Jump to content

Talk:Ariana Grande/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Semi-protected edit request on 13 January 2014

Ariana Grande's does not have a middle name, she just simply likes the name Joan.(her mothers name) AmberEidson (talk) 01:17, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

 Not done Already in article with references. Geraldo Perez (talk) 01:32, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Text

should be left in the previous version before changes another user. The now is the right. Thanks. --Connie (A.K) (talk) 00:29, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Edit conflict in 2013–present section: January 14, 2014

I figured as an edit conflict is occurring it would be best to attempt to resolve it here on the talk page by reaching a consensus on which edit is preferred for the article: my proposed edit or La Avatar Korra's proposed edit.

I personally believe that my edit summarises the information effectively without detracting anything from the article. I found that previous edit read like a list, eg. "On December 18, Grande performed X at X. On December 23, Grande performed X at X." etc etc, and I moved some of the information around so that it was in chronological order. I kept the majority of the content, removing only a few links which I felt referenced slightly trivial, overly specific information for the Ariana Grande biography as a whole, and may be better suited to the Yours Truly article.

Additionally, the edit as proposed by La Avatar Korra adds over 3700 bytes to the page, without contributing any significant change/information (in my opinion). Furthermore, this edit has been reverted previously by users SamanthaPuckettIndo [1] and STATicVapor [2] suggesting a consensus against this version.

Opinions would be appreciated. DavidMichaelScott– talk 01:02, 14 January 2014 (UTC)


No offense meant to anyone, but I believe the edit version by Davidmichaelscott is the most appropriate for this Ariana Grande page.

Carriearchdale (talk) 01:14, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes DavidMichaelScott's version is definitely the best version in my book. STATic message me! 01:24, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Hello. I think David, your version is ok but see your changes, your version is almost identical to the version that was already in the article, however, if there are certain parts that are acceptable, for example, what you mention: on december .... x. x .. . There are parts that can be salvaged. On the other hand, in the chronological order your version is wrong, write about her new album September 12, 2013 after writing her presentations in December 2013. Connie (A.K) (talk) 01:35, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for the feedback. If it is so identical I don't understand why it is necessary to consistently revert the changes? The new album part was placed after December 2013 as the performances occurred in 2013 but the new album is not due until later this year. DavidMichaelScott– talk 01:47, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

See, she talk about her second album on september, then, her performances, december 2013. Its the chronology right, sorry for my english guys. Connie (A.K) (talk) 01:59, 14 January 2014 (UTC) Add:I appreciate the fact that you compose better, but if you correct the chronological order would be better. Sorry for my english.

Okay, well I'll revert it back for now and edit the chronology further so it works better. Let me know what you think. DavidMichaelScott– talk 02:10, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Yes, It's okay. :) Thanks by fix Davidmichaelscott. Connie (A.K) (talk) 05:32, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Social 50

why delete it?, has specialized references on the subject. All articles and this article have specialized references on the subject, that is reliable references. On the other hand, there are other items that have that data. And finally, the notability is the count is based on the worldwide popularity of the artist in such sites. DavidMichaelScott was consensus for change. The notability is based on how important it can be that information, in this case, it is for an artist. The billboard 50 places the currently popular artists, an important item for any artist. Moreover, the Billboard 50 is in others artist's article. So, you asked a source of third parties, that's what was done: third source, source specializing in theme / nominations / minor. Stop edit warring. Connie (A.K) (talk) 04:05, 17 January 2014 (UTC) PS:Sorry for the english.

Social networking does not indicate the most popular artists in the world, just the most popular artists in about 6-10th grade. I never asked for more references from Billboard, I asked that you provide reliable third party sources that indicate that her charting on said chart, is notable to mention in her encyclopedia article. Do not make up other editors mind for them, when they have yet to comment, and do not make you own origional research for how important charts are. As for "the Billboard 50 is in others artist's article." I give you WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. STATic message me! 07:25, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
User Static, Billboard 50 located the artist worlwide popular in this moments on social networkings, twitter, and others. twitter is not only in United Kingdom, or not different of other countries. You're looking for excuses to withdraw such data that has specialized references on the subject, that it is verifiable. On other artist's articles such as Selena Gomez, Miley Cyrus, and more articles the Billboard 50 is there... including, on the article Austin Mahone and more. The other user, David made consensues for the change, and you said: Yes DavidMichaelScott's version is definitely the best version in my book. Sooo.... do you read or not read the differences.?? I think you don't read, because not you realize that above the chronological order was incorrect. Connie (A.K) (talk) 15:55, 17 January 2014 (UTC) PS: sorry for the English
I do not think you understand how the chart works. Also notice articles like Eminem, Justin Timberlake and Drake, mainstays on that chart, and no mention of it. And Cyrus' and Gomez's articles do not mention the chart at all in prose. Not looking for excuses, actually having logic, as the information is not notable, significant or informative to anyone reading it. That was after he cut all your excess "image" junk, and I did not know the content was there. If anyone "don't read"... its you. Also quit with your conspiracy theories on my talk page, it has gotten quite annoying, but for the record I do enjoy her music, so I am not looking to remove content, it is just not important, and you have yet to prove me wrong. STATic message me! 18:48, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
always you react so authoritatively, very aggressive. You say: [...] and I did not know the content was there, so why did you say?: Yes DavidMichaelScott's version is definitely the best version in my book, ... if you don't read that.
You say: but for the record I do enjoy her music, you say that, does not mean it is 100% truth, on the other hand, there is no need for you to say. Try to be calm please. There is a third source that is not billboard. Finally, your behavior led to believe that you have a negative characteristic to this article and its derivatives, as only you do to reverse, and monitor, but you not help to extend.
Billboard 50 ranking places the popular artists in the day. For a reference to be reliable, it must have been written by an expert. The text has three sources, two of billboard and the other source is outside. Regards. Connie (A.K) (talk) 22:19, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
If anyone needs to calm down, it really is you. On top of that, the new source you added is unreliable, see WP:IRS to understand what reliable sources are. You really make zero sense to be honest. I wish someone that speaks English would comment on here. You already have made numerous false statements, I am not surprised you continue to try to twist my words. STATic message me! 00:59, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
You said:You already have made numerous false statements, I am not surprised you continue to try to twist my words... Now You are defaming, it is a pity That you can not talk to you, you are very disrespectful towards me. I don't write lies, and I don't twisting your words, I quote your comments and I wondering you. Don't lie please.
Billboard 50 ranks the artist populars in social networkings, about the third source, i think not is neccessary, because it already has reliable references. The before sources are sufficient, are reliable and specialize in the theme. WP:RS. Regards. Connie (A.K) (talk) 05:10, 18 January 2014 (UTC)PS: Other sources, here & here.

I have to say that personally I don't think it should be included.. Firstly, of the five sources you've cited – 1234 & 5 – only three are secondary sources – 12 & 3 – and of those three, only one actually states that she peaked at #2 (what is being stated in the article) – 1. This supports the idea of this not meeting WP:SIGCOV. I contribute to a few articles on artists and none of them really mention or reference the Social 50 because as a chart it's not very significant. She could be #2 or higher multiple times over the next year, that's the nature of the chart; are we going to mention it every time it happens? It just seems a little redundant. Other charts like the Billboard 200 and Hot 100 are worth mentioning because they gain significant coverage, are used across the industry and rarely see the same up & down movements as the Social 50. Just my two cents. DavidMichaelScott– talk 00:15, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Exactly, thanks for that and of the three secondary source, none are reliable sources. As Davidmichaelscott said, the chart is not very significant and she will be a mainstay on the chart throughout the year, just as pop acts such as Katy Perry, Justin Timberlake and Justin Beiber are. It adds nothing to the article. Also La Avatar, you are the only being disrespectful, you can "quote" comments all you want, but when you make your on syntheses and totally change the meaning of what I said. STATic message me! 01:10, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

New Quote

Grande had recently commented that she wished to have the confidence of Miley Cyrus to get naked. Perhaps this could be added. Reference: http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/showbiz/news/a547157/ariana-grande-on-miley-cyrus-i-wish-i-had-confidence-to-get-naked.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.187.9.127 (talk) 17:50, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

she has always been everyone's favorite and she made a song with big sean. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.138.83.205 (talk) 15:33, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Influences: Madonna

Ariana recently said that pop icon Madonna is her 'idol' and she 'loves how she stands up for what she believes in and surprises people'

From her V magazine interview:

