Talk:Paloma Faith/Archive 1

Advert

The advert that uses the song "I Just Wait" has been out since some time in 2008, not June 2009. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 17:26, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Scars

Just as a little titbit (I'll put it here instead of in the main article, because it isn't that important), she didn't just feature in "What's A Girl Gotta Do" on the album, but also did backing vocals in "She's No Good" too. --110.20.39.55 (talk) 09:29, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

References

I've added references to all, but two, of the peak chart positions achieved by Paloma's songs. I'm hoping this will stop the constant changing of the numbers without proof. I'll attempt to find the last two refs, but if someone else can get them first, then please go ahead and add them. It would also be nice if we can find a ref for the next single, I haven't seen or heard anything confirming that Romance Is Dead is going to be released this year. - JuneGloom07 Talk? 19:23, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I have now added a hidden comment asking that if a chart number is going to be changed, then can the editor please provide a reliable reference to back it up. - JuneGloom07 Talk? 14:00, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Age

It seems Ms Faith is claiming to be born in 1985. Not so according to the England and Wales Birth Index. She was born in 1981 in Camden, London. Paloma Faith Blomfield is hardly a common name, I think you will agree. Entry on England and Wales Birth Index 82.26.235.155 (talk) 12:21, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

It appears that you can only access that website if you have a membership, is there another way to see the information? - JuneGloom07 Talk? 13:05, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

The records can be accessed with a free login, for convenience I took a screencap of the image: http://img689.imageshack.us/img689/5929/birthrecord.jpg --Shivertimbers433 (talk) 00:11, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, looking at the article again I see no source for her birthdate at all. If a reliable reference cannot be found, this information might have to be removed. - JuneGloom07 Talk? 13:11, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I've found a reference for her birth date. Unfortunately since you can only access the info on the England and Wales Birth Index by membership I don't think this can be used as a reference. - JuneGloom07 Talk? 16:52, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I was in the year below Paloma at school, and I was born in 1981 (October). Unless her birthdate can be verified, her birthdate should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pcjb1234 (talk • contribs) 22:37, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Her birthdate is referenced. - JuneGloom Schmooze 22:40, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

But the reference for the 1985 birthdate in the current article is just another unreferenced online article. The 1985 birthdate is clearly wrong. I'm not really sure about the rules here, but shouldn't that be removed? --Pcjb1234 (talk) 12:00, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the reference given isn't really that reliable, I would agree that it's probably 1981. I would imagine her management maybe wants to make her appear younger, as these things happen sometimes, so have put her date out as 1985. As it is, I would say that the DOB needs to be removed until further evidence comes to light.--Tuzapicabit (talk) 18:05, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm a member of Genes Reunited and can confirm that according to birth records, Paloma Faith Blomfield was born in Camden, London in 1981. I hope she enjoys her 30th soon! :D —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.114.177.68 (talk) 22:15, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

If you do a Director Report search for her on any company website (such as 192.com, checkthatcompany.co.uk) it lists her date of birth as 21st July 1981. 90.217.202.145 (talk) 20:27, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Can anybody provide a reliable source for her birthdate being 1981? - JuneGloom Talk 20:36, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Exactly, I think we have provided more than enough sources to prove that Paloma Faith was born in 1981. 90.211.236.226 (talk) 21:27, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Except you haven't provided a reliable source. So far we have people saying they went to school with her, work for Genes Reunited and to check 192.com and checkthatcompany.co.uk (which I'm sure are not reliable sources). Don't change her year of birth in the article unless you add a reliable source to go with it. - JuneGloom Talk 21:32, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

OK now, this is ridiculous. June, why do you keep changing her birth date back to 1985 when that date was referenced in ONE article? And we have produced 3 sources showing her date of birth as 1981? 90.211.236.226 (talk) 21:31, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I've just explained above that none of them are reliable and you just changed her year of birth, without adding a single source to back it up. - JuneGloom Talk 21:37, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I reverted back, as I remember this age claim is a bit vague - perhaps take it out of the lede and add a small section citing the two possible dates. Off2riorob (talk) 21:42, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

That can be done. I've just asked at the WP:RSN if ancestry.co.uk or findmypast.co.uk could be used to source the year, even though they're subscription only services. - JuneGloom Talk 21:52, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't think either is considered a reliable source, but there's nothing wrong with subscription-only websites in principle. The Times and The New York Times are undoubtedly reliable, though both their websites are behind paywalls. If she has an entry in Who's Who, that might help but the only person I know has access is currently inactive. I would tend to agree with Rob that the date shouldn't be in the lead until we have an unquestionable source for it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:35, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

So, should I just remove the year from the lead (and the infobox?) or the full date? I did find another source for 1985 ([1]), but nothing for 1981. - JuneGloom Talk 22:48, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I suppose you could go with born 1981 or 1985 if there are sources for both. If there are only sources for 1985, then we should stick with that. My concern is Glamour and others (let's face it, glossy "celeb" magazine, can be useful sometimes, but not exactly of unquestionable reliability) may just be reporting the date she' given rather than doing their own homework. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:56, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Atm, I think there are only sources for 1985. I just remembered that The Independent says she was born in 1985 too [2]. - JuneGloom Talk 23:11, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

There's still a risk, since that was an interview rather than a profile as such, but The Independent is a good source. In the absence of anything reliable to the contrary, I would stick with 1985 and cite to the Indy and nay other high brow sources you have for it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:24, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

 Done. - JuneGloom Talk 23:44, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

