Talk:Kiesza

Current Location

There is only one source that says she is based in London. Multiple say she is in New York, including the most recent one, which is dated March 20, 2014 [1]. There's also [2] [3] [4] and more confirming New York City. The Irish Times is the only source to say she is based in London. Kiesza has performed in London, but there's no basis for saying she was based there. Combine this with the fact that numerous sources give a detailed history of her life in the US (first Boston, than New York), and very little of her doing stuff in the UK. The one thing she's noted for doing in London, was playing on Canada Day. --Rob (talk) 17:21, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I now see another London source, so for the moment, I've mentioned both. --Rob (talk) 21:38, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Last name

An incorrect last name (Szosi) was included and sourced to the Irish Times. All other sources go by only the name "Kiesza". It's likely Szosi may have at some point been used (e.g. a joke), but isn't her true last name, and isn't normally or officially used as a stage name. Per WP:BLP the onus of proof is on whoever wishes to include the information. A single source isn't sufficient. I could have added inline citations for the first name, but that would mean citing all ten sources, which I think is overkill. --Rob (talk) 17:55, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

There are several sources which confirm the last name. The Irish Times is the only independent source.--Launchballer 18:04, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

That's because she has used it periodically in the past. The problem is, she's not using it now, the vast bulk of reliable sources don't use it. And, it's not her legal name. If it's mentioned, it has to be clear what it is (an alternate stage name, not a real name), but there aren't sufficient reliable sources to explain what it is. Using a name for fun on YouTube or other social media doesn't count for anything. Anyways, I'm not against mentioning "Szosi" per se, but just don't like to imply this is an actual legal name. --Rob (talk) 18:29, 21 March 2014 (UTC) Incidently, this gives the proper name, but it can't be used, since it's not a reliable source either. --Rob (talk) 06:25, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Change of image

Someone attempted to change the image to File:Kiesza2014.jpg which was reverted when another editor felt it wasn't best. I actually think File:Kiesza2014.jpg is a fine image to use for the infobox. My only problem with it, is that it's probably a copyvio (I nominated it for deletion on Commons). Anyways, I just want to ask anyone trying to get a new/better image here to please discuss it here. This is the second (or same) editor to make changes without any explanation, and to have them promptly undone. Please talk with us, and we can work together. Thanks. --Rob (talk) 20:44, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

IMHO The above image seems more "albumish" whereas the current one's more "real" ..... But I have no problem if anyone wants it changed again. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 20:57, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

I have an email, that, imho, confirms the uploader of File:Kiesza2014.jpg is legit. I've asked for one more from him, to submit to OTRS. But, given he directly uploaded the image, and licensed it properly, OTRS is just a bonus. So, the only question now, is which is the best image. I feel that File:Kiesza2014.jpg is the best for the infobox, as it is the most current image, and reflects the image she is notable for. Also, I personally prefer a head shot for a lead image. My image File:Kiesza 03.jpg is seven years old, and may be a good second image, if the article is sufficiently long, to show how she used to look, when she was more of a local folk singer. I'm going to change back the image, but if anybody disagrees with me, I will not revert you, and will respect other opinions. --Rob (talk) 19:32, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Wow that's a surprise!, I actually agree the image does look better! :) -
→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 19:38, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

cite publisher

There's been some dispute over use of the "publisher" paramater in the cite tags. I put that in, because I like to identify both the work (or web site) and the publisher. A publisher, such as Postmedia, may own many different publications. A reporter works for the publisher, but their writing appears in many different places. So, when we disclose who owns a work or web site, we're helping reviewers determine how connected or disconnected sources are. So, for example we can see Calgary Sun is part of Quebecor, and Calgary Herald is Postmedia, making them independent, and hence a fact reported in both, is more reliable, then if both were owned by just one publisher. I might be using terminology wrong, but regardless of what term we should be using, it does make sense to say both where something was said and who the writer ultimately works for. We could just show a bare url, but generally it's best to show maximum info about sources. --Rob (talk) 20:02, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

The documentation for the 'cite' template recommends against including 'publisher' for periodicals:

Name of publisher; may be wikilinked if relevant. The publisher is the company that publishes the work being cited. Do not use the publisher parameter for the name of a work (e.g., a book, encyclopedia, newspaper, magazine, journal, website). Not normally used for periodicals. Corporate designations such as "Ltd", "Inc" or "GmbH" are not usually included. Omit where the publisher's name is substantially the same as the name of the work (for example, The New York Times Co. publishes The New York Times newspaper, so there is no reason to name the publisher).

