Talk:Emmelie de Forest

Edward VII

Is she the author of the claim that Maurice de Forest was Edward VII's son, or did she borrow it from someone else? СЛУЖБА (talk) 22:44, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Just leave it. It has been discussed and solved already here on the articles talk page and it has been decided that no mention of this "claim" will be stated in the article. regards,--BabbaQ (talk) 23:33, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

I can't find the "decision". СЛУЖБА (talk) 23:44, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Emmelie_de_Forest/Archive_1 --[[ axg ◉ talk ]] 23:47, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Doesn't look like consensus, though. Only a couple of users. --89.27.36.41 (talk) 00:50, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I read it from top to bottom but can't find the "decision". СЛУЖБА (talk) 01:11, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Then read it again. It is all there. You are not a friend of Vinson wese by any chance?.--BabbaQ (talk) 01:17, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Not, but would deem it an honour to be. СЛУЖБА (talk) 02:06, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Most famous imposter in history.

Eurovision has a new winner each year, but this person will most likely become the most famous imposter in history for years to come, surpassing Anna Anderson. СЛУЖБА (talk) 01:13, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

You calling Emmelie an imposter is not only rude but also utterly baseless.--BabbaQ (talk) 01:15, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't see this thread having anything to do with discussion improvements to the article. Wikipedia talk pages are not forums. --[[ axg ◉ talk ]] 01:20, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Do You think that now that she won Eurovision her claims can be totally avoided in the article? СЛУЖБА (talk) 02:08, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Oh, sure. A person starting to call herself a descendant of Edward VII coinciding with the beginning of her Eurovision bid, a century after Edward VII's death, while her claimed rich and famous "relatives" never made such a claim, is, of course, someone else, not an imposter... СЛУЖБА (talk)

Wikipedia is not the place to add possible claims or making a big deal of possible marketing strategies by a record label and a young singer. We do not use Wikipedia to trash young singers,actors or anyone else for that matter. It seems your comments above labelling her as an "imposter" is quite telling of the users that wants this to be added, it is simply not nice wanting to trash a singer especially out of spite for the fact that Ukraine did not win as it seems in your case. Its only a music competition not world politics. Regards,--BabbaQ (talk) 10:09, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't care about Ukraine and I don't have a relation to it. I'm a monarchist, have some Royal relatives and am one of first Russian genetic genealogists. That's why I care about the matter. СЛУЖБА (talk) 21:19, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

It seems odd not to mention this claim in the article at all, as it was covered by many media. But of course, it should be covered here in a neutral tone, and the heading of this talk section suggests its originator is not the right person to do so.--Nø (talk) 11:26, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

If you look at the discussion that has been archived it becomes quite apparent that no mention of this claim is most appropriate. It has no relevance until it has been finally confirmed or unconfirmed until then it will only be speculation and will lead to more never ending discussions. But you are right about the fact that if this would ever be added again in the future the user mentioning it here should not be the one adding it. --BabbaQ (talk) 11:30, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

OK, I looked at the discussion, and I don't see anyone reaching a sensible argued consensus on anything, just mutual accusations of POV edits and the like (quite possibly true accusations on both sides, though I haven't checked revision histories). However, I've thought a bit more about it, and I guess that while the media story about her ancestry is notable enough to warrent a mention, we need to locate a proper reliable secondary source (not necessarily about her ancestry, but about the media story) to include it.--Nø (talk) 15:21, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Any media coverage of her in any large media outlet contains a large portion of it that would fit. СЛУЖБА (talk) 21:33, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Excuse me, but if You look through media coverage of her, You'll notice that she "being a descendant of Edward VII" is almost all that is being said of her (declared to be solid fact, by the way). Also, You seem to be totally unfamiliar with abilities to differentiate realistic royal connections from outward hoaxes. СЛУЖБА (talk) 21:30, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't have time to do it anyway, but do You want to say that she's not an "imposter"? СЛУЖБА (talk) 21:22, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Image

Just thought I'll start something about the infobox image, the original image is on the left, and I replaced that with the one on the right (surprise surprise), but got reverted by Jjj1238 (talk · contribs) with: "better picture".

• 
• 

Which one should be used? --[[ axg ◉ talk ]] 22:48, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

She's making a strange face in the one you posted and in the original image, she shows the trophy, which makes it a better image. Jjj1238 (talk) 00:22, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

1. I see nothing strange about her face in the right-hand picture.

2. This article's subject is Emmelie de Forest, not specifically her participation in the Eurovision Song Contest. The latter obviously is a major focus, and the photograph containing the trophy would be an excellent replacement for the left-hand image currently appearing in the "Music career" section (particularly given the fact that she's facing right instead of left). —David Levy 01:19, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

"PR-action", "proved false"

Russian Wikipedia: "PR-action", "proved false". twitter.com/YOMALSIDOROFF (talk) 22:55, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

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:[1][2][3], 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 | talk 23:52, 20 May 2013 (UTC).

Then better read the sources before you remove harmless fun facts. The old discussion has been about bad blog sources (what I would have removed/replaced, too) and 3RR. So please stop being hysterical, 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 | 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.

Seeberg, Keenan (Janusry 21, 2013). "Sådan hænger Emmelies royale aner sammen". Berlingske Tidende (in Danish). Retrieved 5-21-2013. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= and |date= (help)

Jensen, Charlotte (April 16, 2013). "Is Emmelie de Forest royal or not? Researchers disagree". Eurovisionary. eurovisionary.com. Retrieved 5-21-2013. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)

Blyberg, Søren (April 16, 2013). "Blåt blod skal ikke markedsføre Emmelie" (in Danish). Danmarks Radio. Retrieved 5-21-2013. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)

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. — CactusWriter ^(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. — CactusWriter ^(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)

@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 | talk 20:39, 21 May 2013 (UTC).