Talk:Chantal Claret

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Stub This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed biographical guide to musicians and musical groups on Wikipedia.
Chantal Claret is related to the Composers WikiProject which has been provided as a place for editors of biographical articles of music Composers and Songwriters to discuss common issues, discover neglected composer articles and exchange ideas. All who are interested are invited to comment and contribute.

Contents

[edit] Biography assessment rating comment

WikiProject Biography Assessment

The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. -- Yamara 17:25, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mindless Self Indulgence singer Little Jimmy Urine

HERE ARE TWO OFFICIAL BLOGS ABOUT IT: http://www.myspace.com/morningwood http://www.myspace.com/chantal_claret it won't let me post the direct links from the blog, but these are official.

Please show me a reputable source for this information. To continue adding it without a source and concensus first will be considered vandalism. Graveenib 17:24, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Please note: The responsibility is yours to CITE...YOUR...REPUTABLE...SOURCES. Just saying that you speak for both parties isn't enough, (and if you do, then you present a conflict of interest on these pages). If you do speak for them, then send a press release to CNN or Rolling Stone and then post it with the reputable source cited. I'm sorry, but forum posts from one person (likely you) and bloggy audio clips aren't reputable sources and your edits will be removed per WP:VERIFY and WP:BLP.Gravee 18:09, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

  • I went ahead and properly cited sources for your lazy bum. Enjoy! =) Gravee 03:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I put in a bit about her breasts, which are a really huge part of their show. This video is of a report about it, in which Chantal talks about what shed oes onstage:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uo3rKwddhc8&feature=related

It's not unimportant and it's not vandalism, for Christ's Sake! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.22.242.97 (talk) 13:33, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

He DID change his name as stated here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mindless_Self_Indulgence#Jimmy_Urine Please stop reverting my changes --Octalmage (talk) 14:39, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

It's unsourced trivia and not encyclopedic and because this article is about a living person any poorly sourced contentious material can be removed immediately and without discussion. --Neon white (talk) 15:20, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
But I've shown a source where the person herself talks about it. It IS a big part of her persona. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.22.242.97 (talk) 22:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unsourced Material

Any unsourced material will be removed from this article, as it is a biography about a living person, any info need to be reliably and well sourced. A Myspace page is not considered a reliable source because it is self-published and unverifiable. --Neon white 19:57, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

The rule is about contoversial info. You took out the non-controversial and left the only fact in the article that is controversial. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.54.15.213 (talk) 19:45, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

The rule refers to contentious material. Anything added to wikipedia has to be sourced otherwise it's OR which the majority of this article was and why it was removed. Wikipedia is a collect of information not a place to publish original research. --Neon white (talk) 17:14, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Do not continue to add bad sources to this article, myspace is not a reliable source and the other doesnt only links to a radio station and is not verifiable. --Neon white (talk) 20:00, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
You simply cannot add text like She enjoys shooting guns, riding horses, swimming, and playing video games and At her live shows she is known to bring people up on stage and have them strip without it being cited. You cant say things are known without a source. Known by who? --Neon white (talk) 21:27, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I've marked the questionable stuff that needs citations. --Neon white (talk) 04:53, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Please not blogs and message boards are not exceptable as reliable sources see WP:RS. This is a bio so it has to be sourced well preferably from second party sources. --Neon white (talk) 03:20, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually the heading of the Wikipedia article on notability say to use common sense and message boards can, under certain circumstances, be used as references. Ditto for MySpace, under certain circumstances and statements from the subject of the bio entry. Before you yank the 'holster' reference, please note: the narrative statement is not the reference, the photograph of Chantal wearing the holster with her microphone clearly visible is the reference.

