Talk:Natalie Merchant

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ]
(If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed biographical guide to musicians and musical groups on Wikipedia.
Maintenance An appropriate infobox may need to be added to this article, or the current infobox may need to be updated. Please refer to the list of biography infoboxes for further information.
Kim Gordon and Thurston Moore of Sonic Youth This article is part of the Alternative music WikiProject, a group of Wikipedians interested in improving the encyclopaedic coverage of articles relating to Alternative rock. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project's talk page.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the Project's importance scale.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Natalie Merchant article.
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.

Article policies

[edit] Marriage

"She married Daniel de la Calle, a Spanish documentary film-maker, in 2003. They have one daughter. [1]"

I'm not sure why this keeps getting deleted. Marriages -- as legal contracts -- are a matter of public record, and she invited a reporter into her home and that reporter discussed her marriage. I don't think there is any need to give the name of her child, who is a minor, but I don't understand the constant deletion of the information that she is married. Almost every biography and obituary I've ever read mentions marital status.

Further, I initially came to the article because I had heard she had recently married but didn't know if it were a rumor or not. The article didn't tell me and so I researched it on Google and added the information with a reference.

Finally, WP:BLP is a guideline, not a policy, and doesn't mention that marriages are not to be discussed. --Jeffrey Henning 19:36, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Jeffrey, I agree it's odd that the subject (I'm assuming the anon was her or her family) doesn't want the private details to be discussed given that they've been published. But with BLP, we're meant to err on the side of privacy unless the issue is relevant to the notability of the subject. Whether she is married with children isn't. Perhaps you could split the difference and just say that she is married and the couple has one child. That way, you're not naming or describing the child or husband, who have nothing to do with this bio. Would that work? SlimVirgin (talk) 00:37, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


She volunteered personal information about herself in an interview she voluntarily gave to the Guardian newspaper. This[2] This is in addition to the one she gave to the independent above. RupertMillard (Talk) 16:57, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the additional reference. How about adding this sentence to the end of the article...? "She is married and has a daughter.[3][4]" --Jeffrey Henning 20:31, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
I think it's ridiculous that it should come to this, because it's such a trivial issue but why not give that suggested text a go and see how long it survives? RupertMillard (Talk) 23:26, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
OK, I added it. --Jeffrey Henning 02:20, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
That looks fine, Jeffrey. Good compromise. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:32, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Apparently an anonymous editor insists on replacing the names of the husband and daughter, in contrast to the decision made on this page. Which leads another anonymous editor to remove the information entirely. I have replaced the generic information, but Please be on the lookout for this reversion again. The Wikimedia Foundation has had correspondence on this matter, incedentally (OTRS Ticket Number 2006052210004783). Bastiqueparler voir 14:10, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, Bastique. Here's the information you entered, for convenience:
 <!-- NOTE TO ARTICLE EDITORS:  Information on Merchant's marriage and child have been done in accordance
 with consensus reached on this article's talk page.  Please do not attempt to replace the following
 personal information -->Merchant is married and has a daughter. <ref>[http://www.guardian.co.uk/weekend/story/0,,1752946,00.html]</ref>
--Jeffrey Henning 03:24, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

This "consensus" seems to be a consensus of two people. Who made you God? Her marriage, and the identity of her husband and child, is a matter of public record. Who the hell are you to say we shouldn't put it here? A consensus of two? Go screw yourself and your dictatorial ideas. Last I saw you don't own Wikipedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.80.1.134 (talk • contribs) .

Unless we mention that Merchant has a husband, we are excluding important relevent facts. It is making the reader assume that she is notin a gay marriage with a daughter like Sara Gilbert. GilliamJF 06:42, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Co-founded 10,000 Maniacs dispute

I'm inclined to dispute the "co-founded 10,000 maniacs" since the 10,000 Maniacs article states that Merchant was invited to sing a few songs for a previous incarnation of the band. Unless we're talking strict semantics (they didn't change their name until some time later), I don't know if that makes her a co-founder. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.19.233.190 (talk • contribs) 18:28, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] odd form of censorship

so wikipedia isn't a collection of freely found information on the web? newspapers online can keep their stories there, yet wiki can't source them? i just want to get this straight -- anyone can ask wikipedia to remove info that has already been allowed by the subject to be published in various international media outlets? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.247.22.10 (talk) 05:16, 22 December 2006 (UTC).

If an interested party, the subject of the article or someone representing him or her, decides to contact the Foundation with a good reasoning, the information is modified to fit the petition. I have seen this happen some times, especially when there is a legal threat. While we cannot say there is one here, as you can see above someone contacted Wikipedia, and the editor put a determined text in place of whatever was there. Going against it is basically dismissing whatever happened back then. And yes, anyone can ask Wikipedia to remove information that is verified. In this case, I am guessing they are worried that too much private information is being given for people to know her family's whereabouts. Things like Wikipedia:Office Actions were created to handle high risk articles, so it is an option. -- ReyBrujo 13:00, 22 December 2006 (UTC)