Talk:Misha B/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Multiple citations

This old chestnut again. There is absolutely no reason at all to provide five or six citations for one word, as per this edit and this edit in the Misha B#Musical style and influences. This approach makes the article completely impossible to edit/check. It borders on disruptive editing to continue to add these sources back. I spent over an hour going through the sources to find out which ones were useful and which weren't. There is no reason to suspect anyone will challenge these words and, if they do, it would be simpler to remove the word.

YouTube sources can be cited occasionally, but not when they provide nothing pertinent to the fact.

'Bundling' citations seems rare on Wikipedia and, in my view, should be the exception rather than the rule.

Sionk (talk) 10:21, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I believed that youhad deleted the useful alongside the few (if any unsuitable ones). You also wholesale deleted lots of text, which is now subject to a NPOV.N.

I can not see how bundles make it harder to check, the links and citations are still there? Please explain

Its is equally disruptive to unnecessarily remove them, especially when others question the very validity of the referenced point. THe article is very well sourced because I have witnessed the abuse this singer gets on the internet

Wikipedia is compromise but Why remove the word if its correct?

I submit that YouTube use was always pertinent

I have tried to neutrally obtain some third party comment on top of the NPOV:N

I am going to try to have a break, maybe back on later...Zoebuggie☺whispers 10:54, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I am genuinely sorry about your hours work. The arguments and personal accusations in the discussions above upset me, so I filed a NPOV:N only to come back to find you had removed a large chunk of the Musical style and influences section, you notice I did not revert your edits in the Intro and Early Life sections. I have moved the POV discussion to more official channels because I wanted a more reasonable discussion, wanted 3rd party comments from estb members and for my own health...both on friday and last night I did not sleep because of this dispute (sunday too but that was for other reasons)

trying to go afk, honest...Zoebuggie☺whispers 11:29, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

The article becomes difficult to edit because editors are faced with an impenetrable wall of citation text. It is also difficult or impossible to re-use the same citations, when they are bundled, leading to unnecessary repetition.

As for the bundled sources:

• The QX magazine article is entirely an interview, Misha telling us what she wants us to hear. I don't think it should be used extensively throughout the Wikipedia article because it is, in effect, a primary source.
• The YouTube video uploaded by the AllAboutmusic blog, is again Misha telling us what she wants us to hear, a primary source, in effect.
• The SBTV YouTube video seems to be Misha B singing. What does that tell us?
• The Soulsidefunk article is in fact a website by a bloke that likes to review music. Why should we trust his opinion?
• The Imediamonkey link is to a blog.

It would be better (as I've said all along) to concentrate on the reliable expert sources, rather than pick-and-choose stuff found on the internet to suit an argument. Sionk (talk) 11:49, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Sionk, I want to be brief as I want to limit my Wiki time, but I appreciate your contribution.

1. Yes soulsidefunk is def a blogg and should be removed

2. I do not think imediamonkey is a personal blog, looking at the different authors for different articles. It may still not be reliable so I have asked for citation assistance...if that works IDK

3. The youtube video ...it poss came from 1 or 2 places in the article. From its own section, then its relevant to the topic of the section, in musical styles it is the clearest way of showing that she is correctly in the rap and grime genres.

4. I am less certain how to respond to your comment about the two interviews....I want to read Reliability of Wikipedia and Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources and the laters long list of links, but apologies I cant read it until tomorrow or even the weekend due to personal medical reasons.

5. "Bundling is useful if the sources each support a different portion of the preceding text, or if the sources all support the same text. Bundling has several advantages:

'It helps readers and other editors see at a glance which source supports which point, maintaining text-source integrity;

It avoids the visual clutter of multiple clickable footnotes inside a sentence or paragraph;

It avoids the confusion of having multiple sources listed separately after sentences, with no indication of which source to check for each part of the text, such as this.[1][2][3][4]

It makes it less likely that inline citations will be moved inadvertently when text is re-arranged, because the footnote states clearly which source supports which point."

It preserves verifiable sources which is vital sources are required for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged – if reliable sources cannot be found for challenged material, it is likely to be removed from the article by someone (probably you :) ). "Citations are especially desirable for statements about living persons, particularly when the statements are contentious or potentially defamatory. In accordance with the biography of living persons policy, unsourced information of this type is likely to be removed on sight."

Sometimes the sentence is made up of parts from several different origins by keeping sources we enable users to verify that the information given throughout sentence is fully supported by reliable sources but at the same time it makes the article easier to read.

The number of sources can inform the reader of the weight of an argument.

respectfully ...Zoebuggie☺whispers 14:38, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

If you look at the Cher Lloyd article for example, a contestant from the previous X-Factor series and also quite controversial, her article has well over 100 less sources. She's also been feathering her 'career' for 12 months longer. In comparison the Misha B article looks very much like the product of an obsessed fan who wants to uncover everything, everywhere, in whatever source about the subject (as longer as it says something nice and particularly if it is the subject talking about herself). While I agree things like bully-gate, personal details, or claims of notability need to be well sourced, individual words don't. It's part of WP:NPOV to make sure a balanced approach it taken to each subject. Sionk (talk) 11:01, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I would edit the same, what ever article I contributed too. If I had been interested in Cher Lloyd or another subject I would be driven to the same extent. I find it hard to know when to stop. Added to that I have witnessed many many attacks against this singer, so I wanted to protect every bit of this article with verification.

For instance today, regarding this piece over the last 4 hours rather than do things that need to be done I looked at probably twice as many articles as this little lot

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Citation overkill , Wikipedia:Bombardment, Wikipedia:When to cite, Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, Wikipedia:Inline citation, Wikipedia:Potentially unreliable sources, Wikipedia:Anarchism referencing guidelines, Wikipedia:Suggested sources (which interestingly includes last fm), Wikipedia:Attribution/FAQ, Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, Wikipedia:Evaluating sources, Wikipedia:Sources – SWOT analysis, Wikipedia:Third-party sources, Wikipedia:Using sources, Wikipedia:Party and person, Wikipedia:Reliable sources checklist, Wikipedia:No original research Wikipedia:What the Good article criteria are not

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28proposals%29/Archive_39#Video_Interviews

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28miscellaneous%29/Archive_17#Video_Interview

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alex's DBZ RPG

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Little Miss Sunshine/archive1

What I noted

We must get the article right, Wikipedia:Verifiability, says that direct quotations and anything challenged or likely to be challenged must be explicitly attributed to a reliable, published source, which is usually done with an inline citation,. material not meeting this standard may be removed. If another editor says it is "contentious" then it is. Any material that requires a source but does not have one may be removed, and unsourced contentious material about living people must be removed immediately

Because conscious and unconscious biases are not always self-evident, you shouldn't necessarily be satisfied with a single source. The best advice is on the FAC page: an article should be tightly written and comprehensive. If one inline citation is all it takes to make it tightly written that's ok; if you need 100 inline citations that's ok too.

