Jump to content

Talk:Jess Greenberg/Archive 1

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

The important bits

The problem with this article is that it does not mention the most prominent features of her rather appealing presentation. 90.204.201.21 (talk) 20:30, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

  • This is really a function of two things: one, the reliable sources we have to rely on don't directly refer to her bosom (even when implicitly you can guess they are), and two, such discussions raise "BLP" concerns, i.e., areas we have to tread carefully on.--Milowent • hasspoken 01:34, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Well how about a photograph then? She has a lovely pair of eyes, but has anyone else noticed that they change colour? Sometimes blue, sometimes brown. Also she sometimes plays right handed and at other times left handed. Are there two of them? 2.103.152.77 (talk) 18:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

  • She actually plays left handed sometimes? I had not noticed that detail for some reason. To get a pick, someone needs to bug her on twitter or facebook to get a public domain picture.--Milowent • hasspoken 03:29, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

The evidence for ambidextrousness, eye colour and other bilateral symmetry

2.219.109.215 (talk) 15:25, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Occupation

Hello to Milowent and to anyone else who would like to discuss this issue. I see that the article states that Greenberg is a musician; however, in the second reference (Female Artist of the Month), she says that she would love to be a musician (future tense, which actually makes more sense, in my opinion). I don't see Jess Greenberg as a musician at this point, even though I do think she is notable enough (perhaps by a small margin) to have an article on Wikipedia. Doesn't a musician sell music? Don't musicians try to chart on Billboard and elsewhere? Don't they aspire to go on tour some day? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't see any signs indicating that this Internet sensation actually is interested in, say, making singles available on iTunes or on other platforms, let alone release an album. That requires a lot of work, especially with covers, since one has to deal with licenses, which is a pain. I'm not condemning her, but Greenberg seems perfectly content with merely making videos at home, showing her virtues, and probably making money as a YouTube partner, instead of taking the risks that a musician is willing to take (you don't know if you'll recover your investment when you release cover singles and albums, especially if you use a professional studio for the recordings). Therefore, for the sake of accuracy, I suggest that she be called a famous guitarist and singer, instead of a musician. Please, where am I going wrong? Thanks in advance... Dontreader (talk) 02:59, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

  • We only need consult ourselves --- a musician "is a person who plays a musical instrument or is musically talented". It is not defined by capitalistic desires to profit from it, nor chart success. All that being said, I don't have a huge issue with the article saying "well-known singer and guitarist on YouTube," to avoid any connotation someone may have that she is composing symphonies.--Milowent • hasspoken 12:38, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks Milowent. I appreciate that you provided the Wikipedia meaning of "musician", although after consulting the sources mentioned in that article, as well as other online dictionaries, I still think the definition is vague. What makes matters even more confusing is that according to some sources provided in Jess Greenberg's article, she is profiting from playing the guitar in her home while she sings, due to YouTube revenues. So, if the sources are reliable, here we have a person who is making money from home only because YouTube was created, and who after four years on YouTube doesn't seem to show any interest in becoming what I believe is a real musician. For example, Tiffany Alvord began that way, at the same age, posting videos from her home, but then she began to make more elaborate videos, and she decided to make her music available for purchase, even though she could have continued to make money by merely posting videos from her home. In my opinion, Alvord became a musician when she decided to make it a profession. Notice that most dictionaries add "especially as a profession". I just don't think dictionaries foresaw the YouTube situation. I do see YouTube as a legitimate launching pad, but if you don't move on from the launching pad, with an effort to show that you really intend to make music a career, while several of the sources in the article make it clear that she is famous only because of two "reasons", I just don't see how she can be taken seriously as a musician, and I really have to make an effort to explain to myself why she is worthy of being in an encyclopedia. One source (Female Artist of the Month) is certainly non-trivial coverage, but I'm not so sure about the others. If the sources are mainly focused on her non-musical attributes, that seems trivial, in my opinion, and the competition she won did not have music video critics as judges; instead it was based on fan votes, so I don't see the notability there. Anyway, thanks. Since Greenberg said in a source here in her article that she would love to be a musician (and this was last year, with no changes since then), and since you don't have a problem with the change I suggested, I will make that modification. If you could help me out with other issues I raised in my reply, then I'd be very grateful. Thanks again. Dontreader (talk) 16:08, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
  • "Popular music" in the 1890s was based on sheet music sales. Times change! Who could have thought people could make a living on YouTube? I'm fine with the edit you made. As for her notability, I believed she was notable when I created the article, I've created a number of articles on YouTubers including The Annoying Orange and Austin Mahone when previous attempts to create an article by newbie editors were failing.--Milowent • hasspoken 19:39, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your insights, Milowent. You have a lot of experience here on Wikipedia. I'm glad you are okay with my edit. Hopefully Jess will agree to release a picture with a free license for the article, to improve it. One last thing, please: do you think it's viable to create an article about the Gardiner Sisters? I wanted to do that but I couldn't find what I thought were enough good sources. It's a pity since in terms of YouTube subscribers and views, they are sort of in the range of Jess Greenberg, plus they do sell music, and some of their videos are quite elaborate, such as this one. Very talented singers, besides. Thanks for your very much appreciated courtesy. Dontreader (talk) 20:58, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Recent reverts