The idea that Birth Marriage Death records on Ancestry etc aren't reliable is ridiculous! They are copies of official government records!78.145.39.138 (talk) 07:16, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I tend to agree with you that company-director-check.co.uk is trustworthy, but as long as there is no consensus about using this source the article shouldn't be changed accordingly, that is why I have reverted the last edit by 86.17.85.80 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). However, this website company-director-check.co.uk claims that they draw on data supplied by Companies House. Paloma Faith Limited is in fact a registered company in the UK (Company Details) but unfortunately you need to pay to get information on the director directly from Company House. Nevertheless is that private director index site a reliable source to me. And as for the article in The Independent, that 1985 date is clearly based on an interview or on any general press info; the author actually describes how she met Ms Faith for an interview ("by the time she arrives at our chosen destination, she is very upset indeed") and offers direct quotations. So to me it seems like The Independent has probably been fooled as well. That said I think we should write that her true age is controversial and present both versions 1981/85 with appropriate references including company-director-check. De728631 (talk) 18:49, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I have seen people on Wikipedia claim before that birth registrations cannot be quoted because only available to subscribers. But the register can be consulted free of charge at many places like any LDS Family History Centre, many libararies and probably in London. I can confirm it is shown as Q3 1981 so can't see why the incorrect date of birth is still shown. jmb (talk) 22:04, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Interestingly enough there are [tweets] pointing out that yesterday Paloma's age on the [London 2012 Torchbearer website] was originally 31, before it was quickly corrected to 27. I think it's actually kind of sad she won't/can't to admit to being 31, it's hardly old! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stellaseeker (talk • contribs) 15:13, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Sad that Wikipedia continues to display the incorrect date also. jmb (talk) 16:36, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it really is. Why is her date of birth not noted as disputed on the article? Stellaseeker (talk) 23:47, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

It gets sillier, someone corrected the date but it has been put back to the false one. If the fans are so convinved that the version put out by the PR people is right then they should spend £10 and get a copy of the Birth Certificate. :=) jmb (talk) 16:06, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

It was changed back because the editor did not provide a reliable source to back up the date. - JuneGloom Talk 18:10, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I've now started a discussion at WP:BLP/N about this issue. - JuneGloom Talk 18:23, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

jmb if we got one it probably wouldn't be considered reliable by Wikipedia, which is ridiculous! Not much to add but this Interview in New Trespass Issue 1. New Trespass was first published in 2007. Paloma gives her age in the magazine as 26, which would now make her 31. Stellaseeker (talk) 18:37, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I wonder if that is where the myth of her being age 26 originates? Someone found the article and not bothered to check when it was published? jmb (talk) 23:14, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh no, I'm sure it's deliberate on the behalf of her record company. 31 is ancient don't you know! That's what annoys me most about this, that apparently (to either Paloma or her record company) being in your thirties is a massive crime. Stellaseeker (talk) 10:32, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

The discussion on WP:BLP/N appears to have closed and disappeared without this being resolved. Presumably Wiki prefer PR to accurate sources. I will be even more wary of any "facts" read on Wikipedia in the future. jmb (talk) 10:35, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Age given as 31 in The Sunday Times, August 5 2012 (Home section, page 3). Is that reliable enough? (Bearing in mind, of course, that many newspapers factcheck using Wikipedia, if at all.) 143.252.80.100 (talk) 16:45, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not doubting you, but do you think the article would be online anywhere? - JuneGloom Talk 16:57, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I would have thought that many newspapers would have accounts with one of the sites giving access to the GRO Birth, Marriages and Death Index as a quick way to research and check facts like that as it is the official source rather than believe PR hype used on sites like Wikipedia. The Sunday Times is of course only available online on subscription or pay to view but it can be seen free of charge in any large library. jmb (talk) 10:34, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I have been reading this with interest and have done some research. Not sure if it will help at all. In this article http://www.thenational.ae/arts-culture/music/blinded-by-the-brightness-of-paloma-faith Paloma states she went to NSCD at 18 to do what is a 3 year degree course. And here is a graduation picture of Paloma from 2002 at the NSCD website http://www.nscd.ac.uk/files/NSCD/alumni_NSCD_2002.pdf. Now if she was 21(or nearly) in 2002 then that would mean 10 years later she would be 31. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Criggy77 (talk • contribs) 22:22, 8 September 2012 (UTC) Here is a newspaper article from Oct 2010 stating she is 29. http://www.islingtongazette.co.uk/home/my_islington_school_made_me_a_star_says_paloma_faith_1_684393 does anyone else think that Paloma is having a bit of fun with the age thing? I have noticed reading interviews from her American tour last month she is now 26!Criggy77 (talk) 22:29, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

As a member of ancestry.co.uk I can confirm that she was born Paloma Faith Blomfield between July and September 1981, absolutely no question about it. The reference is Camden, Sep 1981, Vol. 14, page 2104. Her father was Jose R. Blomfield and her mother was Pamela F. Blomfield, née Oakes-Ash. I cannot understand why people keep disputing this, as it is not possible that she was registered four years before she was born. I also fail to understand why someone persists in calling her Faith, as though this were her surname. She should be referred to as Paloma, or Blomfield (but that would be silly), or Paloma Faith - anything but just Faith. Every time I change it, it gets changed back again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.4.223.17 (talk) 09:38, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Please see WP:SURNAME and WP:COMMONNAME. - JuneGloom Talk 14:34, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

In 2007, Paloma Faith was stating her age as 26. In 2012, she claims to be 26: Frost Magazine

