Jump to content

Talk:Indiggo/Archive 1

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

Talk page

The user (Indiggo77) removed information that I submitted to the article several weeks ago regarding Indiggo's attempts to represent Romania at Eurovision Song Contest. It is ACTUAL FACT and actually happened, rather than fanzine shit that this article is otherwise littered with. Maybe they're ashamed? I don't know. But without real stuff like that why bother? May as well delete this whole article. --94.168.45.15 (talk) 23:01, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

The German "Bild" paper is cited as a reference, but has a doubtful reputation like the British "Sun". Since you can meet "Bild" editors on Hamburg's Reeperbahn who openly tell you that this is "sponsored by Bohlen", they praise him in their articles as "Poptitan".

Nontheless the statement is wrongly referenced, “The Indiggo twins have got sensational voices and ...." is not made by Bohlen, but by the "Bild" editor.

The whole article mostly talks about their -including Bohlen's- "sex appeal" which is more than arguable to cite as a reference in Wikipedia.

The references cited above as issues have been either corrected or removed. Please remove the "flags" at the top of Indiggo page. Thank You (208.123.176.104 (talk) 02:35, 22 February 2011 (UTC))--208.123.176.104 (talk) 02:35, 22 February 2011 (UTC)


Another example of Indiggo77's unsourced and unverifiable claims on Indiggo's wikipedia article is that Indiggo7 wrote: "They are represented by Creative Artists Agency (CAA) which is developing a TV project starring the twins, based on Mihaela's novel "Wicked Clone"." I deleted this unsourced claim.63.247.160.139 (talk) 08:04, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Indiggo77 violating wikipedia guidelines

63.247.160.139 (talk) 23:26, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Age - Date of birth June 7, 1983

Indiggo's IMDB pages list their birth date as June 7, 1983 which would make them 30 years old. I can't find any other sources that list their age or birth date since Michaela & Gabriela are not notable (especially not in the United States).

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2451793/

(1983-06-07) June 7, 1983 (age 41)


63.247.160.139 (talk) 04:46, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

reality TV contestants on America's Got Talent

Their IMDB pages say that they were contestants on America's Got Talent in 2008.

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2451793/?ref_=nm_ov_bio_lk1


63.247.160.139 (talk) 04:50, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Indiggo on America's Got Talent (2008, Season 3)

This is a video of Indiggo singing on America's Got Talent where Piers Morgan tells them they have terrible voices. Also, in the video Indiggo says they're from Romania. (They literally say "we were born Romania, Bucharest") See: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WThLwpToUsc and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rD55N0e1his
http://agt.wikia.com/wiki/Indiggo 63.247.160.139 (talk) 01:33, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

At 4:33, Piers Morgan says to Indiggo: "You've got everything going for you apart from your terrible voices." 63.247.160.139 (talk) 21:16, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Romanian

I would like to point out that User:Indiggo77 has deleted the fact that Indiggo is Romanian without explanation over 10 times.63.247.160.139 (talk) 07:07, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

To User:Epeefleche- What source are you using to back up your claim that Gabriela and Mihaela Modorcea are American (not Romanian)?63.247.160.139 (talk) 21:21, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Did you notice that they were in the show "America's" Got Talent? Or that they say they received American citizenship? Did you look at the prior sources, or do a google search? As to them being Romanian, I noted that they were Romanian-born, and sourced that, so that should (as stated) survive any effort to delete it.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:23, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I watched them on America's Got Talent (on youtube) and their whole shtick was that they are Romanian twins coming to reach stardom in America. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQt1BuHLR1I 63.247.160.139 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 21:27, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

http://www.today.com/id/25222768/ns/today-today_entertainment/t/rowdy-beginning-americas-got-talent/#.UxZFtV5FpfY says "Then, Romanian twin sisters who went by the name of Indiggo did a heinous rendition of Frank Sinatra’s “New York, New York.” The judges acknowledged the singing was terrible, but must have been feeling charitable as they gave the twins a pass so they could have another chance to impress in Vegas." Romanian, not American twin sisters. 63.247.160.139 (talk) 21:30, 4 March 2014 (UTC)63.247.160.139 (talk) 21:31, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 20 February 2014

IMDB is not a reliable source - WP:RS/IMDB.

So please

1. Remove (born June 7, 1983 in Romania),<ref>http://www.imdb.com/name/nm3337437/</ref>

2. Change Gabriela Modorcea is an aspiring actress.<Ref>http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2451793/</ref> She had a non-speaking cameo role

to

Gabriela Modorcea had a non-speaking cameo role

3. Remove <ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0480271/fullcredits|title=www.imdb.com/title/tt0480271/fullcredits<!--INSERT TITLE-->}}</ref>

and replace it with

{{fact}}

88.104.19.233 (talk) 06:01, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

You assert that this is the twins and then you want to remove a source they added to support their birthdate and you want to remove their birthdate? Mosfetfaser (talk) 06:03, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
IMDB does not qualify as a reliable source in Wikipedia. Further discussion here won't change that. If something is reliable and notable (from Wikipedia's perspective) it will have been reported by one or more sources that qualify as reliable sources. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:26, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
(born June 7, 1983 in Romania) has been placed in the article by the living person the article is about, would it not be more agreeable to leave that in the article and add a fact request? Mosfetfaser (talk) 06:31, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
IMDB does not qualify as a reliable source in Wikipedia. Please have a read through WP:BLP so that you are clear on the requirements for articles about living people. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:40, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
I'd prefer removing it, unless/until an RS can be provided. But sure, it could be tagged instead; I'm not that bothered either way. 88.104.19.233 (talk) 06:43, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
If the persons the article is about are adding a date of birth wiki should give it strong consideration b4 rejection, a fact request tag would imo suffice for the time being Mosfetfaser (talk) 06:46, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
No, we shouldn't be doing that. IMDB is not an RS, anyone can add information and anyone can say they are the person the article is about. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:02, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Additional request:

4. After Bliznyashka No. 2, respectively. please put {{Failed verification}} because the reference given [1] does not mention the girls at all, as far as I can tell (even under alt spelling). 88.104.19.233 (talk) 06:43, 20 February 2014 (UTC) Exactly, the sources Indiggo77 adds don't back up their claims.63.247.160.139 (talk) 06:49, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Not done: According to the page's protection level and your user rights, you should currently be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. The page was unprotected... I personally oppose the original request bullet 1, support bullet 2, and bullet three is lacking detail - so I oppose it at this time as well. I suggest that before making any edits to this article, make sure that a clear consensus has been reached. Happy editing. — {{U|Technical 13}} (t • e • c) 17:18, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I notice protection has been removed.

Technical 13, I'm not sure why you oppose 1 and 3; please refer to WP:IMDB.

I'm not going to make the edits right now, because the deletion discussion is ongoing so I think it's best to let people evaluate the article as-is. If it's kept, I'll make edits (and get appropriate consensus if needed) 88.104.19.233 (talk) 23:22, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

User talk:Indiggo77

I left User talk:Indiggo77 comments but they have now blanked their user talk page.63.247.160.139 (talk) 06:36, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

So, they can do that if they want Mosfetfaser (talk) 06:42, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Mosfetfaser, my point is that I was trying to talk to them about the problems (edit warring, etc.) and they deleted their entire talk page. 63.247.160.139 (talk) 06:47, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I've got some sympathy with that - they'd been spammed to death with warning templates. But anyway, they're blocked for now, so we'll see if they'll cooperate. 88.104.19.233 (talk) 07:13, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Problems with sources

The following sources might be reliable, but do not demonstrate notability in any way.

