Talk:Susan Boyle/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Wording

Is it just me or does this page make her seem greater than sliced bread? It reads like she is the greatest sensation ever. Also, I feel like the number of 'diggs' that a video gets is not encyclopedic.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.189.155.54 (talk • contribs)

I reworded the lead section a bit, per WP:NPOV. just64helpin (talk) 14:26, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Year of birth and age

There is no real chance that she was born in 1962. At the audition on 21st January 2009 she stated that she was almost 48. She is very likely 48 already. Salopian (talk) 02:06, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Also, it's worth mentioning that it's been widely reported that her date of birth is 15 June 1961. It's even listed on the Japanese version of this article. Try a google search for "susan boyle 15 june 1961" and you'll see. However, I'm not sure how many of these sources are reputable. This would also still make her 47 for another two months. Haku8645 (talk) 01:47, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

The June 15, 1961 birth date is WRONG and the April 1 1961 birth date is correct,

according to http://www.gro-scotland.gov.uk/ Susan Magdalena Boyle's birth was recorded in Uphall-West Lothian as April 1 1961. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.83.238.143 (talk) 15:38, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

• Issue discussed later in section Date of Birth contested SunCreator (talk) 05:19, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Digg & Reddit

Last I checked digg and reddit are user controlled sites. The contents or implication of anything on those sites doesn't meet WP:V and nothing can be sourced from them. There have been plenty of talk regarding the veracity of some of the submissions and how they become "popular" depending on who submits them, etc. There is no indication that the results of a digg submission are notable or reliable and constitute original research.--221.138.100.194 (talk)

14:26, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

How is referencing digg & reddit original research? I didn't submit them, I didn't even create this article. You make little to no sense here. R3ap3R.inc (talk) 16:36, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

What the OP means is that that since digg and reditt are populist rankings, they shouldn't be mentioned as "facts." In other words, I think what the OP means is that simply being FP on digg.com doesn't make a person noteworthy. But in this case, I think it's a supporting "fact", not the focus, making it OK. But I also agree that adding/removing that one statement wouldn't change the article for better or worse -- Bubbachuck (talk) 02:01, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually my point was that there is nothing notable about that fact. There are dozens upon hundreds of things front paged on those sites a day, all user controlled. There is not vetting of user votes, the process and algorithms are not open to public scrutiny. As such the rank on the page, how it front paged, votes, etc are not reliable information.--221.138.100.194 (talk) 02:35, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Judges

Is Piers Morgan judging America's Got Talent as well as Britain's Got Talent? 96.242.5.155 (talk) 17:22, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes Back ache (talk) 08:07, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Recent edits

While the majority of the edits were somewhat beneficial, there were enough errors to warrant an undo. Specifically, the spelling of multiple words was changed to reflect British english as oppossed to American (favorite vs favourite, skeptical v sceptical, etc). This article should stick with the standard Americanized English R3ap3R.inc (talk) 22:00, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

No, it should not. Please read WP:ENGVAR#Strong national ties to a topic, which states that article spelling should reflect the region of the world that the article's subject is from (or associated with). This person is from the United Kingdom, and the show she appeared on is "Britain's Got Talent", thus, using British English in this article is appropriate. Re-applying those changes. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 23:01, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I stand corrected; carry on R3ap3R.inc (talk) 01:45, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

viral

According to Wiktionary, the meaning of "viral" whcih the section here apparently using is as an adjective. Should a section be headed by an adjective? Also, should a section be headed by a relatively rare word? Should we expect a lot of our readers to have to go searching for the meaning of a heading? 211.225.37.54 (talk) 23:16, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone who has a computer and uses Wikipedia not know what viral means? Who is to say where the intelligence threshold may lie. There's nothing wrong with having to look up one thing to understand another. This is an encyclopedia afterall. Hrhadam (talk) 23:55, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Not one of the four people I asked (all users of Wik and one a computer programmer by training) had ever heard of viral in this sense.12:06, 14 April 2009 (UTC)12:07, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

changed to "web" as a more appropriate heading NMChico24 (talk) 04:04, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

changed to "Social Media" since web would also apply to the "mainstream" coverage. R3ap3R.inc (talk) 04:59, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I, like tens of thousands of others, just viewed Elaine Paige's version of "Memory" on YouTube. I would not consider the comments on this video as a WP:RS, but just a note to those who will watch the article for the long term, there is a string of "I watched this video because of Susan Boyle" comments. I predict a RS will publish the trend fairly soon. --Moni3 (talk) 15:31, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

authenticity

(please, editors please don't remove the following as being 'chat', although you would like to do to satisfy your sadistic desires) I think it is obvious she has talent, but you have to wonder if she is actually more experienced than we know at the moment and possibly have even been stylized specifically to get this old maid look - the 'ordinary' look that has worked so well for the other winners of the competition. Not saying it is the case, but if there is any information out there that can clarify the issue - in one direction or the other - I just think that would very relevant to add, because she looks just so much not a star that her performance is unbelievable. I think it will a greater concern with this contestant than any of the prior ones - it will be something that people come looking to get answered. --80.163.2.104 (talk) 11:02, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

If any such information is out there, then it likely would be relevant to the article. It would certainly be inappropriate for the article to discuss only the positive aspects...that would be unbalanced. However, since this is a biography, we must be very careful with what to include, to ensure that all information is absolutely accurate and not just rumour. Given her very recent entrance to the stage, pun intended, it will take time for her background to make it into the media. Patience :) — Huntster (t • @ • c) 11:27, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

As the AfD for this article was recently forum shopped, to the help desk, I thought I'd review the article. User:80.163.2.104, might I ask you please to restrain your comments to the article and it's content. While the term "editors’ turd" may be an urban dictionary definition, I doubt that many contributers here would take kindly to being referred to as a "turd editor". and having their desires referred to as "sadistic". Please tone it down a touch, thanks. — Ched :  ?  14:28, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Also, I strongly agree with Huntster; this is a BLP, and we should be careful not to be overly enthusiastic about adding information until it is verified by reliable secondary sources. At this point, I would think that her popularity on the Idol show was self-evident, and the number of YouTube hits indicates a wide interest of this topic. I would think that the coming weeks will allow a fair amount of expansion, without a need to engage in rumors, or speculation. — Ched :  ?  15:35, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

She was certainly a better singer than most of those teens that come on and sound like they're blowing a lung out to try to hit those high notes. She has a naturally strong voice. If she's a closet pro, it will come out soon enough, but it didn't seem like that was the case. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:56, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Not sure why "80.163.2.104" is looking for some kind of devil in the detail. I work in the music industry, but I don't need that to tell she's genuine. Of course, most of her 47 years have still to come out, but let it happen naturally & contribute when you KNOW something. It doesn't matter if she's a "closet pro" (I would be very surprised if she hasn't already done a few backing-vocal recording sessions for music I may know)... - 3 days ago, no-one had heard of her! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Newrone (talk • contribs) 01:31, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikinews

I think it is worth keeping for now as it is linked from an artical in wikinews, if this does get deleted, the executioner should go to wikinews and clear the linkBack ache (talk) 08:10, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Relevance?

This line seems somewhat irrelevant: "Also, the submitter was awarded the most subscriptions of the day. In addition, it was awarded 99 additional honours." Who cares if the person who submitted that video got a million subscriptions? It has nothing to do with Susan Boyle herself. 72.136.69.23 (talk) 13:58, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

-dude, it's an article about some mentalist looking woman on a talent show who hasn't even won the bloody thing. i think relevance has left town. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.19.185.214 (talk) 16:49, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Infobox

Genre: Pop, why? Hans (talk) 14:04, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Voice type: Soprano, why? (would prefer mezzo-soprano, if these categories are even to be considered for pop singers) -- megA (talk) 17:50, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

About her infobox, why is she listed as a singer? She described herself as unemployed. It should remain that way until she actually signs a record deal or some such. --Pstanton (talk) 18:48, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Good point, corrected. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:58, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Not at all. It's no more unusual to be a singer and to be unemployed than it is to be a singer and to be tall. The two things can be true at the same time and often are. The vast majority of singers do not have record deals and never will have. In fact the majority of singers work at other jobs such as teaching or selling, and only sing as a hobby. Only a minority of singers are able to earn their living by singing. This lady does not have a talent for being unemployed -- on the contrary she was a caregiver to her mother for many years -- but she does have a talent for singing. If she can't be classed as a singer then there are a whole lot of people with record deals who will also have to be taken out of that category. -- Derek Ross | Talk 04:30, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Occupation is typically interpreted by laypeople as their job, or how they make a living. She does not, currently, make a living by singing, so it would be inappropriate to use that in her infobox. Singing, at this point, would be more of a hobby for her...it would be akin to me saying Wikipedia is my occupation, even though I don't get paid for it. Once she actually gets a record out, or wins the contest, or anything else relating to singing, then we can toss in Singer into the 'box. It just wouldn't be appropriate at this point in time, IMO. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 04:46, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

But that's just the point: singing is not necessarily an occupation, any more than editing Wikipedia is. You may not make a living from working on Wikipedia but you are still a Wikipedian; you are a violinist if you can play the violin, even though you only do it for your own pleasure. Likewise she may not make a living by singing but she is still a singer. We should not confuse the possession of a skill or talent with the use of that skill or talent to earn a living. Consider that the only reason that she is known to anyone other than her family and friends is because of her singing. That is because, whatever else she may or may not be, she is definitely a singer. -- Derek Ross | Talk 04:58, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

CNN article

Is there anything new in this article? [1] Edhubbard (talk) 21:02, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

International press coverage

If international press coverage would need some more 'proof': It was in all but one Flemish newspapers (not the financial one). Hbvl, Hln, DS, DM, Gva, HNb Hans (talk) 22:30, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Heh, she made the front page of the Seattle Times today, that was how I heard of her first actually. --Pstanton (talk) 03:51, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Puffery problems

I have added Template:Puffery as it contains lots of trivial information which isn't needed.

1. Judges comment section, quoting the entire thing is inappropriate, this should be cut down considerably.
2. "The majority of British newspapers carried articles on Boyle's performance and subsequent internet coverage, including The Daily Telegraph[5] and The Sun[6]" why are these newspapers mentioned? Not needed.
3. "The most popular YouTube video submission garnered more than 1,000,000 views in the first 24 hours" no source.
4. "a five star rating across the board. This was despite embedding of the video being disabled. In addition, it was awarded 99 honours based on views, ratings, and other factors" all trivial.
5. "On the day following the performance, the YouTube video was the number one article for all categories on Digg, with nearly triple the votes ("diggs") of the second most popular.[13] The same video was also popular on Reddit, with enough clout to top this site's front page.[14]" again trivial stuff which I don't even think is sourced properly.

This is just the puffery problems, there are many other problems including a blogspot.com source.--Otterathome (talk) 02:43, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

1. Removed. If someone wants to reinsert some of this material judiciously, go ahead, but this definitely was "quotefarm" material.
2. Changed to focus on The Sun comments by Robertson, moved citation for The Telegraph to the YouTube section as a third-party source.
3. Now sourced, 2.5 mil in first 72 hours per The Telegraph.
4. Removed all but the honours bit, which serves to indicate popularity across a broad spectrum of locations (since those honours are broken down by location, many times).
5. I'm going to leave this alone...its not the best, but it does provide some kind of sourcing. Anyone else who can find better sources feel free to improve. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 03:45, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Given the rate of editing on this article at the present time, it's a bit difficult to pull any real major improvements into article space on this topic. In a couple days when the "fad" dies down, perhaps we can get some more substantial WP:BLP material added that can be referenced by some reliable sources. For the time being, I suspect the best we can hope for is to keep vandalism and speculation to a minimum. — Ched :  ?  04:37, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I added that blogspot source since it was quoted by the first news article in that section. We could cite the secondary newspaper source if that was preferable. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:31, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Impoverished Use of Information

The paraphrasing of the anthropologist is inaccurate and barely renders his overall message with any sense whatsoever. Please reassess and write with accuracy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Social Vindication (talk • contribs) 06:36, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

What would you suggest? I wrote that paraphrase, but I freely admit that I'm out of my field when dealing with psychology. Tim Vickers (talk) 15:30, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Sound clip

If copyright allows, would it be possible for someone to upload a sound clip or video clip from her rendition of "I Dreamed a Dream" to the article? I know that these soundclips are sometimes added to articles on songs and music, and I think about a ten second clip of her beginning the song would add a lot to the article personally. --Pstanton (talk) 19:16, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Thoughts on this issue are somewhat split. It might be possible to include a short clip under fair-use policy, but there has been considerable opposition toward including any kind of fair-use music on Wikipedia. I personally don't like to see it, as copyrighted music tends to be must more strictly controlled than fair-use imagry, but if a consensus can be found for its use, then make it happen. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 00:33, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Leave the page apart from Britain's Got Talent

I realise my opinion probably means nothing, but I do think Susan should be left apart from the Britain's Got Talent main page. While she did get her start there and certainly would not be as well known as she is now without it - it is her own talent that garnered the attention of Britain, the U.S. and indeed, the world. Personally, I wish her the best. Leave her page apart (at least for a while), so she gets the credit for being Susan Boyle, a great singer, and not just the frumpy lady from Scotland who got on Simon Cowell's show. She also most definately deserves it more than some of the crap people place and is allowed to stay on Wikipedia. TristaBella (cannot sign in at work)

24.176.191.234 (talk) 19:47, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Dont worry peoples pathetic attempts to delete this page failed overwhelmingly on several occasions. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:24, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Keep separate - the German: [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], Austrian: [9], Swiss: [10], and Italian [11], [12] media is already full with her; even the evening news - something the show never achieved. She is a worldwide sensation and clearly far bigger than the show; therefore keep separate!! --noclador (talk) 00:10, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

• Keep Seperate I'd say making it into those newspapers, and today the front page of the Seattle Times establishes notability independent of the show beyond a doubt, not to mention the pending record deal with SyCo --Pstanton (talk) 04:47, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

This discussion is pointless The question has been settled, at least for now, by around a hundred people expressing their opinions when the article was nominated for deletion. It will continue to exist as a separate article for the near future. If she for some reason drops out of sight, the question may come up again, but until then there is no reason to waste time worrying about it. Looie496 (talk) 05:35, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

off-topic stuff again

I feel the Susan_Boyle#Social_media section has off-topic/trivial stuff.

1. The Washington post quote "Modern society is too quick to judge people on their appearances. ... There is not much you can do about it; it is the way they think; it is the way they are. But maybe this could teach them a lesson, or set an example." this isn't really about the subject, it's about the audience how they responded. Not important?
2. Amanda Holden's quote, again is this really that relevant and important?
3. In the following paragraphs there's some stuff which would fit better in Britain's Got Talent article.

I haven't added any templates as it isn't as bad as before.--Otterathome (talk) 12:59, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I can certainly understand your concern on that; but, I don't really hold the same view. While it may be a bit of a tangent, I think it directly addresses the very core of what has propelled this person to the level of attention she currently has. The section does maintain the relevance to Susan, and does in my opinion enhance the value of the article. I suspect that in time, as the number of items we can expand upon increases, we may be able to prune it back a bit - but for now, I'd be in favor of keeping this section. It actually explains quite a bit of the "why" when dealing with her sudden rise to popularity and notoriety. IMHO — Ched :  ?  16:57, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

The article needs to explain what has happened and also why this has happened. These two viewpoints are equally important. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:07, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

View counts

Viral Video Chart (www.viralvideochart.com) tracks the number of views on all the duplicate videos (they've found 63 so far). Is there any reason not to use that view count instead of just the YouTube count? As of right now, it's showing more than 37 million views. Gingerwiki (talk) 14:35, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

This seems more sensible to me, also. J4cK0fHe4rt5 (talk) 17:21, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Current Person

I've restored the {{Current Person}} tag. The tag doesn't claim that this is an article about a current event, but rather it claims that the article is about a person involved in a current event (Talent contest) - I believe that's quite accurate. But hey, I'm not going to bicker about it, if folks want to remove a tag that accurately describes the article - that's not something I'm going to get my shorts in a bunch over. — Ched :  ?  17:07, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

If we have one here, we would also need to add one to Simon Cowell. I'm not convinced that's really needed. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:09, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it was another editor that had added it originally, and I simply restored it. It made sense to me because I'd think it would explain a lot of the edit conflicts that people are bound to be having, given the amount of editing that's being done right now. Certainly not something worth bickering about, so ... whatever you think is best, is fine by me. — Ched :  ?  19:23, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review underway

I'm putting this notification up as a courtesy for those that participated in the recent Deletion request for this article. A Deletion Review of my close of the Deletion request is underway at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2009 April 17#Susan Boyle. Thank you. rootology (C)(T) 19:57, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Picture

Ok, I'm having a really hard time finding a picture, the only free one on Flickr was one in which some fool had cropped in a Disney character, if someone could find another picture, or fix the one on Flickr, that'd be great. --Pstanton (talk) 05:04, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I assume you use 'retard' as an ironical device, given the subject of this article has learning disabilities. Greglocock (talk) 05:39, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Eh? It was totally unrelated. I was referring to the fact that the only picture I could find with Wikipedia's Free Image Search Tool, on Flickr has had a Disney character (Some female duck from Duck Tales) edited in, and is therefore unusable. I have no idea how you got the impression that I'm referring to Susan Boyle, but I'll just change the word to "fool" and make it a non-issue. I think that's being hypersensitive, but its not worth making a fuss over. --Pstanton (talk) 05:44, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Will this do? http://www.flickr.com/photos/charles_soper/3445877274/ SunCreator (talk) 23:11, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Not unless you were there and took the photo yourself. Looie496 (talk) 23:19, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Please add the Russian wiki article

{{editprotected}} ru:Сюзан Бойл

This blanket editing ban is rather unusual... anyway, I hope someone can add this.Esn (talk) 09:49, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Teher's an other interwikilink, hu:Susan Boyle. Thank you for your aid. --Ksanyi (talk) 11:05, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Done. -- Mentifisto 12:46, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Lead sentence

The lead sentence goes: "Susan Boyle (born 1961), is a Scottish church volunteer....".

Wouldn't it make more sense to have something like: "Susan Boyle (born 1961), is a participant on the third season of Britain's Got Talent etc etc."

Her main claim to notability is sudden global fame due to her performance on the show, not being a church volunteer, and it seems awkward to have that as her primary introduction.

