Talk:Sarah Blasko/Archive 1

Archive 1

Infobox Photo

I realise that there has been disagreement to date over which photo to use in the infobox, and that there have been numerous conflicting revisions. I have had no part in these aside from uploading the initial publicity shot. The problem with the previous two images, as far as I see it, was that one was an unfamiliar promotional shot and the other was an out-of-focus, amatuer shot.

Now that there is a brand new publicity shot available - one that has been widely distributed as the most current photograph of the artist - I hope that we can use it to solve our dilemma. bobbo 16:35, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I've uploaded a recent concert picture. [1] Could do in lieu of anything better. Trikeabout (talk) 13:48, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Blasko needs a photo, her article looks "stingy" without one, can't we use a publicity shot? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.255.2.155 (talk) 02:43, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Stupid Comment

Sarah Blasko is HOT Any credible sources to back that up? ;)

Covers

Anyone know of any other covers she's done? i added Gooodbye Yellow Brick road Hallelujah.

I have conferred with artist management and there is no record of Sarah ever performing 'Hallelujah'. Where did you get this information?

As far as I'm concerned I'll take your word for it. One thing I should point out is that material in Wikipedia should not only be true, but verifiably so by already having been published in a reliable source somewhere else. So, for instance, if you happen to know from personal contact with Sarah that hasn't been disclosed publicly (say, hypothetically, that Sarah gets very nervous before appearing on stage), we can't really add it in without it having being published elsewhere (say, on her personal website, or in a newspaper or magazine article). But that also means that if you see something in the article you believe is wrong that is unreferenced, feel free to remove that material. See Wikipedia:Biographies of living people, Wikipedia:Autobiography, and Wikipedia:Reliable sources--Robert Merkel 22:39, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Flametreesblasko.jpg

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

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

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 09:48, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Sarahblas.jpg

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

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

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 22:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• Fair Use Rational added for both Dan arndt 00:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

POV Template

Having read well over a hundred artist profiles, I don't find this one any less neutral than the average write-up. It certainly would be helpful to know what is objectionable, that is, potentially in violation of WP:POV. These profiles are not critiques that require balanced pro and con presentations. They just shouldn't be overly glowing and thereby nothing more than puff pieces. I'll scour the article for non-neutral language. Meanwhile, the only major issue here is the lack of citations. Allreet (talk) 01:43, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I've read the entire article and find nothing in particular that needs to be changed. In fact, it's a fairly decent account of the artist's career, meaning objective, even-handed and apparently complete. Since nobody at all has chimed in with a complaint, I believe it's fair to remove the template. If anyone has an objection, feel free to restore it. Thanks. Allreet (talk) 01:59, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Links to myspace and promotional sites in body text

Are not appropriate for wikipedia articles. This article needs a lot of work -- clearly she is a notable australian singer but this is written like the cruft-filled promotional effort of a non-notable person. Trying to get more "myspace" links into this article is not the way to improve it, believe me. Anyone interest in all ths read the manual of style and for good measure WP:V WP:RS WP:WEIGHT and for good measure on how editing disputes are handled WP:BRD.Bali ultimate (talk) 15:49, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Reversion of Acquiesce link

Mind telling me where the appropriate place to send people to where they can hear Blaskos early work in Acquiesce is then? There is no Wiki article to link to. I'm not using it as a reference so it's not contravening WP:RS. It's not a source, but an external link to avoid a redlink.--Benson Verazzano (talk) 15:50, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

It's a hot link to a promotional site in body text. Pretty much not allowed here. Another page for you to read is on what wikipedia is not.Bali ultimate (talk) 15:51, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

It's not a promotional site. Acquiesce do not exist and there's nothing for sale. What is it promoting again? it's a site which has Blasko's early music on it and would be of interest to those reading the article. --Benson Verazzano (talk) 15:54, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

It's an external website that isn't a reliable source, with unverifiable information, about a topic of unestablished notability. Doesn't the fact that we have an automated script (the "bot" that you just reverted) to remove your attempted edit tell you that you might be a little out of step with community norms here and should educate yourself further before escalating this dispute further?Bali ultimate (talk) 15:58, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

What's not notable? Blasko? Blasko's notable. Acquiesce is her work. You say it's not reliable? USE YOUR EARS. It's her freaking voice. Also what is the point for removing the reference to a singers vocals??? But leaving in her songwriting/production. The "by whom?" query after "known" is rude. it is self evident that if she meets the notability requirements, then those to whom she is notable to are the "whom". She's a singer - songwriter. Her voice is possibly more important than anything else. She's certainly not known for her cricket playing is she?--Benson Verazzano (talk) 16:01, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Bali would you prefer it read Blasko is known by some people somewhere for something, but Bali won't let us say what it is. Is that what you'd like?--Benson Verazzano (talk) 16:04, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

(after ec) Look, if you're not interested in reading and talking on board our sourcing policies, i c an't really help you. that her vocals are "unique" (a rather dubious claim for an encyclopedia, nothwithstanding such claims are common in liners notes) is a matter of someone's opinion. Your opinion? Of no value on wikipedia. Some reliable source that has described her as such? Ok, that could supply a citation and source for this claim -- though probably more like "tktkt been described as unique by music critic so and so." And no, the fact that Blasko is notable by wikipedia's standards (she really is) does not therefore mean we hotlink to an external myspace page of some non-notable band (or even a notable one -- we wouldn't hotlink to midnight oil's myspace page either). Well, i've said more than i should. I really urge you to read and take on board our policies here before carrying on editing.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:05, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

