Jump to content

Talk:Susan Boyle

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 86.12.213.180 (talk) at 16:35, 4 May 2009 (→‎Eurovision 2010: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Multidel

Template:Werdnabot

RfC: Should the Susan Boyle article include an external link to a youtube video of her 4.11.09 performance on Britains's Got Talent?

Template:RFCmedia

This has been repeatedly removed. RfC posted to garner the widest possible consensus.

It's NOT the official channel. Should the youtube video be listed as an external link? I really don't care either way. SunCreator (talk) 18:13, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On closer examination, you are correct, so I've amended the RfC accordingly. Dlabtot (talk) 19:11, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm inclined to say no. Is there a reason that a link to the actual video hosted by ITV's isn't included? AniMatetalk 18:21, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The one at ITV has adverts and thus can't be listed either. SunCreator (talk) 18:31, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So? ITV certainly isn't on any blacklist, and most external links have some sort of advertising. AniMatetalk 18:36, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is advertising and there is in your face advertising. ITV video is in your face advertising. I'd rather have a youtube link. SunCreator (talk) 18:44, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't see the problem. It is the official video, and apparently the YouTube video isn't. Who cares if the official copyright holder has a blatant advertisement on their page. Companies exist to make money. AniMatetalk 18:50, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is no prohibition with advertising. This is not a difficult question. Link to the official video. 2005 (talk) 22:08, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - So long as there is no copyright infringment involed and it is central to the whole article. Most other language wikis have the link and it only takes 2 seconds to find it via YT. --Triwbe (talk) 18:40, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment this isn't a matter of opinion, it is a matter of fact. Most of the YouTube videos have not been uploaded by the copyright holder/author, unless you can find evidence to suggest otherwise. Making it forbidden to link to as per WP:YOUTUBE and WP:COPYRIGHT. I suggest you propose any links you wish to add before adding it so they can be checked.--Otterathome (talk) 19:43, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Why does that matter? We are talking about a video that has 30 Million plus views that is referred to in most media sources for the last few days. If there is a copyright issue don't you think the video would of been removed by now? SunCreator (talk) 20:50, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Examples of major news outlets who's online site link directly to the video.
  • Support - you're telling me NYT and Washington Post have directly linked to this video in their articles, and we're on Wikipedia debating whether it's a copyright violation? -- Bubbachuck (talk) 21:46, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly support The article would be woefully inadequate without a link to the video - the single reason for her worldwide fame and notability. Clearly the copyright holders are not concerned about the widespread dissemination of this clip, as evidenced by its being used in all major and minor news outlets worldwide. This is a classic case for ignoring a too-restrictive rule that was created out of a morbid fear of litigation - a non-issue in this case (and many others, I'd add). Tvoz/talk 21:51, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose We don't link to even questionable copyvios, nor is the video integral to understanding the article and thus not needed. --MASEM (t) 22:08, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I will note that if ITV has a video clip on their site, then yes you can link to that, there's nothing wrong with linking to sites with ads. Also, since her performance was for singing, that would see that it would best to include an audio sample of her performance instead of a video file, yes?
      • This is not about the singing. The media picked it up because of the story of 'both the audience and the judges express scepticism, in contrast to her vocal performance'. You only get that from viewing the performance and not a sample of the singing. SunCreator (talk) 22:38, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, just because the "whole world" links to it does not give us the right to do so. --MASEM (t) 22:16, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • A. I'm genuinely curious about what kind of video you would consider to be more "integral to understanding" an article than in this situation. I mean, yes, you don't need to see the video to understand that SB is someone who became very famous through the viral distribution of the video, but it's hard for me to imagine a case where the video would be more key to a subject's notability. B. Since there is no readily available audio-only alternative (that I'm aware of), saying that an audio sample would be better is irrelevant in deciding whether to link to the video. Even if her performance had been on the radio and thus only audio recordings were available, it's likely the audio would be made into a video file and still be primarily hosted by YouTube, as with the Christian Bale rant. Besides, her appearance and presentation are as significant a factor in her rise to fame as her actual singing. Propaniac (talk) 22:38, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I have yet to see a case where a video is key to understanding a topic, at least to the point to bypass issue copyright. In this specific case, the present article and the supporting references do a great job describing what happens (massive audience and judge reaction moments into the performance, massive praise afterwards). You don't need video to show that. The only thing that can't be captured by this is Susan's actual singing - it's impossible to put into words, which is why an NFC audio sample would be beneficial to add to this. But not a video , either as a reference or as an EL. Now, if the video was truly legit without questions of copyright (ITV's site) that would be ok to add as extra but not necessary. A similar case is the article Pork and Beans (song) where the video was posted by Youtube officially by the band (the user's confirmed, and several sites corroborated the video's legitimacy). --MASEM (t) 23:09, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Question is there anything to support that the YouTube video is a copyvio in some way? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ched Davis (talk • contribs) 23:02, 19 April 2009