(emphasis added)

This recommendation is for several reasons:

1. The purpose of a citation is to allow the reader to find and to check the accuracy of the claimed fact. For all but very obscure periodicals, the publisher name does not help with that. In the event of the URL changing or going dead, having the name of the author might allow the article to be found elsewhere online. Knowing the publisher is unlikely to be any use for that.
2. For common publications, the name of the publisher is readily available anyway, either in the periodical's own WP article or from the periodical itself.
3. Because of chains of ownership, and changes of ownership, the publisher name is of very limited value for assessing connections: for example, at the time of the citations, the Calgary Herald was not owned by Postmedia but by Canwest News Service, which was later sold to Postmedia, its current owner. So when the citation says 'publisher=Postmedia' it's not only unhelpful but incorrect too. If a fact is in doubt, the best way to track its reliability is not via the publisher, but from its source, usually a press agency or press release. Examples would be the citation to David Parker, Calgary Herald, July 9, 2010, which smells of being a lightly rewritten press release from Rainmaker Global Business Development, or the one from the same newspaper dated June 24, 2010, which is probably rewritten from a publicity piece from her agent. If any of the facts from those articles appeared in other unrelated media, they would probably have originated from the same sources; having independent publishers does not make for more reliable facts.
4. The recommendation is also to omit where the publisher's name is "substantially the same as the name of the work", which would apply to Guardian News and Media, for example.

Colonies Chris (talk) 10:00, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

More on the name

Even if we decide to mention "Kiesza Szosi" as a name, there are major problems with this edit

• "Kiesza Szosi" is at best an alias, not a legal name. Her actual name is given explicitly here. This suggests "Kiesza" is a trade mark, and you can see where it gives her real name (see where it says "Consent from"). Even if we mention "Szosi" in the lead, it's inappropriate to use "Szosi" throughout the body. It's an indisputable fact that Kiesza is referred to only by "Kiesza" in 99% of sources. As an example, in the Madonna (entertainer) article we do not refer to her as "Ciccone". We give Madonna's full name in a couple places, but whenever we use a single name, that name is Madonna, since that's the public name known. It's also worth noting that "Kiesza" is not the correct spelling of her birth name, so it's nonsensical to imply "Kiesza Szosi" is her legal birth name. Kiesza is a trade mark. It's a brand. "Kiesza Szozi" has at times past been used. If editors agree there's enough sources to mention it, than so-be-it. But, it's improper to act as though "Szozi" is either a legal name, or the name she should normally be referred to. I'm particularly upset that it says her birth name is "Kiesza Szosi", when that's literally false, and absolutely unsourced, and we even have a source showing the another name here. Note, I don't advocate giving her legal name either, because it's not well sourced. Persuant to WP:BLP the onus of proof is entirely on those wishing to include information to provide multiple independent reliable sources. --Rob (talk) 19:03, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Name choices - please read before changing again

In hopes somebody will actually discuss this, instead of reverting, here are some name choices for the article.

• Kiesza => This is used by 99% of sources, from her early days in Calgary, to her current success with Hideaway. It's what she uses, and is the only thing we should use.
• Kiesa Rae Ellestad => This appears to be her birth name [5]. Note the lack of a "z". Also used here for credit to Triggerfinger by Donkeyboy.
  • Kiesa Ellestad => Sometimes this is the name she performed under in her early days in Calgary.[6] [7]
• Kiesza Rae Ellestad => Rarely, but sometimes used [8].
  • Kiesza Ellestad => One reasonably good source London Evening Standard.
• Kaisa Ellestad => This has been used for credit for writing "Hideaway" on Allmusic.com[9]. Oddly, her vocals are still credited as "Kiesza". She also has writing credit for Triggerfinger by Donkeyboy (she appeared in their video as well, but I don't see a credit for that [10]).
• Kiesza Szösi => This has been used by her, and appears in a few sources, which caused a few editors to use it. Even if we cite it as one of her names, we should not call it her "birth name", as it literally is not. A birth name is what you are born with (get it). Not all full names are birth names. I do not think this twitter link constitutes a reliable source. She's not saying it's her birth name.