I find it amazing that this is still up for discussion. I would like to ask JuneGloom? what would be acceptable as proof of Paloma being born in 1981? I have previously linked a online article.Criggy77 (talk) 18:55, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I totally agree with Criggy77. To suggest that the UK Government's official register of Births, Marriages and Deaths is unreliable because it costs money to see a record, is utterly ridiculous. To settle this matter once and for all, I have uploaded a photo of my computer's screen showing ancestry.com's record of Paloma's birth in 1981 to a web hosting site, and you can see it by using this link:

http://img211.imageshack.us/img211/7414/palomafaithancestryentr.jpg

I would urge JuneGloom to desist from continually changing the record back. Wikipedia is of no value if people persist in using it to display erroneous information. If JuneGloom is, in fact, none other than Paloma Faith, I can tell you that there is nothing wrong with being 31, particularly when you are 65, as I am. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Majorbonkers (talk • contribs) 19:25, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

And I urge you to stop adding unsourced information and changing her surname, please see WP:SURNAME. @Criggy77, I did not see the sources you posted and will take a look at them now. - JuneGloom Talk 19:32, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

JuneGloom...I haven't changed/edited *anything* on Paloma's page. I have only provided sourced info to this discussion page for you/others to use. I do wonder why so much information is ignored though...Criggy77 (talk) 19:42, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

It's very obvious to anyone who isn't biased that Paloma Faith was born in 1981. Even IMDB has the sense to have changed her birth year to 1981: [ http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2622465/]

Not that it will make any difference here but: http://twitter.com/Palomafaith/statuses/3225923344 Note the Photobucket username.......I wonder what the 1981 means?Criggy77 (talk) 21:39, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Edits suppressed: I have suppressed two edits by Majorbonkers which gave a link to a scan of the subject's birth certificate. I have done this under the WP:Biographies of living persons policy, particularly the sections:

• WP:BLPPRIMARY: "Exercise caution in using primary sources... Do not use public records that include personal details, such as date of birth."
• WP:BLPPRIVACY: "With identity theft a serious ongoing concern, people increasingly regard their full names and dates of birth as private."

It is not clear to me that a link to a scanned birth certificate would count as a reliable source in any case - WP:Verifiability requires previously published sources. While I do not suggest that Majorbonkers has fiddled this one, in principle Photoshop would make it easy to do, and the point of the verifiability requirement is to make it possible for the enquirer to check back to the cited source.

I will make an entry at WP:BLP/N to bring more eyes to this situation. JohnCD (talk) 23:00, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

See WP:BLPN#Paloma Faith. JohnCD (talk) 23:29, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Could IMDb not be used as a source? Thats down for 1981 too. I see this year as undeniable now =/ http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2622465/ 86.25.222.246 (talk) 23:48, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I now despair for the future of Wikipedia as a reliable source of information. There is absolutely no room for any doubt that Paloma was born in 1981, yet for some procedure geeks it appears to be much more important that a source should be "reliable" than that it should be true. To uphold this pathetic principle, a few people have conspired to fix it for Wikipedia to display demonstrably false information. Anyone can do what I did and pay £9.25 for a birth certificate which will satisfy them, yet they prefer to waste countless hours flogging this very dead horse. Majorbonkers (talk) 00:54, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

As stated above, it's clear that Paloma Faith was born in 1981 and, because of a few people, Wikipedia is sharing false information. Paloma's records show she was born in 1981. This really shouldn't even be a discussion.

Just thought I would post these two links from articles that state her to be 26 (earlier this year).. http://imageshack.us/a/img823/8562/palomaq.png,– http://imageshack.us/a/img846/1561/screenshot20121205at171.png — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pusher1 (talk • contribs) 10:44, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

@JuneGloom: Have you checked the articles I posted? What is the verdict? @JohnCD: Can I enquire as to why the privacy policy is being wielded re: DOB but the same isn't the case with her full name? Which I would argue would be much more "useful" to an identity thief. Thanks. Criggy77 (talk) 20:54, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I just happen to look at this page and amazed that the incorrect age is still there. The official BMD can be viewed free of charge, you just have to go to the appropriate place. I had not seen identity theft being given as a reason previously, rather ridiculous when for less than £10 someone can buy a copy of the Birth Certificate. Can the issue be escalated to get a ruling by the WikiGods? jmb (talk) 14:11, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

@JuneGloom and Anonymous that changed Paloma's D.O.B: I have repeatedly provided the Wiki approved "sources". Could one of you please use them or explain why you won't? Criggy77 (talk) 00:06, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

It seems to be that the official British Government record of births is not "approved" by Wiki (or at least by one Wiki editor) whereas spin from PR people is approved. No logic to it at all and I have lost what little faith I had in the accuracy of Wonkypedia because of it. jmb (talk) 00:43, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

@Criggy77 and jmb: I totally agree with you both. I have more or less given up hope of winning this one. One or two people seem to have reasons of their own for suppressing the obvious facts, and as they seem to hold positions of seniority in the Wikipedia hierarchy they are able to get away with it. I was temporarily suspended (see above) from editing Wikipedia for daring to challenge their fiction. The only avenue left, it seems, is to persuade a journalist to read Paloma's birth certificate and then publish an article about the Wikipedia nonsense about her date of birth. Presumably such an article would qualify as a verifiable source and we would then be in a position to make the facts stick. Majorbonkers (talk) 12:55, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Or better still, get a journalist to write an article on how Wikipedia is refusing to correct obvious fictitious information and suppressing the truth. You could put the true date on a couple of websites, provided they are free then they can be quoted as a source. jmb (talk) 21:48, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I have today submitted this to the Wikipedia Dispute Resolution noticeboard as quite frankly, the fact this matter is still dragging on is ridiculous. Stellaseeker (talk) 01:01, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I've only stumbled upon this dispute by mistake but am I completely missing the point or is the problem here that the people who are changing the DoB to the correct value are not inserting citations whereas the people (person?) who revert it to the incorrect value do so because there are citations to support that date. Wikipedia policy allows one to cite verifiable sources that can only be verified upon payment so where's the problem? Go ahead cite Companies House as a source Brian McCauley (talk) 01:35, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

This has now reached its course, once and for all. The Dispute Resolution notice should not have been needed (probably why little discussion happened there, before its automatic closure!). The facts are: (a) age: she was born 21 July 1981, (b) we use the CORRECT date, regardless of misinformation in the form of interviews &/or improperly fact-checked age that may have appeared in the press at some stage whenever that happened or whether the same date has been repeated several times in different publications, (c) data that proves the facts can come from behind paywalled databases, especially if it proves once and for all the correct answer. In this case the (wrongly suppressed above!) info drawn specifically from her birth cert which has zero possibility of being someone else (given the facts mentioned about database search parameters used, et al). The end!!