  • Strongly Support why are we even debating about this? and to the whole copyright thing, even ABC, NYT, washington post has DIRECT links to it, and this isn't really copyright; if it WERE, it would have been REMOVED by YT already... ALSO the YT VIDEO IS UPLOADED BY BRITAIN'S GOT TALENT the TV show ITSELF, so that really isn't copyright..... Messiisking (talk) 22:13, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we can say either way if this is uploaded by Britain's Got Talent or not. It's not a High quality(HD) video. Yet given the media coverage and the YT savvyness of BGT in previous years then clearly BGT are aware of the video (and the numerous copies) and are perhaps encouraging it due to the publicity it's creating. SunCreator (talk) 22:34, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Check the video. It clearly says that it is uploaded by BritainsSoTalented, which is directly affiliated with the Britain's got Talent. Messiisking (talk) 22:55, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Directly affiliated? How have you established that? SunCreator (talk) 23:00, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The Youtube link with 30+ million hits is not from the programme's official channel. As far as I know, BGT doesn't have an offfical Youtube channel. The BritainsSoTalented's channel looks remarkably different from the official X Factor Youtube channel... even though both are ITV/Talkback Thames programmes. Said video on the BritainsSoTalented channel will remain there unless ITV or Talkback Thames sends Youtube a notice for its removal. But with so many hits and dozens of media outlets linking to it regardless of its questionable copyright status, it's unlikely that ITV or TT will make such a request. --Madchester (talk) 23:08, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It could also be an offical channel made to not look like one due to conflicts with other advertisers on the offical site. This people at BGT are very media savvy and you should not be ruling out such tricks. However it's unlikely we will know until after the series is over whether this is offical or not. So copyvio can't be known either way. SunCreator (talk) 23:52, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone can make a Youtube channel and call it anything they want, it doesn't mean anything. --Susan118 (talk) 23:58, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support If it's not listed in the references section, then I think it's fine to list as WP:EL. It's the second key factor in her notability, to not list the item would be remiss in our tasks as editors. — Ched :  ?  22:31, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Feel free to link to Boyle's performance that is posted on the official Britain's Got Talent site. The programme does not have an official Youtube channel (whereas its ITV counterpart X Factor does have one) and we shouldn't be linking to outside sources that violate WP:EL. The policy states that Copyrighted material which is reproduced, without verified permission, by someone other than the copyright holder must never be linked... so unless there is an official BGT Youtube channel, we can only link to the Boyle's perfromance video from the official site. --Madchester (talk) 23:08, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment In double checking WP: Copylink, it states "...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." Now, isn't it correct to say that anyone who uploads a TV show who does not have the rights to it is violating the copyright? So it stands to reason that, unless these clips have been uploaded by someone who has the rights to the show, they violate the copyright, and therefore should not be linked. The only reason I am not actually opposing it, is that in this case it is useful to show the video since that is what she is famous for. --Susan118 (talk) 23:46, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Although, considering that, as has been noted, the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Guardian, ABC News, and the Daily Telegraph don't consider it to be a copyright violation, and the copyright holder is undoubtably aware that youtube is hosting this video, and has not filed a DMCA takedown request, the idea that it is a copyright violation seems rather far-fetched. Dlabtot (talk) 00:04, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just b/c ITV or Talkback Thames haven't issued a request for takedown does it mean that the video isn't a copyright violation. (Until recently, there were thousands of Warner Music videos that were uploaded without the label's consent, but they've all been removed since Warner and Youtube had their falling out a few months ago.) Again, X Factor (run by the same two companies listed) has its own Youtube site. That site is also linked back to the official ITV site, as well as its Facebook and MySpace pages. The BritainsSoTalented channel has none of these links to the official site(s). --Madchester (talk) 00:26, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Warner example you cite works against your argument, not for it. Dlabtot (talk) 00:28, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Putting it simply, where is the official BGT Youtube channel? There isn't one. All Warner music videos, including ones not uploaded by the label have all been removed in the last few months.
Note that when Boyle's clip was aired on the likes of Good Morning America and Larry King Live, they gave reference to FremantleMedia, the parent company of Talkback Thames. They had the permission of FremantleMedia to re-air the clip. This BritainSoTalanted channel has no said permissions or connections to any of the show's production units. --Madchester (talk) 00:39, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I seriously don't care about this issue enough to argue about it, hence the fact that I only commented and did not support or oppose. --Susan118 (talk) 00:06, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Yes, of course it should. Everyone else is doing it. The shows wants everyone to do it. The owners/producers are going to make a lot of money out of this. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 00:01, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment in the copyright violations Sure, everyone's doing it, just like everything is providing links to torrents but not actually hosting the material and getting away with it-- oh wait.... We do not want to give the copyright creators any chance to use WP as a test case. --MASEM (t)
