Talk:Jackie Evancho/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

Numerals and # sign

An editor has converted all of the references to the Billboard and other charts from #numeral format (example: #2) to spell out the words (example: number two). Here is the diff. I don't feel strongly about this, but it is longer, and the # sign was easier to find in the text. My sense is that, notwithstanding the guideline cited (which can be interpreted more than one way), many of the articles involving album charts do use the #numeral format. What does everyone think? -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:35, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

The # format is the way to go. Articles should be easy to search.1archie99 (talk) 12:08, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
I don't feel strongly one way or the other, but I was asked to comment. From a strict grammatical point of view (and I emphasize the word "strict"), the word "number" is more grammatically correct. If I were grading a college paper on the basis of grammar, I would point out that problem if # were used. BUT, Wikipedia sometimes also allows for exceptions based on practical matters (such as the text search mentioned above). And let's remember that a Wikipedia guideline is not a policy. Since this is a matter of style, I think a consensus here (even a small one) is quite sufficient to use #. I'm fine with using #. Cresix (talk) 14:31, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
I am also fine with using #. However, if the manual of style wants use of "number", I also support that. After all, # is used as a formatting character on Wikipedia in numbered lists, and is frequently used in voting pages to number the votes for an RfA, etc. Using the word "number" prevents any error. I also did a random album search and looked up Everywhere_(Tim McGraw album) to discover that it also uses "number". I'm sure some articles use pound signs, but I'm flexible to this. Using the word doesn't necessarily make an article easier to search as archie says, however, in any way. CycloneGU (talk) 14:58, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Additionally, I have brought up a RfC here for any interested parties to comment on. CycloneGU (talk) 15:15, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
I'd probably plump for #1, but that a personal choice, not based on the MOS. I also had a skim of a few other articles and there is no consistency in format, although the hash sign did seem to be more prevalent. - SchroCat (talk) 17:41, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
OK, I've changed it back to the # sign. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:43, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Cyclone found this in the Manual of Style, so I've now changed them to "No. x". -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:02, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Also, another reference was made to MOS:NUMBERSIGN. As it's in the manual of style, I am presuming that will be the policy. Therefore, should you see the pound sign used as such on any other album article, you are free to change them as necessary. After a week or longer, I will close the discussion and add to the page regarding following the manual of style for avoiding the pound sign. CycloneGU (talk) 01:11, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
I'm sorry that I didn't get in this discussion earlier. Yes, according to MOS, it should be "No.". But, consensus can overrule MOS -- but I think that the majority will agree with MOS. --Musdan77 (talk) 03:08, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
I also don't really care which is used, but wonder what the "established" manuals of style recommend(ed)? You know, the oh-so-twentieth-century things that were actually written on paper in a nice little size that would fit in your pocket (I think it was either the New York Times or Britannica style guide that I was basically my "little red blanket" back in fifth grade ;-) )

Notability

An editor elsewhere has commented that Jackie Evancho is not notable, and shouldn't be mentioned in another Wikipedia article. Since this is always a can of worms in any discussion, it's useful to be able to state "Yes" Jackie Evancho is notable, or "No" Jackie Evancho is not notable. What are your thoughts? Santamoly (talk) 22:20, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Of course she's notable, but she need not be mentioned at the article on O mio babbino caro, as hundreds of notable singers have sung and recorded this song. The article already mentions that various classical crossover artists sing the song. Nevertheless, the song is one of Evancho's signature pieces - she sings it at most of her concerts, it's on her Gold album, Dream With Me, and it was the song that, more than any other, made her famous. But even Maria Callas is not mentioned in the article, although her version is one of the External links. But if you ever need to argue that Evancho is notable in general, you can mention that she has a platinum album (and was the youngest person in history ever to have one), a gold album and has been invited to perform at numerous high profile events, including the National tree lighting, and MLB, NHL and NFL games. She was the youngest person ever to give her own concert at Lincoln Center's Avery Fisher Hall, she has headlined a concert at Carnegie Hall, she has three albums that debuted in the top 10 on the Billboard 200, and she has performed her own concerts with numerous symphony orchestras around the country. She has two PBS Great Performances specials devoted entirely to her and has been a guest on the Tonight Show, the Today Show and nearly every talk show. She was the subject of a 20/20 report, and you can see from the footnotes to the article that she is the subject of more than 200 press articles. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:31, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
I think WP:SONGCOVER applies here, when we discuss if her version should be mentioned in articles about songs. In a nutshell, her cover version needs to be discussed in a WP:RS about the song itself, not only a source about her or her rendition. Sjö (talk) 14:18, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Infobox

To shorten the infobox, I removed the "birthname" line, since her birthname is the same as her real name, and she never uses her middle name in publicity. Adding her full name, with her middle name, to the infobox is WP:UNDUE and WP:BALASPS. -- Ssilvers (talk) 13:25, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