If not mention of the show in her first sentence, it would be better, I think, to have something like: "Susan Boyle (born 1961), is a (lifelong?) resident of Blackburn, Lothian, Scotland, and a participant in the third season of Britain's Got Talent."

I think either way the reference to her as a church volunteer belongs in the personal life section. The way it is now, the mention of her as a church volunteer in the very first sentence seems to lend undue weight to that aspect of her life, when in reality it is a very minor aspect of the topic. --Pstanton (talk) 05:54, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Many BLPs will state in the first sentence what the person does. From some of our BLP FAs:

• "Kate Noelle "Katie" Holmes (born December 18, 1978) is an American actress who first achieved fame for her role as Joey Potter"
• "Joanne "Jo" Rowling OBE[1] (born 31 July 1965),[2] who writes under the pen name J. K. Rowling,[3] is a British author,"
• "Marjory Stoneman Douglas (April 7, 1890 – May 14, 1998) was an American journalist, writer, feminist, and environmentalist"
• "Gwen Renée Stefani (born October 3, 1969) is an American recording artist and fashion designer."
• "Thierry Daniel Henry (born 17 August 1977) is a French footballer"

I think we should either say she's unemployed, or a church volunteer, or both. The comments in threads above about describing her as a singer would be incorrect (I sing along to the radio almost every day but I wouldn't call myself a singer). Matthewedwards :  Chat  06:44, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Lead section#First sentence. QuackGuru (talk) 06:49, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I see the policy, and I suppose I can see how it makes sense. I just think it makes for a very awkward intro in this particular case. The fact that she is a church volunteer isn't particularly relevant, and she may not even consider her church work a defining part of her life on the same level of importance as a job, which is what would go there if she was employed. I suppose it is not a major issue, just something I appreciate getting feedback on. --Pstanton (talk) 08:29, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Our lead paragraph currently fails to mention the fact that she sings at all. It mentions various un-notable facts about her and then mentions that she became famous because of a "rendition" without mentioning what that rendition involved. The first paragraph doesn't tell us whether she is a piano-player, singer, or a ventriloquist. It thus fails to establish why she is notable, leaving us to infer from the second paragraph that whatever the rendition was, it involved singing. Even then, nowhere in the first few sections does the article explain what the performance was or how it involved singing. It's a most unsatisfactory lead. It should, like the examples given by Matthewedwards above, establish what she is notable for in the first sentence, whether that is her primary occupation or not.

Take a look at our opening sentence for Florence Foster Jenkins. It does not say that she was a rich socialite, because she was not notable for that, even though it was her primary occupation. It states that she was a soprano, despite the fact that, by any standard you care to use, she was an atrocious singer. But that doesn't matter because (bad) singing was what made FFJ notable, not socialising. Likewise Susan Boyle is notable for being a good singer, not for volunteering, and our opening sentence should make that clear. -- Derek Ross | Talk 17:46, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

What about "Susan Boyle is a Scottish church volunteer and amateur singer..." Tim Vickers (talk) 19:00, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Susan Boyle is a Scottish church volunteer, and unemployed amateur singer currently engaged in a singing talent competition. Naaaaa... nobody would accept that. ;) — Ched :  ?  19:55, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Both of those are better than what we've got at the moment, however "tongue in cheek", they may be. -- Derek Ross | Talk 23:27, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, 'Scottish church volunteer and amateur singer" is what we have at the moment. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:36, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Excellent! Well, better anyway. The change hadn't been made last time I looked. -- Derek Ross | Talk 04:31, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, I agree with Derek Ross and PStanton. "Church volunteer" is completely irrelevant here for the lead sentence - what is relevant is that she is an amateur (for now) singer whose fame derives from the Britain's Got Talent appearance, etc. Although it is true that many bios include the occupation of the subject, many do not when it is irrelevant to their notability. See, for example, Marian Shields Robinson - where the first sentence appropriately is "Marian Shields Robinson (birth name Marian Shields, born July 1937) is the mother of First Lady of the United States Michelle Obama." We should remove "church volunteer" from the lead sentence and leave it as a "Scottish amateur singer" until she goes pro. Tvoz/talk 18:09, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Blackburn

I think someone should clarify that she lives in Blackburn near Bathgate in West Lothian, Scotland, not Blackburn in England, which is a much better known place in the U.K. Looking at the current reference, most people in the UK at least would assume she lives in Blackburn in England, though her accent would suggest otherwise.Fillanfloppy (talk) 07:25, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

The only confusion that I've seen is between Blackburn in West Lothian and Blackburn in Aberdeenshire. The Associated Press for one have already made that mistake and got the wrong one. I've not seen any confusion with the English one yet though. -- Derek Ross | Talk 15:00, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I guess the article may have changed since this comment was first made, but right now the infobox lists her origin as being "Blackburn, West Lothian, Scotland", and the article states that she "lives in Blackburn with her ten-year-old". I guess there's a small possibility that some reader might miss the infobox and then might not follow the Blackburn link in the article - possibly the article link shouldn't be piped, i.e. it should be [[Blackburn, West Lothian]] instead of [[Blackburn, West Lothian|Blackburn]]? Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 15:33, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Page Protection

Glancing through the talk page, I can't figure out what the editing disputes are. Esn (talk) 09:49, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Neither can I. The latest reason given was "a highly visble page on a {{Current person}})". I don't believe such a policy to fully lock such articles exists. I recommend anyone interested make a commment on Requests for unprotection:Susan_Boyle. SunCreator (talk) 10:50, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I have tried to explain this to the locker, User talk:Viridae, but to no avail.--Anewpester (talk) 13:02, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

The best I can gather is that there 2 issues being resolved: 1.) The wording on the oxygen deprivation, and 2.) (and most likely the main reason for PP) would be the external links section. The page protection isn't permanent, just a break in the action to get things sorted out I'd imagine. — Ched :  ?  13:52, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I've unprotected the page and started discussions about the two points in question below. Please comment there. Anybody edit-warring will be blocked. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:29, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for being reasonable. SunCreator (talk) 17:53, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Disputed links

Which of these links do people think this article should include? Tim Vickers (talk) 17:18, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

• Personally, not YouTube (at least until hits settle down) because it'll encourage constant updating - as has already been the case. I'm not familiar with SocieTrends.com but more than happy with the Guardian or any other newspaper (ideally broadsheet - or "Berliner" - but tabloids would probably be fairly reliable too). To illustrate my concern, the YouTube hits figure has just been updated from 22 to 26 million without changing the date (27th April). Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 17:24, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

• Can't say any of them but the YouTube link adds to the article. Most of the news articles link to the youtube video that is in question are they in turn a potential copyright issue? SunCreator (talk) 17:52, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

• The YouTube one listed below, as it's the primary source for the Internet attention she's now receiving. 26 million the last time I looked. — Ched :  ?  20:27, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

• • Personally, I think the Youtube one could be left in the external links section, an exception to the rule since it has been cited by the media as the source that led to Boyle's popularity in the U.S. But I don't think it should be used as a citation for the viewers figure. Let the media handle that figure. --haha169 (talk) 21:42, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Do you realise the YouTube link is covered in the article currently ref [37]. SunCreator (talk) 23:20, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

External links

• Analysis of Boyle's impact on society from Societrends
• Collected news and comment on Susan Boyle from The Guardian
• Susan Boyle - Singer - Britain's Got Talent 2009 (With Lyrics) on YouTube
• Susan Boyle - Cry Me A River on YouTube
• as mentioned above It is the primary source for the Internet attention she's received.

Oxygen deprivation

I don't see that it's a problem mentioning it, when she stated that it led to her being teased by bullies, which directly led to her taking refuge in singing.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:16, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I also can't see a problem with it. The information comes from her, and it's been published. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 01:18, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

It also relates to the mention of learning disabilities -- if one is dropped, the other would need to be also. (Prolonged oxygen deprivation causes brain damage.) Looie496 (talk) 01:39, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

For any given person one could go all through thier birth process and their genetics and what could have possibly been or not have been. It is not relevant to who they are. Many people have jaundice when they are born, heart murmurs, low birth weight, and all kinds of things "could" occur from the conidtions of their birth, but that those and all the many others are not listed in anyone else's life stories. Why, because they are irrelevent.

One does not suffer because they have disabilities, that is only others perception and it is all relative. Many people with disabilities are quite happy, and happy with who they are. A person has a disability they are not a disability, it is one charactersitic.

Susan was teased because she appeared different and had learning disabilities, children did not tease her because of the medical label given to her birth process. There is absolutely no reason to expand about a medical diagnosis and what it could cause and didn't in an article about a person's life. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.193.153.76 (talk) 02:02, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi, you certainly have a point, but that would be your (or our) personal opinion. What we do on Wikipedia is simply publish what reliable sources say. This has been published in the Guardian, so there's no reason not to include it. However, the part that explains what oxygen deprivation can do should perhaps be removed; that's WP:SYN, strictly speaking. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 02:07, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not so sure that she did actual state it, the links show articles without quotes. Also please think about how hypocritcal it is to perpetuate and focus on something that may not have really been stated or intended to be repeated, it isn't how articles on others without perceived disabilites are written. People often to use to say things like that as a means to explain learning disabilities, but it doesn't mean it was a fact. The owrd "suffer" is also not appropriate.

If she herself stated that she suffered from oxygen deprivation when she was born, and as a result had learning difficulties, then it is entirely appropriate to source it...she must have felt it important to have mentioned it. However, the second part which uses the journals to show some effects is definitely not appropriate, since it is making statements which cannot be tied to Ms. Boyle. We can't be making independent leaps with regard to what she may or may not be dealing with, and even saying that cerebral palsy may be a result of oxygen deprivation will lead some readers to think that she has CP, which as far as I know, no source has dealt with. That whole section, starting with "Oxygen deprivation is a rare complication of childbirth,..." needs to go. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 03:01, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think this is necessary and the tone is not NPOV. QuackGuru (talk) 04:51, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

If you can find another word that would apply besides "suffer", I'm all for it. I don't define it as "personal suffering", but as "an affliction". It does not have to have a negative connotation, just that it happened to her. To be direct, I don't see why you feel it inappropriate to mention that this occurred, when she herself found it appropriate for mention in the article. It does help explain why the students bullied her, and played a major event in her future development as a person. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 05:12, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

We can try a compromise. Boyle has learning disabilities. QuackGuru (talk) 05:22, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Boyle has learning disabilities from child birth. QuackGuru (talk) 06:05, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Boyle had complications during birth, resulting in learning disabilities. QuackGuru (talk) 06:10, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Hunter that the tangent into "Oxygen deprivation is a rare complication of childbirth" is unnecessary. But "suffer" is probably not the best word to use. But, alas, the article is fully protected. --Anewpester (talk) 13:10, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I was surprised not to see any mention of oxygen deprivation. I had heard something about it from a friend and expected to read more about it here. Thus there are undoubtedly there are many others. An explanation is essential. Icemuon (talk) 14:50, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Still haven't see where Susan actually stated this, no articles actually quote her. I think because she has learning disabilities others are making assumptions and asking her leading questions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.193.153.76 (talk) 14:45, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Charity CD - 1999 or 2000?

The source with the recording of Cry Me a River says 1999, while this one says 2000. Which one is it? Esn (talk) 04:28, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

When you say the source with the recording, which source do you mean, Esn? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 04:40, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

This one. So it's The Times versus The Daily Record. Which one is more reliable? Esn (talk) 19:04, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

CNN a capella performance

"My Heart Will Go On": CNN has uploaded to its official YouTube channel.[13] Requesting an administrator's assistance adding this to the article. Durova^Charge! 05:55, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

The account at that link has been closed. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:21, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Voice Analysis

I expected to be able to read something about how experts judge how good her voice is (and other information regarding her voice). This would be very useful in the article. Icemuon (talk) 14:53, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. Are there voice analysis sections on Pavarotti, Callas? Celine Dion? Billy Joel?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:00, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Uh, Icemuon doesn't propose a section, merely some analysis of her voice. Also, Celine Dion contains several such paragraphs, including an extended quote, about her voice and Maria Callas has several sections about her voice. --Chiliad22 (talk) 18:13, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I think Icemuon's suggestion is a good one. Of course, a reliable analysis of her voice may not be out yet, and Wikipedia isn't the place for Original Research, so we'd have to wait for one to become available. --Pstanton (talk) 20:49, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I had read the Celine Dion article and found the voice analysis there informative. I wouldn't mind seeing similar information on Pavarotti etc. Also, I have heard that there is some dispute on whether her voice is actually a "good" one, so this was even more reason for me to expect to see an analysis here. Icemuon (talk) 21:39, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

There also aren't descriptions of the their birth process either. Double standard if you ask me.

Hmm? Birth process is not relevant to singers, voice is. Icemuon (talk) 21:39, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Appearance, voice etc

There is no need to keep trying to relativize the key points in the lead. Her voice is "powerful," not just well-received. Had it only been well-received by the audience, no one else would have cared. She didn't just appear to appear in a certain way, she did appear in that way, and it was ungroomed, unattractive, unpolished etc, which is a large part of the reason she's gone global.

We publish what reliable sources publish, and they are all publishing the same thing about Boyle i.e. unattractive appearance + powerful voice + lonely, isolated background = underdog makes good = everybody loves her.

That apart, the writing suffers when people try to add that it only looked as though she looked like ... etc. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 23:58, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Ref names

It would be good if people could use ref names that will help us to recognize the article. If you use the author's name (e.g. ref name=McGinty, or if McGinty has more than one article ref name=McGintyApril20), and if you're editing the article regularly, that'll help you to recognize which publication it is, which helps when adding it again. But if we call refs "cometrue", (ref name=cometrue), it tells us nothing. Just a suggestion. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 01:03, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Place of birth

• Boyle was born in Blackburn, West Lothian
• Boyle was born in Whitburn, West Lothian

I noticed this changed a few times by various editors, which is correct? SunCreator (talk) 11:35, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

At most there's about 2.5 miles between the two villages. So it doesn't make a lot of difference. -- Derek Ross | Talk 14:32, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

EL violation

{{editprotect}} The following do not belong according to WP:EL/WP:YOUTUBE/WP:COPYRIGHT:

• Susan Boyle - Singer - Britain's Got Talent 2009 (With Lyrics) on YouTube
• Susan Boyle - Cry Me A River on YouTube

Needs removing.--Otterathome (talk) 01:59, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

18 April 2009 (UTC)

Those videos were posted by the shows official YouTube account, unless I'm mistaken. I believe that makes them fine per WP:YOUTUBE,etc. AniMate^talk 02:18, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

There is no indication of that. Neither are partners. Quality is sub-par. No iTunes link. Nothing.--Otterathome (talk) 02:24, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

EL section again removed. This is not an indiscriminate collection of news stories, and both media links can already be found in the sources. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 02:34, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

So this article is to follow entirely different rules than any other? Brilliant. You must be very proud. Are you shilling for iTunes, or do you just want to drive people away from Wikipedia and back to Google? And oh yes - you consider The Guardian to be a trash link as well? Flatterworld (talk) 05:38, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

It is a falsehood to claim that WP:EL/WP:YOUTUBE/WP:COPYRIGHT prohibit the use of youtube in EL sections. Simply not true. Dlabtot (talk) 17:51, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

The videos are a big part of her fame. The show talked about it on Saturday and so has Piers and others. If they were concerned about the clip it would have been removed ages ago. I mean seriously did you even watch the shows, media reports, Larry King or any other on the planet? DragonFire1024 (talk) 13:26, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Please see the RfC below. Tvoz/talk 20:12, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Needs updating

"This performance was widely reported and a video of her singing was viewed by tens of millions of people on the website YouTube."

needs updating or deleting: this one for example is over 24 million views now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.0.17.195 (talk) 09:14, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

24 million is tens of millions. "Tens of millions" will be correct until we get towards 100 million. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 15:33, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

24 million (now 30 million) is just for one version of the video. If you include all versions, it's over 50 million. Probably well over.--Syd Henderson (talk) 18:01, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

It's over 60 million but that's still tens of millions. Only issue I can see is reference does not support the wording. SunCreator (talk) 18:07, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

• Now reported to be 100 million. SunCreator (talk) 18:48, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

This is not a reliable source IMHO, "Internet experts believe" ? Graham Colm ^Talk 18:54, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

The link is the offical ITV Britain's Got Talent site. SunCreator (talk) 19:42, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

• Susan Boyle breaks past 100 million online views from Reuters SunCreator (talk) 20:02, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Why did you remove it, Sun? Please see the thread I started below. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 20:04, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Reply below SunCreator (talk) 20:19, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Medical condition draft

I can see the argument that we don't need to discuss cerebral palsy, since that isn't relevant to her case. What about instead:

Boyle was deprived of oxygen during birth, which is a rare complication of childbirth, in her case this resulted in her having a learning disability. Her classmates teased her because of this and her appearance.