Right. They're going to single Wikipedia out as a test case, while everyone and his uncle uses the same clip. Come on. Tvoz/talk 03:10, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP refuses to take that chance, which is why it has a strong policy against copyvios, linking to them, and non-free media. --MASEM (t) 04:12, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support I agree with Tvoz's comments at 21:51, 19 April 2009 and immediately preceding this one. I would also note that YouTube is hardly some fly-by-night website, and that it does take down videos that are challenged as infringing copyrights. Krakatoa (talk) 03:51, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Many of the objections seem to be based on a default viewpoint that the majority of YouTube videos are copyright violations, whereas I would argue that the evidence points in the other direction. Dlabtot (talk) 04:07, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The ratio of youtube vidoes that are copyright violations is not a factor. It is only the video at hand, which has yet to be proven to be an officially released video by ITV or any other copyright holders of BGT. Until that fact is shown, we have to assume the uploader is not the copyright owner. --MASEM (t) 04:12, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Again, when the clip was aired on the likes of Good Morning America and Larry King Live, they referenced FremantleMedia as the source of the clip. They received permission from BGT's parent company to replay the clip. None of the current Youtube clips have stated that they were uploaded with the consent of FremantleMedia, Talkback Thames, or ITV. While WP:IAR seems the obvious conclusion (and reasoning) for keeping the Youtube link, Wikipedia:WIARM states that we don't make blatant copyright violations, which is unfortunately the case with this clip. At the moment, neither ITV nor BGT have an official Youtube channel hosting the clip.
In this case, why don't we simply link to the video hosted on BGT's official site? It doesn't violate WP:EL as we're 100% certain that the rights holder(s) are the ones hosting the clip. I think it's the best we can do until ITV or BGT load the clip to Youtube themselves. --Madchester (talk) 04:28, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Again, those that want to keep this link , you must read WP:COPYLINK, which states: However, 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. This is policy and must be followed so the only options are 1) prove that the uploaded of that video has permission from ITV to post it (this might be possible) or 2) remove the link. --MASEM (t) 04:22, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please note the header on WP:COPYLINK which reads: This page documents an official English Wikipedia policy, a widely accepted standard that should normally be followed by all editors. Then follow the link on normally. Then move on to something else. Tvoz/talk 04:44, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Although you continue to assert that the video is a copyright violation, there appears to be an overwhelming consensus that you are wrong. Dlabtot (talk) 04:24, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No one has shown that "BritainsSoTalented" on YouTube owns or has permission to use that video. That's a copyright violation, even if ITV doesn't actively close it down or thousands of other sites link to it. --MASEM (t) 04:29, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So you've said, many times. Would you like to repeat your assertion again? Dlabtot (talk) 04:34, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We have to be 100% certain that said Youtube videos were uploaded with the consent of the show's production companies. Without an official ITV or BGT Youtube channel, we can't be for sure.
Again, I'd just link to the video on the BGT's official site as we know that the rights holders are the actual ones to host it. That makes the most sense to me. --Madchester (talk) 04:36, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's not what our policies say. Dlabtot (talk) 04:38, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) And I just confirmed that it's not nation/region locked (watchable from the states), so there's absolutely no reason not to use this version over the youtube video. Adn yes, that's what our policies say - we don't second guess the nature of copyright violations. --MASEM (t) 04:40, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No we don't, read the policy. The policy does not prevent the linking to the video as no evidence of copyvio exists. SunCreator (talk) 10:17, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is clear evidence of copyvio, as it's not hosted by the copyright owners. Come on, get real. You'd have to be intentionally trying to be ignorant to conclude it's not a copyright violation. DreamGuy (talk) 14:41, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I've emailed Mike Godwin on this issue to verify that this is a problem or not. --MASEM (t) 04:44, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:BLP, the burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia rests with the person who adds or restores material...an editor should be able to demonstrate that such material complies with all Wikipedia content policies and guidelines. If editors feel so strongly about adding the current Youtube link(s) to the article, then need to demonstrate that no Wiki policies are being violated, in this case WP:YOUTUBE. i.e., demonstrate that the links are not copyright violations, even though they were uploaded outside of the official YouTube channels of organizations and entertainment/news media companies). --Madchester (talk) 04:46, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yet again read the policy. The policy does not prevent the linking to the video as no evidence of copyvio exists. SunCreator (talk) 10:17, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly support It is the video clip, including the way it was edited, that made this a key moment in popular culture. It couldn't be much clearer that the use of YouTube to promote the show is endorsed by Simon Cowell (who owns the show) and his key lieutenants, because they have often talked about the impact that this clip has made (and never complained that I am aware of), and the same applies to previous clips from Cowell's shows that have been popular on the internet. Mowsbury (talk) 12:43, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, and it's the movie itself that makes our articles on specific movies notable, and we do not link to copyright violating uploads of them either. DreamGuy (talk) 14:41, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose