Talk:Tanita Tikaram

Orientation
This article is included in the category for lesbian musicians, yet there is no reference to this in the article. It's not uncommon for people to be listed in bad faith, so if no one can provide a source to confirm this, I recommend the category entry be deleted. 23skidoo 18:52, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, I think that was me, and it wasn't in bad faith -- it's been widely assumed for a long time e.g., though I can't find her saying so in an interview. In this 1995 article she avoids the question, but asserts she's in love for the first time -- refusing to identify with whom as "they'd kill me". Anyway, I was going to start adding a bit more to this article, anyway, so I'll come up with some wording to handle that. --Dhartung | Talk 08:06, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * The lack of a reference was what made me a little suspicious, but if you're adding more, that's great! 23skidoo 08:21, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

It's been several months since my previous query on this issue and I see nothing has been added yet. The "avoid the question" issue isn't really proof. I'm going to be bold and remove it for now. If a source can be located to affirm this is true, then by all means put it back (with source). For my part I've been a fan of her's for distressingly close to 20 years now and I've never heard one way or the other.23skidoo 02:23, 1 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry but I have to disagree with this. What is the evidence that she's heterosexual? I've seen none but quite a bit that she's a lesbian. The phrase bad faith tells a lot; it's interesting that you didn't say "in error" which would have been more neutral way to frame the issue. And why is it that without strong evidence, she is assumed to be heterosexual? This is classic heternormativity: it the absence of clear evidence to the contrary, we'll all considered either heterosexual or asexual. Not fair, not Wiki, not consistent with the WikiProject Countering Systemic Bias Why is it "bad faith" to list someone as a queer? This clearly assumes that being queer is something stigmatizing and that one should only be so categorized if there is irrefutable evidence for this. Otherwise, such a categoriziation is done in "bad faith," something apparently almost libelous. I don't accept this at all.


 * There's some flexibility in these tags. For example, is TS Eliot an American or a British poet? Or both? Mira Nair, an Indian or an American filmmaker? Or both? Heterosexuals do no not use the plural pronoun "they" when talking about their lovers, but this is a common, and understandable, thing for queers to do. That is considerable evidence that's she queer. Removing the Lesbian tag unless there is "proof" is holding queer people to a different standard than straight people. In matters of citizenship, say for Eliot or Nair, do we require proof in the form of a birth certificate, or do we rely on general consensus in many cases?


 * When listing someone as African American, there are a number of criteria: popular perception, statements in interviews, etc. We should as willing to entertain a plurality of evidence here. If someone is called a "cowboy singer" do we require proof that he actually worked as a cowboy? No, we're satisfied if he has an audience that considers him a singer in the cowboy genre. And today, when I was trying to find this article, I relied on the category Lesbian Musicians since lesbian friends had told me about her (as a lesbian musician) and the search took MUCH longer because she was not included in the category. Her fans consider her a lesbian, in her statements she's used language (the pronoun) used by queers and not by straights. And since there is no stigma, no "bad faith," in listing such a person as a lesbian, she should be included. According to non-heteronormative standards, The burden of proof lies with those who insist she's straight.


 * With all respect, I'm going to restore the Lesbian Musican category as, applying Okham's Razor, it is the most parsimonious explanation of the evidence we have AND it makes Wiki searches much more efficient. The evidence favors the Lesbian Musican category. I will encourage its removal when the evidence for her heterosexuality outweighs the evidence for her homosexuality. This is good faith.Interlingua
 * The burden of proof under non-ideological standards lies with the one making a claim not with the one who doesn't accept it. Nobody was ever insisting that she is heterosexual. Categories have to be justified by sourced information in the article, not by making a search shoter. Str1977 (talk) 08:53, 9 January 2022 (UTC)