  • "Merging Empires" barely mentions Indiggo in passing, that they were sampled on a track on the album.
  • This page appears to be a copy-pasted press release, which would be reliable enough for statements about themselves, but does not demonstrate notability.
  • OpenPR is a press release site. Press releases can be reliable for statements about the subject, but do not demonstrate notability.

The following sources might be reliable, but don't belong here:

  • Hotnews.ro may or may not be reliable, but it doesn't mention Indiggo or its members at all. Granted, it's being used to source the statement that author D. R. Popescu exists, but it does not source the statement that he wrote a play titled "Two Sisters," much less that it was about or for them. I cannot assume both good faith and competence from that.
  • This "Montecristo International" page demonstrates that the movie "No Love in the City" probably exists, but does not demonstrate that they were in it. That is, they are not mentioned in the credits section, which only lists "Aleksey Chadov, Vladimir Zelenskiy, Ville Khaapasalo, Vera Brezhneva, Filipp Kirkorov." Montecristo may or may not have shortened the credits page, but considering the Hotnews citation, I'm inclined to think that that's as full as it's always been.

The following sources need to be removed outright:

  • Bild, as mentioned earlier in this page, is a tabloid. Not exactly a great source of journalism. Again, do I get to cite the Weekly World News?
  • IMDB is a user generated source, and so fails WP:RS.

There are no sources in this article are both reliable and notable. That usually happens when articles are created for promotional purposes by COI accounts. Ian.thomson (talk) 07:34, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Fair points.
I'd done a little googling myself, and had kinda convinced myself it just barely passed GNG, but you've looked in more detail than I did.
I agree that 9am.ro looks like tabloid crap.
The part about acting seems really clutching at straws.
I'm generally hesitant when it's quite possible that there are sources in other languages, but perhaps AfD would be the best approach - after all, AfD can help articles too, by raising the profile so that others might find RS. 88.104.19.233 (talk) 07:45, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Ian.thomson- I agree! Thanks for taking the time to clearly list the invalid sources Indiggo77 kept using.
Indiggo77 also kept adding and re-adding that they are "fashion designers," "music producers," "composers" and that one of them had published poetry but never provided a valid source. I would then delete their unsourced claims, and they would re-add them...

I don't think Indiggo is notable for wikipedia.63.247.160.139 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:51, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure there's a Romanian Wikipedia, they might be able to do a bang-up job over there. Not all language Wikipedias have to cover all the same material. I wouldn't expect the Romanian Wikipedia to cover Hopkins, South Carolina, after all. Ian.thomson (talk) 07:53, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
There's already ro:Indiggo, but their standards for V are likely considerably lower than here. 88.104.19.233 (talk) 07:58, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
BTW, ro does mention Hopkins, but it's a redlink so far. Better start learning the language, Mr. t :-) 88.104.19.233 (talk) 08:01, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Can I now delete the sentence that says "Gabriela and Mihaela acted in the musical The Two Orphans in Bucharest, Romania in 2006" since the source for that is not a valid source, as Ian.thomson wrote about above?63.247.160.139 (talk) 13:26, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

  • If sources do not in themselves reflect notability, that is an issue for an AfD. But we do not not delete such refs, if otherwise appropriate, from the article just for that reason.
If refs don't support the text, that is reason for deletion of the refs and perhaps the text (if it is all that supports the text).
As to assessing a news source as a non-RS because it contains a numerology section -- that's not reason, in and of itself, to assert that the source is not an RS ... many top-RSs have horoscope sections, and are still RSs. If you have an issue with a source, bring it to the RS board for review, but you will need a better reason than that.
As to IMDB, the issue is a bit more complex than that -- you can get a sense for where we are by reading the strings here ....Epeefleche (talk) 00:07, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

The website Indiggo77 added appears to be a dead link - http://www.draculasgirls.wetpaint.com/ so it should be deleted, right?63.247.160.139 (talk) 08:10, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Indiggo77 also added draculasgirls.wikifoundry.com/page/Indiggo as their website. Is that not spam?63.247.160.139 (talk) 08:14, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Blimey, you could've warned me about the singing on that link! Heh.
a) yes, the deadlink should go
b) no, one link to an official website is acceptable per WP:EL
The additional MySpace link is debatable; personally I don't like them, but plenty of other articles have those as an EL. That's no big deal anyway. 88.104.19.233 (talk) 08:23, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

(: Currently, the following websites are listed on Indiggo's wikipedia article:
draculasgirls.wikifoundry.com/page/Indiggo (near the top of the page)
http://indiggotwins.wix.com/indiggo (under External links)
http://www.draculasgirls.wetpaint.com/ (under External links)
https://myspace.com/twinsindiggo (under External links)
Which would you say is their one official website? 63.247.160.139 (talk) 08:44, 20 February 2014 (UTC)63.247.160.139 (talk) 09:07, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

The first one. As far as I can tell, that's their official website.
The second is useless because it's dead.
And whilst according to WP:ELNO the myspace is disallowed, there are so many other articles (including lots of major artists) that have one I personally wouldn't bother removing it; also because it's really a pretty trivial problem. 88.104.19.233 (talk) 09:24, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

AfD while protected?

It seems like this page should be deleted (IMO) and split into two pages (maybe), but the article subject is not notable as a pair. How can I nominate for deletion, or should I just wait? CombatWombat42 (talk) 17:51, 20 February 2014 (UTC)


Please place {{subst:afd1}} at the top of the page. I will handle the paperwork. CombatWombat42 (talk) 18:26, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Barring some exceptional sources coming in and the group's business partners promising to back off (not saying who, but it doesn't take much to find out), this article needs to be scrubbed. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:43, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
I removed the protection I put on the article. I no longer believe that there will be an edit war because I don't believe that sockpuppets have been active at this page. If you want to nominate the page for AfD, or remove contentious material, be my guest. But anyone who edits this page, remember that this page has received additional scrutiny and anyone who starts an edit war again is likely going to be blocked to stop it. -- Atama頭 16:56, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Also, if you do decide to nominate this page for deletion, please let Paul Lewis Smith know as a courtesy; this editor created the article and has been recently active so I expect they would be interested in participating in the deletion discussion. -- Atama頭 16:59, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) as I tried deactivating request as Atama has removed the protection (I also just closed an active request just above this by IP editors that leads me to believe that semi-protection may still be appropriate). — {{U|Technical 13}} (t • e • c) 17:21, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
I advise very strongly against semi-protection in the case of an edit war between IPs and standard editors; actually, I don't think an admin would do that (and they certainly shouldn't). If there is persistent vandalism from IPs it's common to semi-protect an article, but if semi-protection is done when there is a dispute then the administrator is effectively taking a side in an edit war against the IPs. That is automatically a violation of WP:INVOLVED and an abuse of tools. Usually in an edit war, you do one of two things; fully protect the article to prevent everyone from editing, or block those involved in the war (or at least the most egregious violator, such as the person who violated WP:3RR). -- Atama頭 17:47, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Article cleanup

I just did a cleanup on the article as per talk page consensus. I have removed all the unsourced, fake and self-promotional content, and rewritten some to accurately reflect the few, near non existent reliable sources. There is no need to have sub sections in this short article as well. Many sources citations need adding titles but I don't speak Romanian. The current article should be unbiased and accurately reflect the sources. Although the page receives fewer than 30 view counts per day and the twins are relatively unknown to the public, keeping this article can prevent future recreation of the same article in unsuitable promotional language by their suspected sock puppets (check here). I suggest keeping this article. BigCat82 (talk) 21:18, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Could you remove this sentence please?

