User talk:Rplowright

License tagging for Image:Ros High Res.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Ros High Res.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Media copyright questions. 13:08, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Rosalind Plowright
Hi,

There has been some discussion over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera about the Rosalind Plowright article.

One concern is about copyright. The article is based on the text at and the picture is also taken from there. Because of your id there is speculation that you either are Rosalind Plowright, her agent or a relative. In that case it might be easy to provide confirmation that Wikipedia has the permission of whoever wrote the bio and took the photo on the site to use them. Other organisations tend to recycle text from wikipedia, so we need to be sure that there is no problem with anyone else using this material too. If doubts on copyright remain there is a danger that the page may be deleted.

Lesser concerns exist about the referencing of the material. Wikipedia policy is to reference all facts. Whilst it is better to have an imperfact article on a significant person than none at all and the absence of a pre-existing entry was unfortunate, the article is liable to be challenged unless we know the source of information.

Finally, there is some antipathy in wikipedia to self-written entries. The article is factual and doesn't obviously display the problems that caused this antipathy, but it is often better to provide pointers to information on the article talk page that might then be added to the article by other editors rather than to do it yourself if you are closely linked with the subject of the article. The article on the National Institute on Drug Abuse illustrates the consequences of trying to influence an article on yourself; it now contains a section on attempts by members of the Institute's staff to shape the article in the way they wanted.

Please feel free to contact me on my talk page if you have any questions. Also feel free to join the opera wikiproject.--Peter cohen 22:55, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I see you are editing again. Could you please reply to my previous message. --Peter cohen 20:51, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for message
Tony, Thanks for the message, I suggest we adjourn to the article talk page Talk:Rosalind Plowright. I'll let the people at the opera wiki project know that you've been in touch. --Peter cohen 19:45, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Later: I've decided to add some more to let you know where we're coming from coming from and what you might do that could be useful. I hope that you don't think I've gone on too long. I'll try and find out what is needed to demonstrate use of copyright photos later. What I do remember is that Wikipedia expect everything in the encyclopedia proper to be freely reuseable. I'll search out some more information on this tomorrow, so that you can check with the photographer.

I'm assuming you work for RP's agents. In which case you need to be aware of Conflict of interest. In essence, editing the article itself is regarded with deep suspicion. Participating in the article talk page and saying "you might find this useful" is perfectly acceptable. Non-conflicted editors can then decide whether they agree that it is useful or not.

Wikipedia is neither a promotional site, nor an attack site, so we want to produce a balanced article on RP. Some of the additional information was got from, where the idea of her RP voice difficulties was picked up. This is not the most prestigious source and therefore personally I'm happy with something sourced only from there being removed from the article. In any case WP:BLP does give rules about possible libellous material which you are indicating this might have been. Removing blatant untruths is obviously something you're entitled to do. But we don't want the article turned into a hagiography, although some articles on divas do drift that way.

Our working idea for what should be in a complete article on a singer is indicated in the marking scheme at WikiProject_Richard_Wagner/Assessment. I would be very happy with whatever pointers you can provide to deepen coverage in some of these areas. If, for example, you happen to know of a profile of RP in Opera or similar, that would be useful. (Hopefully a wikipedia editor will have a copy or access to one, even though I don't.)

Wikipedia's criteria for information is explained at WP:Verifiability and WP:NOR. Basically, we're meant to be a tertiary source that puts together information from other respectable sources, not a source that generates original information itself. We're also meant to avoid opinions unless we source them. So, the policies mean that after I hear RP sing Fricka on Friday I should not then put in the article what I think of her performance. Instead, I would have to look at some of the reviews that have appeared in the press in the last couple of weeks and extract the assessments from there. Even if I were a professional critic, I would have to get the review published in a reliable source and only then could I quote it. And the original introductory sentence you put "ROSALIND PLOWRIGHT is one of Britain's leading opera singers." is also unacceptable as it includes a judgment about her being leading. "Alan Blyth has described RP as one of Britain's leading opera singers" with a citation would be fine. Listing the musical and other awards and saying that she has appeared at at least two of Covent Garden, the Met, the Vienna State Opera and La Scala in each of the last twenty seasons (if true) would demonstrate that she is a leading opera singer without our having to say so.

We favour "reliable sources", especially ones written in English. So, for an article on an opera singer, some of the best sources might be Grove opera, Opera magazine, Gramophone (for assessments of recordings), the New York Times for reviews of appearances at the Met or in the US in general, any of the Times, Guardian, FT, Independent or Daily Telegraph for appearances in London, or indeed for reviews of European appearances, and any books which may cover RP's career. Unfortunately, there are only so many of us involved in writing articles, so not all material may be processed immediately. But the more material is to hand, the more likely someone is to decide to work on it. --Peter cohen 21:05, 10 October 2007 (UTC)