Jump to content

Talk:Siobhan Magnus

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

Pronunciation

[edit]

Pronunciation anyone? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.162.148.199 (talk) 03:44, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sho-vahn is how it is usually pronounced. I've never heard of an alternative even when I attended her same school. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 17:26, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Shiv-awn Mag-n-us Telementeh (talk) 10:29, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Personal Life

[edit]

Anyone else have issue with the fact that this section is dominated by her tattoos? I mean, really.

We don't have enough information apparently to warrant the inclusion of a "personal life" subsection at this moment. There was only the descriptions of Siobhan's tattoos, which are not very relevant or notable. Siobhan is notable for having been a contestant on American Idol, which would mean this info needs to have an angle as to her singing, or something close to it. Though she's an intriguing character, I feel her Tats just don't cut it. Retran (talk) 07:55, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And I moved the only appropriate sentence (regarding her apprenticeship) to the "eduction" section, which seems more fit anyway. "Personal Life" means things like... who/where they live, who they're dating/engaged/married-to (if any), sexual orientation when relevant, divorces if any, offspring, troubles with law if any... stuff like that. Tattoos? Nope. Wrong reality show. Retran (talk) 08:10, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have a problem with the edit summary of "per consensus on talk page; removed Personal Life b/c it only contained trivial info (tattoo descriptions and placement)..." since there was no consensus on the talk page, especially since you commented here after you edited with that summary. As there was no consensus here to remove the reliable sourced information that has been in the article since it was started, I am going to place it back in the article. Aspects (talk) 19:47, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can we please agree to delete this section? Like Retran mentioned, "personal life" should be marriage, children etc etc. And definitely not about tattoos. Telementeh (talk) 17:48, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I support removal. Completely trivial and poorly sourced. --Active Banana | bananaphone 17:58, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I also support removal. Tattoos isn't enough to keep this section. Bulletinspace (talk) 22:35, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ratings Dropoff

[edit]

I've noticed a back-and-forth about the idea that ratings have dropped "to the lowest of the season" or "significantly" or whatever since Siobhan was dropped. I will state that right now I feel this idea does not at all deserve inclusion at the moment. But I will explain a bit more why I feel this way, and I will argue that the reasons put forward in the Edit Summary's so far are NOT the best argument as to why the idea should not deserve mention. I am going to argue against demanding "proof" of "cause-and-effect" for an idea in this range of topics (TV/TV ratings/TV personalities) to warrant inclusion in an article. Retran (talk) 08:12, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, I would argue that the standard for inclusion of this idea does not rely on "proof" of cause-and-effect. Encyclopedic content is a collection of knowledge, and inclusion of information is not necessarily based on "proof" or "evidence". Inclusion of material in an encyclopedia like this one based on the consensus of contributors (us) that such material in question summarizes the established knowledge of the topic (Siobhan). Requiring "proof" of cause-and-effect would be an extreme standard to assert for this range topical areas (TV/TV ratings/TV personalities) as cause-and-effects of any social phenomena are quite difficult to establish. The standard for inclusion of such an idea in this range of topics would be primarily its notability, and secondly, if its inclusion is consistent with other Wikipedia policies (importantly the neutrality/undue focus one). Retran (talk) 08:12, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If there was (or ever is) plenty of notable discussion from notable TV ratings experts and/or any other kinds of experts about TV, regarding Siobhan's dismissal leading to lower ratings: then the idea WOULD warrant inclusion. The idea would then (in this hypothetical) warrant inclusion even without any sort of statistical correlation being provided and accepted in peer review. I feel peer-reviewed ("proven") correlation would simply not be the standard needed here. This topic is something far too informal to expect a rigorous social-science standard be applied to warrant inclusion. While there is such a standard (requiring peer-reviewed evidence/rigor) in other topical areas (such as cause-and-effect of illnesses and their purported cures) I don't feel that kind of standard ought to be applied here. Discussion and acceptance by sources with expertise/notability in TV ratings would be plenty to establish notability.Retran (talk) 08:20, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As of now, it seems to be a marginal idea spoken by people marginal in the field of TV . Therefore, I feel the idea that Siobhan's dismissal led to the significant loss of viewership of American Idol should NOT be included in this article at this time... Unless anyone can provide reference material to cite otherwise!? Retran (talk) 07:49, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here I will agree with you, if reliable sources are coorelating the ratings dropoff with Magnus's exit from the show, then the information should be include. If those sources are just mentioning that there was a dropoff, then the information should not be in the article. Aspects (talk) 19:48, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For this part, would it be better if we provide a link to List of American Idol controversies - Section 1.6 Season nine Siobhan Magnus vote-off  ? Telementeh (talk) 19:09, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

reliable sources and trivia

[edit]

I tagged the article for two issues:

1) Reliable sources - content about living people must be verifiable as having been published in sources with the highest standards of accuracy and fact checking. Many of the claims in this article are to celebrity gossip sites that do not appear to meet that criteria.