Currently, the Indiggo wikipedia article says "After seeing Mihaela and Gabriela acting in The Two Orphans, Romanian author D. R. Popescu wrote a play for them entitled Two Sisters, subsequently published in the Romanian-language collection of plays called Domnul Fluture si Doamna Fluture.[13]" The source after that is http://www.hotnews.ro/stiri-arhiva-1086644-premiile-uniunii-scriitorilor-anul-2006.htm

As Ian.thomson pointed out, that hotnews.ro source does not even mention "Indiggo," "Gabriela," or "Mihaela" in any way. The source doesn't back up the claim that "Romanian author D. R. Popescu wrote a play for them entitled Two Sisters, subsequently published in the Romanian-language collection of plays called Domnul Fluture si Doamna Fluture.[13]"

Thanks. 63.247.160.139 (talk) 22:41, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Done. BigCat82 (talk) 12:54, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

multiple kilobytes of weirdness

About this. Can we talk about adding it a little bit at a time per WP:BURDEN?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 05:51, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Lizzie112079

Edited the Indiggo page as there were numerous false claims and defamatory comments. Have been following Indiggo for years and tried to objectively post background history on them with supporting links. The version posted on Wikipedia before was inaccurate about their profile. Lizzie112079 (talk) 06:15, 23 February 2014 (UTC)Lizzie112079Lizzie112079 (talk) 06:15, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

You and the blocked user Indiggo77 have been adding the same unsourced, improperly cited materials and deliberate factual errors to the article. Assuming you are not a sock puppet of Indiggo77 and are unaware of the violations, you are simply not allowed to add those materials to the article, especially to the biography of a living person. BigCat82 (talk) 04:10, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Latest sock puppet: DavidLeib (talk/contributions). Same language, same unsourced claims. 63.247.160.139 (talk) 23:41, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

In particular, the claim that we are "violating" the page: [2] and [3]. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:04, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Indiggo77 is back as Lizzie112079

Sock puppetry! Blocked user Indiggo77 (talk) is back as Lizzie112079 (talk).

63.247.160.139 (talk) 12:45, 23 February 2014 (UTC)63.247.160.139 (talk) 12:50, 23 February 2014 (UTC)63.247.160.139 (talk) 13:11, 23 February 2014 (UTC)


Hello there, I am not, have no connection at all, don`t even know who Indiggo77 is. That is a false statement. Lizzie112079 (talk) 17:43, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't think so, you two have been adding identical unsourced or synthetic materials to the article. BigCat82 (talk) 04:13, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Dan de Lint is using the same language and same invalid/self-promotional sources in their talk page request. See Dan de Lint's contributions. 63.247.160.139 (talk) 07:06, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Is it just me, or is it interesting that once y'all figured this out, Lizzie left and DavidLeib showed up? Ian.thomson (talk) 00:00, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 25 February 2014

1) The following paragraph would need to be revised appropriately or removed as the link claiming that - is dead, and no evidence supports its content. "They tried again the following year with "Lovestruck" but were disqualified before the contest due to not showing up for rehearsals and not providing the instrumental version of their song. The duo also missed their music video filming for the promotion of their song, claiming that they had some concerts in the United States.[4]"

2) Requesting the following to be added in, as The Indiggo Twins are Romanian-born American professional actresses, singers, writers, poets, composers, dancers, music producers and fashion designers. Evidence supporting these claims are that they graduated from the National University of Theatrical Arts and cinematography - UNATC, and at these links further evidence is given for the above: http://about.me/indiggo_twins http://draculasgirls.wikifoundry.com/page/Indiggo http://www.broadwayworld.com/bwwmusic/article/Imagem-Music-Signs-The-Indiggo-Twins-20110810

3) Requesting to add in that Mihaela and Gabriela are members of ASCAP. By clicking on the writers button and searching for INDIGGO TWINS one can check above statement as true https://www.ascap.com/Home/ace-title-search/index.aspx

4) Requesting that current version of article is revised as per the following statement - to become accurate: Gabriela guest-starred on the episode "Hothouse" of the television series Law & Order: Special Victims Unit, which first aired on NBC on January 13, 2009 and had a speaking role along Mariska Hargitay and Christopher Meloni. Evidence can be checked for this episode found at http://www.netflix.com/WiPlayer?movieid=70126212&trkid=7882979

5) Requesting for following paragraph to be removed as none of the 4 provided links provide any evidence which supports the paragraph "The audience were booing at Indiggo, and judge Piers Morgan called Mihaela and Gabriela Modorcea "the worst dancers and the worst singers in the entire competition", and they were eliminated from the competition.[1][5][6][7]"

Dan de Lint (talk) 04:18, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

1) Yes, I agree that since that sentence isn't sourced it should be deleted.

2) No! There are NO reliable sources that confirm that "The Indiggo Twins are Romanian-born American professional actresses, singers, writers, poets, composers, dancers, music producers and fashion designers. Evidence supporting these claims are that they graduated from the National University of Theatrical Arts and cinematography - UNATC" PLEASE look at Talk:Indiggo#Problems_with_sources because conversations have already been had about this and the reasoning is clearly outlined by Ian.thomson above. Also see Wikipedia:Consensus.

3) I went to the link you provided and typed in "Indiggo Twins." No results returned. I typed in "Indiggo" and the website showed one result for "INDIGGO LOVE" and two "Writers" for "INDIGGO LOVE" as MODORCEA MIHAELA and MODORCEA GABRIELA. That appears to say that Mihaela & Gabriela Modorcea are members of ASCAP as writers (to be clear: not as singers, not as actresses, not as fashion designers, not as poets, not as dancers, etc.), right?
With that source, I think it is acceptable to edit the Indiggo article to say "Mihaela and Gabriela Modorcea are members of ASCAP."

4) No. It is not necessary to name-drop famous actors in the Indiggo wikipedia article. I deleted the "non-speaking role" bit so the Indiggo wikipedia article currently (and accurately) says the following: "Gabriela Modorcea had a cameo role on the episode "Hothouse" of the television series Law & Order: Special Victims Unit, which first aired on NBC on January 13, 2009." The netflix link you provided is not a reliable source for wikipedia. (Currently, the sentence about Law & Order: SVU doesn't have a source.)