When talking about copyright violations, I think Wikipedia's stance on it should be a clear and black-and white stance that linking to a copyright violation is never okay, even if the copyright holder might not really care about the violation at the moment. If we say, "Well, it doesn't matter, because they don't care", that leaves Wikipedia open to too much trouble in the future. Besides, we've got a perfectly acceptable video (from the ITV site) that is absolutely not a copyright violation, so there's nothing whatsoever lost in choosing to use that instead of the Youtube version. Raven1977Talk to meMy edits 22:21, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a democracy. Policy says that we cannot link to copyright violations. This was a production of a TV studio, so unless the video is on a site or channel by that studio, it is CLEARLY A copyright violation and must be removed. For the people above saying that other sites link to it, fine, let them... and that means we have even less reason to link to it here, not that we can violate our clear policy even if those other sites didn't have it. DreamGuy (talk) 14:41, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what our policy says. No matter how strongly you feel about something, it doesn't become true just because you repeat it often enough. Dlabtot (talk) 14:43, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is what our policy says, You cannot violate copyright just because you want to, especially when policy is so clear on it. DreamGuy (talk) 14:48, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well you've repeated your assertion, as I predicted, but it won't change the reality that Unless it's from an official source with clear copyright, we CANNOT link to it is not a part of our copyright policy. Dlabtot (talk) 14:59, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And the the official site hosts the video so that's what we can use. I'm not sure why people are insisting upon YouTube when a legal clip is available. DreamGuy (talk) 14:48, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:COPYLINK -"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" sounds clear to me. WP:ELNEVER also states that "Copyrighted material which is reproduced, without verified permission, by someone other than the copyright holder must never be linked." --hippo43 (talk) 18:07, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That verbiage was added quite recently, and the whole topic is a matter of active debate at WT:External links. There is no settled consensus at this point. Dlabtot (talk) 18:16, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Seems clear that the spirit of the policy is 'don't link to stuff which is clearly a copyright violation'. If there's no consensus there, perhaps we should err on the side of caution for now? --hippo43 (talk) 19:27, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You say it's a copyright violation. Can you Prove it? SunCreator (talk) 19:31, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's not how it works. We assume it's a WP:COPYVIO until proven otherwise: i.e. we err on the side of caution. Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 19:32, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then you have misread WP:COPYLINK. It's quite clear. SunCreator (talk) 19:35, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The part I'm reading is: "This page in a nutshell: Do not add content to Wikipedia if you think that doing so may be a copyright violation". That seems to me to suggest erring on the side of caution. Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 19:40, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was referring to WP:COPYLINK not WP:COPYVIO, my error. Still with WP:COPYVIO wording you have to think this video is a copyright violation. I doubt that it is. Do you 'think' is it? I'd be interested to know why. SunCreator (talk) 19:52, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to regard anything on YouTube as a copyvio (guilty until proven innocent), and in this case I gather there is an official video available from ITV, and a non-official video available on YouTube. Under the circumstances I'd still be inclined towards regarding it as a copyvio. When I replied above it was before you had refactored your comment, and I was replying to the specific issue of WP:COPYVIO, not WP:COPYLINK, which appears to be more liberal. Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 20:15, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Flag, latest estimates are that 85 million people have watched it in one form or another. The issue of copyright is somewhat moot at this point. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 19:37, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Quite possibly. It was more a general point about avoiding copy-vios. Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 19:40, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Copyright can be enforced at any time; This is contrast to trademarks which companies must enforce or otherwise lose the distinction of the mark. --MASEM (t) 19:42, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
if you know - At this stage we certainly do not know. Hence the irrelevance of WP:COPYLINK SunCreator (talk) 19:28, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You do not second guess copyright. You do not use it until it's proven to be true. --MASEM (t) 19:30, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The wording of WP:COPYLINK means the burden of proof, is innocent until proven guilty not the other way around. SunCreator (talk) 19:34, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:COPYVIO is not what applies here - we're not talking about violations of copyright on Wikipedia. The appropriate policy is WP:COPYLINK which sums up "when in doubt, don't link". --MASEM (t) 19:44, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree it's WP:COPYLINK (updated above link). It's WP:COPYLINK. With the WP:COPYLINK policy it's fine to link this video. SunCreator (talk) 19:48, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Absent a clear consensus, RfCs run for 30 days. The RfC on this has been open for one day. So there is no reason to rush to judgement. Nor should editors labor under the mistaken impression that the volume of their verbiage adds any weight to their arguments. Dlabtot (talk) 19:36, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Nor should editors labor under the mistaken impression that the volume of their verbiage adds any weight to their arguments." Or the pomposity of their comments? --hippo43 (talk) 20:59, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What's wrong with linking to ITV's video?