Wikipedia does not have a "one inline citation per sentence" or "one citation per paragraph" rule, even for featured articles. Wikipedia requires inline citations based on the content, not on the grammar and composition elements. Some articles (e.g., articles about controversial people) will require inline citations after nearly every sentence. If you write a multi-sentence paragraph that draws on material from one source, the source need not be cited after every single sentence unless the material is particularly contentious. When different sources are used within a paragraph, these can be (bundled ?) if desired, so long as the footnote makes clear which source supports which point in the text. (I should make it clearer in the foot notes)

Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone.

I got side tracked : Reliability of sources, Blogs and interviews

The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is the best such source for that context. "Secondary" does not mean "independent".

Blogs

Some news organizations host online columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control. Posts left by readers are never acceptable as sources.

Note that otherwise reliable news sources--for example, the website of a major news organization--that happens to publish in a "blog" style format for some or all of it's content may be considered to be equally reliable as if it were published in a more "traditional" 20th-century format of a classic news story. However, the distinction between "opinion pieces" and news should be considered carefully. Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources

I believe The Imediamonkey is a news/mag blog

interviews

Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject (see below). An article about a person: The person's autobiography, own website, or a page about the person on an employer's or publisher's website, is an acceptable (although possibly incomplete) primary‡ source for information about what the person says about himself or herself. Such primary sources can normally be used for non-controversial facts about the person and for clearly attributed controversial statements. Many other primary sources, including birth certificates, the Social Security Death Index, and court documents, are usually not acceptable primary sources, because it is impossible for the viewer to know whether the person listed on the document is the notable subject rather than another person who happens to have the same name.

WP:SELFPUB

Living persons may publish material about themselves, such as through press releases or personal websites. Such material may be used as a source only if:

1. it is not unduly self-serving;

2. it does not involve claims about third parties;

3. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;

4. there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;

5. the article is not based primarily on such sources. interviews and reports of interviews: The reporter quotes the politician's speech. The talk show host interviews a celebrity. (Defined as a primary source by policy.)

Case Studies

One simply needs a source discussing the matter that is well-acknowledged as a source of valid information, such as a newspaper, or magazine. personal inteviews fail this requirement because there's no means of verifying they happened. Other kinds of interviews, such as formal interviews by a magazine, or any sort of documented and bencheckable source would be accepted. No one here is claiming the interview didn't happen, or that anything said in it was untrue, it's just there's no way for any other editor to use the interview to check information cited. That's important to wikipedia because it's an encyclopedia edited by numerous users who work together to fact check things. i kan reed 16:36, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

What makes the following sources reliable? Although it is a blog, it has an interview directly with the directors of the film. The interview is not published elsewhere and it is used for sourcing multiple statements in the article, including several in the casting section. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 18:21, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I couldn't determine any other mention of the blog in other sources, but I believe the direct personal interview to be reliable. ::::This is the only location where the interview is located, likely since the author is the one who conducted the interview. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 06:14, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I think you might have some trouble proving that some of these sites are reliable sources. What you need is a bona fide other reliable source (such as a newspaper) that quotes them or out-and-out declares them reliable. For example, an interview in The Evening Class blog is quoted in the San Francisco Bay Guardian here http://theeveningclass.blogspot.com/2006/07/little-miss-sunshinethe-evening-class.html That might cut it, but if you could find others it'd go a long way to helping this FAC. Steve T • C 20:00, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Assuming the interview was published in a reliable source, we are still faced with the problem that what the subject says is a species of "self-published source" and should be regarded with the same caution that other SPSs are treated. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:33, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

...Zoebuggie☺whispers 16:28, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

UNDUE

The massive "controversies" section went well past being undue weight. Further, I suspect that "Accusations" on "reality shows" are not of actual biographical value here - try finding NPOV language for a short mention? Possibly ok -- but not this melange. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:53, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Having just come across this article, I agree with this removal - that amount of content on fairly trivial 'controversies' was unnecessary. However it does now seem a bit odd that the lead describes her as being 'one of the more controversial contestants of the series', while the content of the article contains no further mention of that 'controversy'. Either something should be restored to the article, or that line should be removed from the lead as well. Robofish (talk) 13:52, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I suggest pruning the lede to reflect the current article. Collect (talk) 15:51, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

As the author of that piece I am very happy for it to go. My general feeling, as it was most likely a false allegation, surely it's better to not even include it. But because majority insisted, I added the conspiracy section, because I had a good knowledge of the sources and if it had to be there then I wanted to make sure the whole truth was there. But to briefly mention a strongly believed/but false allogation would merely gives the false accusation and rumours undue weight, making them a viable belief option (espicially considering the exposure the accusations had on prime time TV and the Gutter Press/Gossip Mag/internet circus that followed) if the section is not fully covered with and supported by verifiable evidence. Q. Is it ok for the article about that particular series of The X Factor (where it is included again by me)....Zoebuggie☺whispers 16:03, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Bear in mind it was given undue weight because Zoeblackmore was so keen to write every denial and every supportive comment. It was one of the events Misha B is most associated with from the X-factor, so deserves at least a short mention. Collect seems to be saying it has been given undue weight, not that it should be given no weight. Otherwise now the mention has been removed there will be many people who will see this as a whitewash and probably try and add something back.

However, I agree with the idea that what is said on a TV series (in the spirit of making headlines and publicity) should be taken with a pinch of salt.

Looking at the main The_X_Factor_(UK_series_8) article, the Controversy section gives three or four times more weight to bully-gate than it does to Frankie Cocozza's ejection for taking drugs, which seems unbalanced too! Sionk (talk) 17:35, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

In addition, as a result of the recent edits, the Telegraph article is no longer used. It seems to be a fairly perceptive and balanced appraisal of Misha B's situation. If a mention is reinstated, I would think this news article would be an important reference. Sionk (talk) 18:04, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually no one of my main concerns was to show the honest truth as much as possible (knowing that the was tons of pieces in mostly unreliable sources like the star, sun, mirror and mail, gossip columns and internet space). I am driven by my obsessive nature to gather as much hopefully reliable info as possible. But I was aiming for truth and neutrality here as well so I did include some of the negative sources. If the was more verifiable information about the opposing view I or someone else would have added it. I have referred this to BLPN alongside the bully discussions on this talk page.

