Talk:Katie Melua

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good article Katie Melua has been listed as one of the Arts good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Jazz, set up to organize and expand entries on jazz and related subgenres, as well as other related subjects. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page (see Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ for more information).

Contents

[edit] Picture

Is the picture legally here? What about the copyright? If I recall correctly, it is one of the official publicity photos! --NicApicella 06/Jul/2005

[edit] Re: Picture

According to Wikipedia:Publicity photos it is Fair Use as long as it has come from a press kit or similar, with the express purpose of being used for freely available publicity. This is what is claimed on the page for the picture. JP Godfrey 15:55, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ethnicity

Her name is Mingrelian. Has she ever claimed to be Mingrelian? pavel76 12/08/05

Katie is a Mingrelian(Megrelian) singer.Her family were born Lazistan-Megrelia.She is a Megrel isn't Georgian (moved from article page)

Megrels (Megrelians) are Georgians. Oldest representatives of Georgians, who speak their own dialect of Georgian language. Megrels, Imeretinans, Svans, Ajarians, Kahkhetinas, Gurinas are all Kartvels (Georgians).

[edit] Full Name

I have noticed the changing of her name from Ketevan Natasha "Katie" Melua to Ketevan "Katie" Melua and back again. I know her real first name is Ketevan, but what about her middle name? Is it sourced? 11:21, 30 October 2005.

  • Being originally from Georgia, she is unlikely to have a middle name. The presence of 'Natasha' in her full name was thus unnecessary. It is also rather doubtful that it was/is her nickname, although this is certainly possible.
  • Unless there is any strong proof that her middle name is Natasha, like Melua saying it is in an interview, I don't think it should be put here. Hera1187 07:20, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

In keeping with the naming conventions of her native country, Katie Melua does not have a middle name. The 'Natasha' rumour is untrue. This was confirmed in a post by her uncle, Zurab Melua, on the unofficial fan site, Melualand.com - Mark Bishop

[edit] Place of birth

I have heard it mentioned from a couple of sources (based on direct interviews with Melua) that she was born in Kutaisi, Georgia. Any information on this claim?

  • According to this interview [1] she was born in Kutaisi. 12:34 5 November 2005

[edit] Agnostics Category?

Is she agnostic? Is it sourced? I thought she went to catholic schools. Hera1187 09:33, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

  • From reading her page on wikiquotes she seems to suggest she is agnostic. See wikiquote:Katie Melua. 11:01, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Just because your parents send you to a faith school it doesn't mean you subscribe to that religion or even believe in God. Plus there's a saying in Britain: "If you want your child to grow up to be an atheist, send them to convent school." Most kids don't get to choose where and how they are educated. 86.17.247.135 00:37, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vocal Range

Perhaps someone expert in the subject of vocal ranges could add an extra paragraph about the vocal range of Katie Melua?

[edit] Nationality?

The article says she's british, although she's born in Georgia; does she have a double citizenship? Or it says so just because she lives in the UK? --Εξαίρετος (msg) 16:17, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Err... I just read it in the article :-[ --Εξαίρετος (msg) 16:19, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] It has to be said....

Look, I know this ain't a forum, but it just has to be said: Damn, this woman is sex on a stick. 86.7.208.240 00:36, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

You're right that bit seems to be missing from (this otherwise great) article Fonoq35

Well said. True as well. Should be the article, you know. Speedboy Salesman My talk page 06:27, June 13, 2008 (UTC).

Well she is into woman now, she is with lesbian photographer Lara Bloom. Said so in the News of the World.

News of the World, you say? It must be true! -- Jetekus 11:33, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lesbian

I strongly reject the clam that I am homophobic or snobbish as User:TerriNunn suggested here. Forgive me for thinking the phrase "News of the World exclusive: Melua's secret lesbian lover" is a bit suspect. I think it should be reverted, not because I'm homophobic, because the newspaper article is clearly a tabloid talking a load of rubbish and it has no place on Wikipedia. Philip Stevens 15:11, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