Unless adding cites for the 1981 year (see bottom of here for some: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive165#Paloma_Faith ) &/or the full 21 July 1981 date (if a valid source from elsewhere can be found; whether it's online or not, validity for WP usage is the key), then DO NOT CHANGE THE CORRECT INFO I HAVE ADDED IN MY EDITS TODAY as such continued removal of correct info wastes other editors time dealing with these stupid cases, where adequate evidence has clearly been researched and discussed as being clear! Jimthing (talk) 05:14, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Seems odd to add the other date so quickly when the other date was taken out untill this could be sorted through. For one thing The Independent is clearly a relaible source, but the strength of the source depends on what it says. If they are simply stating her age then it would not be used to source a DOB. If, however it is clearly staing an exact day, month and year, that is a reliable source for the information. However, if there are other reliable sources that counter the information then it is a mtter of equal validity and we would have to figure out a way to add both side of it. I would rather you reverted yourself as we shouldn't begin edit warring and for anyone else to do so would certainly be seen as such. I am going to be going over all the "independent" content I removed and place everything back that was removed as long as it is clearly supported by the source. Can we keep calm and carry on please?--Amadscientist (talk) 22:43, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Nothing should be removed, as nothing is incorrect (accept to you it seems!) — the only thing editors should be doing here is ADDING cites for the 1981 date if they can find them, but certainly not remove the CORRECT date as proven on her birth cert. It doesn't matter whether newspapers are generally good sources or not, as in this case they are entirely wrong, so those wrong ones shouldn't be used, or have any equivalency here, at all. "Equal validity" is incorrect here, as the info is proved beyond doubt by her birth cert. Jimthing (talk) 04:43, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I believe the 1981 date has been established as accurate, sources just haven't been added to the article. You seem to making a good deal of assumptions. What editors should be doing is collaborating and not fighting each other and edit warring. Telling editors anything else creats resentment and is likely going to lead to edit warring.

Birth date references

Add all the sources here for a full discussion. I would like to see this done before we begin on the DR/N so that ALL sources are clearly laid out to be reviewed. I would also like to warn editors that the strength of these sources will be held against the criteria for reliable sources per policy and guidelines and if the outcome is, that there is an equal amount of sources that say both 1981 and 1985.....both years will have to be mentioned per the policy on balance of equal validity. I would also like to warn off all involved participants that may have a close association with the figure of this article.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:31, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

1981 references:

• 1) Reference: http://www.islingtongazette.co.uk/home/my_islington_school_made_me_a_star_says_paloma_faith_1_684393 States her age in Oct' 2010 as 29 rather than in DD/MM/YY form.
• 2) Reference:
• 3) Reference

1985 references:

• 1) http://www.contactmusic.com/info/paloma_faith
• 2) http://www.glamourmagazine.co.uk/celebrity/biographies/paloma-faith
• 3) http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/paloma-faith
• 4) http://www.bbc.co.uk/music/artists/f23f6dd0-bfb0-43d5-bf06-eae4315db502

I also wish to warn editors of making any accusations against the figure or representatives/managment/record label. Regardless of why, there is clearly real discrepancies in the birth record of the figure and I will be looking into our policies on this. One last thing, do not post anything that contains personal information not already in the public record or you may be blocked from editing.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:31, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Amadscientist, thanks for looking into this. I have added a source above. Criggy77 (talk) 01:34, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

This whole idea is entirely idiotic! We don't need to look at the sources for each date — we already know the 1985 ones are wrong. The correct date is as per her birth certificate, the end. As per my comment above (under Age); regardless of press mistakes —deliberate (eg. PR spin) or otherwise (eg. copied from WP wrongly!)— we do not need a discussion on "equal validity" to prove this fact. I advise others to not get involved in this mistake of an idea, misrepresenting the WP guidelines entirely — "both years will have to be mentioned per the policy on balance of equal validity" is entirely irrelevant here; as the birth cert has proved beyond any doubt the correct date, the only question is finding and using citations that are acceptable to use under WP policy (behind paywalls or not) for this correct date. And to avoid misedits back to the wrong date, a simple <!-- hidden comment --> markup can be used to explain to editors in the process of wrongly doing one, as other articles use for a variety of similar reasons. Jimthing (talk) 04:23, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

This section and discussion were created when a DR/N filing was underway and before it was closed. Much of the need here was to give everyone an opportunity to present their references over the dispute. I will say that the birth cerificate is not considered a reliable source as there can be others with such a name and that it cannot be proven to be the actual figure by Wikipedians. I have looked through this and find nothing that allows such a document to be used in this manner. There is some mention in an essay and at the RS/N but nothing that supports the use of a birth certificate as a reliable source. In fact, generally speaking, it is simply a government record and therefore a primary source. Per WP:WPNOTRS:

Primary sources are often difficult to use appropriately. While they can be both reliable and useful in certain situations, they must be used with caution in order to avoid original research. While specific facts may be taken from primary sources, secondary sources that present the same material are preferred. Large blocks of material based purely on primary sources should be avoided. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors.