On her love for Madonna: “She is my idol as far as attitude. I just love how she stands up for what she believes in and surprises people by not eff-ing up when they want her to so badly. Madonna has always surprised people and she has always had her head on straight. Even when she pretends not to. When she shocks people and everything, there is always a method behind it.”

reference: (blacklisted source)

 Done. Thanks. Connie (A.K) (talk) 22:18, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

size of infobox picture

Don't know if it's just my problem, but the infobox picture is in full size, meaning it is as wide as the whole screen. When not scrolled down, I see "Ariana Grande" twice (article title and infobox title), and her head just above her eyes. Browser is not the issue here. 85.217.15.230 (talk) 00:23, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Minor grammar issue

In the Personal Life section the sentence "In late January 2014, Grande confirmed in a radio interview that her and Sykes had decided to end their approximately five month long relationship, but insisted that they remain close friends" should be altered to read "....in a radio interview that she and Sykes had...". 173.54.23.254 (talk) 14:14, 27 February 2014 (UTC)SpeedVX

Semi-protected edit request on 5 April 2014

Bubblegum123451019 (talk) 05:35, 5 April 2014 (UTC) Ariana Grande is a natural brown

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Cannolis (talk) 06:46, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 April 2014

Sam and Cat is ending at the end of this year and I would like you to change '2013-present' to '2013-14'. 109.149.217.121 (talk) 12:48, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. --ElHef (Meep?) 14:26, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 April 2014

Please add this to the article "On April 27th, 2014, Ariana Grande released the first single of her sophomore album.[1] The track, titled ″Problem″ and featuring rapper Iggy Azalea[2], broke "iTunes Store" history when it debuted. It took 37 minutes to climb to the top of the iTunes charts [3]. because I believe it should be added, the record broke history. KaitlynGibbons96 (talk) 19:56, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ (blacklisted source)
  2. ^ https://twitter.com/IGGYAZALEA/status/456920889687166976
  3. ^ https://twitter.com/ArianaGrande/status/460923319802286080/
  • Do we have a usable source? The justjaredjr website is spam-blacklisted, which makes it impractical, at best, to use as a source. Grande's own Twitter shouldn't be used for the iTunes charts item. —C.Fred (talk) 20:14, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — {{U|Technical 13}} (t • e • c) 01:03, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 May 2014

Change "She has since converted to Kabbalah" to "She has since begun practicing Kabbalah" or She has since begun studying Kabbalah" or "She has since begun following Kabbalah's teachings." The wikipedia page to which Kabbalah links itself states that "While it is heavily used by some denominations, it is not a religious denomination in itself." As it is not a denomination, one cannot "convert" to Kabbalah. 205.196.204.4 (talk) 17:44, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Done I have changed it to "She has since started following Kabbalah's teachings". I don't think this is a very important change, so I implemented it per WP:BOLD. If another editor disagrees with the change, feel free to undo and leave a message here explaining why. Best, Mz7 (talk) 21:21, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Music!

Ariana just released her hit single 'Problem' on April 26 2014! She is creating a new album and it will be awesome! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tia456 (talk • contribs) 19:28, 8 May 2014‎ (UTC)

Do you have a source for the release date? Per sources in the article, it premiered on April 27. —C.Fred (talk) 19:54, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 May 2014

c — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.180.54.210 (talk) 17:41, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

To request an edit, you'll need to be specific about what you want changed. —C.Fred (talk) 17:49, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 May 2014

"...one twenty episode..." should be: one twenty-episode 70.231.135.246 (talk) 03:35, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Done Acalycine(talk/contribs) 05:58, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Influences: Madonna

Ariana recently said that pop icon Madonna is her 'idol' and she 'loves how she stands up for what she believes in and surprises people'

From her V magazine interview:

On her love for Madonna: “She is my idol as far as attitude. I just love how she stands up for what she believes in and surprises people by not eff-ing up when they want her to so badly. Madonna has always surprised people and she has always had her head on straight. Even when she pretends not to. When she shocks people and everything, there is always a method behind it.”

reference: (blacklisted source)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 June 2014

Ariana also played lacross in high school for 3 years. Brockrenner (talk) 04:22, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. —C.Fred (talk) 04:28, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Frankie Grande

It's time for Frankie to have his own article: He started his professional career in the National Tour of Dora the Explorer Live!. He then appeared in Mamma Mia! on Broadway, held the title of Mr. Broadway 2007, produced Jude Law's Hamlet on Broadway (and vehicles for David Hyde Pierce and Jim Belushi), founded the non-profit arts empowerment organization Broadway in South Africa, toured with Justin Bieber and his sister (as a dancer), and had his own one-man show in New York. He also has an expanding social media presence. See this, for example. He is currently appearing on the TV show Big Brother. Here is more Biographical info on him and here is his Big Brother bio video. Would any Ariana or pop culture fans be willing to start an article about him? Happy editing, everyone. I will say again that Frankie really does need his own article for people to enjoy. He shouldn't just be mentioned. He deserves hi sown artcle. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:51, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Personal Life

Someone should add that she dated The Wanted's Nathan Sykes from September to December 2013 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.34.168.177 (talk) 17:43, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 August 2014

68.34.168.177 (talk) 17:49, 2 August 2014 (UTC) add to her personal life section that she dated The Wanted's Nathan Sykes from September to December of 2013

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Tutelary (talk) 17:54, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Correction

Despite being a ratings success for the network, the series was canceled on July 13, 2014 due to Grande's rising musical career and behind-the-cenes conflict. The finale aired on July 17.[28]

Scenes? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frankal065 (talk • contribs) 20:07, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Occupation

Has she really been active enough to have 'philanthropist' listed under her occupation? It doesn't seem she has done anywhere near the amount of philanthropy work as she has singing and acting. 210.218.31.101 (talk) 02:02, 1 September 2014 (UTC)09/01/2014

Artistry : Personal Image

This starts out with talk about "age-appropriate". Her video Break Free https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L8eRzOYhLuw has been criticized as overly sexy, as well as the Billboard ad with her in lingerie. http://www.billboard.com/articles/news/6251472/big-bang-theory-actress-mayim-bialik-has-a-problem-with-ariana-grande-sexy-billboard-ad I think this should be noted as the artist's progression has made this section out-dated. Nuff Said. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.53.67.129 (talk) 07:36, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Wondering

How come every time Mariah Carey's name is mentioned, it can be hyperlinked to Carey's article? But when other names, like Madonna and Whitney Houston, are mentioned more than once, they do not have additional hyperlinks to their articles? You guys need to stop this BS fan-based crap. This article is about Ariana Grande, not about having multiple chances to hyperlink to Carey's article. This needs to be changed and kept consistent throughout to give the article and Wikipedia some credibility, not to show it was written by a Mariah Carey fan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.251.112.134 (talk) 19:04, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Pope Benedict

"Pope Benedict reportedly labeled homosexuality and working women as sins." - perhaps Pope Benedict saying this was indeed reported somewhere (where?), but such reports must have been inaccurate/untrue. I think a far more verifiable, neutral and accurate statement would be "She was raised a Roman Catholic but abandoned Catholicism after becoming disillusioned with the church during the reign of Pope Benedict XVI." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.26.93.165 (talk) 19:19, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Singer-Songwriter?

Ok, This has been happening in a lot of articles, where one is not a singer-songwriter, but a singer AND a songwriter. What is the difference, exactly?Joseph Prasad (talk) 04:09, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

You might try reading Singer-songwriter. --Musdan77 (talk) 03:50, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Ok. So anyone who composes, writes, and sings, pretty much-- Joseph Prasad (talk) 03:55, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

No. The singer who writes songs is not the same as the singer-songwriter who writes political or social activism songs, or deeply personal songs, with the lyric being the most important element. A pop singer cannot be a singer-songwriter because the pop song is about the hook. Binksternet (talk) 05:35, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Album Charting

Her debut album charted at no. 1 in September 2013 - not January 2010 (which was before it was released!) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.221.57.38 (talk) 09:41, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing that out! I've fixed the date. I also did a little copyediting to an awkward sentence in that paragraph. —C.Fred (talk) 17:40, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Catholicism

Whether or not Grande was right to think that Pope Benedict "spoke out against everything from gay marriage to the Harry Potter book series" or not, that is the reason she gave for leaving the religion in the reference. EBY (talk) 04:26, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Also see talk section on "Pope Benedict". The current article says "Pope Benedict reportedly labeled...working women as sinful", but that's not what the cited article says. The article doesn't report the pope as saying that; the article reports that as her words on him -- third-hand knowledge and evidently wrong. So we should definitely tweak Ariana's article as it looks biased. There is no such evidence to support the pope was ever against "working women" and I did look into this myself. I am in favor of emphasizing her subjectivity such as "Ariana reportedly believes Pope Benedict labeled..." Paulusbenedictus (talk) 04:42, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

