Talk:Emmelie de Forest

I have yet again removed objectionable material from this biography. Do not reinsert.

 * Crossposted to User talk:Trofobi

Trofobi, text about Emmelie de F's supposed "promotion" of herself as a descendant of Queen Victoria has already been removed several times from the article for reasons related to Wikipedia's policy regarding biographies of living persons, and the earlier times it wasn't even as offensively phrased as the text you have added. I presume you weren't aware of that and meant no harm, but if you study the article history and the talkpage, you will see it. I have blocked one person over this issue; please read my warnings and block message to that user here:, as I'm getting a little tired of repeating the arguments. I'm sure you meant no harm, but don't reinsert the material. I don't have time now, but tomorrow I will look more carefully at the sources for E de F's involvement in the "nazi uniforms" issue; at a glance they look unimpressive, so I've temporarily removed that paragraph as well as the "Queen Victoria" one. I may reinsert the second paragraph tomorrow, if I'm satisfied with the sources on a closer look. Sorry to come on so strong, but Wikipedia isn't in the business of harming the subjects of biographical articles. Bishonen &#124; talk 23:52, 20 May 2013 (UTC).
 * Then better read the sources before you remove harmless fun (self-redacted due to misunderstandings as I am not a native speaker) facts. The old discussion has been about bad blog sources (what I would have removed/replaced, too) and 3RR. So please stop (really sorry for this word, ), this is not about a criminal charge or anything near that! Pls watch this. Feel free to reword the facts if you have better phrasing - this is WP! --Trofobi (talk) 07:20, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The contented material is this:
 * == Genealogy & wardrobe mishaps ==
 * Prior to the ESC semifinals de Forest had promoted herself to be related to Maurice Arnold de Forest and a great-granddaughter of British Queen Victoria as her paternal grandfather would be an illegitimate child of Edward VII and an Austrian princess.  This marketing gag has been dropped when DR (Danmarks Radio) investigated the case and didn't find any sources for those claims.
 * The uniforms chosen for the two drummers performing Only Teardrops on the ESC stages turned out to be replicas of Nazi SS uniforms that had earlier been used in a DR TV series. All footage of the first stage appearance has consequently been altered by pixelating the Nazi symbols. DR released statements expressing regret and changed the jackets as of the following gigs.
 * I think it is fairly objective and with acceptable sources. I think the first item (genealogy) should be re-inserted as being sufficiently notable. I personally don't think the second item (wardrobe) is notable.--Nø (talk) 14:16, 21 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Trofobi, I suggest you read the box at the top of this talkpage, especially this bit: "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page". (My bolding.) If you think that refers only to criminal charges and similar, I can only direct you — again — to the policy regarding biographies of living persons. Try to cultivate a little empathy with the living person who's the subject of the article. I had only skimmed the unimpressive sources for the nazi uniform debacle, since it was the middle of the night in my timezone when my attention was drawn to your edits, but I offered to reread them later. Now I have, and there is nothing in them that suggests any personal responsibility on the part of Emmelie for any part of the incident, in fact it's only tenuously connected with her at all. I have now pending changes protected the article, so that anybody who tries to add any kind of defamatory "harmless fun facts" in the future will have to have their edit approved by a reviewer before it goes live.


 * @Nø, after edit conflict: it's not notable, and it's not remotely objective. She had promoted herself? As a marketing gag? The tone of this text was less objective, and more nasty and sneering, than the text another user is currently blocked over, and I see no support in any of the sources for the notion that the genealogy thing was a "marketing gag" by Emmelie. Two footnotes were offered for it. This is completely irrelevant, I don't know what it was doing there. This states that there was great interest in the Danish media about Emmelie's supposed royal lineage, but the genealogist DR employed were unable to confirm it, and that Emmelie was brought up to believe she was the great grandchild of British Queen Victoria and was surprised to learn that the claims couldn't be confirmed. The Danish media sources that were cited earlier also didn't confirm the accusations of any marketing gag by Emmelie. Bishonen &#124; talk 15:30, 21 May 2013 (UTC).