Discussion on equal validity only assumes there are references or equal validity, not that there are or have been found. But I will say this much, it is not our place, our job or our responsibility to prove anything. We are summarizing published information. The idea of mentioning both dates was a suggestion of what could have been an option if there was a need. Please do not make this more difficult than it already has been. And, I am not much for hidden comments that attempt to "instruct" editors.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:51, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Firstly, as has previously been repeated several times now, there is no one else with her name in the public record, so it cannot be anyone else, and this birth cert is not being used in any manor in the article, except as it should be; in discussion on this talk page to ascertain the correct fact before publication of the correct fact. Secondly, I already said it could not be used as a source, but this does not mean the figure it gives is wrong, hence thirdly, a source should be found to corroborate the correct date accordingly, ignoring all the wrong ones that maybe out there. This line covers this exactly "While specific facts may be taken from primary sources, secondary sources that present the same material are preferred", meaning we can ascertain the facts from a primary source, but secondary sources are preferred to present the facts on WP.

When the site publishes things that are straightforward a-or-b points, not open to conjecture through POV's, like a date that has been proven in a primary source to be the correct one, there should be no need to summarise all published information when they are straight-forwardly entirely wrong! Otherwise the site would have infinite wrong dates quoted on pages, just because some sources had at one time or another happened to use the wrong ones, and this is simply not the case, except when there is no clear evidence one way or another. But again, there is clear evidence in this case, so there is absolutely no correct points of conjecture. One of the uses of hidden comment is so a simple comment can be made to avoid misedits happening where editors have not seen the talk page where a discussion has happened, and the page keeps getting the same thing repeatedly occur. So there's nothing wrong in its usage in this case. Jimthing (talk) 11:44, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

First, as I said, regardless of your assertion that this is the correct person's information, it cannot be demonstrated. While a birth certificate is a primary source because it is a government record, it also doesn't pass the right to privacy policy and cannot be used as a source on the article. Since it cannot be used on the article as a source, all discussion of it as a source is only speculative and therefore dismissed. So, as far as any claim that someone knows what the actual birth record states, there is no way to actually demonstrate that for Wikpedia's purposes. And Wikipedia is filled with inaccurate dating. I just changed one a while back.

I will say it again. There have been issues with improper dating and the reasons have been discussed and there are editors that have provided some sourcing. There is nothing wrong with making a hidden comment. There is something wrong with making hidden intructions. A comment to mention that the dating was in dispute is fine, but you cannot tell editors not to change something. The reason the date keeps getting changed is because there has yet to be a RS added to the information and as we see there are still editors in disagreement. I have not had tome to go through all the references but I believe there was a reference from another source that was provided that does demonstrate through back dating, that the 1981 DOB is accurate, but it needs to be added as an inline citation. That's all. Not a big deal...and yet no one has actually done it yet. I will get around to it later today if I can.--Amadscientist (talk) 18:17, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I will say this about the birth certificate and how it relates to the article. The threshold for inclusion on Wikipedia is verifiablity. It doesn't mean it has to be a cited method of verification, so...knowing there is a government document that can be used to verify the information (we know there is an actual birth certificate and we have an editor that has confirmed birth records through ancestry.com, which can be used in a limited manner as it aggregates the accurate government records with full parental documentation etc. and is not a privacy issue). We even have a limited amount of info above to use this as a source in the discussion about using Ancestry.com info above. I will see about adding this as a ref a little later.--Amadscientist (talk) 18:54, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I see anonymous IP's have reverted the date back to 1985.......why am I not surprised. I'm done with this as there are obviously people with a vested interest. Thanks for trying Jimthing. Criggy77 (talk) 14:41, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Added some refences for 1985. I really don't have a vested interest, but it is sad to be labeled older than you are. Not that I assume which she is just being optimistic I guess ErdoS (talk) 18:45, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Agent Provocateur

Please disambiguate the agent provocateur link (referred to in the article as where she worked to fund her university education) because at present agent provocateur links to a 1984 foreigner album.--86.8.252.7 (talk) 07:50, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

 Done. - JuneGloom07 Talk? 13:01, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Tour Dates

Could I ask why the tour dates keep getting removed from the tour section? Whoever is removing them please could you stop, and please could someone restore the dates as I cannot find a way to do so. Thank you x Jagoperson (talk) 15:26, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I removed them a minute ago because I don't they're relevant in an encyclopaedia article- we're not here to plug the tour for her. That said, it's worth a mention, just no with the dates. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:30, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Her first two tours are already mentioned in the article. So far, her tours have not been notable enough to warrant a seperate article on them or a own seperate section in this article. I think the rest of that tour section needs to go. - JuneGloom07 Talk? 17:20, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Talking about the tours is fine, as long as it's sourced, but we don't need to be going into minute detail and including all the tour dates. It smacks of WP:FANCRUFT and, as I said above, we're not here to plug the tour for her but sourced commentary is fine. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:25, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Tour

I think the tour should get it's own page. --L.Geee 18:07, 9 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by LittleGee (talk • contribs)

It shouldn't though, since it's not notable enough. Have a look at WP:MUSIC. A previous tour article was deleted because it didn't meet the guidelines. - JuneGloom07 Talk? 18:12, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

There is more there is many more Tours open which have less on. I'm sorry but i think one should be opened. --92.17.44.141 (talk) 10:08, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Band Members

