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.
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]