  • In the other section, someone put the same criticism you have. The same answer stands: This article is about Grande, not the Pope. What you are proposing is called Original Research. The cite does not question if Grande was right or wrong but you propose changing the wording to make the cite's content more "neutral" toward the Pope.
Neutrality is NOT changing what the cite says or using another cite to say "Grande was wrong". It is not retroactively arguing with Grande via Wikipedia about whether she misunderstood the Pope's beliefs. The cite - a Catholic magazine - doesn't argue if Grande was right, so Wikipedia doesn't either. It just leaves the word "reportedly" to ensure readers are aware that Grande's basis is unproven. The sanctity of the cite is one of Wikipedia's pillars.
That said - you are absolutely right that the content of the article MUST reflect the content of the cite and I will go compare and fix that.
As an aside, both these claims are cited and discussed on the Pope Benedict article - probably the best place to discuss the Pope's beliefs. EBY (talk) 14:48, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I looked at all 3 cites. The article reflects Granda's position accurately in regards to what she believed that the Pope had said. I quickly found several more that all claim Grande believed the same the thing. EBY (talk) 15:02, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I must disagree but I think it's because Wikipedia's article uses "reportedly" on the wrong subject. The referenced article doesn't reportedly cite Pope Benedict; it reportedly cites Ariana. That's the difference. If we simply move "reportedly" to her, as I recommended above ("Ariana reportedly believed Pope Benedict...", you will then have neutrality and correctly reflect the referenced article. My recommendation would fully resolve the disagreement. Paulusbenedictus (talk) 00:23, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Sounds fair. "‘I was born Roman Catholic but I lost faith when the Pope decided to tell me everything I loved and believed in was wrong," and "Grande was one who went her own way after the previous Pope made statements about pop culture and various groups that she didn’t agree with." One cite puts the words in Granda's mouth, the other takes the Pope's statements as fact. It's hairsplitting, but moving the "reportedly" appears like a reasonable change. EBY (talk) 00:58, 25 October 2014 (UTC)


  • As of 26 Nov. 2014 the line reads: "Grande was raised a Roman Catholic but abandoned Catholicism after Pope Benedict reportedly labeled homosexuality and working women as sinful." No one has reported such a claim except for Grande. Grande is the one reporting the claim. No source is cited to make such an absurd claim about Catholic working women when hundreds of thousands of working women work as professors and university presidents around the world in Roman Catholic colleges (and non-Catholic colleges), including thousands of nuns -- the quintessential Catholic working women -- working as professors and college presidents. Benedict never even claimed that homosexuality is a sin -- although he has said that the practice of homosexual sex is sinful. That sounds like quibbling, but that's exactly the type of careful distinctions one needs to make in discussing religion, even when one believes (like me) that the theology of religions as Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Sikhism, etc. are mostly nonsense. So let's be fair to Christianity, as surely Wikipedia writers would be fair to non-Christian religions despite their mostly nonsense, and change the statement to something like this:

"Grande was raised a Roman Catholic but abandoned Catholicism after she claimed (without evidence) that Pope Benedict labeled homosexuality and working women as sinful."

One needs the "without evidence" because one can't prove a negative easily without citing all of Benedict's writings and then saying: there is no claim of sinfulness of working women here or even of merely being a homosexual (i.e., homosexuality, although he has ignorantly said that homosexuality is " inherently disordered," a position generally taken by most religious devotees even up to today). But being supposedly inherently disordered is not a sin according to Benedict, so let's acknowledge his nuanced position even if I totally disagree with the merits of his position.

Here's evidence for my position: note the parenthetical comment in the Wikipedia article on Burwell v. Hobby Lobby:

"The Green and Hahn families believe that life begins at conception which they equate to fertilization, and object to their closely held for-profit corporations providing health insurance coverage to their female employees of four FDA-approved contraceptives that the Green and Hahn families believe may prevent implantation of a fertilized egg (many doctors and scientists disagree), which the Green and Hahn families believe constitute an abortion."

Is "many doctors and scientists disagree" POV? No. In the same way, "without evidence" or a suitable substitute should be inserted into this locked article.

Photo

Such a bad photo of her! Please place a more recent one... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 16jaylancew (talk • contribs) 12:03, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

It's the newest free one we have. —C.Fred (talk) 13:22, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Inheritance

I read somewhere that she stands to inherit a fortune. I don't know if this is true or just a rumour.Twa..tttz. (talk) 20:11, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, she should inherit some money, but not necessarily a "fortune". Her mom runs a business, but it does not appear that the business is a huge pot of gold. Probably Ariana makes more money now than her mom. -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:00, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Three singles simultaneously??

You guys need to put in the fact that Ariana Grande has 3 singles in the Billboard Hot 100 top ten on August 20th, 2014, with Problem, Break Free, and Bang Bang. You need to note that Ariana Grande is the 2nd lead female artist to have 3 singles in the top ten since Adele and also she is the first female artist to have 3 singles in the top 6 simultaneously on the Billboard Digital Songs charts and the 2nd overall since Michael Jackson. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.180.179.25 (talk) 06:56, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I see that this has been done. -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:02, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

List of awards

A List of Awards do not warrant a separate section, right?

Excuse me Joseph Prasad, Ariana's page should have its own warrant for the awards and nominations, and it is really frustrating when you remove it constantly, I keep trying to ask to stop, because, if you look at other pages for musicians, they have the same thing, like Rihanna for example, and on top of that I even leave a little note that says not to remove the table. What is going to happen is that Ariana Grande will have her own List of Awards warrant, and if you put it in the See Also file again, I have enough rights to block you for not following the Wikipedia rules. I understand you are trying to help but the List of Awards do not belong in the See Also file. Thank You, User:JoyUnity.

Actually, JoyUnity, if you take a look at a good article like Taylor Swift, you'll see it DOES have it's own section, but it has a summary. This one does not. Therefore, it does belong in the "see also" section. Unless you can provide information into that section. A link does not warrant it's own section. See WP:PROSPLIT. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 06:37, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I understand that and if her section has a summary, than can Ariana Grande's page remain with its own awards section and will you not keep tearing it down? Joseph Prasad — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joyunity (talk • contribs) 23:31, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, Joyunity, probably won't take it down if it has something like on the Taylor Swift article. That was all that was needed. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 23:33, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 December 2014

Remove "kiddie" from before "kiddie musical 13." Musical was written by Jason Robert Brown, Tony Award winner, on Broadway for over 100 performances, not a kiddie musical (Eg, not like the student theater edited versions of Hairspray or Into the Woods), rather is a musical about kids.


24.163.101.163 (talk) 20:53, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Done Looking at 13 (musical), I agree that "kiddie" is not a useful descriptor. —C.Fred (talk) 21:39, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

ChamithN

Can anyone help me? ChamithN is continuously harrasing me and threatening and actually trying to block me and says if I try to edit Ariana Grande's list of awards photo, I will be blocked all for a picture. He's tormenting me and I don't know what to do can you please help me? User:JoyUnity — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joyunity (talk • contribs) 08:01, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

OK, look, you have to discuss on the talk page for a dispute. You cannot edit war. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 08:05, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Billboard Hot 100 number one singles

  1. "Almost Is Never Enough" (Ariana Grande feat. Nathan Sykes) Peak Position 82
  2. "Right There" (Ariana Grande feat. Big Sean) Peak Position 84
  3. "Last Christmas" (Ariana Grande) Peak Position 96
  4. "The Way" (Ariana Grande feat. Mac Miller) Peak Position 9
  5. "Baby I" (Ariana Grande) Peak Position 21
  6. "Bang Bang" (Jessie J, Ariana Grande and Nicki Minaj) Peak Position 6
  7. "Best Mistake" (Ariana Grande feat. Big Sean) Peak Position 49
  8. "Problem" (Ariana Grande feat. Iggy Azalea) Peak Position 2
  9. "Break Free" (Ariana Grande feat. Zedd) Peak Position 6
  10. "Santa Tell Me" (Ariana Grande) Peak Position 64
  11. "Love Me Harder" (Ariana Grande feat. The Weeknd) Peak Position 7

Rappan11 (talk) 08:24, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

What are you asking? -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 08:30, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 December 2014

