Talk:Berit Lindholm

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

Did you know nomination[edit]

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Theleekycauldron (talk) 07:25, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
Berit Lindholm
Berit Lindholm

5x expanded by Gerda Arendt (talk). Nominated by Storye book (talk) at 10:20, 15 August 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Berit Lindholm; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.[reply]

Thank you for the nomination, Storye book. I'll add in the article - because I believe it's important for this kind of hooks, that this event - singing one of the heaviest literature there is for a dramatic soprano - happened only four years after she had made her debut in a (comparably light) Mozart role in Sweden. The well-known conductor couldn't wait longer as he was already old. I prefer the original, because his vision of her future which she would fulfill, singing the role at the big houses completely, seems more remarkable to me that the wording of this critic (may he forgive me if still alive) which could be about almost anything.
ALT0a: ... that only four years after her debut in Stockholm, Berit Lindholm (pictured) was invited by Leopold Stokowski to perform the dramatic final scene from Wagner's The Twilight of the Gods at the Royal Festival Hall?
I reviewed the above-mentioned article.
I hope we can have the image because otherwise we'd have to add some year. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:43, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article meets DYK requirements (it was a 5x expansion), with her RD appearance not being disqualifying for DYK purposes. I didn't find any close paraphrasing and a QPQ has been provided. Among the hooks proposed, ALT1 is probably the best and probably appeals the most to non-specialists. ALT0 and ALT0a appeal more to opera fans and not to general audiences since their context may not be easily gotten by non-specialists. With that in mind, ALT1, which is cited inline and verified in the source, is approved. The image is CC-BY-SA so it's okay; I will leave it to the promoter on whether or not to use the image. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:33, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I confess that I believe no DYK may be better than ALT1. The pun of a critic the only thing we say about one of the leading sopranos of her time? For the millions of people who check out the Main page but will not click, this will be all they take home about her? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:06, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Gerda Arendt, Narutolovehinata5, and Storye book: Gerda states, ...no DYK may be better than ALT1"? I need a biographical hook for a set, but if we are going to workshop the hook I have to move on. Bruxton (talk) 14:18, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Bruxton: I don't see anything else in the article that would work as a hook that appeals to non-specialist audiences, so ALT1 it is. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:20, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Narutolovehinata5: In the past if Gerda is dissatisfied the hook gets moved to errors. I will promote it and hope that does not happen. Bruxton (talk) 14:25, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

per discussion, I've pulled this hook out of prep. I've struck ALT1, and the following hooks remain on the table:

A viable hook is needed for the nomination to proceed. Pinging @Storye book, Gerda Arendt, Narutolovehinata5, TSventon, Floquenbeam, Kusma, and Bruxton as active participants. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 06:54, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • My preference is ALT3. It seems interesting since there's the unusual contrast between being an opera singer and a primary school singer, and also because I am somewhat wary of "first" hooks unless their sourcing is airtight. We've had too many cases in the past of "first" hooks where they turned out to not be the first and I'm not confident that the sourcing is strong enough to rule out any previous Isolde performers in the Soviet Union before Lindholm. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 07:26, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • My preference is ALT3 which avoids "first" but still says so - this is interesting and specific to her. My second choice is ALT0a which was struck. The fact was at its time in papers not only in Sweden and London but even Canada, and not in specialist circles. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:38, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are misunderstanding what "specialist" means. The term "specialist" in DYK parlance means that a hook requires special knowledge or interest to be understood, and per the guidelines, such hooks should generally be avoided. In the case of ALT0a, the hook requires knowing who Stokowski is and what The Twilight of the Gods and the Royal Festival Hall are. It also requires that the reader understand that Stokowski is a big deal in opera and that both the opera in question and the venue are big deals as well. That is very specialist knowledge and something the average reader would probably not know. An opera fan would get it, but maybe not the typical layperson. If the reader sees ALT0a (especially if such a hook ends up being promoted without the image), they likely won't understand why Lindholm doing that role is such a big deal. It's also frankly a very complicated hook and has too many details. The other hook proposals here are much simpler and would be more easily understood even by people who aren't so familiar with opera. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:01, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are misunderstanding what "requires specialist knowledge" means. We will have people who remember Stokowski, and for others, there's a link. Same for The Twilight (which seems an interesting title without previous knowledge), and the Royal Festival Hall, which - even for people who don't know that the hall in London is meant - evokes "Royal" and "Festival". - The charm of Wikipedia is to have links for those who don't know and want to explore, and the spirit of DYK - for me - is pass rich information to the curious. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:10, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • 2a is less problematic than 2, as the "first" claim is not fully in wikivoice. —Kusma (talk) 07:56, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • theleekycauldron, thank you, I have added the sources. TSventon (talk) 08:40, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have unstruck ALT0a per Gerda's comment above, and because this discussion has been re-opened. Of the currently available hooks, I prefer ALT0a, because it tells of an unusually fast-tracked achievement. There have been concerns about the veracity of ALTs 2 and 2a (although I don't agree with the concerns, I respect the majority view on ALT2.). Per the recent comments on Wikipedia talk:DYK, I see now that ALT2a is OK. ALT3 is not tenable as it openly insults the subject, with nothing to balance or mitigate the insult (ALT1 was struck because it may have had a frivolous aspect, but it was not an open insult at the level of ALT3). Storye book (talk) 09:09, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see ALT3 being meant to be an insult though. I think it was just meant to highlight her previous career. ALT0a is simply way too specialist and requires deep knowledge about the opera scene. It also harkens back to Johnbod's comment at WT:DYK: hooks that are basically about people doing their jobs are usually a bad fit for DYK. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:48, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Having said that, if people still want the primary school teacher angle without the "insult", we could go with:
ALT4 ... that opera singer Berit Lindholm studied to be a primary school teacher?
ALT4a ... that during the early years of her opera career, soprano Berit Lindholm studied to be a primary school teacher?
ALT4b ... that soprano Berit Lindholm studied to be a primary teacher during the early years of her opera career?
Again, I don't see ALT3 as being meant to be an insult and in fact the article says that said comment was apparently famous. Maybe it was meant to be surprise, or maybe it was meant to refer to her earlier career? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:55, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have added some explanation of "damn primary school teacher" to the article talk page here. TSventon (talk) 11:16, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@TSventon: Thank you for the info. Please give us a hook about Lindholm using the phrase as her memoir title? If she "owned it" by doing so, maybe that would be OK. Gerda Arendt? Storye book (talk) 11:52, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, and fine for the article, but a hook about it would not be for me, as explained above. The recent three alts saying that some opera singer was a primary teacher before are extremely un-personal, and this for a woman who was one of three names known worldwide during her prime decade, and for whom we have two working suggestions mentioning international glamour, one even of her personal pride. - The book title is a good thing if you know already how great she was, and there's this gap, but without context - and while some of our readers will remember the name, others will not - it's just poor, and a shame for the man who said so. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:02, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think having a hook about her primary school teacher training would be disrespecting her. It was part of her life and she didn't seem to be ashamed of it. If anything, it's actually interesting because it shows that opera singers don't always start out as opera singers and that it's not uncommon for them to come from different backgrounds. That's an idea that probably many non-opera fans would not even know and may find surprising. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:13, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You say it yourself: it is not uncommon. How can something not uncommon be interesting? It's not disrespect, it's just that we'd say something about a very singular person that could be said about many others, and that gives not the slightest idea where and when she worked, and what was special about her. There will be people who looked at her article when we had her on Recent deaths, or by one of the international obits. They would be disappointed about some commonplace information.