Why is this on Paloma's page?! :/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.151.199.124 (talk) 12:40, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Someone added it this morning. I wasn't too sure if band members are included in a singers page, so I just fixed the table. It is unsourced though, so unless a source can be found, it should probably go. - JuneGloom07 Talk? 12:45, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Paloma is a solo singer, which mean's she doesn't have a band. So it's completely lies whoever added it. User:LittleGee

It's not "lies". She does have a band to play her music, otherwise she would be alone on stage when she performs. - JuneGloom07 Talk? 14:02, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

That is what her record label provides her with, she could get a different band each time she plays live, and others she'll just sing with the instrumental tune. She is a solo singer, not a band member. L.Geee

It's a moot point now, the information has been removed. (Btw, if you sign your posts with the four ~~~~, it'll provide your signature and a date and time stamp). - JuneGloom07 Talk? 14:11, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Born Like This - Doom (formerly MF Doom)

Paloma Faith features on a number of tracks on this album as the character Cat-Girl, she doesn't actually sing I don't think but speaks a number of lines in an american accent that are sprinkled amongst I think three songs. Don't know where this info should go. The wiki page on Born Like This features some information about which songs she's on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.156.131 (talk) 13:55, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, it would need a reliable reference to back it up for a start. Otherwise, it can go in the music career section I guess. - JuneGloom Schmooze 14:01, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Is the wiki page for that album ok? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.146.255 (talk) 13:21, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

If you want to hear any of it type 'supervillain intro' into itunes and listen to the 30 second sample. she has one line of dialogue, they must be friends or she's a fan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.146.255 (talk) 13:29, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Are you asking to use that Wiki article as a reference in this one? - JuneGloom Talk 13:32, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I suppose... I've never put a reference for anything, just typed it in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.110.104.97 (talk) 14:20, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Okay I see. Well, we can't use another Wiki article as a reference, so we need to find one from elsewhere. I'll have a look now. :) - JuneGloom Talk 15:32, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Once I'd waded through the torrent sites and blogs that came up, I found this - [3]. Would you like to add it to the article or shall I? - JuneGloom Talk 15:53, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Nice find! Like I said I've got no idea how to give a reference so you better do it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.70.202.123 (talk) 13:04, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Apologies for being slow, but I've now added the info and the ref. Thank you. :) - JuneGloom Talk 19:13, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Image

I should mention that the two remaining images are also heading for deletion and I can't seem to find a free image to replace them. If anyone has a free image of Faith that they would like to release for use on the article, it would be most welcomed. - JuneGloom Talk 21:59, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

discography page

i think she should have her own discography page, were singles and albums and videos are listed. --91.154.106.236 (talk) 08:48, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I always figured one would be created after she released her second album. However, I did start one in my sandbox once. I'll see what it looks like and if, with a little work, it could be moved to the mainspace. - JuneGloom Talk 12:48, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

It has now been created at Paloma Faith discography but since she is mostly notable for her singles we should keep those in the main article as a simple list. Other artists like Rihanna or Christina Aguilera may have only their albums listed in their article but that is because they have released more than one notable album and too many singles to easily present them in the main article. De728631 (talk) 20:10, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

jessie j has released one album and six singles one more than paloma and her page hasnt the singles in display! i think its unnecesary, once she has another album we need to remove them anyway! --91.154.106.199 (talk) 20:14, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

+ can somebody add another photo of paloma so we can add it to the main page, curently we only have one? --91.154.106.199 (talk) 20:15, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

+can somebody add the videos with the directors?? --91.154.106.199 (talk) 20:18, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

We do not need to remove anything since there is absolutely no rule that says we must present only albums. See WP:WikiProject_Musicians/Article_guidelines#Discography_section that says "in most cases this can be done using a simple list of their albums". Note, albums, not a single album. Such decisions should be made from case to case and apparently neither I nor Puffin thought that a single album in this article was representative enough. De728631 (talk) 20:21, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

91.154.106.199 if you want another image, I suggest you have a search on Flickr for a freely licensed one. For what it's worth,I agree with De728631's point above. - JuneGloom Talk 20:39, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

See also Melissa Auf der Maur or Santigold where singles are listed beside albums in the artist's article despite an existing discography page. De728631 (talk) 20:41, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

If you, me and Puffin(?) agree the singles should be listed in the article than I think we have reached a consensus to include them. - JuneGloom Talk 20:48, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. Puffin has reverted the IP two times, so I suppose they didn't like those edits. See also Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. De728631 (talk) 21:05, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I do agree, the singles should be listed in the article. Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 16:02, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Since there is consensus to include singles I will now restore the simple list. De728631 (talk) 20:11, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Just going to bring this up again, since an IP has started to remove the singles from the article. I asked them to bring the issue here, but was ignored. I still think the singles should be included, and will assume for now that De728631 and Puffin also agree. - JuneGloom Talk 14:28, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

singLEs on the main page

why do we need to have the singles on the main page, everyother artist doesnt have it, and now that she releases a second album there will be more singels and it get too much, why not stick to a system that we have it one way, that only albums are shown on the main page, emeli sande, jessie j, lana del rey all released ONLY ONE album, has only albums shown. So why just paloma HAS to have the singles on the main page????