-It appears that Dan de Lint created an account today, after Indiggo77 has been blocked and two other apparent Indiggo77 sock puppets have popped up on the Indiggo article... 63.247.160.139 (talk) 06:55, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

For request 1, the content is attributable and I also found some other new sources to support it like [4], [5], [6], [7], and many more. As long as the sources exist and can be verified, they don't need to be accessible online. The official information of Eurovision Song Contest 2006 and 2007 can no longer be retrieved online as they are too old, but being unable to retrieve online doesn't mean the original two sources do not exist]. In fact the original Eurovision Song Contest 2007 wikipedia page created during 2007 has the above clear information there ([8]. This article will contain insufficient information to be notable if the above information is deleted. So I suggest keeping the information and putting "Eurovision_Song Contest 2007" as the valid source without the link, plus some optional independent sources I listed here.
For request 5, the content should be kept due to same reason mentioned above as it accurately reflects what happened during the show. Please differentiate between sources that do not exist and sources that are not accessible online - the latter can be cited as reliable sources here, the former can never be used.. BigCat82 (talk) 20:03, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Regarding 2) The Broadway World content is lifted from the Imagem website: [9] Content there includes verification of their status and business relationship at Imagem Music. 108.11.253.7 (talk) 23:13, 2 March 2014 (UTC) [1]

their business relationship at Imagem Music is already in the article. Other than that the primary source (Imagem) you cited gives nothing more. BigCat82 (talk) 02:31, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. — {{U|Technical 13}} (t • e • c) 19:05, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 28 February 2014

Please, unlock for correct editing. Piers Morgan's feedback is unsupported. It does not mirror the truth. There is a dead link to the NBC site. Please, delete "The audience were booing at Indiggo, and judge Piers Morgan called Mihaela and Gabriela Modorcea 'the worst dancers and the worst singers in the entire competition'", Please, add "After getting the thumbs-up from judge Sharon Osbourne who called Indiggo "fabulous", Piers Morgan approved the pair to go on to the next round in Las Vegas." http://askville.amazon.com/competition-twin-sisters-Indiggo/AnswerViewer.do?requestId=10544143 DavidLeib (talk) 21:58, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

That's not what I saw from the actual footages of the show on how they were eliminated. The current statement in the article correctly summarizes what happened and similar statements can be found in other reliable sources like [10] and [11]. Your link points to a forum discussion which is not accepted as a source here.BigCat82 (talk) 21:47, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. — {{U|Technical 13}} (t • e • c) 19:06, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

1. Please, tell me your name, I can not talk to cats. 2. Yes, Sharon Osbourne gave Indiggo the thumbs-up and the audience was cheering for Indiggo in the first round. 3. Wikipedia should present neutral pints of view and accomplishments, not racist and malicious comments said by a "judge" who more than 100,000 have called for to be deported from the United States for his abusive, unsupported actions. David Hasselhoff commented that Indiggo did a lovely job. Why don't you post his comment? Morgan's comment was purely racist, stating that Germans have no taste in music and asked Indiggo to leave the country. I have seen Indiggo live at the Bitter End and in other New York clubs and their abilities as performers, writers, actresses are exceptional. The limitation of this article is not presenting them in a fair light. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidLeib (talk • contribs) 23:46, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

It's non-neutral (outright dishonest and promotional) to pretend that that Piers Morgan loved their performance by omitting his statements. It's insane to say that anyone calling for Piers Morgan's deportation cared at all about Indiggo, when there are so many other things he's said that he's far more infamous for. Your promotional language is not a fair light or neutral either. Honestly, your sockpuppetry and advertising is getting tiresome, girls, knock it off. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:11, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
  • I haven't dived into all of this, but just from reading it can say I support Ian on two points: a) sockpuppetry has no place here, and editors with scant editing history who are editing ad nauseum here should attract strict scrutiny (on both sides of this edit war); and b) the history of Morgan outside of this, whatever it may be, is completely irrelevant -- unless an RS discusses it, in connection with Indiggo.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:16, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Is there any evidence that stiridinromania.eu is a reliable source?

As far as I can tell, it appears to be a blog featuring news from Romania. There's no indication of editorial oversight, multiple authors, or even named authors. Everything's just posted by an admin, which tells me that it's really just a blog by someone who can't even adjust their username. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:29, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I've flagged it as "reliable source?" within the article, because I think it is questionable. Of course, some news blogs are RSs. It is not clear to me whether this one is, for example, a derivative of this media publication that has been around since the 1950s. But I would suggest it be discussed at the reliable source noticeboard -- with reference to the text it is supporting -- if one wishes to delete it, and there uninvolved editors who deal with such sources all the time can opine. The edit warring here is out of hand. People have to stop reverting willy nilly, because they think their view is reasonable, and start using the reliable source noticeboard and similar tools, and tagging as RS? (as I have, to move things along in the meantime), in lieu of edit warring. Or, of course, editors will start to get blocked. And there is no reason for that.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:54, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Per BLP, any questionably sourced material should be removed immediately, though.
Unless presented with better evidence, it's real hard not to assume that "Buletinul de Stiri din Romania si Comentarii" and "Stiri din Romania" are probably as distinct as Fox News Channel and the Headline News channel. They all share the word "news," the Romanian news periodicals also containing indications that it's Romanian news.
As for edit warring, I assume you're speaking about the IP(s) and DavidLeib/Indiggo77, as I was was still within proper limits when dealing with Leib's censorship. I normally would have a problem with the behavior of the IPs, but they're one of the few things keeping the Indiggo girls "and their fans" (who definitely aren't sockpuppets) in check. If the socks were more solidly kept at bay by some other means, I'd not advocate on behalf of the IPs any there after. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:23, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Ian -- yes, I was certainly not referring to you w/regard to edit warring, but rather with regard to the others you mention. I don't really see anything of a BLP concern that is sourced to other than a clear RS; it seems that the edit warring (at least point at least - I've no idea what it concerned before, and haven't checked) was about sources that were extra sources or were sources for completely non-sensitive, non-important material. I agree it does look like much of the other editing has been by socks and IPs, on either side ... which IMHO militates in favor of them appealing to the RS noticeboard on these matters, rather than their personal views of whether an RS is questionable and a BLP issue driving the conclusion. At the same time, it would be good if someone were to read the .ro sites, and determine which are RSs (it looks as though there is some German coverage as well, which makes sense as their SONY single was also produced by a major German label).Epeefleche (talk) 05:30, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

NY Times sarcasm / "moving sample"

The Indiggo article should be changed to say:

A sample from Indiggo's LA LA LA is played on Murder to Excellence, a song on Jay-Z and Kanye West’s Watch The Throne (2011), what The New York Times sarcastically described as a "moving sample" from Indiggo.
(Currently, the Indiggo article misleadingly reads "Complete Music Update and Broadway World reported that the twins can be heard on rappers Jay-Z and Kanye West’s ‘Watch The Throne’ 2011 studio album (what The New York Times described as a "moving sample" from Indiggo appeared on “Murder to Excellence,” a song on the album)[1][9][10]...")

This is the source sentence in the New York Times: Furthermore, a close reading of the liner notes reveals gems: impossible-to-notice vocals by Seal (why?) on “Lift Off,” snippets from the Will Ferrell ice skating comedy “Blades of Glory,” freelance opera singers, a moving sample from the Indiggo Twins, “America’s Got Talent” punching bags and, as described here, “ambassadors of the great Romanian tradition” (which?). From http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/14/arts/music/jay-z-and-kanye-wests-watch-the-throne.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 Does anyone else understand that the NY Times is being sarcastic?