Would this be acceptable? Tim Vickers (talk) 17:22, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Tim: First of all, thanks for being sensible and level-headed and unprotecting page. As for the sentence, this is kind of being discussed above in the "Oxygen deprivation" section. Some editors, myself included, feel that "suffered" might not be the best word to describe a baby's oxygen deprivation. Also, some editor, myself included, feel that there is no reason to go off into an explanation of the effects of oxygen deprivation. After all, that's what wikilinks are for. --Anewpester (talk) 17:28, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, how about condensing this a bit? New version above, (please feel free to edit that draft by the way) Tim Vickers (talk) 17:54, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I think that's perfect.--Anewpester (talk) 17:55, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I think it's the most accurately worded option I've seen yet. The info should be included, and this appears to be as NPOV as possible. — Ched :  ?  20:22, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

It was previously discussed to leave out the references that were not directly about Boyle. See WP:SYN. QuackGuru (talk) 20:27, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, of course we aren't going to be including any irrelevant information. It would obviously depend on which reliable source we use to verify the information that's is relevant to Ms. Boyle. Most of the references that Tim suggests are good sources, that speak directly to the heart of the matter. The Swabb article may be what you're referring to, and I suppose that if the oxygen deprivation section of the childbirth article is well referenced, it wouldn't be a requirement. I could be convinced either way on that one I suppose. — Ched :  ?  21:05, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

You previously supported including a reference that is WP:SYN. I hope we can agree on leaving it out. QuackGuru (talk) 21:20, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:SYN?... huh? How is a published medical journal reference that explains and verifies what her medical condition is SYN? As far as what I support, I'm fine with what I wrote above. — Ched :  ?  21:34, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Editors have a huge problem with including too much detail. QuackGuru (talk) 21:40, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I think her medical condition is only mildly significant. Mention it, give a definition, a wiki-link to the article on her condition, a brief sentence or two on how it has affected her life. Finished. There isn't any need to descend into multiple paragraphs. --Pstanton (talk) 21:52, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I think that the item mentioned at the beginning of this section:

• Boyle was deprived of oxygen during birth, which is a rare complication of childbirth,[1] in her case this resulted in her having a learning disability.[2] Her classmates teased her because of this and her appearance.[2]

is an improvement over the current (as of the 17:34 April 18 version) which has:

• Boyle has learning disabilities.[10]

If the proposed suggestion can be tweaked in some way, I'm fine with that too. I also agree that we don't need to go into an elaborate definition of a medical condition that's covered in more relevant articles. — Ched :  ?  22:05, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I've added the oxygen deprivation in the context provided by the Sunday Times: "Boyle was born in Blackburn, West Lothian to Patrick and Bridget Boyle, the youngest of four brothers and five sisters, when her mother was 47. The Sunday Times writes that it was a difficult birth, during which Boyle was briefly deprived of oxygen, leading to mild brain damage. She was diagnosed as having learning difficulties, which led to bullying and mockery at school." SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 03:18, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

The Sunday Times is in the business of selling newspapers and sensationalizing. It is just plain mean to focus on a person's perceived deficit, especially in such negative medical terms which are irellevent. Kids don't tease other kids because of what medical label a doctor or adults use, the story isn't about a medical condition. There is no proof of any medical condition either, only heresay, the only thing certain is she was teased for having learning disabilities and her appearance. There are no MRI's of her brain, there are no medical records, and there's no point going there... the story is about her singing ability.

I noticed that ... good work! ;) — Ched :  ?  04:01, 19 April 2009 (UTC) (I'd imagine her birthday will be available before too long as well - althought I haven't been able to find it yet)

Thanks, Ched. I found her birthday in another S/Times article about her -- same edition of the paper, different article from the one I used above. I've added it plus the ref. It's the same June 15 birthday we had in here earlier in the week. I only hope they got it from her and didn't take it from us. :-) SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 04:04, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

This edit was a violation of policy to the personal life section. QuackGuru (talk) 01:18, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with this edit. QuackGuru (talk) 17:43, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I mostly agree with this comment. QuackGuru (talk) 17:46, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Oxygen

Quackguru, why do you say that the brain damage issue in the Sunday Times (and many other newspapers) is UNDUE? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 01:15, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I don't understand this comment either, this fact was noted in several reliable sources and the article doesn't dwell on this point. It would be giving this undue weight if we discussed it at length, but the current treatment with a wikilink leading to an article with more detail on the condition seems quite balanced to me. Tim Vickers (talk) 01:21, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, I'm not able to follow the line of reasoning here. The WP:ASF that you mentioned would also indicate to me that the clarity specification, and attention to detail are better. I'm also not following where WP:UNDUE is involved. — Ched :  ?  02:03, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

The article already states that she got learning difficulties, so isn't the fact she developed brain damage obvious already? Btw I don't mind whether this fact is included in the article or not, I'm considering whether it would sound insensitive. 78.133.77.127 (talk) 18:39, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Mother's age

Tovojolo, you gave this as a source for the mother being 44 when Boyle was born, but I can't find it. [14] SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 08:01, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

It was IP user 78.133.77.127 who actually added that reference. The source states that Boyle is 47 now, her mother was 91 when she died three years ago. That means Boyle was 44 when her mother died which means her mother must have been 47 when Boyle was born. Tovojolo (talk) 17:48, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it was my mistake. It's fixed now. 78.133.77.127 (talk) 18:39, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

That's a weird factoid if it's true. The fertility rate among 47-year-old women, especially in the pre-in vitro/surrogate womb days, is very low. IIRC, the figure I saw for the United States maybe 15 years ago is that only 1 out of every 250,000 2,500 live births was to a woman 45 and up. Krakatoa (talk) 21:08, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Viewing figures

SunCreator, what is wrong with adding the viewing figures to the lead, and updating them as necessary? [15] It seems odd to leave out of the lead one of the most astonishing facts about her. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 20:01, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Although the wording should be such that it takes the rapid growth of viewing figures into account... "over 100 million" for example, rather than "almost 105 million". Dlabtot (talk) 20:09, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with adding it(just added it in the social media section). Just not in the lead. The lead is suppose to be a summary of the article, specifics of viewing figures is not a summary. SunCreator (talk) 20:13, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

The lead is meant to be a summary of the most important points of the article, and should be able to stand alone as such. The most important points are the ingredients that make the Boyle phenomenon a very unusual event. The 100 million figure is definitely one of the key ingredients, in my view, and adding the number informs readers, whereas saying she broke records doesn't tell them anything. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 20:26, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Change it if you like, but something without a figure is preferable. You can just see the figure being changed (and invariably reverted) everyday for the next month. SunCreator (talk) 20:38, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

We could say in the body of the article, and also in the lead, something along the lines of "As of April XX, 2009, the various videos of her Britain's Got Talent performance have been viewed a total of YYY million times." I agree that this is a very important fact, and certainly should be given in the article. If it has to be changed periodically, as it probably will be, so be it. Krakatoa (talk) 21:02, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

The lead need not contain specifics. The body gives a somewhat running count, which is fine, but the lead should be fairly generic to support stability. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 01:18, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. Per WP:NOTNEWS, so we don't need a running count of Ms. Boyle' video hits, especially not in the lead. For example, the lead in the Bill Gates article simply lists him as one the world's wealthiest men. There isn't a running update of his exact net worth every time MSFT rises or falls on the NASDAQ. --Madchester (talk) 01:25, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Quote

A lot of quotes in this article. shall we keep them all?

1. I know what they were thinking, but why should it matter as long as I can sing? It’s not a beauty contest.—Susan Boyle, The Sunday Times[9]
2. Modern society is too quick to judge people on their appearances. [...] There is not much you can do about it; it is the way they think; it is the way they are. But maybe this could teach them a lesson, or set an example.—Susan Boyle, The Washington Post[4]
3. In her success, we see a phoenix rising from the ashes of disappointment, sadness and heartbreak. We see prosperity after recession. We see good trumping evil, and we see a restoration, albeit ever so slightly, to the belief that dedication and perseverance can pay off in the end.—Nick Barron, Societrends[69]
4. I am so thrilled because I know that everybody was against you. I honestly think that we were all being very cynical, and I think that's the biggest wake-up call ever. And I just want to say that it was a complete privilege listening to that.—Amanda Holden, Britain's Got Talent[70]
5. Just like the judges and audience, I was gob-smacked by the emotional powerhouse performance of Susan Boyle's show-stopping rendition of "I Dreamed a Dream". Vocally, it is one of the best versions of the song I've ever heard—touching, thrilling and uplifting. I do hope she gets to sing it for the Queen.—Cameron Mackintosh[27]

Personally I think #3 has nothing to much to do with the article. I'm not sure about the last one either. SunCreator (talk) 01:52, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I've removed one quote. Having excessive quotes in this article was previous mentioned at the Afd. SunCreator (talk) 04:01, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Cultural references

I question this section as it is currently constructed - neither item really demonstrates that she has become a "cultural icon". The Leno bit seems inappropriate for her BLP, and the Vancouver item seems barely notable to me. I don't object on principle to a section for cultural references, but I don't think these particular items rise to the level of notability or appropriateness. I'd remove the section until we have more valid content. Anyone else? Tvoz/talk 02:43, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I tend to agree. It does not seem biographical at all. SunCreator (talk) 03:20, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Clashing sources?

Some sources, which I am unfortunately having a hard time finding, state that Susan regretted stating that she had never been kissed because it was not true. Others, though, such as this link quote Susan multiple times saying she hasn't been kissed.

I'm confused and just trying to clarify. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.131.66.142 (talk) 04:06, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I know what you mean. She didn't mean she had not been kissed socially, but romantically. There is an article where she says she has been kissed(will post it if I find it again). Also this. A bit in the article about this would be useful. SunCreator (talk) 04:23, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

"Oh, I was just joking around,” interview with The Times. SunCreator (talk) 08:21, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia page wording.

"while on Wikipedia her page attracted nearly half a million page views.<link> " her page, this page, the page about her? How could this be worded to be clearer. SunCreator (talk) 15:40, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

"Ms. Boyle's biographical article on Wikipedia has been viewed more than 1/2 a million times in less than a week" ..? — Ched :  ?  16:01, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

It's not more then 1/2 a million but less. I like the "biographical article" phrase. SunCreator (talk) 16:14, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

It is more thAn 1/2 mil Stats R3ap3R.inc (talk) 13:47, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Article on the video?

Much of the information in this page is about Susan's performance and not biographical. I was wondering if it would be sensible to have a separate article entirely about the performance and media response etc. We have similar articles I Love the World for example. SunCreator (talk) 02:18, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Urk. Given the number of people who thought even the current article should be deleted because she might turn out to be a one-hit wonder, I strongly suggest waiting until at least her next appearance before talking about branching off new articles. Looie496 (talk) 02:24, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

The number of people? What people? You mean the few who thought it should be deleted when it was a one sentence stub? As I recall, the AfD was closed for WP:SNOW... that makes anyone against the article in the slim minority. R3ap3R.inc (talk) 13:50, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Biography Peer review

Have submitted this article for an A-Class peer review. Here is it's review page. Anyone impartial like to review it please feel free. SunCreator (talk) 05:09, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I've commented there as well; but, the stability criteria alone would cause this article to fail GA review. Patience, will serve us - it has indeed come a long way. ;) — Ched :  ?  14:10, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Sisters five or six?

• Susan, a devout Catholic, has lived in Blackburn all her life, and is the youngest of nine siblings (five girls and four boys).
• “I had four brothers and five sisters, there are only six of us now”

Highlighting the contradiction. SunCreator (talk) 05:52, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I think that we should go with the direct quote from Boyle.... she would know better than anyone. R3ap3R.inc (talk) 13:49, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, as this point that would seem appropriate. SunCreator (talk) 14:35, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Susan Boyle and type of voice?

I note singers commonly have their vocal types listed, such as tenor, alto, baritone, soprano, etc. However, the article you have on Susan Boyle just states she is a "singer." I would like to know her vocal type. I am guessing she is a mezzo-soprano. Thanks- 24.13.88.236 (talk) 13:56, 21 April 2009 (UTC)Suzanne

This has become an exemplary article

I first came across the page in the AfD and for such a fast moving contemporary story, this has become an impressive example of the speed and accuracy of wikipedia collaborative editing. Kudos to all involved. As time goes by some of the subsections will necessarily need compressing but a week or so after AfD, it's sterling work.--Moloch09 (talk) 00:49, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, agreed. Still some rough corners but quite good for new article. SunCreator (talk) 01:02, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Requesting an A-Class review. SunCreator (talk) 03:30, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks :) R3ap3R.inc (talk) 13:53, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

←I just wanted to mention something here, no offense to anyone. As these threads become archived, which actually should begin fairly soon given the length of the talk page in it's current state. Some threads such as this one may end up being removed. Not that I personally see anything wrong with a little self-congratulatory praise among all the dedicated editors here, but simply because we have some editors who follow the WP:TALK guideline, and WP:NOTFORUM policy closely, and one of them may decide to delete this. You may see an edit summary that says something like: "this page is for discussion on improving the article, and not a general discussion forum". If that happens, don't be discouraged, it's just part of the grand scheme of building an encyclopedia, and how it all works. :)

That being said, I agree, and think that you folks have done a wonderful job here, and even if there have been times that WP:NOT#JOURNALISM has been questioned, the results are great to see. — Ched :  ?  16:44, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Ched - excellent article, wish I could claim some responsibility beyond bickering on the talk page ;-) Ched, is it worth initiating an archive now? You're quite right that the talk page is overly long; it seems to double in size each time I check it! And also it'd preserve comments like yours for posterity Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 16:54, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, 270 Kb, I'd imagine some older browsers are beginning to have some problems. I set up the archive, just be careful not to archive threads that have recent comments, or ongoing discussions. At this point, I probably wouldn't archive much past maybe the 17th or 18th at the latest. I'm wondering if maybe setting up Mizabot might not be a good idea, but I'll leave that to someone else. I wouldn't want to be the only one to have fun here. ;) Don't worry about preserving my comments, I'm just a fly in the ointment ... lol. — Ched :  ?  19:23, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

News media

I feel the News media section is getting Undue weight. What does it really add to the article? It's become a list of news outlets because basically all news outlets worldwide have got an article on it. And perhaps it could be argued it's biased against the ones missing. SunCreator (talk) 00:58, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Many international news outlets also carried stories on her, including the USA's New York Times[30], New York Daily News[31] and The Los Angeles Times[32], Australia's Herald Sun,[33] Canada's Maclean's,[34] Germany's Der Spiegel,[35] China's Xinhua News Agency,[36] Macau's The Macau Post Daily, Portugal's Correio da Manhã,[37] Brazil's Zero Hora,[38] South Korea's The Chosun Ilbo,[39] Netherlands' De Telegraaf,[40] Israel's Ynet,[41] Belgium's Het Laatste Nieuws,[42]、 the Arab World's Al-Arabiya[43], Japan's Asahi Shinbun[44], Vietnam's Tuoi Tre [45], and Argentinan's Clarín[46]. This list sentence is the issue. SunCreator (talk) 01:01, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. This should be trimmed to a list of, say, five high-profile papers from different and varied non-English-speaking countries worldwide, to back up the point made that international coverage has been significant. As it is, this is simply an indiscriminate list, which is not appropriate for Wiki. I would suggest Der Spiegel, Xinhua, Zero Hora, Ynet, and Al-Arabiya, to give a good cross section of world regions. If an African paper can be found, replace Ynet with that. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 01:03, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

The News Media section looks very ugly. It is just a list. Only those news organisations that actually had something significant to say, should be on it. Tovojolo (talk) 17:40, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Going to modify as Huntster recommend above. SunCreator (talk) 21:13, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Linking to "Cry me a river" audio

There is an audio version of Cry me a River - By Susan Boyle (alternative link) on youtube. Can the article link to it? I have not added it to the external link section, yet. JKW (talk) 18:14, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Seems that the answer to your question would be partially dependent upon the results of the RfC above. I encourage your participation. Dlabtot (talk) 18:17, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

As far as I know you can link to it as a cited reference, but not an external link. SunCreator (talk) 19:26, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

she is a mezzo-soprano

why was it deleted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.160.184.113 (talk) 01:52, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Because it was unsourced, likely. If you can find a reliable source stating she is a Mezzo-soprano, then add a link here and we'll figure out if it'll work or not. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 01:56, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

What makes this woman relevant to an encyclopedia?

A person known only for participating once in a trash TV show? What on earth makes this person notable enough to be included in an encyclopedia? "is a Scottish amateur singer and church volunteer" makes no assertation of notability. Harryhøg (talk) 01:46, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

See Afd and DR. Tim Vickers (talk) 01:56, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Harryhøg, neither you nor I determine who gets in and who doesn't. WP:NOTE is our standard, and while there was room for disagreement a few days ago, I find it difficult for anyone to assert that her notability is temporary. --\/\/slack (talk) 03:32, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Whether you think her fame is justified or not, Susan Boyle is one of the most talked about women in the world today. If you can't see her notability, you either haven't read the article, or your definition of notability is hopelessly elitist and therefore fundamentally irrelevant. If you ask me, she's infinitely more notable than publication histories of obscure Norwegian dictionaries, whatever their merit. --WorldWide Update (talk) 20:42, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

You are just being ridiculous. They are not more obscure than the Oxford English Dictionary, they are the most frequently used dictionaries in their language. Those who think major dictionaries, important sources of knowledge, are less relevant than a person who has been on TV once, as an amateur singer, are holding views inconsistent with the goal of writing an encyclopedia (as opposed to any wiki or blog). Perhaps there is a Wikia wiki for stuff on Britains Got Talent contestants, where articles like this could be moved? Harryhøg (talk) 22:21, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

And you are being unbearably elitist. Wikipedia defines notability this way: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." If we were to adopt your peculiar definition of notability, which would doom not just this article but thousands of similar ones, Wikipedia would become crippled -- a resource for a few dull pseudo-intellectuals, but of greatly diminished value to everyone else. As it is now, the article is very well-written. Among other things, it analyzes Boyle's very real role in popular culture (mind you, popular culture is not inherently less notable than high culture), and does it in an interesting, intelligent, and comprehensive way. That's what Wikipedia is all about. --WorldWide Update (talk) 08:17, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

How about setting the all time record for YouTube video views in a week. Seems awful notable to me. Besides, the fact tat half a million people came to Wikipedia looking for this page is reason enough.69.60.237.4 (talk) 16:35, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it also set the record for most YT views in a month, most viewed this month, almost the most viewed this year already, and over a million people on this Wiki article already R3ap3R.inc (talk) 04:00, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

So what?Harryhøg (talk) 22:25, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

See WP:GNG: "significant coverage" in "reliable" secondary "sources" that are "independent of the subject", yields "presumed" notability. She overwhelmingly meets all of those criteria, and a tremendous interest in reading about her has been demonstrated by the well-over half a million views this article has received. We would not be serving our readership if we ignored her, nor have you given a cogent reason for your assertion that she is not notable. Tvoz/talk 23:15, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Google trends

Forgive me if this was mentioned somewhere up above, but I think this deserves its own section. Currently the article mentions Susan's popularity measured against Obama, Britney Spears, and Jesus based on the number of google searches for those individuals over set periods of time. My problem with this content is that it is sourced to custom searches on Google trends, and not to any secondary source. Thus, even if this information were true, it seems like it has no significance beyond the opinions of those who added the information. I'd suggest that content on google trends only be placed in the article where they have been commented on by secondary sources. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:29, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I've already removed both instances of Google Trends that I found...one new, one old. These are nothing more than original research, since you can compare her to any number of given people and draw conclusions. Just not acceptable here. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 06:34, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm wondering if Google trends ought to be brought up to the Wikipedia:Spam-blacklisting folks. That spam filter message might go a long way at resolving problems, before they become problems. Thoughts? — Ched :  ?  13:30, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Film

Susan's stardom to be turned into film. News to go somewhere in the article. SunCreator (talk) 13:22, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Possibly in the "Britain's Got Talent and aftermath" as a new sub-section ("Film")? This certainly seems extremely WP:NOTABLE. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 14:34, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

• More links:
• Cyndi Lauper urges Susan Boyle to take film role
• Susan Boyle's film offer
• Susan Boyle Movie In The Works
• Susan Boyle’s success story attracts film makers SunCreator (talk) 20:34, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Spoof

Okay, I know this has nothing to do with improving the article, but in light of the fuss over the AfD I thought a few people might be amused by this item.