I suggest, as the discussion is growing again, to make a little table (I tried a wikitable but it didn't work within this template) where people can give numbers for levels of interesting, from 0 (not interesting) to 5 (very interesting), looking at the hooks

ALT0a London, ALT2a Moscow, ALT3 quote, ALT4 teacher. I start: 4 - 5 - 0 - 0 --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:14, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't change the fact that, 1. ALT0a is reliant on deep knowledge about opera, and 2. it's a very complicated hook and can be hard to follow. Long hooks aren't necessarily bad, but ALT0a is basically pushing too much information, let alone information that is specialist. For the record, I would have had similar views even if it was a hook about an actor in a Hollywood film or an American TV station. I know I'm repeating myself here, but hooks aren't necessarily about what is special about a particular person or subject, they're supposed to be something that encourages the reader to learn more about the topic. That's why they're called hooks. They're not meant to be a giveaway. If you're basically giving away all that needs to be known about the subject in the hook, like what ALT0a is doing, that's not a DYK hook. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 15:11, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • ALT0a London, ALT2a Moscow, ALT3 quote, ALT4 teacher: 5 - 4 - 0 - 1. Storye book (talk) 19:56, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Narutolovehinata5:. (1) ALT0a is not reliant on deep knowledge about opera, because its links explain everything. Also, our audience in general is neither stupid nor pig-ignorant. Never underestimate your audience. At the very least, most of them know about Pavarotti and Nessun Dorma.(2) ALT0a is arranged in a logical manner, and is clearly written; therefore it is not complicated and its logic is not hard to follow. How about we have some constructive reviewing from you, instead? You could have asked for a shortened version of that hook, e.g. something like:
  • ALT0b: ... that not long after her debut, Berit Lindholm (pictured) performed in The Twilight of the Gods at the Royal Festival Hall? Storye book (talk) 19:58, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • ALT0c: ... that not long after her debut, Berit Lindholm (pictured) sang in the last scene of Wagner's The Twilight of the Gods at the Royal Festival Hall? Storye book (talk) 20:41, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Again, to quote Johnbod, hooks that are basically "The fooist Fred Foo did [something that's exactly what one would expect a fooist to do] in date/place" should generally be avoided. Both ALT0b and ALT0c basically the same thing: "The opera singer Berit Lindholm played an opera role in a place", which fits Johnbod's description. The other hooks don't have this issue. Anyway, per the above discussion, it seems that Lindholm didn't actually consider the "damn schoolteacher" line an insult, or if she did, she reclaimed it and used it as the title of her memoir. Maybe a hook based on that would work instead? That would probably be far more eyecatching to the general audience than a hook saying she performed a role. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:20, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@TSventon: The memoir thing isn't in the article right now. Could you add it to the article and fashion a hook about it? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:53, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have added the memoir to the article, but I am not convinced that the title makes a good hook
  • ALT5 ... that opera singer Berit Lindholm (pictured) was said to have been called "that damn primary school teacher" and used it in the title of her memoir? TSventon (talk) 01:11, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • ALT5a ... that opera singer Berit Lindholm (pictured) was said to have been called "that damn primary school teacher" by her first director and used it in the title of her memoir? TSventon (talk) 10:53, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose that should solve the issue about the angle being "insulting"? In this case, Lindholm using the "primary school teacher" wording in her memoir would be a form of reclaiming. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:18, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
After giving this some thought, ALT5 (perhaps with some refinement that can be done in prep) is the best option here. My preference would have actually been ALT2a, but the sourcing doesn't seem to be strong enough to rule out any possible previous Isolde performers in the Soviet Union (to recap, DYK has had issues with "first" hooks before and I would have wanted to see airtight sourcing for that claim), ALT4 and its variants appear to be non-starters so I'm dropping those.
ALT0 and variants, again, are reliant on special knowledge. The significance of the hooks is not clear even with the links; you actually have to click on the links to realize the hook information is a big deal, instead of being self evident. ALT0a is the one that is most like this, with ALT0b and ALT0c having similar issues except the fact that both are basically saying "Did you know that Berit Lindholm did her job at this place?" There were objections raised about ALT3, but I think ALT5 solves that and shows that Lindholm had reclaimed the "primary school teacher" thing.
Finally, there was some discussion that ALT1 was suitable, but there were strong objections to that wording even with clarifications, and given that the hook was pulled over said objections, ALT1 is going nowhere.