It appears to me that "Kiesza" is a trade mark, see Trade Mark No. 1467993. Notice, how it mentions consent from "Kiesa Ellestad". One indication that Ellestad is her birth name, is the fact it's shared with her brother "Blayre Ellestad", that has credits on her Hideaway video on YouTube[11] Now, before anybody accuses me of original research: I agree all name speculation is OR. None of the above should be inserted into the article (I was hesitant to even post this). My point is that there is only one name, "Kiesza", which is well sourced. Everything else is weekly sourced. There is absolutely no source whatsoever to say "Szösi" (or anything else) is a birth name. --Rob (talk) 20:49, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi there Rob. My apologies, didn't do much background research! I was looking for her Facebook fan page, found her personal one by accident and came here to check if it was on the article. Obviously it could not necessarily be her name at all! She appears to be heading for a top 10 UK single (at least) with "Hideaway"; I'm sure more details from reliable sources will surface in the near future. Once again I apologise for some ignorant editing! --DJUnBalanced 21:18, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick fix. I think your right, that we'll soon get some better coverage, and we can fill in some important details. --Rob (talk) 21:46, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

I would argue that the liner notes of Triggerfinger by Donkeyboy constitutes a reliable source, in which she is billed as "Kiesa Rae Ellestad".--Launchballer 09:48, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Since "Hideaway" is whats she is best known for, surely we should stick with "Kiesza" as thats what everyone is calling herGuyb123321 (talk) 18:16, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Your message doesn't make grammatical sense, but as far as I'm concerned, of course we should mention her real name because it's reliably sourced and encyclopedic. Thivierr and Djunbalanced may have different opinions.--Launchballer 18:35, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

I trust that source to be her name. Should I add Kiesza Szosi to the "aliases" section since she featured on a song by Savage Roots under that name? --DJUnBalanced 18:50, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps, but keep it to the infobox.--Launchballer 18:54, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Category:Canadian people of Norwegian descent

Her name and surname Norwegian. https://www.facebook.com/Kiesza/photos/a.10151123420660286.431645.156092585285/10151938961595286/?type=1&comment_id=10721632 There is a appropriate category --Gwaron (talk) 09:16, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

I do not consider Facebook a reliable source because it is self-published.--Launchballer 09:46, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't even say what her origins are, just where her name comes from. Per WP:ABOUTSELF one could argue that a self-made non-contentious claim made on Facebook might be used (but this isn't such a case). But, I suggest we stick with the many, many, third party reliable sources, that frequently detail her personal background, and we avoid trolling through social media conversations between individuals. --Rob (talk) 14:46, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

To tell you the truth, I saw the link and assumed it was the caption. Read Wikipedia:Potentially unreliable sources#Personal communication.--Launchballer 20:33, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Date of birth

Since when has a random Twitter post been considered a reliable source? WP:PERCOM applies.--Launchballer 22:00, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Since never. Thanking somebody for a happy birthday doesn't mean you intend to publish a birthdate. Combined with her full name (with middle name), it's a serious violation of privacy, if it wasn't wanted. It would be nice if we could stick with third party reliable sources for everything. There's no limit to what will be added, if we start including every communication with fans, friends, and family on social media. --Rob (talk) 00:18, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

I tried removing it and was reverted, with the question of why it's a privacy violation, since other articles have it. Of course, it's ok to have the birth date if it's properly sourced. Any time we include information that is properly sourced, we're just printing what's already publicly known. If a reliable source publishes Kiesza's birthdate, than we can do it. As long as we stick to WP:NOR, we can't violate privacy. Anyhow, I won't edit war over this, and will not revert without consensus. I just think we're starting a pattern of putting in bits of information found on social media. I don't understand why people think they need to, when there's ample reliable sources of information on the subject. --Rob (talk) 03:01, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately a more reliable published source doesn't exist and " Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately."  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Better_source

Wikpedia's policies are, for poorly sourced pieces of information - especially in Biographies of Living Persons - to be removed with immediate effect, not to be held onto until a more reliable source is found.  Matoaman017 (talk) 08:16, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

New images

I'm just letting editors know, we have a few more images at Commons:Category:Kiesza to choose from. --Rob (talk) 01:48, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

source cite needs more info

Re this edit, we need more info than what's present. At a bare minimum, we need a date added. Otherwise, it's worthless and should be removed. --Rob (talk) 23:54, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Kiesza. 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/20140820204436/http://www.interview.de/talent-kiesza/ to http://www.interview.de/talent-kiesza/
• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6P6EpsRAP?url=http://i-d.vice.com/en_gb/read/interviews/2258/kiesza-from-ballet-to-boats-to-bullets-to-writing-big-hits to http://i-d.vice.com/en_gb/read/interviews/2258/kiesza-from-ballet-to-boats-to-bullets-to-writing-big-hits
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.calgarysun.com/2014/04/19/calgary-born-songstress-kiesza-tops-united-kingdom-charts-with-hit-single-hideaway
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.officialcharts.com/chart-news/kiesza-claims-her-debut-uk-number-1-single-with-hideaway-2940/

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:04, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Top Shot?