Yes, it has nothing to do with improving the article. Perhaps putting it in the "media mentioned" box above? --haha169 (talk) 04:45, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Date of Birth contested.

Making this section having noticed many edits over the Date of Birth.

• Posted on my talk page.

"This wikipedia edit was my first ever. So, I am unfamiliar with all the protocols. I am a British freelance journalist and was tasked with finding the correct birthdate for Susan Boyle. A UK publication needed Susan Boyle's birthdate for an article (yet to appear in print) being written by renowned astrologer Jonathan Cainer. This article is already up on Jonathan's www.cainer.com website. The birthdate of Susan Boyle [April 1, 1961] was given to me by the press officer for the show, Britain's Got Talent. The press officer was in direct contact with Susan Boyle herself. I had no reason to doubt the date... until we saw the Sunday Times article last weekend. [Note: The Sunday Times article was a profile piece, not based on an interview]. I have since verified the birthdate - as April 1, 1961 - with the Register of Births in Susan's home town of Bathgate, Scotland. I would be grateful if you - or anyone else more familiar with wiki editing, could correct the Susan Boyle page, citing this email or www.cainer.com David NicholsonDavenick01 (talk) 16:52, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

• Susan Boyle was born on April Fool's day, 1961*. This April, she has proved to the world that she's no fool. from www.cainer.com
• I noticed also User talk:Starfish1014 is contending the same thing. SunCreator (talk) 17:40, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

No opinion either way (so long as the birth date is correctly cited - currently the article says April 1 with a supporting reference claiming June 15), but the June 15 claim comes from the Sunday Times; apart from the cainer.com claim I'm not aware of any references supporting April 1.

Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 17:45, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

A number of edits cite other sources. This edit for example gives http://www.gro-scotland.gov.uk, a site requiring registration. SunCreator (talk) 18:04, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, without registering (and then paying - I just registered but didn't fancy spending money) there's no way to confirm that the source says what the editor adding it says it does, but that's not necessarily a reason not to use it (academic journals can be cited, for example, even though most editors can't easily check them). However I'd personally prefer a source that's open to all - or has at least been confirmed by someone posting here saying they've been able to double-check it. My main concern, however, is that claims must match references - I noticed you changing the date of birth back to match the accompanying reference, many thanks for that. Off topic, but it's an absolute disgrace that the General Records Office require money to search their records - it's our data, collected by an agency funded with out taxes. If anyone fancies spending £6 or has a few spare credits from the last time they needed to search GRO I'd be interested in the results! Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 18:21, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

• This major media source says she is 48 meaning the June 15 date would be incorrect. SunCreator (talk) 18:18, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

• Uh, I wouldn't rate the Daily Star as a major media source, and certainly not when compared to the Sunday Times. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 18:21, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

• Well the Daily Star is majorish but perhaps not known for being accurate! SunCreator (talk) 18:28, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

:-) I checked their article for any controversies, and the first thing I found was the Jeffrey Archer case - which they famously lost, only for Archer to be revealed as a liar much later on... so I won't criticise the Star too much! But suffice it to say, I don't hold them in the same regard that I hold the Sunday Times (or any other broadsheet, for that matter). Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 18:31, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

• Good call. I suspect more and more sources will become available, and we can fill the gaps then, but this strikes me as the best solution right now. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 18:26, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
• ABC News Also says she is 48 SunCreator (talk) 18:33, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
• 47 from official site. What a puzzle. SunCreator (talk) 18:50, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

She says she is 47 on the show (recorded months ago), and if her birthday is April 1, she only became 48 this month, so it would be an easy mistake to make. Looie496 (talk) 19:00, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

That's true but sloppy journalism. BBC also say 47. SunCreator (talk) 05:24, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

• I note now the date changed to April 1 1961 and referenced accordingly. This seems the way to go. Would like some better references however. It seems to me most of the newspapers copy what is in Wikipedia so they have nearly all said she was born in 1961 without any specific date. Perhaps some papers will now start saying 1 April 1961 if this article says so - won't that be an ironic self-reference situation. SunCreator (talk) 12:29, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

added Critical peer analysis

I've added a new section of critical peer analysis to the article. I placed it at the bottom, although I can see it being moved up in the future. I thought it was very relevant to the BLP, and sourced it from an MSNBC news article. Fill your boots, and have at it. I think there's some good stuff there we can work with. — Ched :  ?  18:03, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I see SunCreator is busy with a couple IP's, I'll hold off on any further clean-up of the section. But the section can use a little TLC — Ched :  ?  18:37, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that looks like a good starting point. SunCreator (talk) 18:38, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Should we be adding the cite to each quotation, per Wikipedia:Ref#When_quoting_someone, or should we paraphrase and loose a few of the direct quotes? — Ched :  ?  10:23, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

note: Section is now listed as: Critical professional evaluations

Who cares?

1. "Before she sang, both the audience and the judges appeared to express scepticism based on her unpolished appearance and awkwardness. In contrast, her vocal performance was so well received that she has been dubbed "The Woman Who Shut Up Simon Cowell"" does this really conform with WP:LEAD?
2. She received a standing ovation from the live audience, garnering yes-votes from Cowell and Amanda Holden, and the "biggest yes I have ever given anybody" from Piers Morgan. same as above, many contestants also received this.
3. with her ten-year-old cat, Pebbles - that important?
4. "during an interview just before she sang on the talent show, she said she had also "never been kissed" but later added "Oh, I was just joking around. It was just banter and it has been blown way out of proportion"." - what's so important about this joke?
5. Within a week Google searches on her name reached a peak higher than those on Barack Obama at the time of his inauguration as President of the United States, and higher than had been reached by American pop stars Madonna or Michael Jackson at any time since Google started tracking in 2004, though not as high as Britney Spears' peak levels.[29] so what? google trend spikes happen to anyone, and everything that is covered in the media
6. Writing in The Guardian, Leigh Holmwood said that web technology such as YouTube and social networking sites such as Facebook and Twitter have been critical in facilitating Boyle's rapid rise to fame.[15] The most popular YouTube video submission of her audition garnered nearly 2.5 million views in the first 72 hours.[44] On the day following the performance, the YouTube video was the most popular article on Digg.[45] The same video was also popular on Reddit, with enough clout to top the site's front page.[46] Within a week, the audition performance had been viewed more than 66 million times, setting an online record, while on Wikipedia her biographical article attracted nearly half a million page views.[8] A 100 million video views on 20 different websites was reached within nine days.[47] The Los Angeles Times wrote that her popularity on YouTube may in part be due to the broad range of emotion packed into a short timeframe, noting that this makes it "perfect for the Internet, where short clips rule."[48]

1. Susan Boyle's fame also spread by links posted on the Twitter website, including praise from celebrity couple Ashton Kutcher and Demi Moore.[49][50][51] When told about this, Boyle was said not to have ever heard of Kutcher,[52] but was familiar with the name "Demi Moore". Boyle knew little about her either but thanked them both for their support.[53] When Boyle first appeared on Britain's Got Talent, she said that she aspires to become a musical theatre singer "as successful as" Elaine Paige.[54] Since the appearance, Paige has expressed an interest in singing a duet with Boyle,[54] and has called her "a role model for everyone who has a dream" [55]. Actor Hugh Jackman has also wanted to do a duet with Susan Boyle writing on his Twitter, "Where is Susan Boyle? I am ready for a duet."[56] this should all be put in to other parts of the article. It's almost like a trivia list.--Otterathome (talk) 21:59, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Many care. I think the issue is what you have highlighted is relevant to the video and it's reaction hence the section above Talk:Susan_Boyle#Article_on_the_video.3F. What you have highlighted is not however biographcial about Susan herself and so I can understand the above post. SunCreator (talk) 23:58, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I decided to remove the bit about her being not very familiar with Kutcher and Moore. That seems just too unimportant to warrant mentioning in this article. '__meco (talk) 14:38, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Many care, because they are interested in her and her singing.96.242.5.155 (talk) 21:37, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Skit?

The article mentions that Jon Stewart did a parody sketch about Boyle. I went back and looked at all episodes of TDS that aired after the first Boyle appearance, but couldn't find anything. Could somebody please remind me what sketch he did? (and if he didn't actually do a sketch, could it be removed from the article?)24.8.42.84 (talk) 06:49, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Removed, as it is unsourced. SunCreator (talk) 12:47, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Removal of Artwork

Do you think we should remove the image, per BLP and NONFREE. I am sure that a freely licensed image of Susan Boyle can be taken. The artwork looks great. However, I feel that, per BLP a freely licensed image of her should suffice. Thoughts? miranda 17:43, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand the issue? The image is free (it's hosted on commons, which is obsessive about not hosting non-free content). I couldn't see anything in WP:BLP that jumped out at me as prohibiting artwork to illustrate BLPs. Am I missing something? Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 17:47, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

If its on Commons, its fine. --Pstanton (talk) 17:48, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Not really. Commons has pictures taken down all of the time for various reasons (i.e. copyright, etc.). Since this is a living person, I believe that more stricter issues should be taken account. Since Wikipedia is lacking in free use images of living people, we cannot have people drawing living people to suffice for the lack of a free use image. This could cause the Wikimedia Foundation some sort of liability. miranda 18:07, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Leaving aside the WP:NONFREE issue - since, as far as any of us know the image is perfectly free and we can address the non-free-ness of it if and when it's labelled as such by commons - what is it about the image that you feel breaches WP:BLP? I can understand general concerns, e.g. that an image might be used that is, for example, a hideous cartoon, but I'm not seeing nay specific issues with the current image. Incidentally, going back to your original point, I'd agree that a free photo would be preferable - I suspect the current drawing is purely being used because we haven't located a free photo yet. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 18:21, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi, this is Chris, the guy that drew the picture. I came to this site on saturday and there was no image of her and then I read it might be difficult to get a free one so I drew it for wikipedia. Most people know her from her performance in the youtube-video, so I choosed it as reference. I think people always will remember her from her first performance, so you should try to get a free photo of this gig. btw I uploaded a new version some minutes ago because I wasn't happy with the first try. All the best, CL —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisurlaub (talk • contribs) 23:26, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for creating that image. I see nothing wrong with it in terms of policy or guidelines. It is tastefully done, and is a faithful representation of the individual. Given that it is not, as far as I can tell, a derivative of any copyrighted work, there is no issue here. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 06:33, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Rework of 27/28 April

Over the last 2 days, I completely reworked the article, where I restructured it, removed a fair amount of text which I felt was not entirely biographical (encyclopaedically speaking), and rewrote some of its prose. Many of the quotes have been shortened or removed for the reason that I felt was a collection of mish-mash. There were other instances of coatracking.

I have grave misgivings about the section entitled 'Critical professional evaluations', and I intend to remove much of that, as the section violates WP:UNDUE. I feel the while some of the observations about her 'good voice' are valid, all the work was over-reliant on a single published/source. The trimmed text would be best served in the preceding section to explain the 'Susan Boyle phenomenon'. Ohconfucius (talk) 07:03, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Evaluations by professionals in that field are undue? Interesting concept. — Ched :  ?  08:11, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

• I think you may have misunderstood me. I felt that having an entire section which represented 10% of the article, on a single sub-topic of professional evaluation all sourced from the same article was overdone. Please have a look at the article now and let me know how you feel about the integration into the previous section. Ohconfucius (talk) 08:33, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

• Nope, pretty sure I understood the intent. Yep, I looked. It's a natural ebb and flow as a young article progresses to maturity; as such, I trust the community to continue to improve the article. — Ched :  ?  20:36, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Nationality

Susan Boyle is the children of two Irish immigrants therefore under Irish law she is automatically a citizen of ireland so i think her nationality should be recorded as Irish and British. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.132.60.89 (talk) 22:26, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Her nationality is primarily what she self-identifies as (within the obvious legal possibilities). It's not up to Wikipedia to decide what nationality she's entitled to claim and therefore what nationality she should be recorded as. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 23:06, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Spelling error

Could someone correct the spelling error in paragraph 2 of the Early Singing section: it says "In what is the first known review of Boyle's singling ability"; should be "singing"

LoCarbSpaghetti (talk) 01:14, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

 Done J.delanoy^gabs_adds 01:22, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Earliest known recording

The article claims it's at her parents golden wedding when she was 25 ie in 1996: this My Kind of People audition tape is her in 1995. 86.148.50.100 (talk) 09:25, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

• I don't believe she was 25 in 1996. Ohconfucius (talk) 09:34, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

• My bad - of course she was 25 in 1986. Never was any good at sums. But is it still worth linking in the text to the new tape showing her singing and trying to ignore Michael Barrymore in the My Kind of People auditions? 86.148.50.100 (talk) 10:21, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

• They are already included as in-line links to the relevant 'performance' mentioned in the bio. I don't think they need to be more prominent, as they are Newspaper scoops of very poor recordings of a couple of fairly mediocre performances (and not the excellent and mature-sounding Boyle we saw on BGT). Ohconfucius (talk) 10:34, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

1984 Boyle Video

This is a link to a 1984 video of Boyle when she was 22 years old performing at a local talent show: [[16]] IP75 (talk) 17:43, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

WHAT IS THIS DOING ON WIKIPEDIA?!?!?

Closing discussion. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Susan Boyle and Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2009_April_17#Susan_Boyle. IP75 (talk) 01:48, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
she isn't notable. Delete now IMHO!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.112.2.170 (talk) 02:16, 29 April 2009 (UTC) Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Susan Boyle and Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2009_April_17#Susan_Boyle. J.delanoygabsadds 02:49, 29 April 2009 (UTC) I don't care - delete now!! she is a nobody —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.113.83.250 (talk) 23:41, 2 May 2009 (UTC) Maybe, but if so she's the most famous nobody on the planet, so we can't delete it. After all we have an article on Erica Roe who by most measures is also a nobody and certainly not as famous. -- Derek Ross | Talk 00:17, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

A couple of comments

Although I've read this page a few times already, I came just now because I read User talk:Dabomb87#Susan Boyle.

• "first broadcast in Britain" --> "first broadcast in Great Britain" or "first broadcast in the United Kingdom"
• "Boyle was born 1 April 1961 in Blackburn, West Lothian, Scotland^[12]" I think there should be a comma here, regardless of the ref
• "The birth was difficult, and Boyle was briefly deprived of oxygen. She was diagnosed as having learning difficulties." BLP unsourced! Both sentences should be removed if they can't be sourced
• "She said during an interview just before she sang on the talent show, she said she had" -- repetitive "she said"s
• "Hello! magazine" or simply Hello!?
• Britain's Got Talent and its aftermath section, "Boyle is well aware that the audience on Britain's Got Talent was initially hostile to her because of her appearance, but she has refused to change her image:" Thing is, she has. She's been photog'd with a new, dyed hairdo and in two brand spankin new outfits last week.
• They say, 'She's one of us, but look how talented she is." needs a closing single quote somewhere
• "Les Misérables [66] [67]." Refs shouldn't be spaced, and should appear after punctuation
• South Park should be italicised, and the episode title un-italicised and put inside double quotes

Very minor things. Generally it's well written, and doesn't leave anything out. Congrats to all involved in writing this. The artwork is fantastic, too, but I'm not sure about its usage in the Lead/Infobox. Matthewedwards :  Chat  07:16, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

• Your comments are much appreciated. The suggestions have been implemented. Ohconfucius (talk) 08:35, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

• No need to link Scottish or United Kingdom.
• "found fame" Why not simply "became famous"?
• I'd like to see a little more in the lead about her early life, just a sentence or two.
• Infobox: Use en dashes for ranges (2009—present is wrong). Also, the Occupations field is contradictory: "Unemployed, singer"?
• "Just nine days after her televised debut, videos of her audition"
• "all over the world"-->"worldwide"
• "and her 1999 rendition of "Cry Me a River" had been viewed over 100 million times on the Internet." Should be "has been" unless the video is not there any more.
• Ref 45 needs to be formatted.
• "She would visit "-->She visited
• "and also took part in the Edinburgh Fringe"
• "shocked and amazed Boyle" Can we have this in quotes?
• "Web technology such as YouTube, Facebook and Twitte" I think you mean web sites.
• "A total of 125 million video views on 20 different websites was reached within nine days." Rephrase to eliminate redundancy and for clarity: "Within nine days, the video had been viewed 125 times on 20 websites."

I'll try to come back for more. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:21, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

• Brief comments as away
• The BLP stuff used to be referenced(the Times?). I think someone could find it if they check back the edits.
• Claims of 125 Million views in 9 days is just wrong. I know figures keep changing as the views increase, but editors don't increase the time nor are such things normally sourced. It was only a 100 Million in 9 days that was referenced some days back. SunCreator (talk) 23:55, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks, keep the comments coming! Ohconfucius (talk) 05:10, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

About "She's been photog'd with a new, dyed hairdo and in two brand spankin new outfits last week": She did get her hair done and her eyebrows shaped, but what's the evidence that her clothing is new? Maybe it was in her closet during the audition. Cognita (talk) 02:36, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Southpark dialogue

This cultural reference to Susan Boyle is nasty ... Can we delete it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oakbranch8 (talk • contribs) 05:00, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I left in that she is mentioned in the episode, but I took out the quote itself. I agree that the quote itself is vile, tasteless and serves no real purpose in furthering the quality of this article. Nightmareishere (talk) 07:37, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Eurovision 2010

Acording to sources, she will be representing the Uk at eurovision 2010, add this top the article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.12.213.180 (talk) 16:35, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Could you provide the sources so we can cite them? Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 16:38, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Google it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.12.213.180 (talk) 12:55, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Nah. I've got better things to do than chase around on your behalf. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 13:11, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I googled it, found nothing more then some rumours on various forums. SunCreator (talk) 13:43, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Then add them to the article, moron —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.12.213.180 (talk) 17:13, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

How about no? This is an encyclopaedia, not a forum for speculation and rumour. Your language is charming, by the way. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 17:16, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Heh, just looked at your talk page. Sorry, I had believed you were here to contribute constructively - I have been disabused of that naive notion ;-) Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 17:26, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Her Voice

I work with audacity and I was wondering if I could be an administrator so I can update locked singer wikis as I said I work with audacity and all I have to do is record thier voices and do a couples of things with audacity all I can tell you is her voice type is a soprano she has an (A5) high in her frequency in audacity and she is also in the high C's C6 through C#8 So can I please be a administrator so I can update singer wiki's."Sprite7868 (talk) 8:52, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

You don't need to be an administrator: simply use {{editprotected}} to request that an autoconfirmed user make the change. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 14:02, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

 Done IP75 (talk) 20:11, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Hmm--take a look at Sprite's talk page. I'm not familiar with Audacity, but comments there suggest that using results from Audacity may be original research. Cognita (talk) 05:15, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I want to donate art to the cause

I have made an album cover for Susans first album using the computer program called micrsoft paint.

