Jump to content

Talk:Amália Rodrigues

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled

[edit]

What is the story behind Don Byas and Amalia Rodrigues?? There must be a good story behind that??

Problems with article

[edit]
  • "She was unquestionably the most important figure in the genre’s development" - she gets half a sentence on the fado article which makes no mention of her importance.
  • "Amália also remains the sole truly international star to have ever come out of Portugal" - unless the editor is trying to say truly international 'fado' start then this is an outrageous claim.
  • I went thru & fixed all the familiar firstname references to the more formal lastname references per wp style. Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies) --LQ 21:29, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The claims are typical hyperbole. Amalia was very important, but Portugal as a country and Fado as a culture are too big for a single person to be considered all there is to them. The closing mention of other artists betrays having been written by someone whose mind was concentrated on a very small part and period of portuguese culture.
  • The portuguese standard is to use the first name for females when just one name is used. It's very strange for portuguese ears to relate the surname to a female antecedent. Nelly Furtado's article sounds strange for much the same reason. It has nothing to do with sexism, the underlying motive may be that surnames are usually masculine in gender. Males are usually only referred to by a single name (either the first name or a surname) if that name is not very common. Yes, the text is english and as such english rules apply, but I wonder if they are universally applicable, especially when one begins to drift out of european space. She was a widely known person, and it would be best to use the same rule used by the community at large when it referred to her. That would be 'Amalia' in all the portuguese spesking countries, I'm not sure how it would be internationally.85.240.124.131 (talk) 23:22, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I cannot agree with the observations on Amália Rodrigues' fame and importance, especially when the page on fado is mentioned. On that page, and reading it carefully, there are several sentences about the importance of Amália Rodrigues, which culminate with the sentence, and I quote: "Surpassing the cultural and language barriers, Fado would definitely become a national culture icon with Amália. For decades and until her death, in 1999, Amália Rodrigues was its national and international star.".
  • Moreover, it is a well-documented fact that Amália was the only name mentioned abroad on hundreds of press news, releases and television documentaries and pieces on 'fado' and the singer. They are all over the internet, you can find them on Youtube. Modern fado singers with international careers are now mentioned abroad, but for decades (between 1950 and 1990) only the name of Amália surpassed international borders and made the genre fado well-known in other countries. The mention of other artists is important of course, but they were known only in Portugal and within it's borders, except for the names mentioned as more recent and current artists and singers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.181.136.127 (talk) 20:41, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Performance Queen Elizabeth II

[edit]

My grandparents tell me she performed for Queen Elizabeth II at one stage. Couldn't find anything on it, but thought that someone more knowledgeable than me about her would be able to verify, and, if true and important enough, add to the article. 59.101.24.180 (talk) 02:29, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bad article

[edit]

Full of adjectives and personal opinions, like 'Her personality and charisma, her beauty', typical of the overall bad Wikipedia in Portuguese Language that is even a vehicle of self promotion. This article just looks like that. Even Amalia said in interviews that she didn't think of herself as beautiful or ugly but something in between. --Good Hope Phanta (talk) 16:27, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article style is subjective and lacks sources for most statements. --Erik den yngre (talk) 16:17, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

inappropriate sections

[edit]

Moved here for reference: "Her personality and charisma, her beauty and her extraordinary timbre of voice gave depth and intense life to her singing: the impression she made on the public, her immediacy and the natural way she empathized with her public were tremendous and attracted more and more admirers throughout the world." If this subjective statement can be attributed to a reliable source, then can be a quote in the article, if not remove. --Erik den yngre (talk) 16:22, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is not very informative and perhaps private: "Amália's estate was never exactly valued, but she left two houses, (one mansion in Lisbon), antiques, works of art, a collection of jewels and other important items, decorations, and an amount of money." --Erik den yngre (talk) 16:58, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is OK if proper source: "She became ill again in 1984, and went to New York in order to attempt suicide, but she couldn't go through with it and instead sought and got medical care." --Erik den yngre (talk) 12:46, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vague sections

[edit]

Too vague to be informative (perhaps usable if made more specific):

Surname

[edit]

Use surname in article per name conventions on English WP. --Erik den yngre (talk) 19:28, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP standard

[edit]

I have now removed or rewritten a lot of the text. Please note that material is removed because it does not conform to WP policy. Please do not insert material without reference to a reliable source, do not insert opinions. The text still needs improvements with regard:

  • sources
  • clarity (timeline, specificty of statements)
  • structure (artistic accomplishments should be sorted by topic and/or time)
  • facts vs judgements/opinions
  • (and more)

--Erik den yngre (talk) 09:37, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Amália Rodrigues. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:07, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Amália_Rodrigues&oldid=1194490349"