ITV is hosting a video of the audition that is clearly not a copyright violation. Additionally, they have an entire page dedicated to coverage of Boyle. Either of these links would appear to be most suitable for external links, since both are hosted by the owner of the copyright. AniMatetalk 20:07, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For the Lazy Sunday article, reliable sources describes the whole viral phenomenon, including its popularity on Youtube. However, we link to the video hosted on NBC; not one uploaded by a third-party source. Same principle should be applied on this page ---Madchester (talk) 21:45, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's the entire absurdity of the argument for using the YouTube video instead - we have an official video that is watchable worldwide by the copyright holder, clearly passing WP:COPYLINK. The YouTube video has too many questions. This should be a no-brainer. --MASEM (t) 22:01, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with this (using the official ITV video of the audition rather than a Youtube video) as a perfectly sensible compromise. I see nothing wrong with talking about the Youtube phenomenon in the article, and if a reader wishes to find this video, all they have to do is search Youtube for it. But when there's a clear non-copyvio alternative to a video that might be a copyvio, it's better for Wikipedia to use caution and use the obvious non-copyvio. Raven1977Talk to meMy edits 22:09, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. --hippo43 (talk) 01:00, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How in the world is linking to the copyright holder's video a compromise? AniMatetalk 07:49, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Because there are no copyright violation issues linking to a video posted by the owner of the copyrighted content, so there's no issues in regards to our linking policy. The YouTube video has a questionable history so we cannot link to it. --MASEM (t) 00:58, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed - linking to the ITV video is a no-brainer, since it is available. There is no need to fight over additional sources or links, e.g. to YouTube! Anyway, I would vote for linking to the audio of Cry Me A River. JKW (talk) 18:34, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is not subject to debate, and Wikipedia is not a democracy. Policy forbids linking. There is a copyright-free link available. This discussion has no merit. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 00:12, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Policy allows linking to this video. Wikipedia works by consensus. Policies and guidelines document communal consensus rather than creating it, hence this discussion. SunCreator (talk) 00:28, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Except when issues of copyright become involved, as that has potential harm to the project, just like WP:BLP. That's a non-negotiable factor regardless if 99% of the editors want to include it. --MASEM (t) 00:56, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Official Youtube channel

