14:56, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

No, she says she lost weight by sticking to salads, light soup and chicken. A lot of opera singers incl. Caruso have used that diet. In her case she appeared to have dropped 50 lbs practically overnight and I sometimes wonder if dolls may have been involved. A tapeworm would have exhausted her to be unable to sing all that heavy stuff. My other guess is that she had an undiagnosed wheat allergy so that cutting out most starches (also a popular way for singers to lose weight) might have aided in the ultrafast weight loss. See Banting's diet (lowcarb.ca/corpulence/corpulence_1.html). Going on a diet actually used to be called "banting" after this guy. --Bluejay Young 19:40, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Artistry section

Does this article need these lengthy (and unattributed, except for a ref. to Opera News) quotations from a long list of opera professionals?? They give the appearance of being lifted directly from the magazine, and overload the page somewhat.

Opinions?? Vivaverdi 15:09, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Since Callas is such a controversial singer, I thought that it would be better to quote respected singers, conductors, directors, and critics on this topic. Most of the quotes are directly from Opera News, and some are from books on Callas and opera in general.

I'm still trying to figure out how to insert footnotes and references, without putting these in the actual paragraph, which can be distracting. Also, how do you insert photographs into the article??

As they saw her section

I have added the unencyclopedic tag to this section. Simply put, it belongs in any number of places, but not Wikipedia, as it amounts to analysis/criticism and its notability is questionable. Just the facts, ma'am. Frankly, this whole article could use a lot of judicious paring down. There are many quotations that ought to be synthesized into more succinct statements or removed altogether. Robert K S 22:02, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

This section and the other quotes in the article are extremely important since Callas is such a controvertial figure. Having quotations from highly respected artists and musical experts allows the reader to look past the simple explanations and get a better understanding of what Callas was and why she was and remains such a significant figure nearly thirty years after her death and over forty hears after her last operatic performance.
Furthermore, quotations regarding voice, artistry, or vocal decline, etc. will allow the reader to get an idea of the variety of opinions surrouding so many aspects of Callas' life. They are neither "original thought," nor "soapbox," nor "repository of links," nor an "indiscriminate collection of information." Especially in sections such as "Vocal decline," it's exactly these quotes that allow the reader to see the diversity and, more importantly, the evolution of thought regarding the probable causes of Callas' vocal deterioration.
"Just the facts, ma'am" might suffice in the case of Sutherland or Milanov or Tebaldi or many other artists about whom there is a general consensus of opinion. "Just the facts" would do nothing to educate the reader as to why Callas was and remains of such historical and artistic significance.
Shahrdad 22:58, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Having initially felt that the "As They Saw Her" section might be superfluous, I agree that it is a useful addition to the article for the reasons stated above.
Of course, this entire article is long, but well researched and opinions substantiated through references. I'm not sure whether Robert K S knows much about Callas, or opera for that matter, to realize the significance of this artist. Yes, it could be shorter, but I'd rather see something substantial than too little. As Wiki policy on "what wiki is not" states, it is not produced in book form with all the limitations which that implies.
I shall remove the tag. Vivaverdi 23:32, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the responses. I hope you don't mind if I ask if the tag be left up for a little more input from others. As someone only vaguely familiar with Callas, I did find this article in its current form inaccessible and puzzling. Much of the article does take on an essay style, and I can't think of a precedent for having several pages of quotes by a subject's contemporaries in an encyclopedia article about the subject, regardless of how controversial the subject was or is. Robert K S 01:16, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, let's leave it "as is" and see what other reposnes we receive. Viva-Verdi 03:32, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
I think this is the best Callas article I've come across. None of the other stuff I've read really shows exactly why she was so highly regarded and the quotations have been a huge help in understanding this. I also like the As they saw her section at the end of the article, because it lets you see her through the eyes of her colleagues. Thank you all for all the work on this wonderful article.

JohnStJames 13:34, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I did some further reading regarding what constitutes an "Essay" versus an "Article." According to Wikipedia, an Essay "is a short work of writing that treats a topic from an author's personal point of view." In the Callas article, great pains have been taken to make certain that the opinions expressed are not those of the authors, but those of experts and highly respected individuals in Callas' own field of opera. The use of quotations is exactly what makes this feasible. Just saying "Callas had a big voice," reads like the authors' opinion and is debatable, but quoting Tebaldi, Rossi-Lemeni, Sutherland, or Bonynge expressing the same opinion makes the statement more of an irrefutable fact. Furthermore, to qualify as an Essay, the article would need to be "Primary (original) research," "Original inventions," "Personal essays," "Opinions on current affairs," "Discussion forums," or "News reports," none of which is applicable to the Callas article.

To qualify as an Article, the piece must be "well written, comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral and stable," and it must comply "with the standards set out in the manual of style and relevant WikiProjects," all qualifications which the Callas article easily meets. Without the use of quotations from experts, the article would lose a great deal of its factual accuracy and neutrality as well as its comprehensive view of Callas as an important artist.

The "As they saw her" section of quotes is important since it allows the reader to see not only how Callas was viewed by her contemporaries, but also by the current generation of performers. It is a coda to the article and should be left at the very end where it belongs.

Shahrdad 15:12, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

What about the several references to various performances being "great triumphs" or her "greatest triumph"? Is triumph a defined term in opera, or is it simply POV? And what of the many statements such as "Her performance also awakened the public's mind to the dramatic possibilities of the bel canto repertoire, which had become the property of canary-type singers such as Lily Pons"? "Awakening something to the public's mind" is not any sort of statement of fact--it is analysis, or perhaps a synthesis of numerous uncited critical sources--and as such, this (and other statements like it) cannot remain in an encyclopedia article (though, properly reworded and cited, something of the same sentiment might be expressable--only I'm not the expert to do so). I'm taking a stab at an edit of the article from the fresh perspective of someone highly ignorant of and not at all invested in the subject. I hope my edits will be looked at criticially and judiciously, and not summarily reverted. As to the "As they saw her" section, may I suggest they be moved to a subpage that is accessible from the main article, in similar fashion to how Ken Jennings game summaries is an article apart from the article on Ken himself, or Jeopardy! set evolution was split from Jeopardy! long ago? (I will not make such a split pending further discussion.)Robert K S 17:54, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


I think most readers would understand exactly what constitutes a "triumph" in the context of opera, i.e. a critically and publicly acclaimed performance. I suppose one could cite the actual reveiws, but it is not needed in the context of historic performances where every other source proclaims the performance thus.
Regarding statements such as the one quoted above, it is the general consensus of opinion that Callas' forays into the bel canto repertoire are exactly what brought about the major change in the field of opera and its performance. Saying that these "awakened the public's mind," is indeed a fact, especially when practically every source credits Callas as the begining of the bel canto rediscovery. Again, one could cite the reviews and the numerous analysis, but in this context where there is general agreement, it is not needed and would only clutter the article
The "As they saw her" section fits perfectly well where it is and does not need to be relocated to a sub-page. If a reader feels he or she has gleaned enough from the first part of the article and does not wish to read further, they will not scroll down all the way. If they would like to read and learn more, then can keep going to the end of the article.
Shahrdad 18:43, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
According to the warning given when you try to edit the article, it is 70 KB. This may be troublesome for some users without fast Internet connections. Refer to the guidelines at Wikipedia:Article size. Robert K S 20:43, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep the "As They Saw Her" section? It is clear that we have three editors in favour of retaining it.

