Talk:Misha B/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Misha B. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

I hope this page stays up, but discussions I have read indicate it may well get removed again on the grounds of more stringent rules fornotability for TV music contestants in the UK, any way I added my edits.

Is Misha B notable:

X Factor was last year. This Year- iable and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself. (On Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are rel her F64, Mixtape and Home Run [YES]. In fact Misha's Single Home Run already has a Wikipedia page!

Has been placed in rotation nationally by a *major radio* or music television network [Home Run, BBC radio 1, BBC Radio 1 Extra, Many independent networks].[YES]

Unreleased material (including demos, mixtapes, bootlegs, promo-only recordings) is only notable if it has significant independent coverage in reliable sources. *[Both her F64 for SBTV and he mix tape Why Hello World received lots of reliable internet music press coverage]*[YES]

never mind:

Last Year (X Factor)

Has won or *placed* in a major music competition. [X factor is probably the best known music competition in the UK, the Series despite an apparent drop in ratings from the previous series, never dropped below third place in the national viewing figures, it was the third most watched series in the show's eight-year history and the most watched show of 2011, beating the Royal Wedding which aired during the spring.[120]][YES]

Has been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or TV network. [X factor finals for 9 weeks] etc etc [YES]

Has received non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country.[YES]

So where does it say that *all the above* should be ignored until she official releases a single, a single's release is not notable in itself so how can it make an artist notable? The is enough evidence to warrant her own page now, nevermind in a weeks time.Zoeblackmore (talk) 08:25, 8 July 2012 (UTC)Zoeblackmore (talk) 08:57, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

None of these have been ignored. She has an article, it's at List of The X Factor finalists (UK series 8). When her single charts, feel free to recreate this article. –anemoneprojectors– 13:50, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I've just read the article which was on here yesterday before being redirected back to The list of X Factor finalists, the article read like a fan site, particularly the section about the bullying rumour, it constantly defended Misha, but didn't include anything about her admitting to being a playground bully [1]. If she does get her own article, and if there is information about her bullying then it should also include the information about her bullying history which she admitted to, as there is a number of sources to back it up. I'm not hating in her, just think every aspect should be covered neutrally. Livin'InAGhostTown (talk) 17:24, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Totally agree, but also we shouldn't give undue weight to this one relatively minor incident that has probably been mostly forgotten about by now anyway. It doesn't need an entire section to itself, just brief mentions in the section about The X Factor. –anemoneprojectors– 13:18, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I would be happy to see the whole false accusation removed. But if u a going to post the false accusation then u need to post the force of the rebuttal/truth. The stuff added made it more neutral. The are no verifiable & truthful sources about her bullying on the show, but the UK gutter press etc did make stuff up. What someone does at 15, 13 , 11 whatever age she was when 'she' got bullied and bullied back at school is totally irrelevant for wikipedia.Zoeblackmore (talk) 21:52, 12 July 2012 (UTC) edited both this and made the relevant section shorter.Zoebuggie 08:32, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree. As it was a false allegation, surely it's better to not even include it. Relevant for the article about that particular series of The X Factor, but not for her biographical article. –anemoneprojectors– 12:49, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

This is what I was talking about, it's all well and good to say it was a false accusation, but if you are going to be including that at least include the stuff about her past, as there is usually a section about the persons early life, and as there are sources backing up the fact she was a school bully, and her admitting to it, it would be like omitting the racism row from Jade Goodys article, Mishas unpopularity is mostly down to her bullying confession, so if anything is to be incuded about bullying, there should be no bias from her fans, after all this is an encyclopedia not a fan site! Livin'InAGhostTown (talk) 18:55, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

This page is neutral, Misha said she got bullied and bullied back...I bet you were a an angel at school...What someone does as a child 14, 13 , 11 whatever age she was when 'she' got bullied and bullied back at school is totally irrelevant for wikipedia, people change... “Everyone has a past and people make mistakes – I’m proud to say that I’ve learnt from mine and I have moved on.” its hardly notable...Zoebuggie☺whispers 20:15, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

It works both ways really. If we're not adding any mention of the bullying controversy here, then maybe we shouldn't be adding long gushing quotes about how good she was on X-factor either. As the first poster says, this isn't a fan site, it's an encyclopedia article. Sionk (talk) 15:28, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Livin'InAGhostTown was not actually referring to the bully accusations on the show...but about Misha's behaviour before she was 14. Regards the bully accusation on the show it was retracted by the person who made it, all potential witnesses rubbished it, and the responsible people apologized. Though the allegation was not true, I admit is noteworthy and thus it is recorded by me on the X factor 8 main page. Regards my gushing quotations:) apologies - I looked at several other artists pages that discuss the artist's Artistry and thought if the source of the review was ok, then it would be ok for wikipedia (ignoring my blogg errors)- so its more a learning teething error on my part rather than anything else....Zoebuggie☺whispers 17:53, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

What's my behaviour in school got to do with anything? For one I was bullied, so that's why I don't understand why a thug like Misha is having her past swept under the carpet just because she was a child when doing it, as mentioned Wikipedia is not a fan site, the article is so bias it's unreal. She is synonymous with bullying, that's why she received hardly any votes on X Factor and why her single missed out on the Top 10, if you are going to mention that her mother abandoned her then the school bullying should be included, anyway I'm not going to waste my time arguing with someone who is more than likely a bully themself.

Livin'InAGhostTown (talk) 19:32, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Hey I am a bully victim who actually won compensation through law. But hey thanks for the unwarranted Bully accusation.

Misha said she got bullied and bullied back, like many kids! but as you say 'What's my behaviour in school got to do with anything?' so what has Misha's when she was under 14. Misha has made it clear that she made mistakes, learnt from them and is doing her best now.

Misha did not bully anyone on X factor, Louis apologized the very next day on live TV, the other contestants, Janet Devlin, Johnny Robinson, the Risk, Frankie Cocozza, Sophie Habibis, Sami Brookes, Little Mix's Perrie Edwards Gary Barlow, Kelly Rowland and members of the production team denied it. The remains absolutely no evidence what so ever about her bullying on the show, in fact the is very strong evidence of the opposite, If it did not happen then why raise it? again and again. Unless your intention is to be a cyber bully. To mention it again gives the false accusation/something that never happened UNDUE WEIGHT and as it did not happen totally irrelevant for Wikipedia. Who did she bully, tell me?

The article is no way a fan site, no more than any other artist on Wikipedia, I also am grateful that I have at least two experienced editors who monitor what I am doing. ...Zoebuggie☺whispers 20:25, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

&

This isn't a forum guys, but ....Zoebuggie☺whispers is clearly obsessed with promoting Misha, possibly someone from her record label, Misha B admitted she was a school bully, so even a brief mention should be included in her bio, otherwise Wikipedia wouldn't be an encyclopedia, there are plenty of sites you can go on and admire her, she is not as popular as her fans make her out to be, so it would be wise to mention the reason why, as she is more known for bullying rather than singing. Sorry but the truth hurts. As already mentioned, Jade Goody, Jo O'Meara, Danielle Lloyd all have articles with information about their bullying history. Reli source (talk) 19:39, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Again another baseless accusation against me. Dont be daft lol...I am only fan. I guess many pages about individuals, teams, places are written by people who have a passion. I have tried to write objectively, i did make a mistake of quoting a couple of reviews from bloggs. Lucky i have editors that help me get it right.

The Truth is the bullying never happened but a minority of people keep bringing it up, However The Bullying Saga is covered extensively elsewhere on Wikipedia. I could duplicate and repeat it here? Tulisa admitted bullying when she was younger,should add it to her page, I am sure lots of celebrities made mistakes as kids, where would it end... Wikipedia full of false accusations ...Zoebuggie☺whispers 20:25, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Personally I think the 'bullying' accusations during the series were *a* significant event, though not the only major event of the series. As a result of the issue, the press dug around and found there were some earlier 'bullying' issues. It's the sort of things the press likes to do, dig up dirt. Either way, I think the series allegations should be touched upon in this article about Misha B. It's also abundantly clear that the allegations were retracted and publicly denied by everyone involved in X-Factor. I very much doubt the issue needs two chunky 9000 character paragraphs to cover it, here or in the main article. But they should be mentioned.

We should probably have a look at the article about Cher Lloyd for comparison. I definitely remember there were accusations made by the press about her schoolyard activities, but they don't seem to appear in the article about her at all.