"Further, I suspect that "Accusations" on "reality shows" are not of actual biographical value here....try finding NPOV language for a short mention? Possibly ok"Collect possibly ok ?

"It was one of the events Misha B is most associated with from the X-factor" User:Sionk is increasingly questionable as her career develops. Depends if you were taken in by the accusation. It would not make her reach the notability standards for Wikipedia, were her blossoming music career does.

We could put a link to it on the The_X_Factor_(UK_series_8) article, the Controversy section?

actually it is linked to it via  :For a more details of Bryan's performances on X Factor see List of The X Factor finalists (UK_series 8)#Misha B which is sufficient there ...Zoebuggie☺whispers 18:57, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Um is it wrong to white wash over something that never happened. If she had been accused by someone of a crime to which the was no evidence or no witnesses, the main accuser apologies the next day and all the witnesses say she was innocent would a reputable source still print the story?

...Zoebuggie☺whispers 18:38, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Blossoming music career? That's a bit strong at this stage! She's a reality TV star whose one and only single has had modest success.

But anyway, back to the issue at hand, we'll see how long it is before someone tries to add something back into the article. As the Telegraph article makes clear Misha B's popularity fell after the Rock Week incident, despite being the most talented contestant. It was an event that was fundamentally notable, affecting her success, or lack of. Otherwise why even put it in the The_X_Factor_(UK_series_8) article?

Maybe it is sufficient to simply link to the general X-factor article. In which case, the controversy needs to be dealt with appropriately there instead. Sionk (talk) 19:52, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Giggles at you questioning my flowery language, top 20 out of the dozens of songs released each day and a major stadium tour as the support on her debut year is a little bit of blossom, I did mean to indicate it was a rip roaring success. If someone tries to add something back we can, remove the edit,and point to the link and say it is properly covered there.

The The_X_Factor_(UK_series_8) section was me again, the was a what I thought a one sided piece there before. I have edited it down on the main page and asked BLPN for their opinion....Zoebuggie☺whispers 20:06, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

The difference bt Frankie and Misha is that Frankie was 'guilty', Misha was 'innocent' but believed guilty by so many that clear info had to be put up for a balance....Zoebuggie☺whispers 20:23, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

 

Louis and Tulisa on last year, I am a bit tired and not sure if I can add 1+1 anyway I added it to the discussion Controversy section on the The_X_Factor_(UK_series_8) talk page ...Zoebuggie☺whispers 18:09, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Saucy Sources

1 Wikipedia:Suggested sources an essay ...says it its list of reliable sources For music/rock bands: www.last.fm, etc. ...is it?

Last.FM pffffft ...Info somewhat lacking so I re-did the bio for them. lol...Zoebuggie☺whispers 10:00, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

2 Some Blogs are more equal than others and some are websites

Some news organizations host online columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control. Posts left by readers are never acceptable as sources.

Note that otherwise reliable news sources--for example, the website of a major news organization--that happens to publish in a "blog" style format for some or all of it's content may be considered to be equally reliable as if it were published in a more "traditional" 20th-century format of a classic news story. However, the distinction between "opinion pieces" and news should be considered carefully. Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources

Is Imediamonkey a news/mag blog?

...Zoebuggie☺whispers 20:16, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

ahh its a proper source

Launched in March 2009 by Jordan Howell, imediamonkey.com was originally a blog featuring recaps for television shows such as The Apprentice, The X Factor and Britain’s Got Talent. Since 2009, the website has changed from a blog into a trusted media news provider. With a strong search engine presence and Google News accreditation imediamonkey® provides hundreds of thousands of visitors with the latest news, expert reviews and exclusive interviews every months...Zoebuggie☺whispers 00:15, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Hype? Yup Indeed...Zoebuggie☺whispers 09:56, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

RE the discussion on WP:RSN... Soink you are most probably right about imediamonkey...Zoebuggie☺whispers 08:32, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Before I ask elsewhere I would appreciate other editor's here comments on the following sources:

Local Press, like Menmedia and the Liverpool Echo?

Gossip rags like Heat?

Pappazd -> which i think meets the news blog/ authority in context questions?

The Daily Mail?

Huffington Post (aggregate service) so depends on journalist. Cat Mcshane - written only 3 bits for Huff, but also 2 for Guardian/ associate producer on one BBC documentry.?

...Zoebuggie☺whispers 01:41, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Article is a mess

As I stated in a previous discussion the whole article is an overpowering mess. The Public Image, Musical style and influences sections are awfully written and don't need that much info. Other artists articles, who are just starting out like Misha, aren't loaded with huge amounts of unnecessary info. --Rui78901 21:58, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I hear you. I have just removed about (4K) a dozen citations and about five quotes from immediamonkey, L'Art Mgazine, Daily Star and Daily Record as they are not reliable sources and combined some of the now shorter paragraphs. I will continue to review all links and their respective content on this page over the following week. ...Zoebuggie☺whispers 23:00, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Having lots of reliable info is not a bad thing, having unauthorative info is ;) ...Zoebuggie☺whispers 23:04, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

To be honest, when think about it, I have experienced poor and biased journalism from the BBC World Service, The Guardian, The Times Educational Supplement twice in connection with work and hobbies in the past. News Papers Pffffft Opinion Rags the lot of them ;) ...Zoebuggie☺whispers 23:24, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Page needs roncrusted

The page is needs to revamped. She has released two singles and is releasing an album. There is no need for countless sub-headings about new singles. Also why is there reviews in the sections of the singles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rui78901 (talk • contribs) 17:18, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

We have had this discussion before, over and over again, this page does not need 'reconcrusted', it is fine as it is. It has a clear and easy to read format, separating what has happened from future events. If and when the unnamed/no release date album is released, then the singles that are from that album will be included in its section. ...Zoebuggie☺whispers 19:33, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I've moved the paragraph about her forthcoming single to "Future Projects", because it isn't a released single. I must say, I like the word 'reconcrusted', though 'deconcrusted' would be better :) It sums up quite well what needs to be done when an article turns into a fan page, packed with every glowing quote that has every been uttered about the subject. Sionk (talk) 11:28, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

They are just descriptive comments from reliable sources and I have mostly taken the glow off them. I do look out for negative reviews from reliable approved sources to give some balance, but I have not yet found one from that would stand up to your scrutiny. If you got them add them were relevant. I thought I had one tonight but the web stats were bad for the site....Zoebuggie☺whispers 00:42, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Ninth Innings

