Talk:Cia Berg

Claim of notoriety and WP:BLP

An editor introduced this edit to the article claiming that the subject of the article "achieved some notoriety for the oral braces she wore" and "flaunted". The edit also contains a link to the music video on YouTube as a reference. WP:BLP states the following:

Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.

The above excerpt references a statement from Jimbo Wales in which he stated the following:

There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative "I heard it somewhere" pseudo information is to be tagged with a "needs a cite" tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons.

Claiming "notoriety" most certainly qualifies as contentious and, without a proper source, has no place in a biographical article of a living person unless sourced and referenced very, very solidly. A link to the music video itself shows the subject wearing braces but notoriety is not proven by this. I removed the statement but the editor reinserted the statement. Per WP:BLP, this is not appropriate information and should be removed. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 18:01, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Claim of notoriety removed as unable to cite. Information about the wearing of the braces, which is unusual (and, indeed, did gain Ms Berg notoriety at the time) is accurate and cited appropriately. --80.192.21.253 (talk) 18:32, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

p.s. The editor did NOT 'reinsert' the statement - what you have written above is not true. I edited the statement and removed the claim of notoriety - but you deleted it anyway. Please do not make false allegations, thanks! --80.192.21.253 (talk) 18:34, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

My apologies for stating that this was a reinsertion of the same info. I failed to look at the edit closely enough to see that you refactored your statement on that edit. I saw the link reinserted and the edit summary that stated only that you had reverted my edit. For that I do apologize.

I do still stand by my point that claiming notoriety must be avoided in a BLP unless it can be properly sourced. Moreover, I don't find it an improvement to remove your statement where you claim notoriety and then insert a statement where you claim notability and subsequently explain that notability as a result of bringing "Ms Berg notoriety at the time". It's contentious and unsourced, doesn't belong here. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 18:56, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Apology accepted. I thought it was likely an oversight on your part but one cannot assume anything thesse days with the amount of deletionism that goes on here these days. I don't have any issue with your statement that claiming notoriety in a BLP should be avoided unless it can be sourced - where do I give any indication that this is a problem for me? I took out the claim of notoriety at the first time of asking and never uttered a peep about it (despite the fact that it is true). I don't agree that it's contentious, it's merely a statement of fact about something that one doesn't see in videos every day. As such, I don't agree that it doesn't belong in here article. We'll agree to differ I guess. --80.192.21.253 (talk) 19:00, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

She wears braces in the video, yes. Past that, I consider any claims of notability or such to be personal opinion. It would be notable had it been discussed in reliable publications but it hasn't. For the most part, all I could find about the braces were comments of sexually suggestive nature on various blogs, fansites and similar opinionated venues. That's where this information really belongs, not in an encyclopedia. As the adage goes, opinions are like assholes — everyone has one. What I consider noteworthy, someone else does not and vice versa. To keep personal opinion out of Wikipedia, we use verification through reliable sources to tell us what is and what isn't notable. If a subject is not covered in reliable sources, it's not notable and doesn't belong here, no matter how strongly your personal opinion tells you that it does. The reason that I still think it contentious is because of the overwhelming sexual connotation related to the braces when this is discussed on opinion websites. Opinion blogs and Wikipedia serve two different purposes on the internet, there's no benefit in merging them. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 19:13, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

It has been discussed in reliable publications (I remember reading about it in the NME and also the Guardian) but I cannot find links, so removed the claim of notoriety. I honestly didn't consider the 'sexual connotation' of the braces in my original edit - otherwise I would have written something along the lines of: 'OMG! She, like, wore the sexiest braces in the video! Grrr!'. I put this in as I think it adds to the article, simple as that. As you point out, our opinions clearly differ. I definitely can't see how this fact in any way detracts from the article. I think it adds value. We disagree. --80.192.21.253 (talk) 19:38, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Errors

The article says she was a member of Whale from 1995 to 1999, but their first single was released in 1993, so 1995-99 is obviously wrong. Also, it says she was in Whale with Gordon Cyrus from 1995-99, but Cyrus left the band before 1998. 83.177.86.18 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:35, 15 February 2011 (UTC).

OK. Since there was no source at all for those dates and people, I've removed that paragraph. --Closeapple (talk) 16:35, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

jewish

she has a jewish father — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.203.235.58 (talk) 10:58, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

So? The way you added it makes it seem to not adhere to Wikipedia's policy on neutrality. --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) 11:02, 26 May 2018 (UTC)