it is significant as an event in her biography - a story in the most widely read Sunday newspaper - even if the NOTW cannot back it up. On that basis alone it merits inclusion. Why do people object to stories about same-sex relationships but not boyfriend-girlfriend stories unless homophobia is being pandered to somewhere? NOTW gets sued - but they break a lot of true stories and the libel laws are a joke (Archer/Liberace/Robert Maxwell/ etc.etc). The addition to the KM article simply reports the report - it doesn't take a stand on it or introduce POV. TerriNunn 17:31, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
I think that the only real issue here is is wether or not we should include the information due to the fact that it was reported by such a shady source. I feel that we need a more reliable source to say this before we should include this (possible) fact. I feel that this would have to be confirmed by at least two independent sources since this topic is so contraversial in today's society. See Independent_sources for some more details on independent sources. Facts are facts and opinion should not be regarded in a matter like this, meaning that I feel that a fact like this is not all that important to make it into someone's bio but if it could be proved as a fact (using reliable sources) would have to include it if someone felt the need for its inclusion. About as much as I can say is that this bad press defenatly proves that she is worthy of being in Wikipedia. Andrew D White 21:50, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
I would agree with this opinion - it's not whether it's homophobic but whether it fails WP:RS. I recall seeing an article in such a publication suggesting a certain high profile UK sports star had adopted Islam so he could have four wives. The entire article was crock and based on the sayso of "friends" of the star, who may well not have known him for months or years and may have been paid generously for their comments. Orderinchaos78 14:40, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
people never recall NOTW stories that are wrong - they just think so. It breaks more stories than the Washington Post. I agree with TerriNunn. The story is everywhere in discussions. At lest here it is dealt with in a straightforward way - and the fact that no further evidence has come to light is pointed out. Take it away and people will think there is more to it than, to date, there is. She is a friend of Lara. (Andrew D White cannot spell.)62.64.208.62 13:18, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
So it should be obvious by your last comment on my opinion. Content is more important than its presentation. I am just pointing out that

we need to be sure about its factual accuracy. Andrew D White 01:52, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Difficult one- if it is cited only as a newspaper report then may amount to speculation. She is also quoted as neither confirming or denying it, only saying no comment- not sure if this makes any difference? Rob 00:20, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Even if she is currently in a lesbian relationship, she has had hererosexual relationships prior to this even going as far as considering marriage. So I think she should be described as bisexual. 77.99.233.169 (talk) 16:58, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FAC comments

The problem is the article needs to be better written overall. It has some good points, number one of which is that the editors actually bothered to extensively research the singer. Please don't undervalue this--as it is appears to be something that is not frequently done or not well done (as in the number and variety of sources) with young popular singer's articles on Wikipedia. The article is also, overall, a rather general article about the singer that could be useful for people who aren't fans to consult. A lot of articles about young current singers tend to read like fanzines and just turn the general audience off. These are two very strong points, imo about the article, research has been done, and it is written for a general audience, not just her fans. It made me curious about Katie Melua's music--what it should do, ultimately, and imo, as a FA on Wikipedia's front page. I love to find an article there about something or someone I've never heard of that makes me read to the end. This article has the potential to do that. It is however, rather poorly written, and sparse in some areas. Too much so on the former, for it to be a FA right now, or a FAC, imo. The prose is simply not compelling.

"It was whilst at the school that Melua was spotted by producer Mike Batt.

As a result of being spotted at a young age, Melua didn't attend University though she has often stated her desire to do so, citing English literature, history and physics as her courses of choice should she ever get the chance to go.[17][18]"

Spotted? Is she a musician or a model? He "spotted" her and this caused her to not attend university? Didn't her choice of careers have anything to do with it.

Weekly World News, by the way, is a tabloid, and it should be stated within the article when relaying information from tabloids, that the source is a tabloid, especially when dealing with a biography of a living person.

Anyway, lots of problems with the prose, too many, imo, for this to be a FAC. Although I hope you work towards making it one, especially as an example for other articles about popular singers, because of the effort towards research and a generalist article. Maybe there is another article in this area that has compelling prose that you can look at?

KP Botany 16:12, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] British nationality - Incorrect information

This quote does come from a link, but is not true: "The ceremony was important to Melua because if her had father lost his job before becoming a citizen, the family would have been forced to return to Georgia."

It might have been true in the early years of their time in Britain, but once permanent residence (Indefinite Leave to Remain) had been obtained, there would have been no question of having to return. Under the rules at the time this would likely have been given after 4 years. ILR is a pre-requisite for naturalisation as British.

I will delete this in a few days if there are no objections. JAJ 00:11, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

  • According to Melua, she would have been sent back if her father had lost his job. See here and here. Perhaps she is mistaken, but I still think it should be mentioned. Maybe should add that caveat to it though. Hera1187 07:18, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, just say that is what she though, although point out, and source, that it is not currently true, although once was. KP Botany 17:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hold on GA