Who can I send it to to be considered for inclusion?SusansFriend (talk) 17:00, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

She doesn't have an album, therefore there is no article for your image to illustrate. Wikipedia doesn't collect artwork for its own sake. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 17:08, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Portrait

Will someone upload a real picture? The portrait is cheesy and barely resembling at best. With a million pictures of Boyle up, can't someone find one? Put up a real photo, or none at all.Dryamaka (talk) 00:34, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

If you can find and upload a free-use image please do so. Until then, please do not delete the current artwork without consensus. This subject was previously discussed here:[[17]] IP75 (talk) 01:55, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Some people may prefer a photographic image, but I say the portrait adds something to the article, and should stay - at least for the time being. There are no PD images available yet, but I have no doubt that one will become available soon once she takes to the circuit. Anyhow, someone has had the decency of creating the portrait for the project, and it should be treated with a little more respect than "Put up a real photo, or none at all". The comment ignores that there are good and bad photographs as well as portraits. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:48, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

The issue is not the quality of the portrait as much as it is for the sake of just putting up an image that is Boyle's. A portrait seems like an image of an image.Dryamaka (talk) 05:16, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

It's clear from your comments and the edit summary that you dislike the "cheesy" portrait. However, as an editor has remarked below, the portrait is not disparaging and is perfectly acceptable. I have left a WP:3RR warning on your talk page, and if you continue in this warring, I, or someone else will have you blocked. Ohconfucius (talk) 06:19, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I gotta agree with Dryamaka here- looks like a 'cheesy attempt of the uploader of the image (also the artist of said picture) to simply promote their own work, which would most likely not otherwise be seen. But alas...69.204.225.103 (talk) 02:12, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Not terribly relevant, I think. It's all been said. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:22, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

There are photographic portraits, painted portraits, drawn portraits--they're all images. The artist generously donated this portrait, and I think it does as good a job of representing Boyle as a photo would. Cognita (talk) 05:19, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

The portrait seems fine to me, nice of someone to make and release it for use. The art work is well done and not disparaging in any way. . . R. Baley (talk) 05:23, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Scripted Surprise?

The article shouldn't assume the judge's surprise was genuine. It seems unlikely they were unaware of her talent beforehand.Landroo (talk) 13:00, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

• It's TV and not reality TV, so it was probably rehearsed. The crux is WP:V - are there any media write-ups of the rehearsals we could use? Ohconfucius (talk) 14:32, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

In this context I find it important to mention that the first audition (or pre-screening) in Glasgow was in October. She was then called back for the audition on 21 January that was then edited for broadcasting on 11 April. I had put the October and January dates in the article early on, but Ohconfucius edited them out. Probably for brevity but I still think they are essential to put the surprise factor in perspective. Too many people honestly believe she just walked onto the stage out of the blue with a CD in her hand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Datesanddata (talk • contribs) 08:19, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

• Indeed, what you say is probably true. When I was cleaning up the article, I saw little relevance about the first auditions, and removed them for brevity's sake as you said. I wasn't aware of this angle you were trying to explore. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:39, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

  I don't think the judges themselves are at the pre-screening auditions (which are designed to let the brilliantly good and the terribly bad in), otherwise they'd have a massive workload. Sceptre ^(talk) 15:32, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

The indie Susan Boyle

Brian Boyd of The Irish Times refers to Nick Hemming as "the indie Susan Boyle" in his "Will the Ivor go to Nick? It's certainly worth a flutter" report. Don't know if this is relevant but I'll leave it here anyway. --candle•wicke 19:32, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

ENGVAR

Perhaps my British English is slipping, but I always thought the word can be equally validly spelt 'aging', just like 'honorable'? Ohconfucius (talk) 09:46, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, I didn't realise that. It's quite probable that you're correct. By the same token, "-ize" is perfectly valid British English (and, I believe, "-ise" is perfectly valid US English - both suffixes are pseudo Greek and Latin suffixes: in theory some words should end "ize" and some should end "ise", depending on their original source, but in practice we tend to use the same suffix for all words). However... I believe "ageing" is the more usual spelling, if that helps. I have no idea about "honorable" - I don't recall seeing it used in British English, but you can bet that now I'm looking out for it it'll pop up all the time!

Off-topic, I really wish Noah Webster had had more of an impact outside the US. English has way too many relics of the past, and could really do with an overhaul. I use "colour" because it's what I grew up with, but "color" makes a great deal more sense.

Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 10:10, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I've got a paper dictionary- both "ageing" and "aging" seem equally valid, but "honorable" is listed as U.S. only. I would certainly never write "honorable" personally. J Milburn (talk) 10:35, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

• Funny that, at school, we always spelt words "-ise", and I seem to recall always writing 'honour', but 'honourable' always looke strange to me. Ohconfucius (talk) 11:34, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Years active

Some editor(s) seems to be repeatedly inserting (in the infobox) that Boyle was active in 1999. Sure, she has always enjoyed singing: making a one-off charity recording, singing for the church choir, in karaoke clubs, and perhaps attending the odd audition... None of this activity appears to fall within any meaningful definition of "active" for the purposes of this biography as I believe most people would interpret it. What could this repeated insertion mean or imply? It conjures up images of her being interviews, performing concert tours, etc., so I have removed 1999 for now. Ohconfucius (talk) 04:43, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I've read about her version of a popular song in 1999 ("Cry Me a River") that is only now acquiring worldwide attention, and I believe that is why people are putting 1999 in as the active year. It can be argued that she was not active in years after that, so the debate is whether 1999 is usable for the purpose in question. CycloneGU (talk) 06:05, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the following from the article may be why 1999 is being noted as an 'active' year: 'In 1999 she recorded "Cry Me a River" for a charity CD funded by the local council to commemorate the Millennium' and 'In 1999, Boyle used "all her savings" to pay for a professionally cut demo tape, which she later sent to record companies, radio talent competitions, local and national TV' IP75 (talk) 08:14, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Years active

Some editor(s) seems to be repeatedly inserting (in the infobox) that Boyle was active in 1999. Sure, she has always enjoyed singing: making a one-off charity recording, singing for the church choir, in karaoke clubs, and perhaps attending the odd audition... None of this activity appears to fall within any meaningful definition of "active" for the purposes of this biography as I believe most people would interpret it. What could this repeated insertion mean or imply? It conjures up images of her being interviews, performing concert tours, etc., so I have removed 1999 for now. Ohconfucius (talk) 04:43, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I've read about her version of a popular song in 1999 ("Cry Me a River") that is only now acquiring worldwide attention, and I believe that is why people are putting 1999 in as the active year. It can be argued that she was not active in years after that, so the debate is whether 1999 is usable for the purpose in question. CycloneGU (talk) 06:05, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the following from the article may be why 1999 is being noted as an 'active' year: 'In 1999 she recorded "Cry Me a River" for a charity CD funded by the local council to commemorate the Millennium' and 'In 1999, Boyle used "all her savings" to pay for a professionally cut demo tape, which she later sent to record companies, radio talent competitions, local and national TV' IP75 (talk) 08:14, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Lame quote

I'm not sure what to make of this quote by Gordon Brown.

“ I hope Susan Boyle is okay because she is a really, really nice person ”

Either he's being quoted out of context, which is possible, or it is just a reflection of his not being able to find an intelligent well-wish (for being himself so beleaguered). Does its inclusion in the article bring anything that a simple "PM Gordon Brown wished the singer well" does not adequately do? Ohconfucius (talk) 07:23, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I did think of taking that out during my last prune. When there's a post mortem on the Brown premiership, there are going to be plenty of reliable sources looking at his relationship to popular culture and his perceived need to come up with quotes about reality show celebrities from Jade Goody onwards. Such remarks probably belong in an article on that. The only enlightenment they give here is an indication of SB's profile. Whether it's worth keeping such a gauche remark in for that I don't know. Perhaps we can make do with just a statement that the reports on SB attracted comment from Brown who also spoke to the organisers of the show?--Peter cohen (talk) 20:52, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Works for me. Ohconfucius (talk) 01:35, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Soprano?

I very much disagree that Boyle is a soprano. I hardly think that a source written in an informal language by a lifestyle reporter qualifies as reliable. The song she sang at her audition was very much not sang in a soprano voice and neither does her range go as high as a soprano's. Is it possible to get a real source for this information or otherwise change it? 79.71.114.103 (talk) 17:10, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Have to agree with the above. I'm no expert, but she doesn't sound soprano to me, and the cite given is very weak and not at all authoritative. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 17:26, 26 May 2009 (UTC

I would have said alto/mezzo-soprano, but I'm no expert either. Haven't found any good sources. Dlabtot (talk) 19:43, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Agree that the journalist is a 'lifestyle writer' and not a music writer, so her authority may be questionable. What say we remove that mention for now. The Elaine Paige article does not even mention her vocal range, and I'm sure this trivial detail is best left out. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:29, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and done this. Anyone can feel free to re-add with a good cite. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 20:03, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

A singer's vocal range is not a trivial matter. I would be interested in how a voice coach would describe Susan Boyle's voice and range. Stillpt12 (talk) 08:15, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Independence Day White House Visit is Not Factual

On Wednesday, June 3, Access Hollywood and Extra, American entertainment news programs, both reported that the story about Susan Boyle being invited to perform at the White House is not factually accurate. Their stories report that they contacted the White House Press Office which confirmed that no such invitation had been issued. Stillpt12 (talk) 08:06, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

• Hmm... Would it still correct as far as the article is concerned? this information is presented in the article as a quote of what her family said, and is so sourced. Ohconfucius (talk) 08:33, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Inaccuracies and half truths?

“ Professor Chris Thompson, chief medical officer of The Priory, told the Daily Mail that the clinic was “not a rest home and... not a spa. It is a psychiatric hospital.” ” — paragraph 4, Telegraph article

“ The 48-year-old had been the clear favourite to win the ITV1 talent show but, after a week of intense pressure in which the media followed her every move, her behaviour became erratic following her defeat. ” — paragraph 7, Guardian article

• Many people like Boyle, but when the quality press clearly describes what the Priory is, I think it would not be all that appropriate to refer to it as merely "a clinic". WP does not do euphemisms. In addition, Boyle's behaviour was reported by the press as "erratic", and I see nothing wrong in citing that they said it, without embellishments. The sentence about the PCC was allowed to remain, but removal of any mention of her erratic behaviour and even a very brief hint at the nature of what the tabloid press were reporting deprives the paragraph of important context. Therefre, inclusion of this detail would appear to comply with WP:NPOV whilst being in respect of WP:BLP. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:37, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comment In looking over the article, and some of the previous versions, my attention is drawn to some of the sources used. I've also read through items such as: The Times (aka timesonline.co.uk), The Guardian, and The Daily Telegraph in search of what the best possible WP:RSs would be. I'm under the impression that The Times has fallen out of favor a bit since the Murdoch purchase, and may be considered a bit tabloidish by some. The Guardian and Daily Telegraph appear to be more mainstream, and perhaps more solid references. Perhaps some expert opinion on both the sources and in the mental health fields would be of some assistance in firming up an potential weak-spots in the article. (sadly, I'm not sure who that would be). I think Ohconfucius is on the right track here, and I agree that we must steer clear of any tabloid style of documentation. As always with BLP articles, we must be showing diligent due respect, and it's important that we "get it right". — Ched :  ?  14:28, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Article used for advertising and piggybacking i.e. Feminists attack wikipedia again

I find the following quote disturbingly inappropriate to the article: ""Tanya Gold wrote in The Guardian that the difference between Boyle's hostile reception and the more neutral response to Paul Potts in his first audition reflected society's expectation that women be both good-looking and talented, with no such expectation existing for men"

Besides... Paul Potts was a 20 years younger man dressed in a tuxedo and very well groomed. Boyle looked as if though she never took a shower and looked like she just got out of bed without combing her hair and with clothes that looked 50 years old. She also spoke in an obviously eccentric and clumsy manner with a very obvious developmental challenge.

Anyway, in terms of the wikipedia article...

I don't think this part is really relevant, and shouldn't be in this article... its just feminists running around wikipedia trying to piggyback on every major event to insert "proof" of discrimination.

It doesn't concern her career, doesn't concern her life or her biography, its just someone's theory on gender in general. I don't think wikipedia should turn into a place where people find ways to advertise their theories and movements. Stick to her, and just her, don't insert theories that generalize out of her onto the entire populations and what not.--AlekNovy (talk) 10:08, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Puffery/excessive details

This is probably one of the few articles on a person who was only became known on one show less than two months ago that has become so large. It seems to contain lots of trivial information and WP:NEWSy wording.

1. Why are the heading early life and personal life at opposite ends of the article? Shouldn't they both be sub-headings under biography heading?
2. "Some early video clips of her performances came to light" newsy
3. "International news outlets also carried stories on her, including among others, The Times of India,[45] Germany's Der Spiegel,[46] China's Xinhua News Agency,[47] Brazil's Zero Hora" if Zero Hora doesn't have an article, is it worth mentioning?
4. "The same video was judged so popular on Reddit that it was put on the site's main page" - no third party source mentioning this to suggest it is notable enough to worth mentioning? And does it even say anywhere on reddit page that it was featured on that date?
5. Is the entire Social analysis even appropriate? Doesn't most of this belong on Wikiquote/Wikinews? The detail just seems over the top.
6. "Boyle's widespread Internet success and her appeal in reaching out to millions of people across the world, has meant that she has become a cultural icon in a relatively short time." - What? If your going to suggest somebody is a 'cultural icon', you really need to back it up with a bunch of reliable sources.
7. The detail under Cultural references could be slightly cut down.
8. "She said during an interview just before she sang on the talent show that she had "never been kissed" but later said "It was just banter and it has been blown way out of proportion." seeing as this was obviously a joke, why is it even mentioned? Again excessive detail.
9. I would also suggest checking for dead links due to the nature of the sources being used.--Otterathome (talk) 15:19, 7 June 2009

This article is obvious spam/vanity and should be deleted

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Susan Boyle and Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2009_April_17#Susan_Boyle. Dlabtot (talk) 16:51, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This person has nothing to do in an encyclopedia whatsoever. Just being a contestant in some ridiculous TV show doesn't make a person notable. Anway, I don't understand the fuss in the yellow press about this person. I watched the Youtube sequence and was not impressed, being a singer myself. There's nothing special about her singing (she's an adequate amateur at the best) and nothing that merits a biography in an encyclopedia. Uncle Thesig (talk) 13:47, 30 May 2009 (UTC) Whether you are impressed or not is irrelevant and she is far more notable than hundreds of thousands of bios we have. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 17:43, 30 May 2009 (UTC) "Far more notable than hundreds of thousands of bios we have"? I doubt that. To this date, I haven't seen a less notable biography at Wikipedia. Uncle Thesig (talk) 16:49, 31 May 2009 (UTC) I'm sure you simply haven't looked hard enough. Have a quick glance at the references to this article - they include sources as varied as Der Spiegel, The Times of India, Xinhua, Zero Hora, "Ynet", "Al Arabiya", and at that point I stopped looking. This is someone considered notable by the world's press, and we report her here as such. Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 16:54, 31 May 2009 (UTC) As I said on Talk:Hollie Steel#Merge, since contestents of other TV shows do not have their own articles (e.g. List of The Apprentice candidates (UK)), I do not see why contestents of BGT should have their own articles. I do not think that this should be deleted, but it should at least be merged along with other pages about contestents. jftsang 19:52, 30 May 2009 (UTC) The obvious question is have any of those people had the same amount of coverage in reliable sources as Susan Boyle? If not it would be a case of apples and oranges. If you could offer a case where an reliaty show contestent was merge dispite have widspread coverage in the mainstreem press that would help your case greatly.--70.24.177.92 (talk) 20:11, 30 May 2009 (UTC) This train has left the station - twice. In April, there were two votes for deletion, both of which failed overwhelmingly. See the notice at the top of this article: This page was previously nominated for deletion. Please see prior discussion(s) before considering re-nomination: Keep, 12 April 2009, AFD Snowball keep, 17 April 2009, DRV Krakatoa (talk) 20:20, 30 May 2009 (UTC) Yes, this discussion should be closed now. Graham Colm Talk 20:28, 30 May 2009 (UTC)|} Closed discussion. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Susan Boyle and Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2009_April_17#Susan_Boyle. IP75 (talk) 06:57, 31 May 2009 (UTC) She's a non-winning contestant in Britain's Got Talent. Per Jftsang, I don't see why non-winning contestants in Britain's Got Talent should have their own biographies. I second the proposal to merge the article with similar ones on other non-winning Britain's Got Talent contestants. (is there a List of Britain's Got Talent contestants already?) Uncle Thesig (talk) 16:43, 31 May 2009 (UTC) Among other things (like gaining international media attention) she's a non-winning contestant on Britain's Got Talent. Were she only a non-winning contestant I'd agree with you; as it is, and in light of the two unsuccessful AfDs, I agree with IP75 and the other editors who have suggested that the article should be neither deleted nor merged due to the subject's obvious notability outside BGT. Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 16:48, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I would like to see a full musical professional analysis of Susan's singing range, vocal skill etc. It is clear that Susan Boyle has a unique singing talent, but I would like to see a professional comparative analysis on this topic (comparison to former singers, contemporaries etc) as a part of this Wiki page. For example, Susan Boyle singing 'Cry Me a River' is arguably the best version of that song ever sung. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JRH2063 (talk • contribs) 08:12, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Hospitalization

I think this should be added, I don't have an account so someone with experience should mention she was hospitalized. Source: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/showtracker/2009/06/dispatch-from-britain-susan-boyles-breakdown-causes-reflection-and-even-more-media-speculation.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.18.17.1 (talk) 21:33, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Maybe we should have a section called Aftermath, and its content could read:

On the day following the final show, after consulting her doctor, Boyle was admitted to the private Priory Clinic in London, suffering from exhaustion.