I don't think Misha is on the track..you can not hear her (or it so minor they have edited her out), nor can I find any other reference that supports the claim (apart from the one original source that says she is on the track) not even misha's fb or twitter support Misha being on the Missy Elliott track....Zoebuggie☺whispers 18:24, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Dont want to remove in case I am wrong..anyone else can double check...Zoebuggie☺whispers 18:30, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

More checking...musicbrainz...no mention of Misha...being obsessive I have done repeated searches on google to no avail...apart from the 2 cited sources...are they mistaken aka Misha and Automatic? ...Zoebuggie☺whispers 00:39, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I have been checking over and over, Misha is not mention anywhere connected to the actual track, nothing from Elliott or Bryan supports the 2 sources claims. So I will remove, but correct me if I am wrong. ...Zoebuggie☺whispers 14:56, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

BLP:23/09/2012

Moved back. This move was not agreed. please dont remove a BLPN discussion without talking about it first at the very least...Zoebuggie☺whispers 00:17, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Subheading for 2012

Hello,

Can we establish a consensus on which subheading should be used? Should it either be "2012 - present: Mixtapes and debut studio album" or "2012 - present: Debut Single, Mix tape and current musical projects", or does anyone else have a suggestion? Thanks. :)Jennie | ☎ 15:40, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I am grateful for Jennie for sensibly starting this discussion here. Apart from comments in our edit summaries in the relevant little edit dispute, it is also discussed here Misha B... I personally think "2012 - present: Debut Single, Mix tape and current musical projects" refers to more verifiable and notable facts, and is just as inclusive as just refering to one free tape release and two non independently verified future events....Zoebuggie☺whispers 16:20, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Why not just "2012"? After all, 2012 is the present at the moment. All the same, I have no great qualms about "2012 - present". Sionk (talk) 22:25, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

"2012" is a simple compromise, def not my first choice, but ok... or "2012: Initial Releases" ...Zoebuggie☺whispers 23:15, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

or "2012: Record Contract, Music Releases and Tour", "2012: Music Projects", ..."2012: Debut Singles and Mixtapes" ...as the album is according to a hint from Misha B due after Xmas....Zoebuggie☺whispers 14:47, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

How about "Career 2012 - date" and renaming the first section of Biography "Early life"? Succinct and straightforward. Sionk (talk) 14:52, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Yep, no problem with that. ...Zoebuggie☺whispers 15:04, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Done Sionk (talk) 15:24, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

LOLOL :) someone has come along and changed it to "2012: Record Deal and Début Album" ish another person thinking debut album needs to be in the title :) , this version is more encompassing...ok by me and generally I will try to withdraw from this minor issue....Zoebuggie☺whispers 22:21, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

That's fine. It will probably be changed to the name of the debut album whenever it is announced. Jennie | ☎ 15:46, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Influences

Why is Amy Winehouse left out of her influences? For FFS she has Amy on her facebook page as one of her main influences above most of the others and said she was irreplacable, Amy is probably her main one after MJ and Beyonce.--Hatefem (talk) 09:06, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

"Petite diva", a possible personal life section?

Hello,

At the moment claims that Misha B is "petite", "outgoing" or a "diva" are not relevant to a Musical style or influences section that discusses the person's skills as a musician. Perhaps consider a new "Personal life" section? I think this article could be due one. Is there anything else that could be included in this; relationships, beliefs, etc.? —Jennie | ☎ 22:10, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

:) ah I like compromise.. yes possibly the was a poorly written section by me about her dress sense and its reception before that we/you could def improve. I thought it was bit irrelevant. Also her love of cycling, which she has said is her second love....Zoebuggie☺whispers 22:22, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Those would be nice additions. Feel free to start it. I might look into some of her beliefs, etc. and find some sources. —Jennie | ☎ 22:33, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

here is the old section, poss too wordy...my writing style might well be considered um...'journalistic' ...while all i want to do is make my edits readable :)

Bryan has also became known for her creative outfits and quirky dress-sense, "On the first live show, she emerged in a frock made out of newspapers, teamed with a chicken-wire fascinator" (The Daily Telegraph). Bryan says she is not concerned what critics say, "My style is all about freedom of expression; I wear what I want to wear, when I want to wear it". For instance, for the Home Run music video she wore extravagant monogrammed eyelashes which spelled out, at different times, her name and the song's title; and for her gigs of the weekending August 6 2012, Bryan wore the 'craziest' high heel-less white studded platforms.

opps part have been reused already ...the telegraph quote...Zoebuggie☺whispers 22:42, 20 October 2012 (UTC) but i have seen more recent stuff ...mobo interview this week...will start looking at it tomorrow...Zoebuggie☺whispers 22:53, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

"Oh and I like riding my bike!! "... "I got lots of bikes …riding bikes is my second favourite thing to do".

...Zoebuggie☺whispers 22:55, 21 October 2012 (UTC) +

Locked

Because of the apparent inability of User:Zoeblackmore and User:Wikimucker to settle their content disputes here instead of in the article, I have locked the article for 5 days. It was that or block you both for edit-warring. Any resumption of editing the article by either of you after the lock expires without a crystal-clear consensus may be met with a block. You have 5 days to work things out - amicably, focusing on content, not conduct. There are also dispute resolution mechanisms available to you if you reach an impasse.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:44, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I have been accused of vandalism on my own talk page. That's a first in the 7+ years I have contributed to the Wiki.

Frankly I'd sooner this page was permanently taken under Admin control only from now on. Thanks Bbb23 Wikimucker (talk) 22:50, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

:) Unlike someone I have been discussing this article on this page for several months and look forward Wikimucker positive contributions here.

Initial thoughts:

A.The dozen sources are undeniable and support the original edit by I believe 'Jennie (or Sionk (talk).

B. Is it the word critic you have difficulty with.

C You not only changed the critic line but also intentionally deleted following line including the quotes from the telegraph...Zoebuggie☺whispers 23:05, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)In their support, generally I agree with Wikimucker's recent edits. It seems the other party has been the one name-calling and breaking the 3RR rule without attempting discussion. There has been a continual problem with NPOV on this article (which is by no means unique with articles about pop singers). I'm in favour of having a balanced, authoritative appraisal of Misha B, but it is often easier to give up the endless (rapidly escalated) arguments and do something more useful instead! Sionk (talk) 23:15, 21 October 2012" (UTC)" QFT (talk).