I feel that minimually all referenced web site references should have the date the data was retreived and one should possibly even use the Template:Cite_web to site these sources. Additionally in my opinion, the sourcing in general could look a little neater, please use some offically reconized format for sourcing. I feel that no article should make GA without following one of the major formating schemes for its sources. See Wikipedia:Citing_sources for details. Until these issues are resolved I must fail it on style. I would also like to see more printed sources as references. Just fix these issues and I will have no problem with it reaching GA. Andrew D White 22:22, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): [[Image:|15px]] b (citations to reliable sources): [[Image:|15px]] c (OR): [[Image:|15px]]
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
  5. It is stable.
  6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
    a (tagged and captioned): [[Image:|15px]] b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA): [[Image:|15px]] c (non-free images have fair use rationales): [[Image:|15px]]
  7. Overall:
    a Pass/Fail: [[Image:|15px]]

Above is the more graphical representation of how I rate the article. Note that I do not feel completely qualified to rate 6 but I feel that it is acceptable as long as no one else sees any major problems. They are all tagged as fair usage (possible FA elimination). See my above notes for my problems with style involving references. Andrew D White 22:42, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Put all refs into {{{{:cite web}}}} as requested. Hera1187 09:48, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Failed GA

It was more than 7 days since this nomination was on hold; therefore, I decided to be bold and fail this article on the basis that images in this article are without fair use rationale.--Crzycheetah 05:19, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

  • I can't see a problem, so I've put it in for a Good Article Review. Philip Stevens 12:04, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
    As I already mentioned, the previous nomination was on hold for more than 7 days which should not have happened. After I failed this nomination, the editor made the necessary changes. Renominate it, I am sure it will pass the GA criteria now because I can't see a problem, either. --Crzycheetah 18:37, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Why would the editor only make the changes after it failed the nomination? Philip Stevens 18:41, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
      To make it a good article later on, I guess... --Crzycheetah 20:23, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
      Because they were good suggestions. It isn't the end of the world if the article fails GA; the article still continues on. GA is just a formal process that says "it's at this standard." Hbdragon88 04:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
    • At WP:GA/R there is a 5-0 vote to relist this, so did so. Rlevse 15:36, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Instruments played

I tried to add in her instruments played (guitar, piano and vocals) but the infobox just didn't show it even though I put it in the infobox, Help! User:Speedboy Salesman My talk page 06:27, June 13, 2008 (UTC).

[edit] Nationality...again

So, she's British because... she was born in Georgia, moved to Ireland and, at the age of 14, she moved to Britain? Just clarifying here.... 89.100.195.42 17:10, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Note that Northern Ireland is part of the UK, and that it's semi-traditional around WP to have the semi-Easter-egg link [[United Kingdom|British]], in much the same way one gets [[United States|American]]. (British and American are both ambiguous in their scope, as those pages make fairly clear.) Alai 05:37, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

She considers herself as British-Georgian. See source 24. --Thus Spake Anittas 14:48, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

See discussion (10 above). It is absurd to say it is not sourced. 62.64.208.62 13:13, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

It's absurd to say it IS sourced. It's only method of citing is "a source says" which is only slightly less preposterous than me writing my own article declaring her a Nazi; "a source says: it's true, she really is a Nazi." and trying to get that in. SteveLamacq43 13:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
You have no grounds to remove it. By your thinking everything that you don't like isn't a source. You have no basis on which to decide. What you are really pushing is the idea that having a relationship with someone of the same sex is a smear. It is not an extraordinary claim that KM has a relationship with someone. You are trying to censor what you don't like and that is vandalism and homophobia.[citation needed] 62.64.223.155 14:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

It is not.


Is there a better source that "a friend" said, nudge,nudge" story in the news of the screws? --Fredrick day 20:21, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Basically there is some unfounded gossip about someone's sexuality. Go to a hair salon for that, leave wikipedia for verified facts please. Nina 61.95.116.45 12:10, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] American jazz charts

It isn't made clear in this article, but this artist has done quite well on Billboard's jazz chart. While it is true that none of her albums have made the top 100 on the pop charts, she has spent months on the jazz charts (alongside other contemporary jazz artists, including Diana Krall and Madeleine Peyroux). She just hasn't crossed over to the pop field, like Norah Jones and Michael Buble have. This article seems to indicate that she is practically unknown in the US, but that certainly isn't true in the case of American jazz fans. Jrs1010 16:49, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Next album's release date

I just changed the release date of her next album to 1 October 2007 and removed the "citation needed" tag. I got the information from [2], which is her official site, but can't link directly to the statement because of the method of navigating the site. To find the announcement, just click on 'news' at the top. Maybe someone with a bit more knowledge could put in the necessary reference? - Jetekus 01:52, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] chapter "criticism"

i'm the one who's deleting the chapter "criticism", totally irrelevant, for the following reasons (and users like hera1187 should read and understand, instead of unwise undos): 1) when you read the sources (obviously hera never did), there is NO criticism about the fact melua is not writing all of her stuff... so, to mention these blog-quality-articles is not relevant at all: they just say, melua does not write everything, ok and so what? 2) she is not described as a songwriter, why? she is! 3) for instance, Whitney Houston is described (first paragraph) as a songwriter! a joke! i controlled all of her songs and discovered ONLY ONE song she co-wrote ("queen of the night" on the album the bodyguard, and of course there is no criticism about her non-ability to write anything (i'm a huge fan of her anyway))(has been corrected by... me) 4) the general fact there are sources anywhere on the net is not a good reason for a publication on wiki 62.167.44.57 14:15, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jamie Cullum link?