If the accusations about Misha B's alleged schoolyard activities are included here, I think they will need to be very well sourced indeed, or not appear at all. By 'well sourced' I don't mean the gossip news websites or the seedy tabloids!
Sionk (talk) 23:03, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry i got worked up, I am suffering from a serious lack of sleep. My worry is if we dont explain the facts fully, then folks may infer the accusations where true. I apologise if I have over reacted. I will try(!lol), apart from correcting vandalism/very poor additions to have a break until after the weekend....Zoebuggie☺whispers 23:17, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

We probably both need a break :) Sionk (talk) 23:21, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

:)...Zoebuggie☺whispers 23:28, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I apologize for calling her a thug, as has been mentioned it is not a forum and there shouldn't be any personal feelings subjected into articles (whether they be pro or con), but her bullying history should still be mentioned, as she has become synonymous with the word bullying, whether the allegations on the show were false, she still admitted bullying at school, and there is a big difference between a petty rivalry and singling out someone to be physically hurt everyday, and sources can clearly be found of her admitting to this, it should be mentioned briefly, as her past bullying is one of the reasons she is unpopular and why a number of people refuse to support her. Perhaps the same could be added to Tulisa and Cher Lloyd, although most people would struggle to remember them being called bullies or admitting to it, with Misha, she is constantly referred to as a bully. Livin'InAGhostTown (talk) 22:58, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

"Constantly referred to as a bully" where? Sionk (talk) 23:39, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

These unproven personal attacks against this singer must stop, the only lack of neutrality I see is not on the article page itself, but written here on this talk page. The amount of cyber hate that some singers get is tiresome and immature Very dodgy ground considering its a bio of a living person.Bodney (talk) 15:31, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I will not do it, without permission, but I really would like to add several solid verifiable, notable and relevant facts before it does go live...If you want to prove/boost her Notability then these facts really ought to be included from the start rather than the debatable and complicated wrongful accusation controversy :))...Zoebuggie☺whispers 17:24, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

The Official UK Singles Chart <midweek> Update - 18 July 2012, Position 9 new Misha B Home Run ttp://www.bbc.co.uk/radio1/chart/update/singles/print(LIVE PAGE) or http://www.musicweek.com/story.asp?sectioncode=1&storycode=1050442&c=1

She was after 3 days top of the MTV charts- see http://www.mtv.co.uk/music/charts & and has been hovering around 11 on the itunes UK chart http://kworb.net/popuk/ ....However ... I think both of these charting sites are live sites likely to change, rather than fixed records...sorry ...Zoebuggie☺whispers 17:24, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Notability - Has been placed in rotation nationally by a *major radio* or music television network [The current article partly covers: the per-release single being later added to both BBC Radio One[50] and BBC Radio 1Xtra[51] playlists, as well as the video being on the MTV playlists,[52] before its official release. "Home Run" received its first airplay on 31 May 2012.[53] The music video for the single [54], which was directed by Rohan Blair-Mangat, premiered on 15 June 2012.[55] On 25 June 2012, she performed an acoustic version of the song live for i-D magazine at Red Bull studios.[56][57] and for SB.TV on July 11th.[58]

Notability - Unreleased material (including demos, mixtapes, bootlegs, promo-only recordings) is only notable if it has significant independent coverage in reliable sources. [The current article does not cover: A couple of weeks after leaving the show Misha performed a live freestyle F64 for SB.TV.[38] Directed by Jamal Edwards and Uploaded on Dec 24, 2011, her rap [39] quickly gained one of the highest view counts on the SBTV F64 playlist.+ the is more stuff about her mixed tape (+ possibly add the seperate reception of Home Run's five official remixes and acoustic versions) ...Zoebuggie☺whispers 17:24, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I strongly believe that the whole false accusation should not be included on her own page, it is well covered on two other pages of wikipedia. The remains absolutely no verifiable evidence about her bullying on the show, in fact the is very strong evidence of the opposite, If it did not happen then why raise it? again and again. To mention it again gives the false accusation UNDUE WEIGHT and as it did not happen totally irrelevant for Wikipedia. . Time to start the record clean :) PLUS it does nothing to add to Bryan's independent post xfactor artistic notability but drags her back. If a unclear reference is included I will be compelled to add immediately, the unbiased proven facts to show clear record of the truth. .. :( ...Zoebuggie☺whispers 17:19, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

The current candidate with a request for review at WP:AFC resides here

(but should that fails for any reason, I have been playing in my sandbox and put together a separate version here ...Zoebuggie☺whispers 11:42, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Both are now old/dead links...Zoebuggie☺whispers 17:23, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Was anything copied from User:NewzealanderA/Misha B? If it was then a history merge will be needed. Peter E. James (talk) 20:03, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes –anemoneprojectors– was dealing with it ...Zoebuggie☺whispers 20:40, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure ap merged the histories for the article. As for the Talk pages, the one we're on now was previously attached to User:NewzealanderA/Misha B. The Talk page attached to the new article by Rui78901 (20 July) was made into a redirect but not merged, leaving content available in the Talk:Misha Bryan edit history. Well, I think that's what happened... Sionk (talk) 22:10, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

It hasn't been done yet, or if it has then the move is missing from the logs. AnemoneProjectors merged the histories of Misha B and Misha Bryan. Peter E. James (talk) 22:20, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that's my understanding, the Talk page histories (and contents) weren't merged.Sionk (talk) 22:38, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Yeah sorry, I didn't merge the talk pages, only the articles. –anemoneprojectors– 12:00, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

How do you bundle links? I looked at the guide but dont understand it. Useful as it would help make the page tidier, this page has several groups of 2 or 3 citations, can someone give me an example and I will do the rest ...Zoebuggie☺whispers 17:38, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

sort of done it, maybe not the best way, but page looks a bit neater....Zoebuggie☺whispers 21:05, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Not really necessary. In fact I've never seen that sort of thing done anywhere else on Wikipedia. It makes it more difficult for other editors to use the same citations for a different fact.

For controversial, personal or disputable claims, multiple reliable citations will be normally needed. On the other hand, for everything else, one reliable citatons will suffice. Sometimes in a bundle of citations (especially for this type of subject) some might be more reliable than others. Often tabloid newspapers and gossip websites will use the same sources/repeat the same information. Therefore if there is a real problem with over-citing, it may be better to remove the less reliable ones (or duplicates). Sionk (talk) 22:48, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice...I will sift through sometime, often they relate to different aspects of the same sentence. ...Zoebuggie☺whispers 00:03, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I got the bundling idea from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bundling#Bundling_citations WP:CITEBUNDLE WP:BUNDLING ...Zoebuggie☺whispers 15:04, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I am having no luck finding a free image of Misha Bryan...Zoebuggie☺whispers 15:32, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Sent a email to her management requesting a free image...Zoebuggie☺whispers 16:20, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Or you could find a photo on Flickr and message the owner to see if they'll consider changing the licence (there aren't any free photos on Flickr right now but there are plently of Misha there). –anemoneprojectors– 12:45, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

This article really needs a picture, have you contacted her fan clubBodney (talk) 16:08, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I've held off adding a 'POV' or 'peacock' clean up tag until now. But one editor in particular repeatedly adds promotional content and uses unnecessary promotional words (such as the 'Artistry' section, which has already been removed once). This article needs to be a neutral, factual, balanced report of Misha B's short life and career, not a fawning fan page. Please do not remove the POV tag until the biased edits stop. Sionk (talk) 20:13, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I did not put back 'Artistary' someone else did.

I orginally copied Artistry from other X factor singers and other female artist sites. See Alexandra Burke and Leona Lewis I did not think that those pages got it wrong

I have tried to be neutral and the reviews I posted where ones I found on the net, and innocently thought as they were reviews they would be ok. I did not realise they were bloggs.

The page is no more biased and promotional than many artists pages....Zoebuggie☺whispers 20:46, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

You mean this edit by 'Lizzy Green'? Either way, 'Artistry' is not a neutral term and it duplicates the 'Style and influences' heading. Sionk (talk) 21:00, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I happy with either. But happy to follow your advice.

Because of the critism I have added a neutral section on the bully accusation conspiracy, this section was accepted by anemoneprojectors on the main X factor page ...Zoebuggie☺whispers 21:05, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

This looks like you simply copy-pasted it from the main article. This loses the edit history of other contributors and also duplicates the citation mistakes and access dates. It will be better to write something succinct that doesn't breach anyone's copyright. I don't mind helping with this, I just don't have the time to go through all the citations and re-write a 9000 character copy-paste at the moment. Sionk (talk) 21:16, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Its okay I wrote it all, trying to represent the conspiracy honestly. So no copyright??? If its going to covered then it needs to be covered adequately to highlight both the truth and the facts, anything less would aid doubt and possible undue weight to a mistaken or wrongful accusation...Zoebuggie☺whispers 21:50, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Fine. Actually it's pretty clear from the edit history, sorry for that! Whether the whole thing needs to be covered in such great depth is debatable (but that's a separate discussion). Sionk (talk) 23:12, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

A little careful pruning may well improve it....Zoebuggie☺whispers 23:27, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

This article appears to be fairly neutral and no more promotional than other similar ones I have read (e.g. Kitty Brucknell) Bodney (talk) 16:21, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Because of ongoing dispute about Bias on the Misha B page I have requested a

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

for some independent comments...Zoebuggie☺whispers 22:40, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Should we remove this notice, I have said that matters are settled on the dispute resolution page. I dont have much access to the computer currently as I am away ...Zoebuggie☺whispers 18:35, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

==Settled==...Zoebuggie☺whispers 07:24, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Rather than add more effusive quotes to the 'Debut Single' section, wouldn't it be better to add them to the actual article Home Run (song)? If people want to know more about the single and its reception, they can go to the main article. Sionk (talk) 00:29, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

ahh...well ...um...it mostly came from there (which makes me think now about what you said when I first copied the conspiracy over..I have lost the chain of editing). Its not completely positive, but I was just checking up on the definitions of puffery, and was thinking of trying to find suitable negative reviews tomorrow (1.45am here). Part of my concern, was that the paragraphs about her music looked a bit thin, so I wanted to add a little more detail. I don't mind if you want to correct anything. (I better tell you I have problems with my memory, so though I checked, I hope I have *not* repeated any bad citations)...Zoebuggie☺whispers 00:53, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

LOL i still like Misha's gratitude for X factor as the ending of the conspiracy section, to me it says despite everything - the wrongful accusation and the media circus - she realises that X factor gave her leg up into notability.bed....Zoebuggie☺whispers 00:54, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

The was one very very bad review but it is from a user contributed site....Zoebuggie☺whispers 00:59, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Current ones I have been told look like they are suspect flickerwashing and are likely to be deleted. I have written to the flickr account holder asking him for verification that they are his and published correctly under a creative commons license, but received no answer, searching deep into google images...I think I found the likely original for the red pic, so removed pics .......Zoebuggie☺whispers 23:01, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Okay, so you may have know I really don't like the structure of Misha's page. Other X Factor contestant's articles follow the same structure as other musician pages. Check out WP:WPMAG for guidelines on how to structure a musicians page. It's far easy to follow than the current one, with unnecessary sections.