2) A whole section about someones tattoos??? Considering that her claim to fame is not that she is the most tattooed girl in the world or anything at all related to her tattoos, the content isWP:TRIVIAL at best. And while there are sources, just because something is verifiable doesnt mean that it belongs in an encyclopedia.

Thanks! Active Banana (talk) 14:41, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It would be helpful if you would list what sources that you think are not reliable, because with a brief glance at the reflist it looks like most of the sources are reliable. The reason I removed this template originally is that it states the article needs more references, which it really does not since most of the article is sourced by a total of thirty sources.
I think the paragraph about her tattoos is relevant seeing how it is about her and what they represent. It is more than just trivia if three different reliable sources discussed them in their articles. WP:Trivia does not apply because that is about the way the "trivia" is represented and not whether the information is trivia. WP:Trivia states that the information should be in article prose, which this information already is. WP:IINFO does not apply because it the information is not an "indiscriminate collection of information" and is not one of the examples listed. I also think this is not fancruft since three sentences is not excessive given the size of the article and it is not trivia. The only problem with the section is that more information of her personal life should be mentioned that the paragraph is not the entire section. Aspects (talk) 20:09, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

reliable sources

[edit]

"It would be helpful if you would list what sources that you think are not reliable" all of the blogs, facebook, imageshack to begin with. Active Banana (talk) 20:13, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is not a list, I was asking for specific ones so they could be discussed to see if they are reliable. Just mentioning different types of sources is not helpful for what I was asking for. Aspects (talk) 20:18, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since you claim to lack the ability to identify blogs and other non reliable sources, these are all questionable. Active Banana ( bananaphone 20:02, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I replaced #1 with a source from boston.com. Due to the discussion above about the personal life section, I removed that section, along with the questionable #2 and #3 sources. I replaced #4 with a link to the actual episode on wb.com instead of the little blurb talking about the episode. I kept #5 since it is a yearbook that can be checked. I removed #6 and #7 since the sentences are already supported by another source. I kept #8 since it is from the LA Times and #9 since it is from Yahoo News. I replaced #10 with a link to the actual performance from Wendy Williams website. Since I have removed and/or replaced the questionable sources and kept the reliable sources that were questioned, I am going to remove the template at the top of the article. Aspects (talk) 23:37, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The House of the Rising Sun

[edit]

The most popular version of this song was done by The Animals, but this is a traditional folk ballad. For more information, The House of the Rising Sun.

Still, Siobhan herself said before the performance, and I quote, "I'm going to sing 'House of the Rising Sun' by The Animals". Later, Ryan Seacrest introduced her with the words "Tonight she's taking us back to 1964, with The Animals' hit, 'House of the Rising Sun'." So I suppose it would only be fair to put "The Animals" as Original Artist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bulletinspace (talk • contribs) 13:44, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
They can say "The Animals" a thousand times on the show, but that does not make them the original artist. If the table has a column that reads "Artist Named on the Show" then The Animals is fine, but so long as the column says "original" artist it cannot truthfully name The Animals. 142 and 99 (talk) 03:28, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article Clean-Up

[edit]

I explained the reasons for my latest edit. This article is extremely bloated. Nobody cares about the names of her siblings or the fact that her uncle was a judge. Most articles about Idol contestants don't contain any biographical information at all. I created a separate section for her solo career because that's what most people visiting this page are interested in. -Brian

Magnus is a singer-songwriter and is in the category Category:American singer-songwriters and no reason was given for the change to recording artist. Biographies on Wikipedia usually have information regarding the immediate family of parents, siblings, children and other notable people in their extended family and all of the information is sourced. Singer's biographies usually have their early beginnings in singing and all of the information is sourced. Giving the specifics of what shows she performed on is much better than saying she "performed on several talk shows" and again all of these performances are sourced. Since all of this information is sourced, I am returning it to the article. Please continue discussing here to gain a consensus instead of reverting back without an edit summary or "changed it" that explains nothing. Aspects (talk) 23:29, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is no reason to list every one of her family members by name. None of them are particularly notable people. Same goes for Lunar Valve and URO. They are utterly insignificant and don't deserve the attention they're getting. Most Idol articles don't contain detailed information about talk show appearances. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, for godsakes. I don't think Daughtry's bio mentions every talk show or concert he has performed in. Siobhan is a recording artist by profession. She has rarely been described as a "singer-songwriter". That designation applies more to someone like Crystal Bowersox or Kris Allen. -B.
Per WP:BRD, now that we are at the discussion phase, you need to wait until there is a consensus to change instead of reverting back to your version. Aspects (talk) 06:56, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To keep consistent with biography details of her immediate family I am going to remove the information about her non-notable grandfather, but the information to her uncle should stay since he has his own article. Aspects (talk) 19:47, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Siobhan_Magnus&oldid=1208345556"