Talk:Joan Sutherland

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

NNDB?[edit]

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

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

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

Controversy over racist remarks[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Russen Braddon?[edit]

Isn't it Russell (in the references)?

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

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

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

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

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot (talk) 15:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Superlatives[edit]

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

Joan Alston Sutherland[edit]

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

Vandalism by a series of sock puppets[edit]

Dear friends, Please note that this page has recently been the object of vandalism by a series of sock puppets of an individual. These include User:Madingogo, User:Pricklyshark, User:Hypopostumus, User:Mariamu Mtakatifu and a couple of IP addresses. They are all sock puppets of User:Prester John. When vandalism happens again, be sure to get an administrator to block each new sock puppet. Nunquam Dormio (talk) 07:37, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Mushy"[edit]

I noticed that an anon user has, without explanation, removed a reference to Sutherland's vocal line being "mushy". I initially thought this should be reverted as a reliable source was given. However, on examining the text of the source, it actually says her diction was mushy - something quite different. I think therefore the removal of this misleading material in the lead was correct.--Peter cohen (talk) 12:10, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I had the same instinct (to revert), but it is indeed her diction which always had attracted some criticism; to state that "her singing-line could take on a 'mushy' quality" is wholly wrong and and misinterpretation of the TIME article. On the other hand, criticism of her diction is well voiced later in this article, so the removal of that passage was appropriate. I believe the passage was introduced in this edit. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:25, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. The fact that you had the same instinct shows that it was a good idea of mine to record my investigations. You obviously know a lot about JS and could form your own judgement based on that knowledge, but other editors might have just leapt in and reverted.--Peter cohen (talk) 08:19, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that her husband could be regarded as an unreliable source. Dam Joan's voice was always "mushy". I would question the statement (opinion) that "her diction improved markedly". I cannot recall being able to understand what she was singing on any of her recordings.203.184.41.226 (talk) 21:10, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand what you are objecting to (if you are). Bonynge's statement about her mushy diction is still in the article; nobody called her voice "mushy". -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 08:31, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of roles etc.[edit]

  • I notice that Wikipedia:WikiProject Opera/Key article improvement calls for a list of roles to be added; would this be appropriate? I will add it if no-one complains in the next few days.
  • I propose that the Selected Recordings section be separated out - the page is now 35Kb and there would certainly be space for a Discography of Joan Sutherland article. Rurp (talk) 10:52, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I helped expand this section, which is far from complete. I have no objection to your proposals. Some of the roles can be gleaned from the discography, obviously. Nunquam Dormio (talk) 11:29, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To me, that list would be much more informative if it included the location/opera house where these performances took place, possibly even including the conductor and director. Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:25, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Thanks for the input. I can add that info, but it might take me a while. Would this all work better in a table? That would also let people sort by role, composer, year, whatever... Worth adding that list as an interim reference? Rurp (talk) 13:33, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent idea. E.g.
Work Composer Role Date House Conductor Director Remarks
Acis and Galatea Handel Galatea June 1947 house conductor director Concert performance
… … … … … … … …
Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:55, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Or even if someone could get it set up into a sortable table, so that it would list by year by default, but could be made to sort by composer or whatever. I think that would be ideal. Rurp (talk) 14:03, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Update: this list is now in a sortable table which I'll add if no-one objects in the next two days or so. Rurp (talk) 10:59, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I proposed some changes to your table in your sandbox, mainly to do with sorting by date while maintaining a "friendly" date display. Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:49, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Roles section now included - page now 40 kb. I think Roles and Recordings should each become their own article. Rurp (talk) 04:40, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent piece of work. Buy yourself a drink! Nunquam Dormio (talk) 19:56, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Joan Sutherland starred in 1995 movie[edit]

Joan Sutherland appeared in the 1995 movie 'Dad and Dave: On Our Selection' http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0112775/ in the staring role of mother Rudd along with Leo McKern who stared as Dad Rudd

Other stars in the movie include Geoffrey Rush

Kind Regards Robert Karl Stonjek —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.223.167.129 (talk) 12:18, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Excessive quote from anonymous source removed[edit]

I have reverted this edit which added a lengthy quote from an anonymous article on a self-published website: basicfamouspeople.com