The above quote of “America’s Got Talent” punching bags should not stand, as it does not accurately state Indiggo. Happened to randomly come across one of their performances in NYC and the sold-out crowd was on their feet cheering for them. Far off from the inaccurate `punching bags`. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TimMorales (talk • contribs) 05:11, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

This is Indiggo's LA LA LA that is sampled in Murder to Excellence: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iT5_EB4OMuU

This is Murder to Excellence - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3yn5qj1pCj4 (the background la la la's are sung by Indiggo)

63.247.160.139 (talk) 20:49, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

better imo to just remove the derogatory opinion and just leave the fact - A sample from Indiggo's LA LA LA is played on Murder to Excellence, a song on Jay-Z and Kanye West’s Watch The Throne (2011) - Mosfetfaser (talk) 20:57, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Yea, gone ahead and removed - (what The New York Times described as a "moving sample" from Indiggo appeared on “Murder to Excellence,” a song on the album) Mosfetfaser (talk) 21:02, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Mosfetfaser- Would you object if I changed the current "Complete Music Update and Broadway World reported that the twins can be heard on rappers Jay-Z and Kanye West’s ‘Watch The Throne’ 2011 studio album." to "A sample from Indiggo's LA LA LA is played on Murder to Excellence, a song on Jay-Z and Kanye West’s Watch The Throne (2011)."? 63.247.160.139 (talk) 21:07, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

No, not at all -I did it - Mosfetfaser (talk) 21:11, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Epeefleche undid this. *sigh*63.247.160.139 (talk) 21:36, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

  • The attributed view/characterization of The New York Times here is certainly appropriate to reflect. Do you want to quote more of it? You're welcome to. But there is no call to delete it, or to add your own interpretation (which I don't share -- that's editor input of his/her own view).--Epeefleche (talk) 21:40, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Epeefleche, The New York Times is being sarcastic when they say Indiggo's sample is moving! It paints a false picture to not include that it's sarcastic. This is the source sentence in the New York Times: Furthermore, a close reading of the liner notes reveals gems: impossible-to-notice vocals by Seal (why?) on “Lift Off,” snippets from the Will Ferrell ice skating comedy “Blades of Glory,” freelance opera singers, a moving sample from the Indiggo Twins, “America’s Got Talent” punching bags and, as described here, “ambassadors of the great Romanian tradition” (which?). From http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/14/arts/music/jay-z-and-kanye-wests-watch-the-throne.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 63.247.160.139 (talk) 21:46, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I myself was the editor who already reflected that the NYT described them as “America’s Got Talent” punching bags. But I don't read the other reference as sarcastic, and even if I did I would not interpret it as such for the reader -- we don't add our own interpretations; the key is to accurately reflect what was said, not construe it.Epeefleche (talk) 22:11, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
agree with that Epeefleche, I also object to 63.247.160.139 (talk) personal opinion instertion of "sarcastic" Mosfetfaser (talk) 22:38, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Mr. IP -- Per this discussion, and per wp policies, please stop deleting RS-supported material that is accurate.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:07, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Movies and television section

The movies and television section of the Indiggo article isn't showing up for me. Can anyone else see that? 63.247.160.139 (talk) 21:02, 4 March 2014 (UTC) I fixed it, never mind.63.247.160.139 (talk) 21:04, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I reverted the removal of templates from talk page

Mosfetfaser deleted the templates at the top of the page that mention usernames associated with Indiggo. I reverted. Is there any rule against this? Thanks. 63.247.160.139 (talk) 21:19, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't know why he did. Perhaps they were appropriate at an earlier time. But the article seems fairly well scrubbed at this point. Unless there is COI material in the article now, I agree with Mos that there is no reason to further encumber the article with a template that is not relevant to the current form of the article.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:42, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Yes I did it because of that the templates are of no benefit to the reader atall, the article has been almost recreated since then Mosfetfaser (talk) 21:47, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
from what I see the article is quite neutral ATM thanks to the efforts of every genuine editor. The tag is thus no longer useful until the sock puppets of Indiggo become active again.BigCat82 (talk) 06:54, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
I have never seen these tags removed ever. I beleive they are valuble becuase if those editors ever come back there needs to be a list of who they are. Otherwise there is no record of them being conflited editors. CombatWombat42 (talk) 21:51, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
The article has been rewritten since those editors contribs and there is no confirmed sock report that I have seen? Those name and shame templates are of no value at all to the reader, if the article content has issues, edit it Mosfetfaser (talk) 21:54, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

When to remove

This tag may be removed by any editor after the problem is resolved, if the problem is not explained on the article's talk page, and/or if no current attempts to resolve the problem can be found.

Here is the guidance from the template, I would contest that the problem is not resolved, as socks keep popping up, when socks stop appearing they can be removed. CombatWombat42 (talk) 21:58, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
Socks are not an issue at present are they? please link to checked confirmed sock reports? Here is the puppet report , result was - no evidence of puppet accounts - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Indiggo77/Archive - " there seems to be no evidence that sockpuppetry has occurred at all" Mosfetfaser (talk) 22:01, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
The silly templates were replaced today by this internet address, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/24.97.201.230&offset=&limit=500&target=24.97.201.230 without any good reason , just a comment, "re-added sockpuppets" - as I said three weeks ago - Here is the puppet report , result was - no evidence of puppet accounts - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Indiggo77/Archive - " there seems to be no evidence that sockpuppetry has occurred at all" - I better put them back and wait for others opinions Mosfetfaser (talk) 17:14, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
the user has been editing for days https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/24.97.201.230&offset=&limit=500&target=24.97.201.230 since notification on their talkpage of this discussion and has now blanked their page https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:24.97.201.230&diff=601967261&oldid=601706629 without any discussion so I will remove the templates as this discussion Mosfetfaser (talk) 15:22, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

SPA edits

A newly formed SPA (Dany4444), who maintains she has never edited wp before (discussion on my talk page), has engaged in editing just now that has led me to leave her a series of messages, culminating in a final warning. Perhaps someone else watching this page can take a look. Perhaps this needs a sock check, or attention by admins if there are further violations (I was reverted, when I reverted), or page protection. Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:52, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

I think a report of this user is needed. Mosfetfaser (talk) 08:26, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
Dany4444's editing of the Indiggo article has a lot in common with Indiggo77, Lizzie112079, 184.145.58.169, Dan de Lint, DavidLeib and 69.22.241.105 (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Indiggo&diff=601968385&oldid=601968297) in my opinion. 24.97.201.230 (talk) 01:22, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

To Epeefleche and Mosfetfaser: Dany4444 has just made many bad edits to the Indiggo wikipedia article. 24.97.201.230 (talk) 18:11, 7 April 2014 (UTC) I agree this account is a problem, where can it be reported? CombatWombat42 (talk) 20:31, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Block. FYI, Dany4444 has just been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for abuse of editing privileges (Disruptive editing: Introducing original research, removing sourced material, repeated edit-warring at Indiggo.). Epeefleche (talk) 20:40, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Dany4444's editing also has a lot in common with 172.254.29.169's editing in my opinion. 24.97.201.230 (talk) 23:22, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

No reliable source says Indiggo sisters are American

Indiggo sisters are Romanian. Currently, the Indiggo wikipedia article says that they are American. There is no reliable source put down next to that. The "source" for that---a youtube video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m-srfcVy_CI --- is not reliable.

The other sources listed near that claim (below) do not say Indiggo sisters are American.