I think that we should keep the tag in place through this weekend to see if anyone else joins in either for or against. By Monday evening (since it is a holiday for some in the US), the tag will be removed if there are are no further arguements for removal of the section. Viva-Verdi 15:43, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll gladly bend to consensus on this matter, though I'm still unconvinced of the "As they saw her" section's approrpriateness in an encyclopedia article, and think the article would benefit through the forking, distillation, or deletion of the material. Noting that only three or four editors have chimed in on this matter, and in the interest of moving the Maria Callas article forward to a deserved status as a featured article, I'd like to put the article up for peer review, a process that gets many more editors involved. Robert K S 19:34, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Latest Edits

I am not sure the latest edits are any sort improvement on the earlier versions of the article. Why are there separate sections for "vocal range" and "vocal registers", and why are these two subheadings of "weight loss?" It makes no sense. And does "Birth in NY" really deserve a heading all its own? With all due respect to Robert K S's efforts, his ignorance of the subject is painfully obvious in this latest version of the article, especially in phrases such as "the role of Brunhilde requires a soprano voice, whereas the role of Elvira is a coloratura." They are both soprano roles, one a dramatic soprano while the other a coloratura soprano. I suggest restoring the article to its earlier and much more informative form. JohnStJames 04:13, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the subject headings, I was trying to find some way to break very long sections into smaller parts--it may be that my subheadings don't make any sense, please improve them if you can. My attempt to revise the Brunhilde/Elvira distinction was clumsy and I hope someone with greater familiarity with the subject can improve it, but if you look at the previous version, it with riddled with unsourced POV. I apologize for any edits that did not succeed in improving the article as much as could be effectuated by an opera expert: Wikipedia is an evolutive process and it frequently takes a number of editors attacking an article to get it into better shape. Robert K S 04:26, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
It seems that a number of well-informed editors had been working on the article for quite a while before these latest edits by someone who admits to knowing nothing about the subject.216.212.129.106 13:54, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
No need to get personal, 216.212.129.106. We're all here for the purpose of improving Wikipedia. Cheers. Robert K S 15:34, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I have no qualms with trying to trim the article, but when discussing someone like Callas, after a certain point, the trimming down simply amounts to dumbing down the article. There has been and will continue to be so much debate and discussion about her, and in its previous version, the article touched upon all salient points regarding Callas the artist while staying away from the tabloid-type writing often found elsewhere. Nearly all of the point that you flag as unresourced POV are so well known and so often cited in the hundreds of books and thousands of articles that they have simply become common knowledge and no longer qualify as POV. Should there be footnotes resourcing the thousands of sources regarding every well known fact of Callas' life and career? I don't think so. Regarding the size of the sections, even though some where longish, they beautifully compressed a great deal of writing about Callas in a small space, and moreover, they made perfect sense. Maybe with some more work, the article can make some sense again. JohnStJames 12:37, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the article could use a lot more work than I am able to give it; the notion that the article is better off including myriad unsourced non-neutral point of view statements is not correct. I direct you to Wikipedia:Verifiability, which is official policy. In a nutshell, it states: Articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources. Editors adding new material should cite a reliable source, or it may be challenged or removed by any editor. The obligation to provide a reliable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it. Directly calling any performance by Maria Callas "a triumph" or prefixing the names of other opera stars with "the great" conflicts with WP:NPOV. On the other hand, quoting a particular critic as hailing a particular performance as a "a triumph" and citing that source is in accord with WP:NPOV, is good scholarship, and improves the article. I welcome further discussion of this article and would like to help it become a featured article, as I think with more work it would be a good candidate. Robert K S 15:30, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Nearly everything that is flagged as unsourced in this latest edit is material that has been published in hundreds of reliable articles and books to the point of being common knowledge. Nearly everyone with the most rudimentary knowledge of opera knows of certain performances which were publicly and critically acclaimed. Citing every reliable resource which proclaims the Berlin Lucia or the Dallas Medea as triumphs would make the reference section far longer than the article itself and is nonsensical. Should there be footnotes citing sources to the facts that Callas was a woman, a singer, and a soprano? And is it out of line to refer to a singer as "great" when nearly every reliable source--including Wikipedia--refers to him/her as "great?" Again, when it comes to certain singers, referring to them as "great" or "renouned" are common and acceptable. JohnStJames 16:03, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your questions; they are good ones. Not long ago, I found myself, at the time indignantly, on the asking side of them. I will try to answer them in order.
  1. If a fact has been published in hundreds of sources, there should be little problem citing one of them, and one is sufficient, if it is credible.
  2. Common knowledge is not a citable source and does not meet the standard of WP:V.
  3. As per WP:V, the burden of sourcing lies in editors that wish to include the challenged material. If there is some challenge as to whether Callas was a woman, a singer, or a soprano, then these should be appropriately cited. Refer to point #1. (And note that the examples listed are hypothetical, as no such challenges have been presented by any editor.)
  4. Directly calling a person "the great" or "the renowned" on Wikipedia—just as calling a person "the awful" or "the miserable" or "the mediocre"—does not sustain the neutral point of view integral to encyclopedic tone. It may be common; it may even be acceptable in certain books that could be considered reliable sources; it is not acceptable on Wikipedia, per WP:NPOV.
    Unencyclopedic statement: Callas's biggest triumph in Athens was in Fidelio, again performed at the ancient Odeon theater.
    Encyclopedic statement: Callas's performance in Fidelio at the ancient Odeon theater in September 1944 was the following day hailed by the Greek Opera Times as her "biggest triumph".[13]
    Note how much stronger the second statement is for its concreteness (it states a fact rather than an opinion) and verifiability (it can be traced to a source and checked for accuracy). (Note also that I made up the date and publication for purposes of the example.)
  5. Wikipedia may not be considered an acceptable source and should never be cited directly. This is a common misapprehension about Wikipedia. It is not an authority. Without getting too philosophical about it, I actually see this as a strength, not a weakness, of Wikipedia. When articles are properly written, every statement in them can be traced to its source, enabling a richer scholarship experience.
Robert K S 16:35, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Robert K S and JohnStJames both raise valid points. I agree with sub-dividing several long sections of the article, but I also agree that some of the current divisions make very little sense. Luckily that can be corrected. Although I agree with what Robert is saying about "Encylopedic" as opposed to "Un-encyclopedic" statements, I can also see how an article can be "encylopedic-ed" to death, with every well-known fact being cited to the point that the article becomes unreadable. For example, if every book about Callas calls Fidelio Callas' most heighly acclaimed performance in Athens, it is rather useless to cite one source out of many, since they all agree on that point. However, if someone wants to counter that point by poiting to Tiefland as the greatest, then it is up to that editor to provide a citation that would disprove what has become "common knowledge." For example, do we need a citation for "perhaps the best-known opera singer of the post-World War II period" when that is a point with which no one is going to argue? I feel that these citations should be used judiciously, and that is where being a well-informed editor really proves its value. Shahrdad 18:30, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Re: However, if someone wants to counter that point by poiting to Tiefland as the greatest, then it is up to that editor to provide a citation that would disprove what has become "common knowledge." In Wikipedia, neutral point of view dictates that no performance be stated flatly as "the greatest". However, it is acceptable to state that [insert critic's name here] hailed [such-and-such] performance as "the greatest", and then provide a citation (either to a primary or secondary source). Does that make sense? Robert K S 18:45, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
That does make sense, but again, only if done within reason. If every book and/or article points to Fidelio as Callas' greatest achievement in Athens, it serves absolutely no purpose to single out only one among hundreds of sources merely to prove a point about which no one is likely to argue. Again, this is a case about which there is a consensus of opinion and where a citation is a waste of the reader's time. Similarly, there is no need to provide a citation that Callas had a difficult relationship with her mother when every book and tabloid article about her touches on that point. But when discussing the actual cause of this mother/daugher schizm, then a citation is helpful and sensible. Again, one needs an editor who is well-read and well-versed in the topic to use these citations judiciously and to use common sense in deciding which statement is one about which there is general agreement and which statement is more debatable and requires a citation.Shahrdad 20:22, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Simply put, the interpretation above is not the policy of Wikipedia, but I have repeated myself enough on this matter. Cheers. Robert K S 20:47, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the problem here is that the recent edits to the article are from the point of view of someone who knows very little about opera, voice, operatic repertoire, or Callas. A more informed editor would automatically know that, for example, Elvira is a role typically sung by a coloratura while Abigaile is given to a dramatic, and that both of them are soprano roles. This is general musical knowledge, and an informed editor would recognize that here no citation is needed. To segue into the fact that these roles are usually sung by totally different soprano voices will detract from and even derail the flow of the article. If one follows the "Letter of the Law," then practically every single sentence in Wikipedia will need to be footnoted, but when the "Spirit of the Law," is followed, then citations will be used only where they are needed. It's easy to get to a point where one can't see the forest for the trees.

