Talk:Madeleine Peyroux

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Georgia (U.S. state) Portal
This article is part of WikiProject Georgia (U.S. state), an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Georgia (U.S. state) on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale.
This article lacks sufficient references and/or adequate inline citations.
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).
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as start-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.

Contents

[edit] Rusty Trombone

Any source for this interesting piece of info? --62.252.128.17 19:31, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mystery Album

So apparently this we know: there was a 7-track EP-length album produced by Peyroux and Wilison. When she began to produce her own album Careless Love and decided not to perform the other songs, his interests came into conflict with hers, as well as the record company's. The record company wanted to put out the one album. Wilison wanted them to release his album, and if not, to have Peyroux promote it. It isn't quite clear to us, for legal reasons, what Peyroux wanted. Currently the album has been brought to full length by several songs of his - but obviously it would be to his advantage if the album was marketed as hers. It seems from all this - the album is more his than hers, she doesn't officially acknowledge it, it didn't receive the release at the same time - suggests that the prominence of this paragraph in the article, as well as the placement and equation of the two albums is inappropriate. Any thoughts? Huangdi 13:50, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

My feeling is that it doesn't matter to us whether or not she acknowledges the album (officially or otherwise) — it's partly by her, and belongs in the article. The fact that it's surrounded by so much controversy would tend to support its being given more prominence. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:01, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
I respectfully disagree. In any case - a separate issue - she did not release the album, he did. So at least an effort should be made to differentiate Careless Love and Got On Your Mind. And now you've made a bunch of extra changes to my edits outside of our discussion. I've taken a break from more politically charged topics only to say hello to the frying pan... However I do have I high tolerance for this, to let you know. Huangdi 17:08, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Artists don't release albums, companies do; the difference here is minimal, and a short mention of the fact would surely do. As for your next complaint — I didn't make a bunch of changes to your edits, I expanded the article and rewrote much of it, including your, my, and probably other people's edits, using new sources (as listed). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:36, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

(Responding to some accusations by Mel Etitis which was just here a moment ago)

Hold on here. I am not making this a "battle". I will look over the articles, both of which rely mainly on him as a source, and try to incorporate both. The fact that my spelling correction was painted over suggested to me that you reverted without much attention. In good faith I'll take that back. "Rave" I think was someone else's add. If not, I apologize, but it is hardly a sin - I'm sure you find the word used in many published music reviews. Huangdi 08:41, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More changes

Your new edits include uncited claims (where did you find that she busked around the U.S., for example? It may well be true, but it's not mentioned in the sources at which I looked), changes to style that(to my eye at least) make it worse (e.g., "At about the same time" → "Around the same time"), and an insistence on separating the joint album that doesn't fit with other articles on performers. I realsise from your thinly veiled threat above that you intend to edit war over this, but could I plead with you to cool down a little and explain what you're doing, and offer citations? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:45, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I see that you're still making changes without bothering to continue the discussion here, relying on hostile edit summaries. Your version goes beyond what the article you cite says. You're also turning good English to poor, as well as adding much that is either poor grammar or style (such as the use of numerals, slangy terms like "rave reviews" — and what does "The record company has since been dismissed from the action" mean?), and removing the labels from the list of albums. You've also removed the source of the earlier version and added your source; as the two said different things, this is unacceptable; unless you have reason to believe that the earlier source is inaccurate (and you've not bothered to explain here if you have), that is unacceptable.
With regard to that edit summary: given your extensive changes, that I missed one "correction of a spelling mistake" is hardly surpising.
You've clearly, as you suggested earlier, decided to make this a battle rather than being prepared to discuss the question and reach consensus. If you continue to take this attitude, I shall have to try to take steps to get you to change by placing the article at RfC, and eventually by calling for assistance from other admins. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 08:32, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
I see you've moved the comment to this section. I was gone for a couple days and did not read your addition from March 26. So perhaps I will slow down and explain what I am trying to do. When I read this article recently, it seemed to equate Careless Love and Got You On My Mind - both released around the same time, both to positive reviews, when in fact what happened was quite different. I am trying to differentiate between the two. Really, if we could condense the part about Got You On My Mind into two sentences, plus the two cites, that would be fine with me, as the issue is still disputed legally. About the two stories, I don't see how you that one is biased/purple (the phrase seems to be missing from the current edit of your comments) while the other, equally sensational, is to be accepted at face value. This issue seems to be the proverbial tempest in a teapot, as very few news sources have covered it. As regarding my grammar and word choice, I think it reflects our different taste and perhaps national background. I don't object to "at about" but "around" means I believe the same thing in the US and is more widespread. I get the feeling you are very particular about whose acceptable English to use. Seeing that American editors are the overwhelming majority on en.wikipedia.org, you may have your work cut out for you. Judging by your industry, you may get around to a good chunk of it. Peyroux is American, as is most of her audience, so it would make more sense to use American English but I won't make a federal case out of it. The record company has been dismissed as a party to the action - it's kind of legalese but is correct. Anyways, I don't intend to start an edit war. I was just astonished to find that even non-political subjects seem to get politicized. The cover on Got You On My Mind is classic - did he put that on after they broke up? Huangdi 09:04, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  1. In fact both have had very positive reviews (sometimes together — see one of the reviews listed at Got You on My Mind).
  2. Condensing the stuff about the controversy is fine with me; it's in any case more appropriate to the article about the album, I think.
  3. I hadn't seen the language issue as a U.S./U.K. thing, in fact (and, incidentally, I don't know what the sales figures are, but are you sure that her audience is predominantly U.S.?), just as a matter of clarity (and sometimes tone).
  4. Could we (you) explain what "The record company has been dismissed as a party to the action" means?
  5. I assume that the cover is post-break-up; it's by someone called Jud Guiteau.
  6. Although he's generally very generous to Peyroux on the cover and elsewhere, his own Web site bills the CD, rather suprisingly, as being by him, "featuring" Peyroux... --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:57, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I must say that I'm still puzzled that the albums should be mentioned in reverse order of their release, but I suppose that doesn't matter too much. You also added that Got You on My Mind "[reprised] three songs from Careless Love and four original numbers by Peyroux." "Reprise" must be wrong, given the chronology, but in any case the two albums have only two numbers in common, and there are no Peyroux compositions on Got You on My Mind (just a joint Peyroux-Galison track). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:08, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