I've seen a bunch of a articles where she is cited as winning Canada's "Top Shot" award, but I cannot find her on any of the roll for winning the Queen's Medal for Champion Shot, any thoughts?108.30.55.108 (talk) 22:02, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Kiesza. 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/20140322002205/http://www2.canada.com/calgaryherald/news/entertainment/story.html?id=f9656496-3981-46a6-9433-ac77ad2cd8b3 to http://www2.canada.com/calgaryherald/news/entertainment/story.html?id=f9656496-3981-46a6-9433-ac77ad2cd8b3
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140818043435/http://www.canada.com/story_print.html?id=014ae639-be2f-4501-8051-9f497c72a434&sponsor= to http://www.canada.com/story_print.html?id=014ae639-be2f-4501-8051-9f497c72a434&sponsor=
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140322001722/http://www2.canada.com/calgaryherald/news/calgarybusiness/story.html?id=9f2b50aa-e861-45b7-9f98-467794f3db08 to http://www2.canada.com/calgaryherald/news/calgarybusiness/story.html?id=9f2b50aa-e861-45b7-9f98-467794f3db08

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:51, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

LESBIAN

she is a lesbian

LBGT Tag

list in the LBGT Category? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:908:191:5FA0:657F:E078:6340:8717 (talk) 18:52, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

• Wait, do reliable sources say she is gay? Does she say she is gay? If not it doesn't merit coverage in article space... Geo Swan (talk) 16:23, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Infobox image

Infobox images are usually headshots. So, wouldn't File:Kiesza2014.jpg be a better choice? Geo Swan (talk) 16:25, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Request Edit for Date of Birth

Kiesza’s given birth year is inaccurate. According to your policy the sources, two tabloids, do not meet its requirements. Unfortunately a more reliable published source doesn't exist and “Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately."  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Better_source

Wikpedia's policies are for poorly sourced pieces of information - especially in Biographies of Living Persons - to be removed with immediate effect, not to be held onto until a more reliable source is found. We ask that you please remove the in accurate information. Given your expressed policies quoted below.

Policy of living persons “With identity theft a serious ongoing concern, people increasingly regard their full names and dates of birth as private. Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object to the details being made public. If a subject complains about our inclusion of their date of birth, or the person is borderline notable, err on the side of caution and simply list the year, provided that there is a reliable source for it. In a similar vein, articles should not include postal addresses, e-mail addresses, telephone numbers, or other contact information for living persons, although links to websites maintained by the subject are generally permitted. See § Avoid misuse of primary sources regarding the misuse of primary sources to obtain personal information about subjects. If you see personal information such as phone numbers, addresses, account numbers,etc. in a BLP or anywhere on Wikipedia, edit the page to remove it and contact the oversight team so that they can evaluate it and possibly remove it from the page history. To reduce the chances of triggering the Streisand effect, use a bland edit summary and do not mention that you will be requesting Oversight.”

Using primary sources

“Exercise extreme caution in using primary sources. Do not use trial transcripts

and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. Do not use public records that include personal details, such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses. Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source,it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source, subject to the restrictions of this policy, no original research, and the other sourcing policies.[c]

Wikipedia's sourcing policy, Verifiability, says that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation; material not meeting this standard may be removed. This policy extends that principle, adding that contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion. This applies whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable, and whether it is in a biography or in some other article. Material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism. When material is both verifiable and noteworthy, it will have appeared in more reliable sources.”

Link to referenced policy https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons

Matoaman017 (talk) 15:55, 9 July 2019 (UTC)Matoaman017

Reply 09-JUL-2019

  Edit request declined  

1. At the time it folded in 2018, Interview was considered a reliable source.

Regards,  Spintendo  17:52, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

@Matoaman017: Your claim about the error in the article is very specific: "Kiesza’s given birth year is inaccurate." You have not disputed the day or month of birth. Despite your claims to the contrary, there are highly reliable sources reporting on Kiesza's age at various times. Some of them are already cited in the article, for example The Guardian as of February 11, 2014: "Now 25-years-old ...". And later the same year, the BBC as of 7 December 2014: "For the moment, the 25-year-old has settled ...". And the CBC from March 15, 2015 indeed confirms that she was then 26: "Kiesza, 26, won ...". So that leaves us with a window for her date of birth from December 8, 1988 to February 11, 1989. Since the day and month of birth are apparently correct (or at least were not disputed by you), the only year on which Kiesza can have been born on January 16 is indeed 1989, as our article reports.

There's an overabundance of highly reliable sources confirming that Kiesza was 25 throughout most of 2014. Even if we disregarded the sources that explicitly state she was born in 1989 on your say-so without any evidence (and neither Interview nor Paris Match, our current sources for the specific year of birth, are tabloids), we'd have to conclude that the only other possible year of birth is 1988. Would that be more accurate, in your opinion? Huon (talk) 20:53, 19 July 2019 (UTC)