On the Internet, original sources of references are constantly coming and going. If every article on Wikipedia was pulled the minute a source reference disappeared, there wouldn't be a Wikipedia in 5 years. Much of the Net is ephemeral. Even sources like the NY Times will cull their older articles from time to time. Because of that, sometimes it is necessary to look back at the discussion page on an article and just go by previous entries when research for sources was done and a consensus was reached. That is what I propose for the engagement reference. If that is too abstract for you, then you might need to use some common sense and conclude that this is one of those times when statements from the subjects (Chantal and James) posted on their own MySpace pages and on their own commercial web sites may be used as valid references. Those affirmations of the engagement would have been denied or deleted by now if untrue. The nature of an engagement doesn't lend itself to conventional verification as may be seen in the prior testing and consensus efforts above. Frankly, many judgements of the validity of a certain reference here and another there are very subjective. To remind you - Wikipedia's rules do not cover all possible cases and Wikipedia suggests and allows the common sense approach in certain cases. DrDelos (talk) 15:50, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

no policy says message board posts are acceptable sources for bios, misrepresenting policy is considered disruptive behaviour, message boards, blogs and social networking sites have never been considered reliable sources as they are self published and unverifiable. If there are no sources for a statement it can't be verified, that's just the way it works. Consensus is always subject, to change. please read WP:CCC. Self published sources can be used in articles about themselves as long as there is no doubt as the fact that they wrote it, it is relevant to their notability and it does not involve claims about third parties. This is usually the problem with myspace pages, there is no way to verfiy that it was actually written my them and in this case it does involve a thrid party so a secondary source is needed. There was no consensus anywhere on this talk page to include anything. Common sense does not apply here, do not misuse this policy. IAR only applies when obvious improvements can be made to an article in contrary to other policies. Adding unsourced trivia to an article about a living person is not improving wikipedia. To reitterated articles about living person need to be sourced carefully by secondary sources. --Neon white (talk) 16:05, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
"Common sense does not apply here. . . " Common sense applies everywhere - yes, even on Wikipedia. DrDelos (talk) 16:10, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
You seems to be confusing common sense with your personal view. The opinion of a random message board user is not encyclopedic content and is in no way Verfiaible. --Neon white (talk) 16:20, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
I didn't post any "opinion of a message board user". I don't know where you got that. I'll try a direct link to the photo. DrDelos (talk) 16:43, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

With this much hassle over a completely insignificant statement, it looks like I will have to get a third party. BTW, reread WP:SPS & WP:SELFPUB DrDelos (talk) 16:55, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

For the love of god. go read WP:V, you cant use a random image on imageshack as a reliable source. You can upload an image to wikipedia providing that it is not copyrighted. However the only sentence that it can be used to cite is that there is a photo of her wearing it available. It's only verifiable that she was wearing it when that particular picture was taken, It's original research to state that she is known to wear a gun holster as a microphone holder based on one single picture, as it's never been published by a secondary source and is not really encyclopedic content anyway.

I shouldnt have to keep pointing out that self published sources in articles about themeselves are only admissable in certain circumstance. It has to be relevant to their notability, in this case it's trivia from a message board user. I will make a rfc as soon as the afd is closed. In the meantime i highly advise you to thoroughly read Wikipedia:No original research and WP:V policy to get a better understanding of editing. --Neon white (talk) 17:22, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

It is becoming abundantly clear that you are not interested in improving Wikipedia or this article. You are merely interested in bullying. The proof is the holster statement. You want a reference and then you say that it isn't relevant to notability and reject three different references. It is not trivia because it is part of her reputation and stage persona. The photo just authenticates the mention in this article. DrDelos (talk) 18:25, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I have warned you before about not assuming good faith and personal attacks. You will recieve no further warnings on this matter. A picture is not a citation for that particular statement. It's like taking a picture of someone when they are drunken and claiming it is proof that they are known for being a drunkard, it simply doesn't back up that statement. It's self published and original research, as i have said many times the article requires reliable second party sources. That means published articles in magazines, newspaper where there is an editorial policy, wikipedia is not for publishing your, or a random person on a message board's original research on a person. There is no reliable source that says it is 'part of her reputation and stage persona' that is your personal opinion and doesnt belong here. To be honest, as she only barely passes for notable, she doesnt really have a reputation for anything other than what she is notable for. No original research is official policy in articles about living people(see WP:LIVING). It also says Be very firm about the use of high quality references which is exaclty what i am doing. -Neon white (talk) 19:40, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Constantly changing criteria, demanding more and more rigorous proof for items already proven or settled by consensus (on Little Jimmy's article concerning engagement which also applies here), demanding citations for previously accepted descriptions and slapping 'weasel word' complaints as well as repeated threats and complaints prove your cyberbullying/wikibullying. "Be firm. . . " is being used outside the norms found in hundreds of thousands of similar articles on Wikipedia for one reason - to bully me. 68.54.15.213 (talk) 20:28, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
I did not write wikipedia policy or change it in any way. There has been no citations provided yet that meet guidelines and as i wrote above a consensus is always subject to change WP:CCC, regardless there never has been a consensus on this paqe. The point stands that articles about living persons require high quality second party references, this is wikipedia policy and applies to this article like any other whether you like it or not. Using a passive voice is usually considered weasel words; we need a reliable source that notes the facts written. I have made no threats whatsoever. Like any other editor I am entitled to warn disruptive editors with a pattern of incivility and take it further is necessary. If you want to help improve the article you should look for reliable sources --Neon white (talk) 20:59, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for comment:Reliable sources

