Talk:Emmelie de Forest

The Victoria hoax - she is not a descendant of Queen Victoria

The claim by herself that she is a descendant of Victoria is a hoax. She is not. Royalty expert Marlene A. Eilers is the author of the books Queen Victoria's Descendants and Queen Victoria's Descendants: A Companion Volume, and states[1] that the claim is "bull dinkies". She is actually the daughter of Swede Ingvar Engström, who later adopted the name de Forest. Vinson wese (talk) 21:35, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

blogs are not reliable sources for contentious subjects in BLP articles. Royal Musings falls under WP:SPS, and is not acceptable. Bkstra Bladet appears to be OK though. regardless, the size of the section on the hoax is disproportionate to the rest of the article, and give undue weight to the hoax. I am going to correct the section, and I expect it to stay corrected. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 00:37, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Aunva6, a small mention is OK but as I said the article should not become a "trashing of Emmelie de Forests character" kind of article. I will not respond about this situation further as I expect that Vinson wesse understands this situation. Thanks.--BabbaQ (talk) 00:40, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Blogs can be considered acceptable sources when they are written by an established expert, such as Marlene Eilers. DrKiernan (talk) 15:54, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

not for BLP articles. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 18:38, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

And exacly how are Queen Victoria, Edward VII and Maurice Arnold de Forest living persons? You seem to believe that someone can make an outrageous claim about someone else (ie. Queen Victoria and other dead persons) which is obviously false, and then censor the responses by the experts in the field, which are reliable sources, simply because you don't like it. In fact, had any of those people been alive, Emmelie Forest's allegations would be libelous BLP violations against Edward and Maurice as she is accusing them of adultery and having children outside of marriage (unrecognized by anyone but herself). This is an encyclopedia, we don't uncritically report hoaxes or what you want to have in your own biography. When you make a claim about an historical fact or an historical person, we cite other sources discussing it than just the claim of one Emmelie. Discussing whether a claim that Edward VII fathered a son out of wedlock in the mid 19th century is true or not has absolutely nothing to do with with a living person, and it's time for Emmelie and her supporters to stop inserting her fiction about Edward into Wikipedia articles. Vinson wese (talk) 19:51, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

this article is about a living person, therefor EVERYTHING in this article must adhere to WP:BLP standards. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 00:09, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

No, that's not an excuse to use a Wikipedia article as a promotional vehicle. You cannot present only one version of events relating to well-known historical individuals (in this case, an allegation that Edward VII fathered a son out of wedlock), that's against WP:NPOV, the core policy of this encyclopedia. If a person claims to be Napoleon, we do not present it as a fact, but cite experts who stated that Napoleon died in 1821. The expert doesn't make a claim about Emmeline de Forest, she merely comments on whether a claim made about someone else (Edward VII) is accurate or not. She is an expert with several well-known published books on the exact topic and meets the requirements for being used as a source on the topic of Victoria's descendants, whether Edward VII fathered out of wedlock children and so forth. Forest doesn't have a monopoly on commenting about what Edward did or not. Claiming that a discussion of whether Edward VII was the father of Maurice de Forest (both have been dead for ages) has anything to do with "BLP" is preposterous. In any event, the article looks perfect now after DrKiernan's edits that fixed the gross promotional POV of her supporters, so there is not any reason to continue this discussion. Vinson wese (talk) 11:13, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes DrKiernan's edits helped solve the situation and the mess you left behind with alot of badly sourced claims and biased gossip tone edits. This is not an edition of The Sun newspaper this is Wikipedia. For the rest of your claims in your last post a big LOL for trying to be funny too you. Cheers mate.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:42, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

The Armfelt hoax - not a descendant of any Swedish nobility

The article claimed that "Her grandfather married into the Swedish nobility (Armfelt family)". Unless her alleged and unproven ancestor Maurice de Forest was gay and married to a gay man in addition to his two marriages to women unrelated to Emmelie de Forest, this is also a hoax. The Armfelt relation is her father Ingvar Engström's mother's ex-husband, who was named Armfelt and was a member of a noble family. Ingvar Engström was himself the out-of-wedlock son of Irma Engström, a Swedish commoner with no known royal or noble ancestors. See the above source. Vinson wese (talk) 22:01, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Your curreny edits gives undue weight to her being of some kind of nobility. She is first of all a singer and has made only a few small comments aobut perhaps being related to nobility. The article shouldnt be 70% about her possible connection to nobility and 30% about her music.--BabbaQ (talk) 00:03, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Absolute rubbish. Every time she is mentioned in the media, half of it is about her claims of being Victoria's relative. She brands herself as a royal even in the headline on her own website, and when you make exceptional claims that receive this kind of media attention and choose to brand yourself as Victoria's great-great-granddaughter, you will have to accept that the substance of your claim is addressed. Your edits where you remove a reocognized expert source, the recognized expert on the topic (Marlene A. Eilers Koenig, whose work are already cited in hundreds of Wikipedia articles on Victoria's relatives), discussing the claim, is not constructive editing. If you believe there is too litle about her music, then go ahead and expand it, do not delete sourced and relevant content (and the section is rather short compared to the Danish one discussing her claims and alleged family connections). It's an absolute falsehood that she has made "only a few small comments aobut perhaps being related to nobility", it's her main publicity strategy to claim she is specifically Victoria's great-great-granddaughter as evidenced from interviews she's given and her own official website. Vinson wese (talk) 00:15, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes I can see that the Danish article suddenly has an expansion of this information. And you have edited it. It makes no sense there either. A small mention at best would be appropriate. --BabbaQ (talk) 00:20, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