Also, there is no need for additional info in the Home Run section such as critical reviews, descriptions on the single or inspirations. It's not necessary. There is a reason why it has it's on article.

--Rui78901 00:34, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Greetings Rui78901, many thanks for starting this discussion, hopefully others will contribute.

Looking at WP:WPMAG it starts by stating : Suggested layout. *This is a guide only and editors are free to organise articles differently.*

And it specifically mentions sub headings as a way to subdivide Career/History - events relevant to the musical career section

*Subheadings that divide the career by era, album, musical changes, etc.*

As someone who has worked in education I know big walls of text put people off, and it becomes more readable/manageable/easier to follow if broken down into logical sections. Those sections will change if/when Misha B's career develops. I personally doubt that dividing the up the career section into sub section harder to follow. At the very least they do no harm....Zoebuggie☺whispers 01:31, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I have looked at many singers pages, most of whose pages have a lot more detail (because they have been around longer), but they all include details of the artists works, even when they have their own pages. Lots of artists have sections about inspirations, influences, style etc.

Another reason...currently it is the single Home Run that makes this artist finally notable enough to have an article on Wikipedia, so it is good to include some details here, plus much of the information was not the same. Without it the article becomes quite thin.

...Zoebuggie☺whispers 01:23, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I have invited contributions from the X factor, Hip Hop and R&B and Soul projects to help us...Zoebuggie☺whispers 13:39, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Little Mix have so little info and their page follows my suggested structure. As does Marcus Collins. So for every Misha B single she releases you're going to create countless subheadings? --Rui78901 15:32, 5 August 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rui78901 (talk • contribs)

No :) The page would evolve...as the her career grows, so will article will develop, the section headings will change from singles to albums to possibly wider topic categories. I admit I have mostly looked at established artist pages, they all have their careers sections broken down into sections, usually by album. It's hard to find similar, pre album singers so early in their career, but I must admit my first goal was readability. Both Little Mix and Marcus Collins articles are assessed as start class(e.g. need improving), both artists have so far released cover versions only so its hard to tell....Zoebuggie☺whispers 17:22, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

The Marcus Collins article is a good example to use and it uses sub-sections too, in a similar way to the Misha B article (in fact I'm surprised there isn't a little more to say about Marcus's releases). WP:WPMAG recommends "Subheadings that divide the career by era, album, musical changes, etc.", which is more or less what's happening.
Zoeb knows my views about the Misha B article - there is now more than enough written about her. But it is generally adequately sourced, so there is no major problem that I can see.
Sionk (talk) 18:01, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Yup :) I need to be careful about my neutrality and my natural urge for puffery :)...Zoebuggie☺whispers 18:47, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I have used the peer review tool to correct a few minor errors, suprisingly lol it points out the article has no pictures, I have made contact with the Team Misha fan tumblr page for help.

The Peer reviews first advice was

• Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.^{[[User:AndyZ/G#lead|]]}.....as this a maybe a major rewrite I thought I better raise it here first....Zoebuggie☺whispers 14:05, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

where should it go, if acceptable?

During X Factor show and tour, Bryan became known for her willingness to experiment with creative and amazing outfits.^[1][2]Bryan has become known not only for her old-school diva voice, but also for her for her quirky, ^[3] eccentric,^[4][5] and often critized.^[6][7][8] style choices and dress sense. ^[9]She expressed in an interview that she has a laid-back style where she feels free to wear whatever she wants despite of what others say,^[10][11] referring to it as a freedom of expression.^[12] On Home Run she wears very extravagant eyelashes which spelled out Misha B and Home Run,^[13] made by Holly Silius:^[14] while during for the 4 gigs she performed during the weekend of August 6 2012, Bryan wore 'craziest shoes we’ve ever seen' heel-less white studded platforms made famous by Lady Gaga, Jeffery Campbell Night Walk shoes. ^[15][16][17]

...Zoebuggie☺whispers 23:03, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Why not rename "Musical style and influences" as "Style and influences" and say:

During X Factor show and tour, Bryan became known for her willingness to experiment with creative outfits.[1][2] On Home Run she wears very extravagant eyelashes which spelled out Misha B and Home Run,[13] while during her gigs on the weekend of August 6 2012[15][16] she wore the "craziest" white studded platform shoes made famous by Lady Gaga, Jeffery Campbell Night Walk shoes.

...there's no great need to write everything she's ever said or done. Heatworld are quoting a quote in another source, aren't they, so unless we know who Misha was talking to, reporting it doesn't make much sense. Sionk (talk) 00:44, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

there's no great need to write everything she's ever said or done yes I was thinking that as I was researching and editing this. :::The are quite a few articles on her quirky fashion sense, not all positive, but I was not sure if it is Trivia. I would not want to put it with her music style, maybe under a heading 'Personal Life' if its ok. The shoes are 'crazy' because they are high heels, but don't have a heal.

How about?

During X Factor show and tour, Bryan became known for her willingness to experiment with creative outfits.[1][2] Bryan has become known for her quirky, [3][4][5] and often critized[6][7][8] style choices,[9] in an interview she said that she feels free to wear whatever she wants despite of what others say,[10][11] referring to it as a freedom of expression.[12] On Home Run she wears very extravagant eyelashes which spelled out Misha B and Home Run,[13][14] while during her gigs on the weekend of August 6[15][16] Bryan wore 'craziest' heel-less white studded platforms made famous by Lady Gaga, Jeffery Campbell Night Walk shoes. [17][18][19]

getting tired, hope this makes sense, no rush, I need to check Heatworld source

...Zoebuggie☺whispers 01:54, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

No need to repeat things: Sentence 2 is a repeat of what sentence 1 says. "feels free to wear whatever she wants" is the same as "freedom of expression". No need to name drop: Gaga and the brand of shoes is unnecessary. Sionk (talk) 02:25, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

agreed... another version

Bryan has became known for her creative outfits;[1][2] she regards her unusual,[3][4][5] often criticized outfit choices,[6][7][8][9] as a freedom of expression[12] and says she is not concerned what others say.[10][11] For instance, on Home Run she wears very extravagant eyelashes which spelled out Misha B and Home Run,[13][14] while during her gigs on the weekend of August 6[15][16] Bryan wore 'craziest' heel-less white studded platforms. [17][18][19]...Zoebuggie☺whispers 02:51, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

need to sort links oout...Zoebuggie☺whispers 02:53, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Reworded again, cos last version was naff, but increasingly thinking that this is probably an unnecessary addition to the article, sorry to waste your time sionk

Bryan has became known for her creative outfits[1][2] and quirky dress-sense,[3][4][5][12] and says she is not concerned what critics say.[10][11][6][7][8][9] For instance, on Home Run she wears very extravagant eyelashes which spelled out Misha B and Home Run,[13][14] while during her gigs on the weekend of August 6[15][16] Bryan wore 'craziest'heel-less white studded platforms....Zoebuggie☺whispers 07:04, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Why you need more than two references for each half sentence I've no idea. Six is way over the top, makes the article difficult to edit and clogs up the reflist. Just include the best (most reliable/authoritative) ones. Sionk (talk) 10:19, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

yes, sorry I just kept the citation numbers from the original version (intending to select the best) or I wanted to show that they were not one source of criticisms or comments. This version (with real citations) reduced the number of citations and bundled some were I thought more than one source was needed. [22][23] one link for critics, the other cites MB not bothered what they say.

As it only two sentences, it prob cant have its own section, so prob put it where you first suggested?

Bryan has became known for her creative outfits^[18] and quirky off-stage dress-sense,^[19] and says she is not concerned what critics say.^[20][21] For instance, on Home Run she wears very extravagant eyelashes which spelled out Misha B and Home Run,^[22] while for her gigs of the weekending August 6 2012, Bryan wore the 'craziest' high heel-less white studded platforms.^[23]

...Zoebuggie☺whispers 11:33, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

R&B, hip hop, soul, rap, reggae fusion, moombahton

Sorry another question. I might have done it the wrong way, but generally I have added music genres based on reviews, comparisons, music she has covered in non x factor music videos and comments MB has made, but after I added urban contemporary (a radio style not a music genre) WikHead (talk) 02:00, 7 August 2012 (UTC) gave me some good advice "....it might be a good idea to start a new thread on the article's talk page to poll others who regularly edit there. As a group, you can all work together to form a genre consensus. Finding good reliable sources for music genres can be really helpful to the discussion and greatly improve the article as well. As a rule however, genres really shouldn't be changed without prior discussion or providing sources. Best of luck with all your future edits. Stay well Face-smile.svg!"

MB is an artist that does not want to be boxed into Genres, but expressly/actively determined to mix genres and experiment with styles.

Which Genres should we include? Below is a non-exhaustive list (REWORDED) of sources. Genres in normal brackets are ones I have not so far used.