  1. This is not a reliable source.
  2. Although the site has the disclaimer "It is believed that all material on this web site is in the public domain", there is no way of knowing where they got it from and if indeed it is in the public domain as they never credit their sources or authors.
  3. The quote exceeds the Wikipedia fair use guidelines for quoted material from copyright sources

Voceditenore (talk) 15:32, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have just removed the yet another lengthy (256 words) quote/hagiography added by the same anonymous IP, this time referenced to an anonymous article on another self-published web site, Opera Brittania. If editors feel a separate section on Sutherland's voice is worthwhile, it should present a balanced view, written in original prose with minimal quotation and referenced to more reliable sources, and multiple ones. Voceditenore (talk) 16:34, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let the Bright Seraphim[edit]

Isn't this a touch OTT about LTBS: "an exceedingly difficult and demanding aria"? I mean she was actually a professional singer, wasn't she, and the soprano repertoire is, you know, quite wide ... this just sounds a bit wow gosh for an encyclopaedia. If you use language like this, then exactly how long is the list of Exceedingly Difficult and Demanding Arias? 100? 10? Or is LTBS unique in its er er difficult-and-demandingness? I think we're better without this. DBaK (talk) 21:21, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No response, so I removed it. In fact that whole paragraph remains uncited anyway... Best wishes DBaK (talk) 06:42, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Temperentia or Temperantia?[edit]

AWB wants to change "Temperentia" to "Temperantia", but I couldn't verify that. Art LaPella (talk) 01:30, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Temperantia" is correct; see Temperance (virtue). The bigger question is which work is meant; an "applausus music" (Singgedicht, sung poem) is a genre, not a title. I think various versions of the article have attributed this one to Handel or Haydn. The table would probably be better off without this entry. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:16, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Height[edit]

Dame Joan was a tall woman. How tall? almost-instinct 09:17, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

5 ft 9" according to Anthony Tommasini in his obit in the NYT. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:46, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I came across that, but I feel that it can't be right: search for "Pavarotti Sutherland" in Google Images and you see time and again that Pavarotti, who was well over six foot, was only just taller than her eg this Some of the other obits remark that Pav was booked for the mid-60s tour with JS partially because he was a tenor who was actually taller than her. On an unrelated, and even more tonally-remote note: do all articles featured on the main page attract this much vandalism? It was getting a bit tedious at times yesterday! almost-instinct 06:57, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Contradicting the NYT: Dona Vaughan of the Manhattan School of Music Opera Theater quote on XWXR's website: "In this day and age, when everyone is so concerned with how people will look on television, I don’t know if Dame Sutherland would stand a chance. Standing well over six feet and not being a classic beauty, she had that incredible jaw of hers and that face that was like a studio for producing sound." The inital feeling would be to prefer the NYT as a reliable source, but, frankly, 5'9" sounds plain wrong. almost-instinct 07:44, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with your doubts; 5' 9" doesn't seem particularly tall; I only quoted it because I had just read it at Tommasini's obit. "Well over six feet" sounds much more plausible. But I think it doesn't matter much as so far no-one has attempted to squeeze this into the article – or did I overlook that? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 08:14, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I first came to this page because I was looking for this very piece of information ;-) almost-instinct 13:42, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it was indeed one aspect of her appearance that was occasionally commented upon. If you find a good source, I presume there's nothing from preventing it being mentioned in the article, although I fear it might open the floodgates on several other aspects of her countenance. Then again, your ";-)" seems to indicate that you're not entirely serious. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 14:52, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry, I won't create a section entitled "Height"! However it's not a completely irrelevent, and a context may arise as the article expands and if/when it does, we've got the facts sorted :-) almost-instinct 15:32, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edits by Rms125a@hotmail.com[edit]

In a string of three edits, User:Rms125a@hotmail.com removed parts of the article she/he deemed "POV, vandalism" and "tangled reflinks sorted".

Apparently, Rms125a@hotmail.com dislikes MOS:NBSP (see here), but edits consistent with Wikipedia guidelines must not be reverted.

The alledged POV statements were sourced; that Rms125a@hotmail.com doesn't like what a "respected biographer" (Rms' words) writes, is no reason for removal.

The attempt to have "tangled reflinks sorted" made matters worse: it resulted in a mix of in-line external links and footnotes. Rms' edits introduced italics for quotes, which is not consistent with WP:PUNCT and WP:MOSQUOTE.