I would still like to see the article in its older incarnation which, although long, flowed better and was appropriately footnoted. But it would also be good to see some of Robert K S's recommendations regarding sub-headings and trimming of the longer sections. I have had no problems reading the article with my slow dialup connection. JohnStJames 21:30, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

My edit to the article did not appreciably shorten the article (it went from 77 KB to 70 KB) and was not intended to; principally, as noted in the edit comment, I was trying to remove or rewrite material that was either utterly non-factual or represented unattributed analysis (which at best violated WP:V and at worst may have constituted plagiarism—see Why sources should be cited). Again, I apologize where my changes may not have improved the article (please be bold and correct them), but it is indefensible to characterize all of the changes in that edit as "from the point of view of someone who knows very little about opera"; rather, they are challenges to those (numerous) portions of an article that seemed to think itself too good for citations. I again refer to WP:V: any information added to Wikipedia must be factual and must be cited and the burden of citation lies in the editor who wishes to include the information. It's really not that much to ask for; it only entails a more rigorous editing protocol: If it's a fact, cite it. If it's not a fact, attribute the opinion to another author and cite it. If neither, delete it. Robert K S 21:57, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

If this interpretation of Wikipedia is correct, then the entry Opera should read something like this:

Opera is a form of theatre in which the drama is conveyed wholly or predominantly through music and singing. [citation needed]Opera emerged in Italy around the year 1600 and is generally associated with the Western classical music tradition. [citation needed]Opera uses many of the elements of spoken theatre such as scenery, costumes, and acting. [citation needed] Generally, however, opera is distinguished from other dramatic forms by the importance of song. [citation needed] The singers are accompanied by a musical ensemble ranging from a small instrumental ensemble to a full symphonic orchestra. [citation needed] Opera may also incorporate dance; this was especially true of French opera for much of its history.[citation needed]

All of the above statements are facts which are well-known and stating them in the article constitutes neither non-factual information, nor unattributed analysis, nor plagerism.JohnStJames 22:34, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Much as you said yourself, editors "should follow the spirit, not the letter, of any rules, policies and guidelines". The challenges I made are not largely of the unreasonable sort as those deftly illustrated in the above lampoon, which, if you'll permit, I'll recycle to make a point of my own. Here is what the introduction to Opera would look like if permitted to abide with unattributed non-factual statements in the fashion of the Maria Callas article as I initially found it:
Opera is the highest form of theatre in which the drama is conveyed wholly or predominantly through music and singing. Opera emerged in Italy around the year 1600 and its proliferation was the Italians' greatest artistic triumph. Opera uses many of the elements of spoken theatre such as amazing scenery, brilliant costumes, and phenomenal acting. Generally, however, opera is distinguished from other dramatic forms in that its songs are much more difficult to sing, and are better-composed. The singers are accompanied by a musical ensemble ranging from a small instrumental ensemble to a marvelous full symphonic orchestra. Opera may also incorporate dance; this was especially true of French opera for much of its glorious history. Wagner's Ring Cycle is the most famous opera of any era.
And what could possibly be challenged about this formulation? Amongst opera experts, there is naturally the consensus that opera is the highest form of art. Everyone knows what "triumph" means in this context, it's just common sense. Anyone who dares remove the part about a full symphonic orchestra being "marvelous" had better think twice. "Marvelous" is a common term and all the books on the subject agree that symphonic orchestras are marvelous; it's senseless to cite one source on this point when they can all be cited, and if they can all be cited, then none should be. As to anyone tempted to disagree about Wagner, well, that's where being a well-informed editor comes in handy. Everyone knows... ...and so on, ad infinitum.
As my own rule of thumb—and this is not Wikipedia policy—I do not add {{fact}} tags to assertions, however bold, in an article's introduction if the assertions are supported and and those supporting statements cited later in the article, which they are, amply, in the article on opera. Following this rule of thumb, I did not challenge the statement in the Maria Callas article that she was "perhaps the best-known opera singer of the post-World War II period"—even though I believe the article could do more to support this assertion. (It could do so, possibly, by comparing her ticket sales revenues against those of other contemporary opera singers, or by some other justificatory metric). But again, that's not policy, it's just my rule of thumb, and while I think it's sensible, I'm not making any other argument for it other than that it works for me. Robert K S 23:01, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
One point to note: with any article with a bibliography as extensive as the one for this contained here, it must be assumed that editors have drawn on from these sources for much of the material. It becmoes incumbant on the reader to persue the subject in greater depth by consulting these sources.
As JohnStJames has illustrated above, we cannot have citations between every other word.
Viva-Verdi 15:36, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Re: it must be assumed that editors have drawn on from these sources for much of the material. It becmoes incumbant on the reader to persue the subject in greater depth by consulting these sources. This is neither Wikipedia policy, nor does such a philosophy promote the usefulness of Wikipedia as a resource for scholarship, as it suggests that a mountain of material would need be sifted through to find the putative source of one uncited fact, inappropriately shifting the burden of sourcing from editor to reader. Again, I can do no more than refer you to WP:V, which I encourage you to read and understand. No one is arguing for every word, sentence, or paragraph to be footnoted. Rather, any challenged assertion must be cited, and opinions that are currently baldly stated as fact should be attributed to other authorities and cited, including testimonies to the "greatness" or "triumph" of any figure, performance, talent, or technique. To use a recent featured article as an example, rather than stating "Olivier's rendition of the play is the definitive adaptation and has done more to popularise Shakespeare than any other single piece of work", which does not promote neutrality of point of view, the article succeeds in communicating much the same thought, but more strongly for its concreteness and verifiability, but attributing the opinion, rendering it an indisputable fact: "The British Film Institute has called Olivier's rendition of the play 'definitive', stating that it had done more to popularise Shakespeare than any other single piece of work." IMHO, the same sorts of attributions deserve to be made throughout the Maria Callas article wherever opinions are expressed. Robert K S 19:17, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with VivaVerdi about his point about an article as thoroughly bibliographed as this one. For example, when I read the older version of the article, it was totally consistent with every book and article I have read about Callas. In the voice or artistry section, for example, the generalities were left alone, and a reader could consult ANY of the sources listed to check. However, when certain specific assertions were made, perhaps something that was not in every book, then they were perfectly cited. Some things could have been improved, but IMHO, the older version of the article was far better and totally consistent with the Callas scholarship. To start citing EVERYTHING that EVERYONE agrees on verges on stupidity. It's certainly not what you find in Britanica or any other encyclopedias, and Wikipedia is exactly that, an on-line encyclopedia. And I guess that's where the knowledgeable editor mentioned above comes in, to recognize what does and what does not need to be cited.