--91.154.104.225 (talk) 14:49, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

A group of editors have discussed this above. You may not personally agree with the consensus - but that does not give you the right to override it. Wikipedia is a collaboration and it does not work when editors try to edit war to get their own way. Please stop reverting the addition of the singles. In addition – All your other favourite artists may not follow this – but they have little to do with this subject.Rain the 1 18:04, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

The WP:OSE argument should be avoided, but since you brought it up, Melissa Auf der Maur and Santigold have their singles included in the articles. I still think the singles should be listed in the article for now as there is still only one album released. Perhaps after her next few singles are released, this discussion can be revisited and revised. - JuneGloom Talk 20:16, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

awards and nominations

we dont have a page or a list about her awards and nominations, she has been nominted for a BRIT in 2011, but there could be more awards or nominations, can somebody do this?? --91.154.104.225 (talk) 15:01, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I only know of the Brit award, which has been mentioned in the prose. I don't think one nomination warrants a separate list. If/when she is nominated for more awards, then a table can be placed in the article. - JuneGloom Talk 18:18, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

File:Paloma Faith performing in August 2010.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Paloma Faith performing in August 2010.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Paloma Faith performing in August 2010.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 18:18, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

File:Paloma faith performing.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Paloma faith performing.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Paloma faith performing.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 18:19, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Blanking

Sourced information in the article has been blanked by 91.154.107.224. I reverted once, so now I'm here to discuss a way forward. Personally I don't see why any of that information had to be removed, you can't just leave out details of her second album and what she went through to get it released. There was nothing controversial about the information, but seemingly a case of it shouldn't be there, but somewhere else. Can 91.154.107.224 shed some more light on why they blanked that information and why it cannot be in the article? - JuneGloom Talk 21:24, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

My only concern is that it touches upon the important info only. I actually think it was relevant to the article. So I do not see that as a valid reason to remove the information - especially without discussion. As for which parts really need to be there can be discussed further - but I certainly think the amount of information that removed was a mistake.Rain the 1 23:30, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I fully agree. There may well be some information that the article can afford to lose, but just removing it like that was not the best way to go about it. - JuneGloom Talk 14:51, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Marriage

Apparently she's been/is married too, to a man called [Rian Haynes]. Does anyone have any more information on this? Stellaseeker (talk) 14:54, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I've just checked ancestry.co.uk (whose records are obtained from the General Register Office) and the only record of anyone called Paloma Blomfield (since 1837 when government records began) is the birth of Paloma Faith Blomfield in July 1981. So, if she has ever been married, it was not in the UK. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Majorbonkers (talk • contribs) 00:37, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

@Majorbonkers: If this marriage did occur I suspect it happened after 2005 that the records for Ancestry seem to go up to. Or do you have access to post-2005 records? Criggy77 (talk) 23:13, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Criggy77, you've got a point. If she had been married in this country since 2005 it would probably not yet show up on Ancestry. However, had this been the case, I think we would almost certainly have heard about it.

BLP

Since only one editor has made an opening comment on the DR/N, I have decided to post some BLP policies here to begin some clean up work. First, remember this is not just an encyclopedia article, it is a biography of a living person. What does this mean exactly? For one it means:

Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page. Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States, to this policy, and to Wikipedia's three core content policies:

• Neutral point of view (NPOV)
• Verifiability (V)
• No original research (NOR)

Along with that, editors must keep in mind the following per WP:LUC:

Wikipedia's Law of Unintended Consequences If you write about yourself, your group or your company, once the article is created, you have no right to control its content, or to delete it outside the normal channels. Content is irrevocably added with every edit. If there is anything publicly available on a topic that you would not want to have included in an article, note that it will probably find its way there eventually.

BLP policy per WP:DOB states:

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. If the subject complains about the inclusion of the date of birth, or the person is borderline notable, err on the side of caution and simply list the year. In a similar vein, articles should not include postal addresses, e-mail addresses, telephone numbers, or other contact information for living persons, though links to websites maintained by the subject are generally permitted.

Per WP:BLPSOURCES

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.

For the above reason I am removing the following references:

• The Independent
• Daily Mail

I am keeping Thisislondon as being a part of The London Evening Standard which has turned around its reputation for tabloid jounalism while keeping the tabloid format and becoming a free paper in 2009.

--Amadscientist (talk) 10:19, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Current clean up

I have removed two tabloid journalism references that are used heavily through out the article. I will be returning to this later today. If editors wish they may help clean that up by removing the inline citations that are now red errored, but do not return those sources. Also, we need not remove all the information sourced with those references, just anything contenious or controverisal or would likely be challenged. If no one else gets to it I will finish cleaning up these red errors later.--Amadscientist (talk) 11:03, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Just glancing through the article I see a few other references that stand out and will likely have to be removed as non RS as well.--Amadscientist (talk) 11:08, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

And just a quick note....if there are copyright issues they will be removed. Others can attempt to re-word them later if they wish, but the first sentence in the "Early life" section was closely paraphrasing the Thisislondon reference. Since I had already edited that to remove the unneeded detail of her parents nationality that is no longer an issue, but all other copyright issues will be removed.--Amadscientist (talk) 11:15, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

The Bots did a bit of rescuing this morning so there are no red error links at the moment but the rest of the inline citations will be going later today.--Amadscientist (talk) 12:24, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello Amadscientist, thank you for helping to clean the article up. Normally I'd help you out, but I'm starting to care less and less about this page. I've been accused of all sorts (by editors, who I suspect wouldn't give two hoots about the article if it wasn't for her birthdate), while I've been trying to help it. If you've removed her birthdate from the lead, should it be removed from the ibox too? I think there are some things in the career beginnings section that can certainly go. I didn't really edit that section much and can't remember which editor did (not accusing them of anything, but they might of been able to help). Also, I had no idea that The Independent had become a tabloid. :/ - JuneGloom Talk 13:30, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

While the removal of the birthdate may only be a temporary removal (depending on the sources etc), yes it should also be removed from the info box. Thanks.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:59, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Removing Hitquaters as a questionable source due to its "promotional nature" per Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:28, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