I have reverted (see: WP:BRD) to this version by User:Calliopejen1, but incorporated some uncontroversial elements of later edits. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:46, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Split article[edit]

The sections "Roles" and "Recordings" overwhelm this article. I suggest to split these sections into one ("Roles and recordings of Joan Sutherland") or two separate articles. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:52, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would support moving these sections into two new articles: Joan Sutherland discography, which seems to have become the standard title format for lists of recordings (see Category:Classical music discographies), and another with a title like Joan Sutherland repertoire (this is just a suggestion). Should the information be expanded to include more than just first performances of opera roles, but also other important productions and appearances? It is now apparently based on information from one book, which I have not seen, but it has been done very well, and any changes would have to be carefully considered. I have Nicolai Gedda's book. He has an appendix "Opera, Oratorio, Operetta Repertoire" and under those three headings lists by nationality of the composer, composer last name, work, and date of each production, with venue/company/city and conductor for each. Of course that is a printed version; a sortable table could simplify things a bit. Not sure we would need a column for composer nationality. Opera directors could be moved to "Remarks" and a genre column might possibly be added to combine all this information into one sortable table. (Perhaps this is overly ambitious. I always tend to prefer more information rather than less. The challenge is not only to gather the information, but to present it in a way that makes it easily accessible.) --Robert.Allen (talk) 05:15, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Memorial[edit]

While it may seem odd to link the role of the people who spoke at Sutherland's memorial service, rather than their actual names, it seemed to me that it was the roles that were really notable. The fact that a trio of national leaders gave the addresses (the Prime Minister, the Governor-General and the Governor) was more notable even than the individuals themselves. That is why the roles are linked rather than the incumbents. It was only on second thoughts that I added the names of the incumbents, as I thought that when in the future people looked it the roles, they would not have to calculate who the relevant incumbents had been. Whiteghost.ink 10:49, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

La Stupenda[edit]

What exactly do we mean when we say it was the audience that dubbed her "La Stupenda"? Surely they didn't all think of the name at the same time? I suppose we're saying some individual audience member called it out, others followed and hey presto, we have a new epithet.

But the version I've read somewhere is that it was a British journalist, whose name escapes me now, who first came up with the title in a widely-read article. The name soon caught on and audiences found themselves calling for her by this name. Does this ring a bell with anyone? -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 11:29, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Been doing a bit of googling. This says a British journalist overheard 2 Italians referring to her as La Stupenda, and repeated it in an article. This says it was the journalist himself who came up with the term. The NY Times attributes it to "Italy’s notoriously picky critics" – but it also says her Italian debut was in 1960, which is rubbish, so I'd take that whole report with a grain of salt. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 08:05, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ignore the curmudgeons. Sutherland was La Stupenda. I heard her sing Lucia in the Royal Covent Gardens hall, she peeled of the mad scene cadenza while running full tilt across the stage with her head screwed to the right. Not many singers could master that cadenza, let alone do it on the run like that. The audience at the RCG, like those at La Scala or Vienna know their stuff, the scene was met with pandemonium. I was only in my late teens, but I knew that I had seen history created Historygypsy (talk) 00:35, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This doesn't get us any closer to discovering exactly who first dubbed her La Stupenda. And when. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 19:07, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weird non-sentence needs fixing[edit]

  • In 1951, after winning Australia's most important competition, the Sun Aria, now known as the Sydney Eisteddfod McDonald's Operatic Aria in 1949.

????? -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 08:43, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That phrase was originally joined to the following by a comma until it was mangled into its current form on 24 August 2011 by User:Arts Festival. I suggest to restore the original construction or rephrase the passage. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:38, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fragment fixed. (Finally!) Also the time sequence was messed up. At least it's coherent now. — J M Rice (talk)
Thanks. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 19:01, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Joan Sutherland. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:34, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Joan Sutherland. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:53, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Joan Sutherland. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:17, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Joan Sutherland. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:09, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup note[edit]

I removed some of the more egregious peacock wording and added a couple of citation tags. There remains a huge number of assertions unsupported by sources. I don't think every fact needs sourcing, but there's a lot here that smacks of personal anecdote/opinion/criticism. Also fixed a sentence fragment and the time sequence around it. Sutherland was indeed a great figure in music, but I think just the facts will get that across.

Who is "I"? Please sign and date your talk page posts. Add 4 tildes (~). -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 19:00, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Joan_Sutherland&oldid=1194716537"