Since the claim that Indiggo sisters are American is not reliably sourced, can it be deleted? If no, why not? 24.97.201.230 (talk) 01:44, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Why do you assert that source is not reliable?--Epeefleche (talk) 03:24, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
If you go to the stiridinromania.eu website, you can see it's not a legitimate news source.
This is the English translation. It's very puff piecey.
And if you think stiridinromania.eu is a reliable source, can the youtube source be deleted? 24.97.201.230 (talk) 04:28, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
If the English translation link doesn't work, you can type http://stiridinromania.eu/toata-lumea-le-stia-ca-gemenele-indigo-uite-ce-fac-astazi-gabriela-si-mihaela-in-america/ into google.com 24.97.201.230 (talk) 04:31, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Again -- why do you think the youtube ref is not a reliable source? Epeefleche (talk) 04:56, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
You didn't make it clear that you were talking about youtube.
Youtube is not considered a reliable source by wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_source_examples#Are_IRC.2C_MySpace.2C_Facebook.2C_and_YouTube_reliable_sources.3F 24.97.201.230 (talk) 05:18, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
That's not a guideline. Or a policy. It's simply an essay. All it is is an opinion of one or more Wikipedia contributors; some essays only represent minority viewpoints.
It appears to me to be a primary source, just as a self-published website can be a primary source. Self-published sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, in circumstances such as this one.
For this fact, it seems fine to accept the words of the subject of the article. Nor is this a controversial fact -- such as "I'm having an affair" or "I'm a rapist" or "I'm a Nazi" -- as would attract greater concern. In fact, I'm a bit puzzled by your making a federal case of it -- I'm not quite sure where you're coming from. This seems like a non-issue, and I support retaining both the statement and the Youtube ref.
There were in 2012, btw, over 70,000 wikipedia pages linking to Youtube.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:50, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

There is obviously not consensus on the reliablity of the various sources claiming naitonality. I certanly don't trust youtube, even if it is used elsewhere on wikipedia (it shouldn't), stiridinromania.eu certanly seems dubious at best. CombatWombat42 (talk) 20:30, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Combat -- I appreciate your efforts to revert the innappropriate edits by our new user in this discussion, who is editing against consensus. On this point, however, I agree with Mos as to this Youtube video for this point, and do not see any support here for your position. So far the consensus on this page accords with the use of 70,000 refs to Youtube across the Project -- please don't delete this again unless you have a consensus to do so, but as of now those of us who have commented have disagreed with you. Epeefleche (talk) 20:32, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
The IP and WP:NOYT both agree with me, if it were a obvious fact, you would be able to find a better source than youtube. Stop quoting the "70,000 wikipedia pages linking to Youtube" "fact" just because it is linked alot, don't make it within guidelines to do so. CombatWombat42 (talk) 20:38, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Citizenship_and_nationality Also seems to indicate that there is no clear defention of what "american" means, and that you tube video at best shows Citizenship not nationality. CombatWombat42 (talk) 20:42, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
That's an essay, a failed proposal, and you're misreading it. It says there's no clear definition of what "German" means. It's notoriously more difficult to define the nationality when one's talking about a nation-state like Germany, but America is not a nation-state, it's just a state, so citizenship is with very rare exceptions synonymous with nationality for Americans. And not only that, but we don't even need a full definition of what "American" means to say they're American, since citizenship in country X is sufficient to say that a person is an X-ian. It's the converse that's dicey, but that's not what we're talking about. Finally, if the youtube channel is their official channel, then WP:SPS says clearly that it's a reliable source for something as ridiculously uncontroversial as whether or not they're American citizens. Who would know better? Why would they lie? Is the YouTube channel official? It looks like it to me.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 20:51, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
You are claming they are "american" the you tube video claims they have american citizenship, which is not the same thing. CombatWombat42 (talk) 21:05, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
I echo what Alf said. And what Mosfetfaser said. I'm puzzled and fascinated by why Combat is being so combative here. I would add, Combat's reliance on WP:NOYT is misplaced, inasmuch as it also is an essay, and it says itself that: "Essays are not Wikipedia policies or guidelines. Some essays ... only represent minority viewpoints.".Epeefleche (talk) 20:56, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
"because anyone can create or manipulate a video clip and upload without editorial oversight, just as with a self-published website. However, official channels of notable organisations" is youtube user indiggo77 the offical indiggo channel? I would like to see you prove that. CombatWombat42 (talk) 21:05, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Rather than contact everyone individually, I'm just putting this here... Stop edit-warring over this. I'm tempted to block people or lock the page down. There's a discussion here on the page, so use it. In the meantime, per WP:BLPSOURCES it's best not to include it. Just come to a consensus here using the usual dispute resolution steps. -- Atama頭 21:26, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Official Twitter account is here: [12]. Tweet from official Twitter account announcing their citizenship is here: [13]. Official Twitter account links to official website, which is here: [14]. The official website has a post about their citizenship here: [15], which embeds the YouTube video in question, so yeah, it's their official YouTube channel and there you have about a zillion other sources, none of which need to go in the article, although they certainly can.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 21:28, 9 April 2014 (UTC)


  • Current input. At this point I see three editors disagreeing with Combat's assertion that the statement and the Youtube ref must be removed: alf laylah wa laylah, Mosfetfaser, and me. IP 24.97.201.230 mirrored Combat's position (actually, the reverse), but based its view on an essay. As we know, essays may represent minority viewpoints. No other editor, IP or otherwise, agreed with Combat. With 3 of the other 4 editors having disagreed with Combat, and the last one having based its view on an essay which may represent -- as it admits itself -- a minority view, I don't see consensus support for Combats series of deletions. Just the opposite. Furthermore, Alf has just on this page added a new source. Given that that source has never been used to support that statement, I would urge that the statement be re-inserted with (at minimum) the new ref from the official Twitter account. Which, as Alf indicates, verifies that the Youtube channel is theirs, which then makes use of it as an official source appropriate for this limited purpose. Epeefleche (talk) 21:38, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Here's their official Myspace page, that also says they're American citizens, and also links to the YouTube video: [16]. Who uses Myspace anymore? It's got to be real.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 22:06, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

http://www.today.com/id/25222768/ns/today-today_entertainment/t/rowdy-beginning-americas-got-talent/#.U0XYy8fgVQZ (Article from 2008) "Then, Romanian twin sisters who went by the name of Indiggo did a heinous rendition of Frank Sinatra’s “New York, New York.” The judges acknowledged the singing was terrible, but must have been feeling charitable as they gave the twins a pass so they could have another chance to impress in Vegas."

http://www.buddytv.com/articles/americas-got-talent/americas-got-talent-3-top-5-mo-23294.aspx (2008 article on BuddyTV) "Indiggo is a duo so bizarre that one "g" just isn't enough for them. The Romanian twins first baffled the judges by shouting a version of "New York, New York" in the audition rounds, which was apparently enough to help them advance to the top 40."

http://zap2it.com/blogs/americas_got_talent_marry_me_eli-2008-09 (2008 article on a Zap2it blog) "I'd rather just skip the next act because I might break my computer with the venom spitting out of my eyeballs. It's Indiggo, the disgusting-gonna-end-up-in-twin-porn-Romanian-crazypants-villain-on-Buffy girls. They are singing an original song tonight called "George Clooney?" Really? Umm... oh my god. They do some bad old timey flapper moves and start getting booed pretty heavily. The chorus goes, "I don't need no Georgie Clooney... something something... I don't need no David Beckham." I feel like I've just fallen into a David Lynch TV show by way of the rabbit hole. They spend some time groping the male judges and the audience is really letting them have it. There might be a riot. I can't believe this act made it through the first AND second rounds. Piers says to ship them back to Romania."