You're missing the point. The "some band" is Blasko's work. If she is notable, the link is notable. It's her singing, and songwriting. What about that aren't you understanding? The band aren't promoting anything. They don't exist. Blasko segued from Acquiesce into her solo work. It's a continuation of the same artist. As such it's a point of interest, not a reference or a promotion.--Benson Verazzano (talk) 16:11, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

re. singing, I left out "unique" as a compromise, but to be honest, removing a singers singing from the reason they are notable is plainly ludicrous. --Benson Verazzano (talk) 16:13, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

• Back to the matter at hand: does Acquiesce have a website other than the MySpace page? —C.Fred (talk) 16:28, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the main artist of Acquiesce has a website: www.sarahblasko.com I do not understand what is so hard to understand about this. Additionally the Hugh Wilson website link keeps getting removed with the Acquiesce link. Why?--Benson Verazzano (talk) 16:35, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

And what was wrong with the reference I cited???? It's a public personal anecdote from a third party--Benson Verazzano (talk) 16:40, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Personal anecdotes and other first-person accounts are generally not reliable; articles by neutral journalists generally are. —C.Fred (talk) 16:46, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

"Generally" implies exceptions exist. The comments below back up his story. There are no media articles that I can find, as is often the case in trying to find online references for Australian artists prior to a certain date. Why are we insisting on keeping LESS helpful information, rather than more? The myspace links to Blasko's music unavailable anywhere else. The article backs up the fact that that music existed. It also shows at least one person remembered her for her "unique voice". --Benson Verazzano (talk) 16:55, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Also, if there is an official website available, then the MySpace page is not needed. —C.Fred (talk) 16:48, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Her official website covers her Sarah Blasko work, not her Acquiesce work--Benson Verazzano (talk) 16:55, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

(Rereads WP:EL.) It's more complicated than that. The question is, is the Acquiesce MySpace page (1) official and (2) of the article's subject? Since Acquiesce does not have a page, and since Blasko is covered at the page, I think (2) is satisfied. Is there any evidence that the page isn't official? —C.Fred (talk) 16:51, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

There's no "official" anything of Acquiesce. They no longer exist. Did you even listen to the music? It's inarguably Blasko. Since when is reliability only what you can read, not what you can hear. Plus it's supported by the webblog I posted, which you're deeming inadmissible. Are we trying to help educate people or are we trying to keep people in the dark? Leave in the reference, and the audio link. It showcases some beautiful Blasko singing you cannot find anywhere else. It's NOT for sale, it's NOT a promotion. It's HISTORY.--Benson Verazzano (talk) 16:55, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Since the MySpace page is not official, it violates WP:EL guidelines—and potentially WP:Copyrights since their music is available there. The link has been removed as an external link to be avoided. —C.Fred (talk) 16:58, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

No, it doesn't violate it, as there's no official site available. Also, the music is NOT available there, it's streaming only. You can hear it, not download it. As such there's no copyright issue. --Benson Verazzano (talk) 17:01, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I read WP: EL and the links fit the criteria -

What to link

There are several things that should be considered when adding an external link. Is the site content accessible to the reader? YES

Is the site content proper in the context of the article (useful, tasteful, informative, factual, etc.)? YES

Is the link functional and likely to remain functional? YES

Wikipedia articles about any organization, person, web site, or other entity should link to the subject's official site, if any. OFFICIAL SITE UNAVAILABLE

An article about a book, a musical score, or some other media should link to a site hosting a copy of the work if none of the "Links normally to be avoided" criteria apply. THE LINK IS TO A SITE HOSTING AUDIO

Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail DOESN'T APPLY--Benson Verazzano (talk) 17:00, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

It's also specifically prohibited by the WP:ELNO section: "Except for a link to an official page of the article's subject—and not prohibited by restrictions on linking—one should avoid:... 10. Links to social networking sites (such as MySpace and Facebook)."^{[emphasis added]} As noted above, the page is not official.

The "restrictions on linking" text points to WP:ELNEVER: "Linking to websites that display copyrighted works is acceptable as long as the website has licensed the work. Knowingly directing others to material that violates copyright may be considered contributory infringement. If you know that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work. Linking to a page that illegally distributes someone else's work sheds a bad light on Wikipedia and its editors. This is particularly relevant when linking to sites such as YouTube, where due care should be taken to avoid linking to material that violates its creator's copyright."^{[emphasis added]} Since it's an unofficial page, there's nothing to indicate the use of the songs is licensed. —C.Fred (talk) 17:06, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

So how do you propose educating readers as to her early work? --Benson Verazzano (talk) 17:10, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Prose discussion of her early work, including citations of reviews and other independent coverage—the same as should be done for any other subject. —C.Fred (talk) 17:21, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

(EC)Readers have already been informed she was in this band in the "Early Life" section. If they want to find out more about this band, they can Google it themselves. There's no need to add an unofficial link to a MySpace page for a non-notable band to a wikipedia page. Dayewalker (talk) 17:24, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

American accent?

Does anyone know why she gives me the impression of having such a strong US accent when singing? She sounds like a blend of Amy Macdonald and a (bit younger) Suzanne Vega to me...and the latter IS of US origin (Santa Monica CA to be exact). -andy 92.229.144.27 (talk) 16:46, 22 August 2009 (UTC)