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 16:13, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Awards

For Ariana's list of awards page, the picture should be from an actual awards event right? ChamithN keeps tearing the picture down and replacing it with a picture that is being used on a different link. He is even threatening to block me if I put up the correct picture. Shouldn't this picture be used for Ariana's list of awards?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Joyunity (talk • contribs) 18:57, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree that would make a lot of sense, but Justin Timberlake's and Taylor Swift don't have a picture like that. But Justin Bieber and Lady Gaga do, so I'm not sure. You might wanna check a FL List of Awards article. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 19:33, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Lists are ineligible for GA/FA. They can become FL, though. I do agree that award list articles should have someone at an awards event, following the examples of lists like Madonna (which is FL), Katy Perry, Lady Gaga, and Beyoncé. However, this should be discussed on the award list's talk page rather than here. Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:33, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, couldn't remember what the name was for the lists certifications. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 23:52, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
1) As said before, this belongs on Talk:List of awards and nominations received by Ariana Grande. 2) You don't say a word in an edit summary, but you do on talk pages? Maybe if you had given an explanation in the edit summary, it wouldn't have been reverted in the first place. 3) Don't start another topic section with the same heading as one that's already on that talk page. --Musdan77 (talk) 22:23, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Awards

Should Ariana's award section say Awards or Accolades? User:JoyUnity

I've seen Awards and Achievements as well, but don't really see a difference, it can say that if you want. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 06:36, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Although it's not mentioned in any MOS, it seems to me that if it's a prose section, it should be "Accolades", if it's a list, it should be "Awards and nominations". --Musdan77 (talk) 22:34, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Genre

Please remove the "EDM" out of her genre. Just because she had released an EDM-influenced single, that DOES NOT mean she is an EDM artist. Her music is clearly stated as a sound that is rooted in R&B, Pop and soul music. Not EDM. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ezhno D (talk • contribs) 01:53, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 January 2015

Personal life

She had also been under fire for a cheating allegation her ex Jai Brooks threw out on Twitter last year that she cheating on him with Nathan Sykes who she actually date between August and December 2013. http://www.mirror.co.uk/3am/celebrity-news/ariana-grande-opens-up-split-3099819 46.193.173.166 (talk) 14:20, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

References

Not done: This is simply gossip based on a Social Media source, not reliable and could become a BLP issue if included.Karst (talk) 14:30, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 January 2015

Add that she drives a Range Rover http://www.celebritycarsblog.com/2013/03/ariana-grande-gets-behind-the-wheel-of-a-rover/}} 65.175.243.206 (talk) 23:25, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Not done: This would be the definition of unnecessary trivia Cannolis (talk) 00:08, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Rumor of Frankie as half-brother

There is no citation whatsoever here that Frankie Grande is her half-brother. His own official bio calls her his "sister," not half-sister (http://blacksheepus.com/frankie.pdf) and she refers to him as her brother here. While it's possible this may be poetic license, there is, nonetheless, NO RS citation that explains or states how they are half-siblings. Without a cite, this claim in this article violates WP:BLP. --209.122.114.237 (talk) 19:52, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Also, People magazine refers to him only as Ariana's "brother": http://www.people.com/article/frankie-grande-to-star-rock-of-ages. --209.122.114.237 (talk) 20:11, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

People did refer to him as a half-sibling: "Frankie Grande, a colorful and very popular contestant on this season of CBS's Big Brother, finally revealed to his fellow houseguests late Friday that his half sister is pop phenom Ariana Grande, according to the reality competition's live feed."[3][emphasis added] That's the source cited where the half-sibling status is mentioned in the article. —C.Fred (talk) 20:14, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
(The following text was incorrectly added over top of existing text with this edit.) but that does not mean that they are really blood realitives. Everybody knows they are half-siblings. Why does it say that when we look them up that Frankie is from NYC and that Ariana is from Flordia? Because they are not blood realitives. And still she refers to him as her brother WHICH THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT. She is his brother. It's just a half brother. There is really no difference as long as you love one another and treat each other like family.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.6.201.18 (talk • contribs) 21:11, November 3, 2014‎
They have the same mother. Frankie was born 10 years earlier. Then his mother remarried and moved to Florida where Ariana was born. There are plenty of WP:Reliable sources that confirm this. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:18, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Film

Should Ariana Grande's Filmography have it's own warrant? Because on the See Also file there is a link to Ariana Grande videography. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2000remix (talk • contribs) 02:55, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

There is no separate filmography or videography -- just a redirect that points back here. Now removed from "see also". -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:01, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Twitter refs

The Twitter references in the article weaken it. Can anyone replace the Twitter refs with independent, WP:Reliable sources? All the best! -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:15, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

If we must use twitter refs, they should be formatted this way:
{{cite web |title= Tweet Number 395347292854562816 |url= https://twitter.com/tweet2cite/status/395347292854562816 |author= Tweet2Cite |date= 30 October 2013|accessdate= 30 October 2013 |quote= Text of the tweet -- for heaven's sake, remove the emojis or other junk. |work= [[Twitter]] }} -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:57, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Should they? Per MLA style, the text of the tweet is used as the title. —C.Fred (talk) 13:39, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes, that's why the {{cite web}} template is formatted that way; it's broadly in line with Harvard style too, which eschews the text as being content, not a title. - SchroCat (talk) 13:57, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Why are you making up titles on your own? Editing the tweet to remove things you consider to be "junk"? If I look at one of my own (https://twitter.com/KevinWayneW/status/539945779129884672 for example) I see that the title is being presented to the browser as "Kevin Wayne Williams on Twitter:" followed by the full text of the tweet. If Twitter says that's the title, who are we to say otherwise?—Kww(talk) 14:45, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
If you look at what Ssilvers has suggested, it wasn't to remove anything from the title: it was to remove the non-standard text from any quotes, if they are used. - SchroCat (talk) 15:01, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
No, his proposal was to invent a new title based on the tweet number (which doesn't appear in the title presented by Twitter) and to modify direct quotes based on his preferences for content. Neither of those seems to be a particularly good idea.—Kww(talk) 15:15, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
That's not quite right. I provided the information to Ssilvers on his talk page. It was originally posted by Pigsonthewing at Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 3#Citing tweets, which shows the Tweet number as title. As to removing some aspects from quotes, we do this quite a lot, normally using the ellipses to show something has been removed that isn't needed (and emojis are probably the best example of superfluous rubbish to get rid of). It's certainly not right to use the content of a quote as the title, as per the suggestion above. - SchroCat (talk) 15:23, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
It's exactly right. The title, as presented by Twitter when you visit a Twitter URL, does not include the tweet number. It's nowhere to be found. If someone is running around proposing that we create citations using data of our own construction, that's a problem.—Kww(talk) 15:34, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
The title "Kevin Wayne Williams on Twitter:" contains nothings useful, or that isn't elsewhere in the citation, and is the same for every tweet by that account. The ID of the tweet, on the other hand, is a unique identifier, and while part of the URL is not visible as such to our readers, so is of far greater value. And we often use things other then the value of a the HTML document's title attribute, when citing a web page.Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:43, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
So usefulness strikes you as being more important than accuracy?—Kww(talk) 16:15, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
I refer you to the final sentence of my previous comment. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:10, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
I refer you to other stuff exists. That a bad practice is widespread does not prevent it from being a bad practice.—Kww(talk) 17:35, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
I'll see your essay and raise you the essay on WP:COMMONSENSE instead. Using a title that clarifies rather than clouds and that is accurate, not misleading is a Good Thing. - SchroCat (talk) 17:44, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
The genuine title doesn't cloud anything, SchroCat: it includes the full text of the tweet and the author's name.—Kww(talk) 01:23, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
So the content goes in the title? A bit pointless, and misleading too: the title contains a hyperlink which isn't to the tweet in question. - SchroCat (talk) 05:45, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Ariana Grande's full name is mentioned by IB Times, Eric Vetro is mentioned in an interview with backstage.com, her birthday is mentioned by New York Daily News and MTV. If any of those are RS, they can be added to the article. --Random86 (talk) 00:56, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Random86, thank you so much! I have replaced some of the WP:SPS refs with these WP:Reliable sources. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:34, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Songwriter

Why exactly does the lead state "songwriter" when it appears she is not one? Here is an example of a pop songwriter: [4], [5]. --Lapadite (talk) 03:08, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