And I do feel the Admins are best qualified to turn this largely PR material sourced mess into an NPOV article. I have never EVER been accused of vandalism before (most of the time I never even log in beacuse the Wiki is not a scoring exercise). Wikimucker (talk) 23:31, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Dear Sionk that is simply not true...I did not begin the name calling and I was not the first to break the 3RR rule.

WM changed the original line,

I entered several new indepedent sources.

WM removed my edit

I replaced my edit

WM removed my edit and following sentence re telegraph

I replaced my edit and telegraph line

WM removed my edit and following sentence re telegraph

I replaced my edit and telegraph line

that makes me second in the silly edit conflict...Zoebuggie☺whispers 23:30, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Dear Sionk I am not the only Wikipedia editor subjected to deletions. I may be the only Wikipedia editor subjected to accusations on their own talk page in connection with this article (or its antecedents).

I am,however, hopeful that the Admins will own this page henceforth. Wikimucker (talk) 23:41, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

LOL wikipedia automatically took me to your page once i believed rightly or wrongly you were vandalising the page ( e.g. the removal of the telegraph line as well as my edit). The first time I did not leave a comment as I was unhappy to accuse you on your page. The second time you removed both my edit and the telegraph I was again automatically taken to your page and wrote that I thought you were approaching vandalism ...I see you have now tried to delete that fact ...have you heard of page histories? Since Wikipedia took me to your page directly I guess you are not the first person to be politely warned about possible 'vandalism'. Maybe vandalism was too harsh but I could not think of a better description at the time...Zoebuggie☺whispers 23:59, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I really don't care as long as the Admins appoint a quality editor to thsi page in future. Other more reputable Users than I have attempted to clean this article up and to introduce normal Wiki NPOV standards but have been systemically thwarted in their honest efforts. At the end of the day we are not paid to monitor the constant eruptions of POV and PR material that have ruined this particular article. Wikimucker (talk) 00:07, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry I doubted your obvious squeaky clean NPOV and the 'honesty' of your clean up edits. Your repeated attacks against me, use of the tabloid press as a one sided reference to the allogations and removal of the telegraph line which had been agreed by other editors in an earlier discussion must have been all done in good faith....Zoebuggie☺whispers 00:21, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Weeeelllll , ummmm. You simply removed ..........everything. I am not the only editor who found themselves in this situation but I do not wish for any others to find themselves dragged into this and am quite happy to 'take one for the team' as it were. Wikimucker (talk) 00:34, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Misha AMBER Bryan

two sources if you accept that sometimes they are ok ...her facebook and twitter accounts. ...Zoebuggie☺whispers 22:35, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

i first saw it on the spanish wikipedia...and at least 2 other editors have added it ...so I not really checked before as not controversial...Zoebuggie☺whispers 22:43, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Neither are great sources, but neither provide use of her middle name as she uses her professional name, "Misha B", on both. It needs to be reliably sourced as it has and will be challenged by editors. —Jennie | ☎ 22:58, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate about FB and twitter not generally reliable sources and totally accept that because of that, the edit maybe removed...but her middle name is there on both social media sites ...my google search is full of them :) ...Zoebuggie☺whispers 23:07, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

NB if you continually remove mention of bullying for BLP reasons, for the same reasons you should not add poorly sourced personal details such as (alleged) full birth(?) name. Sionk (talk) 10:58, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I did not realise you were wikimucker? stop snipping at me please and concentrate on real issues, I do try to get it right, don't blame me for following BLP and keeping the gutter press out of Wikipedia.. I was restoring other editors edits which on first look did not seem controversial and a quick look on google seemed on the face of it ok for something so basic...to be honest I am much less certain that Amber is her middle name and Jennie is correct above....Zoebuggie☺whispers 11:51, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Maybe you'd like to retract that? Personalising arguments doesn't solve them. Of course I'm not sockpuppeting as Wikimucker. Stick to making your argument based on Wikipedia policy, and/or article content. Sionk (talk) 12:38, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

You do realise it was a joke, it just seems odd that your comment above support the poorly source (the sun) trashy contributions of an obvious troll and have another 'personal' dig at me. Instead of helping a newish editor trying to get it right, from the word go you made it your job to be officious and negative in your approach to me. It gets tiring....Zoebuggie☺whispers 13:22, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Why do i feel picked upon, compare your close scrutiny of my misha b contribution here and on the list page...compared to several other 2011 competitors sections on that list page which are plenty uncited sections and poorly sourced entries that allowed by you and others to remain? I am not encouraged to contribute much further in wikipedia ...Zoebuggie☺whispers 15:16, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

You have been the main editor on Misha B material so its inevitable I have an interest in your edits. People who disagree with you are not necessarily trolls or vandals or picking on you. Anyway, this thread has gone way off topic. Sionk (talk) 15:47, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I trawled through Google for indication of her birth name and not one single source used her middle name; the only use of it was by fans on Twitter. Concerning Wikimucker, you were right to remove The Sun references as they were not from reliable sources, but he/she is welcome to include the fact that she did receive allegations of bullying on the show as that can be reliably sourced. The previous "BLP violation" arose from a lack of neutrality in a previous portrayal of the controversy and Wikimucker's last edit would have been acceptable (if it was reliably sourced). I myself am currently working on implementing something about the controversy on The X Factor into the article, although it is unfinished. Please do not feel discouraged from editing Zoeblackmore, it can sometimes difficult to work on an article when people have differing ideas, methods and approaches. —Jennie | ☎ 16:06, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I will of course be vigilant in protecting NPOV, BLP and checking the authority of such sources in any such additions. Hopefully nothing from the tabloid press. Are even Walsh or Tulisa authoritative sources? The wrongful allegations were not noteworthy enough to give Bryan a page in early 2012, they are increasingly less notable now. (I see Wikimucker was given a warning over his last entry, not just the jibe at me)....Zoebuggie☺whispers 21:04, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to post up what I've done here, eventually, so you and other editors can contribute to it. I think it's certainly relevant; Bryan herself has said these allegations caused her demise in The X Factor and the absence of its mention is attracting attention. Reading over the previous BLP issue, there was a problem with the neutrality of how the section was written, although most editors did support the inclusion of a mention of it. I think we can move towards documenting the events, but removing the opinions of contestants, media, etc, to ensure the neutrality issues are addressed. —Jennie | ☎ 21:22, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Surely if all the potential victims denied it happened then their statements are relevent in showing the accusation was baseless? ...Zoebuggie☺whispers 21:48, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