As for refering to someone as "great," when talking about Peter the Great, do we have to source exactly who called him that? RTGreen 01:44, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Ha! I considered saying something about "Peter the Great" to preempt the obvious and the absurd, but restrained myself. Laying aside that "the Great" (to Peter and Catherine), "the Short" (to Pepin), "the Confessor" (to Edward) etc. are rulers' epithets and proper to the domain of history whereas prefixing "the great" willy-nilly to various entertainers' names is biased idolization, we in fact know exactly who called Peter I of Russia "the Great", and when, as any trip to Peter's Wikipedia article will evidence. It was Gavrila Golovkin, in 1721. But nice try. Robert K S 03:33, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, my question regarding the need to cite material over which all sources agree still isn't answered. IMO, for this type of info, depending on the bibliography is sufficient, whereas for specific assertions, citations are mandatory, just as with the more established and respected encylopedias. I was listening to an interview with the founder of Wikipedia on NPR just a week ago, and his assertion was that Wikipedia was so heavily editted by the readers that if anyone places any debatable or inaccurate information out on it, it's usually deleted or corrected within hours and sometimes within minutes. He certainly seemed to understand the spirit of what he had founded, and he did not make anywhere the amount of fussing about these sources as is being made here.
For example, if one says, "The Berlin Lucia was of the greatest triumphs of Callas's career," a point over which all the Callas books and articles agree, then that statement is completely accurate and true to the letter and spirit of WP. It's soemthing that can be easily verified by checking any of the sources in the bibliography, and it serves the article far better than saying, "Joe Blow declared the Berlin Lucia to be one of the biggest triumphs of Callas's career." This second statement does not give a true sense of the general opinion regarding this performance as the first version, PRECISELY because it attributes the opinion to only ONE person and ONE source. Yes, it might be more "encylopedic," but it is not as good, as honest, or as informative. If however, someone writes "The New York Lucia was one of the biggest successes of Callas's career," which is something that you won't find in any of the respected sources, then he MUST say, "Joe Blow, music critic for Opera Nut, declared the New York Lucia to the be one of Callas's biggest successes." In that case, the second version is better, because the reader knows exactly where to verify this unusual claim, whereas the first statement about the Berlin Lucia can be verified in any of the sources in the bibliography.
I've been reading the different versions of the Callas article over the last few days, and I find it strange how some of the most important points on which all major Callas sources in the extensive bibliography agree have been removed because they were not cited specifically, and then some equally important statements which were perfectly cited, such as Maestro Giulini's explanation of the apeal of Callas's voice, have been also been removed. This was a statement which adhered perfectly to Robert's "attribute the opinion to another author and cite it" demand earlier. There was one of the world's foremost conductors and musical authorities describing WHY, despite its ovious flaws, Callas's voice was so special, but this statement wasn't deemed to be encylopedic or specific enough and got deleted. I guess that's exactly why, like johnstjames says, you need an editor who knows a thing or two about the topic to do it justice. RTGreen 06:28, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Thank you RTGreen. That is exactly the point I was trying to make. With some generally agreed-upon statements, citing them to one source diminishes the fact that there is a general consensus of opinion on that matter. To use your example, if you start citing one critic or writer for having declared the Berlin Lucia a great triumph, then you have to cite just about every notable source agreeing with this to establish the fact that is it a widely held opinion. That would make the article cumbersome and nearly unreadable. And like you said, that is not anything that you'd find in Britanica or other encyclopedias. To simply re-state something that everyone agrees with is neutral in the context of the subject matter. I suppose you could say, The Berlin Lucia was critically acclaimed, leaving it to the reader to consult the bibliography, but I'm not sure that is any better than simply saying that it was a great triumph. And go ahead and use the word "triumph" if that's the common expression used in the books and articles. I noticed the inexplicable deletion of the Giulini paragraph too. Another paragraph which got butchered was in the beginning of the Artistry section. It set up the premise that the totality of Callas's art was often under-appreciated because her voice wasn't conventionally pretty, and then it proved that premise in the remainder of the section using excellent and enlightning quotes from Callas herself as well as many other experts. I hope the major contributers (meaning the ones who actually know something about opera and about Callas) get to work again and restore the article to something like it was before, while keeping some of Robert's more reasonable recommendations. And by all means, keep the As They Saw it section. JohnStJames 17:13, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Schwartzopf reference

Can anyone figure out why the Schwartzopf reference (Walter Legge memoirs) isn't displaying properly in the References section? I've gone over it and can't find any errors in reference tag or cite template syntax. Robert K S 18:08, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Found Ref #8, but not #9. Viva-Verdi 18:28, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Fixed it, it was an issue with non-XHTML compliant formatting on a previous reference. Thanks for looking. Robert K S 18:30, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Edits and quotations

The trimming of the article is an improvement in some sections. In other sections, it has removed certain very important and informative sections of the article. The AS THEY SAW HER section is a great read and I think it should be left at the end. RTGreen 20:35, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Bootleg recording

Even though "bootleg recording" in the proper term, in the opere-lingo, they are referred to as Pirated recordings. I like "bootleg" itself which implies recordings made without the artist's knowledge, whereas "pirated" can mean that it's an anauthorized copy of an official recording. However, since Pirated Recordings is what these opera recordings are usually called, it might be better to call them exactly that. I have never heard Leyla Gencer be called Bootleg Queen, but only Pirate Queen.RTGreen 20:54, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Refer to bootleg recording for the distinction between bootleg and pirated recordings. If the opera world uses a different parlance, it would be a good idea to update that section (with citation[s]). Robert K S 20:55, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
That's where I initially found the distinction. In my experienc, unauthorized popular or rock-n-roll recordings are called Bootleg, whereas the opera recordings are almost always called pirated. Maybe the bootleg recordings in the article should be referred to as Live recordings.RTGreen 03:48, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Peer review