With that in mind, only ALT5 is approved, and all other hook options are disapproved. The discussion has been very tiring and it would be in everyone's best interest to get this done and over with and move on. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 03:07, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@TSventon: Actually, per WP:INTEXT and currently-open discussion at WT:DYK, it might worth mentioning in ALT5 that it was her director who said it, but otherwhise the hook is GTG. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 03:11, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry to be disobedient, but after having researched last night and having updated the article I want at least to write down here what I found. I thank Victoria for adding about the audience's enthusiasm in Moscow. I found a better source that carefully says "rarely performed", not "first". In that light, here's
ALT2b: ... that the Swedish dramatic soprano Berit Lindholm portrayed Wagner's Isolde in a pioneering tour of the Vienna State Opera to the Bolshoi Theatre in Moscow in 1971?
We could add "during the Cold War", for people who don't immediately associate the politics of 1971 but you want it short. - We could add "to an enthusiastic audience", looking at the flower bouquets, but you want it short.
I oppose ALT5: the title of the book is "Court singer - " and then the quote. From the level of a decorated celebrated woman, the "damn primary school teacher" may be somewhat funny in contrast. Without that context, it seems just poor and uninviting to me. It also suffers in translation. If we absolutely want a quote we could use "Tall, and remarkably slim for so epic a voice", - the typical Brünnhilde at the time was "a formidable large woman". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:26, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Again, ALT2b does not address the concern: it's again basically saying that Lindholm did her job. There is a reason why role hooks are not exactly well-liked on DYK and ALT2b is basically a role hook. There's also something lost in translation I think: ALT5 doesn't suggest that the quote was the title, but rather it was used in the title. There's a difference and there's nuance in that meaning. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 07:47, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Narutolovehinata5: Thank you for making an effort to be more constructive, by finally choosing a hook. I am not objecting to the hook myself, but I am not happy about the assumption that it can be re-written in prep. This discussion has already been bounced back from prep, because premature promotion meant that those who did not like the hook had to then interrupt prep to argue about it. So - if anyone is reading this and has any objections to this hook, please could they have their say here and now, before the hook is promoted? Or, to put it another way, please could the promoter kindly allow a few days before promoting, so that objectors may get a chance to object here, and not in prep? (Note: I have added "pictured" to the hook so that the promoter gets a choice, about whether to use the picture). Storye book (talk) 08:58, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Narutolovehinata5: According to Facebook, The funeral for Berit Lindholm will take place 30. August 2 PM at the Kungsholms church (Kungsholms Kyrka), so perhaps we should try to run this in the first set on 30 August a week from now. I have added Alt5a as suggested. TSventon (talk) 10:47, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    TSventon, we have only one set at present. Thank you for adding to the article, - I add you as conom. Narutolovehinata5, as I said in the other nom you are reviewing: I hate to say what's wrong, but to claim a performance is Moscow in 1971 was just "doing her job" misses how sensational that was. (The same goes for the extraordinary London concert.) Especially on a funeral day, I'd prefer to see her connected to a role that only few can perform at all, and even fewer perform as well as she did, done in East-West cultural exchange, than little ALT5. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:08, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I see that we switched to two sets today. Why would you want the first set? For most of that time, Europe is sleeping. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:47, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I did not suggest that she wasn't good at her job, and the article makes it clear she was an accomplished opera artist, and her death is a major loss for the industry. I'm just saying that a DYK hook does not need to focus on exactly what she is best known for. It can just be something that makes people want to read more about her, that hooks them in, then there they learn about her accomplishments in life including her Soviet appearance. This really applies to every subject on DYK and not just opera artists: hooks need not necessarily about the thing someone is best known for, just something that makes people interested to read more. The new WP:Did you know/Guidelines probably explains it better than I ever could: The most interesting hooks are the ones that leave the reader wanting to know more... a hook that excites the reader into wanting to know more goes a long way towards that goal. Basically saying in the hook exactly what she is known for (the Isolde role) goes against that since it basically tells the reader outright what they need to know. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:04, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry not have time to read this all, again. My personal wish - and that's what I said above - is to show her her best on her funeral day. The way she immortalised that poor man's possibly sloppy, possibly humourous little remark was not her best. He died in a tragic accident. We don't have to repeat now that she died that he obviously didn't see her qualifications immediately. I am also a woman, and don't like a hook about a woman being mostly what a man said about her: better what she did. Regarding "exactly what she is known for": I expect a very small number of our readers to know that, as her prime was decades ago, and she made few recordings, so isn't present in radio programs. This is our chance to make it known. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:58, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Jävla folkskolelärarinnan[edit]