http://www.youtube.com/BritainsGotTalent09

BGT finally has its own Youtube Channel. Seems it was opened 2 weeks ago, but they open uploaded videos over the past 2 days. --Madchester (talk) 05:32, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See [1] Nil Einne (talk) 07:57, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The channel's available to all viewers, except British ones. They're finalizing the kinks to that deal. --Madchester (talk) 15:15, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Support I wish there was another source for Boyle's video, but if there isn't, I think including the link is fine.

Repetative

The article needs a little work as some of the the salient points of the BGT audition are repeat a number of times. Rich Farmbrough, 22:54 24 April 2009 (UTC).

Removal of Artwork

Do you think we should remove the image, per BLP and NONFREE. I am sure that a freely licensed image of Susan Boyle can be taken. The artwork looks great. However, I feel that, per BLP a freely licensed image of her should suffice. Thoughts? miranda 17:43, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I understand the issue? The image is free (it's hosted on commons, which is obsessive about not hosting non-free content). I couldn't see anything in WP:BLP that jumped out at me as prohibiting artwork to illustrate BLPs. Am I missing something? Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 17:47, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If its on Commons, its fine. --Pstanton (talk) 17:48, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. Commons has pictures taken down all of the time for various reasons (i.e. copyright, etc.). Since this is a living person, I believe that more stricter issues should be taken account. Since Wikipedia is lacking in free use images of living people, we cannot have people drawing living people to suffice for the lack of a free use image. This could cause the Wikimedia Foundation some sort of liability. miranda 18:07, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Leaving aside the WP:NONFREE issue - since, as far as any of us know the image is perfectly free and we can address the non-free-ness of it if and when it's labelled as such by commons - what is it about the image that you feel breaches WP:BLP? I can understand general concerns, e.g. that an image might be used that is, for example, a hideous cartoon, but I'm not seeing nay specific issues with the current image. Incidentally, going back to your original point, I'd agree that a free photo would be preferable - I suspect the current drawing is purely being used because we haven't located a free photo yet. Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 18:21, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, this is Chris, the guy that drew the picture. I came to this site on saturday and there was no image of her and then I read it might be difficult to get a free one so I drew it for wikipedia. Most people know her from her performance in the youtube-video, so I choosed it as reference. I think people always will remember her from her first performance, so you should try to get a free photo of this gig. btw I uploaded a new version some minutes ago because I wasn't happy with the first try. All the best, CL —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisurlaub (talk • contribs) 23:26, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for creating that image. I see nothing wrong with it in terms of policy or guidelines. It is tastefully done, and is a faithful representation of the individual. Given that it is not, as far as I can tell, a derivative of any copyrighted work, there is no issue here. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 06:33, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rework of 27/28 April

Over the last 2 days, I completely reworked the article, where I restructured it, removed a fair amount of text which I felt was not entirely biographical (encyclopaedically speaking), and rewrote some of its prose. Many of the quotes have been shortened or removed for the reason that I felt was a collection of mish-mash. There were other instances of coatracking.