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

  • Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.[?]
  • There may be an applicable infobox for this article. For example, see Template:Infobox Biography, Template:Infobox School, or Template:Infobox City.[?] (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually)
  • If this article is about a person, please add {{persondata|PLEASE SEE [[WP:PDATA]]!}} along with the required parameters to the article - see Wikipedia:Persondata for more information.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 100 pounds, use 100 pounds, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 100 pounds.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), avoid capitalizing words unless they are proper nouns or the first word of the heading.
  • This article may need to undergo summary style, where a series of appropriate subpages are used. For example, if the article is United States, than an appropriate subpage would be History of the United States, such that a summary of the subpage exists on the mother article, while the subpage goes into more detail.[?]
  • There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
    • allege
    • might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).[?]
  • As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2][?]
  • Please provide citations for all of the {{fact}}s.
  • Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 20:12, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

As they saw her in Wikiquote

I see that someone has moved this section against the consensus of the discussion here, but I thinks it deserves a more prominent notice of its new location. I re-added a section with a link to Wikiquote. Shahrdad 18:52, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Reference Errors

A couple of errors I have located are: It's Elisabeth Schwarzkopf, not schwarzopf. The K is missing. The interview was with Edward Downes, the quizmaster, not with Sir Edward Downes the conductor.

Also, why when I type " ref name="Stassinopolos" /", (think of the " as a chevron) does it not show up like the earlier use of the source? Shahrdad 19:36, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

See the comment to my edit immediately following yours. Also do you think you're able to clear up the weasel words in that paragraph ("Some have said that they moved for a fresh start...")? Cheers! Robert K S 19:41, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
I couldn't find the comment. exactly where did u place the comment?Shahrdad 21:53, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
In the edit summary field when I made the fix. It reads: The first citation should use <ref name="authorlastname">{{cite template}}</ref>, then future citations to same source can use <ref name="authorlastname" /> Robert K S 22:34, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Ah.....maybe because it was cited only once, it was not a template yet. ThanksShahrdad 01:30, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


Robert, can you fix the reference to Schwarzkopt and make sure it has the K in Kopf? I don't want to screw it up. And again, it's the late "Edward Downes (quizmaster) (1911-2001), American musicologist, critic and quizmaster for New York's Metropolitan Opera Quiz" who did the interviews, NOT the still alive Sir Edward Downes, the British conductor. Thanks! Shahrdad 13:04, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Sure, my pleasure, but don't be afraid to be bold and make edits, 'cause that's the beauty of Wikipedia--nobody can ever really screw anything up. Robert K S 20:40, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Robert, please check the footnotes again. Some of them, I did a shorthand version of author and book, so if you can do the cross-link to the fuller footnote, it would be great. Thanks. Shahrdad 05:22, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I took another whack at it. Can I offer these suggestions?
  1. No spaces should be left immediately before the reference tag—it should be placed immediately after the punctuation, like this.<ref name="blahblah">{{ cite blahblah }}</ref>
  2. The first citation to any particular reference is the one that needs the cite template.
  3. All the rest can use <ref name="blahblah" />. That forward slash is important, it turns out.
Many thanks for all your work on the article. Robert K S 06:30, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

NOT that it makes any difference, but the harewoodparis and harewoodlondon interviews are the same. The CD version (Harewoodparis) just has alot of the dialogue that got left on the cutting room floor when the final BBC TV "Callas Conversations" (Harewoodlondon) were shown. The TV version is what's on DVD from EMI.Shahrdad 00:54, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Relationship with Mother

I think that this section would fit better after Education and Greek career, since it ends with what Evangelia forced her daughters to do during the war in Greece. Shahrdad 13:06, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Callas's

On Wikipedia the convention is to place an S after the apostrophe on possessives of singular words that end in S. (See WP:STYLE#Usage.) This conforms with numerous style guides, but not all of them; since there is occassional disagreement on this point, the best we can do is to try to keep consistency and follow the Wikipedia Manual of Style. (If you find this convention strange, try talking to the bird people or dog people, who insist on capitalizing every variety of bird and breed of dog, even when their names aren't derived from proper nouns.) Robert K S 20:40, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Rewrites

I'm watching the rewriting of this horribly butchered article with total fascination. It is being so thouroughtly footnoted and sourced as to be laughable. I am grateful to the main contributors for all the work they have put into this article over the last few months, but these rewrites are choppy and hard to read or understand, even though every other word is sourced. Is it possible to place all the footnotes at the end of each section or paragraph rather than at the end of practically every sentence? The way it is now, it just doesn't read well, and IMHO, it's just bad writing. JohnStJames 04:27, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Being more specific about your concerns will assist other editors in improving the article. Or, be bold and edit the article. Robert K S 06:55, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
If I were to be bold, I would revert the article to what it was before it was butchered. IMHO, it was adequately cited, extensively bibliographed, thoroughly researched, and poetically written. And I would have left the "As they saw her" section which was reavealing and reinforced what was said earlier in the article.
I checked the WikiQuotes cite, which is merely OK. The links to the names are red and do not take you to an article about that peron in Wikipedia. I will try to make a Wikipedia page devoted to the quotes, so that the blue links will actually take you to the article about the person. JohnStJames 14:16, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Though I'm ashamed I didn't think of it at first, the Wikiquotes project is really where material like that belongs. The proper way to link to Wikipedia from within Wikiquotes is to use a link like this: [[w:Benedict Arnold|Benedict Arnold]] Robert K S 23:20, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
There, all cleaned up. The links needed a good audit anyway, as a few of them took you to the wrong place. Serafin led to the rock band, not the conductor. Robert K S 23:54, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Guys, the article is starting to look good again. I was about to make a wikipedia page for the quotes when I saw that Robert had linked the names in wikiquotes to wikipedia articles. How about one of those italicized blue lines that woudld say somethign like "To read more about what others have said about Callss" or something to that effect?JohnStJames 11:50, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

one of those italicized blue lines--it sounds like you're thinking of something you've seen before, but I'm not familiar with it. If you can remember another article where you saw this, can you point us to it? Robert K S 12:13, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
I might be wrong, but I think if you look at, for example, Seattle, you'll see that under a heading they have Main article: Education in Seattle or See also: Seattle neighborhoods. Is that correct JohnStJames?Shahrdad 14:35, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Mother versus mother

I believe that the capitalized Mother is the proper form. If the heading said "her mother," then non-capitalized would be proper. Same as, "Don't forget to call Mom and Dad," versus, "Don't forget to call your mom and dad." When there is no "her," "his," "your," or another possessive in from of Mother/Mom or Father/Dad, it becomes in effect a proper noun and must be capitalized.Shahrdad 14:41, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