http://www.mlive.com/entertainment/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2008/08/west_michigan_acts_are_among_m.html (2008) "Indiggo Hometown: New York, N.e Y. (originally from Romania) What: Twin singers Morgan: "You've got everything going for you, apart from your terrible voices.""

http://www.tvguide.com/tvshows/americas-got-talent-2008/episode-1-season-3/americas-got-talent/280608 (2008 article on TV Guide's website) "Indiggo - Uh oh. These Romanian twin girls seemed really cute and ambitious. This New York, New York rendition is awful." 24.97.201.230 (talk) 23:46, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Oh. So?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 23:53, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
So there are reliable sources that say the twins are Romanian. 24.97.201.230 (talk) 00:09, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
They became American in 2013, so naturally sources from before that date say they're Romanian, which is what they were then.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 00:11, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Citizenship DOES NOT EQUAL Nationality. I might accept "The twins are also reality television personalities, professional actresses,[6][7] writers, composers and U.S. citizens" although that seems a bit odd. CombatWombat42 (talk) 00:34, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Are you seriously claiming that U.S. citizen does not imply American? It's the converse that there might be a problem with. There is no such thing as an American nationality in the sense of that essay you're relying on. There just isn't. America is not a nation in that sense. Look what the OED says that the word "American" means: "2a. Originally: a native or inhabitant of America, esp. of the British colonies in North America, of European descent (now hist.). Now chiefly: a native or citizen of the United States." They are natives or citizens of the United States. Hence we can call them American. Sheesh. Is this actually hard to understand?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 00:46, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

NOTE: From WP:OPENPARAGRAPH (MOS list of stuff to be included in the first paragraph of a biographical article): 3. Context (location, nationality, or ethnicity); In most modern-day cases this will mean the country of which the person is a citizen, national or permanent resident, or if notable mainly for past events, the country where the person was a citizen, national or permanent resident when the person became notable. Now, does anyone have a serious argument as to why, given that these folks became American citizens in October 2013, we should not, as per the MOS, note that they are Americans in the first paragraph? Please don't forget, random Wikipedia essays notwithstanding, that the Oxford English Dictionary gives the meaning of the noun "American" as "native or citizen of the United States." Thank you for your attention to this matter.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 01:35, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Yeah I still have a problem with your source. If it was so obvious they are "American" Why cant you find a source with editorial oversight? also "...the country where the person was a citizen, national or permanent resident when the person became notable." so there is no mention of them after 2012 in the article, even your own definition doesn't agree with you. CombatWombat42 (talk) 02:00, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Because they're only notable due to WP:BAND rather than WP:GNG and nobody in the real world cares about them one way or the other. What's your actual, substantial problem with WP:ABOUTSELF here? Are you still claiming "American" is contentious and potentially libelous? Because if you are, you should explain yourself, and if you're not then you should explain how you figure WP:ABOUTSELF doesn't apply to let us source their American citizenship to their official website. And forget the past event stuff. That's not for still active bands, obviously.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 02:01, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Oh! So you get to cherry pick policy now? the policy that supports your arguments and get to claim that it is "obvious". Huh, I didn't realize that. CombatWombat42 (talk) 02:16, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
The MOS is not policy, it's a guideline. Are you going to engage with the substance of the discussion or not?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 02:20, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
  • 1) RSs say they are American. We simply (should) reflect what the RSs say. 2) That they were Romanian before they became American, or are Romanian-American, does not negate the fact that they are American. 3) Some of the above-quoted sources appear to be non-RS blogs. 4) Obviously, "originally from Romania" does not mean "not American" -- so it is perplexing that it is cited by the IP for that proposition. 5) Same with "ship them back to Romania". 6) I find Combat's argument that "American" does not mean "a U.S. citizen" to be preposterous. For reasons indicated above. 7) As to Combat's analysis of "American" and insistence on reverting to change the article to his liking, please note that sysop Writ Keeper wrote Combat, in the thread below Combat's final warning: "The 3RR exception applies only to contentious BLP violations, not just any bit of information about a living person. The exception you invoke goes on to say that what counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Consider reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption. I don't see how calling someone "American" is particularly contentious, so don't violate 3RR to keep removing it." Epeefleche (talk) 05:08, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
First of all User:Epeefleche you were engaged in the exact style of edit warring I was and that was my only warning, so don't act all high and mighty. Second "per WP:BLPSOURCES it's best not to include it" --Atama, so don't act like there are not others that at least understand the point I am trying to make. Third, "We simply (should) reflect what the RSs say." I 100% agree, someone show me where those reliable sources say "they are American". Fourth, look at how Albert Einstein treats nationality, what is the problem with adding the qualifier "citizen" or "born" he is certainly far more notable than these two and there is still not clarity on his nationality. CombatWombat42 (talk) 13:20, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Atama, do you understand the point CombatWombat42 is trying to make, as claimed? Because if so, and given that your warning scared everyone off from editing this article except for an IP, and seeing as CombatWombat42 won't actually explain the point or engage with the substantial issues others have raised, and argues by shouting BLP over and over again, perhaps you might weigh in on the question, because we'd all like to know what the wombat is talking about. CombatWombat42, Einstein is a terrible analogy. He was stripped of citizenship in various countries, he was stateless at one point, he was a citizen of 6 different countries at various times, he was Jewish at a time when that meant complex things about both nationality and citizenship. We have a simple case here of two people who were born in Romania and then became American. Their nationality in the sense you repeat but don't seem to comprehend is Romanian. Their nationality in the sense recommended for use in biographies by the MOS is American. Adding the qualifier "citizen" adds a connotative insinuation that their Americanness is of a different quality than that of native-born citizens. This is just not true in America, as you can see from the definition in the Oxford English Dictionary of the word "American" and from your own experience if you happen to be American yourself.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 13:55, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
WP:BLPSOURCES states, "contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion". The issue is that their status as Americans is challenged (by CombatWombat42). Instead of edit-warring (which is what was happening), discussion should settle the issue. In the meantime, consensus should be done to determine whether primary sources are enough to establish their status as American citizens. Until that happens, per our BLP policy the article should default to not saying whether they are or not. If, however, consensus suggests that it is good enough (and to me it looks like consensus is favoring that view) then it should be included.
For CombatWombat42... It looks like the sisters themselves are claiming that they are American citizens. You're correct that primary sources are not preferred, that we generally want to use reliable secondary sources (with editorial oversight, as you've stated). But our BLP policy also has the WP:SELFPUB section which states, "Living persons may publish material about themselves, such as through press releases or personal websites." That seems to apply here. So at this point I'm not really seeing a BLP violation, with the sources given above. -- Atama頭 15:22, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
"seeing as CombatWombat42 won't actually explain the point or engage with the substantial issues others have raised" how have I not explained my point. You don't have a relaible source claiming citzenship, you have a video anyone could have doctored and uploaded. Even if you had proved citizneship, you havn't proven nationality as nationaly is much broader than citizenship. "In most modern-day cases this will mean the country of which the person is a citizen, national or permanent resident, or if notable mainly for past events, the country where the person was a citizen, national or permanent resident when the person became notable." Depending on which clause of that you read you get a different answer as to nationality of the Indiggo twins. CombatWombat42 (talk) 18:55, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
The video itself is not the source for their being American citizens. The statement below the video stating that they've been naturalized as American citizens is the source. You questioned whether that was their official YouTube channel, which was a totally legitimate objection on your part. Then I found their official twitter account, which (a) stated that they were American citizens and (b) linked to the YouTube channel, making it plausible that (a) the YouTube channel was official and (b) that the claim that they're American citizens is plausibly self-sourced. I also provided a link to their official website, which (a) also states that they're American citizens and (b) also links to the YouTube channel, making the previously mentioned claims even more plausibly within the domain of WP:SELFPUB. I even found their official myspace page which links to all the above stuff and *also* says that they're American citizens. You fail to address any of this material and instead concentrate on the video itself, which is purely the twins singing a song and not in any way germane to the discussion. OK so far? Next, you keep harping on about the distinction between nationality and citizenship without ever addressing the points that a number of editors have raised in great detail that there is no sensible way to make this distinction when one is talking about the United States of America, which is a state and not a nation. In such instances nationality and citizenship mean the same thing, as is borne out by the fact that the Oxford English Dictionary, among others (like *all* others), defines the word "American" to mean "citizen of the U.S." You fail to address any of these issues and keep harping on about this putative distinction. Further, you produce analogies, e.g. Einstein, and fail to address the points that other editors make about why those aren't germane. Finally, you respond only to small parts of people's comments and ignore the rest, as you did above, where you quote me as saying "seeing as CombatWombat42 won't actually explain the point or engage with the substantial issues others have raised" and respond with "how have I not explained my point. You don't have a relaible source claiming citzenship, you have a video anyone could have doctored and uploaded." You only answer my claim that you haven't explained your point and refuse to engage with my claim that you refuse to engage with the substantial issues that others have raised, thus giving a performative demonstration of the truth of my statement. Thanks! Now, if you still want to discuss this, you ought to address the following questions: (1) How does WP:SELFPUB fail to allow us to use any of the sources listed above to support the statement that they are U.S. citizens? (2) If WP:SELFPUB allows us to use those sources to support the statement, how is it undesirable to use the literal meaning of the word "American" as attested to in EVERY DICTIONARY of the English language that I checked to make the statement that they are U.S. citizens? (3) How is it possible to distinguish between citizenship and nationality in the case of Americans? (only answer the last if you're going to talk about that anymore, which I really hope you're not). Thank you for your attention.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 19:16, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
I have not seen you meniton their website before this comment, if it is verifibly theirs then yes WP:SELFPUB is probably acceptable, feel free to add "Romainian-Americans" with THAT as the source. CombatWombat42 (talk) 19:29, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
You're kidding. You should read before you argue so much. Look here, 24 hours and a zillion KB ago. We're not adding "Romanian-Americans," though. That would violate WP:SYNTH with the sources we now have. What's your problem with calling them "Americans," assuming you still have one?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 19:45, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
What Alf said.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:21, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Lots of those reports state the twins are now American citizens, that is what is told in the article header and later on say that , "although they are now american citizens they were born and educated in Romania" - the claim of a WP:BLP violation is hard to fathom Mosfetfaser (talk) 06:46, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Mosfetfaser- which reports? --24.97.201.230 (talk) 02:43, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Indiggo&diff=603507473&oldid=603507252 Mosfetfaser (talk) 03:44, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for the link. --24.97.201.230 (talk) 04:38, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Age - birth year is 1983