When I said there were some things in the career beginnings section that should go, I didn't mean everything. :/ I'm also not sure I'm comfortable with the removal of what seems like every tabloid source going either (same goes for dead links). Oh, and "2009–10: Do You Want the Truth or Something Beautiful?" isn't an unencyclopedic heading. I think you'll find most musician's articles are set out that way, take Taylor Swift or LeAnn Rimes for instance. The sections tend to be named after the albums. - JuneGloom Talk 16:22, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for taking a minute to find a good article with a GA rating as an example. But, if you look at the Taylor Swift article, headings are not just using an album title alone

I am not removing every tabloid source. If you read the history I even mention one being left that is tabloid sized but is not a "tabloid journlism" source. Tabloid is a format size of a paper smaller than broadsheet. Tabloid Journalism is a sensationlist source. Information is removed when it cannot be supported and is contentious, involves other parties or makes claims that cannot be supported without a source. Tour dates, locations etc. must have some supporting reference and are not always needed for an article. Dead links do not always mean the content has to be removed. I agree....however when the claim is that 2010 was the figure's first tour, then the next claim says 2009 was the first tour, we leave the content that has a RS.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:13, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

There are some issues that I have not addressed yet. The Guardian sources. The Guardian is under a community restriction for use on Wikipedia. When using the Guardian we must attribute the author and the publication as opinion. This is also currently the same restriction for use of "The Huffington Post" per community discussions on WP:RS/N. Due to this being a BLP article, I feel there is little room to ignore such decisions. (Edit- AndyTheGrump is correct) The article has not gone through a complete clean-up yet. I am not rushing this through. However there are several more sources that may well be removed and more content that will also be removed. Sadly, there is simply no other way. The sources for the figure appear very limited as their career does not seem long enough for mention in such sources at the moment.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:21, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

"The Guardian is under a community restriction for use on Wikipedia. When using the Guardian we must attribute the author and the publication as opinion". I'd like to see a source for that unlikely-looking statement. And on what basis are you describing the Independent as 'tabloid' beyond your own original research? AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:50, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't have anything beyond what I looked into Andy. That is why this was asked at WP:RS/N. I don't trust what I have seen overall as being accurate. This is being asked also to find some lasting consensus on this issue.--Amadscientist (talk) 12:08, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Comment moved from DR/N that has not yet been opened

This is a relatively new artist who has a long way to go. At such an early stage none of the content can be reliable sourced and facts can change during her life and beyond. Don't be surpirsed if you see content disputes 15 or 20 years down the line about her life, achievements, interactions with other celebrities etc.

All Wikipedia editors are reminded that Wikipedia is not a Who's Who (WP:NOTWHOSWHO) about musicians or their Life and coverage of an artist should be proprtionate to their achievement. Hence, the more she gets covered due to her achievements or other reasons of notability, the more you willl find independent and reliable sources (WP:RELIABLE) about the facts of her life (like DOB). Both sides are on rather thin ice. Birth records and other primary sources are not allowed as per (WP:BLPPRIMARY) as the owner of these records is the individual and this artist can have her DOB changed later (by following due procedure). In fact publishing such a source coule be a breach of privacy (WP:BLPPRIVACY). The single article in The Independent does not meet requirements of (WP:BLPSOURCES) as it does not give full DOB and is the only independently published source.

Finally, all editors are reminded that Wikipedia articles are not owned by anyone (WP:OWN) and hence, change or deletion of an article is not a reflection on your competence. I suggest all editors to disengage from this dispute (WP:DISENGAGE) for atleast a month and let other editors contribute to it. You can always come back and edit later -Wikishagnik (talk) 05:46, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

The DR/N case filing has about 24 hrs left before being closed for lack of participation.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:55, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

A BLP concern

An anonymous IP number elsewhere on this page made what I think are completely unfounded allegations that Paloma Faith has been lying about her age. A far more likely scenario, since she's on record in reliable sources with the correct date, is that one reliable source made an error. It is even possible (though I haven't checked the timeline) that we picked up the error from (say) The Independent and then it was copied elsewhere. In any event, since BLP applies everywhere in Wikipedia, even talk pages, I think the claims from the ip should at minimum be hidden. I'd do it myself but I'm not 100% sure that I'm reading the discussion correctly and this page seems active enough that some good contributors will do it quickly enough upon reflection.

I'll return to this tomorrow or possibly later tonight to see what the status is.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:31, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Well there is this: http://www.popjustice.com/interviewsandfeatures/an-interview-with-paloma-faith/59817/ States she is 24 in August 2010 and the interviewer clearly doesn't believe her.

In this article: http://www.thenational.ae/arts-culture/music/blinded-by-the-brightness-of-paloma-faith She says that she went to NSCD at 18 and therefore this graduation picture from 2002 makes her ~21 after a 3 year degree: http://www.nscd.ac.uk/files/NSCD/alumni_NSCD_2002.pdf If she was 21 in 2002 she cannot be 24 in 2010, she would be 28/29 depending on the timing of the popjustice phone interview. Criggy77 (talk) 17:03, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I think you are badly misinterpreting cheeky banter in that "Pop Justice" interview. She is pretty clearly being provocative/joking with the interviewer. And the interviewer has written up the interview in a humorous way, for example editorializing about a pause by describing it as "(pointless pause)". I'd need to see a lot more to be convinced that it is appropriate to make the claim that she's deliberately lying about her age.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 02:20, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I will be getting back to this in the next day or so. I got wrapped up in other issue and today I am a tad ill.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:01, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh, and going over policy I discovered that I was incorrect about back dating for DOB. It appears this is common.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:02, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Whilst I agree it's wrong, it should be noted that it's claimed she's younger on her website. This is a 2012 article claiming she's 26 http://www.palomafaith.com/gb/biography/ 87.243.216.173 (talk) 22:55, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

And we have been over this all. Do not edit war.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:39, 27 February 2013 (UTC)