R&B^{[24][25] [26]}

soul inc (Motown)^{[27][28][29] [30][31][32][33][34][35][36]}

hip hop^{[37] [38][39][40][41][42]}

rap^{[43] [44][32][45]}

(Grime)^{[46] [32][47]}

reggae fusion inc (drum and base)(dancehall)^[48][49]Cite error: A <ref> tag is missing the closing </ref> (see the help page).^[50]

(pop)^[51][52]

(dance)^[53][54]

(rock)^[55][56]

(indie)^[57]

(funk) (blues)^[58]

(R&B, hip hop, soul, (funk), (blues),(pop), (acoustic?) and (indie) <my own collection of her youtube vids>^[59])

P.S. For her info box, I am inclined to drop the last 3-5 genres. ...Zoebuggie☺whispers 16:47, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

P.S. Her next Single is "Do You Think of Me" ...waiting for good source to pick it up....Its a mix of ROCK & DANCE! I cant really add those as well, what to do...maybe wait to album for definitive list of genres?

These terms are used somewhat interchangeably in various good articles in wikipedia. "Singers should be considered musicians who use a specific instrument, that instrument being Vocals", GNU Webster's 1913 n. One skilled in the art or science of music; esp., a skilled singer, or performer on a musical instrument.

An artist, creative person - a person whose creative work shows sensitivity and imagination or n. One, such as an actor or singer, who works in the performing arts..

It maybe overused “The word artist tends to be over-used when describing popular musicians, but it seems apt for Polly Jean Harvey, such is her creative ambition and fierce focus on the integrity of her work.” Telegraph.co.uk - Telegraph online, Daily Telegraph and Sunday Telegraph – But the term/phrase Music Artist is widely used in the music industry and it is a very common term/phrase, used and understood by most people.

Artist/Music Artist, Musician, Singer and Artistry are all used often used interchangeably throughout wikipedia e.g. in Categories and Articles even on featured pages and top wikipedia project pages. Using the same words and phrases other similar solo music artists are categorised by helps linking, comparing and contrasting etc

examples

WP:MUSICIAN,

Wikipedia:WikiProject Musicians/Categorization see Note about Singers,

Mariah Carey,

The Notorious B.I.G.,

Michael Jackson,

i know these links are wrong but I am having difficulties

[Category:singers from London],

[Category:Black British musicians|Black British musicians],

[Category:Motown artists]

[Category:American hip hop musicians]

...Zoebuggie☺whispers 17:44, 11 August 2012 (UTC) re-edit ...Zoebuggie☺whispers 18:17, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

In the 'public image' section, the first sentence 'Misha is one of the more colourful artists'... I mean that's something you would read in a tabloid or a magazine, this article is a blatant fan article, and no neutrality at all, it appears that people either want a promotional article or a hate article... Is their no middle ground??? I still believe that this article is being edited by her record company. Reli source (talk) 01:03, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Used in this context 'Colourful' is neither a positive or negative word, it can mean varied, diverse, multifaceted, not drab or borring, a colourful language, a colourful character or colourful history is not necessary good. The are plenty of sources that paint Misha's future in a more positive light.^{[60][61] [62][63][64][65][66]}. Colourful unlike those articles does not promote her one way or another, it leaves room for last years baseless allegations, her much criticized dress sense, and some of the negative comments I have found in one or two less reliable sources like bloggs.

Though I have contributed a lot, I am not the only one contributing or watching over to this article. The article is very well sourced with over 100 citations from approved sources, combined with a wish to make the article readable. You are of course are able to contribute with well referenced, good reliable, unbiased and truthful sources, rather than just snipe. Finally, with respect, you demonstrated your own lack of NPOV in your comment in the discussion further up the page....Zoebuggie☺whispers 09:15, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

This has been an ongoing problem with this article and I sympathise with 'Reli source' point of view. But this article is not unique. Unfortunately the Wikipedia status quo encourages fan pages like this, because there is heavy online coverage of pop stars, though usually of very poor journalistic quality. Zoe isn't Misha's agent as far as I know, but as a very enthusiastic (maybe obsessed) fan she's clearly anxious to portray Misha B in a positive light. As she says, most of the content is sourced to news coverage. But that doesn't mean the article is neutral - and Wikipedia requires articles to be written from a neutral point of view. For a singer who came fourth in a TV music show and has released only one single, it's far too long and effusive IMO. On the other hand, I also have some sympathies with Misha B so I'm not planning to make a major issue of this. Sionk (talk) 10:02, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Further I notice that Reli source did not respond to the official "Notice of Dispute resolution discussion" last month. The reviewer said the article was well sourced and any issue of NPOV were minor, to which I believe they were refering to the inclusion of bullying contoversy as they refered to BLPCAT "Caution should be used that suggest a person has a poor reputation" ...Zoebuggie☺whispers 10:30, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I make no pretence that I am a fan, I guess the majority articles about (living) people are started and mainly contributed by those who are 'fans', but my contibutions have been done in good faith regards neutrality....Zoebuggie☺whispers 10:30, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Yup...Sionk I am afraid I have been diagnosed with 'Obsessive Tendacies'...which means that when I start things, I find it hard to stop, so with this article I spent far too many hours gathering information. But I think I am slowing down now....Zoebuggie☺whispers 10:48, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

The accusation that I am from her record company is laughable, if I was her agent do not you think I would have obtained or arranged a better picture of her. I am happy for this issue to be refered back to "Notice of Dispute resolution discussion" if you wish...Zoebuggie☺whispers 11:04, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Please don't refer every mild disagreement to Dispute Resolution. Issues can be discussed amicably here. Yes, I think Reli source was just 'making a point' when they suggested you worked for the record company :)

(insert) :) I always take criticism maybe too seriously and I would always welcome a neutral viewpoint from someone not involved in the article. As I have said before editing contributions from yourself and others, even when they remove my contributions, improve the article...e.g, you pointing out the Lava Lizard below....Zoebuggie☺whispers 13:18, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

But let's look at the 'Style and influences' section as an example of non-neutral editorialisation: The opening sentence 'Misha B is one of the more colourful new artists on the UK music scene' is in fact a quote and should be in " " marks. The source is a blog, Lava Lizard, so nowhere near journalistic or reliable. The sentence seems to be there because it says something nice about Misha, rather than being from a reliable and representative source.

Using the blog as a source was an error of not spotting it was a blogg, i do try to check honest :)). But as I said above 'Colourful' is neither a positive or negative word, it can mean varied, diverse, multifaceted, not drab or borring, a colourful language, a colourful character or colourful history is not necessary good....Zoebuggie☺whispers 15:58, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

The sentence 'Misha B brings to the stage not only impressive vocals but also her own unique rapping style to the tracks she has covered' also needs to be cited to a specific source - it seems to be from Be So Bossy, an 'entertainment and lifestyle blog'. Again not a reliable source as far as I can see. There must be plenty said about Misha without resorting to convenient blog quotes. Sionk (talk) 11:21, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Proper citations restored....Zoebuggie☺whispers 15:58, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Eek apologies regarding the Lava Lizard, sometimes I find it hard to tell the difference between blogs and other pages. It is still quite a neutral term and fairly accurate term. The sentence 'Misha B brings to the stage not only impressive vocals but also her own unique rapping style to the tracks she has covered" I think is my own words combining lots of sources following a suggestion from -- WikHead (talk) 22:15, 7 August 2012 (UTC) Excellent! You've certainly done your homework, and I'm hoping it pays off with lots of user feedback from those who regularly watch and edit that article. With all those references, I would assume that someone could greatly expand the "Musical style and influences" section. I need to hunt down my sources, but not feeling that well today, but the are many sources that refer to her vocals with more positive words...Zoebuggie☺whispers 11:47, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

but an example of my process is with the following sentence I have not ventured to include ( sorry about length)

'Bryan comes across as creative, confident, urban and proud of her black working class heritage'

SOURCES: Misha image problems http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/cat-mcshane/x-factor-is-misha-b-too-black-to-win_b_1123201.html http://sofabet.com/2011/10/13/why-we-think-misha-b-will-not-win-the-x-factor/ http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2072363/X-Factor-2011-Was-Misha-Bryan-black-win.html

During her time on The X Factor Misha was regularly praised both for her performances XXXQUOTES and her creativity Host Dermot O’Leary called her “one of the most creative contestants ever” http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/x-factor/8935329/Why-was-Misha-B-knocked-out-of-the-X-Factor.html

Gratitude..."Totally. I mean, everything combined to make the X Factor experience so worthwhile - that's the stylists, that's the hair stylists, that's the make-up artists, that's working with Kelly, working with the producers, working with everybody behind the scenes. I feel like the people behind the scenes have worked the hardest." http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/tv/s103/the-x-factor/interviews/a354403/x-factor-misha-b-interview-kelly-was-my-guardian-angel.html

Tulisa praised her for being the most “stand-out” contestant, while Gary added: “You have to understand, you are fantastic.” http://www.mirror.co.uk/tv/tv-news/misha-bryan-biog-pictures-and-videos-274577

“Amazing,” Tulisa Contostavlos said in her remarks, adding: “This is the Misha B we know…loved it! ”http://www.zeibiz.com/2011/11/misha-bryan-sings-girls-just-wanna-have-fun-on-x-factor-uk-week-8/

I would say this is the best week you’ve ever had. You’ve done it tonight, double whammy. Both times you’ve hit the nail on the head. That song could have been written for you,” judge Tulisa Contostavlos remarked.[http://www.zeibiz.com/2011/11/misha-bryan-sings-killing-me-softly-on-x-factor-uk-week-8/

Tulisa concurred: “You get better and better. I love that you reinvent yourself every week, and that was fantastic.”

Misha Bryan took the brave step of performing Adele’s Rolling in the Deep – and judge Tulisa told her: “You are definitely the one who stands out in the competition.” http://programmes.stv.tv/the-x-factor/news/274888-x-factor-misha-bryan-doesnt-lie-down-with-powerful-performance/

I still don’t see any attitude coming from Misha, she strikes me as a sweet girl - lost sources

What are people’s misconceptions of you?