It does says "her mother", but the "her" is omitted/implied, as it is with all the other subheadings. It doesn't say Her education, or Her early operatic career in Greece, or Her weight loss, and it doesn't need to. It's improperly familiar/personal for an encyclopedia article to use "Mother" as a name for Evangelia Callas; she should be referred to as "Evangelia" or "Callas's mother". Robert K S 15:14, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Do you think we should say "with her mother" or leave it as is? Or maybe something like Relationship with Evangelia or Maternal relationship. . . .Shahrdad 16:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

New paragraph in the introduction

I am not so sure I like that second paragraph. IMHO, it sounds too much like the sensationalist headlines one hears on TV. Callas was, first and foremost, a prominent and influencial artist. The facts of her personal life and tragedy must not supercede Callas the artist. I'll see if I can think of a similar paragraph that I think would be better. And for someone who has been studying the art of Callas for 27 years, I don't recall when or where she might have said that last quote. Shahrdad 01:10, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I hope you'll be able to improve it. I was trying to respond to the peer review criticism, particularly with reference to the following guidelines from WP:LEAD: "In the lead try to have a sentence, clause, or at least a word devoted to each of the main headlines in the article. The relative weight given to points in the lead should reflect the relative weight given to each in the remainder of the article." Robert K S 01:58, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
I'll work on it and see if I can improve it. My thinking is that Callas' historical importance was not her sad childhood, her weight loss, the early loss of her voice, or her tragic love life with Onasis. It was her musicial and dramatic genius that "Opened doors for the singers who followed her" (said by Caballe), brought such a change in opera that many began referring to opera as BC and AC, i.e. before and after Callas (said by Zeffirelli), and caused Leonard Bernstein to say "She has become the bible of opera." It is sad really how her personal tragedy has at times overshodowed her genius. This is, after all, a woman about whom Zeffirelli said (and most experts would agree), "Here was a woman who was a genius in the caliber of Michelangelo." I'll keep thinking about it and see what I can do.Shahrdad 12:56, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Vivaverdi for the work on that second paragraph. I had tried to leave the name "Opera News" in that last sentence to give the two halves of the sentence somewhat of a parallel structure, which I think reads better. Lenny Bernstein said such and such, while Opera News described her as such and such. To my ears, citing Lenny in the first half of the sentence and then having the second half not to attributed to a specific person or publication in the sentence itself just doesn't flow and read as well. The second half is just too annonymous compared to the first half. Any thoughts? Shahrdad 00:25, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks VivaVerdi for putting Opera News back in the sentence. I still think we should leave the "nearly 30 years after her death" inside the quote, since that's the way Opera News had it. I think having within the quote is more accurate and reinforces the fact that Opera News itself makes a point of emphasizing the number of years since she died and the fact that these years after her death, she still has that much influence. Ideas??Shahrdad 03:39, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Viva-Verdi, if you don't like the way a cite template formats a reference, my suggestion would be to not use the cite template altogether, rather than provide the template with incorrect input arguments, which may damage the way automated reference-parsing tools read Wikipedia in the future, or use abusive language as a tool for achieving consensus. Usage of cite templates isn't mandatory on Wikipedia. Robert K S 12:18, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
The one thing I really like about the templates is that when you use the same reference later, all you have to do is type one word, and it's referenced. It sure is a hell of a lot easier than copying and pasting the complete reference over and over again.Shahrdad 14:27, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, you can still use <ref> tags without using {{cite}} templates, as some of the article's refernces still do. I find the way {{cite}} templates format references to be the most sensible (for journal articles, it follows APA citation style), but I can understand if others prefer to format their citations by other standard styles. (They just shouldn't break the template to achieve that end.) Robert K S 21:51, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I did some more tweaking to that second paragraphs. IMHO, the sentence with Jackie Kennedy was still too sensational, so I replaced it with a reference to Onasis in the previous sentence, which then flows more smoothly to the following statement about the popular press. The Kennedy reference will be easily accessible by clicking on Onasis. Feedback??Shahrdad 14:56, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


Pearls falling off a string

This description of Callas' descending scales written and quoted so often, since it's such a perfect description. I think Claudia Cassidy first said it, but I'm not absolutely positive about it. Anyone know for sure?? Any help would be appreciated. Shahrdad 03:44, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Quotation Marks and Periods

I was always tought (and yes, I was an English major) that when the quotation ends the sentence, periods always go inside the quotation mark, and if the quote in the middle of a sentence is to be followed with a comma, the comma goes before the quotation mark. Does Wikipedia use another convention, namely putting the period and comma after the quotation mark?Shahrdad 14:25, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the Wikipedia convention is an entirely new animal that compromises between the American convention and the British convention. In a nutshell, the periods and commas go outside the quotation marks unless what is quoted is a complete sentence, in which case, the period goes inside. (See WP:STYLE#Quotation_marks for the convention.) Robert K S 21:40, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Rasponi reference

In the References, the name Lanfranco Raspioni (The Last Prima Donnas) should be Rasponil. I thought we had fixed this earlier, but the "i" just keeps coming back! Robert, could you fix that? Thanks! Shahrdad 19:50, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Are you sure it's Rasponil? (Prior to seeing this comment, I found it as Rasponi, and edited the article accordingly.) Robert K S 21:36, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Oops.......that's a typo. It IS Rasponi. No L. Shahrdad 22:03, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

"High E"

For musicians that aren't singers, it's hard to sort out what note means what when they're described as "High C" or "High F." Please, for the sake of other musicians, translate this into the standard C6, F6 (if that's even right) form so that it's more exact. Jolb 04:21, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I provided the Scientific Pitch Notation for the first instances where the notes of Callas' range are mentioned, plus a piano keyboard illustrationg of Callas' range with reference to Middle C and High C. I left the rest as High E or High E-flat, etc., since that's the common terminology when speaking of soprano voices. Will this be adequate to help non-singer musicians?Shahrdad 15:10, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, it will. Thank you! Jolb 16:20, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Rudolf Bing, NOT Rudolph

I have the Rudolf Bing book in front of me as I am typing, and it is indeed RudolF Bing without the PH. Where did you find Rudolph?? The Wikipedia entry is wrong, and even if you look at the Reference section at the bottom of the article, it says Rudolf Bing. Why they spelled it Rudolph in the heading, I have NO clue! I'll go ahead and change it to F, like it is in his own book. If you check the Amazon.com entry for the book (http://www.amazon.com/5000-Nights-Opera-Memoirs-Rudolph/dp/0385092598), they too spell it with a PH, but when you see the photo of the cover, it's with an F. Go figure!!Shahrdad 14:43, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I was looking at the Amazon.com database entry, hence the confusion. Robert K S 19:57, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikiquote link under Artistry section

I understand the motivation to want to link to Wikiquote since the Callas quotes have been transplanted there, but I'm not sure readers will be entirely satisfied after navigating there given the promise that "Callas's own thoughts regarding music and singing can be viewed on Wikiquote." It doesn't seem there are really any such discussions of music and singing. Most of the quotes are just examples of Callas being catty. Robert K S 15:36, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you didn't read the first part, Callas on Bel Canto and singing. There is a lot of very profound artistic points of wisdom that she imparted over the years that I'm planning to add to the Wikiquote. The Bel Canto section is only the start of it. Honestly, I would like to see the catty bulls**t gone, especially since many of them are merely attributed to her with no proof that she ever said them. And a lot of what she said doesn't sound catty at all, once it's placed back in the context of where and when and about what she said it.Shahrdad 17:37, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
I had not read the new quote; it had not yet been posted when I wrote the above. I moved it into the "Callas" section since the distinction being made in the headings is "stuff Callas said" vs. "stuff other people said". Robert K S 18:04, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Infobox picture guidelines?