The sentence in Tidskriften Opera says The debut at the Royal Opera was as the Countess in Figaro's marriage to Ingvar Wixell, and after a couple of years at the theater when the opera director Göran Gentele is said to have uttered the famous words "What shall I do with that damn primary school teacher?" she had her absolute breakthrough as Chrysothemis against Birgit Nilsson's first Elektra in 1965., Swedish Debuten på Kungliga Operan blev som Grevinnan i Figaros bröllop mot Ingvar Wixell, och efter ett par år på teatern då operachefen Göran Gentele lär ha yttrat de berömda orden ”Vad ska jag göra med den där j-a folkskollärarinnan?” fick hon sitt absoluta genombrott som Chrysothemis mot Birgit Nilssons första Elektra 1965. In other words the question is said to have been asked sometime between Lindholm's debut in 1963 and her appearance as Chrysothemis in 1965. I can't find any more detail online. I think it is clearly an insult, see Swedish profanity#Religious profanities for jävla, but possibly a joke. Lindholm used the phrase for the title of her memoir, Hovsångerska - eller vad ska jag göra med den där jävla folkskolelärarinnan? and TO says "Gentele is said to have uttered", so it could possibly be mentioned in that connection, rather than at the beginning of her career. TSventon (talk) 11:10, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please do that. Or write a para about the book, to put it in perspective. It may have been a joke, and we have no way of listening to the sound, no idea if irony or a smile came with it. We could also drop it completely with not much loss. I'm sorry not to speak any Swedish, so everything from me would remain guesswork. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:23, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

First Isolde in the Soviet Union[edit]

Gerda Arendt, I have added that Lindholm was proud to have been the first Isolde in the Soviet Union per the discussion at WT:DYK and the Gademan (Tidskriften Opera) reference. There were earlier performances in pre-Soviet Königsberg and St Petersburg per Stanford. Are there sources that contradict this? There is a hidden note that other sources only say "rarely played". TSventon (talk) 11:53, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the source added for the details of the performance says "rare" for both Strauss and Wagner, but without naming other performances, - IGerda Arendt (talk) 11:56, 23 August 2023 (UTC) guess they want to be careful. --[reply]
Which source says "rare"? Gademan and SVT say first in the Soviet Union and can be checked by Google translate. TSventon (talk) 12:06, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
They say so, but Kusma doubted that it's true, - compare the nom. I said above that the source telling the details of the Vienna production performed in Moscow says "rare", thinking that was clear. This, search for her name. "Neither Strauss nor Wagner is given often in the Soviet Union, and the critic in Sovietskaya Muzyka 50 dealt with both works in the sort of detail usually accorded premières." I wish I had it better, in book form, but wasn't successful yet. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:27, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Expanding article[edit]

This corner is for improving the article.

  • Thank you for adding her marriage. It's now ot in chronology, ad makes me think that she probably made her debut probably under her maiden name. Should we perhaps put it in a section "personal life"? -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:12, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I was thinking of three subsections of "Life and Career", "Early life" (up to and including marriage), "Career" and "Later life" (memoir and death), but I wouldn't object to a "Personal life" section instead. The problem is that Lindholm seems to have kept her private life private. Which is more GA friendly?
    Lindholm made her debut in 1963 and married in 1964, so she will have used her maiden name. TSventon (talk) 23:37, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I wouldn't know "GA friendly" but decide from case to case. Here, I'd go for "Personal life" at the bottom, including death. We could mention two daughters without names. If we then say "She" instead of "Lindholm" for the debut, we have an easy solution ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:24, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No problem, go with personal life. TSventon (talk) 09:58, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have had a look at the Swedish newspaper archive (link e.g. https://tidningar.kb.se/?q=%22berit%20jonsson%22&newspaper=DAGENS%20NYHETER) and can only see snippets, but Berit Jonsson is mentioned as a förtjusande grevinna (delightful countess) in May 1963, in June 1963 as having taught at Adolf Fredrik's Music School and seems to have married in April 1964. I am not based in Sweden so I can't get enough detail to use the newspapers as references. TSventon (talk) 09:58, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If a review says no more than "delightful" it's actually not of much use anyway. SusunW found snippets in English (her talk), I used only one of them for now, and others are critical, but that should probably be part of a rounded image. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:04, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I mentioned the archive firstly to confirm that she performed as Berit Jonsson before her marriage and secondly that Swedish newspapers could be a source if more information is needed. I agree that "delightful" is not that useful. TSventon (talk) 12:25, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    that's fine - I restructured a bit, please check. I'd like more lead. Please feel free to edit! - I guess I'll nom for GA soon, after squeezing the sources once more, to have a chance until 30 August. One can always try, - if not then not. I am sure I saw the daughters mentioned, but can't find them again, - help? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:02, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I have added a reference to an in memoriam in Dagens Nyheter, the daughters are named in the visible portion, also the place of death. There are now probably too many references for the death, so they may need to be trimmed at some point. Also The Encyclopedia of Opera reference is currently unused. TSventon (talk) 13:43, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are translated titles useful in the references? Presumably they should be consistent. I added translations to ref 14 Stockholm Municipality and ref 2 Vem är hon, but they could be removed. Refs 9 and 10 have mixed English and German titles, perhaps use English? I think translation for ref 16 would be useful as Russian is harder for an English speaker to read than Swedish or German. TSventon (talk) 11:54, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    yes - I'm usually just too lazy, - please do what you can, and I'll do what I can. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:04, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The GA review has begun, therefore I suggest we don't change the article much, but continue questions and answers here.
  • I saw that Michael Gielen was the conductor of her debut, but it wasn't a reliable source, - could we find a good one for it?
What was the unreliable source? I can't find anything so far. I think a Swedish newspaper search by someone in Sweden would find it, but the last time someone asked for a Swedish newspaper search at Resource Exchange it wasn't answered.
  • Is there any more detail for what a source described as "recorded Swedish songs"?
The only Swedish songs in the discography at Operalogg are "Pergament, Moses, Fyra dikter för sopran och orkester. HMV CSDS 1089". I found details at https://searchworks.stanford.edu/view/2739172 and it is also on Youtube. Music is by Moses Pergament, text is by Edith Södergran.
Stanford Library also mentions a recording of Music of the Spheres (Langgaard) and a Lindholm compilation from sv:Bluebell Records. TSventon (talk) 15:30, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I found an essay about the special role Wagner played at the RSO, - worth including, or perhaps better at the company's article?
Perhaps add to RSO article, then consider for Lindholm. Does the essay mention her?