Their IMDB says they are 30 years old, born on June 7, 1983. Dany4444 has now changed the wikipedia article on Indiggo to say that they are 28.

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2451793/

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Indiggo&diff=603483360&oldid=603483036

Is www.ziaristionline.ro a valid source or is it just saying what Indiggo has told them? 24.97.201.230 (talk) 23:20, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I think IMDB is reliable for accurate year of birth. http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/entertainment/2013/04/actress-loses-age-lawsuit-against-imdb/ 24.97.201.230 (talk) 00:15, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that she couldn't sue IMDb because the information that was posted was accurate. That doesn't mean that everything on IMDb is accurate, or even under editorial oversight. In fact, it isn't; much of it is user-generated content. The WP:UGC section of our reliable sources guideline explicitly states that IMDb is included as an example of a source that is largely not acceptable unless the information being cited is labeled as originating from credentialed members of the sites' editorial staff, rather than users. The guideline should be followed. -- Atama頭 16:09, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Should we mention the manifest fact that they sang the SSB?

In this edit, CombatWombat42 removes the fact that they sang the Star Spangled Banner with an edit summary saying something about self-sourcing doesn't prove notability. CombatWombat42 forgets that notability is a criterion for article existence, and in this case that's currently being decided at AfD. It is emphatically not a criterion for inclusion of statements into articles. That is to be determined by local consensus, except for statements that can't be verified. The fact that they sang the SSB can be verified by a self-published source. It is therefore both verifiable and noncontroversial. Whether or not to include it is therefore a matter for editors to discuss. I think it should be included because I think it's interesting. Thoughts?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 18:03, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

"notability is a criterion for article existence" and a criterion for any statement, where does it stop with a self published source? I'm sure their page says all kinds of inane things of which the fact that they sang the star spangled banner is one as it is not particualrly notable. Wikipedia needs to include only information that is notable by WP:THIRDPARTY, WP:RELIABLE sources, else it will be filled with a list of inane facts. "As explained in the policy introduction, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources." emphasis mine. CombatWombat42 (talk) 18:45, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
I agree with you regarding the principles you cite, but clearly none of those provide an automatic license for removal of material. It's evident that if a fact is both true and verifiable its inclusion is determinable by local consensus. There's no policy, no guideline, that speaks to either its inclusability or noninclusability. Thus we discuss. So far I think yes, you think no. And so it goes.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 18:49, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Is WP:! not policy? How is that quote from it not directly relevent? CombatWombat42 (talk) 19:05, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
It's a policy, sure, but your quote is not directly relevant because whether or not they sang a song is not one of the things listed in that section, such as raw data, logs of software updates, song lyrics, and so on. In itself, one item, is not an indiscriminate list of anything. It's just a fact that you don't think is relevant, but others do, so we talk about it. If someone wanted to list every occasion on which they'd sung the SSB then sure, the policy applies. If someone wants to list every song they ever sang and put on youtube, then the policy applies. If someone wants to mention one song in the context of one relevant event, their naturalization, then the policy doesn't apply and local consensus kicks in, which is what we're doing now. Or do you think "indiscriminate" has an objective meaning that only you understand?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 19:15, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
is the fact that they'd sung the SSB: in context? sort of, "referenced to independent sources", absolutly not. Find that, which is what I asked for in the first place, and include it otherwise it is in violation of policy. CombatWombat42 (talk) 19:23, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Alf, above in this section. I also think it should be included, for the reasons and reasoning Alf expressed. --Epeefleche (talk) 18:50, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Dubious

Ziaristionline.ro and cancan.ro aren't legitimate sources. Does anyone disagree? 24.213.177.78 (talk) 16:16, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Socking and SPAs

The socking and SPA activity has returned of late. If it continues (despite the most recent sock block), I suggest that this page be protected from new editors and IPs. --Epeefleche (talk) 04:20, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Indiggo. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:09, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Indiggo. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:43, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Archive 1
  1. ^ http://de.imagemmusic.com/news.html?n_id=150
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Indiggo/Archive_1&oldid=1079503370"