Talk:Elena Manistina

Self-published tag
Re: Previous discussion.

I disagree entirely with the self-published tag which is currently on the article.
 * The facts in the article fall into three categories: the subject's training, the subject's prizes in competitions, and the names of the subject's roles with names of relevant productions.
 * The latter are all past productions, therefore their inclusion does not constitute advertising. The three fact categories do not constitute reviews, opinion, promotion or bias.
 * The facts just list what happened - almost in the manner of a summary of last year's rail timetable.
 * There is no reason to disbelieve the facts in the article due to the nature of the source. Theatre companies, opera companies and orchestras are made up of highly-trained and professional people, and their publicity is peer-reviewed. They would not have lasted five minutes in the entertainment world, if their officially-published basic facts in the above-listed categories had been untrue.
 * Theatre companies are not like a manufacturing or retail businesses selling inanimate goods. If a wheelbarrow company says that their wheelbarrow has a wheel that turns, we cannot be sure of that, because anyone can run a company selling wheelbarrows (at least until they go bankrupt) and there is no guarantee of the company owners or staff having training or integrity. But orchestras and opera companies are a completely different issue - their owners and staff have been trained to a high level for a long time - they are tried and tested, and are in a position to be objective about the types of basic facts which are in the article. They can certainly be trusted to relay basic information such as who played what role where and when.

I think that what has happened here is that it has become too easy to be blinded by the wording of WP guidelines, and too easy to forget to use common sense. Using common sense is one of the WP guidelines. Honestly, Is there anyone who does not believe that the subject sang any of the roles mentioned in the article? I understand that plans to add some more distanced sources to the article in the near future. Until then I think that we need to be aware that no serious harm has been done to WP by this article so far, and that there is no reason to suppose that the article contains any lies. Storye book (talk) 10:38, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Opera companies are not exempt from WP:BLPSPS, period. BLPSPS is an important provision of one of our most important policies—there to prevent both promotional material from making it into articles and to prevent errors from propagating for lack of independent sources. If you wish to propose an opera exception to BLPSPS point 5, you can do so at WT:BLP, but for the time being they're treated just the same as a corporate profile on Acme Corp.'s website. I reject the appeal to common sense here. It is not at all "common sense" to me why we would allow here what we disallow in all other contexts. Wikipedia articles, especially biograpies of living people, need to be based on independent sources. This is something we drill into the heads of brand-new users, and frankly I find it quite troubling to see experienced autopatrolled users trying to claim themselves exempt from this very basic principle. If this article can be supported with independent reliable sources, then do so, and we can be done with this. If it can't be, then it should not be an article. --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she&#124;they&#124;xe) 15:36, 15 January 2023 (UTC)


 * I was giving my opinion. That is different from claiming personal rights or exemptions. We all have a right to opinion. My opinion is not that articles should be supported solely by non-independent sources. That would be ridiculous. My opinion is that certain respected professional institutions (such as the ones used as sources in the article) are by definition independent sources, on account of their formal professionalism, and the fact of peer review. What is more, there are people already working on improving the article with the independent sources that you are looking for. That is a good thing, and I have not disputed that. We are using a talk page here to discuss the improvement of an article by giving our different opinions. None of us are gods to be obeyed at all costs. None of us have personal rights, beyond that of polite consideration by others, and the right to a personal opinion. We do have a duty to act with good faith towards the well-intentioned motives of others. Peace and love. Storye book (talk) 20:45, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 * From the LA Philharmonic website: "Our products and services, including the Site and all information we or third parties provide on the Site, is provided to you 'as is' and you use all of the foregoing entirely at your own risk. We make no representations, warranties or guarantees of any kind whatsoever regarding its availability or the correctness of any content thereon"
 * Dollars to donuts, they're probably not "peer reviewing" their content to any reasonable academically rigorous standards. Definitely not if they have to tell us "we are not a reliable source, please don't trust us as a reliable source". theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 02:33, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think Storye book was asking for any exemptions from the rules. However, they did point to the common sense part of WP:IAR and the fair question of "Honestly, Is there anyone who does not believe that the subject sang any of the roles mentioned in the article?". Saying that it is "troubling to see experienced autopatrolled users trying to claim themselves exempt from this very basic principle" sounds like assuming bad faith to me. Assuming bad faith is troubling. The company does not consider themselves to a be a reliable source as leeky brought up, but I do feel like Storye book had some valid concerns. SL93 (talk) 02:52, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
 * @SL93: I mean, do I doubt that she really did all the things that the opera company says she did? No, I don't. But we have other considerations in deciding what material needs to be in an article, and the way we do that is by assessing what reliable, independent sources are paying attention to.
 * Listings from opera companies are basically gonna be a mix of three things: Rudimentary early life, list of works, and puff praise. They're not interested in quality journalism, current events reporting, or scholarly analysis; it's an advertisement, after all. And even if they did contain those things, we couldn't use them for that. The L.A. Philharmonic listing on Elena Manistina exists so that we're gonna go watch a show at the L.A. Philharmonic that features Elena Manistina. And when all you get is rudimentary early life, list of works, and puff praise, and you can't include the last of those, all you get is the very basic background information that tends to clutter up these articles.
 * If, hypothetically, the only evidence we could find for Manistina winning an award was an opera company listing – well, I'm sure that's accurate, but wouldn't it be unduly self-serving if real RSes don't care? And if all but one citation is making claims about a successful career based off of these listings, isn't that a WP:BLPSELFPUB#5 violation because it should be that the article is not based primarily on such sources.? Imagine, for instance, that we wrote the exact same article, but instead of four different opera houses with a veneer of professional journalism (which they aren't), we sourced the entire thing to a blog post by Elena Manistina. Do we doubt that any of it is true? Probably not. Is that the only consideration? It shouldn't be, no. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 03:10, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why you're explaining this to me. I never said it was the only consideration. I'm just pointing out three things to Tamzin - the proper use of IAR, a fair question, and that assuming bad faith is not acceptable. SL93 (talk) 03:13, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I have another fair question - How do we know if it is self-serving just because we can't find any other sources for it? They could be behind a paywall, in another language, or even in a print source. Accuracy should be the main point, and please don't point me to guideline after guideline about why you think I'm wrong. And again, like I said on the DYK talk page, I'm not talking about it being primarily based on those sources. I also never mentioned awards. I mentioned singing in those roles. Please don't underline text either. I have always thought of it as patronizing. SL93 (talk) 03:21, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Apologies for the underline – continuing at my talk. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 04:02, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I removed the tag. Article is sourced to other references now Bruxton (talk) 04:10, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Honors
I have added several news sources to the article. I am presently trying to reference a claim I came across about a major award. "In 2010, she was given the title of Honored Artist of the Russian Federation" I hope that I did not step on any arrangements in the article when I organized the references. i also did not remove any of the previous citations I just added the new citations to the end of sections that they support. Bruxton (talk) 17:46, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

ru Wikipedia article
I have linked ru:Манистина, Елена Александровна to the article. It is longer but only has three references. TSventon (talk) 18:43, 15 January 2023 (UTC)