She co-wrote several songs on both albums. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 03:10, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
It is a stretch for any pop singer when getting a co-writer credit. Probably courtesy credits, no indication of what percentage of any song she actually is responsible for, probably made suggestions and let the pros do the actual work. Still got official credit so is officially a songwriter as it is possible that her contributions were substantial. Geraldo Perez (talk) 03:26, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Joseph. She has a writing credit on several songs on each album and on some of her non-album singles. Songwriter is defined as a person who writes songs, and Grande is credited with writing songs. Here are more writing credits according to Allmusic and more from Allmusic. Vox calls her a singer/songwriter. So do the BBC, Grammy.com, CBS, and Official Charts company among others. I don't see any sources that say that she is not a songwriter. As Geraldo says, she at least "officially" has a songwriting credit on a lot of songs, so it is right for us to characterize her as one. I suppose that, per WP:LEAD, we ought to also mention in the body of the article below the Lead that she co-wrote songs. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:56, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) It's certainly a stretch in this instance because she is credited in 5 songs out of 12 for Yours Truly (with 5 other writers at the least), and in 4 out of 12 songs on My Everything. Getting occasional co-writing credits among multiple other writers is grounds for being called a songwriter? A quick Google search brings up this: Grande could not change a lyric from a song with writer Max Martin, [6]; as well as this from a review: My Everything is one of those records in which le tout pop is invested: producers Max Martin, Shellback, David Guetta, Ryan Tedder, Benny Blanco, scores of others. Even One Direction's Harry Styles has a writing credit ... Song after song goes by far too slickly, showcasing Grande's good girl technical ability and her songwriters' hit-making formulae.... But like Ssilbers noted above, reliable sources refer to her as a songwriter because of the credits, so be it. --Lapadite (talk) 04:15, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

A good compromise is to take songwriting out of the infobox, as it is incidental to her singing, and to mention it only briefly the body of the article, rather than the Lead. I added brief mentions of it under the descriptions of her albums in the body of the article below. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:21, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

@Lapadite77: @Ssilvers: She wrote "Santa Tell Me" and co-wote several songs. I think she is a songwriting. Regards. Eliluu (talk) 18:22, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
If you read the above, we all agree that she has gotten some songwriting credits, but only on a few of her own songs. So her *career* is not as a songwriter. We mention, lower down in the article, that she got songwriting credits. Do you think that her songwriting is so important that it should *also* be mentioned in the WP:LEAD section? If so, why? Please refer to the relevant language in WP:LEAD. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:40, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Ssilvers, I agree with that compromise. And she certainly should not be referred to as a singer-songwriter, as she is the "Santa Tell Me" article (I've changed it). Lapadite (talk) 21:14, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 March 2015

Please change this link: http://wallstcheatsheet.com/entertainment/8-things-you-might-not-know-about-ariana-grande.html/?a=viewall to the following: http://www.cheatsheet.com/entertainment/8-things-you-might-not-know-about-ariana-grande.html/?a=viewall%7C Thecheatsheet (talk) 20:42, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Can you explain why? I don't think this change would be helpful. The first link shows the whole article, while the second link only shows the opening paragraph and then requires the reader to click to see the rest. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:14, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Not done: I have to agree with Ssilvers (talk · contribs) here. The current link is preferable. NiciVampireHeart 11:17, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Pet Adoption

I was just wondering if the sponsoring and promoting of pet adoption that Ariana is doing during her Honeymoon Tour count as her Philanthropy? 128.243.2.143 (talk) 14:24, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Maybe. Can you please link us to some news articles that explain the scope of her activities? What has she done to sponsor and promote it? -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:57, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Here are some. Not sure if I should just list them or what. Sorry if that's not how we're supposed to do it!
Apparently all six of her own dogs are also adopted, which I didn't know:
-- 31.205.38.241 (talk) 15:48, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, yes, that's perfect. I added a sentence about it to the Philanthropy section. Thanks for the suggestion and your help. I suggest that you create a Wikipedia account, which will make it easier for you to contribute and communicate with other users. All the best! -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:56, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Associated acts

Recently I've been warned about engaging in an edit war with another user whom added a list of "associated acts" when the section was previously blank. The full list of added artists is (with my opinion on whether they should be there or not):

The policy on this states "acts with which this act has collaborated on multiple occasions" so technically any act that has collaborated with Grande less than twice doesn't count automatically.

What are others thoughts? Grandeari5032? Thanks, Azealia911 talk 00:30, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

The musical artist infobox template doc is not policy, FYI; it merely provides guidance on which types of artists to include. I would personally oppose the inclusion of any artists in this field since they do not have much significance in Grande's career. I don't think a one-off collaboration (or a small handful) warrants an "associated" link. –Chase (talk / contribs) 00:49, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
I can see the point about a "small handful" with Minaj, but Big Sean has featured on all of Grande's studio releases thus far and she has on his third. If we really had to squeeze it down, I'd say only him. Azealia911 talk 00:51, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Still disagree with his inclusion. Associated acts should have more of an importance in one's career than a few one-off collaborations. Look at Beyoncé's inclusion of Jay Z as an example of what I mean. They have collaborated numerous times and toured together. –Chase (talk / contribs) 00:54, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Hmm, I see your point. Should we take into account the overall length of the artists career though? There's a reason Beyoncé and Jay-Z have had the capability to collaborate nine times, the major reason being time. When the pair first collaborated, Grande was 9 years old. So again my point still stands, we should take into account not how many times they've worked together, but the concentration of his appearances in her work. Azealia911 talk 00:59, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
My answer, again, is no. See what others have to say. –Chase (talk / contribs) 01:01, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Chase -- no other artist is that significant in Grande's career. One could argue that Jenny McCarthy is more significant in her career than Big Sean, and we do not know if she and Big Sean will collaborate any further. We'll see. In any case, it is not necessary to include this information in the Infobox. Let's keep the infobox concise and let the more detailed (and referenced) information below speak for itself. That is a better balance for this article at this time. Of course, if Grande and Big Sean collaborate on several songs in her next album, we can reconsider at that time. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:45, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Inspirations

"Gimme Five: Ariana Grande's Most Inspirational Female Singers". -- Simon (talk) 06:40, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi. This Billboard article is already cited in Grande's entry. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:23, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 May 2015


Also Dimitris Fernandes became an actor for Ariana Grande. Dimitris Fernandes is one of the best known Portuguese actors of Hollywood 2A02:214D:8116:6E00:E99A:E1F:4933:589E (talk) 18:54, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. —C.Fred (talk) 18:58, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

More Photos

File:The Honeymoon Tour by Ariana Grande.jpg

Hello, I feel that Ariana Grande's page could use some more pictures, especially some more recent ones, and that there are some pictures I have found that could be used:

I know that they are not perfect, but I think these would really make this page better, Thank You, User: BillsNBillsors — Preceding undated comment added 01:11, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. The second image is shown in the article. I put the first one in too, but it was deleted by User:Nymf on the grounds that it violates copyright. I hope that Nymf will explain here. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:42, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
@Ssilvers: You'll need to talk to User:Ellin Beltz on Wikimedia Commons; she's who deleted the image as a copyright violation. (Deletion log entry) There's no further information than that in the log, and I don't have admin credentials on Commons to be able to see the deleted file. —C.Fred (talk) 17:50, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
I flagged it for deletion on Commons. It was Flickr washed from a Universal Music press release. Nymf (talk) 17:53, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
I didn't know anything about Flikr "washing". How can one detect it? -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:20, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Just Wanted To Say That I Found Another Photo Of Ariana Grande: File: Ariana grande y sus morritos.png — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smurfsplussmurfs (talk • contribs) 22:37, 13 May 2015‎ (UTC)

By found, you mean found on the internet? That image, per the Daily Mail, belongs to Ariana Grande; it's uploaded to Commons on a bad license tag. See the Daily Mail article that includes the iamge. —C.Fred (talk) 22:56, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
Even so, is a selfie picture of Grande giving a kissy face the best choice for an encyclopedia article? –Chase (talk / contribs) 15:29, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Honeymoon Tour - Additional Dates

The tour does not end with a stop in the Philippines, please update that paragraph. -- Anonymous poster

Give me the information and links to sources that give the full schedule, and I'll happily update it. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:11, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Someone has done it now. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:43, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

This information is still not updated. Ariana's tour in Asia includes two performances in Japan (Tokyo and Osaka, for Summer Sonic Fest - please refer to The Honeymoon Tour's wiki page for citations) and a final stop in the Phillipines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.245.224.183 (talk) 18:10, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

The sentence "In early 2015, Grande embarked on her extensive The Honeymoon Tour of North America, Europe, and a stop in the Philippines in August" should be changed to "…and Asia." -Anonymous poster

Can you link me to a news article about the Japan stops, please? The Honeymoon Tour's Wiki page is not a good source to use on Wikipedia. Also, it seems that the Japan stops are part of the Summer Sonic Festival, rather than part of the Honeymoon Tour. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:16, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
She is also playing a third confirmed show in Japan (in Tokyo) on August 19th. It is not a part of the Summer Sonic Festival. Link here. Anyway, someone has changed the sentence to say that she is making a few stops in Asia. -Anonymous poster

Semi-protected edit request on 30 May 2015

Please put in the last paragraph I have included below for this section, I even included Moonlight in the headline. The first two paragraphs are already added.