 * But my point is there is nothing in the article that says she is gay or bi or whatever. If there is evidence then put verifiable information indicating this in the article. Don't put it on the talk page. I mean there is nothing stopping me right now from putting the Gay actors category onto Brad Pitt's page. And I could provide subjective and speculative proof up and down. But this is an encyclopedia -- if we say something we have to be able to prove it. So you say Tikaram is gay -- fine -- put the proof and a link to the proof in the article. I really suggest you take a look at WP:CITE. If fans believe she's gay, that's great -- the fact is Wikipedia is not intended for fans. It's for people who perhaps have never heard of the woman and who might see the Gay category and say "OK, so where is this referenced in the article?" It's the same rationale that killed the Gay Icons category -- people didn't put proof in the articles, so therefore the category died. There is no bias going on here and I'm offended by your implication. 23skidoo 01:04, 12 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry. I guess I misunderstood what bad faith meant. Using Okham's Razor, what might be the most parsimonious explanation for her use of a gender-neutral plural pronoun in lieu of a gendered singular pronoun in refering to a lover?Interlingua 01:26, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not objecting to the removal, for now. I still want to do a Nexis search regarding this issue. Personally, I categorized her this way years ago, but it's also clear that she is very careful what she says about her personal life. Is there a "Kevin Spacey" category? "People of deliberately indeterminate sexuality"? That might be the most accurate, but without sources we should just leave it out for now. --Dhartung | Talk 03:41, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

How about we just all mind our own business until Tikaram decides to say otherwise? Her sexuality doesn't need to be classified. Smurfmeister (talk) 12:35, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Amen to that. Toby Douglass (talk) 19:16, 30 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, Amen. But I have to say that the lyrics of her songs (described in the article as "obscure") support the assertion that Tanita is not a fan of the reproductive cycle.  "Poor Cow?"  My wife, herself a singer-songwriter, said after first listening to Ancient Heart, "God, I wonder what the bastard did to her?"  If her sexuality is not a proper topic here (fair enough), then her stance as a songwriter is.  And it is the opposite of "pro-man".  Dmforcier (talk) 00:29, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Apart from assuming such things about the woman being very heavy-handed, this all would be original research, which is not proper on Wikipedia. Str1977 (talk) 08:53, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Relationship with Ramon
I remember reading a few years back that she doesn't speak to her brother, the actor Ramon. Just wondering if anyone who knows more than I do about Tanita Tikaram wanted to add some sourced info on it? I know it's not a major thing, but it's a point of interest; quite a big thing is made on Joan Fontaine and Olivia de Havilland's pages of their feud. Smurfmeister (talk) 12:35, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Tanita Tikaram. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140222035653/http://www.rottentomatoes.com/celebrity/tanita_tikaram/biography.php to http://www.rottentomatoes.com/celebrity/tanita_tikaram/biography.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 02:30, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Nationality?
There is no biographical info at http://www.tanita-tikaram.com/, but I note that her Facebook page quotes directly from version of this article saying: "Tanita Tikaram (born 12 August 1969) is a German-born British pop/folk singer-songwriter." This source describes here as "Britsh". Martinevans123 (talk) 18:44, 23 November 2017 (UTC)


 * User:95.147.54.130 is now at 5RR at this article. Some discussion might be more productive? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:38, 23 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Pramod Tikaram, father of both Takita and her brother Ramon Tikaram, was a British Army soldier. Is there a Nationality rule for children of British Army born in other countries? Roamon is described in his article as "British", so I think this may be more appropriate for Tanita also. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:19, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Any child born on British soil i.e. British Military Hospital is born as a British Citizen no matter what Country they are living in. My daughter was born at BMH Rinteln, Germany but is British automatically as if born in Britain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flipterrier (talk • contribs) 23:11, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Orientation revived
I've removed the LGBT cats as WP:BLP - specifically WP:BLPREMOVE - is very clear: Any unsourced and challenged claims should be removed pending reliable sources to uphold them. Chaheel Riens (talk) 11:51, 9 January 2022 (UTC)


