Biography
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 => SometimesThis is the name she performed under in her early days in Calgary.[6]
• Kiesza Rae Ellestad => Rarely, but sometimes used [7].
  • Kiesza Ellestad => One reasonably good source London Evening Standard.
• Kaisa Ellestad => This has been used for credit for writing "Hideaway" on Allmusic.com[8]. 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 [9]).
• 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[10] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]