 * I agree with Bishonen's assessment. From reading the sources, it seems that this so-called uniform controversy is, at best, only trivially related to De Forest. It certainly isn't significant enough to pass WP:UNDUE. Although her genealogy is notable enough to be covered in numerous sources, the presentation here was extremely poor -- and certainly not "harmless." The ideas of self-promotion and a "marketing gag" are neither supported by sources nor neutral point-of-view. I think the most that can be written about this is something along the lines of:
 * According to De Forest, she was raised with the understanding that she descends from an illegitimate child of Edward VII, which would make her the great-granddaughter of Queen Victoria. Danmarks Radio used the story of her royal ancestry in its promotion of the Danish Melody Grand Prix, but prior to the Eurovision contest, it determined the claim could not be confirmed. 
 * Any "fun fact", if it is included, must still conform to our rules for biographies of living persons -- i.e. written conservatively and with proper editorial judgement. Any deviation from that rule and the text should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. — Cactus Writer (talk) 17:47, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * So now we have some qualified discussion instead of namecalling :-)
 * My pesonal view is still that the genealogy thing should be included - CactusWriter's suggested text looks good, even if (s)he doesn't think it's notable. A large portion of the media coverage of Emmelie (especially up to the contest in Malmö) mentions the claim.--Nø (talk) 18:07, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * But that is the point here, it is only a claim. There is no proof to back-up this allegation, and therefore we could be publishing incorrect information regarding a living person.  To put it bluntly, would you like it if people started to publicise information about yourself based on internet hearsay, that are not factually correct?  Look at it from that perspective, and then maybe you may understand why we need to be cautious about what we write when it comes to living people.   Wesley ♦ Mouse  18:11, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Wesley Mouse, I agree with you that a cautious approach is required for BLPs. No doubt about it. However, I can't quite figure out your initial comment. And I did read it a few times. Could you please explain what you mean by "There is no proof to back-up this allegation?" What specifically do you consider the "allegation" and what specifically is the "incorrect information" -- each in regard to the two sentences of text that I wrote. (See the italicized text in my previous comment above). Thanks. — Cactus Writer (talk) 20:01, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the misunderstanding when I said "proof". What I meant was yes there are sources which you have included above, but we don't know 100% if what the sources are reporting are 100% accurate, or if the websites have publicised liable material purely for promotional purposes, or whatever reason(s).  For example, if I worked for a newspaper etc, I could easily publish a report and say "CactusWriter has royal heritage and this will be an advantage for him to win at the 2013 Eurovision Song Contest".  But I don't know if you really do have royal heritage.  Only you would know of that!  And if you were to have read such reports on the internet, which were also spreading like wildfire across other mediums such as Wikipedia - then no doubt you would feel hurt personally.  As Emmelie hasn't confirmed herself via official sources that she has such royal connections, then we shouldn't be engaging in the media Chinese whispers and making a situation more worse than it needs to be at this present time.   Wesley ♦ Mouse  20:19, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * But that is the point here, it is only a claim. There is no proof to back-up this allegation, and therefore we could be publishing incorrect information regarding a living person.  To put it bluntly, would you like it if people started to publicise information about yourself based on internet hearsay, that are not factually correct?  Look at it from that perspective, and then maybe you may understand why we need to be cautious about what we write when it comes to living people.   Wesley ♦ Mouse  18:11, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Wesley Mouse, I agree with you that a cautious approach is required for BLPs. No doubt about it. However, I can't quite figure out your initial comment. And I did read it a few times. Could you please explain what you mean by "There is no proof to back-up this allegation?" What specifically do you consider the "allegation" and what specifically is the "incorrect information" -- each in regard to the two sentences of text that I wrote. (See the italicized text in my previous comment above). Thanks. — Cactus Writer (talk) 20:01, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the misunderstanding when I said "proof". What I meant was yes there are sources which you have included above, but we don't know 100% if what the sources are reporting are 100% accurate, or if the websites have publicised liable material purely for promotional purposes, or whatever reason(s).  For example, if I worked for a newspaper etc, I could easily publish a report and say "CactusWriter has royal heritage and this will be an advantage for him to win at the 2013 Eurovision Song Contest".  But I don't know if you really do have royal heritage.  Only you would know of that!  And if you were to have read such reports on the internet, which were also spreading like wildfire across other mediums such as Wikipedia - then no doubt you would feel hurt personally.  As Emmelie hasn't confirmed herself via official sources that she has such royal connections, then we shouldn't be engaging in the media Chinese whispers and making a situation more worse than it needs to be at this present time.   Wesley ♦ Mouse  20:19, 21 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Okay, I appreciate you further explaining your position, Wesley -- although, I'm afraid that it only raises more questions for me. I believe you are confusing the difference between publishing an unconfirmed claim that a person makes as fact (which would be wrong), with publishing confirmation that a person believes a specific claim (which is fine, so long as it also passes our other guidelines, e.g. undue weight and significance.) Perhaps you haven't read the sources -- but your statement that "Emmelie hasn't confirmed herself via official sources that she has such royal connections" is wrong. You also seem to state that because major news organizations can sometimes be fallible, that they are not useful independent reliable sources. If that were the case, then all articles about pop culture events, like the Eurovision contest, should be eliminated from Wikipedia -- because they depend almost entirely upon news sources. However, I doubt that was what you were trying to say. So I'll further explain my thinking on the De Forest lineage issue:
 * 1) De Forest confirmed in reliable sources that she and her family believe that they are direct descendants of Queen Victoria. The source I included shows her own quoted statements in this Berlingske Tidende newspaper article (I'm sure that you are aware, the Berlingske Tidende is a good independent reliable source -- similar to the New York Times in the US or London Times in GB. I don't know how well you read Danish, so, if you prefer you could hear De Forest make a brief statement in English about the issue during this press interview.)
 * 2.) The Danish Melody Grand Prix used the information to promote De Forest during the national competition because, as they stated, it was a "farverig sidehistorie" (colorful side story); then hired a genealogist to investigate it after she won the national competition; and dropped it as a marketing tool prior to the international Eurovision contest when the genealogist could not confirm the family story. The source I included which explains this is this article titled "Blue Blood Shall Not Market Emmelie" at DR -- DR is a reliable source on par with NPR News in the US or BBC News in the UK. (For those who only read English, I also included a link to this essay, which, I realize, is only a glorified blog, but I think it did a decent job explaining the facts that I had found in various sources.)
 * So... those are facts. And they meet WP verification criteria. (Not the actual lineage, mind you -- but only her belief about it and the coverage of it during the national competition.) Her lineage received some major press coverage in Denmark (most every newspaper and tv sources ran a story), it received some very minor mentions in the UK (BBC london Telegraph), and practically nothing elsewhere. So, IMO, the only issue becomes whether or not the story is significant enough to include in this small biography. Does that make sense? — Cactus Writer (talk) 01:36, 22 May 2013 (UTC)