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:39, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have added comments individually.TSventon (talk) 09:24, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gerda Arendt, I think that saying Lindholm first performed at the Royal Opera House in London, then with the Covent Garden Opera Company is confusing, it sounds at first reading as though she performed first with the ROH and secondly with the CGOC. I think the previous wording was better. The source is explaining that the Royal Opera company was previously the Covent Garden Opera Company, but I don't think that the information is necessary for this article. The building has been Royal Opera House since 1892. Similarly, according to Kungliga Operan#Kungliga Operans namn the Swedish Royal Opera was called Kungliga Teatern until 1997, but we don't mention the former name. TSventon (talk) 13:35, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

Passed. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 14:42, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Berit Lindholm/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: MyCatIsAChonk (talk · contribs) 18:57, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]


People checking the recently promoted GA feed must be wondering where all these sopranos are coming from! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 18:57, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gerda Arendt, I see you're making some changes to the prose as of me typing this- let me know when you're finished so I can do a prose review! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 19:08, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The sopranos I brought up came from that they died. - No more major changes are planned. - TSventon should be a co-nom, having added everything from Swedish sources. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:05, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Gerda Arendt and @TSventon: all done with the review, see comments below. Pinging TSventon as some might require looking at Swedish sources. Lovely work! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 12:55, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well-written:
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
  • ...as one of the great Wagner singers of her generation. - "greatest" Wagner singers?
  • She studied in Stockholm to become a primary school teacher... - right before this, her mother is mentioned, so using "she" is a bit confusing- using her name would work fine
  • She made her debut at the Royal Swedish Opera... - since it's a new section, start with her name
  • Lindholm was invited by conductor Leopold Stokowski in 1967 to sing... - move "In 1967," to the start of the sentence
  • Stokowski invited her to perform it also in Carnegie Hall in New York City two years later. - replace "also" with "again", and (in my opinion) performances happen at a venue, not in a venue
  • ...including in the title role of Salome by Richard Strauss in 1982 in a production directed by Göran Järvefelt [sv]. - "in 1982 in a production" is a bit if a mouthful- "in a 1982 production" would work better
  • She appeared as Klytemnestra in Elektra in 1990,[9] and the world premiere of Backanterna by Daniel Börtz on 2 November 1991. - did she play the same character in Backanterna? If so, I suggest changing it to, "She appeared as Klytemnestra in Elektra in 1990, and as the same character in the world premiere of Backanterna by Daniel Börtz on 2 November 1991."
  • with singers such as mezzo-soprano Gwendolyn Killebrew, tenor Manfred Jung, and baritones Simon Estes and Norman Bailey. - these people need articles before their titles; "the mezzo-soprano Gwendolyn..." etc
  • Critics predicted a great future: - future for what? Her career? The production?
  • In 1971, she rescued a Ring cycle at Opera Scotland... - what does it mean to "rescue" a performance? Perhaps a wikitionary link could be helpful
  • ...and returned the following year to perform as Brünnhilde in the Ring production directed by Wolfgang Wagner, initially in Die Walküre and Siegfried, with the Third Norne in Götterdämmerung. - not sure if it's just me, but I'm confused by the last two clauses; rephrase, or better yet, split up
  • Jeff Thomas is a disambig link
  • She was proud to have been... - "Lindholm was proud..."
  • ...she published a memoir Hovsångerska... - "a memoir titled..."
  • The translated title after the memoir title should be preceded by something like "English:"
  • She recorded in 1967... - again, put "In 1967," at the start
  • She also recorded Swedish songs, among others. - this is rather vague, what songs in particular?

Prose is clear and free of typos.