Why is Jamie Cullum listed as an associated act, when there is no mention of him elsewhere in the article, and no mention of Katie on Jamie's page? If there is a link, then it clearly needs to be explained, or deleted as superfluous information with no backing —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.147.104.224 (talk) 15:03, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed; I vote for its removal. --Roddie Digital 14:29, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] two questions

  • should it be "born in Georgian SSR" or "born in Georgia" ? Generally, for the post-Soviet countries, one uses the name of the country if the person did not live all the life in the USSR.
  • reference [14] ragarding her "Russian" ancestry: The newspaper article merely states that her grandmother had a house in Tuapse, in the Russian portion of the Caucasus mountains, a characteristically multi-ethnic region. I don't think that means that she is of some Russian ancestry.
Dc76\talk 20:28, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
It seems odd to say she was born in the Republic of Georgia in 1984, when the Republic of Georgia didn't exist until 1991. About her being part Russian, though I can't find it online, I've heard her say in many interviews "my grandmother is Russian," and "I'm one quarter Russian". --Hera1187 (talk) 07:40, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Thank you very much for answering so quickly.
About the first question, obviously we cannot say "she was born in the Republic of Georgia". But I mean to say "she was born in Georgia". Whether it was Soviet Socialist Republic, Republic of, or whatever else, it does not matter. For example, one says that someone "was born in France", not "was born in the Kingdom of France", "was born in the Napoleonic Empire", or "was born in the French Republic". Especially abasing would be "was born in the French State" (the Vichy France). Another example, one does not say "was born in Reichsprotektorat Bohemia" but in Czechoslovakia/Slovakia/etc. Nor does one say "was born in the General Government" but "was born in Poland". Nor does one say "was born in the Confederate States of America", but "was born in the United States of America". Again, obviously nor "Republic of", just "Georgia", which would be the equivalent of "was born in America" instead of USA or CSA.
About the second question. If you heard her say so, then clearly there is nothing to discuss here. Only that ref [14] is, strictly speaking, not sufficient. Nevertheless, in my opinion, it can stay as is, it's more informative this way. We can simply keep this in mind, and when we get a source, we'll just add it. :Dc76\talk 14:38, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] I need source

I'm writing the hungarian version of this article, and just need the source of the sentence "Pictures has now sold over 1.3 million copies worldwide, and over 400,000 copies in the UK alone, being certified Platinum and becoming the 49th Best selling album in 2007". Well, I've been looking for the source everywhere, but couldn't find. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.98.130.149 (talk) 11:01, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Personal life

I propose the whole paragraph to be cancelled for three reasons:

  • It's against Katie Melua's well known disapproval about sharing her privacy in public.
  • The informations are irrelevant with regard to an article about music.
  • Wikipedia is not a place for speculations, have a look at the Wikipedia: Five Pillars and to the NOR principle. Nevermind100 (talk) 18:14, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
On your first point, articles are not written for the approval of their subject, they are meant to inform the reader. On your second point, this article is not about Katie Melua's music, it is about Katie Melua, and her relationships are relevant. On your third point, there is no speculation in the section as all statements are well sourced, often using direct quotes from Melua herself. The section should stay. --Hera1187 (talk) 18:46, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
On your first point: Wikipedia does not be a newspaper. Neither it's a tabloid. It's an encyclopedia. On your second/third point: This article should stay within the scope of a music portal project. The private life of an artist is irrelevant, at least unless the artist makes his privacy part of the show like others might do; the things said about being gay (apart from being irrelevant) or not, are mere speculation, there's nothing proofed, there's nothing but gossip. This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons, in my eyes it doesn't. Nevermind100 (talk) 19:35, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
This is not a music article, its a biography and past relationships with other notable people which inspired songs are notable. As for the gay rumours, they have been discussed extensively above. --Hera1187 (talk) 20:37, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
I refer to " Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous" I have to accept that we are interpreting in two different ways this sentence. As to me it's poorly sourced because sources are daily press and tabloids. The discussion about the gay rumours doesn't have provided any result. Just my two pences, I will end here with my contributions on this behalf.Nevermind100 (talk) 21:26, 15 May 2008 (UTC)