 * @CactusWriter: I rather like your two lines, please feel free to add them if you like, as far as I'm concerned. As long as we keep the Pending Changes (2) protection + preferably also the rather in-your-face edit notice that I have now added to the article (only seen in edit mode), it should be fine. Without those props, I would think your version too likely to draw more of the kinds of thoughtless attacks the article has already experienced. Bishonen &#124; talk 20:39, 21 May 2013 (UTC).
 * Okay, Bishonen. Given the recent volatile history of this article, I think your semi-protection & notice were good ideas. But I will wait to add the two lines until WesleyMouse responds above because they might still have questions about sourcing or wording. — Cactus Writer (talk) 01:36, 22 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Do you mean the edit notice which reads "Attention, editors and reviewers! WP:BLP violations concerning Emmelie de Forest's purportedly royal lineage have been repeatedly posted to this article. The matter is hardly notable in itself, and no sources offered so far have supported claims that the subject of the article deliberately spread the rumours about her descent as a publicity stunt. Reviewers, please look out for this."? If so, then I too can see it.  And yes, the pending changes protection should do the job too, as I have reviewer rights, and thus can handle with any pending changes that crop up.   Wesley ♦ Mouse  20:55, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, everybody can see it in edit mode, or it wouldn't be much good. I kind of slipped away from speaking to just Cactus there, sorry if that made it unclear. That was your good idea about pending changes, WM (on my page); I appreciate it. Did you notice that I actually put in the rare and officially not-quite-existing Pending Changes 2? That necessitates review of edits by autoconfirmed users as well as IPs. PC 1, which only affects IPs and very new users, wouldn't have helped here, where all the disruption has been coming from autoconfirmed users. Bishonen &#124; talk 21:07, 21 May 2013 (UTC).