1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. No fiction, words to watch, or lists; lead is well-written
2. Verifiable with no original research:
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. Citations are placed in a proper "References" section
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). Sources include mostly websites for various ensembles, like the Vienna Opera's website- all good. Her Großes Sängerlexikon is the most cited, also reliable.

But, I question classicalsource.com and musicweb-international.com- how are these reliable?

2c. it contains no original research. I don't see a need for a spotcheck; I would have a hard time doing one, anyway, as many sources are in Swedish. Article is well-cited throughout; no OR visible
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. Earwig shows no violations
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. I'm having similar issues with the coverage as with Schnaut; almost all of the prose is about her career and various engagements, with little to nothing about her personal life except a couple sentences under "Personal life" and the first paragraph after the lead; got anything to add?

Article addresses the necessary aspects

3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). Stays focused throughout
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. No bias visible
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. No edit warring
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. Image is properly CC tagged
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. Image needs caption, and alt text would be nice

Image is relevant and properly captioned

7. Overall assessment.

Replies

  • 2b: Musicweb-international.com has been accepted in many classical music articles. The other site has an interview that offers her perspective and more human touch than the GSL.
  • 6b: I would not know what to put in a caption besides her name, and that we don't know when taken. It seems to be a crop from this, which is sadly also not dated. Storye book, any help? I might guess 1970s. Alt provided, but please check and improve. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:09, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe that Lindholm was in her very early 30s in the picture, and she has that 1960s hairstyle which was influenced by Jackie Kennedy, who was one of the world's famous beauties and fashion icons of the time. But look at her very youthful neck - she could even be in her twenties, if it were not for the very slightly more grown-up face. After Jackie Kennedy began to fade from the limelight after Dallas, hairstyles became more influenced by hippy styles, and by the seventies the hairstyle in the photo was out of date. Yup, I was there. (And I remember it - we weren't all at Woodstock, sadly ...) As for the source, I see no reason to believe that the uploader was not the author and copyright holder. Storye book (talk) 09:17, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have just noticed your link to a possible source, in which a possible date of 1973 is given. However I strongly suspect that Lindholm was giving out copies of an old 1960s photo of herself (don't we all?) and that it is the inscription which dates to 1973. Just my opinion. Storye book (talk) 09:22, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have updated the image filepage to include all the above information. If new information turns up, that will have to be changed.Storye book (talk) 09:34, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • 2a The only Swedish songs in the discography at Operalogg are "Pergament, Moses, Fyra dikter för sopran och orkester. HMV CSDS 1089", see Stanford Libraries and also Youtube. It is only twelve minutes on the reverse side of an LP. TSventon (talk) 13:16, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    IMO, this is still notable; naming it wouldn't hurt, or just expanding the sentence "She also recorded Swedish songs, among others." MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 14:20, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1
    • name: which name to use? - her last name is still the same as her mother's (at that time), and full name clumsy. Same for the debut. The header came after the "She", and the "She" was getting around that she was not yet married then.
    • Swedish world premiere: I clarified by a different verb that it's not the same character. Sadly, I know nothing about that Swedish opera, not even the composer has an article. TSventon, could you find more?
    • Great future: the paper clipping is not specific for what, - I'd guess in general, but to specify that might be OR, no?
      • If the paper wrote "great future", I suggest including that in the quote; perhaps, "Critics wrote that she had a "great future" and that she was "tall, and remarkably slim..." or the sort. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 00:50, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • modified to just one critic's quote (although it would be nice to say that many reported --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:24, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • "rescue": it mean that when some key player is sick, you are available to step in. Perhaps it's so common a word that no quotation marks are needed? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:23, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Ah, that makes sense- nevermind, disregard that comment. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 00:46, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Other items under 1 should be fixed, please check again.
    Excellent work- I've struck through the ones that have been addressed. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 00:54, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe that for foreign titles, what follows in brackets is by default the translation into English, without saying that. Compare all FAs for Bach cantatas with their German names. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:24, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • 3 coverage: I'll look tomorrow if perhaps the interview has more bits to add. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:23, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • 3a personal life: the names of her parents and husband come from a Who's Who, so no detail there. I found in a newspaper that her husband's dates were 1932 to 2011 (Dagens Nyheter 2011-04-30 p 53). From the interview, we could add that Lindholm retired in 1995. TSventon (talk) 01:38, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Go ahead, add that, after "last role". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:58, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Both added. TSventon (talk) 09:37, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. I'll now check for more bio. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:49, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I added some, more to come (Salome, directors, arias recording) but taking a break for food. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:33, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Excellent work on the additions thus far! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 13:34, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. Will look for refs for the directors and then give it a rest. Salome, Klytemnestra and arias added. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:24, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, found this for Gielen, and there will be something for Gentele, but perhaps can we leave them out for her bio? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:37, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You're right, details for other directors can be left out- I think 3 has been sufficiently addressed, thanks for diving deeper into her life to expand "Personal life"! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 14:40, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Physical appearance[edit]