  • I agree that that was an acceptable way forward. If we must have info boxes (personally I feel they add little or nothing to an article) let them be as brief and succinct as possible. Jack1956 (talk) 16:13, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
I also agree with this change. Infoboxes quite often include redundant and misleading information and should be kept as short as possible. I personally would even go as far as to delete at least a few other things as well. Cassiantotalk 18:38, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
I think you're misunderstanding the purpose of infoboxes, and of WP:UNDUE and WP:BALASPS. Neither of those guidelines apply to infoboxes, but to the article as a whole. An infobox exists to summarize the content of an article in a single convenient lump; you can't argue against including some detail in the infobox on the grounds that the detail is in the article body, because that's the whole point. The question is not whether it's "redundant", but whether it's complete: can somebody get the key points of the article if all they read is the infobox?
If the article includes the subject's full name, so should the infobox; the only reason not to include the full name in the infobox would be if there were some reason not to mention the full name in the article at all, and you're not saying that. — Paul A (talk) 04:30, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
I think that's a misinterpretation. For someone who uses a quite different name from the one he or she was born with (e.g. John Wayne) it makes some sense to add the original name to the info-box, but I agree with the consensus, above, that it is not helpful to the reader to include it here. As editors it is our duty to present what is most helpful and to avoid unhelpful duplication. Tim riley talk 07:59, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Note also that infoboxes are optional, and the infobox templates are simply created for the convenience of the editors who work on the articles. The Manual of Style says: "Whether to include an infobox, which infobox to include, and which parts of the infobox to use, is determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article." See also WP:DISINFOBOX. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:28, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
1) There is certainly no need to "shorten" this infobox. It's not even close to being too long. 2) I don't see any good reason given here for exclusion. 3) Does everyone realize that the fourth person here is an administrator? Or do you think it's just fine to just dismiss what an admin says - as if he's just some misguided editor? 4) And finally, if there's a discussion going on, and even if/when consensus is to omit it, there needs to be a hidden note. Because if it happened to me, it's very likely that another editor will come along and add it in. --Musdan77 (talk) 18:36, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
Musdan, I'm not sure it's an argument about shortening per se, but about whether to repeat her name yet again at the top of the article. Taken as a whole the title, opening words of the lead and title of the IB all have the name. In terms of the IB, the surname also appears as the image title too, so it doesn't seem necessary to remind us yet again of the name in such a confirmed space. As to one of the commenters here being an admin, it does beg the question "so what?": admins have no more sway over content than any other user (except for breaches of policy), and their thoughts on the inclusion of a piece of information in an article carries as much or as little sway as a first time drive-by IP editor, or Jimbo Wales. (I'm also interested to see an admin edit war to keep their preferred version in place: the talk page should have been the place for them to come to initiate a discussion: being an admin certainly does not give them the right to war without consequence). You are right on the note point: unfortunately one of the issues with IBs is that people will try and fill in every single field, regardless of where it adds value, is useful, necessary or beneficial. - SchroCat (talk) 11:02, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
Well, I was not aware of that (admin status). I hadn't read WP:NOBIGDEAL before. I still think they deserve respect, but not as much as I thought. (And I still don't have a desire to be one.) --Musdan77 (talk) 21:51, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Evancho's sister, Juliet, formerly her brother Jacob

There seem to be stories circulating about Evancho's brother. Please do not change anything without supplying a WP:RS, this is after all a WP:BLP. Elizium23 (talk) 03:07, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Oh good grief, a simple Google search would reveal her singing with him and numerous reliable sources of information about him. If you want a citation, either add one yourself or add a citation needed tag. This is not contentious material, it is easily provable fact. Softlavender (talk) 03:14, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Nope, that's not what I'm talking about. Elizium23 (talk) 03:38, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
It's what you were edit-warring about. What are you talking about now? Softlavender (talk) 03:39, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello, both. This is not a rumor, it is fact: Jackie Evancho has a transgender sister, Juliet. Her brother transitioned to a female this year (2015) and changed her name from Jacob to Juliet. The Condran ref (footnote 8) notes that Jackie has an older sister now (not an older brother).

Jackie even made a video about having a transgender sister: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PmmSYvShuCc All the best! -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:34, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Ssilvers. (I reverted to the wrong version.) When someone mentioned in a WP article transitions genders and changes their name, we need to indicate that rather than simply changing the name and gender. In order to avoid reader confusion, it would be best to state that her brother Jacob transitioned to Juliet, or to list her sister as "Juliet (formerly Jacob)". After all, Jacob sang on Songs from the Silver Screen (and is credited as such on the album and mentioned several times in that article), so we can't just obliterate the name Jacob from Jackie's article. And the editor above is correct -- there needs to be a citation about the transition and new name. Another issue is that the internet is full of dozens of videos of Jacob singing with Jackie -- another reason we have to have that name in this article. Cheers, Softlavender (talk) 04:55, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
I do not think it is necessary (or currently possible) to mention, in the article, anything about the transition, just that Jackie has an older sister, Juliet. None of the other siblings is mentioned except to state their names. I don't think the fact that Juliet sang on *one* of the tracks of *one* of Jackie's albums is of much importance, and we cannot adequately explain the transition using RS's at this point, because the only WP:RS about this is footnote 8 -- I mentioned the Facebook accounts in the article just to show Juliet's first name, but there is no WP:RS that expains the gender transition. Eventually, I'm sure, there will be a more specific interview about it, but for now, I think we should minimize the information about it in the article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:59, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
I personally disagree on one count, since there are far more RSs stating that she has a brother Jacob than the one stating that she has a sister Juliet. I think at the very least the wording should be "a sister Juliet (formerly Jacob)". That doesn't require any explanation of the transition, and it clears up all the confusion about the multitude of evidence that, and RSs that state, she had/has a brother Jacob. Softlavender (talk) 05:08, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
I hear what you are saying, but to say "formerly" would require an RS actually stating as much, wouldn't it? I really think that the solution here is patience (as often is true in Wikipedia). Eventually, Jackie will give an interview that clears it up. Then we can say it. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:11, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
In the edit summary someone could just say "see Talk page". Obviously we're going to add an RS when one appears. (And readers of this thread can also view Jackie's music video about it [1].) But right now in my personal opinion we can't just remove and replace the well-known and well-established name of Jacob from the article completely. Anyway, that's my personal opinion. (I think it would avoid a lot of edit wars.) Softlavender (talk) 05:22, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
User:Elizium23, we've each given our thoughts on this, what do you think? -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:25, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
I would be waiting for more-reliable RSes, because at the moment, sans the Facebook page just removed, the only ref for "Juliet" is a McCall article that doesn't mention him by name. Elizium23 (talk) 22:19, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
I also strenuously object to removing useful information about duets with him. Why is he being written out of the article because this happened? Elizium23 (talk) 22:27, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Her. She. How about giving her Twitter account? It is clearly public. Even the Facebook page is public to the extent of the name and photo. I don't mind putting back in the information about the duet, although it is more relevant in the Songs from the Silver Screen article, where it appears, but we should say that it was a duet with her "older sibling" and drop a footnote explaining the gender change. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:08, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Obviously you need a reliable source to quote, but it would be surprising, one feels, if such a source were not to become available quite soon, given the interest of the mass media in Ms Evancho and her doings. Once that is to hand, adding an explanatory footnote from the "duetting" sentence (or elsewhere if appropriate) about the ex-brother now sister will make everything clear without making a production number of it. Meanwhile the clear and sensible discussion, above, must suffice faute de mieux to enlighten any puzzled reader. As to phrasing, my own preference, purely for clarity and precision, would be to refer to the sibling by male pronouns for mentions before the change of sex and, of course, female ones thereafter. – Tim riley talk 08:03, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

[Left]: Here it is. Now I've added it to the article: Nelson, Jeff. "Jackie Evancho's Sister Juliet Opens Up About Her Transgender Journey", People magazine, October 12, 2015</ref>

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Jackie Evancho. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:21, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Jackie Evancho in german media

As its very hard to find anything,.....just for info. Interview with Sandra Schwatzhaupt 2012, she was kind of german Jackie Evancho 20years earlier, mentioning Evancho in interview.