Already done Although the content in the article is not the same as given here, it is still there. -- Orduin Discuss 21:17, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

2015: Honeymoon Tour, Moonlight and Scream Queens

In early 2015, Grande embarked on her extensive The Honeymoon Tour of North America, Europe, and a stop in the Philippines in August.[1] Following the tour's early commercial success, 40 more dates were added through October 15, 2015.[2] Reviewers of the tour performances have praised Grande's vocals and ability to convey emotion in the songs but found the concerts to be over-produced: "some judicious editing would've elevated the evening from surprising to satisfying and possibly even shockingly good. As it is, Grande is so busy piling on the spectacle she neglects to highlight the one thing – those deceptively powerful pipes – setting her apart from her contemporaries."[3] The tour earned $14 million in its first 25 performances, selling 290,699 tickets.[4]

Grande is scheduled to appear as Chanel #2 on the upcoming Fox new comedy-horror TV series Scream Queens, created by Ryan Murphy, starring Emma Roberts, Jamie Lee Curtis, and Lea Michele.[5][6][7] Though it was first reported that Grande will be portraying a recurring character, Fox credits her as a main cast member.[8] It was also announced that Grande will launch her first fragance which will be released in September 2015.[9]

On March 2015, Grande announces on the The Tonight Show Starring Jimmy Fallon that she has already started working on her third studio album. [10]. The singer took it to Twitter on May 2015 and announced to the fans that her third album will be titled Moonlight, as she has been teasing the fans with that term. [11] ArianaTodayNet (talk) 19:44, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Jarloc, Glaiza. "Ariana Grande to stage concert in PH", Sun.Star Manila, March 24, 2015
  2. ^ Michaels, Wendy. "Ariana Grande and Jimmy Fallon sketch wins everything", Cambio.com, March 21, 2015
  3. ^ Jones, Preson. "Ariana Grande at American Airlines Center", Fort Worth Star-Telegram, April 2, 2015; and Farber, Jim. "Ariana Grande's powerful vocals overshadowed by gimmicks at NYC show", New York Daily News, March 21, 2015
  4. ^ Allen, Bob. "Ariana Grande's Honeymoon Is Far From Over: Her Tour Is on Top". Billboard, April 30, 2015
  5. ^ Vlada Gelman. "'Scream Queens' Cast – Lea Michele, Joe Manganiello, Ariana Grande - TVLine". TVLine. Retrieved March 11, 2015.
  6. ^ Debra Birnbaum. "Lea Michele to Star in 'Scream Queens'; Julianne Hough, Vanessa Hudgens in 'Grease'". Variety. Retrieved March 11, 2015.
  7. ^ Avery Thompson. "Ariana Grande In 'Scream Queens': Singer Returning to TV in New Role - Hollywood Life". Hollywood Life. Retrieved March 11, 2015.
  8. ^ Scream Queens, Fox.com, accessed May 11, 2015
  9. ^ Ariana Grande is launching her first fragrance
  10. ^ Lee, Christina. "Ariana Grande Joins Jimmy Fallon On ‘The Tonight Show’ For “Ew!”", Idolator.com, May 30th, 2015
  11. ^ np. "Ariana Grande announces 3rd album title “Moonlight”", Web. ArianaToday.net, May 30th, 2015

Twitter and criticism; Public Image section

It is not neutral for fans to delete all traces of criticism, and it weakens the article. The most recent edits to the public image section provide the most minimal hint of the significant press coverage of the significant criticism of Grande in the press for documented behavior. It is not controversial at all that this criticism was published in the respected sources cited. Some of the commenters cited (particularly the Washington Post article) have connected the 2014 "diva" criticism with Grande's recent comments. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:33, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Criticisms weren't removed because I'm a "fan", but because, as mentioned previously, the sources included are still undergoing discussion as to its reliability. Also, where exactly has it been "agreed that this is needed for balance"? This is literally the first reply. — AYTK talk. 19:35, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
You [Edit add: Someone] made it difficult for the commenters in the (2nd) discussion above to understand the question, because you [Edit add: they] removed from the text all the citations to the major media sources that confirm the statement (as well as the statement itself), so that the people commenting did not see them. Therefore, you [Edit add: they] invalidated that discussion. In any case, the text has been modified significantly, and so this is a discussion de nuovo. BTW, SchroCat, Jack and I all discussed balance in the first discussion above regarding the old language. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:10, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
Wrongly accused. If you look back at the history, it wasn't me who removed the whole section of text. I was simply reverting any changes that you've made today since a consensus hasn't been reached on it. — AYTK talk. 20:52, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
I apologize for my error: it was not you. But you should have reverted that change, since no consensus had been reached to remove it, not my change, if you were going to revert any change! In any case, that is old news. Let's discuss the current language, unless you are now satisfied with it. -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:58, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
Ssilvers, having come here via an RfC bot, I wonder if I can trouble you (for my benefit and that of any who may come after me) for a diff to version of the article which you feel contains A) the most neutral coverage of the diva claims and critical media reports and B) the best quality sourcing for this topic? Or perhaps just the prose and citations you would like to see in this section? Snow let's rap 10:18, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
Snow Rise, I am satisfied with the compromise that has been reached, currently, in the last paragraph of the "Public image" section. But we could use more attention on the question below concerning the magazine covers. All the best! -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:26, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Magazine covers

Aytk just removed the following statement from the article:

It seems significant to me. What do others think? -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:10, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm hesitant to say either way, to be perfectly honest. It's certainly not the kind of content that I'd typically add to a media figure's BLP, but I don't think I'd necessarily remove it either. It does strike me as a bit incidental in general, especially without a secondary source speaking to the noteworthiness of her appearances, but on the other hand I can concede the possibility that these kinds of covershoots might be seen as milestones in the fandom of a young pop star, and there is perhaps an argument to be made for inclusion on those grounds. I honestly wouldn't expect too much opposition to adding them, in any event, but this is not my usual area of BLP contribution. Snow let's rap 22:00, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
It's not a significant detail and doesn't need to be in the article. –Chase (talk / contribs) 01:09, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

New York Daily News

The New York Daily News is absolutely a WP:RS. It is a well-respected, major New York print newspaper. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:35, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

I can't see anything on the RS notice board that states it is not to be used. There are comments that it is a tabloid, and should be used with care, but nothing saying it should be banned altogether. - SchroCat (talk) 08:03, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Aytk

Enough of this drama. Let's all move on with our lives. CassiantoTalk 19:53, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Stop edit warring, observe WP:BLP and be aware that meat socking is deeply frowned upon. A consensus gained is such a short space of time by people who have never been to the page is always deeply suspicious, so be very aware how you conduct yourself here. - SchroCat (talk) 15:43, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Are you mistaking me for someone else? As far as I can see, I've only "reverted" your edit once in the past 24 hours. As for meat socking, I'm not quite sure why you're accusing me of doing so. As far as I can remember, I have not been doing so on this article or any other articles on purpose, if I was doing so. As for the consensus, I'm not quite sure what to say to that, maybe you should ask the editors who have commented? Also, I'm pretty sure the purpose of an RfC is to gain feedback and comments from people who haven't been on this page. Maybe you'll want to see this: WP:RFC — AYTK talk. 16:09, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
You removed text, I reverted (that is B and R): your next move should have been D, not ignore, pick your own POV and push that. The fact you reverted and didn't discuss is edit warring. - SchroCat (talk) 16:16, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
I don't think I understood what you've just said. Ignore, pick my own POV and push that? How did I do that? Also about the reversion, I didn't discuss it because a pretty clear general consensus has been reached in the RfC section that the sources used and the information itself is too gossip-like to be included in the article. — AYTK talk. 16:22, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Extended content
If you can't understand something as basic as that, I do wonder how you can edit an encyclopaedia. Those opinions in the rfc are hogwash, and your action in opening it so soon after a consensus was reached that you don't agree with was disruptive and petulant. That Rfc is not closed, so the text in question remains in place until the consensus has been reached. It has not yet, largely because you didn't even bother to inform those involved in the previous discussion of your actions. That is a rather under-handed approach. - SchroCat (talk) 16:35, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