How many articles on male singers would reference appearance? And then multiple times? Is this necessary or useful? I doubt it. 51.148.155.214 (talk) 06:35, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see multiple references to appearance in this article. I could only find one – "slender" – which appears once in the body of the article, and is repeated in the summary. However the word "slender" is only there to reference the fact that she was "defying the comic-book depictions of a heavyweight, armour-clad, helmeted Wagnerian diva" when performing the part of Brunhild at Bayreuth. You may also have mistaken the usage of the word "beautiful": that word is describing her singing - the word, "unerringly" and the context of performance are indicators to the meaning. Actually, quite a few women have been involved in the writing and monitoring of this article; I would be very surprised if they were overtly expressing some kind of misogynous ogling of women's bodies. Shall we ask them?
Meanwhile, maybe, to please you, we should balance things out a bit by adding a few sexist comments to our articles about tenors. Goodness knows, there have always been too many fat old tenors onstage, masquerading as sweet youths smitten by first love. Shall we start with Pavarotti, bless him? Storye book (talk) 10:33, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Photograph[edit]

@Gerda Arendt, Storye book, Narutolovehinata5, Theleekycauldron, and MyCatIsAChonk: The photograph in the article, File:Lindholm_Portrait2.jpg, which appeared on the main page DYK section on 30 September, was nominated for deletion on Commons on 1 September here, shortly after the article went through GA and DYK. The copyright rules for Swedish photos are summarised here. According to its description, the photo was taken in the 1960s. Between the six of us, we should probably have questioned the copyright of the photo during the GA and DYK processes. TSventon (talk) 08:07, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The reason why I did not question it is that Danviklund uploaded the image as their own work, so I understood that they owned the copyright. In that case, the date would not matter. But since the question of authorship has been raised, I have taken another look at the details. The reason given for nomination for deletion is that the nominator does not believe that Danviklund took the photograph. It is clearly a professional photograph, and in the 1960s one would expect that a professional photographer, hired to make a publicity shot for a stage star, would be at least 21 years old. If the photograph were taken in the mid-60s – 1965, say – and the photographer was aged 21 in that year, they would be around 79 years old now, and around 65 years old in 2009 when they uploaded it to Commons. So that is certainly possible.
Meanwhile, I would be happy to find a non-free ID image for the article, but I (presumably) will have to wait until the abovementioned photo is deleted before I do that, because I will need to be able to say that there are no free-use images available. We shall have to wait, I think, until that image is (or is not?) deleted. Storye book (talk) 10:24, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am not blaming anybody, including myself, but hopefully we can learn from the discussion at Commons. The image is loaded to Commons as own work, however editors often incorrectly think that, if they make a copy of an existing image, it is their own work. It is possible that Danviklund took the photo, but they didn't provide any detail to support their statement that it was their own work. The edit summary was "Cross-wiki upload from sv.wikipedia.org". TSventon (talk) 11:04, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I now see a concern regarding it- I had the same perception as Storye book when reviewing, so it wasn't of concern to me. The only other non-wiki sites I can find this on are this listing and this listing. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 13:19, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Since no-one is sure either way, I think the best thing to do would be to delete it now, After that (if I cannot find a free-use image), I shall re-upload the same picture as a non-free thumbnail image onto en.WP, citing the sources linked above. That way, the article gets a consistent ID image, the original uploader still gets to see their upload picture, and we don't have to worry about copyvio. Everyone happy with that? Storye book (talk) 19:40, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Storye book, what do you mean by by "delete it now", won't that take a Commons admin? TSventon (talk) 21:01, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(sorry, late, was out, listening to great music) I'd be happier with this image free, for the sake of several other Wikipedias using it, and not only for her biographies. We use it in the DYK archive. I wonder who has the rights for such an artist's photo, the photographer or the artist. I remember that my choir bought the rights from the newspaper photographer once. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:05, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@TSventon: Of course I'm not suggesting that any of us in this discussion delete the image. Of course that is not up to any of us to unilaterally delete it, even if any of us had the facility to do so. I meant that I thought it would be a good idea if it were deleted asap, because until it is deleted, a more satisfactory solution cannot be created. I have written a comment on the deletion nomination discussion to that effect. That is where this discussion should really be happening. I have added a link on that page, to this discussion, for that reason. Storye book (talk) 00:30, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Gerda Arendt: As I understand it, it is normal on WP and Commons to assume that the creator of a photograph has the copyright, unless evidence is found that they sold or gave away the copyright. Like yourself, we would all be happier if all images were free, but for the sake of clarity and consistency we all have to abide by the copyright rules as established on WP and Commons, and if the copyright of this Berit Lindholm photo is in doubt, then it is likely to get deleted whether we like it or not. That is why I have been talking about plans for when it gets deleted. Storye book (talk) 00:46, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think I understand but beg to consider that if deleted the pic would leave the DYK archive although I bet it was the key attraction, and it was the (impressive) image of her - for readers in many languages - for years. I think if a photographer was still alive claiming the rights, he or she would have done so long ago. If I was the photographer I'd be happy to have this publicity. So, yes, we have rules, but who would be served if this image gets deleted? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:19, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As I understand it, perceived copyright violation on Wikimedia Commons potentially puts the very existence of all the WP platforms at risk. There are hungry big-ass lawyers out there, who know that involving themselves in a class action to bring down WP on the grounds of copyvio would give them the kind of reputation which would make them very rich. As far as I can see, this is why we have to be so careful on all the WP platforms to avoid copyvio, and to remove it (or find a legal substitute for it) when we see it. I read somewhere that WP has to make extra strict rules for itself about legal matters such as copyvio, to be on the safe side. Our experts have been very careful about making those copyvio rules for us, and they have done that for a reason. You could say that they are helping to protect the very existence and stability of WP. So, to answer your question, "who would be served", it is us. Without the legal protection of our copyvio rules, and our own self-regulation, we would begin to lose WP as we know it. Storye book (talk) 12:16, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Gerda Arendt, Storye book, and MyCatIsAChonk:, I have copied a conversation from Women in Red here for convenience. Incidentally there is a photograph on the Opera Scotland website that appears to come from the same shoot as the one on Commons so they might have some information on its provenance. TSventon (talk) 18:10, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@TSventon: Thank you so much for all your efforts to assist in this matter. It is much appreciated. I have no idea what to do next myself, regarding the research, so I shall leave the research and ultimate decision up to others. All I can do is, should the image be ultimately deleted, I have saved the image and source, so that I can upload it as a non-free thumbnail image if required. I agree that it would be nice if that were not needed, though. Storye book (talk) 18:23, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@TSventon, I can email OperaScotland to ask about the image and CC you if you want- not sure if you already have, though. Email is on their contact page. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 18:38, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Storye book:, we will have to use a free image if one is available. SusunW has found this so I don't think we will be able to reupload the old image as fair use.
@MyCatIsAChonk: I have emailed Opera Scotland to see if they can offer any more information. TSventon (talk) 20:46, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you again for your efforts. I am glad to see that there is a free image, of course. One way or another, the article will have an image. Storye book (talk) 09:38, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pings for @Gerda Arendt, @TSventon, and @Storye book- a commenter on the deletion nomination has deemed it ok for inclusion, since it follows PD-Sweden and PD-US. IMO, this is a sound argument- just wanted to let you all know in case you felt inclined to comment on the nomination (I am refraining from commenting since I know very little about media copyright and how it works, as is evident at Stravinsky's FAC). MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 01:27, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am also keeping an eye on this, it appears that the nomination may stay open for a few more weeks. TSventon (talk) 02:06, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the update. Storye book (talk) 08:01, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Gerda Arendt, Storye book, and MyCatIsAChonk:, if you are still interested, the photo was eventually kept on 21 November 2023. TSventon (talk) 13:11, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for notifying us- happy to hear that! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 02:02, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Conversation from Women in Red talk page[edit]