How does that sound?! Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 21:36, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Just saw that, I read your comment when I came to remove mine :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.18.17.1 (talk) 21:45, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Heh! It's a testament to the length and depth of the article ;-) Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 21:48, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Clearly related to the stress from the publicity from the show, and not an after-effect. I've merged it. Ohconfucius (talk) 05:20, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

• There's more on the circumstances surrounding the hospitalisation which was sourced to the Times which someone removed citing WP:BLP concerns. I don't quite see how there is any such violation, so have reinstated it. Ohconfucius (talk) 07:52, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Please see: [[18]] and obtain consensus before restoring WP:BLP disputed content. A WP:RS does not make material BLP compliant or appropriate. Thanks, IP75 (talk) 09:23, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

• You are correct so far, but you failed to explain in what way it violates WP:BLP. Message on your talk page now pasted below. Ohconfucius (talk) 09:27, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Question to User:IP75

So there seems to be an issue with what I put in. I have read WP:BLP, and it's no clearer to me what you are objecting to other than me having restored something you deleted. You have unilaterally removed something which is legitimately sourced to a high-quality journal (The Times). The paragraph you took offense to is below for your information.

In the run-up to the final, tabloids were reporting her arguments and tantrums. The Times suggested there had been an incident at the London hotel where Boyle was staying. Police confirmed that they went to assist "doctors assessing a woman under the Mental Health Act", although she did not need to be sectioned.

Paragraph 4 of the Times article said:

Boyle was admitted to the Priory Clinic in North London on Sunday, after an unspecified incident at the Crowne Plaza hotel, Central London. The police have confirmed that officers attended to help “doctors assessing a woman under the Mental Health Act”, and the London Ambulance Service said that its staff had been there, too. She is not thought to have been sectioned.

and paragraph 7 starts with:

In the run-up to last weekend’s final, tabloids were reporting arguments and temper tantrums.

If I misrepresented anything, I can assure you it was inadvertent, and we can perhaps discuss the wording. If you can agree there was no misrepresentation, I would appreciate it if you spelt out explicitly what issue you have with which phrase, rather than resorting to a single summary deletion and revert of my restoration without engaging me on the article talk page. Such aggressiveness would appear not to be warranted.

Thank you. Ohconfucius (talk) 09:24, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I am in agreement with Ohconfucius. It is a very sensitive area, but BLP concerns here usually extend to whether the information is an intrusion on personal life just for gossip's sake. This has been covered in a number of reliable sources as a consequence of Boyle's accelerated rise to fame, the resulting pressure and the controversial nature of these kind of talent shows. It is widespread public knowledge, is relevant and should be in an encyclopaedia. IP75 hasn't supplied any reasoning to explain why the content violates BLP, so the it should be restored. Wikipedia is not censored.

The only modification I would suggest is neutralising some of the wording;

In the run-up to the final, tabloids reported her erratic behaviour.

Reference to "arguments and tantrums" could be seen as negatively judgemental. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 10:12, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored, but WP:BLP does talk about respect for individuals' privacy which is a broader matter than just checking that a reliable source exists.

BTW, for those who aren't aware, there's a related thread at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Susan_Boyle. --Peter cohen (talk) 11:22, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

From how I'm reading it, isn't there an issue with the source drawing a conclusion, or rather, leading readers to draw the conclusion that the woman mentioned was in fact Boyle, when there's no actual evidence that this is the case? To my eyes, this looks like a highly inappropriate assumption. Just because a source states something, doesn't mean we should as well. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 17:25, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

There is no question about who it is. There is no question of this being a matter of privacy. It is a matter of public record and omitting it from Wikipedia simply because some editors don't like it is simply censorship and completely bizarre. How can it be a matter of privacy when your own brother is doing the rounds discussing the matter on national TV on both sides of the Atlantic? Like here. And here? Or here. Google News is currently listing over three thousand news articles based on this story. The idea that keeping it out of Wikipedia is showing respect for her privacy is ludicrous. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 19:04, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

There is a very good recent article posted in the Guardian (I think from yesterday..with a Susan Boyle header) on learning disabilities written by someone from UK MenCap. This article should be referenced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JRH2063 (talk • contribs) 07:40, 10 June 2009 (UTC) The Susan Boyle phenomenon has highlighted and provoked a debate in the UK media about 'learning disabilities' and the fact that Susan has inadvertently drawn attention to this subject.

Susan Boyle was compared to Eva Peron by Amanda Holden in the BGT final. I think that is a fair contemporary comparison. Ref: Eva Perón has become a part of international popular culture [4], most famously as the subject of the musical Evita. [5] Christina Alvarez Rodriguez claims that Eva has never left the collective conscience of Argentines. [1] Cristina Fernandez, the first female elected President of Argentina, claims that women of her generation owe a debt to Eva for "her example of passion and combativeness".[6]

