Talk:Berit Lindholm

Jävla folkskolelärarinnan
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 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)
 * 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)

First Isolde in the Soviet Union
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)
 * 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. --
 * 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)
 * 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)

Expanding article
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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * No problem, go with personal life. TSventon (talk) 09:58, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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 Bluebell Records. TSventon (talk) 15:30, 25 August 2023 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * I have added comments individually.TSventon (talk) 09:24, 25 August 2023 (UTC)


 * 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 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)

Physical appearance
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)


 * 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)

Photograph
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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * (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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * , 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)
 * 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)
 * @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)
 * , 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.
 * I have emailed Opera Scotland to see if they can offer any more information. TSventon (talk) 20:46, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
 * 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)

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)
 * 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)
 * Thank you for the update. Storye book (talk) 08:01, 23 September 2023 (UTC)


 * , if you are still interested, the photo was eventually kept on 21 November 2023. TSventon (talk) 13:11, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for notifying us- happy to hear that! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 02:02, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Conversation from Women in Red talk page
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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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 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)
 * , 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)
 * 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)
 * , 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)
 * 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)