Talk:Jenny Lind

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article falls within the scope of the Opera WikiProject, a collaboration to develop Wikipedia articles on operas and opera terminology, opera composers and librettists, singers, designers, directors and managers, companies and houses, publications and recordings. The project talk page is a place to discuss issues, identify areas of neglect and exchange ideas. New members are very welcome!
B This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed biographical guide to musicians and musical groups on Wikipedia.

Contents

[edit] start

I'm glad somebody (Kingturtle) started a page for Jenny Lind. However, a quick survey of on-line bios of Jenny Lind seems to indicate that she wasn't exactly an orphan. Her family was poor, and couldn't always afford to keep her. According to one bio, she bought her parents a house once she had enough money. I don't have time right now to research/write a longer article, but she clearly deserves one. --Fred 13:59 17 Jun 2003 (UTC)

In 2003 researchers revealed that Jenny had a secret affair with the composer Chopin. See "Chopin and The Swedish Nightingale" by Cecilia and Jens Jorgensen. Ogg 10:34, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Problems

There are some formatting problems with this article. A whole paragraph is lost because it's inside some kind of formatting box (surrounded with dashed lines). I don't know how to fix it, but i hope someone does, becaus you can't read the information unless you go under 'edit'—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.3.128.95 (talk) 19:24, November 6, 2005

There's also a town in western Arkansas called "Jenny Lind."

There's also a community in North Carolina called "Jenny Lind."

[edit] Removing linkspam

I have taken out all the new edits with material from Icons of Europe. This may contain some very useful and important stuff, but WP cannot be used to promote an organisation, even a non-profit. It can be re-added but only in a way that follows WP policies. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:23, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be helpful if Jeandebeaumont replied to your concerns here? I'll put a note on his/her talk page. -- Kleinzach (talk) 09:53, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Jeandebeaumont left this comment on the page:
I have taken the research off as per comments by Kleinzach. But I can't figure out how to reply online at WP  :-) . Please help me at jeandebeaumont@mail.com Thanks, JdB
Perhaps Itsmejudith would like to write to him/her? -- Kleinzach (talk) 10:33, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I suggest to update the Jenny Lind information under the existing 'Early life and career' section, with fewer references. I understand that the proposed 'New research' section was overdone. The editorial quality control being exercised is appreciated. Jean de Beaumont (talk) 11:50, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Jean, welcome to Wikipedia! I've left you some tips on your Talk Page for future editing so you can avoid adding what looks like spam, etc.
Another more general point.... One of the problems with this article, long before the edits of the last few days, is the extensive use of external links in the body of the article instead of proper footnotes. They are not only distracting, but also give the reader no idea what they are linking to and why. I've already replaced a couple of these. One was to a commercial web site with a definition of "consummation" when there is already a wikipedia article on the meaning on the term. For definitions like this, it's always preferable to link internally. The others were ones like this: [1] which I replaced with ones that looked like this:
Frédéric Chopin, Chopin's Letters, Dover Publications, 1988, p. 372.
But there are still a considerable number of similar external links in the article which need to be cleaned up, re-formatted, or in some cases, removed. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 12:43, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
I'll reply here if that's OK with everyone because I think Jean and others are reading this page. The main policy that applies is the verification policy. Everything included in the article must have a reliable source. Examples of reliable sources are biographies published by reputable publishers. I don't know enough about Icons of Europe to say at this stage if it counts as a reliable publisher. It is the responsibility of people who want to add information to show that it has a good source. I must also say that I am very relieved that we are discussing this in a polite and friendly way. The requests for comment are a good idea too. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:47, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
As you are all probably aware, I put in the RFCs. It'd be a shame if a nice article like this was ruined by an edit war, although it does look like this is going to be settled in a civil manner. Mjroots (talk) 11:36, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Just for the record and for the information of other readers of this page, I have already thanked the above commentators on their userpages for the helpful feedback. Jean de Beaumont (talk) 12:35, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Verifyng research

I'm starting a new section here as this addresses a specific issue related to the previous section, Removing linkspam. It seems from the Icons of Europe website, that a considerable amount of research has been done. I would suggest that in providing references to verify any new assertions or corrections, that the sources actually used by the researchers on the Icons of Europe project be supplied rather than simply (and repeatedly) referencing their own web site and publications. One possible exception is this reprint, which is hosted on the site, and written by one of the project's directors for another publication:

Jens A. Jorgensen, 'On the trail of Mazurka in A-flat, opus 24, n° 3', Chopin in the World, April 2005.