Den Kinderstar-Ruhm überlebt: Exklusiv-Interview mit Mezzosopranistin Sandra Schwarzhaupt in New York

Siems Luckwaldt January 4, 2012

https://web.archive.org/web/20150915215838/http://www.nahtlosblog.de/den-kinderstar-ruhm-uberlebt-ein-interview-mit-mezzosopranistin-sandra-schwarzhaupt-in-new-york-exklusiv

"In den USA gilt gerade Jackie Evancho von „America‘s Got Talent” als ein neues Wunderkind. Sie ist elf, also nur unwesentlich älter als Sie bei Ihrem Debüt damals. Wenn Sie so ein kleines Mädchen im Scheinwerferlicht sehen, was denken Sie dann?

Ich hoffe für sie, dass sie die richtigen Leute um sich herum hat. Mit einem Schutz-Team kann alles gut gehen, mit Menschen, die Mentoren und Beschützer zugleich sind. So ein Umfeld wünsche ich ihr. Ohne Aasgeier.

Stimmlich ist Jackie Evancho ja irre weit, ihre Bewegungen dagegen sind noch reichlich mariniert, als hätte man Montserrat Caballé geschrumpft. Ist jemand wie diese große Kleine ein Phänomen oder stilisieren Medien es nur gern so?

Es verlangt vor allem immensen Mut, sich vor ein Millionenpublikum zu stellen. Und das fasziniert uns alle daran. Wenn sie liebt, was sie tut – wunderbar. Und wenn sie sich später umentscheidet, dann hat es sich auch gelohnt. Ich habe kurz 20 Jahre zurückgedacht, als ich sie gesehen habe."

article 2010

http://www.spiegel.de/panorama/leute/wunderkind-jackie-evancho-zu-perfekt-um-wahr-zu-sein-a-712529.html

About the inaugural gig, its more making fun that Trump found no A stars , Jackie Evancho is only mentioned as 2nd place AGT

http://www.spiegel.de/kultur/gesellschaft/donald-trumps-vereidigung-tanzen-fuer-den-praesidenten-a-1127391.html

https://www.bluewin.ch/de/news/ausland/2016/12/23/tanzgruppe--the-rockettes--soll-bei-trumps-amtsein.html

http://www.sueddeutsche.de/kultur/trumps-wahl-mormonenchor-1.3308394

http://www.swr3.de/aktuell/nachrichten/Kein-prominenter-Musiker-will-fuer-Trump-spielen/-/id=47428/did=4253984/1wek5vw/

Eifelochse (talk) 16:13, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Sarcasm

Is this edit summary intended to be sarcastic or insulting?: "If we are to provide summaries of films here, we should rather start with summarising the lyrics of the songs". Just a suggestion: it would be more constructive and efficient to write: "We do not need a plot summary here, since the film has its own Wikipedia article". It is much easier to collaborate with people when you do not have an insulting attitude. See WP:CIVIL for more information. If I am wrong, and you did not intend to be sarcastic and insulting, I apologize. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:08, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Apologies accepted. Isn't the user's talk page better for such exchanges? Oh, and we don't need a plot summary here even if the film hasn't got its own article. Król Maciuś II (talk) 00:14, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
You have not answered my question. I'll ask again: Did you intend your edit summary to be sarcastic or insulting? To reply to your question above, no, all discussion of changes to an article's text should take place on the article's Talk page so that all interested editors can participate. Also, never delete materials from an article's Talk page, unless you archive it to the Talk page's archive. You can delete materials from your own Talk page, as long as you don't edit it to misrepresent another editor's message. Deleting material from an article's Talk page is considered vandalism. See WP:TALK. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:34, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
"You have not answered my question." I have (right at the beginning of my response). On the other hand, I feel you haven't understood my comment about the right place. "all discussion of changes to an article's text should take place on the article's Talk page" − you are not discussing changes to the article, you are discussing my edit summary Król Maciuś II (talk) 01:00, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Grammar

I have been labelled by Ssilvers as an edit-warrior after sticking to grammar rules of the English language and told to discuss it on this talk page. Grammar rules are not scope for discussion, mistakes should just be corrected. If you prefer to stick to your personal version of the language at the cost of the quality of this article, too bad. I have no time for pettiness. Król Maciuś II (talk) 22:40, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