The photograph of Berit Lindholm, File:Lindholm_Portrait2.jpg, which appeared on the main page DYK section on 30 September has been nominated for deletion on Commons here. Does anyone here know about the copyright rules for Swedish photos, which are summarised here? According to its description, the photo was taken in the 1960s. TSventon (talk) 07:39, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

At that stage she was having a very international career (ie little in Sweden). So there's no real reason to assume it was taken or published in Sweden or by a Swede. The trouble is, as the nom says, we've no idea where it came from. Johnbod (talk) 12:48, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The photo was probably published by Lindholm as she signed multiple copies, see here and here. Lindholm was based at Royal Swedish Opera until 1972 and always lived in Sweden. TSventon (talk) 18:23, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
TSventon My reading of the Swedish copyright says typical press photographs don't meet the threshold of artistic work, but posed photographs do. To be eligible for WP they must be free of restriction in both Sweden and the US, so must meet one of these two criteria, which a portrait from the 1960s cannot meet. I tried to narrow the date by looking at Swedish newspaper archives but for the life of me, I cannot figure out how to see what is on the page. So, the other option is what was published in the US. I find two images 1) this one was clearly not a derivative work of someplace else, is anonymous, has no copyright mark or wording on either the masthead or publishing notice and is not registered in the 1970 periodical catalog under The San Francisco Examiner or the Hearst Corporation (see p 470), which only appears to have copyrighted its magazine holdings. It could be uploaded using {{PD-US-no notice}} and 2) this one is clearly a publicity photograph because it was first published in 1970 and republished in 1972. Although it is anonymous, to my mind, it could have been taken in Sweden and been protected, so to rule that out one would have to figure out how to see the images in the Swedish archive. If it does not appear there, it could be uploaded with the same US license as #1 because the first publishing (1970) in the Napa Register shows no copyright mark or wording on the masthead or publishing notice and is not listed in the 1970 periodicals catalog. SusunW (talk) 15:34, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
SusunW, thank you for looking into this. 1) The first photo has a notice "Examiner photos by Bob Bryant" at the bottom right of the section. According to SFGate Bob Bryant died in 2003. Does that make a difference? 2) I believe that full access to the Swedish newspaper archive is only available at a number of libraries in Sweden. The photograph could also have been taken in Germany as her first performance as Brünnhilde in Siegfried was in Bayreuth in 1969 per Operalogg.. TSventon (talk) 18:02, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
TSventon No, it doesn't matter because there is no mark on the newspaper or photograph. However, to be doubly sure, I checked the 1970 artwork/photograph catalog and it does not appear that he registered anything. (The point, according to my understanding, is that there is no copyright in the US, but it might not be eligible to appear on WP/articles in countries which require 70 years past death of the creator, but that warning is on the license.) SusunW (talk) 18:16, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
SusunW, I have uploaded the photograph without its caption as File:Berit Lindholm San Francisco Opera Museum 1970.png and hopefully added sufficient background information. Should I copy the checks you did onto the Commons file somewhere or is that unnecessary? TSventon (talk) 15:30, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
TSventon I am probably overly cautious, but I always list the stuff I did to confirm it. I'll add it, give me a sec. SusunW (talk) 15:43, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Berit_Lindholm&oldid=1204170985"