I have grave misgivings about the section entitled 'Critical professional evaluations', and I intend to remove much of that, as the section violates WP:UNDUE. I feel the while some of the observations about her 'good voice' are valid, all the work was over-reliant on a single published/source. The trimmed text would be best served in the preceding section to explain the 'Susan Boyle phenomenon'. Ohconfucius (talk) 07:03, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Evaluations by professionals in that field are undue? Interesting concept. — Ched :  ?  08:11, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you may have misunderstood me. I felt that having an entire section which represented 10% of the article, on a single sub-topic of professional evaluation all sourced from the same article was overdone. Please have a look at the article now and let me know how you feel about the integration into the previous section. Ohconfucius (talk) 08:33, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nope, pretty sure I understood the intent. Yep, I looked. It's a natural ebb and flow as a young article progresses to maturity; as such, I trust the community to continue to improve the article. — Ched :  ?  20:36, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Earliest known recording

The article claims it's at her parents golden wedding when she was 25 ie in 1996: this My Kind of People audition tape is her in 1995. 86.148.50.100 (talk) 09:25, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • They are already included as in-line links to the relevant 'performance' mentioned in the bio. I don't think they need to be more prominent, as they are Newspaper scoops of very poor recordings of a couple of fairly mediocre performances (and not the excellent and mature-sounding Boyle we saw on BGT). Ohconfucius (talk) 10:34, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1984 Boyle Video

This is a link to a 1984 video of Boyle when she was 22 years old performing at a local talent show: [[2]] IP75 (talk) 17:43, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WHAT IS THIS DOING ON WIKIPEDIA?!?!?

Closing discussion. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Susan Boyle and Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2009_April_17#Susan_Boyle. IP75 (talk) 01:48, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

she isn't notable. Delete now IMHO!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.112.2.170 (talk) 02:16, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Susan Boyle and Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2009_April_17#Susan_Boyle. J.delanoygabsadds 02:49, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care - delete now!! she is a nobody —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.113.83.250 (talk) 23:41, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, but if so she's the most famous nobody on the planet, so we can't delete it. After all we have an article on Erica Roe who by most measures is also a nobody and certainly not as famous. -- Derek Ross | Talk 00:17, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of comments

Although I've read this page a few times already, I came just now because I read User talk:Dabomb87#Susan Boyle.

  • "first broadcast in Britain" --> "first broadcast in Great Britain" or "first broadcast in the United Kingdom"
  • "Boyle was born 1 April 1961 in Blackburn, West Lothian, Scotland[12]" I think there should be a comma here, regardless of the ref
  • "The birth was difficult, and Boyle was briefly deprived of oxygen. She was diagnosed as having learning difficulties." BLP unsourced! Both sentences should be removed if they can't be sourced
  • "She said during an interview just before she sang on the talent show, she said she had" -- repetitive "she said"s
  • "Hello! magazine" or simply Hello!?
  • Britain's Got Talent and its aftermath section, "Boyle is well aware that the audience on Britain's Got Talent was initially hostile to her because of her appearance, but she has refused to change her image:" Thing is, she has. She's been photog'd with a new, dyed hairdo and in two brand spankin new outfits last week.
  • They say, 'She's one of us, but look how talented she is." needs a closing single quote somewhere
  • "Les Misérables [66] [67]." Refs shouldn't be spaced, and should appear after punctuation
  • South Park should be italicised, and the episode title un-italicised and put inside double quotes