First of all, new Talk page items should be placed at the bottom of the Talk page. Second, you are new here on Wikipedia (despite making a few edits beginning in 2013). Instead of being argumentative, you should start off by accepting that that you did not follow the WP:BRD procedure: instead reverting twice, which is WP:Edit warring, once your change was challenged, you should have opened this discussion at that time. No harm done, and now you know to use the WP:BRD process. Basically, when an editor disagrees with you, just bring the discussion to the Talk page so that others can join in. Third, everything can be discussed here, including the not-always-straightforward and always changing rules of grammar. Wikipedia is built by WP:CONSENSUS, not by people saying that their preferred versions of article text are not subject to discussion. Fourth, your own English grammar and usage is not very good if you think that your sentence above, "Grammar rules are not scope for discussion", is grammatical. I assure you it is not. Are you a native English speaker? Finally, I actually do not strongly disagree with your word order preference, and now that you have brought the discussion here, instead of edit warring about it, I would not object if you restore it, noting in the edit summary that you are doing it per WP:CONSENSUS on the Talk page. Now, if you want to drop the attitude, I would like to offer you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, and I hope you enjoy editing (and discussing) here. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:57, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
1. "your own English grammar and usage is not very good (...) Are you a native English speaker?" — are you sure comments like this conform to WP:CIVIL? 'Cos "I would not object if you restore it" is not too "grammatical", is it? (should either be would/restored or will/restore). Anyway, what has my limp grammar on the talk page got to do with a slip in the article?
2. "Basically, when an editor disagrees with you, just bring the discussion to the Talk page so that others can join in." - is this what you did reverting my minor grammar correction? No.
3. Following rules is not a matter of preference. Król Maciuś II (talk) 01:43, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
I asked if you are a native English speaker because you cited, as your grammar authority, a German website (.de is part of the web address) although I now see that it claims to be owned by a UK organization. In any case, my main point has been that you did not follow the customary WP:BRD procedure. If you make an edit (Bold), and someone disagrees with you and reverts your edit (Revert), then the preferred next step is to take it to the Talk page (Discuss ... BRD), not to override their edit, which is what you did. That is why I asked you, in my edit summary, not to edit war and instead to follow the BRD procedure. Wikipedia is a collaborative editing project, and we reach decisions on content here by consensus. See WP:CONSENSUS. If you had shown me that courtesy, we could have saved a lot of ink here. All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:31, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Article needs a "Personal Life" section

This article does a great job at talking about her career but doesn't go much into her personal life, and beliefs. Given we have reliable sources saying she supports the trans community, this for example should be included. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:00, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

We certainly should not start a "personal life" section simply to put WP:UNDUE weight on this WP:RECENT issue. Most people "support" human rights. It is not encyclopedic to simply say that someone supports trans rights because she has a trans sister. I think the WP:BLP rules override this. In fact, Evancho has stated over and over that she does not understand or care about politics. She is a naive 16-year-old girl, and Wikipedia is "not a newspaper". -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:30, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
I am talking about her personal life in general, of course we wouldn't focus it on just this one event. If she is open with things she believes in though then they should be included. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:32, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
It seems to be a clear BLP violation to call her "naive." Her reliably sourced views on political and social issues can be included. Edison (talk) 18:58, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
WP:BLP says: "...Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively.... Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives.... The burden of evidence rests with the editor who adds or restores material." The fact that Evancho is supportive of her sister is not encyclopedic information. Wikipedia is "not a newspaper". See also WP:RECENT. "Personal life" sections on Wikipedia usually mention marriages and offspring. I think the section is premature for a child. All the currently existing personal information can go, as it does, into the "early life" section. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:22, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Okay... then take the info that is already in the article and spread it out. With all the focus on her career it reads more like a resume. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:21, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Can you be more specific about what you think should be done to improve the article? What information would you move/change, and why? -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:05, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
For starters I would condense the career section into years as is done with Elvis Presley. Elvis had a career spanning 24 years and Jackie's section is larger than that. You might want to combine the subheadings to include "Life and career" for more balanced coverage. Another layout if you want to avoid lumping everything in is to go with a Roger Waters type of layout. My point is that the way the info is presented bloats her career more than it needs to be. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:32, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Religious belief

There is no discussion that the Evanchos are roman catholic , they are not https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Catholic_Church this could be scecified btw ;) After baptism and confirmation one is member of catholic church. If one not emerges church or one is excluded by roman catholic judiciary, one is member. If Pope Francis could he would exclude Cardinal Burke and Cardinal Burke would exlude the Pope if he could, but this kindergarden power fights are normal in the history. There is no doubt that the Evanchos are roman catholic. One could only discuss if religious belief is of importance in this article. Greetings from a german roman catholic and ex altar boy. Eifelochse (talk) 04:24, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

The article already states that she was raised Catholic (member of the Catholic Church). While 'Roman Catholic' is usually used as a description of those who are members of the Catholic Church and celebrate Latin Rites (as opposed to Eastern Rites), the proper term is actually Catholic, not Roman Catholic, as it links to Catholic Church anyway. I don't think anyone reading will mistake it for Old Catholic, otherwise that would be clarified with saying 'Old Catholic' instead of 'Catholic'. She has not spoken out much regarding her religious belief, so it does not have much importance in this article besides her upbringing, where it is already mentioned. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 05:19, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
I agree that the bluelinked term makes it clear that her family are members of the Catholic Church (aka Roman Catholic). There was a discussion about this years ago, and we deleted the word "Roman" after someone made a convincing case that this is the right way to do it. -- Ssilvers (talk) 09:41, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Two hearts

This http://www.post-gazette.com/ae/music/2017/03/02/Jackie-Evancho-moving-toward-pop-on-new-album-Two-Hearts/stories/201703020038 sounds more like pop filled up with classical crossover. But perhaps speculation of upcoming albums should be deleted until there is a official song list. Eifelochse (talk) 05:31, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

There is a track list at Amazon.com. It's two discs -- the first is classical crossover (10 tracks), and the second is pop (EP -- 5 tracks): https://www.amazon.com/Two-Hearts-Jackie-Evancho/dp/B06WP814X9 . I'm waiting for more details before I put up an article for the album. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:45, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Juliet Evancho