The article looks good. I appreciate the discographies. Never thought Wikipedia would be doing that, when so many other commercial cites take up the task, but that aspect has become increasingly comprehensive. In the reviews of Got You On My Mind *that exist* I suppose they are very positive. To me something by a now well-known artist should be widely reviewed before I would use that superlative. To answer your questions... I'm assuming from the general quality of your English that it is very correct - yet there are phrases which I almost never hear or read today. So I am concluding it has to do with national usage. The "featuring" I guess has to do with legal consequences - otherwise it would appear he is using her bigger name. He named the record company as a defendant. The court dismissed the company from the suit. More often it's expressed as above, though it may sound awkward to a non-legal ear. Huangdi 10:35, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
I must say that all the reviews that I've seen, including those in print publications, have been very positive (I prefer that to the slang "rave").
With regard to articles on albums (and especially singles and individual songs), I think that we have far too many of them, especially at the ephemeral teeny-pop end of the spectrum. I'd prefer to limit them to particularly significant albums, but that would involve the development of guidelines which would doubtless give rise to conflict. Other recordings (perhaps all recordings) could go to a separate Wiki. As none of this is likely to happen, I'm trying to do my bit in redressing the balance by adding jazz albums (see my personal Jazz-L 100 project, for example). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 12:34, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yet more changes

There was an edit in the article that added some information about William Galison that I just removed.

All of the information under "legal issue" is supported by the link at the end of this section. Any additional statements NEED to be supported and cited. This is a picture perfect example of a situation where unsupported info could land the editor, and Wikipedia, in hot water.

Thanks!NickBurns 18:19, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you and whoever else made this section more appropriate. I'd been trying to do that for a while. Huangdi 07:01, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP Biography Rating

Due to a backlog, it is no longer possible to give comments on ratings. Please do not hesitate to put any comments or questions on my talk page. GDon4t0 21:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Year of birth

Hello, I have been looking for information about the year of birth of Madeleine Peyroux and it tends to be 1973 instead of 1974, as it is written in the article. What about changing it? --Webeafix 12:55, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] William Galison

Perhaps their relationship and subsequent legal problems deserve to be mentioned, with several supporting refs. There are several videos of her testimony on YouTube, such as this one: http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=YOfRZ7ssGIk which were supposedly uploaded by Galison himself. SteveRamone 00:27, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok then, maybe I'll add something on it, with plenty of refs. SteveRamone 21:54, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comparsion with Billie Holiday

A lot of journalists say that Madeleine Peyroux is 'highly reminiscent' of Billie Holiday, but that's because she's the only name they can think of. It's a flattering comparison of course, but it seems to me that Madeleine has her own unique vocal style and therefore the article should say something like: "a voice often described as reminiscent of Billie Holiday". With supporting refs, of course. SteveRamone 01:31, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Madeleine Peyroux.jpg

Image:Madeleine Peyroux.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 20:49, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image and Publicity

The "Image and Publicity" section is not written in a WP:NPOV style. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dannygutters (talk • contribs) 19:20, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Apologetics

"Women, Art and Work" seems to be apologetics and unrelated to the purpose of an encyclopedia. The section about critics not understanding her personal life being off limits and her fans loving her anyway has a similar problem--is this an encyclopedia or a press release?

The article makes no mention of her legal problems. I don't know how to formally dispute the neutrality of an article on Wikipedia but it seems this article is verging on the edge of "puff." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.89.192.125 (talk) 06:29, 11 February 2008 (UTC)