Very minor things. Generally it's well written, and doesn't leave anything out. Congrats to all involved in writing this. The artwork is fantastic, too, but I'm not sure about its usage in the Lead/Infobox. Matthewedwards :  Chat  07:16, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • No need to link Scottish or United Kingdom.
  • "found fame" Why not simply "became famous"?
  • I'd like to see a little more in the lead about her early life, just a sentence or two.
  • Infobox: Use en dashes for ranges (2009—present is wrong). Also, the Occupations field is contradictory: "Unemployed, singer"?
  • "Just nine days after her televised debut, videos of her audition"
  • "all over the world"-->"worldwide"
  • "and her 1999 rendition of "Cry Me a River" had been viewed over 100 million times on the Internet." Should be "has been" unless the video is not there any more.
  • Ref 45 needs to be formatted.
  • "She would visit "-->She visited
  • "and also took part in the Edinburgh Fringe"
  • "shocked and amazed Boyle" Can we have this in quotes?
  • "Web technology such as YouTube, Facebook and Twitte" I think you mean web sites.
  • "A total of 125 million video views on 20 different websites was reached within nine days." Rephrase to eliminate redundancy and for clarity: "Within nine days, the video had been viewed 125 times on 20 websites."

I'll try to come back for more. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:21, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Brief comments as away
  • The BLP stuff used to be referenced(the Times?). I think someone could find it if they check back the edits.
  • Claims of 125 Million views in 9 days is just wrong. I know figures keep changing as the views increase, but editors don't increase the time nor are such things normally sourced. It was only a 100 Million in 9 days that was referenced some days back. SunCreator (talk) 23:55, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. Thanks, keep the comments coming! Ohconfucius (talk) 05:10, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
About "She's been photog'd with a new, dyed hairdo and in two brand spankin new outfits last week": She did get her hair done and her eyebrows shaped, but what's the evidence that her clothing is new? Maybe it was in her closet during the audition. Cognita (talk) 02:36, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nationality

Susan Boyle is the children of two Irish immigrants therefore under Irish law she is automatically a citizen of ireland so i think her nationality should be recorded as Irish and British. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.132.60.89 (talk) 22:26, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Her nationality is primarily what she self-identifies as (within the obvious legal possibilities). It's not up to Wikipedia to decide what nationality she's entitled to claim and therefore what nationality she should be recorded as. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 23:06, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling error

Could someone correct the spelling error in paragraph 2 of the Early Singing section: it says "In what is the first known review of Boyle's singling ability"; should be "singing"

LoCarbSpaghetti (talk) 01:14, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Done J.delanoygabsadds 01:22, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scripted Surprise?

The article shouldn't assume the judge's surprise was genuine. It seems unlikely they were unaware of her talent beforehand.Landroo (talk) 13:00, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Only job as a trainee cook?

Our article claims, citing a 17 April Daily Mail article, that Boyle "was employed for the only time in her life as a trainee cook for six months". This is contradicted by page 2 of the 19 April Sunday Times "She Who Laughs Last" article, which says, "She hasn’t had a paid job since she gave up her post as a community worker to look after her ailing mother." Krakatoa (talk) 17:01, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Southpark dialogue

This cultural reference to Susan Boyle is nasty ... Can we delete it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oakbranch8 (talk • contribs) 05:00, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I left in that she is mentioned in the episode, but I took out the quote itself. I agree that the quote itself is vile, tasteless and serves no real purpose in furthering the quality of this article. Nightmareishere (talk) 07:37, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Her Voice

I work with audacity and I was wondering if I could be an administrator so I can update locked singer wikis as I said I work with audacity and all I have to do is record thier voices and do a couples of things with audacity all I can tell you is her voice type is a soprano she has an (A5) high in her frequency in audacity and she is also in the high C's C6 through C#8 So can I please be a administrator so I can update singer wiki's."Sprite7868 (talk) 8:52, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

You don't need to be an administrator: simply use {{editprotected}} to request that an autoconfirmed user make the change. Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 14:02, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eurovision 2010

Acording to sources, she will be representing the Uk at eurovision 2010, add this top the article

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Susan_Boyle&oldid=287869987"