I find it hard to take a compliment. People thought I was arrogant on the show when one of the judges would compliment my performance and I’d just nod. It was embarrassment, not arrogance. Away from performing, I’m quite a shy person. If you’re a singer, people assume you’re really confident and outgoing but it isn’t always the case. http://www.metro.co.uk/music/901346-misha-b-im-very-grateful-for-the-platform-the-x-factor-gave-me

Sionk Somehow your hardwork edit to my foolish use of citations on a talk page has disappeared, so I have re-edited to restore to your version......Zoebuggie☺whispers 20:10, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Also removed MissBossy citation, and removed all citations from bundling as it was causing confusion....Zoebuggie☺whispers 15:58, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

• Again, I'd tend to ignore the non-news sources, like Zeibiz and Sofabet. As for quoting Dermot O'Leary, why do that (he's not employed as a music expert) when the Telegraph critic has plenty of substance to say? In my opinion there's little justification to use interviews (such as in the Metro) with Misha as sources - they are simply Misha telling us what she wants us to hear, with no analysis. Sionk (talk) 18:19, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Zoebuggie☺whispers You appear to have quite a bad attitude, first of all the reason I did not respond to your discussion is because I have a full time job and responsibilities in that place called the real world. And I was never one of the people who suggested the article should be a hate article, I simply pointed out that the article is extremely biased, it sounds like it was written by either an obsessed fan or a member of her record company. Wikipedia articles are meant to be neutral, and most articles about people in the public eye are never as overtly promotional as this one. Even all the information about Home Run, shouldn't that be put on the article about the single? Reli source (talk) 20:08, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I am not the one resorting to personal attacks, 'bad attitude', Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Wikipedia:Assume good faith overwhelming evidence that this article lacks a Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Maybe you need to examine your own lack of neutrality, and I take all your comments on this page into account. If you have genuine concerns then use the official channels Wikipedia:Dispute resolution requests like the dispute resolution one, its just as quick as arguing and making up rubbish about me here, as you said above...'this is not a forum'.

Wikipedia:Civility (shortcut: WP:CIVIL). Being rude, insensitive, or petty makes people upset and prevents Wikipedia from working well.

Wikipedia:No personal attacks (shortcut: WP:NPA). Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Nobody likes abuse.

Wikipedia:Assume good faith (shortcut: WP:AGF). Unless there's strong evidence to the contrary, assume that people who work on the project are trying to help it, not hurt it

The article is extremely well sourced and neutral considering the many positive pieces I could add. You may add your own verifiable edits regards Misha being a bully before she was 14 but I hardly think its relevant. And this article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons, Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if there are other concerns about edits related to a living person, please report the issue to the biographies of living persons noticeboard....Zoebuggie☺whispers 21:18, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Again, rather than escalate things to Conflict Resolution or BLP noticeboards, it's best to try and discuss things first in a reasonable manner. In general, it is good that other editors are chipping in here (I see you've even invited people to comment). Sionk (talk) 21:47, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Zoe, you are a hypocrite, when anyone suggests a mention of Misha's bullying history, which she admitted to, you attack them, and say childish stuff like 'You were probably no angel at school', but this article is about Misha B, and just because you are a fan of her - or as it has been stated, more than likely someone from her record label - you still don't own the rights to Wikipedia, and can't stop brushing the past under the table, maybe other people in the business where bullies too, but Misha's bullying history has been well documented, and as her fans seem to ignore, she admitted it herself, and even if she has changed, it is still her part of her past, if she chooses to put herself in the public eye, then she probably should expect her past to be dug up, and as she was accuses of bullying on the X Factor, which Tulisa - whom I am not a fan of before you start attacking me - later claimed were NOT false allegations [2]. You say there is no proof to suggest she is guilty - which there is, but there is none to suggest she is innocent, only her cronies like Janet Devlin said she is innocent, but all bullies have cronies, I don't think you understand the negative affect bullying can have on a child, or even an adult, all Misha did was say sorry and anyone can say that, she obviously would say that to get votes, but did she ever say how she hopes her victims have recovered? Most of them probably failed to get jobs due to low self esteem, or even committed suicide, the fact you get all angry when someone calls her a bully and wants her bad behaviour to be highlighted, yet then you see bullying as something trivial, shows you are contradicting yourself, you are more than likely a bully yourself, so I do not wish to continue this conversation with you, people simply want the article to reflect the real Misha, not this fictional protagonist you have created, after the article you created, you'd swear she was the new Mother Teresa, if well documented bullying history should not be included on Wikipedia, then should Jade Goodys article have her bullying history removed? Shape-shifter mikw (talk) 22:35, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion Please note I have requested re-opening of the NPOV dispute resolution. Proper notices will be sent out when it is re-established. I will not be personally abused....Zoebuggie☺whispers 23:16, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Misha B. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

In a way I think it does show her musical direction, somewhere between old style soul to modern r&b and rap, with a strong leaning towards strong female performers and vocalists. Many music artist's pages contain musical influences but maybe not as long.

other artists she has mentioned as inspiring include James Brown, Aretha Franklin, Mariah Carey, Jennifer Hudson, Lauryn Hill, Nicki Minaj, Tina Turner, Missy Elliott, Mary J. Blige, Beyoncé Knowles and Labrinth .^[62]

though the various references, seemed to have been lost from editing. I think it gives a good idea to readers of her musical direction.

(; other artists she has mentioned as inspiring include a very wide and ever growing list James Brown, Whitney Houston, Aretha Franklin, Mariah Carey, Jennifer Hudson, Lauryn Hill, Rihanna, Lady Gaga, Jessie J, Eminem, Nicki Minaj, Tina Turner, Missy Elliott, Mary J. Blige, Beyoncé Knowles, Adele, 2pac, Labyrinth, and Frank Sinatra.^[62])...Zoebuggie☺whispers 11:47, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

In fact, the list is so long and diverse it doesn't give us much idea at all. When she says ""I take inspiration from everybody." it sums it up succinctly (NB I think the source for this quote has been accidently deleted). Sionk (talk) 12:09, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

do mean the edited version?

James Brown, Whitney Houston, Aretha Franklin, Mariah Carey, Jennifer Hudson, Lauryn Hill, Lady Gaga, Nicki Minaj, Tina Turner, Missy Elliott, Mary J. Blige, Beyoncé Knowles, Labyrinth, and Adele.

:) the fact that its long points to the fact that her influences and her styles are indeed diverse but I agree "I take inspiration from everybody." sums it up nicely, but the list of names qualifies it a little bit and leaves out possible less likely influences like Aerosmith, Slayer, King Crimson and Marilyn Manson for instance. The List limits her "everybody" to a more soul, contemporary R&B, hip hop angle...Zoebuggie☺whispers 12:27, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

The source is the fame magazine, same as the last sentence I deleated, and also part of list of influences...Zoebuggie☺whispers 12:35, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Misha Bryan (born 10 February 1992), known as Misha B, is a British solo singer-songwriter of Jamaican descent,[2] who came to national notability in 2011, when she auditioned for eighth series of the The X Factor with Aretha Franklin's song Respect. Finishing as a semi finalist Bryan was described as one of the most talented, but was also one of the more controversial contestants of the series.[3][4][5][6] After leaving X Factor, she signed a record deal with Relentless Records in February 2012. Bryan's first mix-tape, Why Hello World, made its debut on 27 April 2012. Her debut single, "Home Run" was released on 15 July 2012 and entered the UK Singles Chart at No. 11 and the UK R&B Chart at No. 2. Misha B has an album penned for a late 2012 release. On 23 July 2012, Misha B was announced as the special guest supporting act for the ten UK dates of Nicki Minaj's Pink Friday: Reloaded Tour.

Are all those highlighted sentences really necessary? Why is the fact she is 'solo' even mentioned? And why is important stuff not included? Like the fact she is also a rapper? The fact that she is of Jamaican descent could surely be included in her 'Early life' section, her audition song could be mentioned in the section about X Factor. Mentioning that she was described as the most talented is simply biased and oral majority, if you are going to mention that in the intro then why not mention that she polled the lowest votes four times? And as for her being a controversial contestant, aren't they all controversial, as the tabloids make stories about X Factor contestants everyday during the shows run. She also has a discography section to mention where her single charted, what will happen when her second single is released? Will that chart position be included on the intro too? And what about her third single and fourth single? That's why there are sections, the intro is simply to give an overview of the article and the subject in question. Surely the stuff about her supporting Nicki Minaj, could be listed in her career section. Shape-shifter mikw (talk) 20:44, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

The format is very similar to other music 'artists' pages. The intro is meant to be brief. This intro will be obiviously edited as and when her carear develops...Zoebuggie☺whispers 21:26, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

It just appears to over detailed and all over the place, compare it to the Cher Lloyd article, I know she has a year on Misha, but her article is well written, without millions of sections, sub-sections and sub-sub-sections. Shape-shifter mikw (talk) 22:14, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I partly accept your criticism The fact that she is of Jamaican descent should been in her 'Early life' section....Zoebuggie☺whispers 03:56, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

1 Early life 2 The X Factor 2011

2.1 List of performances on The X Factor What is the purpose of this? There is one of these on Little Mix article, but it is more apt for them as it highlights their time on the show before they were manufactured.