That article seems to be reasonably well referenced. Note that not all references given on Wikipedia need to be available online, provided full bibliographic information is provided. Voceditenore (talk) 13:24, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] George Jones

GEORGE JONES.- I would be interested to learn what the evidence is for Jenny Lind's "English suitor, George Jones" (the paragraph commencing "After Mendelssohn died ...). - I have not seen that name before. In her Memoir of 1891, however, there is a convoluted story about her short-lived engagement to "Captain Harris of the Indian army" in early 1849. There is new conclusive evidence that this captain was an invention (but a cover for CHOPIN). For example: British Army records on Mrs Grote's relative Cadet/Lt Claudius Harris stationed in India at the time; and the London press ridiculing Jenny Lind and her alleged fiancé, whom she then gave the assumed name "Mr Harris" (Punch finally ironises in June 1849: "So Betsey Prigg was right we find - There is NO Mrs. Harris!"). Jean de Beaumont (talk) 13:10, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I just had a look. I suspect someone inserted it as a joke. Elvis Costello (who wrote the mini-opera on Jenny Lind and Hans Christian Andersen), has sung with a country and western singer named George Jones. I did a google search and this assertion about her English suitor, George Jones, only appears on Wikipedia and its mirrors. I'm going to remove it. Best Voceditenore (talk) 11:31, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Follow-up The article had originally referred to a Captain Harris. I found the point where another editor substituted the name George Jones. It's here. He/she used a rather dishonest edit summary, describing it as "improving the sentence structure". I've reinstated the original assertion about Capt Harris with a {{Citation needed}} tag. Voceditenore (talk) 12:26, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, as I noted above on 16 March, new evidence shows that "Captain Harris" - only cited in Lind's Memoir of 1891 - was a fictitious name (designed to cover her plan to marry Chopin). Shall I revise it online (with NOPV proof) or show you a draft here first? Jean de Beaumont (talk) 06:45, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
You can go ahead to make the change, but it could be reverted if you don't have a good secondary source for it. I don't think the Icons of Europe website itself is sufficient as a source. Since it seems that there may be some debate about the facts of Jenny Lind's life, the article is going to need in-line citations to show what comes from where. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:48, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RFCs

I'm not sure what it is upon which I am being asked to comment. Dlabtot (talk) 18:08, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the RFC as the issue seems to be settled now. Mjroots (talk) 12:04, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sources

From what I can see at the moment, I would say that the Jorgensen & Jorgensen biography, published by Icons of Europe, is a reliable source for the article. This is an important point to resolve at this stage, so if anyone disagrees, it should be thrashed out here and perhaps taken to RfC. Icons of Europe seems to be a new and small publisher, but a serious one. Other facts or surmises about Lind unearthed by Icons of Europe since the publication of the biography wouldn't seem to count as reliably sourced. My advice to Jean is to start working as soon as possible with some academic historians with a view to getting the new research published in good historical journals. Peer-reviewed journal papers are always good sources for WP articles. New research cannot be published on WP until it has been published elsewhere. Hope this helps. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:36, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Judith, many thanks! Icons of Europe will be delighted and your advice about "historical journals" is well taken. - Concerning your point "reliably sourced": It would seem that a good deal of the sources noted are reliable (e.g. N.W. Senior's letters; Paris and London press; and Meyerbeer). However, Niecks 1888 on 1848-1849 and later years (still widely used by scholars) and Lind's Memoir 1891 on 1848-1849 are indeed unreliable because of the cover-up of Chopin and Lind's romance. But once that is understood, Niecks provides a wealth of useful information and hints - the Memoir is awful to read and less useful. Even some of Chopin's letters have been incorrectly translated and annotated (notably 30 Oct. 1848 - Arthur Hedley is guilty on two key points). That's why a large effort has gone into cross-referencing the above bio/memoir with a large amount of newly discovered original source material from the period (including official certificates, Queen Victoria's private Journal, and unpublished handwritten Lind letters). - FYI, I have informed MusicalConnoisseur about my sandbox proposal for a similarly revised 1848-1849 section in the Chopin article (which includes other period sources seen from Chopin's point of view). Jean de Beaumont (talk) 17:19, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Many thanks Jean, but I am concerned that you are still thinking in terms of using letters directly. They are primary sources and should not be the main resource for an article like this. If you check the verification policy and the reliable sources guideline there is a great deal of wise advice that you will find instructive. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:36, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Noted! I will study that. I am beginning to understand :-) . Jean de Beaumont (talk) 20:55, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Louisa Cramptron

Thomas Crampton married Louisa, a talented singer and friend of Jenny Lind. Does anyone have a reference for her maiden name please? Mjroots (talk) 12:58, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Found the answer, it was Louisa Martha Hall. Mjroots (talk) 21:59, 22 March 2008 (UTC)