I recently added a well-sourced section on Jackie Evancho's activism due to her sister Juliet that for some reason got removed. I imagine that with it being a family member she will remain an activist. Thoughts on readding it? Jgera5 (talk) 16:55, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Here is the change you made, and which I reverted. First, this is not an article about Juliet, so information about Juliet is tangential. The fact that Juliet is suing her school district does not belong in Jackie Evancho's article, and Juliet is not a notable person. There is already sufficient information about Juliet and the other siblings and family in Jackie's article. Second, you characterized Jackie Evancho as an "activist". She is not an activist, she has never said she is an activist, and she has not announced any plans to become an activist. In fact, the focus of nearly all the press pieces regarding her participation in the inauguration was that Jackie is *not* political, that she was naively surprised at the internet backlash to her singing at Trump's inauguration, and that she hopes everyone will just forget about politics long enough to listen to "the pretty song that I'm singing". Third, the material you added was unencyclopedic or neutrally written. See, in particular, WP:NOTNEWS. For example, it is not of encyclopedic interest that Evancho and her family were "supportive" of Juliet coming out. The fact that Jackie and Juliet (then Jacob) sang a duet on one of her albums several years ago is already mentioned in the article Songs from the Silver Screen (the album on which the duet appeared), and in other more relevant articles, such as the Jackie Evancho concert tours article. The song did not chart and is not noteworthy with respect to Evancho's overall career. Another example is that Juliet will not attend the inaugural, and why she will not attend – this information does not enhance Jackie's article; nor does Juliet's opinion of Jackie's singing at the inaugural. Fourth: your characterization of the criticism of Evancho as "hypocritical" is not encyclopedic or WP:NEUTRAL and is dubious to say the least, and the sentence including that word is not only unreferenced, but so confusingly written that I cannot tell what you were trying to express. But in any event, it could not possibly help the reader of this article understand anything significant about Jackie Evancho's life and career. Fifth: the material you added is WP:RECENTism. The fact that Evancho was criticized by some people on social media will not be of any importance after the inauguration. Sixth, I have read every article about this supposed controversy, and what you added does not present a balanced view of the coverage, even if this were a significant controversy, which it is not. See also, generally, WP:BALASP. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:18, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

I think after these two tweets from today everything has changed. Friede, Freude, Eierkuchen (Piece, Joy and pankakes) is over ;) Jackie Evancho is now an activist. https://mobile.twitter.com/jackieevancho/status/834506020105904136 "I am obviously disappointed in the @POTUS decision to send the #transgender bathroom issue to the states to decide. #sisterlove" https://mobile.twitter.com/jackieevancho/status/834556080378220545 . "@realDonaldTrump u gave me the honor 2 sing at your inauguration. Pls give me & my sis the honor 2 meet with u 2 talk #transgender rghts ❤" There has to be now an own section about her, her sister, the inauguration and the discussion.Btw. Her sister did not attend the inauguration because she had surgery ;) https://www.facebook.com/jackieevancho/photos/a.476875196130.288921.164162761130/10154719363771131/?type=3&theater what coincidence....Btw . 1st lesson at political science, there is no none political statement, even the decicision to be non political is a political statement, her inauguration gig was a political statement, non political areas do not excist. Eifelochse (talk) 04:00, 23 February 2017 (UTC)She is geeting more attrntion with these tweets than with the inauguration performance. http://people.com/music/jackie-evancho-disappointed-by-trump-transgender-bathroom-ruling/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2017/02/22/jackie-evancho-who-sang-the-national-anthem-at-trumps-inauguration-asks-for-a-meeting-on-transgender-rights/ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/jackie-evancho-trump_us_58ae37c0e4b01406012fb6f7 http://www.billboard.com/articles/news/7701400/jackie-evancho-president-trump-meet-sister-transgender-rights http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4251120/Inauguration-performer-blast-Trump-s-transgender-ruling.html http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/singer-jackie-evancho-disappointed-trump-move-transgender-protections/story?id=45674291&cid=social_fb_abcn Eifelochse (talk) 04:24, 23 February 2017 (UTC) https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/dec/28/trump-inauguration-music-performances-beach-boys and her two tweets will go internationally http://edition.cnn.com/2017/02/22/politics/jackie-evancho-tweets-trump-transgender-trnd/ as the transgender issue is already top news in google Germany Eifelochse (talk) 06:20, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

This is not Juliet Evancho's article. The activities or status of Evancho's sister are not encyclopedic and do not overrride WP:BLP. See also WP:RECENT. The fact that Evancho tweeted and did an interview on the subject does not (yet) make this issue encyclopedic. See WP:NOTNEWS. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:32, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

These are not just Juliet Evancho's activities, its about Jackie Evanchos very mature handling of a very important issue in her life, interview both in Good Morning America!!!http://abcnews.go.com/US/jackie-evancho-transgender-sister-hope-enlighten-donald-trump/story?id=45677743, and according to latest news, Mr Spicer told press when asked that President Trump would welcome both.https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/23/us/Trump-evancho-transgender-students.html?_r=0 These events are getting much more inportant than all the AGT etc. You know that this is encyclopedic and very important issue - a must! - in the article. If there is an article about Trumps presidency, an article ÷about the transgender policy in the USA and under Trump it has also to be put in these articles. I know that this is an absolute nightmare for you, but will you still be censoring it if there are photos of President Trump and Jackie and Juliet Evancho, an official press statement of the White House? Eifelochse (talk) 03:41, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

If Evancho meets with Trump and convinces him to change his policy, that would be of encyclopedic interest. BTW, note that none of the following articles, Transgender rights in the United States, Bathroom bill and Gender identity under Title IX#The views of the Trump Administration, which all discuss the encyclopedic issue of the evolution of transgender rights in schools, refer to this merely WP:RECENT news item. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:08, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
BTW, Juliet and her co-plaintiffs got a preliminary injunction in their favor from the Federal District Court, so it doesn't matter what the Trump admin. thinks or does. The defendants will have a month or so to decide whether to appeal. Also, note that the Supreme Court is supposed to hear the similar Gavin Grimm case. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:10, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

I've now added a couple of sentences about Evancho's recent advocacy for a federal law to ensure bathroom access and Juliet's lawsuit that I think are encyclopedic, neutrally written and satisfy WP:BALASP. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:39, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Jackie Evancho. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:53, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Request

Someone was asking to add this image (CC BY-NC-ND 2.0) tagged to the infobox. Ssilvers .......all up to you!.....if want to or not.--Moxy (talk) 20:11, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

That image is not a free image -- Rights are reserved by the photographer, so we cannot add it to the infobox. If anyone has a recent free image, we'd love to upload one to Wikipedia. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:37, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
Image tagged as Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.0 Generic--Moxy (talk) 21:54, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
We cannot accept the "non-commerical" or "no derivatives" restrictions, since we need a free image under these circumstances. I'm quite surprised that you are not aware of that, even though I personally believe that the NFCC rules are overly restrictive. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:06, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Unencyclopedic sentence