(←) Take your own advice, SchroCat, and you need to stop with the insulting remarks such as I do wonder how you can edit an encyclopaedia or (above) you shouldn't be here... you have no idea how to write a decent article, how to neutrally approach a subject and how not to come across as a fanboy immediately. Chase (talk | contributions) 18:30, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Chasewc91, I'd be interested to know why you think that's an insult? Please, do elaborate. CassiantoTalk 20:32, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
If you can't see how those are blatant attacks on the intelligence / editing skill of others, then wow. Just wow. But given your history of blocks for personal attacks, I can see why you might be confused about this. Chase (talk | contributions) 20:36, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Chasewc91: you are the problem here, not the solution, or anything even close. I suggest you step away from this page. - SchroCat (talk) 20:41, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
This is one of those facepalm moments...folks are getting so het up over this comment...sigh. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:44, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Chasewc91 what the fuck has my block log got to do with this conversation? CassiantoTalk 20:59, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Casliber, obviously it is a battlefield for some, sadly! Bringing in a person's past editing style, including their block log, is most inappropriate. Thank you for trying to take the heat out with your edit - and if Cassianto thanked you for it, then it's fairly obvious to anyone with common sense that it should have been left out, but some people will edit war even more to try and rack up the temperature. Onel5969, I strongly suggest you self-revert, because you're really not making yourself look good with such an poor edit. - SchroCat (talk) 08:18, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
And I strongly suggest, SchroCat that you stop making personal attacks (not the first time), and that you also learn the established etiquette for talk pages. As per WP:TPO, it is inappropriate to "Change the meaning of someone else's comment by adding or striking text, even on your own user talk page." And as per WP:REDACT: "Other than minor corrections for insignificant typographical errors made before other editors reply, changes should be noted to avoid misrepresenting the original post ... Mark deleted text with ..., or ..., which render in most browsers as struck-through text ..." Take it easy. Onel5969 TT me 12:45, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
And I strongly suggest you stop being such a blinkered rule follower and take Casliber's edit in the spirit in which it was intended. Don't try and fecking lecture me - it's as tiresome and stupid as seeing people roll out someone's block log to use as a weapon against them. - SchroCat (talk) 12:57, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
And more personal attacks and uncivil behavior from Schro. Might I suggest you also acquaint yourself with WP:UNCIVIL? Take it easy. Onel5969 TT me 19:23, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Don't even bother, Onel. SchroCat has shown absolutely zero interest in civility or tact in regards to this dispute. Just let him keep digging himself further down the rabbit hole. At the rate he's going, he'll be blocked very soon. Chase (talk | contributions) 19:39, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
What a tedious and unpleasant bunch of baiters.... Zzzzzzzzzz - SchroCat (talk) 21:36, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Hey guys, I think that THIS is the edit that caused the problem here. I am perfectly happy NOT to use the word "Diva", which is the word that seems to cause Aytk to resume the edit war each time. If we undo this change], Aytk and Chase, will you stop deleting all the important refs that go with the short sentence about Grande's problems with the press and fans, as reported in the Washington Post and the other major papers worldwide? -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:19, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Aah, yeah that is more neutral and looks fine to me. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:25, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
The RfC is closed. See result above. Onel5969 TT me 12:49, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
  • AlbinoFerret, Closing an RfC in the middle of a discussion? It's normal to leave a couple of days of no activity to ensure all parties have had their say. There are a number of erroneous points that I was going to comment on this evening (including the numerous references in world media, despite claims that "there aren't any reliable information that would back up the diva claim"). This seems to be a rather odd close, given the number of extremely recent comments in the thread. - SchroCat (talk) 13:05, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Ah, I see a rather underhand request was made, despite the ongoing discussions. That's quite a low step to take, on top of the rest of the behaviour shown. - SchroCat (talk) 13:13, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
SchroCat We-ell, the RfC has been open over a month and numerically the 'include' side has been steamrolled, so an admin is entitled to close it. It'd be nice to include but if it were me buffing it for GA/FA I wouldn't lose any sleep over it. To be fair it's not hugely relevant to her music. Thing is, folks are gonna be waving BLP and civility sticks so I can't see any good in prolonging this discussion. Life's too short. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:03, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

The RFC is irrelevant, as it addressed language that no longer exists in the article. It certainly has nothing to do with this discussion. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:13, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

I have undone the close per a request since the last comment was on the 5th. Ill give it a little more time, but as is starting now, posts are becoming rehashes of earlier replies, if it becomes stale I will close it. AlbinoFerret 16:02, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
What a tedious and unpleasant bunch of baiters.... Zzzzzzzzzz. And Chasewc: don't delete other people's comments from talk threads, or edit war to delete them more than one: you whined about your comments being removed, so it's utterly hypocritical of you to do exactly the same thing. - SchroCat (talk) 21:36, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 8 July 2015

In the section Ariana Grande#Public image

... their "their"...

The first "their" is redundant. Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 13:30, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, you are right. As soon as the full protection is removed from the article, we can make this change. -- Ssilvers (talk) 13:52, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Any admin can do it right now. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 13:54, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Done --Redrose64 (talk) 14:06, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Thank you User:Redrose64. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 22:48, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 July 2015

delete <Grande is of Italian descent, and has stated that she is "half Sicilian and half Abruzzese".[12] > add <Grande is of Mediterranean descent. Neither of her parents are Italian. Ariana recently was videotaped at a donut shop in California allegedly saying that she hates America while licking a donut on a countertop, although she quickly recanted her comment on her Twitter feed. https://twitter.com/ArianaGrande/status/...

 Not done as you propose removal of sourced material and addition of unsourced. - Arjayay (talk) 19:21, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Grande "Diva" claims

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The above discussion on this topic was included in the consensus determination. There is is consensus to oppose, the main argument being cited to WP:BLPGOSSIP or following its logic. As a side note, no specific edits were discussed. How this is carried out should be by consensus, and in accordance with the RFC. AlbinoFerret 00:06, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Should the "Public Image" section contain the diva claims? Are the sources referenced gossip or not? — AYTK (talk) 17:59, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Commenters should note the previous discussion on this topic above. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:14, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Hmm. Cautious oppose, per WP:BLPGOSSIP. It looks like a few "reputable" news outlets have picked this story up, but the whole thing still seems really gossip-y. –GlottalFricative(talk) 20:32, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Tentative support because whether or not they are true, they are influencing her public image. --Mr. Guye (talk) 01:42, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete entire section - summoned by bot. No, the stupid diva comments should not be included. This "public image" section is just a mishmash of random quotes from people evaluating every superficial thing about her and is wholly undue. If you don't delete it, I will. —МандичкаYO 😜 09:29, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose I feel that the "diva claims" are not reliable, and is not backed up by any big-name news outlet. I have search for any "diva" claims on the internet, and there aren't any reliable information that would back up the diva claim. For now, I'd oppose the diva information to be in the "Public Image" section. Nick2crosby (talk) 03:20, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Depends -- It depends on whether or not the sources are reliable. If these claims are coming from reliable sources, then there is no reason for it not to be included if it is indeed her "public image." On the other hand, unreliable sources therefore leads to unreliable information which should not be used. Cheers, Comatmebro ~Come at me~ 15:28, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

COMMENT: I see that User:Aytk [Edit add: someone] removed from the article all of the citations to the news outlets that were previously cited in the article (together with the text) regarding Grande's behaviour. They included The Washington Post, New York Daily News and several others. Others were previously mentioned and deleted. In any case, the statement has now been changed to remove any controversial aspect to it, and a new discussion has been opened below. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:14, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Original Paragraph: As User:Ssilvers has so nicely but wrongly accused me of removing the original section in question, here it is:

She has been accused of behaving like diva on some occasions, ref: Vincent, Peter. "Ariana Grande's surreal life in the spotlight", The Sydney Morning Herald, September 8, 2014; Yahr, Emily. "Ariana Grande is on the brink of a major image problem. How can she fix it?", The Washington Post, September 19, 2014; and Garvey, Marianne, Brian Niemietz and Oli Coleman. "A show of ego from Ariana Grande", New York Daily News, September 30, 2014 (end ref) but Grande rejects this claim. ref: McLean, Craig. "Ariana Grande: 'If you want to call me a diva I’ll say: cool'", The Telegraph, October 17, 2014, accessed April 20, 2015; and Gomez, Patrick. "Ariana Grande on Diva Rumors: 'Everyone Is Entitled to Their Opinion'", People magazine, November 14, 2014, accessed March 26, 2015 (end ref) In 2014, In Touch Weekly magazine released a photo from Grande's instagram account showing her being carried by a friend when she felt tired. ref: "Diva Ariana Grande Demands to Be Carried". In Touch Weekly. December 11, 2014. Retrieved January 14, 2015.

