Talk:Gianni Poggi

Untitled
I erase a very disputable annotation, not appropriate for encyclopaedic article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.14.38.251 (talk) 07:40, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

It's a typical Wikipedia response - anything bad about anyone is removed - Poggi is renowned for being a variable artist - all the critics say so. An encyclopedia must include good and bad. Steane is a top respected critic. Do you want me to include dozens of other comments in the same vein? All referenced. Nothing against Poggi but sick of the fawning groupies who seem to love their idols - worst one is Antonio Paoli who apparently walks on water. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.29.117.75 (talk) 00:56, 5 April 2010 (UTC)


 * How you say, an encyclopedia must include good and bad. The previous version was neutral, but the article appear unbalanced now. For equity, you might report what Giacomo Lauri Volpi wrote about Poggi's performance in 1957 recording of La Boheme (I suppose you know that). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.14.38.86 (talk) 15:40, 5 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I have removed the info about the Boheme recording as it has no place in an encyclopedia article whether true or not. --Marleau (talk) 11:39, 7 April 2010 (UTC)


 * It should be noted that wikipedia policy clearly states that all additions to articles "must" cite and provide reliable verifiable sources, something that has not been done. It is easy to claim that this or that critic has made a statement, however the statements made by critics are nothing less then that person's own opinion and point of view and has no place in an encyclopedia such as ours, unless there is verifiable proof that without a doubt the critic in question did make said statement. Tony the Marine (talk) 21:06, 7 April 2010 (UTC)