"Evancho's interests include playing the violin and piano, sewing, swimming, playing with her pets,[20][21] drawing,[22] archery[23] and riding horses.[24]", this is not encyclopedic and should be removed. - TheMagnificentist 06:51, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

I disagree. This information has been widely reported by reliable sources over an extended period of time. That's pretty much the definition of encyclopedic. -- Ssilvers (talk) 07:07, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
This detail is minor and personal. Just because it's sourced, doesn't mean it should be included. We don't need to cite the sky is blue. Anyone reading that would probably think the content was written by a fan or Evancho herself, giving a bad impression to Wikipedia. Here WP:BURP. - TheMagnificentist 03:25, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Jackie Evancho. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:15, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Jackie Evancho. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:14, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Carnegie Hall event

I just discovered that the Tim Jannis event in December 2010 was the same Emily Bear took part. So perhaps Jackie Evancho did not withdraw because of promo events ;) let be realistic - who won't take the chance to perform at Carnegie Hall, only one reason - there wasn't any useful promo anymore -no more the youngest, no own composition like a choir song "Peace", Evancho's promo for her christmas album would have been damaged,nothing to gain, only to loose ;) - I doubt that the articles tell the truth.Eifelochse (talk) 06:19, 4 January 2018 (UTC)here poster at Carnegie Hall 8:08ff https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wPvqARjDBuE Music industry mandicious business ;)Eifelochse (talk) 06:42, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

I have removed the speculative information about the cancelled Carnegie event and also streamlined the intro. -- Ssilvers (talk) 07:07, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

References/Relevamce

57 If one would get one dollar for every time Mr Mandel said this (scripted) sentence in AGT history......You are the star etc.etc.. Relevance zero Eifelochse (talk) 05:49, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

I deleted the Mandel quote in the footnote. -- Ssilvers (talk) 07:29, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Anthem at Baseball/modelling in intro?Eifelochse (talk) 05:52, 7 January 2018 (UTC)Relevance title role school musical?Eifelochse (talk) 05:54, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

I think it satisfies WP:LEAD and is useful in describing the trajectory of Evancho's career. I am happy to follow any WP:CONSENSUS established regarding the matter. -- Ssilvers (talk) 07:29, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

retailers necessary? - kind of promo ;)btw. lengthy double album articles?Eifelochse (talk) 06:02, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

No, not promotional at all. We're just trying to describe the release date. I've modified. I've also streamlined the summaries of her albums. -- Ssilvers (talk) 07:29, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

first paragraph other performances????Eifelochse (talk) 06:05, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

I have streamlined this, and removed outdated info. -- Ssilvers (talk) 07:29, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Ref 264 I thought citing blogs was not allowed ;)Eifelochse (talk) 06:10, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Newspaper blogs are OK. See WP:RS. -- Ssilvers (talk) 07:29, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

relevance of all the anthem gigs??? new genre? sorryEifelochse (talk) 06:14, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Now streamlined to include only the significant events. -- Ssilvers (talk) 07:29, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

many links don't work anymore, Ref 329: I think it was not allowed to cite...;)Eifelochse (talk) 06:18, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

What was ref. 329 is now deleted. Which links do not work? -- Ssilvers (talk) 07:29, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Relevance of Piers Morgan review (see Mandel) - assistant professor relevance, all the reviews without naming???Eifelochse (talk) 06:24, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

I removed the Piers Morgan quote. -- Ssilvers (talk) 07:29, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

The whole DanaGorzelany-Mostak part????- assistant prof. again.. relevance of the book????Eifelochse (talk) 06:27, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

I think the book is highly relevant. -- Ssilvers (talk) 07:29, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

First : it's not a book but an edited (not by her) volume (already in reference, but not in text), she only wrote the Evancho paper 2nd its quite strange that she uses this for promo on her website (win win situation, wiki article promo for her, her unproven thesis win... 2nd. The quote is wischi-waschi, it prooves nothing, her paper would be interesting, if there are proves, citations etc. for her thesis"Eifelochse (talk) 08:31, 7 January 2018 (UTC)total nonsense "Young girls frequently become the scrutinized objects of the public’s gaze. ... [T]he cluster of behaviors customarily defined as "girlish" are frequently devalued, mocked, and marginalized. ... Throughout history prodigies have been received in a similar manner, as the public would rather dismiss or devalue their accomplishments than accept evidence of extraordinariness. ."History is full of praising prodigies - all little Mozarts or little Clara Wiecks, little Shirly Temples etc.etcEifelochse (talk) 08:37, 7 January 2018 (UTC) or today Emily Bear, Umi Garrett, Alma Deutscher, Joey Alexander, etc.etc.etc. - all the "talents"in historyEifelochse (talk) 08:41, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

A chapter specifically about Evancho, and her cultural impact, in a scholarly book is not only relevant, it's pretty much the definition of a reliable source. -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:55, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Do you know how many "grey literature" in scholary books exist? Eifelochse (talk) 13:14, 17 January 2018 (UTC) btw the last 3 performance videos are no performances, just official lip synch promo videos. Are there no live performance? Or studio live recording videos? TV performances?Eifelochse (talk) 13:14, 17 January 2018 (UTC) They are not reliable, anyone cozld be singing in these videos, one does not know how voice etc. are pimped up etc.Eifelochse (talk) 13:16, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Direct links; Catholic

Please use direct links (Catholic), not redirects Catholic. Second, the correct English phrase is "they are Catholic", not "they are Catholics". See, for example, https://muse.jhu.edu/article/575750. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:54, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

No, WP:NOTBROKEN is pretty clear that there is nothing wrong with redirects. And didn't I specifically ask you for an explanation as to why my revision was incorrect in terms of grammar? I don't remember asking you to give me an example, with all due respect. Slightlymad 16:02, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
I agree that using the redirect is OK and have reverted to the redirect. Yes, I offered you an example, which is more than you offered me. In addition, this usage in the article has been stable for years, so you need to demonstrate a reason to change it. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:14, 20 February 2018 (UTC) Why aren't the latest news included?