Love Little Mix, but they were manufactured before the show, I can not see your logic here, why is it more apt for them...Zoebuggie☺whispers 21:26, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

You must have been watching a different show, as they auditioned as solo singers, and during boot camp where in different groups, the list of songs performed seems more apt for them, as it highlights their journey from soloists to other groups to eventually Little Mix. I still think it's trivial to add it, but as I said it shows their journey more. Shape-shifter mikw (talk) 22:14, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

read your own words, it highlights their time on the show before they were manufactured.Zoebuggie☺whispers 22:24, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

2.2 Controversy Biased, it mentions how it stopped her from winning, but if you look at the results summary on the main series 9 page, she never polled much in the voting prior to the bullying, yet she still managed to get the second highest votes weeks later, and when she finished in fourth place she was not too far behind Amelia, who was always much popular. The view of bullying is also contradictory, people seem offended that she was called a bully, but then dismiss bullying as something trivial. Also, one editor on here is accusing others of being bullies simply for not brushing under the carpet the fact she admitted being a school bully. What is the big secret? If the words came out her own mouth then it should at least be included briefly in her early life section, it appears that her public relations team or record company have control over this article, which defeats the purpose of Wikipedia being neutral and not a place for self promotion. The controversial subjects don't even need to be written as spiteful, they can simply be done in a neutral, non-biased way, which would actually be a first for this article.

Are you forgetting that she ADMITTED to bullying as at school, if this article is about the person, it should include everything, even if it is only one sentence, with a source at the end. I don't care about Tulisa, and even if she was a school bully, it was not as big an issue as Misha's past, as hers was broadcast on national television. You say personal attacks must stop, but it should be highlighted why she is so unpopular, her single didn't even make the top 10, she has hardly any YouTube views, in comparison to Little Mix who already have more than double and their video has only been up a couple of weeks, also Amelia is catching up on her quickly with views. You just need to come to terms with the fact that people don't have 5 second memories, that their are numerous sources proving her bullying, and you say the gutter press, well trash like X factor contestants can only ever hope to get tabloid exposure. Just because you work for her record company, doesn't mean you can change peoples opinions of her with your biased Wikipedia article. I suggested that her every aspect be covered, good and bad, but you can only see what you want to see, you will probably start the usual and call people racist just for not falling for her 'I'm such a nice girl' act. And that is just petty behavior. Shape-shifter mikw (talk) 22:50, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Maybe you should question your own lack of NPOV. Most of your comment is extremely biased, based on doubtful sources or plainly made up by yourself. CITATIONS please...Zoebuggie☺whispers 03:56, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

3 Post-X Factor career Couldn't this simply be called 'Career'

No her career started before X factor when she busking and performing in clubs before X Factor...Zoebuggie☺whispers 22:29, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

So her busking is included, but her bullying is not? BIASED Shape-shifter mikw (talk) 22:50, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Busking is relevant to her music career for which she is actually notable...Zoebuggie☺whispers 03:56, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

3.1 F64 and Why Hello World 3.2 Debut single 3.3 Future projects 3.4 Debut album 4 Musical style and influences 4.1 Public image

The above could simply all be merged into one section, her single already has an article, as will her album, most artists have sections covering a number of years of their career, Misha has only been around a short while, yet she has more (biased) information on here than someone who's been around for years. What will happen when her second single/album is released? Or her third and fourth? The article will need to be split left right and centre.

No see the Misha B Layout Structure discussion above. The page would evolve...as the her career grows, so will article will develop, the section headings will change from singles to albums to possibly wider topic categories...Zoebuggie☺whispers 22:29, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

5 Discography 5.1 Mixtapes 5.2 Singles 5.3 As featured artist 5.4 Music videos These are more like Wikipedia than the rest of the rest

6 References Just because you have a reference to back up stuff, doesn't mean that every bit of biased inormation needs to be included.

Shape-shifter mikw (talk) 21:04, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

(In reply to Shape-shifter mikw last comment on their original post) The article is indeed extremely well sourced. You may add your own verifiable edits regards Misha being a bully before she was 14 but I hardly think its relevant. The article is very well sourced with over 100 citations from approved sources (I have made some newbie mistakes and recently I mistakenly used a couple of blogs), combined with a wish to make the article readable. You are of course are able to contribute with well referenced, good reliable, unbiased and truthful sources, rather than just snipe. Finally, with respect, you demonstrated your own lack of NPOV in your comments above.This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons, Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if there are other concerns about edits related to a living person, please report the issue to the biographies of living persons noticeboard...

Wikipedia:Assume good faith overwhelming evidence that this article lacks a Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Maybe you need to examine your own lack of neutrality. If you have genuine concerns then use the official channels Wikipedia:Dispute resolution requests like the dispute resolution one, its just as quick as arguing and making up rubbish about me here, as you said above...'this is not a forum'....Zoebuggie☺whispers 22:44, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree with most of this. There is a lot of padding that has appeared in the lead paragraph. However, I'd be inclined to keep the 'described as one of the most talented and controversial' sentence, because it was what marked her out for more attention. Also the information about her single's progress is fairly key to establishing her post-X-factor notability (prior to her single's release her article was being repeatedly redirected to the contestant page). The lead section should normally where the key points of the article are summarised and the 'notability' briefly highlighted.

I was trying to put the key points there, but yes in retrospect I did wrongly place her heritage there, I would not have removed the mixed tape at this stage and I am not sure about the tour...Zoebuggie☺whispers 03:13, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Totally agree about the 'Career' section too, it's something I've tried unsuccessfully to change. X-factor, in my view, was not a 'career'.

Her career started before X factor....Zoebuggie☺whispers 23:05, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

All in all, it may be best for everyone's well-being if Zoe takes a break and does something else for a while. It may help to get a clear perspective. Sionk (talk) 21:30, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

NO you do not tell me to stop contributing to wikipedia. I am taking this whole debate back to Dispute resolution noticeboard and requested reopening...I am tired of having to defend against the same comments...Zoebuggie☺whispers 23:05, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, as a Misha fan, i just want her article to read as if she is human, with every aspect covered, the fact that the article is so biased is the reason why the people who dislike her are so determined to make it a hate article, I think Zoe needs to realise that Misha is human and not some sort of immortal being. Shape-shifter mikw (talk) 22:14, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

To be honest, I see no sniping. It seems Shape shifter is a Misha fan, so simply trying to improve the article. People have different opinions and discuss them here, on the Talk page. I would add that just because an article is well sourced (and you've done a lot of work finding sources), it doesn't necessarily follow that it is neutral, because subjective choices are made about which sources/quotes/facts to include (or ignore). Sionk (talk) 23:16, 14 August 2012 (UTC) Made in response to these comments which have been subsequently deleted

aplogies Sionk, i did not delete but moved them next to shape-shifters comment I was replying too, as I thought it was out of place here and not meeting his questions...Zoebuggie☺whispers 07:52, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

lol Shape shifter may possibly telling a fib about being a Misha B fan.

.... but Misha's bullying history has been well documented, and *as her fans* seem to ignore, she admitted it herself, and even if she has changed, it is still her part of her past, if she chooses to put herself in the public eye, then she probably should expect her past to be dug up, and as she was accuses of bullying on the X Factor, which Tulisa - whom I am not a fan of before you start attacking me - later claimed were NOT false allegations [2] ....Shape-shifter mikw (talk) 22:35, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

. You say there is no proof to suggest she is guilty - which there is, but there is none to suggest she is innocent, only her cronies like Janet Devlin said she is innocent, but all bullies have cronies ...Shape-shifter mikw (talk) 22:35, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

If you're intent on re-opening the 'bullying' issue, you may want to read the section on it, above. A number of editors were involved (some without an axe to grind) and the consensus seemed to be it was a issue that should not be addressed in detail on her biographical article. Sionk (talk) 00:05, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion Please note I have requested re-opening of the NPOV dispute resolution. Proper notices will be sent out when it is re-established. I will not be personally abused....Zoebuggie☺whispers 23:18, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Misha B. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. based on the advice from the closing editor of the original dispute WP:NPOV/N is probably your best bet here. Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 00:03, 15 August 2012 (UTC)...Zoebuggie☺whispers 00:50, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Warning: Removing detailed, sourced information from a short article for balance is usually an honest mistake..and doing multiple reverts should be avoidedZoebuggie☺whispers 02:13, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Due to my Health, and my wish not to get into editor wars and defend myself from personal attacks, I am going to try to limit my contributions on this talk page while the NPOV/N is being carried out. ...Zoebuggie☺whispers 02:46, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

But if the baseless personal accusations and personal jibes from Reli source and Shape-shifter mikw do not stop then I will refer such matters to Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance bad attitude,Zoe, you are a hypocrite etc...Zoebuggie☺whispers 04:04, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

[CONTENT REMOVED - these templates are at the top of this page where they should be]

I put them here as a reminder because some folks are not following the basic rules regards NPOV, BLP, WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, WP:AGF, WP:PERSONAL etc and they may not be aware of them...Zoebuggie☺whispers 07:58, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

...Zoebuggie☺whispers 04:14, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

This old chestnut again. There is absolutely no reason at all to provide five or six citations for one word, as per this edit and this edit in the Misha B#Musical style and influences. This approach makes the article completely impossible to edit/check. It borders on disruptive editing to continue to add these sources back. I spent over an hour going through the sources to find out which ones were useful and which weren't. There is no reason to suspect anyone will challenge these words and, if they do, it would be simpler to remove the word.

YouTube sources can be cited occasionally, but not when they provide nothing pertinent to the fact.

'Bundling' citations seems rare on Wikipedia and, in my view, should be the exception rather than the rule.

Sionk (talk) 10:21, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I believed that youhad deleted the useful alongside the few (if any unsuitable ones). You also wholesale deleted lots of text, which is now subject to a NPOV.N.