A few questions re: the recent photo edits.

  1. Are there any guidelines amongst the Wikipedia policy pages for selection of infobox photos? I admit I found it surprising when NewYork1956 asserted that "the notoriety of the photo is irrelevant", leading me to ask the question, in selecting an infobox photo, what is relevant? Surely not the "attractiveness" of the photo subject in the picture, which is POV, but which was that user's stated reason for the picture replacement.
  2. Does the stated intention to revert an article "100 times a day" to preserve one's own edits, prior to discussion on the talk page, exemplify a consensus-building approach? Edited to add: I see a discussion did take place on NewYork1956's and Shahrdad's talk pages.
  3. IMHO, even if the Cecil Beaton portrait is not used for the infobox, can it be placed elsewhere in the article? As mentioned earlier, it is a notable photograph of Callas.

Robert K S 06:32, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the photo ultimately chosen is a good choice, since it shows Callas at a stage in her career when most would believe she was at her artistic peak. The voice was reduced, but still formidable, and the actress and the beauty had grown substantially. It is also Callas in one of her most famous roles. I agree about the Beaton portait, because it is one that was used for some famous ads as well as taken by a historically important photographer. I re added it down lower in the article. I'm thinking that the article is looking quite good. It's certainly better than the non-sourced Tebaldi article, for one. Shahrdad 21:27, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

heavy v. glamorous

The article's introduction currently says:

She turned herself from a heavy woman into a glamorous one after a mid-career weight loss, which might have contributed to her vocal decline and the premature end of her career.

This sentence suggests that there is in fact an opposition between being heavy and being glamorous. However, in the weight-loss section, the article says "Despite her zaftig figure, Meneghini and others considered her beautiful". Moreover, a quote from Callas herself gives her reasons for losing weight:

  • to improve her general physical fitness, and
  • to improve her fitness for the roles she was called on to play.

So it doesn't seem right to suggest that Callas was trying to achieve glamour as such (whatever that is), or that she in fact succeeded. Hence I thought the words "She turned himself from a heavy woman into a glamorous one" should be changed. I wasn't sure how to do it. Then I observed that, without those words, the sentence from the introduction still had a reference to the weight-loss section. This seemed sufficient to inform the reader:

  • that the weight-loss happened, and
  • that information on it will be found later in the article.

So I deleted the heavy/glamorous remark. Now Robert K S has restored it; but I would urge him/you rather to recast it to reflect the concerns I have stated: perhaps something like "To improve her health and her appearance on stage, Callas achieved a mid-career weight loss, which however may have contributed…" (Still, "appearance on stage" does not seem to say all that it should.)
David Pierce 06:50, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the restoration of the phrase. There is a whole section which deals with the weight loss and gives Callas's own stated reasons for it. The introductory paragraph merely states that 1) she was once a heavy woman, and 2) that she lost weight and became the glamorous figure most people remember, both of which are facts. There is no need to give reasons for the weight loss in the introduction, and merely stating that the weight loss happened with the outcomes being a glamorous figure and perhaps reduced vocal resources are sufficient. The statement should stay as it currently is. Shahrdad 03:24, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be asserting, as a fact, that Maria Callas attained a glamorous figure. How is it determined that a figure is glamorous? Wikipedia currently describes glamour as "fascination, charisma, beauty, or sexual attraction". If somebody is sexually attractive, is this a fact? I don't think so, unless "attractive" is understood to mean "attractive to many people". Maybe "glamorous figure" should be understood to mean "glamorous figure, in the opinion of many"; but I think Wikipedia should be more explicit. The article on Audrey Hepburn does not say she was one of the most beautiful women of all time; it says, with references, "She has often been called one of the most beautiful women of all time." Wikipedia should be similarly objective with regard to the glamor of Maria Callas.

What if the introduction said, "To achieve a glamorous figure, she underwent a mid-career weight loss"? This phrasing allows glamor to be subjective (as I think it is): it says Maria Callas thought she was achieving glamor. But then this is giving a reason for the weight loss, and you didn't think the introduction should bother giving reasons.

So why mention glamor at all in the introduction?
David Pierce 10:36, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Featured Article

I nominated this article for FA, considering how well-developed and well-referenced it is. Hopefully it will make it. --WoodElf 06:30, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Great. I think it's almost there, too. As a final checklist you may want to look at the peer review suggestions above and make sure none of them are still applicable. Most of them have been addressed, but see what you can do. Thanks for your special attention to this article. (Too bad most of its best images were deleted recently.) Robert K S 08:24, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Looks like even the remaining images have licensing problems. Do what you can. Robert K S 09:00, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Well done!

This article is mentioned in an article about Callas in this month's issue of Le Monde de la Musique, one of the leading French music magazines. Quote: “containing many links and references, an excellent biography. If you can contribute, don't hesitate!” Jastrow (Λέγετε) 19:12, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Date of birth

Shouldn't there be some reference to the lack of agreement among the "experts" about when she was born? We say 2nd December, which is the most common date found in references. But Nicolas Slonimsky believes it happened on 3rd December, and I usually find it hard to disagree with him. I don't have access to Baker's Biographical Dictionary of Musicians (8th ed.), but I remember reading it where Slonimsky explained his reasons for preferring 3rd December over the 2nd (unfortunately, I forget what those reasons were). I do have Webster's New World Dictionary of Music (1998), which is an abridgement of Baker's Dictionary, edited by Richard Kassel. It also says 3rd December, but without any commentary. -- JackofOz 04:10, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Does it really make any diffrence whether she was born on the 2nd or the 3rd of December? Her birth certificate, according to the a very well researched book (The Unkown Callas), states the 2nd of December. Since Callas's historical and musical importance is not based on her date of birth, I think we should leave well enough alone and just cite the date on her birth certificate as the date on which she was born. Shahrdad 19:29, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
That's fine for now, thanks Shahrdad. Naturally, nobody is notable for their birthdate alone. I guess my philosophy is that if we're going to be including such details in our biogs of notable people - and of course we should - then we should strive to make them as accurate as possible, otherwise what's the point? Where there's disagreement among sources, we need to refer to that and say why we prefer the one we choose. A birth certificate is usually considered holy writ, end of discussion. Slonimsky always went to the primary sources rather than just repeating what others had written about his subjects, so there must have been a very good reason why he disagreed with Callas's birth certificate. Let's leave it for now, until I can get my hands on Baker's (it's not online, and I'm not close to a decent library, dammit). -- JackofOz 16:01, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Dramatic Soprano, not Dramatic Coloratura Soprano