A Slacker Writes

````I do not know who the editor of this page is, but for sure they are slacking (many good comments I have seen are not being incorporated for the Susan Boyle page). Another cultural reference today on net vis a vis the spoof on the famous 'Downfall' spoof you tube video series (this one is called 'Brownfall' - Susan Boyle is explicitly mentioned in that). The Downfall video spoof series is surely a cultural phenomenon - it was even mentioned in the UK Daily Telegraph today and a few other national newspapers. Get yout act together, who ever is the editor of the page. -- wrote JRH2063 who doesn't seem to know that comments should be signed by adding ~~~~ to the end.

Since this is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, that would be yourself, wouldn't it ? -- Derek Ross | Talk 00:09, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Of course, I'd prefer to not see trivial stuff added to the page, and this seems somewhat trivial. But that's just me. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 01:52, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Hunster. A good, widely commented (per RS) spoofs may be admissible, but I don't thing this is necessarily one of them. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:05, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Portrait (2)

The portrait should not be used. Firstly, there is an issue that it is a derivative work- it is obviously copied from a screenshot. Secondly, there is the issue of original research- it's hardly right to say "this is what she looked like. We aren't using a photo of this celebrity, we're using this painting some blogger made". Thirdly, as already said, this isn't by a notable artist, so effectively serves as a promotion of their work, in us claiming it as a good likeness and a good portrait. Where should we draw the line? Should I upload my sketches of people we don't have pictures of? I'm an awful artist, I haven't tried to draw anything in years, but who are you to tell me that? Seriously, I can't believe people think that this image should be included. Please do not add it back without providing some serious reasons to support its inclusion. J Milburn (talk) 18:23, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

To address your points;

• I did not blindly revert. As you can see, this has already been discussed and consensus reached. If anything was done that was blind, it would be your removal before noting either.
• It is not a promotion of an artist work any more than contributed photos promote the photographer. The artist is not mentioned on the article.
• Your skills as an artist would be established by consensus. If your sketch was poor that would be established as with any other contributed images on articles.
• Whether it is derivative or not is a valid question. But I don't see anything obvious about it.
• We have no other image that is free use.

Please do not simply revert removal of content when you have been asked to bring the matter to talk page and reach consensus first. --Escape Orbit <sup>(Talk)</sup> 19:26, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

We have had this discussion before, and there was a consensus for keeping the portrait (and I believe I spoke up for the portrait - and, indeed, still feel there's a case for it), however... last time this was discussed an editor made a few general comments as to why the portrait was against policy, but then disappeared. J Milburn, I feel, goes into more detail in this regard, and I'm moving towards agreement (i.e. that we should remove the portrait). That said, I'm not sure I agree that this is "obviously" copied from a screenshot, and I'm unconvinced by the "notability of the artist" comment - Wikipedia is full of graphic artists who do useful, valuable work. It seems odd to limit them to inanimate objects ("chemical symbols are OK, but portraits? No way!")

To my mind the biggest possible issues are WP:BLP and WP:OR. On balance, I think I've moved away from being comfortable with a portrait, and would prefer to hold out for a decent free photograph.

Cheers, This flag once was red<sup>propaganda</sup><sub>deeds</sub> 19:38, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I didn't mean to accuse anyone of blindly reverting, I was just requesting that it wasn't done. The promotion aspect is, I agree, not awfully important- the OR issue is more important, from my point of view. I think the issue of a derivative work is a more philosophical one than legal one- this image is obviously based on what was on the show, and so it seems to be a "well, we can't have her on the show, so we'll have a painting of her on the show". Has anyone tried contacting an organisation that owns pictures of her? Trust me, it does work out- I managed it for Connie Talbot, Faryl Smith and Andrew Johnston (singer). Here, we effectively have "you wanna know what she looks like? This is what some blogger thinks she looks like, because we don't have a photo". It really doesn't look very professional, and it doesn't encourage people to share their own images. The article doesn't need a picture, and I think that, philosophically, editorially, possibly legally and certainly from a developmental point of view, no picture is better than this picture. J Milburn (talk) 20:10, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

There is no OR issue nor is there a copyvio issue. Instead, it looks like a simple case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Dlabtot (talk) 20:47, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Erm, seeing as you're the one who's not actually providing anything to back up what you're saying, wouldn't this be a case of you "just liking it", rather than me "just not liking it"? Surely, it must, by definition, be one or the other, unless this person has actually personally seen Boyle perform with a microphone, close up. J Milburn (talk) 21:04, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually you are the person making the absurd claim that User:Chrisurlaub's original work is a copyright violation. As far as me liking it, frankly, I don't, esthetically. However, it does add to the article. Dlabtot (talk) 21:18, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

See derivative work, and read my point above. I wasn't talking about whether you like it aesthetically, your assertion that "it does add to the article", based on nothing, is exactly what I'm talking about. If you're concerned about my motives, raise it with me on my talk page. If you have anything useful to add to this discussion, add it here. J Milburn (talk) 21:52, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Sure, it adds to the article, in the same way that any picture adds to an article. "A picture is worth a thousand words" and all that. People who read the article and see the portrait have an idea what Susan Boyle looks like; since we don't have any other picture, without the portrait they wouldn't. Personally, I am not wild about the portrait and would rather have a photograph. But since we don't, I certainly think that the portrait adds something to the article and that it should not be removed. Krakatoa (talk) 22:23, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

J Milburn, I'm sorry that you are misunderstanding what the term 'derivative work' means. Dlabtot (talk) 22:28, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, you're so right, taking someone else's work and copying it is in no way a derivative work. I completely take back what I said. J Milburn (talk) 22:30, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Chrisurlaub didn't do that; s/he created a piece of original artwork. Dlabtot (talk) 03:39, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

This edit proves a point I made above. As soon as the portrait is removed, we have good faith efforts to add images to the article. Sadly, in this case, the effort was misguided, but hopefully the next person will add a more suitable image. J Milburn (talk) 22:39, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Please do not add it back without providing some serious reasons to support its inclusion.
Actually, you should not have taken off the image without "providing some serious reasons to support" its removal. Can't have it both ways love. If there's an issue with the image, it should be tagged for the proper violation and put through an WP:IFD/FFD if necessary. --Madchester (talk) 00:54, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

• "Trust me, it does work out- I managed it for Connie Talbot, Faryl Smith and Andrew Johnston (singer)." That would be really excellent. Would you be kind enough to source a suitable/respectable image of Boyle, and obtain permission to use it here? I think that would put an end to the arguments on this issue. I would still be inclined to say 'keep' the existing image in the meantime. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:03, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

The portrait is clearly based on the BGT footage, and thus is a derivative work and thus must be treated as Non-free. Since we can't have non-free images of living persons, it needs to be removed (even though I understand the effort behind it was in good faith). --MASEM (t) 03:05, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Do you know of any case in which a court held that a portrait of someone, which the artist made based upon seeing the subject in a video, was a derivative work? I greatly doubt it. The instances cited in our article on derivative work are where someone took a creative work (e.g. a painting or song) and made something similar to it, thus "stealing" the original artist's intellectual property in some sense. An artistic rendering of how someone looked in an unscripted video is hardly the same. If this portrait is a "derivative work," then practically every portrait of a famous person will be a derivative work, unless the artist manages to get the person to sit for a portrait. This isn't my area of law, but I greatly doubt that that is the law. And you haven't cited any case or other authority that suggests otherwise. Moreover, even if that were the case, surely creating such a portrait in order to illustrate an article in a non-profit encyclopedia would be deemed fair use and thus permissible. Krakatoa (talk) 03:31, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

It's not a legal issue - very doubtful anyone will sue WP over that. However, it does fail the free content mission and the Foundation resolution on images; as a derivative work, it is not redistributable. That's why it needs to be removed. --MASEM (t) 03:40, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

It's uploaded at Commons, if it's not free it should be deleted there. If it is free, then I assume they will continue to host it. R. Baley (talk) 03:43, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

This is not a derivative work. It's an original piece of artwork that has been released into the public domain. Dlabtot (talk) 03:46, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I say it's not for us to decide as such. I think that so long as it's not deleted from Commons, we can use it - and we should, until someone creates or obtains a photographic image we can use here. Ohconfucius (talk) 04:17, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Is everyone missing the fact that the artist himself uploaded the image and further provided permission to OTRS to release the image to the public domain? There's a notice on the image page that specifically says The permission for use of this work has been verified and archived in the Wikimedia OTRS system. So, this image is free and clear for use anywhere on Wikipedia. Whether or not some editors just don't like the painting is a different beast. But the image itself is free to use. - ALLST✰R▼<sup>echo</sup> <sub>wuz here @</sub> 05:00, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that fact is definitely being missed. Everyone isn't missing it, but it certainly is being missed. Dlabtot (talk) 05:09, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

No, I see that, so the "chain" of fair use from the artist to Commons is ok. Where the chain breaks is that the image he started with too closely resembles the now-famous image of Susan singing her first lines on BGT. That part of the evaluation is not made by OTRS, but still needs to be considered. If the image is considered a derivative work, then that chain of fair use breaks down, and the image would have to be removed (not due to legal reasons, just that it fails our non-free image policy). --MASEM (t) 05:20, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

• Perhaps. But why are we discussing all this here? People have been trying to remove the image from the article, which should be discussed here. That matter has been resolved, but the GFDL/OTRS matter ought surely to be discussed at File talk:Susan Boyle.jpg? Ohconfucius (talk) 05:44, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard#Susan_Boyle_image ... Dlabtot (talk) 05:53, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps we're discussing it here because some of us don't know/don't like Commons? Frankly, they can do what they like, I'm not overly fussed, but I get annoyed when images that should not be here are used on the English Wikipedia (which is what I do care about...) J Milburn (talk) 16:12, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Well since the image has been nommed for deletion over on Commons, that will need to be settled first. - ALLST✰R▼<sup>echo</sup> <sub>wuz here @</sub> 21:26, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Those discussions take a disgusting amount of time. The fact that the image may be deleted over there should not stop it being removed from this article. We would not wait the five days for deletion of a non-free image of a living person before removing it from the biography, and nor should we wait here. This image should not be used for a very large number of reasons, and should be removed now. J Milburn (talk) 21:46, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I yet to see a reason why it should be removed and why so urgently. - ALLST✰R▼<sup>echo</sup> <sub>wuz here @</sub> 22:37, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

What are these "very large number of reasons"? So far you've floated a few, but the only one that's stuck in any way is that it is derivative. A claim that may hold water, but is debatable and clearly not accepted by others. The only thing I see it being unquestionably derivative of is of Susan Boyle's face, and that use is covered by fair use. --Escape Orbit <sup>(Talk)</sup> 22:47, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

It is not covered by fair use, as Boyle is still alive, meaning that the image is clearly replaceable. Other issues I have raised include the idea of original research (why should we care what some blogger thinks Boyle looks like?) BLP (who are we to parade around an image of a living person as authentic when it is just someone's impression of her?) and the fact that it clearly would not be a positive to have paintings/drawings of every living celebrity simply because we'd rather not take a photo. We're an encyclopedia, not some kind of massive art project. J Milburn (talk) 15:50, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

The emerging consensus is re-affirming that you are wrong. While you are no doubt sincere in your beliefs, and mean well, your assertions about copyright law are decidedly misinformed. Dlabtot (talk) 17:27, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Be that as it may, it still leaves the issues of WP:BLP and WP:OR... Cheers, This flag once was red<sup>propaganda</sup><sub>deeds</sub> 17:35, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

The acronyms have been used, but no one has actually elucidated any BLP or OR issue. Would you care to? Dlabtot (talk) 17:38, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I can't do much better than quote J Milburn verbatim: "...original research (why should we care what some blogger thinks Boyle looks like?) BLP (who are we to parade around an image of a living person as authentic when it is just someone's impression of her?)" Beyond that I'd prefer to let J Milburn explain - partly because they're more concerned than me (when this was first raised I supported keeping the portrait, though I've since been swayed by the BLP argument in particular), and partly because, as an admin, they'll have a better grasp of BLP and OR than me. Cheers, This flag once was red<sup>propaganda</sup><sub>deeds</sub> 17:45, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Again, yes, it has been asserted that there is some BLP or OR issue. No one is disputing that. What is missing is some sensible rationale for these assertions. Dlabtot (talk) 17:55, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought J Milburn's rationale was sensible. Which parts in particular did you think were not sensible? Cheers, This flag once was red<sup>propaganda</sup><sub>deeds</sub> 18:08, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

What exactly is the argument that claims this is a BLP violation? I haven't seen one, or if it has been expressed, I didn't recognize it as such. After some rationale is put forth, I'd be happy to evaluate it.

I've posted a notice on the BLP noticeboard. Dlabtot (talk) 19:33, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah, understood. Right - there are a couple of factors from WP:BLP that leap out:

• "Never use self-published books, zines, websites, webforums, blogs and tweets as a source for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the biographical material" (in this case the portrait is self-published; I believe it would be a different matter if we were to use a sketch from a magazine, say);
• "Remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced; that is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see Wikipedia:No original research); or that relies upon self-published sources (unless written by the subject of the BLP; see below) or sources that otherwise fail to meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Verifiability" (in this case the portrait is a conjectural interpretation of a source, as acknowledged by the artist).

The latter point also highlights the WP:OR concerns.

These are just the ones that occurred to me; I'd like J Milburn to expand on these if necessary.

Cheers, This flag once was red<sup>propaganda</sup><sub>deeds</sub> 19:40, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Well, I don't see anything contentious about the portrait, so I don't find the second point to be particularly persuasive. The first is directly addressed at WP:NOR#Original images, I'm less sure about -it also seems a stretch but I'm willing to let others have their say and abide by consensus. Dlabtot (talk) 20:02, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd like to add a less tangible comment- in using a painting/drawing rather than a photograph, we are effectively dictating what the subject looks like, rather than showing what they genuinely did look like. Obviously, diagrams are permissable to demonstrate something like battle movements or the structure of a molecule, but I really don't think self-drawn images are appropriate for a living person, or even a deceased person- what we're illustrating is incredible specific, and we shouldn't really be deciding what it looks like. I see little difference between this and drawing our own version of a work of art. (Obviously, as above, this issue dissolves somewhat when the work is by someone significant, or has been previously published.) I just see these images as original research- we should show what is there, rather than offer what could be. J Milburn (talk) 19:58, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Susan Boyle - break 1

I'm going to have to favor the Madchester, All Star, Dlabtot, points of view here. After some explanation, I think I see what J. Milburn is getting at - but I think it's a bit of a stretch to consider the portrait OR, or derivative. I agree though, we do need to get one of our Scottish editors to grab a pic. eventually. My preference for keeping the pic. stems from the GA/FA criteria which encourages some graphic representation when possible. While I'm in no way an art critic, I think it's a decent piece of work, and I appreciate the editor (Cris or Chris I think was his/her name), who took the time to do the work and offer it as free use to us. My understanding of consensus leads me to believe that we do have a preference for keeping it until a picture is obtained (even if there isn't really anything overwhelming or formal on the matter). Just adding my 2-cents. ;) — Ched :  ?  20:03, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

First someone suggested deleting the article altogether, even though hundreds of thousands of people have read this article. Now, someone wants to remove her portrait picture. My guess is, if she looked like Halle Berry, there wouldn't even be this discussion. Leave the picture up, for crying out loud. Nightmareishere (talk) 04:12, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

It's not quite as simple as that - it's not a "black and white" issue. I certainly didn't think deleting the article was a good idea, and I like the portrait (though I'd prefer, and I think most of us would prefer) a photograph. There are plenty of "Halle Berry" articles where the photos used have been removed for similar reasons, and the administrator who initiated this thread has removed portraits at other articles. I tend to agree with the policy reasons behind the move, even if I like the portrait. Cheers, This flag once was red<sup>propaganda</sup><sub>deeds</sub> 12:23, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

"in this case the portrait is self-published" The hosting was done to manage the OTRS-requirements easier (to proof that I was allowed to upload it to commons). Or does it mean, I uploaded the picture myself? Chrisurlaub (talk) 10:41, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

It means the portrait wasn't published in, say, a magazine. My reading of WP:BLP is that if a magazine says something about a BLP subject we can report that, and by the same token if a magazine published a portrait of a BLP subject we could (disregarding copyright concerns for the moment) publish that, since we would effectively be saying "this is what this magazine says Susan Boyle looks like". In this case we're saying "this is what an editor on Wikipedia says Susan Boyle looks like", which is an WP:NOR concern. It's frustrating: I think your portrait enhances the article, but I do tend to agree with the policies behind the reasoning. Cheers, This flag once was red<sup>propaganda</sup><sub>deeds</sub> 10:47, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Are there any guidelines which one could follow to meet the Wikipedia-policies? Is it a better choice to upload pictures to flickr so that they are not "self-published"? Someone takes a photo and uploads it - is this self-publishing as well? Was it a mistake to upload it to my webpage after uploading it to commons? Greets, Chrisurlaub (talk) 11:13, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

If you could get the portrait published in a magazine or newspaper, yes, but flikr, no. To be clear, I don't think you've done anything wrong - I just think WP:BLP and WP:NOR prevent anything other than a photo being used to illustrate a WP:BLP subject. It wasn't a mistake to upload the picture to your webpage - it's your picture, and that's your right. Note also that other wikipedias (i.e. other languages) will have different rules to en.wiki, and you may well be able to use your portrait on those. Cheers, This flag once was red<sup>propaganda</sup><sub>deeds</sub> 11:17, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Look at it like this- a photo is automatically authentic, as it is a representation of what the person actually looks like. A drawing is questionable, as it is what the artist believes the subject to look like. As such, I would argue it was necessary for a recognised third party to verify it as authentic (through publishing it) before it could be considered useful. Still, I would strongly, strongly favour a photograph. We should be showing what people do look like, not what we think they should look like. J Milburn (talk) 11:33, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Now I have read WP:BLP and there is not a word about pictures/photos/illustrations, it says "material". And because of the context it's obvious that this refers to some kind of "written fact". It is absolutely fine if someone doesn't like the portrait or prefers a photo or another portrait, but so far I don't see that the pic breaks any rule. And if the majority (or too many editors or S. B. herself) would claim the portrait is not suitable: drop it. Btw. this whole proofing, reading and discussing took more time than drawing the picture ;) All the best, Chrisurlaub (talk) 13:18, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I just think WP:BLP and WP:NOR prevent anything other than a photo being used to illustrate a WP:BLP subject. - that's an interesting viewpoint, but it doesn't haven't any apparent basis in policy. Have you considered trying to change the BLP policy to match your viewpoint? You might also consider pressing your point at the BLP noticeboard. Dlabtot (talk) 15:37, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Of course I wouldn't try to change a policy purely to support my viewpoint - that would be completely unethical. (By the same token, I'm sure if someone raised the matter on either the WP:BLP or WP:OR noticeboards they'd have the courtesy to post here, so admins like J Milburn and other involved parties would have an opportunity to explain their reasoning...)

This isn't about me "not wanting" the portrait - when this issue first cropped up I disagreed with the "drive by" BLP and OR arguments, and spoke up for the portrait. I like it, and in some respects prefer traditional art to photographs. My concern is that, now the BLP and OR arguments have been explained in greater detail, I feel there is sufficient concern to hold off on displaying the portrait until all concerns are resolved. At least one of those concerns has been addressed - I think we all agree that the image is free, and not a derivative work, for example. But given that there may be BLP concerns I believe it prudent to hold off - after all, there is no WP:DEADLINE. The worst case scenario is that the article isn't illustrated for a few more days. The best case scenario is - as I think most of us agree - is that the added "publicity" this discussion creates results in a free photograph appearing.

Cheers, This flag once was red<sup>propaganda</sup><sub>deeds</sub> 15:59, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Umm, no, it wouldn't be unethical to go to WP:BLP and insert a phrase like "Only photographs should be used to illustrate BLP subjects" if that's what you think it should say.

Quite the contrary - that's how Wikipedia works.

I'm sure if someone raised the matter on either the WP:BLP or WP:OR noticeboards - as I have repeatedly pointed out, including in the comment to which you are replying, I have already raised the matter on the WP:BLP noticeboard. Dlabtot (talk) 16:16, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

And I've now raised it at the OR noticboard as well: WP:No_original_research/noticeboard#Susan_Boyle_image. Dlabtot (talk) 16:47, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I feel it would be unethical to unilaterally change policy to support an argument elsewhere... but thanks for explaining to me how Wikipedia works...!

I understood that you had raised the matter on the BLP noticeboard; my point was that you hadn't raised that here until several days later, denying other involved parties the opportunity to state their positions. Thanks for raising it at the OR noticeboard, I'll pop by both noticeboards shortly and comment.

Cheers, This flag once was red<sup>propaganda</sup><sub>deeds</sub> 16:55, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

No one is talking about 'unilaterally changing policy'. All edits are subject to revert, so no one can unilaterally change policy. So while I appreciate the thanks, and accept them with all the sincerity with which they were offered, I don't believe I did a very good job with my explanation. Dlabtot (talk) 17:02, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

my point was that you hadn't raised that here until several days later, denying other involved parties the opportunity to state their positions. - that is a falsehood. I posted on the BLP noticeboard at 19:31, 14 May 2009 (UTC). Two seconds later I brought this to the attention of this talk page with this edit at 19:33, 14 May 2009 (UTC) Dlabtot (talk) 17:11, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I need to apologise for that second comment - I hadn't realised you'd posted here.

I think we're both being a little unclear about the first - my point is that while being bold and changing policy may be fine, doing it purely to win an argument is not. In any event, while WP:BOLD and WP:BRD may well apply, policies are one area where I would personally prefer to act only with consensus.

Cheers, and apologies again for that earlier quip. This flag once was red<sup>propaganda</sup><sub>deeds</sub> 17:27, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, I was acting under the assumption that you are not here to win an argument, but to improve the encyclopedia. Dlabtot (talk) 17:39, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Under normal circumstances I'd agree entirely, however my motivation here is caution: rather than plunge into improving the encyclopaedia (and I honestly do feel the portrait improves this article) I've prefer to hesitate and avoid any potential harm. If it turns out that there's no prospect of harming the subject, then great - all we've done is waste a few days without an image. So thanks for the good faith, but in this case it may not have be merited as my motivation is not improvement but caution ;-) Cheers, This flag once was red<sup>propaganda</sup><sub>deeds</sub> 17:54, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

A free photo is pretty much guaranteed to crop up eventually- removing this one would encourage people to search for free images, or release one if they own it. That's one of the key arguments for the "irreplaceable" element of the NFCC. J Milburn (talk) 16:15, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Susan Boyle - break 2

Responding from NORN... as far as the WP:NOR policy goes... no, the image in question does not violate WP:NOR. Blueboar (talk) 16:59, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, it's wonderful that we now have someone who can unilaterally decide what does and doesn't meet our NOR guidelines. Is it an elected position, or is it open to anyone who posts regularly at the noticeboard? J Milburn (talk) 17:14, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Not sure why you chose to engage in sarcasm and belittling comments towards Blueboar. Perhaps it's time for a nice cup of tea. I suggest you take the time to go to the OR noticeboard and read the comment he made there, which cites the relevant portion of the OR policy. A more substantive response would probably involve fewer sarcastic and disparaging remarks and more reasons why you think the current OR policy is wrong. Dlabtot (talk) 17:34, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

My point is that no one is in a position to step into a discussion and cite the fact that they've come from some noticeboard as proof that whatever they are saying is the be all and end all of a specific policy. J Milburn (talk) 17:45, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

No one did "cite the fact that they've come from some noticeboard as proof that whatever they are saying is the be all and end all of a specific policy" and even if they had, responding with a rude personal attack, as you did, would still be inappropriate. Dlabtot (talk) 18:14, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Um... What part of "Anyone can edit" don't you get? A request for comment was posted on the NORN notice board, and I came here in response to it. I am, of course, expressing my opinion on the issue, based upon my understanding of the policy (although, as someone who was involved in drafting the WP:NOR#Original images section that relates to this issue I would say that I am a bit more familiar with its intent than some others). Nothing says you have to like what I say.... or pay any attention to it. Have fun arguing. Blueboar (talk) 18:12, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