The was absolutely no BLP issue with the neutrality...but it was bit over wordy, which I reduced by half on the Xfactor 8 page....Zoebuggie☺whispers 21:51, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

The neutrality issues concerning the previous coverage of the controversy were discussed here. If there are reliable sources saying that the victims (whoever that was) denied it, then I'm sure you could include them. —Jennie | ☎ 22:05, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

No not really .... "'The massive "controversies" section went well past being undue weight. Further, I suspect that "Accusations" on "reality shows" are not of actual biographical value here - try finding NPOV language for a short mention? Possibly ok -- but not this melange. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:53 pm, 16 August 2012, Thursday (2 months, 5 days ago) (UTC+1)

Having just come across this article, I agree with this removal - that amount of content on fairly trivial 'controversies' was unnecessary. .... Robofish (talk) 2:52 pm, 16 August 2012, Thursday (2 months, 5 days ago) (UTC+1)'" were the reasons for its removal not neutrality of the existing words. ...Zoebuggie☺whispers 22:14, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

"The massive "controversies" section went well past being undue weight. Further, I suspect that "Accusations" on "reality shows" are not of actual biographical value here - try finding NPOV language for a short mention? Possibly ok -- but not this melange. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:53 pm, 16 August 2012, Thursday (2 months, 5 days ago) (UTC+1)

(As highlighted) The issue of neutrality was arisen here. —Jennie | ☎ 22:21, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

I believe Collect was saying the original was undue because it was simply too wordy/too big ...not that it was not NPOV ...and then he says it has NO BIOGRAPHICAL VALUE and says it may possibly ok to write a short mention if it too can be NPOV. ...which I doubt. ...Zoebuggie☺whispers 22:27, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Undue weight is part of Wikipedia's policy on a neutral point of view. I think what he/she means is explicit. See here. Documenting the fact that she was accused of bullying, who accused her, the reactions of the judges and the ultimate consequences of Bryan's progression in the competition would meet WP:NPOV and WP:BLP - I'm not interested in proving the claims right or wrong. —Jennie | ☎ 22:32, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Despite my personal POV I originally accepted that other editors wanted the bully saga inclusion - so I honestly tried to 'Documenting the fact that she was accused of bullying, who accused her, the reactions of the judges and the ultimate consequences of Bryan's progression in the competition would meet' but maybe my original was too wordy/too many individual references etc. I did not call for its removal...that was a BLP admins advice. Believing (rightfully or wrongly) that the admin was not only giving BLP advice but also I believe criticising, the amount of space given over to the allegations (true or not) I edited down the same paragraph that I had contributed to the bullying allegation. Though the section equally breaches the same BLP principles as the one in the article...I have not sort to ask as to whether it should be removed.

"Allegation of bullying"

"During week 3, Misha Bryan was accused[151] before a live television audience of being mean to her fellow contestants, by judge Tulisa Contostavlos and Louis Walsh who said one of his acts had "complained about Misha bullying her backstage"[152][153] Judges Kelly Rowland and Gary Barlow defended Bryan, against the allegations.[154][155] On the Results Show the following Night, 23 October, Louis Walsh fully apologized for his bully accusation.[156][157] No evidence was ever provided to support either allegation, and nearly all of Misha's fellow contestants went public to deny any the truth in the accusations, [158][159] [160] [161] [162] [163] [164] as did Rikki Finlay, the X factor stylist, who worked closely with Bryan.[165]"

"Several tabloid papers took up the bully charge, [166][167][168] and on three occasions before she left the competition Bryan had the lowest votes, so the allegations may have hurt Bryan's chances of winning.[169] On 3 December, following her semi-final performances, Barlow said he believed Contostavlos and Walsh had ruined Bryan's chances "You have been wrongfully accused in the past of being someone that you are not.... I don't think you can win this competition because of that and that's a real shame".[170] Bryan asked about her experience on X Factor said "I one hundred percent appreciate the platform it gave me...but it's not for the faint-hearted lol. You have to remember that at the end of the day it’s an entertainment show for TV,"[171] "Things are said which are out of all of our hands as contestants. I wasn't asked any questions, I was just accused."[172]"

...Zoebuggie☺whispers 09:55, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Removed c.10 links , mainly from celebrity type magazines and from an entertainment forum, backing an assertion which was previously a verified quote from a single reference and with same quotes deliberately removed. Extreme and deliberate POV makeover not worthy of an Encyclopedia article. Wikimucker (talk) 21:48, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Telegraph? a celebrity type magazine etc. lol. Who apart from you removed anything related to this matter. Everyone has a POV, the trick is to recognise it and do your best to be objective. Having written the conspiracy section on the X factor * page (inc the words of tabloids and 'celebrities' on the doubtful allogation) I honestly believe I have demonstrated my neutrality...Zoebuggie☺whispers 09:55, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

The constant conflation of PR flummery and genuine 'Criticism' in the classic sense is beoming tedious. Wikimucker (talk) 22:20, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I give up :( Wikimucker (talk) 22:40, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

:):) you wanna be in my gang, my gang...instead of trying to discuss, compromise or resolve the issue below me thinks someone is blatantly trying to recruit other editors to their crusade. Lets stop this little game, stop the personal attacks...Zoebuggie☺whispers 09:55, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

"Several critics"

Wouldn't it be simpler to remove the quotes marks from 'most exciting' in the Misha B#2011: The X Factor section. Quotations need to be backed up by an inline citation. It is currently supported by thirteen sources, which surely cannot be correct. If the description is a general one, the quotes marks aren't needed. If the quotes remain, cite it to the critic who made the statement. Sionk (talk) 23:21, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I am ok by that ...Zoebuggie☺whispers 23:31, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

If a more appropiate word than critic can be used...I am happy with that too....Zoebuggie☺whispers 23:40, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Oh the 13 sources support the whole line not just the quoted part. I realise that this is possibly excessive, but it was done in good humour as a response to Wikimucker removal of the original 'critics' to a very insistant 'one critic' ...maybe I would not have reacted so much to a more neutral edit like ' a critic'. ...Zoebuggie☺whispers 23:50, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Most of the 13 'sources' are PR newswires. They were egregiously described as "critics" ....and they are not. Wikimucker (talk) 23:56, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

You have zero evidence for reviews and other articles that you do not like being newswires...Zoebuggie☺whispers 00:02, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Pr Newswires, not Newswires. Can you prove none of your 13 "sources" are a Newswire! Wikimucker (talk) 00:12, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Respectful request: Please can you indent your lines properly so others can easily follow easily. OK they are obiviously not 'PR Newswires', but just a collection of reviews and articles similar in origin to those written about other singers....Zoebuggie☺whispers 00:27, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