Evancho's comments re: supposed eating disorder, etc.

https://people.com/health/agt-jackie-evancho-opens-up-eating-disorder/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/life/people/2019/01/24/jackie-evancho-there-were-men-out-there-who-wanted-hurt-me/2665587002/ https://people.com/tv/americas-got-talent-jackie-evancho-says-men-wanted-hurt-her/ https://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Culture/child-star-jackie-evancho-reveals-struggle-eating-disorder/story?id=60689666 I could write the text and you put the references in. Eifelochse (talk) 10:48, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

None of this is of encyclopedic interest. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:22, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
Suffering from eating disorders, or speaking about them, can indeed be of encyclopedic interest. Before removing the information from the article, which was properly sourced, let's reach a consensus on what to do here. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 19:03, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
As the information hasn't been there until recently, WP:STATUS QUO bides us to leave it out until consensus is reached. - SchroCat (talk) 20:21, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
If you look at Eifelochse's Talk page (and archives), Evancho's and mine, you will see that Eifelochse has sought for several years to degrade the Evancho article. This salacious material about Evancho does not belong in a WP:BLP. Evancho's inconsistent statements in recent interviews concerning a possible eating disorder are premature to include at best. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:27, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

If one look at the handling by ssilvers of the Jackie Evancho page, one realizes that he wants to delete everything, which desttroys the fairy tale pic of Jackie Evancho - several times Trump inauguration, transsexual sister - he handles everything as if he would be the super contoller of JE and her management, he lost his objectivity long time ago. The eating disorder etc.is of extreme relevance. sssilver is excactly the kind of fan which brought JE into this. She is now 18yo but still should not have any political opinion etc. according to sssilver. Perhaps he should not be allowed to edit this article. Eifelochse (talk) 22:11, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

I've been watching this article for quite some time. I do not agree with Eifelochse's statements about Ssilvers' editing. Also, I've watched and read the recent Evancho interviews and articles about this subject. The information about eating disorders appears questionable. It is premature to add this to the article, unless and until additional verifiable information becomes available. Somambulant1 (talk) 22:43, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

He uses everytime the same labelling immature,child,etc. I don‘t want to edit this article. But letting sssilver edit it, is a joke We don‘t live in the 50s anymore. Btw. what reliable information do you want. Secret doctors papers. If you question her you can put this also in article with references. wiki is not a fan pageEifelochse (talk) 23:59, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

The information appears questionable because of the timing of these statements and the resulting publicity with respect to the upcoming release of a new album. Somambulant1 (talk) 00:34, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
Yes, Somambulant1 is right. And also it appears to be offered by Evancho as the kind of "sad story", in connection with her upcoming performance at America's Got Talent: The Champions, that the show like to gives in its "background" segments prior to each contestant's performance. -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:02, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

so sssilver, the lawyer (as someobe told me some time ago, really thinks that Jackie Evancho is such bitch, that she lies in an GMA interview, just for promotion, that she is throwing herself to the „white old men“ dogs to devour. Really. I think sssilvers female clients would not be very amused knowing what he thinks about speaking about things like that..or does he wants to cover up the „priests“? ;) He never had any problems with citing the scripted AGT comments in detail - „Your a star“ :) Next week he wants to do this again - I am sure. If Jackie Evancho would have performed at GMA - he would have written a long text with extra article :lol: What about deleting 90% of AGT related things/extra articles.

He misuses WP every moment he can. He quoted a very doubtful assistant professors book - if I would follow his recent argumentation...she only used the JE article in book for promo - win/win situation. I am shocked that there is a discussion about the eating disorder interview. It‘s totally relevant. Democratic poll about posting...didn‘t all the old white men on wikipedia learn anything from the Occasio-Cortez disaster. What about deleting the whole Anne Frank book article...she was just a teenager and perhaos her father..or perhaps a discussion about the facts, about Ausschwitz If there was any proof for Evancho lying it still had to be put in article „JE lied in an GMA interview about...“ with reference. @sssilvers I am really disgusted.. and I don‘t want to be contacted/read anything from you anywhere..so if I put something e.g. in the Emily Bear article or put some infos in talk page...it would be nice if someone else. Today I read a comment on a JE forum why had her sister underwent this surgery...he could have had a nice gay life...this bigotry is so disgusting. I never had any intentions to downgrading JE article!!! but was simply shocked by @sssilvers double standard with using WP in a questionable way.Eifelochse (talk) 03:30, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

The proposed changes do not by any means meet the standard of verifiability from a reliable source needed for any Wikipedia article, let alone one that has been promoted to GA. The trolling of one of the main editors of the article is also not acceptable. Tim riley talk 05:38, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Dear Mr Riley, what about asking Jackie Evanchos lawyers, what they think of someone who calls her premature etc. see sssilvers earlier comments when he did not want to include Jackie Evanchos interviews about her transsexual sister - same arguments, same labbeling...it‘not trolling - it‘s just disgraceful behaviour - I don‘t think that wiki sponsors are very amused how you handle this situation. Perhaps asking female relatives. Btw. I never saw an official statement by you or your colleagues to the Occasio-Cortez disaster. What about asking younger female collegues. But enough for now. I am shocked that this thinking reaches into the highest ranks of wikipedia. A official abc news link not enough..what about stepping back? Btw. I know really want proof, why it not standard of verifiability. „Behaupten kann jeder etwas“ Beweise!!! Eifelochse (talk) 06:39, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Eifelochse, could you please stop making derogatory comments about Ssilvers? Reading through this thread I see little constructive from you, just personal attacks against another editor. Read WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL and spend your time focussing on putting forward your arguments, not engaging in behaviour that is likely to lead to sanctions. - SchroCat (talk) 07:26, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Could you please read sssilvers earlier comments about Jackie Evancho. Look for the comments around the time around the Trump inauguration/interviews about her sisters transsexuality...totally insulting by modern standards...1960 Leslea Gore then 17yo stated "You don't own me" - "I say what I want to say" etc. It seems that sssilvers grew up, was not socialized with this values...are there really old white men as administrators on wiki who just get it? I am really not interested in trolling etc, not interesred in editing the JE article. This eating disorder interview is totally relevant, neither you nor Tim Riley brought any serious argument ...just threatening. Please stop this behaviour!!! I really would like to link this to Jackie Evancho. Excat this behaviour brings young people especially young woman to crises, eating disorder etc. It really is disgusting. My last comment here. I don't want to deal anymore with people like..don't you know how arrgant your behaviour is, but enoughEifelochse (talk) 10:33, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