Maria Callas unquestionably had a superb coloratura technique, but she was not a dramatic coloratura. A coloratura is a different voice altogether, and Callas' voice should properly be regarded as a dramatic soprano (some conductors even say "spinto") with a marvellous top and ease of flexibility throughout her entire range. No pedagogue considers her a dramatic coloratura. Please do not revert to the incorrect label, but feel free to discuss it here. Thanks. --Almirena 23:42, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

In her early career in Italy, Callas called herself a "Dramatic" soprano, though in interviews in the late 1960's, she referred to her voice as Dramatico-Coloratura. She was also quick to add that in the 19th Century, these distinctions did not exist and a soprano was expected to be able to sing anything in the soprano repertoire. Other experts have also called Callas a dramatic-coloratura. This does not mean a pure "Coloratura" soprano (such as Pons or Streich or Peters or Jo, etc.), nor a Coloratura Soprano with dramatic overtones (such as Diana Damrau). She's was a dramatic soprano with excellent coloratura technique as well as an extended upper extention, a true Dramatic-Coloratura. Please see Maestro Siciliani's entry in Wikiquote.org. There is a link at the end of the article as well as in the beginning of the "Artistry" section.Shahrdad 14:06, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Richard Miller called her a dramatic soprano, in one of the masterclasses I attended. So did Serafin and Karajan. One has to give more weight to those expert opinions than to other musicologists unless there's a strong reason for refuting them. In my own opinion, she was a unique voice almost impossible to classify because she was capable of so much, but in the opinion of the major conductors with whom she worked and the world's major pedagogues, Callas is classified as a dramatic soprano. You're of course right in mentioning the inherent limitations of the Fach classification system, but if we're working within that system to give a name to Callas' voice type, we really need to stick to the most authoritative opinions. Again, in my view, Callas was capable of singing almost anything - I am unbounded in my admiration of her voice.
Interestingly, you can see in video footage of her singing after she slimmed down that there's a gradual diminution of her use of appoggio. It isn't apparent at first, but by the time she met Onassis, her phenomenal breath support had visibly deteriorated. In my opinion, this and not her singing of taxing roles caused the early decay of her voice. In terms of the demands she could meet in her voice, she was an anomaly - capable of the most tender of aspirations in her singing of Amina, she gave a spitfire passion-and-snarl to Tosca, and then gave even more in her astonishing singing of such roles as Lady Macbeth, her singing of which remains unsurpassed by any other singer. If we have to classify her in this article, dramatic soprano is the category we need to use.--Almirena 21:31, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree with you almost completely. Callas herself would have probably said, "I'm a soprano; basta!" In the book Life and Art, John Ardoin called her Soprano Sfogato, i.e. Complete Soprano. Her natural voice was certainly a dramatic soprano, or perhaps even a high mezzo. Her florid technique is something she thought should be taken for granted in any singer, and its lack she would consider a great defect. I think, for the purposes of this article, calling Callas a Dramatic Coloratura is the closest thing to modern classifications that would match what she could do. Of course, Sutherland and June Anderson have also been called Dramatic Coloraturas, but I cannot imagine either one credibly tackling Lady Macbeth, Abigaile, Isolde, Gioconda, or Brunnhilde. Ponselle and Dimitrova have also be called Dramatic Coloraturas, but Lucia, Amina, or Elvira? I think not. In her prime, I think Callas could have pretty much sung anything written for the soprano or mezzo voice. And going by the evidence of the post-prime excerpts from Samson and Delilah, she could have probably done justice to Contalto roles too.
I think calling Callas simply a Dramatic Soprano would bring to mind Milanov, Dimitrova, Cigna, etc. Calling her a Spinto would bring to mind Tebaldi, Caniglia, Stella, etc. A Dramatic Coloratura is much closer to what she really was, though deep down, I would just call her a Soprano and leave it at that. Perhaps we should just call her a soprano, and maybe you can add a section under "Voice" saying why she does not really fit any of the aforementioned vocal categories, but remains unique. The assertions, naturally, would need to be sourced, since this is an encyclopedia and not our personal opinions.
I also agree with you completely with the cause of the vocal deterioration. I tried to mention all the differnet theories in the section concerning the Vocal Decline. Throughout the years I have been studying Callas, there seems to be an evolution in the thinking regarding the cause of this deterioration. Almost everything I read early on blamed the heavy roles for this problem. More and more though, it seems that other singers and experts have come to blame a loss of breath support, and most blame this on the rapid weight loss. I can clearly hear a change from '53 to '54. Listening to her sing D'amor sul ali in '53, I hear a voice that sits perfectly and solidly on a solid column of supporting breath, with the high notes easy and spinning. The final note just sits and floats effortlessly on the breath. In the '55 EMI recording, these same notes are thin, shrill, and held by the jaw and not on the breath. I also mentioned the videos showing the shoulders slumping forward, especially as she goes for the higher notes (Phyllis Curtain is the first person I read who mentioned this in in the '80's). As a physician who deals with the respiratory physiology (and pathophysiology) of people all day long, I can tell first hand how differently the bodies of thin and fat people behave, and I have come to agree with the theory of loss of breath support brought about by rapid weight loss.Shahrdad 01:47, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

A fach definition perhaps is not the most accurate for Maria Callas. Dramatic persona she was indeed. Dramatic coloratura is closer if we need to describe the fach.--Radames1 (talk) 21:01, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

New Vocal Category Section

I added a new section under "Voice" discussing Callas's vocal category, which seems rather controversial. I will add Callas's own words from a 1957 interview where she states that she's a "soprano" and that it should not be unusual for a soprano to be able to sing a repertoire as wide as she sang.Shahrdad 15:06, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Beautifully, perfectly done. This puts Maria Callas' voice into perspective as the glorious and quite anachronistic thing it was. It was her breadth of possibilities, which stemmed not only from her natural abilities but also from her quite phenomenal discipline and intense musical knowledge, which enabled her to hone her natural gift to something quite beyond the usual "dramatic soprano" or "coloratura soprano" or "dramatic coloratura" or "mezzo soprano".
In addition, it makes clear that one should not use Maria Callas as an exemplar for other voice types. I have always found the points of similarity between descriptions of Callas' voice and Pasta's voice very thought-provoking, and of course Pasta is another "out of the box" singer who stands on her own... Ditto with Malibran. One sees in these phenomenal women natural intelligence, early exposure to music, natural musical ability, and superb training. Perhaps even more interestingly, they were not forced into a mould or a Fach. Categorising is useful for voices that don't go beyond the limits of those categories, but frustrating for those who do.
The Vocal Category section is well-sourced as well as well-written. --Almirena (talk) 07:56, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your feedback. I am planning on adding a small paragraph at the end of this, quoting Callas herself about her voice. I believe it was in 1957 and she said that once upon a time, singers were just sopranos or altos, etc, and that a soprano was expected to be able to sing whatever was written for the soprano. She gave credit for her ability to her bel canto training. I just clearly recall her being almost unable to explain, but finally said, "I can sing this because I CAN sing it!!" I thought it was kinda funny actually. I have the interview somewhere and need to go thru the pile and find it! Any further suggestions would be very welcome. Shahrdad (talk) 14:19, 18 November 2007 (UTC)