Rfc to solve the dispute regarding unsourced/poorly sourced material in the article and whether the sources provided are verifiable and suitable for a bio.

[edit] Take Off Your Clothes

I think the comments about this are more suitable for the morningwood article than here as it's about the bands performance. --Neon white (talk) 17:13, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Also the source does not say that the 'whole audience' does aerobics only herself --neonwhite user page talk 19:21, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Changes - discuss here

  • Her 'recent' move has been recent for some time and therefore isnt that recent anymore that is why we generally avoid such terms.
  • wikilinks removed from 'Take off your clothes'. This has no article. Therefore no links are needed.
  • The Wallflowers has a capital T as it is a proper noun.
  • Unsourced speculation about her pastimes should be removed as it has been unsourced for sometime.
  • We dont need to promote a video in article space.
  • Singing style comparisons are fully sourced as is the fact that she promoted night clubs in new york.

--neonwhite user page talk 03:10, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


I have request a third opinion on these edits and created another section below for formatting. --neonwhite user page talk 01:22, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Third Opinions

HERE FROM WP:3O This one goes a couple of ways. First, in terms of the conduct going on here, 1) from someone who comments there, please don't AfD an article that's you're involved in a dispute on; 2) marking dispute edits as vandalism, when it's really a content dispute, is considered bad form. With that out of the way, my take on the edits- I agree with the bullet points above, with the exception of #4, to a point. I don't think an IMDB link is necessarily unreliable, so I think those sources are okay. The image of her wearing a holster isn't however, as we don't know if she always does, or if that was a one-time thing. The engagement note appears to have never been sourced, so it should go as well. I'd also strongly recommend both editors involved step away from this article, before you wind up with high blood pressure. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 01:44, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the afd was valid at the time as the only sources the article had was a myspace page and lacked asserions of notability. It wasnt done to avoid the dispute but from a real concern about notability that initially had prior to the dispute. IMDB has been questioned as a reliable source for bios, i believe, on the RS noticeboard and we have to remember that 'material about living persons must be sourced very carefully' and policy suggests not to use questionable sources in bios. The main issue with imdb is the lack of any real indication of editorial oversight or fact checking which is the requirement for WP:V. The issue with this particular sourcing is that the info on the IMDB article appeared after the info in this article had been questioned. It rings significant alarm bells when a source appears that conveniently answers every single piece of unsourced material that was being questioned in the way that this did (the exact wording, that this article uses). I think there is a point where you cannot maintain the assumption that the edits are in good faith, especially when edit summaries are being used for personal attacks. I may have been hasty to suggest this is vandalism but it certainly wasnt being done to improve the article and WP:VANDALISM documents reverting legitimate edits with the intent of hindering the improvement of pages as Sneaky vandalism. I would defintely like another editor to make the necessary uncontroversial changes to avoid conflict as one or more editors appear to have developed a personal issue with me editing the page. --neonwhite user page talk 16:49, 8 May 2008 (UTC)