I can not see how bundles make it harder to check, the links and citations are still there? Please explain

Its is equally disruptive to unnecessarily remove them, especially when others question the very validity of the referenced point. THe article is very well sourced because I have witnessed the abuse this singer gets on the internet

Wikipedia is compromise but Why remove the word if its correct?

I submit that YouTube use was always pertinent

I have tried to neutrally obtain some third party comment on top of the NPOV:N

I am going to try to have a break, maybe back on later...Zoebuggie☺whispers 10:54, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I am genuinely sorry about your hours work. The arguments and personal accusations in the discussions above upset me, so I filed a NPOV:N only to come back to find you had removed a large chunk of the Musical style and influences section, you notice I did not revert your edits in the Intro and Early Life sections. I have moved the POV discussion to more official channels because I wanted a more reasonable discussion, wanted 3rd party comments from estb members and for my own health...both on friday and last night I did not sleep because of this dispute (sunday too but that was for other reasons)

trying to go afk, honest...Zoebuggie☺whispers 11:29, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

The article becomes difficult to edit because editors are faced with an impenetrable wall of citation text. It is also difficult or impossible to re-use the same citations, when they are bundled, leading to unnecessary repetition.

As for the bundled sources:

• The QX magazine article is entirely an interview, Misha telling us what she wants us to hear. I don't think it should be used extensively throughout the Wikipedia article because it is, in effect, a primary source.
• The YouTube video uploaded by the AllAboutmusic blog, is again Misha telling us what she wants us to hear, a primary source, in effect.
• The SBTV YouTube video seems to be Misha B singing. What does that tell us?
• The Soulsidefunk article is in fact a website by a bloke that likes to review music. Why should we trust his opinion?
• The Imediamonkey link is to a blog.

It would be better (as I've said all along) to concentrate on the reliable expert sources, rather than pick-and-choose stuff found on the internet to suit an argument. Sionk (talk) 11:49, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Sionk, I want to be brief as I want to limit my Wiki time, but I appreciate your contribution.

1. Yes soulsidefunk is def a blogg and should be removed

2. I do not think imediamonkey is a personal blog, looking at the different authors for different articles. It may still not be reliable so I have asked for citation assistance...if that works IDK

3. The youtube video ...it poss came from 1 or 2 places in the article. From its own section, then its relevant to the topic of the section, in musical styles it is the clearest way of showing that she is correctly in the rap and grime genres.

4. I am less certain how to respond to your comment about the two interviews....I want to read Reliability of Wikipedia and Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources and the laters long list of links, but apologies I cant read it until tomorrow or even the weekend due to personal medical reasons.

5. "Bundling is useful if the sources each support a different portion of the preceding text, or if the sources all support the same text. Bundling has several advantages:

'It helps readers and other editors see at a glance which source supports which point, maintaining text-source integrity;

It avoids the visual clutter of multiple clickable footnotes inside a sentence or paragraph;

It avoids the confusion of having multiple sources listed separately after sentences, with no indication of which source to check for each part of the text, such as this.[1][2][3][4]

It makes it less likely that inline citations will be moved inadvertently when text is re-arranged, because the footnote states clearly which source supports which point."

It preserves verifiable sources which is vital sources are required for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged – if reliable sources cannot be found for challenged material, it is likely to be removed from the article by someone (probably you :) ). "Citations are especially desirable for statements about living persons, particularly when the statements are contentious or potentially defamatory. In accordance with the biography of living persons policy, unsourced information of this type is likely to be removed on sight."

Sometimes the sentence is made up of parts from several different origins by keeping sources we enable users to verify that the information given throughout sentence is fully supported by reliable sources but at the same time it makes the article easier to read.

The number of sources can inform the reader of the weight of an argument.

respectfully ...Zoebuggie☺whispers 14:38, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

If you look at the Cher Lloyd article for example, a contestant from the previous X-Factor series and also quite controversial, her article has well over 100 less sources. She's also been feathering her 'career' for 12 months longer. In comparison the Misha B article looks very much like the product of an obsessed fan who wants to uncover everything, everywhere, in whatever source about the subject (as longer as it says something nice and particularly if it is the subject talking about herself). While I agree things like bully-gate, personal details, or claims of notability need to be well sourced, individual words don't. It's part of WP:NPOV to make sure a balanced approach it taken to each subject. Sionk (talk) 11:01, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I would edit the same, what ever article I contributed too. If I had been interested in Cher Lloyd or another subject I would be driven to the same extent. I find it hard to know when to stop. Added to that I have witnessed many many attacks against this singer, so I wanted to protect every bit of this article with verification.

For instance today, regarding this piece over the last 4 hours rather than do things that need to be done I looked at probably twice as many articles as this little lot

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Citation overkill , Wikipedia:Bombardment, Wikipedia:When to cite, Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, Wikipedia:Inline citation, Wikipedia:Potentially unreliable sources, Wikipedia:Anarchism referencing guidelines, Wikipedia:Suggested sources (which interestingly includes last fm), Wikipedia:Attribution/FAQ, Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, Wikipedia:Evaluating sources, Wikipedia:Sources – SWOT analysis, Wikipedia:Third-party sources, Wikipedia:Using sources, Wikipedia:Party and person, Wikipedia:Reliable sources checklist, Wikipedia:No original research Wikipedia:What the Good article criteria are not

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28proposals%29/Archive_39#Video_Interviews

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28miscellaneous%29/Archive_17#Video_Interview

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alex's DBZ RPG

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Little Miss Sunshine/archive1

What I noted

We must get the article right, Wikipedia:Verifiability, says that direct quotations and anything challenged or likely to be challenged must be explicitly attributed to a reliable, published source, which is usually done with an inline citation,. material not meeting this standard may be removed. If another editor says it is "contentious" then it is. Any material that requires a source but does not have one may be removed, and unsourced contentious material about living people must be removed immediately

Because conscious and unconscious biases are not always self-evident, you shouldn't necessarily be satisfied with a single source. The best advice is on the FAC page: an article should be tightly written and comprehensive. If one inline citation is all it takes to make it tightly written that's ok; if you need 100 inline citations that's ok too.

Wikipedia does not have a "one inline citation per sentence" or "one citation per paragraph" rule, even for featured articles. Wikipedia requires inline citations based on the content, not on the grammar and composition elements. Some articles (e.g., articles about controversial people) will require inline citations after nearly every sentence. If you write a multi-sentence paragraph that draws on material from one source, the source need not be cited after every single sentence unless the material is particularly contentious. When different sources are used within a paragraph, these can be (bundled ?) if desired, so long as the footnote makes clear which source supports which point in the text. (I should make it clearer in the foot notes)

Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone.

I got side tracked : Reliability of sources, Blogs and interviews

The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is the best such source for that context. "Secondary" does not mean "independent".

Blogs

Some news organizations host online columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control. Posts left by readers are never acceptable as sources.

Note that otherwise reliable news sources--for example, the website of a major news organization--that happens to publish in a "blog" style format for some or all of it's content may be considered to be equally reliable as if it were published in a more "traditional" 20th-century format of a classic news story. However, the distinction between "opinion pieces" and news should be considered carefully. Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources

I believe The Imediamonkey is a news/mag blog

interviews

Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject (see below). An article about a person: The person's autobiography, own website, or a page about the person on an employer's or publisher's website, is an acceptable (although possibly incomplete) primary‡ source for information about what the person says about himself or herself. Such primary sources can normally be used for non-controversial facts about the person and for clearly attributed controversial statements. Many other primary sources, including birth certificates, the Social Security Death Index, and court documents, are usually not acceptable primary sources, because it is impossible for the viewer to know whether the person listed on the document is the notable subject rather than another person who happens to have the same name.

WP:SELFPUB

Living persons may publish material about themselves, such as through press releases or personal websites. Such material may be used as a source only if:

1. it is not unduly self-serving;

2. it does not involve claims about third parties;

3. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;

4. there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;

5. the article is not based primarily on such sources. interviews and reports of interviews: The reporter quotes the politician's speech. The talk show host interviews a celebrity. (Defined as a primary source by policy.)

Case Studies

One simply needs a source discussing the matter that is well-acknowledged as a source of valid information, such as a newspaper, or magazine. personal inteviews fail this requirement because there's no means of verifying they happened. Other kinds of interviews, such as formal interviews by a magazine, or any sort of documented and bencheckable source would be accepted. No one here is claiming the interview didn't happen, or that anything said in it was untrue, it's just there's no way for any other editor to use the interview to check information cited. That's important to wikipedia because it's an encyclopedia edited by numerous users who work together to fact check things. i kan reed 16:36, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

What makes the following sources reliable? Although it is a blog, it has an interview directly with the directors of the film. The interview is not published elsewhere and it is used for sourcing multiple statements in the article, including several in the casting section. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 18:21, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I couldn't determine any other mention of the blog in other sources, but I believe the direct personal interview to be reliable. ::::This is the only location where the interview is located, likely since the author is the one who conducted the interview. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 06:14, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I think you might have some trouble proving that some of these sites are reliable sources. What you need is a bona fide other reliable source (such as a newspaper) that quotes them or out-and-out declares them reliable. For example, an interview in The Evening Class blog is quoted in the San Francisco Bay Guardian here http://theeveningclass.blogspot.com/2006/07/little-miss-sunshinethe-evening-class.html That might cut it, but if you could find others it'd go a long way to helping this FAC. Steve T • C 20:00, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Assuming the interview was published in a reliable source, we are still faced with the problem that what the subject says is a species of "self-published source" and should be regarded with the same caution that other SPSs are treated. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:33, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

...Zoebuggie☺whispers 16:28, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material See also: Wikipedia:Libel Policy shortcuts:

WP:GRAPEVINE WP:BLPREMOVE

Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced; that is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see No original research); that relies on self-published sources, unless written by the subject of the BLP (see below); or that relies on sources that fail in some other way to meet Verifiability standards. Note: although the three-revert rule does not apply to such removals, what counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Editors who find themselves in edit wars over potentially defamatory material about living persons should consider raising the matter at the BLP noticeboard, instead of relying on the exemption.