— AYTK talk. 01:35, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Good gracious -- too late! I acknowledge that *you* did not remove it, and I apologize for that error, but if no changes were to be made during this discussion, then you must acknowledge that it was wrongly removed. In any case, all of this is out of date, as the language that I added today has been substantially changed to remove any controversy, and its relationship to the language that follows is described below. All further discussion should be about the current language, not an old paragraph, so anyone who is interested, please see the new discussion below. -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:54, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Strong support Criticism of an individual should not be censored because someone is a fan. This was valid criticism to her approach and behaviour, reported in a reliable source, and provides an insight into her mindset. This is not gossip, nor doesn't fail NOTNEWS (unless you want to remove information on peoples' personalities from a million or so articles. - SchroCat (talk) 16:41, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
    • Legal policies such as BLP trump verifiability. While the rumors have been reported in reliable publications, they originated from questionable, mostly anonymous "sources." Add their dubious nature on top of the fact that they have the potential to defame Grande's character, and it's clear why it shouldn't be included and so many have opposed this RfC. It has nothing to do with anyone being a fan of hers or not. Chase (talk | contributions) 17:27, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
    • Furthermore, the "million or so articles" that contain unencyclopedic details on someone's personality should have such content removed as well, especially if it is controversial and potentially libelous such as this example. This is Wikipedia, not Cosmo, Tiger Beat, or the Enquirer. Chase (talk | contributions) 17:29, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Bollocks. This has nothing to do with BLP: the information is reliably sourced and neutrally presented. Stop trying to use a policy that isn't applicable as some form of weapon to censor something. This isn't libellous or controversial, regardless of your spurious claims to the contrary. - SchroCat (talk) 17:41, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
  • "Some people say Grande is a diva" is hardly encyclopedic, no matter which way you spin it. There is plenty information out there on any given topic or person, and we reserve the editorial right to exclude information that isn't appropriate. This is a prime example. Chase (talk | contributions) 17:54, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
  • If you can't even be honest enough to quote the sentence properly you shouldn't be here. Trying to censor a negative characteristic under the guise of "editorial right" shows you have no idea how to write a decent article, how to neutrally approach a subject and how not to come across as a fanboy. We should strike balance in our articles, and a page that deliberately misleads readers by avoiding negative characteristics is a fraudulent pile of poo that has no place in an encyclopaedia. - SchroCat (talk) 18:17, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Can you discuss this without being rude? For what it's worth, I don't give a shit about this Mariah Carey wannabe, so don't think my preference for excluding the material comes out of some need to portray her in a positive light. I and the other opposing editors aren't trying to keep this article free of negative commentary; we're trying to keep it free of tabloid fluff that has come nowhere close to passing the ten-year test, seeing as it's already been forgotten less than a year later. Chase (talk | contributions) 18:25, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Can you try and be honest in these discussions. The RfC was opened at 17:59, 29 May 2015 UTC. At that time this was the version in place. AFTER the RfC opened you made this edit, removing the information per your own POV and against the consensus at the time. Do NOT try and decieve me andothes again by leaving false summaries as you did in your last revert, and do NOT ever come to my talk page again and threaten me. - SchroCat (talk) 18:50, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Warning you for your edit warring is not "threatening" you. You need to log off and take a breather, but in light of the current AN3 against you, it looks like you're about to be doing that whether you want to or not. Please let me know if you'd like to discuss this in a calmer, more civil manner. Cheers. Chase (talk | contributions) 18:59, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I am entirely calm, so please do not try and double guess my mood. I am often sickened by underhand and deceitful editors, but one who deletes what he doesn't want at the beginning of an RfC and edits wars to keep his preferred version, deserves little treatment except to be shown the error of their ways. You've tried to use BLP as a weapon, and misunderstood everything about it while you've done it, you've gone about this RfC is an utterly incorrect and poor way. Your last revert lied in the summary. That is so poor and disrespectful of others its laughable. – SchroCat (talk) 19:05, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
*Strongly Oppose - I initially reverted the edit, simply to remove it from the article while an RfC was open, as per wiki guidelines (BLP). Now, having looked at the edit more closely, and reviewed the underlying sources, it clearly is a BLP issue and should not be included. The key section of WP:BLP is: "Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment." Inclusion of this material would be of a tabloid level, and is definitely not conservative. Onel5969 TT me 19:37, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
What nonsense. The original text shoud have stood, as they normally do, and you've acted incorrectly here. The information is included in a variety of sources. There is nothing here that breaches anyone's privacy and it is is hardly "sensationalist" (the range of 170+ sources I've found that carry the claim put paid to that claim). - SchroCat (talk) 19:50, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
It wasn't just one report - it bounced around the airwaves for months. I must admit, if it were me editing this, I wouldn't bother keeping it in with this much outcry, but if this RfC is asking me what I would do ideally then that would be it. The claim came after a few interviews IIRC. I think it is better to discuss and dismiss rather than censor things like this. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:51, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) My memory recalls it as about a week, but regardless of the length, it died off quickly and in 10 years, no one's going to come to this article looking for insignificant rumors that circulated the internet (if they even come to this article at all). Today, not even a year later, no one's coming to this article looking for it. It's not anywhere close to something such as the Brad Pitt/Jennifer Aniston/Angelina Jolie love triangle which is still discussed frequently in the media to this day. It's a really insignificant detail on top of making contentious assumptions about Ms. Grande. The way it's currently presented is even more problematic, suggesting it is an undeniable fact and not taking into account the fact that Grande has denied these allegations. Chase (talk | contributions) 20:58, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Just to put paid to some of the claims above ("tabloid", "gossip", the laughable "not backed up by any big-name news outlet", etc, a proper news search of "Ariana Grande" in connection with the term DIVA shows 873 hits. Some of these are descriptors of music or style, some are generic labels for big-name female singers, but a large proportion are about Grande's "diva" behaviour.

I've left out some of the more obvious tabloidy ones (Daily Mail, Daily Star, mX, etc) but you'll see a range of papers and approaches that include some heavyweight names. I could dig out more, but life is too short to bother. When some of the heavyweight names that appear in the list cover something, it ceases to be "gossip". When the behaviour was first reported in mid-2014 and the news stories are still mentioning it in mid-2015, that's much more than gossip: that's an approach and attitude that we should reflect in our article of her.

  • The Gazette (Montreal) 23 September 2014 "While Katy Perry dines, Taylor Swift whines"
  • The Observer (Gladstone, Queensland) 24 September 2014 "Ex-teen idol proving difficult; high maintenance"
  • The New York Post 24 September 2014 "Endless 'Problem'"
  • The New York Post 22 September 2014 "Grande order"
  • Washington Post 21 September 2014 "Ariana Grande is on the brink of a major image problem. How can she fix it?"
  • The Miami Herald 16 September 2014 "Mayim Bialik, for one, doesn’t think Ariana Grande is sexy; La vida local"

Claims that it somehow "fails BLP" are dubious in the extreme: just because this is a BLP article doesn't mean we shy away from criticism of the individual, especially when so widely reported. We do not censor just because we like this person (or criticise because we don't like her), but we should reflect what the sources have to say. I'm stepping away from this article as some of the behaviour has been sub-optimal (although thank you Chasewc91 for your recent post), and I really don't want to have to bother with any subsequent bunfight? - SchroCat (talk) 13:08, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Addendum: 10YT is an essay, not even a guideline, let alone policy. Some appear to be misconstruing it (and BLP, which is a policy) for use as a concrete barrier in keeping out the "bad things", which isn't terribly helpful in providing a balanced picture. - SchroCat (talk) 06:44, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Support -- per SchroCat CassiantoTalk 15:08, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Support, obviously, although this discussion is irrelevant, since we have changed the language substantially since this RfC was started. See below. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:21, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ariana_Grande/Archive_2&oldid=1240741807"