  • That's fine: you can keep pressing the uncivil line, and I see you've posted personal off-wiki information about Ssilvers: that's enough to get a block on it's own, but you don't seem to be listening to rather pertinent advice about Wikipedia:Comment on the content, not the contributor. - SchroCat (talk) 11:24, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Her eating disorder seems to be a mere footnote in her life story and hardly warrants prominence here. For the record, Ssilvers is an exemplary and very experienced editor and I would accept his judgement on any issue. Jack1956 (talk) 11:13, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
a footnote? has she to make suicide ...so thst you accept it...growing up in music businnes, with a very sick mother, kind of tracked down since the beginning by old men at every concert, the eating disorder is a direct product of this, everthing was controlled, bullying...do I really have to call all the Disney starlets who deal with drugs, alcohol etc. I never doubted thst sssilver is sn experienced editor, but he uses it totally wrong..@schrotcat there is nothong wrong with the content only in your mind...I never wanted that theres a lenghty paragraph, but ignoring it...that is not possible...I did not asked for the private information when I got it...I just informed someone that an article was updated..."oh that was...." May you please tell me what content do you would prefer...perhaps a young blonde singer doing everything you want, following every step of your dreams you have of her carrer..ine sidekick - absolute horrible...but Jackie Evancho is not the toy of the so called fans on facebookEifelochse (talk) 12:07, 1 February 2019 (UTC) Sorry, on wikipediaEifelochse (talk) 12:09, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

btw. sssilver attacked JE personally in his comments when she did no acted as he wanted regularly. Perhaps blocking him!Eifelochse (talk) 12:12, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Eifelochse, you really are pushing the right buttons to get yourself blocked. Stop commenting on other editors and focus on the content only. This is your last warning. - SchroCat (talk) 12:46, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
After seeing the conversation unfold, I oppose adding the information regarding eating disorders to the article at this time. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 13:12, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Agree with the conversation above that this information is transitory and need not be included here Dreamspy (talk) 13:54, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

@https://www.hln.be/showbizz/celebrities/-america-s-got-talent-winnares-jackie-evancho-onthult-sinds-mijn-10de-krijg-ik-te-maken-met-pedofielen-en-stalkers~ac8b697b

https://eu.usatoday.com/story/life/entertainthis/2019/02/05/agt-jackie-evancho-dealt-pedophiles-and-stalkers-amid-fame/2775666002/

https://metro.co.uk/2019/02/05/americas-got-talent-star-jackie-evancho-reveals-experience-paedophiles-stalkers-since-winning-show-aged-10-8443230/

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/video/dailymailtv/video-1856298/Jackie-Evancho-opens-downside-fame.html

I already reported you. Btw. what would be most interesting @schrotcat if you were the former member schrot in a jackie fan forum- after things got not as wanted he/she left :) I read WP but one has to interpret it as every law, rule..and not just WP, WP, WP...but enough this JE "die hard fans" are so funny - do what you want...make this article to a joke..You won Eifelochse (talk) 12:47, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

  • I'm sorry, but I have no idea what you are trying to say here. Reported me where - and for exactly what? Are you suggesting I have been active on a Jackie Evancho fan forum? If so, you are wrong. And, yet again, stop commenting on other people and discuss the merits or otherwise of any proposed edit(s). - SchroCat (talk) 14:32, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

https://www.billboard.com/articles/columns/pop/8498314/jackie-evancho-interview-somewhere https://etcanada.com/video/1443274819554/jackie-evancho-talks-never-giving-up-on-her-career/Eifelochse (talk) 06:14, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Who the article is about

If I may budge in a bit, discussing someone's eating habits, sexual life, colour of socks etc. – seems beside the point when passing on quality information about a singer – unless it affects the artist's performance, expression, standpoint and so on. It is doubtful, whether anybody interested in tabloid gossip, reaches for an encyclopaedia and such, and equally doubtful if somebody looking for encyclopaedic knowledge expects such crap (forgive the expression). I suggest following this line of thinking also, when it comes to describing "third party" subjects, like family members, friends, collegues and so on. In short: Jackie Evancho is a renowned singer, and I couldn't care less about her sibs' toilet preferences. Putting in such rubbish compromises the Wiki project, but definitely enhances TMZ, so visit them instead, if that's what you're looking for. Król Maciuś II (talk) 00:48, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

@Król Maciuś II: (New talk page sections go at the bottom, so I moved it.) This article is designated by Wikipedia as a good article, meaning that it has passed certain criteria for editorial standards that most article don't achieve. As such, we need to think long and hard about making changes based on someone's personal opinion that it contains "rubbish" and "crap". Could you please point out how the article has excessive coverage of "eating habits, sexual life, colour of socks"? If by "sexual life" and "sibs' toilet preferences" you are referring to her transgender sister, the issue isn't just her sister. The focus is on Evancho's efforts in support of LGBT rights, which is a very notable part of her life and a very notable issue. You seemed to have missed the point of that discussion in the article. Pinging Ssilvers, who brought this article up to good article status. Sundayclose (talk) 01:21, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
I think Sundayclose has given a good answer. I'll add that we do not discuss Evancho's personal life except to the extent that certain issues, such as her support of LGBT rights, has received substantial press, and Evancho has talked about them repeatedly in interviews. We mention the names of Evancho's siblings because she has mentioned them publicly and included them in some of her videos, and the family had its own TV special about all four siblings. All other persons mentioned in the article were the subject of considerable press in connection with Evancho or her career. It is not always easy to strike the right balance. If you read the discussion above, you can see that an editor was advocating adding a lot of other personal information about Evancho that she mentioned in one or another interview, and I resisted most of it because I didn't think these points were of lasting significance. If you have a problem with something in particular, raise it here, and we can discuss it with more clarity. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:01, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jackie_Evancho/Archive_2&oldid=1146711372"