 * The above discussion took place between 2006 and 2016. In July 2017 a reference was added citing a February 2017 interview with an LGBT-oriented magazine in which Tikaram stated that she had been in a relationship with the (female) artist Natacha Horn for the previous five years. It's not online so I haven't checked it, but that sounds like a reliable source to me. In addition, while Chaheel Riens has removed Category:LGBT musicians from England, Category:LGBT singers from the United Kingdom and Category:LGBT songwriters, they have left in Category:Lesbian musicians. What exactly is the point in dispute? GrindtXX (talk) 16:11, 9 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Cat was left simply because I missed it. RM now pending further sources.  As before - BLP policy is very clear on this.  You need reliable third party sources to sustain such a claim - regardless of how old it is, or how long it's previously been in an article.  Chaheel Riens (talk) 17:21, 9 January 2022 (UTC)


 * My point about dates was simply to emphasise that the long and rather rambling discussion above took place at a time when there were no reliable sources on the matter: anything suggested was indeed speculation and WP:OR, and can be ignored for purposes of the article. Str1977 makes perfectly valid points, but was mistaken in reviving the discussion as it was long out of date. Since 2017 we have had a source: a self-declaration of sexuality by the subject herself, published in a third-party magazine. (The article is online here, but behind a paywall.) To quote from Rate Your Music (here: not in itself a reliable source, but it summarises the situation succinctly): "The singer's lesbianism was well-known among the gay community and she appeared in a mid Nineties lesbian film by Monika Treut. But Tikaram only went public about her sexuality in 2017 when, in an interview with a UK lesbian magazine, she made it known she'd been in a relationship with a woman for the last five years." If you want to debate whether Diva counts as a reliable source, or whether we need multiple sources, then fine: make that point. But to continue to claim that the matter of her sexuality is "unsourced" is simply untrue. GrindtXX (talk) 19:26, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I think your point is diluted somewhat because there's a difference between a source existing (what you seem to imply) and said source being used in this article. I have no issue at all if reliable sources can be found - but at the moment they are too thin on the ground to support the cats.
 * This is all very strange - all you have to do is reliably source the claims. If you believe the sources to exist - add them.  The only reason I appear against this is because at the moment the claim doesn't meet stringent BLP conditions.  Should you find claims that do meet them, I'll be fully supportive and defend them going forward.  Chaheel Riens (talk) 20:49, 9 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Since my name was mentioned in this. My points were valid where I posted them. I was not "mistaken in reviving the discussion" as, if you take a look at that discussion, it had been repeatedly revived before after interval of some years (2006 - 2010 - 2016). I wasn't so much arguing a point for the article but addressing the faulty reasoning back then (which could be summarised as: "I want to include her being a lesbianism and if you refuse, you are claiming she's heterosexual". and "she said "they", hence she must be a lesbian".)
 * Now, whether that lone snippet that can longer be accessed is enough to warrant those categories is another issue.
 * If we take it at face value, she could just as much be bisexual.
 * As for the "Rate Your Music" quote - if that quote is telling the truth then it shouldn't be too hard to dig up that lesbian film by Monika Treut. I'm afraid "common knowledge in the day community" is not a reliable source.
 * Another issue, is that half of her categories being focused on her sexuality. Str1977 (talk) 21:07, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Str1977: As I've already said, I entirely accept the validity of your arguments within the context of that 2006–2016 discussion, based on the evidence then available. My point is that that (rather vacuous) discussion is now superseded, and in my opinion not worth reviving again, because it has been overtaken by new evidence published in 2017. It is that 2017 evidence, the article in Diva, that we should be focusing on. It is cited in the article (footnote 8), and has been for nearly 5 years. Chaheel Riens now appears to be questioning whether it meets BLP criteria. If not, it should be removed, along with the statement it supports about Tikaram's relationship with Natacha Horn. Alternatively, if it is accepted as reliable, then it should be sufficient to support the inclusion of all four categories. The preview certainly looks promising ("For the first time ... [Tikaram] speaks openly about her sexuality"; "... what my family will say when I come out ..." etc). Just needs someone to take the plunge and pay £3.99 to check it out in full. I'm not going to. GrindtXX (talk) 22:17, 9 January 2022 (UTC)