I would accept the 13 reviews being reduced to a smaller authoritative number to support the word 'several' critics/source/reviews/articles ...which can be bundled or not bundled if folks prefer...Zoebuggie☺whispers 00:36, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

I think 'folks prefer' normal Wiki NPOV standards, same as always. Wikimucker (talk) 00:39, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Of the thirteen sources:

1. Music News.com definitely reads like an undigested press release (no named author)
2. The Telegraph (blog) piece is probably trustworthy and gives good praise, for example "Misha Bryan is streets ahead of the rest, so much so that at times it’s been almost embarrassing"
3. I don't know why the Glamour.com interview is included - its Misha B talking about herself!
4. Now Daily seems to be a reliable piece by the Assistant Editor - "one of the standout contestants"
5. Digital Spy talks about her single, not her. Not a useful source here.
6. The second Telegraph post is by the same critic and probably an unnecessary duplicate.
7. Bring the Noise seems to be a dubious source, probably not of journalistic worth.
8. The second Music News.com link is a duplicate of number 1 above. Not necessary either.
9. QX magazine seems to be Misha B talking about herself yet again. Not a useful source here.
10. Ditto the Student Pocket Guide.
11. Is the second Student Pocket Guide link a duplicate of the first? Seems not to work.
12. SoSoGay is probably an okay journalistic source - "vibrant and multi-talented"
13. Pop Dash is a dubious (probably user-contributed) source which says very little.

So overall, the vast majority of these sources aren't necessary. And the reliable sources are very positive indeed, no question of that! Sionk (talk) 01:21, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

1. MNcom I need to check further ...Zoebuggie☺whispers 02:12, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
2. Telegraph agreed.
3. Glamour: Yes it is a preamble to an interview, but the headline text "Could she become The X Factor class of 2011's hottest output? Yes, if her new single Home Run (available to download now) is anything to go by" I would suggest are not her words but the magazines?...Zoebuggie☺whispers 02:12, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
4. Now Daily agreed.
5. DS: "the result is a euphoric urban paean that places Misha as one of the most exciting acts ever to have come out of a talent competition." I do think this describes Bryan rather than the song...Zoebuggie☺whispers 02:12, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
6. Telegraph: It is a different article...maybe better as the one above is used in the sentence that follows this one :)...Zoebuggie☺whispers 02:12, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
7. BtN: Need to check, it seemed ok, but I have been mistaken in the past...Zoebuggie☺whispers 02:12, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
8. MNcom: yup def my error, sorry :) ☒...Zoebuggie☺whispers 02:15, 22 October 2012 (UTC) **{ Added I think this was a Link copy and paste error...possibly I meant http://www.4music.com/news/news/6267/Misha-B-Do-You-Think-Of-Me-behind-the-scenes or the very fact she has been nominated for a mobo http://mobo.com/acoustic-sessions (not the best link)}Italic text
9. QX: Not her words again but the article writers "She was one of the most unique contestants to ever grace the X Factor, now she’s striking out on her own and garnering some big love for her debut single ‘Home Run’"
10. SPG Yes its an interview but the leading quote inc "the Mancunian has stormed into recognition and emerged as one of the UK’s hottest young breakthrough artists". are clearly again not her words...Zoebuggie☺whispers 02:12, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
11. SG:Not a duplicate... one is the "Student guide" the other the "Student pocket guide" again not her words
12. So So Gay agreed
13. PD: again I will double check if needed...I thought it looked ok

Hi sorry was not sure the best way to add my comments to your valued investigation (move them under your whole reply if you think it looks confusing), I still agree however...even if I am right about sources being ok...the best ones should be selected to support the sentence.... several or a number or critics or reviewers or commentators or sources. How many do we need?...Zoebuggie☺whispers 02:12, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

I've added your comments after mine, so that my comments (and numbered bullets) make sense. Sionk (talk) 11:51, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

:) yes...I have further tried to make the link bt your analysis and my comments clearer, hope that isacceptable....Zoebuggie☺whispers 14:52, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Sionk is entirely correct in their analysis of the 13 sources relied upon in that last Peacocking eruption, for which analysys I thank them.Wikimucker (talk) 07:31, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

How about:

"Some music critics have described Bryan as one of the more exciting and gifted singers to emerge from the talent show."

ref: A adequate representative sample from the links below:

1. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/x-factor/8935329/Why-was-Misha-B-knocked-out-of-the-X-Factor.html
2. http://www.nowmagazine.co.uk/blogs/now-says/536828/why-i-always-knew-misha-b-had-the-x-factor
3. http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/music/singlesreviews/a431604/misha-b-do-you-think-of-me-single-review.html ... (if you accept its OK)
4. http://www.glamourmagazine.co.uk/celebrity/entertainment/monitor/2012/06/misha-b-home-run-x-factor-interview ... (if you accept its OK)
5. http://www.4music.com/news/news/6267/Misha-B-Do-You-Think-Of-Me-behind-the-scenes ... (if you accept its OK)
6. http://www.thestudentguide.com/news_and_reviews/article/misha_b_interview and/or http://www.thestudentpocketguide.com/2012/09/music-film-tv/music/misha-b-interview/ ... (if you accept they are OK)
7. http://sosogay.co.uk/2012/singles-of-the-week-16-july-2012/

...Zoebuggie☺whispers 05:17, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

For the record, I don't think any of the (if you accept its OK)'s are okay. This is exactly the problem that has dogged this article for months, where random snippets are trawled from the internet to back up a point of view. In particular the 4music link seems to say nothing at all about her X-factor performance, while the studentguide link is itself quoting other (unattributed) critics. Sionk (talk) 09:20, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

This article is 'supported' to a great extent by hyperactively quoting from celebrity and lifestyle magazines and is consequently lacking provenance and references that are in any way worthy of an encyclopedia article. As soon as some of it is cleaned up more of this unreliable gloop inevitably appears in the article. Again I would question how someone with a single top 20 hit to her name in the UK in any way deserves an article around half as long as Whitney Houstons wiki bio. Wikimucker (talk) 09:35, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Soink. Thats OK...firstly we can go with 5 or 4 or less refs ...as 7 is prob still too much.

The 4music link is very much about her emergence from the show not ...