Feel free to call me Wes if you like, I don't mind. And yes, I had noticed PC2 rather than PC1, which is what I was thinking about when I suggested to you earlier - you must have read my mind :-D I need to motivate myself to improve a few Eurovision-related articles, but my vavavoom has vavagone. LOL Wesley ♦ Mouse  21:20, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Could someone please explain, which part of BLP exactly you think is violated here. These are both just things that have been said and done by EdF herself and/or her own management/promoter. Certainly they can be worded better than I did, like CactusWriter did above. --Trofobi (talk) 22:03, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * What I have a hard time understanding is why it seem to be so important for certain individuals to have this "scandal" included in the article? It is not a big deal, and there are not at present any good sources for either confirmation of her ancestry or if she is wrong. And if she is wrong it is still not something we should add on Wikipedia as it has no relevance to her bio as it is simple PR from a singer or a mistake by a young person who has heard stories from her family and relatives. Wikipedia should not be used to trash singer or people in general.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:14, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Please answer my question, then I'll answer yours. --Trofobi (talk) 22:59, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * You seem to misunderstand what has been said here. It doesnt matter what part of BLP is violated, the information you are refering to again and again does not belong on Emmelies article. There is no point in adding it as it will only insult a young singer. And the "scandal" is not relevant or even sourced with sufficient sources at this time. --BabbaQ (talk) 23:25, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * @Trofobi. As was previously explained to you by Bishonen, the reason your edits were removed was because they were poorly sourced and contentious. You presented the text as if there were some scandals (there were none); you wrote it in a non-neutral manner, stating this individual used self-promotion and a "marketing gag" (these are negatively biased terms and unsupported and, in fact, contradicted by reliable sources); you included a uniform "controversy" (something only tangentially related to De Forest which fails undue weight policy.) All of these violate our guidelines for Biographies of living Persons. The reason my proposed text (in italics above) is supported by Bishonen and others is because it is neutrally worded and limited to facts in the cited independent reliable sources. However, I am holding off adding it until we conclude this discussion. I suggest it would be helpful for you to review the BLP policy page. Of particular importance are the concepts of balance and tone -- and that all material must be presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone. — Cactus Writer (talk) 01:56, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think there are any BLP issues left in this discussion at this point. I think we have consensus on CactusWriter's wording, which is responsible, conservative and disinterested. What remains to be agreed upon is the question of notability or due weight. Seen from Denmark, it was quite significant in the media coverage before the victory, and hence it is included in the Dansih wp article. I have seen international media coverage too, but I can't judge if it is significant enough to be included in the English article.--Nø (talk) 08:02, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Okay, per agreement here, I have inserted the proposed text concerning the "lineage story." The page will remain semi-protected with the edit notice at this time to inhibit further BLP issues. I hope this discussion can now be considered closed. — Cactus Writer (talk) 03:30, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Fine. Had prepared a longer answer & proposals for consensus, nice that most of it is now osolete. Just this: I never said this would be a scandal, as it is not, not at all. The only "scandal" is some people erasing informations that are well sourced & relevant, because of a misunderstanding of "protecting" a beloved artist while instead increasing the Streisand effect by inappropriately blocking all information about it. --Trofobi (talk) 06:16, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Good work cactus, this is a good solution to the dispute. Like it as it is neutral and does not blame this young singer. To Trofobi, stop digging your own grave any deeper and move on. The version that you wanted that trashed this singer is gone. BabbaQ (talk) 17:49, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be appropriate to remove the edit notice, Template:Editnotices/Page/Emmelie de Forest, at this point? (It expires july 1st.)--Nø (talk) 16:00, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Why this rush? Just let it run its course and then it will be over with. --BabbaQ (talk) 16:54, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Well the notice text seems to indicate that this should not be in the article at all - and now it is, by concensus.--Nø (talk) 06:40, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I've changed the edit notice to clarify that. It should be good enough until it expires. — Cactus Writer (talk) 16:07, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 one external links on Emmelie de Forest. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130508175620/http://www.dr.dk:80/P4/Ugens_album/2013/emmelie-de-forest-only-teardrops.htm to http://www.dr.dk/P4/Ugens_album/2013/emmelie-de-forest-only-teardrops.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140308151613/http://danishcharts.com/showinterpret.asp?interpret=Emmelie+de+Forest to http://www.danishcharts.com/showinterpret.asp?interpret=Emmelie+de+Forest
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131016035731/http://australian-charts.com/showinterpret.asp?interpret=Emmelie+de+Forest to http://australian-charts.com/showinterpret.asp?interpret=Emmelie+de+Forest
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130915035503/http://austriancharts.at/showinterpret.asp?interpret=Emmelie+de+Forest to http://austriancharts.at/showinterpret.asp?interpret=Emmelie+de+Forest
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131104214640/http://irish-charts.com/showinterpret.asp?interpret=Emmelie+de+Forest to http://irish-charts.com/showinterpret.asp?interpret=Emmelie+de+Forest
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140928165928/http://dutchcharts.nl/showinterpret.asp?interpret=Emmelie+de+Forest to http://dutchcharts.nl/showinterpret.asp?interpret=Emmelie+de+Forest
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130919011937/http://swisscharts.com/artist/Emmelie_de_Forest to http://www.swisscharts.com/artist/Emmelie_de_Forest

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:33, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Emmelie de Forest. 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.dr.dk/P4/Ugens_album/2013/emmelie-de-forest-only-teardrops.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130420175547/http://deforest.dk/ to http://www.deforest.dk/

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:51, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Emmelie de Forest. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130516061935/http://www.eurovision.tv/page/multimedia/videos?id=78723 to http://www.eurovision.tv/page/multimedia/videos?id=78723

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:55, 20 September 2017 (UTC)