And I can see you are concocting more falsehoods, as I'm the one removing irrelevant and embellished information about people unrelated to her from the Danish article and actually shortening it. Vinson wese (talk) 00:22, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

I will not keep this discussion going. What you are doing is simply not correct. I will let some admin take a look. Bye.--BabbaQ (talk) 00:25, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

@Vinson wese: Good to see you are admitting that you are guilty of "blanking of sourced content", to use your own phrasing. You basically use one - and only one - expert to void the significance of every other published historical source. But what is worse is that you insist on the Engström/Forest family having evil intentions, even though misinterpretations could have played a part in this. That is POV and hardly a constructive approach. Birth records are not the holy grail. In many cases, illegitimate children have deliberately been given "new" fathers in birth records, which means that there is room for uncertainty. --Urbandweller (talk) 01:17, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

First, her supporters are plastering her articles (especially in Danish) with her dubious and much publicized claims of being in fact the great-great-granddaughter of Queen Victoria, and when her claims are definitely proved to be false by recognized experts in the field, eg. by the author of the most widely cited book on Queen Victoria's Descendants, they want to remove all mention of it? It doesn't work that way.

In multiple edits, you have now made the claim[2] that "Her grandfather married into the Swedish nobility (Armfelt family)". This question was discussed above and you have not cited any sources for your claim, made repeatedly, that her grandfather married a Swedish man. Vinson wese (talk) 00:32, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Before you go overboard with your claims against me I suggest you take a look at your own edits which seems to be all about trashing a young singer. I will let another third party user look at this. Regards,.--BabbaQ (talk) 00:37, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

If you cant't stand the heat, do not claim to be Anastasia. Vinson wese (talk) 01:04, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

I could start to consider your comments personal attacks but I will not grant you your wish.--BabbaQ (talk) 01:05, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Removal of section "Personal life"

(An oddly titled section, btw.) There is no way Wikipedia is going to host snide statements that Emmelie de Forest originally used her claims of royal descent "as a part of her marketing strategy" (completely unsupported in the sources!) or calling her father "a commoner". The whole section falls foul of WP:UNDUE, and no excess of footnotes to media sources (all quoting one another) can make it "well-sourced", either. Please see also my fuller note on Vincent wese's talkpage. Please remember that Emmelie de Forest is in the public eye today. Don't add any of the material I've removed, or anything else negative, today or later. Remember the words of WP:BLP: Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page. Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity. Bishonen | talk 13:11, 18 May 2013 (UTC).

Looking at the edit history, it is rather ironic that it was an admin who appears to have re-added that entire section, after it was removed first time around. I personally felt it was strange to have the entire section included, but decided not to raise the issue when I noticed it was all written by an admin. Wesley♦^Mouse 13:29, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Do you mean these changes by User:DrKiernan? Dr K might perhaps have been more radical, but basically it looks to me like he was doing a cleanup. If it had been me I might have done the same, except that I would definitely have removed the sentences about her father. (What has that man done to be put in the stocks on Wikipedia?) But please note that Dr K was just editing, and an editing admin is just an editor. Many admins are primarily content writers and copyeditors — I would count both myself and Dr Kiernan among those — and we certainly do not expect any special deference for our editing. By contrast, an admin who removes material from a BLP and threatens blocks if it's reinserted, is acting as an admin. I was wearing my admin hat when I did that today. Dr Kiernan wasn't wearing his in April. Bishonen | talk 16:02, 18 May 2013 (UTC).

You are involved in a content dispute and engage in blanking of sourced content that you don't like. Note that abusing admin tools is forbidden. You are edit warring against the stable version (mostly written by DrKiernan), that is supported by multiple editors. Your edits have also been rejected over at the Danish Wikipedia. Vinson wese (talk) 16:56, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

I see BabbaQ made the same vandalistic edit on the Danish Wikipedia today, that was of course again promptly reverted by another editor. It's time you stop your severe vandalism on Wikipedias in languages you don't even write. Vinson wese (talk) 17:03, 18 May 2013 (UTC)