"Considering that this time last year, Misha was nervously waiting to find out whether she'd made it to the live X Factor shows, it's been a momentous year for the singer. Not only has she successfully launched herself as a credible chart artist, Misha has been nominated for a Best Newcomer gong at the MOBOs and was personally selected by Nicki Minaj as support for her UK tour this autumn. Wowzers!" From audition to Mobo award and stadium tour with a leading international artist. Am in inferring too much?

I agree the studentguide quote ‘one of the most exciting singers to emerge from the show’ is unattributed, but so familiar

The Student Pocket Guide is quoting it's paper version..(http://www.thestudentpocketguide.com/about-the-student-pocket-guide/) which we can see from the top picture of the magazines page http://www.thestudentpocketguide.com/2012/09/music-film-tv/music/misha-b-interview/

Zoebuggie☺whispers 12:04, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

The 4music article simply reports facts, it doesn't say anywhere that she was exciting or talented in X-factor. The sentence we are citing is about her participation in X-factor. Sionk (talk) 19:57, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

A-c-tually :) the sentence from our article reads "Several critics have described her as one of the 'most exciting' and talented singers to emerge from the talent show"...the operative phrase is 'emerge from the show' ...the 4 music says once she was just a nervous x factor auditionee, but she has emerged from the show not only launching a music career but has been recognised enough to get a mobo nomination ......Zoebuggie☺whispers 21:12, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Actually the sentence is in the section headed '2011: The X Factor'. It is not the appropriate place to talk about her future MOBO nomination, or anything else that happened months later. There's plenty in the remainder of the article to cover that. References should address her perfomance and talent in the X-factor. By all means use the 4music source somewhere else, but not here. Sionk (talk) 22:02, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

But ..but :( the sentence and the 4music source is about x factor and her emergence ...bu but ...its not vital we can use some of the sources we agree upon. Maybe the sentence with 4music citation is better placed in the articles lead/head section whatever it's called...or is it too controversial?...Zoebuggie☺whispers 23:53, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Wikimucker

I think you may be mistaken regards Misha's page being half as long as Whitney Houston's pages

Whitney Houston 42,646 words 242,417 characters

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whitney_Houston

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whitney_Houston_discography

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Whitney_Houston_tours_and_concerts

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_awards_and_nominations_received_by_Whitney_Houston

Does not include Wikipedia entries on approx 90 of releases and co recordings or 76 of her tours and performances.

Misha B 2,210 words Words, 12,657 characters

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misha_B

Does not include her début single

Zoebuggie☺whispers 12:51, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Looking at over a dozen pages in respect of new (last 3 years) UK music artist the quality and reliability of the Misha B citations stands up very well.

Why so many references...well that’s easy...at least one editor follows the rule “any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may (SHOULD) be removed. Having been an editor for effectively 4 months, I am still learning/discovering which sources are not acceptable and how to check their quality, sometimes by surprise. The is no rule that citations should be limited to any number, especially where the is contention. So more sources are used as a way of defence. Also Wikipedia is not a physical book, it has in effect unlimited space, however if an article is over long it is not attractive to read...so one sentence can combine several source materials.

The reliability & appropriateness of any source depends on the context. Each source can be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is the best such source for that context.

In general, while the best sources have a professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments; the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the source. Journalists often work with strong time pressure and have access to only a limited number of information sources. Plus leading news publications often lack a NPOV and contain several layers of bias, where a small publication may be written by someone more expert in the field....Zoebuggie☺whispers 14:24, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

On a personal note: to be honest I do have a bias based on personal experience of misreporting from Guardian, Times Educational Supplement and the BBC World Service relating a hobby/business I once co-ran, never mind the less respected rags. I have had close friends who have been hounded and invaded by the Daily Mail and the gutter press and some so called award winning journalists because they belong to a minority. Not only have I written to the PCC on several occasions but also successfully confronted Lord Hunt chair of the PCC with tough questions in a debate (March 16th2012) around the Levision enquiry, in a debate that also included Christopher Jefferies, who was libelled by several newspapers during a murder inquiry....Zoebuggie☺whispers 21:35, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

We are not, all of a sudden, going to resolve 'Endless Persecution' issues in a Wiki talk page surely??? Wikimucker (talk) 23

22, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

LOL no I just find it hard personally to trust any news source, however exalted they might be. :)...Zoebuggie☺whispers 23:53, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

So which ones will you promise NOT to reference in future ???? Wikimucker (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:59, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

LOL you are so funny. Whitney Houston 42,646 words 242,417 characters: Misha B 2,210 words Words, 12,657 characters OR MB page is half the size as WH page as you put it. Please continue, if you wish, making unsupported claims and little jibes aimed at me or shall we move on?...Zoebuggie☺whispers 01:01, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Where are we with this?

Proposal "A number music articles have described Bryan as one of the more exciting and gifted singers to emerge from the TV talent show."

ref: A adequate representative sample from the links below:

1. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/x-factor/8935329/Why-was-Misha-B-knocked-out-of-the-X-Factor.html

1. http://www.nowmagazine.co.uk/blogs/now-says/536828/why-i-always-knew-misha-b-had-the-x-factor

1. http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/music/singlesreviews/a431604/misha-b-do-you-think-of-me-single-review.html

1. http://www.thestudentpocketguide.com/2012/09/music-film-tv/music/misha-b-interview/

1. http://sosogay.co.uk/2012/singles-of-the-week-16-july-2012/

I still think these are ok, but not essential ...http://www.glamourmagazine.co.uk/celebrity/entertainment/monitor/2012/06/misha-b-home-run-x-factor-interview

...http://www.4music.com/news/news/6267/Misha-B-Do-You-Think-Of-Me-behind-the-scenes

...Zoebuggie☺whispers 21:12, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

These articles, from what I can see, refer to Series 8 Only.

"A number music articles have described Bryan as one of the more exciting and gifted singers to emerge from the 2011 Series of the TV talent show."

Would appear more accurate to me. Wikimucker (talk) 21:43, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Thats ok by me...Zoebuggie☺whispers 21:53, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Are we agreed? "A number music articles have described Bryan as one of the more exciting and gifted singers to emerge from the 2011 Series of the TV talent show."

supporting refs

1. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/x-factor/8935329/Why-was-Misha-B-knocked-out-of-the-X-Factor.html
2. http://www.nowmagazine.co.uk/blogs/now-says/536828/why-i-always-knew-misha-b-had-the-x-factor
3. http://www.thestudentpocketguide.com/2012/09/music-film-tv/music/misha-b-interview/
4. http://sosogay.co.uk/2012/singles-of-the-week-16-july-2012/

1. http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/music/singlesreviews/a431604/misha-b-do-you-think-of-me-single-review.html?