Non-article space Policy shortcut:

WP:BLPTALK

Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced and not related to making content choices, should be removed, deleted, or oversighted, as appropriate. When seeking advice about whether to publish something about a living person, be careful not to post so much information on the talk page that the inquiry becomes moot. The same principle applies to problematic images. Questionable claims already discussed can be removed with a reference to the previous discussion.

The BLP policy also applies to user and user talk pages. ...Zoebuggie☺whispers 23:26, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

The massive "controversies" section went well past being undue weight. Further, I suspect that "Accusations" on "reality shows" are not of actual biographical value here - try finding NPOV language for a short mention? Possibly ok -- but not this melange. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:53, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Having just come across this article, I agree with this removal - that amount of content on fairly trivial 'controversies' was unnecessary. However it does now seem a bit odd that the lead describes her as being 'one of the more controversial contestants of the series', while the content of the article contains no further mention of that 'controversy'. Either something should be restored to the article, or that line should be removed from the lead as well. Robofish (talk) 13:52, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I suggest pruning the lede to reflect the current article. Collect (talk) 15:51, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

As the author of that piece I am very happy for it to go. My general feeling, as it was most likely a false allegation, surely it's better to not even include it. But because majority insisted, I added the conspiracy section, because I had a good knowledge of the sources and if it had to be there then I wanted to make sure the whole truth was there. But to briefly mention a strongly believed/but false allogation would merely gives the false accusation and rumours undue weight, making them a viable belief option (espicially considering the exposure the accusations had on prime time TV and the Gutter Press/Gossip Mag/internet circus that followed) if the section is not fully covered with and supported by verifiable evidence. Q. Is it ok for the article about that particular series of The X Factor (where it is included again by me)....Zoebuggie☺whispers 16:03, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Bear in mind it was given undue weight because Zoeblackmore was so keen to write every denial and every supportive comment. It was one of the events Misha B is most associated with from the X-factor, so deserves at least a short mention. Collect seems to be saying it has been given undue weight, not that it should be given no weight. Otherwise now the mention has been removed there will be many people who will see this as a whitewash and probably try and add something back.

However, I agree with the idea that what is said on a TV series (in the spirit of making headlines and publicity) should be taken with a pinch of salt.

Looking at the main The_X_Factor_(UK_series_8) article, the Controversy section gives three or four times more weight to bully-gate than it does to Frankie Cocozza's ejection for taking drugs, which seems unbalanced too! Sionk (talk) 17:35, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

In addition, as a result of the recent edits, the Telegraph article is no longer used. It seems to be a fairly perceptive and balanced appraisal of Misha B's situation. If a mention is reinstated, I would think this news article would be an important reference. Sionk (talk) 18:04, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually no one of my main concerns was to show the honest truth as much as possible (knowing that the was tons of pieces in mostly unreliable sources like the star, sun, mirror and mail, gossip columns and internet space). I am driven by my obsessive nature to gather as much hopefully reliable info as possible. But I was aiming for truth and neutrality here as well so I did include some of the negative sources. If the was more verifiable information about the opposing view I or someone else would have added it. I have referred this to BLPN alongside the bully discussions on this talk page.

"Further, I suspect that "Accusations" on "reality shows" are not of actual biographical value here....try finding NPOV language for a short mention? Possibly ok"Collect possibly ok ?

"It was one of the events Misha B is most associated with from the X-factor" User:Sionk is increasingly questionable as her career develops. Depends if you were taken in by the accusation. It would not make her reach the notability standards for Wikipedia, were her blossoming music career does.

We could put a link to it on the The_X_Factor_(UK_series_8) article, the Controversy section?

actually it is linked to it via  :For a more details of Bryan's performances on X Factor see List of The X Factor finalists (UK_series 8)#Misha B which is sufficient there ...Zoebuggie☺whispers 18:57, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Um is it wrong to white wash over something that never happened. If she had been accused by someone of a crime to which the was no evidence or no witnesses, the main accuser apologies the next day and all the witnesses say she was innocent would a reputable source still print the story?

...Zoebuggie☺whispers 18:38, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Blossoming music career? That's a bit strong at this stage! She's a reality TV star whose one and only single has had modest success.

But anyway, back to the issue at hand, we'll see how long it is before someone tries to add something back into the article. As the Telegraph article makes clear Misha B's popularity fell after the Rock Week incident, despite being the most talented contestant. It was an event that was fundamentally notable, affecting her success, or lack of. Otherwise why even put it in the The_X_Factor_(UK_series_8) article?

Maybe it is sufficient to simply link to the general X-factor article. In which case, the controversy needs to be dealt with appropriately there instead. Sionk (talk) 19:52, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Giggles at you questioning my flowery language, top 20 out of the dozens of songs released each day and a major stadium tour as the support on her debut year is a little bit of blossom, I did mean to indicate it was a rip roaring success. If someone tries to add something back we can, remove the edit,and point to the link and say it is properly covered there.

The The_X_Factor_(UK_series_8) section was me again, the was a what I thought a one sided piece there before. I have edited it down on the main page and asked BLPN for their opinion....Zoebuggie☺whispers 20:06, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

The difference bt Frankie and Misha is that Frankie was 'guilty', Misha was 'innocent' but believed guilty by so many that clear info had to be put up for a balance....Zoebuggie☺whispers 20:23, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Louis and Tulisa on last year, I am a bit tired and not sure if I can add 1+1 anyway I added it to the discussion Controversy section on the The_X_Factor_(UK_series_8) talk page ...Zoebuggie☺whispers 18:09, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

1 Wikipedia:Suggested sources an essay ...says it its list of reliable sources For music/rock bands: www.last.fm, etc. ...is it?

Last.FM pffffft ...Info somewhat lacking so I re-did the bio for them. lol...Zoebuggie☺whispers 10:00, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

2 Some Blogs are more equal than others and some are websites

Some news organizations host online columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control. Posts left by readers are never acceptable as sources.

Note that otherwise reliable news sources--for example, the website of a major news organization--that happens to publish in a "blog" style format for some or all of it's content may be considered to be equally reliable as if it were published in a more "traditional" 20th-century format of a classic news story. However, the distinction between "opinion pieces" and news should be considered carefully. Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources

Is Imediamonkey a news/mag blog?

...Zoebuggie☺whispers 20:16, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

ahh its a proper source

Launched in March 2009 by Jordan Howell, imediamonkey.com was originally a blog featuring recaps for television shows such as The Apprentice, The X Factor and Britain’s Got Talent. Since 2009, the website has changed from a blog into a trusted media news provider. With a strong search engine presence and Google News accreditation imediamonkey® provides hundreds of thousands of visitors with the latest news, expert reviews and exclusive interviews every months...Zoebuggie☺whispers 00:15, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Hype? Yup Indeed...Zoebuggie☺whispers 09:56, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

RE the discussion on WP:RSN... Soink you are most probably right about imediamonkey...Zoebuggie☺whispers 08:32, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Before I ask elsewhere I would appreciate other editor's here comments on the following sources:

Local Press, like Menmedia and the Liverpool Echo?

Gossip rags like Heat?

Pappazd -> which i think meets the news blog/ authority in context questions?

The Daily Mail?

Huffington Post (aggregate service) so depends on journalist. Cat Mcshane - written only 3 bits for Huff, but also 2 for Guardian/ associate producer on one BBC documentry.?

...Zoebuggie☺whispers 01:41, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

As I stated in a previous discussion the whole article is an overpowering mess. The Public Image, Musical style and influences sections are awfully written and don't need that much info. Other artists articles, who are just starting out like Misha, aren't loaded with huge amounts of unnecessary info. --Rui78901 21:58, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I hear you. I have just removed about (4K) a dozen citations and about five quotes from immediamonkey, L'Art Mgazine, Daily Star and Daily Record as they are not reliable sources and combined some of the now shorter paragraphs. I will continue to review all links and their respective content on this page over the following week. ...Zoebuggie☺whispers 23:00, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Having lots of reliable info is not a bad thing, having unauthorative info is ;) ...Zoebuggie☺whispers 23:04, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

To be honest, when think about it, I have experienced poor and biased journalism from the BBC World Service, The Guardian, The Times Educational Supplement twice in connection with work and hobbies in the past. News Papers Pffffft Opinion Rags the lot of them ;) ...Zoebuggie☺whispers 23:24, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material See also: Wikipedia:Libel Policy shortcuts:

WP:GRAPEVINE WP:BLPREMOVE

Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced; that is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see No original research); that relies on self-published sources, unless written by the subject of the BLP (see below); or that relies on sources that fail in some other way to meet Verifiability standards. Note: although the three-revert rule does not apply to such removals, what counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Editors who find themselves in edit wars over potentially defamatory material about living persons should consider raising the matter at the BLP noticeboard, instead of relying on the exemption.

Non-article space Policy shortcut:

WP:BLPTALK

Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced and not related to making content choices, should be removed, deleted, or oversighted, as appropriate. When seeking advice about whether to publish something about a living person, be careful not to post so much information on the talk page that the inquiry becomes moot. The same principle applies to problematic images. Questionable claims already discussed can be removed with a reference to the previous discussion.

The BLP policy also applies to user and user talk pages. ...Zoebuggie☺whispers 23:26, 15 August 2012 (UTC)