The fact you make no argument for what you're saying and just state (what you now call) your opinion as fact implies that you think people should hold your opinion in high regard. Anyone with any sense is going to ignore that sort of contribution to a discussion of this sort. J Milburn (talk) 18:21, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Blueboar cited WP:NOR#Original images, he did not state his opinion as fact. Why you want to pretend otherwise is puzzling. If you are now done attacking Blueboar, perhaps you'd like to make some substantive comment about why WP:NOR#Original images is wrong or should not apply. Dlabtot (talk) 18:38, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

The policy makes no mention of this sort of case, and it is hardly obvious as to how to interpret the policy with regards to this situation- hence the debate. Blueboar stepped into a debate about how to interpret a policy, and cited said policy as proof for his point of view. If that isn't appointing himself the sole judge of what the policy does or does not say, I don't know what is. If you are done accusing me of attacking Bluebear, perhaps you'd like to make some substantive comment about why WP:NOR#Oringinal images supports what you are arguing. J Milburn (talk) 18:50, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, the policy states "Original images created by a Wikipedia editor are not, as a class, considered original research – as long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments, the core reason behind the NOR policy.". While I acknowledge the fact that you believe this does not apply in this case, I certainly do not understand your reasons for holding this belief. I'm sure that you are sincere and that you are trying to help, however, I don't see that you have prevailed in your attempt to change the consensus to keep the image, nor do your arguments that the image violates WP:COPYVIO, WP:BLP, or WP:NOR appear to have gained much traction, other than flag once red. Consensus is not the same as unanimity, therefore your vigorous disagreement with the current consensus is a healthy thing and I think has engendered some good discussions. Dlabtot (talk) 19:01, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, WP:NOR#Original images does talk about things like this... it says: "Because of copyright law in a number of countries, there are relatively few existing images publicly available for use in Wikipedia. Photographs, drawings and other images created by Wikipedia editors thus fill a needed role. Wikipedia editors are encouraged to take photographs or draw pictures or diagrams and upload them, releasing them under the GFDL or another free license, to illustrate articles. Original images created by a Wikipedia editor are not, as a class, considered original research – as long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments, the core reason behind the NOR policy."

Does the painting of Ms. Boyle that is under discussion "illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments"? if so, what is that idea or argument? If not, I don't see how it violates NOR. Blueboar (talk) 19:13, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

The kind of "diagrams" one envisages when reading that policy page are of molecule structures and the like. Molecule structures are not easily visible, and the diagram is merely a representation, rather than explicitly stating that that is what the molecule looks like. Further, such images do not constitute original research due to the fact that they can be referenced to scientific literature- again, they serve as a visual representation of the symbolically represented structures of real-world occurances. In a biography, we are referring to one specific person, who exists or has existed in the real world, and their appearance. An image serves not to represent their appearance (that's what text concerning their appearance does) but to show their appearance. Therefore, images of a person to illustrate a biography serve a completely different purpose than diagrams, and so have to be considered separately. In this case, photographs exist, and so we should not be using a fake image in order to illustrate the appearance of a specific person. J Milburn (talk) 19:16, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

• " so we should not be using a fake image in order to illustrate the appearance of a specific person" There's nothing 'fake' about the image. It's as real as any other image, photographic or otherwise. Ohconfucius (talk) 13:22, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

J... this is getting to the point of WP:IDIDN'THEARTHAT... the highlighted words are "drawings" and "draw pictures", we are not discussing diagrams. This is simple... If no published photograph is available, there is nothing wrong with using a painting, unless it advances some sort of idea or argument. so, does it advance an idea or argument? Blueboar (talk) 19:28, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

No, as I just explained, I do not agree. Images of this sort are completely different to the vast, vast majority of user-drawn images on Wikipedia. J Milburn (talk) 19:33, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

OK... we disagree. What I can tell you, as someone who was involved in drafting that policy section, is that we wanted to allow just about any image that did not advance an unpublished idea or argument. So the intent was to allow stuff like this. Make of that what you wish. I'm done. Blueboar (talk) 19:41, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

J. Milburn wrote: "Look at it like this- a photo is automatically authentic, as it is a representation of what the person actually looks like. A drawing is questionable, as it is what the artist believes the subject to look like. As such, I would argue it was necessary for a recognised third party to verify it as authentic (through publishing it) before it could be considered useful." I have to disagree with this reasoning. Photos vary. Differences in lighting, makeup, facial expression, pose, and so forth can make two photos not identifiable as the same person. Of course, drawings vary, too, but to my eye the donated artwork comes close enough to showing "what the person actually looks like" that anyone who knows what Ms. Boyle looks like would be able to put her name to it. J. Milburn appears to argue against the drawing on the grounds that it lacks objectivity, but this position incorporates a mistake by assuming photos to be more objective than drawings/paintings across the board. Cognita (talk) 21:44, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I accept that point (I do enjoy photography myself), but photos do have a level of objectivity that a drawing could never have. For instance, I can't see any government accepting drawings on passports in a hurry. J Milburn (talk) 21:46, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

J Milburn, you're quite right about passports specifically, but governments do accept police sketches of suspects. Television viewers accept artists' sketches of courtroom proceedings. There are even contexts in which a drawing or painting is preferred. The very rich and powerful get their portraits painted, while the rest of us make do with photos.

Having read all the arguments, I don't see a compelling reason to prefer a photo to an artist's rendering. Cognita (talk) 02:12, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

The argument is more about whether we use a portrait instead of having no illustration; I believe most people would prefer a photograph to either a portrait or no illustration (ironically, as far I know I'm one of the few people whose preference is for a portrait instead of a photograph - policy permitting). If a free photograph was available I suspect this debate would evaporate.

In this regard, your points are extremely pertinent: police accept sketches when photographs are unavailable, and court reporters sketch defendants because cameras are prohibited from many courtrooms. (The rich and famous prefer portraits for a different reason - to avoid the "warts and all" a photograph would depict - not a factor determining my preference here!)

However, the issues here are not preference but policy; specifically (a) is the portrait a derivative work or can it be used freely? (b) is the portrait compliant with WP:BLP? (c) is the portrait compliant with WP:NOR? Bit by bit we're confirming that the portrait appears to be compliant with policy: commons are in the process of confirming that the portrait is not derivative. Discussions are now taking place on the respective noticeboards with regard to WP:BLP and WP:NOR. This isn't a matter that's going to be decided by a show of hands, since it's a contentious issue that possibly involves one of Wikipedia's most serious policies (in terms of the potential harm a breach could cause): WP:BLP. There is no hurry; we should wait until we have a clear decision from the two policy noticeboards, or until we have a free photograph - whichever comes sooner.

Cheers, This flag once was red<sup>propaganda</sup><sub>deeds</sub> 10:34, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

My concern on this matter is that allowing for paintings/drawings of living persons when a free photo temporary does not exist is that it opens the door to "bad art" (a subjective term obviously) to be encouraged to be used. It's one thing to replicate a figure with simple geometric shapes, but drawing a person is not in the same venue. This is not to say the current portrait of Boyle is bad, but scanning through Flickr, there are some that are less appealing. I would be worried that someone may upload what they think is a good portrait of a famous person, but really has less than stellar qualities (eg, old Elvis vs original Elvis-type differences), to the point that it is doing that article a disservice and possibly may put WP at fault for misrepresenting the person. Yes, there are also bad photos, and yes, consensus editing can remove patently bad pictures (portraints and photos alike), but a photo has minimal creative elements in it - either it is that person or it is not. When you get to some people like Boyle here where most editors are fascinated with the topic, they may not be able to see through it.

So is there anything intrinsically wrong with the portrait? Apparently not (the deletion on commons is leading to not being a derivative use, and NOR doesn't seem to apply), but I still feel we are underwriting that aspect of BLPs by allowing for such, since there is a subjective creative element being added that may or may impact the picture, thus tainting how "bias" the picture is. As long as the subject is still living, we should always encourage a photo which removes the creativity factor from the picture and prevents any problems. --MASEM (t) 13:51, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Even if the subject is deceased, I would say that a drawing should not be used unless it has been published. But yes, I do agree with what Masem is saying. J Milburn (talk) 16:32, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Hmm.. I'm beginning to come round to your view that perhaps an encyclopaedia shouldn't be a showcase for unpublished painted protraits. I wasn't a huge fan of the painting, but I had not heard sufficiently well-argued case for not having it in the article until now. Ohconfucius (talk) 16:54, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

But the BLP noticeboard simply said this is not a BLP issue. I think the painting is better than nothing, and we should not be making the perfect the enemy of the good. Believing that photographs have no creative input does not seem credible - plenty of arguments on bio pages about unflattering or misrepresentative photographs.YobMod 08:56, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Do we have a free photograph of her? If yes, a photograph is obviously preferable to a portrait. If no, then I think it's reasonable that a portrait is considered preferable to either a non-free image, or no image at all (I'm not convinced by the argument that this portrait is non-free simply because the artist saw a YouTube video of her - by that reasoning, large amounts of artwork of public images would be derivative works if the artist had only seen them through copyrighted material, but I've never heard of a court case suggesting this). I don't think it matters whether the artist is notable or not. The decision as to whether a portrait provides a meaningful likeness of a person is something that editors can judge through consensus - just because art is subjective doesn't mean we are incapable of making such judgements. "who are you to tell me that?" We are other Wikipedia editors. The only issue that would be relevant would be if Susan Boyle herself objected to this representation of her, in which case we would remove it on BLP grounds. Mdwh (talk) 02:19, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

As far as I know, there isn't - yet - a free photo, but if there were I don't think there's any doubt that a photo would be better.

The portrait has changed since this discussion started - most/all of the discussion has centred around the previous portrait, which has now been deleted on commons as a derivative work. I don't have any view on the current portrait's derivative status, but presumably that too is an issue for commons.

Cheers, This flag once was red<sup>propaganda</sup><sub>deeds</sub> 10:24, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I strongly don't understand why this portrait is shown. I mean, this portrait is signed with the name of person, who probably wants a free advertising. We cannot accept this. Wikipedia is just a free encyploedia and this persons uses this portrait to be famous. Please, anyone (who can) remove the photo or just delete the portrait sign. Danchavo —Preceding undated comment added 10:49, 15 June 2009 (UTC).

I think you should assume a bit more good faith ;-) The artist is an editor here and on commons, and produced the old and new portraits as a response to the lack of a free photo. I don't see their signature being any different to an editor who uses their own name when editing articles or uploading photos or other artwork. Cheers, This flag once was red<sup>propaganda</sup><sub>deeds</sub> 10:57, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. As I recall, the contributor created this image in a direct response to this article not having one. Unless it is determined there is some kind of copyright problem related to the image, there is no reason to get rid of it. Please assume good faith. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 10:59, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Repetitive

The article needs a little work as some of the the salient points of the BGT audition are repeat a number of times. Rich Farmbrough, 22:54 24 April 2009 (UTC).

A little work? How about a lot of work ie) that very ugly portrait. I can't believe no one has found a better picture yet. The only reason that picture is on there is so that the artist can promote his/her own work by using a popular person such as Boyle. If I remember correctly, there was a non-copyrighted picture someone used which was put up then replaced by the annoying portrait, again as proof the artist wants to just promote him/herself.69.204.225.103 (talk) 01:08, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

There have been no free photographs that have been uploaded to Wikipedia of Susan Boyle that I'm aware of, and given her reclusive nature, I doubt any free photos have been taken. Nothing we can use can be found on either Flickr or Picasa. And please assume good faith...there is no evidence that the artist is using this image for any kind of promotion purpose...rather that they saw a gap that needed filling, and filled it. This has been discussed ad nauseam. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 01:32, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

"Woman who shut up Simon Cowell"...LAME

High in the article we have the completely inane factoid that Ms. Boyle "has been dubed 'The Woman Who Shut Up Simon Cowell.'"

The footnote on this comment links to an ABC web article with the "shut up" headline; the article, itself, makes no reference to the alleged shutting up. There are many hundreds of online articles about Ms. Boyle and her initial appearance on BGT. What one unknown web editor decided to put above the ABC article just does not constitute an important observation on the Boyle phenomenon. No doubt Mr. Cowell was nonplused by the performance, as we all were. But Mr. Cowell was strictly a supporting character in this little drama and a highly impressionistic comment/headline on his reaction is just not a substantial fact. This is a story that has many remarkable facts -- starting with the number of Youtube hits -- to establish what a remarkable event it was. And Ms. Boyle has had many cute labels applied to her; I am not aware that "the woman who shut up Simon Cowell" is one that has particularly stuck. Certainly its single appearance in a web headline does not establish it as any kind of defining reaction to her performance.

I suggest that this comment about Mr. Cowell sould be eliminated because it contributes nothing worthwhile to the article and gives the impression of the author stretching to find significance where there was none. (IMO, this event did, in fact, have social/cultural significance.)74.242.196.124 (talk) 18:17, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. This is just tabloid nonsense from a single source. Apart from anything else, Cowell was not 'shut up', at no point in the programme was he speechless. And it is rather naive to believe that Boyles' performance came as a total surprise to him. The producer's of the show know that it helps to present things as a total surprise, just as much as they know that an apparently stunned Cowell makes good tv. However they couldn't take it as far as having him totally silent. --Escape Orbit <sup>(Talk)</sup> 23:16, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to take this out now. If anyone disagrees, feel free to revert and discuss. --Escape Orbit <sup>(Talk)</sup> 10:06, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Today Show Interview

I think Boyle's interview on the Today Show deserves a mention. Her other television appearances have been mentioned in the article. This interview was informative and well done, providing some interesting insights into her life. http://snarkfood.com/britains-got-talent-star-susan-boyle-calls-fame-a-demolition-ball-in-today-show-interview/

L. A. Vess 16:41, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Susan skipped a verse of "I dreamed a dream" in BGT performance

The original version of "I dreamed a dream" has a rather central verse right after the 5-level "shame" passage. It goes "He slept a summer by my side / He filled my days with endless wonder / He took my childhood in his stride / But he was gone when autumn came". In her BGT performance Susan skipped this part moving directly instead into the next verse starting with "And still I dream he'll come to me". Given her life story, and her emotional performance, it seems not unlikely that she did so to adapt the song to reflect her life. In part I think this may explain the effect the song has had on so many people: It's not only the contrast between expectations and performance, it's also the very emotional performance in itself. It surely makes the hair stand up on my arms when I hear it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.235.0.161 (talk) 18:37, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

FREAK SHOW???

I think the section titled Freak Show is inappropriate. It is referring to the show Britain's Got Talent and would be best in that article. It shouldn't be on Susan Boyle's entry. It could also be construed as implying that Boyle is a freak. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.181.161.250 (talk) 20:11, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I see no problem with this particular section. To me, it clearly establishes how the term "freak show" is used in this situation, and does not imply any particular negative connotation. Anyone else with an opinion? — Huntster (t • @ • c) 03:51, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

No problem I can see. There is no suggestion of Boyle being a freak, rather that her treatment is similar to those on a freak show. The cites back this up and specifically use the same term. --Escape Orbit <sup>(Talk)</sup> 13:28, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Contents of first album

I am restoring my edit that lists the three songs that are currently known to be on her first album, because I believe the reason given for the reversion of my edit is invalid. WP:NOT#NEWS would apply if I were giving undo weight to this recent information, but this is a single sentence in a large article. Furthermore, the nature of the songs in her first album will be important long-term information, and the sentence I added is about all that’s available on that topic so far. We will presumably list all of the songs in her first album somewhere on WP after the album’s been released, so including what is known of that list currently is just providing as much of that information, which will have long-term significance and importance, as is currently available. My sentence does not clutter the article with any information that will not have long-term significance. Red Act (talk) 03:30, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

• This is just a teaser news item to keep us from forgetting Susan Boyle, and has little encyclopaedic worth. It is more than likely that I Dreamed a Dream, Memory, and Cry me a River would be on the album. Why can't you wait until the entire album details are available? Even so, I do not expect a track listing in her biography. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:50, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, no, a track listing won’t eventually be in her biography – it will be in an entire separate article covering her first album. But the bio article is the sensible place to put that information for now, until enough information about her first album is available for it to make sense to split off the article about her first album.

You keep referring to WP:NOT#NEWS, but the inclusion of one sentence about the three songs does not appear to go against the spirit of WP:NOT#NEWS. I’ll contrast WP:NOT#NEWS to this situation a sentence at a time:

“Wikipedia considers the historical notability of persons and events.” What songs are on Susan’s first album will almost certainly have a long-term notability. “News coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, but not all events warrant an encyclopedia article of their own.” I’m not cluttering up WP with a whole article on a topic of ephemeral importance, I’m just adding one sentence of long-term importance. “Routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article.” Again, I’m not creating a whole article, and the information provided is of long-term importance, not some routine coverage of a topic that will be forgotten tomorrow. “Even when an event is notable, individuals involved in it may not be. Unless news coverage of an individual goes beyond the context of a single event, our coverage of that individual should be limited to the article about that event, in proportion to their importance to the overall topic.” Not an issue. There’s no argument that Susan Boyle is notable. “While including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information.” Adding the one sentence is hardly adding excessive emphasis, in an article that has over 100 sentences. For example, is a sentence about what songs will be on her first album really less relevant on her biography page than the sentence about the cultural reference to her on a European trailer of the Sims 3 video game? If this article needs to be trimmed, there are a hell of a lot more sentences that should go first, before chopping a sentence listing the three known songs in her first album.

Although I disagree that one sentence listing the three songs that are known to be on her first album is adding excessive emphasis to a current event, as a compromise I will chop it down to about a third of a sentence, by just adding the mention of the three songs to an existing sentence. Red Act (talk) 05:12, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm OK with the changes. Hope my other copyediting is acceptable. Ohconfucius (talk) 08:07, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

cultural reference addition

could you please mention this article from the Irish Times in the cultural reference section of this bio http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/magazine/2009/0425/1224245067296.html I am just new to editing in wikipedia... I hope I have done this correctly!

--Susxox (talk) 01:17, 8 September 2009 (UTC) sus Susxox (talk) 01:17, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

• I think it's not related. It's just an article about people who happen to share the same name, and I don't reckon it should be included. BTW, the article is only semi-protected, so registered users can edit. Ohconfucius (talk) 01:33, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

First single off new album

Perez Hilton has what he calls a world exclusive that it's going to be a cover of The Rolling Stones' Wild Horses. [19] Any other confirmation of this?86.147.161.175 (talk) 15:25, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

The album article had a different source, but I don't think it was as reliable as the Hilton ref. Regardless, it's been replaced with the Hilton ref now - you could check the album article's history? Cheers, TFOWR<sup>This flag once was red</sup> 15:28, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Tell a lie - the first source looks fine to me - it's this. They maybe got it from Hilton, though? Cheers, TFOWR<sup>This flag once was red</sup> 15:31, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Yep, looks like it's from Perez Hilton - I'm not sure if he counts as reliable/reputable but as he has a link to the song itself, which presumably he was given by the record company, I guess it's kosher. BTW, on the Susan Boyle page, can you link the "I Dreamed a Dream" album refs to the article about the album - I didn't realise there was one as its not linked in the Susan Boyle page. Thx.86.147.161.175 (talk) 15:43, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Heh, I assumed the album was linked. Anyway, it is now ;-) Cheers, TFOWR<sup>This flag once was red</sup> 15:57, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Cheers for that. If the PH ref is acceptable, could the fact its going to be her first single go on her page? It's a pretty important milestone ....86.147.161.175 (talk) 16:33, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

No problem! No objections from me (for adding the single) - when adding the link I noticed that the section speculates on the album contents, so now we know at least one single we may as well firm up the section. I'll do it now. Cheers, TFOWR<sup>This flag once was red</sup> 16:37, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

(Done. Cheers, TFOWR<sup>This flag once was red</sup> 16:42, 13 September 2009 (UTC))

indent ... You're quick! But could the fact its the first single be mentioned on the SB page? It's not only the first off her album, but her first ever, which is odd seeings as we've all heard her singing various songs for yonks now!! Cheers86.147.161.175 (talk) 16:46, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Quick draw, that's me! I've added a comment after Wild Horses about it being her first single; I suspect a better writer than me could tidy up the section - I'm conscious that it's developing into a long list of singles, and that we could probably prune it. Anyway - how's that?! Cheers, TFOWR<sup>This flag once was red</sup> 16:51, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Nice job! I see The Mirror is now linking to Perez's site [20] so I guess it's all above board ...86.147.161.175 (talk) 16:55, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Just spotted the link to Wild Horses should be Wild Horses (Rolling Stones song)86.147.161.175 (talk) 17:09, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Well spotted! Fixed! Cheers, TFOWR<sup>This flag once was red</sup> 17:15, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Why does this article refer to the song as 'Mick Jagger's 'Wild Horses'? It was co-written by Mick and Keith Richards. --95.96.146.115 (talk) 12:06, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Susan Boyle BGT tour

The Susan Boyle page states: "Boyle left the clinic five days after her admission [44] and said she would participate in the BGT tour. However, she refused to show up for rehearsals and the Daily Telegraph reported that Boyle wanted to perform only a small number of the scheduled 23 UK tour venues to "conserve her voice for her debut album."

This is speculation prior to the actual tour. In fact, Susan Boyle performed in 22 of the BGT concerts. There is video available for the following dates: Fri 12 June 2009 - 7:30pm – Birmingham NIA

Sat 13 June 2009 - 2:30pm & 7:30pm – Sheffield Arena

Mon 15 June 2009 - 7:30pm – Glasgow SECC

Tue 16 June 2009 – 7:30pm – Edinburgh Playhouse

Wed 17 June 2009 – 7:30pm – Newcastle Arena

Sun 21 June 2009 – 1:30pm & 6:30pm – Wembley Arena, London

Tue 23 June 2009 - 7:30pm – Aberdeen AECC

Wed 24 June 2009 - 7:30pm - Birmingham NIA

Thu 25 June 2009 - 7:30pm - Coventry Ricoh Arena

Fri 26 June 2009 - 5:30pm & 8:30pm - Bournemouth International Centre

Sat 27 June 2009 - 2:30pm & 7:30pm - HMV Hammersmith Apollo, London

Tue 30 June 2009 - 7:30pm - Dublin O2 Arena

Wed 01 July 2009 - 7:30pm - Belfast Odyssey Arena

Fri 03 July 2009 - 7:30pm - Birmingham NIA

Sat 04 July 2009 - 2:30pm & 7:30pm - Cardiff Arena

Sun 05 July 2009 - 1:30pm & 6:30pm - Bournemouth BIC

The video URLs are available here: http://forum.susan-boyle.com/v-i-d-e-o-s/768-list-susan-boyles-performance-videos.html Cknut (talk) 14:05, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

corrections to Susan Boyle birth date and second name

Susan Boyle was born April 1st and her second name is Susan Magdalane Boyle.

Ewing Stevens interviews Gerry Boyle on Radio Live NZ 28th Sept 2009 http://www.radiolive.co.nz/Audio/AudioPlayer/tabid/183/Default.aspx?articleID=10672

kingdom101--Kingdom101 (talk) 12:40, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Susan Boyle's middle name is incorrect

Susan Boyle's middle name is given as "Margaret" in this article. However, her actual middle name is Magdalen, as confirmed by her own brother Gerry Boyle in an interview with New Zealand radio host Ewing Stevens. Gerry Boyle also confirmed Susan Boyle's actual birth date as April 1, 1961. Gerry Boyle's interview can be accessed at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ozWRKXbKc3w. Additional corroboration of Susan Boyle's birthdate was given by Scottish genealogist Caroline Gerard, who reported it on the Halloran Astrology website (http://www.halloran.com/Susan_Boyle_Astrology_Horoscope.htm). With these two sources as verification, would it be possible to correct Ms. Boyle's Wikipedia entry to reflect the facts? Xenophiles (talk) 07:39, 2 November 2009 (UTC)xenophiles

The middle name of Susan boyle is spelt "Magdalane" at http://www.amazon.com/Susan-Boyle/e/B002MFM6EE/ref=ntt_mus_dp_pel 19:55, 4 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingdom101 (talk • contribs)

The Amazon.com source is more than enough. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 01:01, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the Amazon source is incorrect. Last time I checked no other reference agreed with it's spelling. SunCreator (talk) 01:05, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually Wikipedia isn't the place for (unsupported) "correctness". If the realiable source says that, we cite it. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 01:19, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, I suggest you spend 30 seconds using Google. Just because a one source says something we don't throw commonsense out the window. SunCreator (talk) 01:22, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I've changed it to match the amazon reference. SunCreator (talk) 01:56, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid "editable" forum for fans doesn't qualify as reliable source in Wikipedia. Not to mention that the users there also questioned the reliability of Gerry's claim (Unless his reply letter has been officially published.) One of them also noted that the legal middle name could possibly differ from the baptism middle name. Either way we should clarify them in the article once the reliable source is available. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 02:13, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm well aware that a forum is NOT considered a reliable source. Not all sources have to meet WP:RS to be included as a reference. This source is relevant, informational and also matches the amazon source. SunCreator (talk) 02:27, 2 December 2009 (UTC)