Our policy about living people says that statement about such people, especially critical statements, need to be sourced to a highly reliable source. Wikipedia has a definition of such a source, and blogs definitely do not qualify; so please, quit adding critical information based off of a blog. Vanamonde93 (talk) 01:44, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

November 2014, major expansion

In the last 24 hours I have roughly tripled the size of this article using material from existing sources (several of which were quite good, but poorly used) and some additional sources I found. This all started with a Special:PendingChanges edit review that brought the article to my attention. One particular User was trying to add content that amounted to criticism of the subject, but it was presented and worded poorly. Rather than get into a content dispute, I chose to look into the source to see if it could be salvaged. This resulted in the "Reception and review" section along with other appropriate content for the section.

Speaking of which, I personally did not care for the blogger's comments; I found them to be "creepy" and not "dad-like" at all. But, for the sake of WP:BLP article quality we can't just include the "nice things" and so I included it. I hope that everyone feels that I did it in a neutral and balanced manner, because that was my intention.

Being a musician myself, I then started looking for other material which gets us to the article in its current form. Everything is properly sourced and I used quoted passages judiciously to avoid paraphrasing problems or misinterpretation of the source material. As always, I invite everyone to discuss their thoughts and/or concerns about the article here on the Talk page. Regards, --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 19:42, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

I think you did a great job, Scalhotrod. I believe the controversy should be addressed, which you did. After all, without the change in wardrobe, she would not have an article here, at least not yet; however, I wonder if we are giving too much importance to a relatively unknown blog. There are much better sources, although not in English, which mention or even discuss the controversy. For example, this brief article by La Repubblica has the following title: "Guitar, neckline (or cleavage) and voice, Jess makes the Internet go wild", adding that the number of video views has increased sharply ever since she began to show her "generous" neckline (or cleavage). The article goes on to say that some viewers express approval through their comments, while others criticize her. And this article, which you kept, discusses the issue at length. So perhaps the blog could be removed and these articles could be used instead, to strengthen the article, unless foreign languages are a problem.
Also, I'm not really sure that her covers should be listed. Maintenance will become an issue, and her covers have not been released for purchase, so I don't know if she deserves that. One could argue that maintenance is an issue with stats for tennis players, for example, as they must be updated weekly, but I see a huge difference in notability between, say, Roger Federer, and Jess Greenberg. Besides, the length of that list is approximately the length of the rest of the article.
Finally, I'd be glad to upload a picture of her to Commons. I think a screenshot from one of her videos might do, since she would be the owner, as she is always recording herself, I assume. But I would need a declaration of consent from her, and I don't know how available and reliable she is. You can see that I've uploaded two pictures for a different musician's page. Thanks, and again, great job! Dontreader (talk) 22:40, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
Hey Dontreader, thank you for the praise. With regard to Spanish language article, this article, I'm not a big fan of translated sources, but kept it assuming good faith that it supported information that was kept. The other article, this brief article by La Repubblica, isn't much of an article as it is similar to TheChive mention or other blurbs that post one of her videos in order to make a comment about her breasts or appearance.
As for the controversy, its a bit of a double edged sword. On one hand, by talking about it, we're giving it more credibility than it might deserve. On the other hand, it might just be outright wrong. Since she started, this adolescent girl has aged about 4 years, from 15 to 19. You don't have to be a child rearing expert to know that girls change A LOT during this time in their lives. For all we know, the change in appearance might have been triggered by Greenberg starting to profit from her views and getting an advertising revenue account. Even the basic tutorial for setting this up recommends "Building your Brand"[1]. Knowing she wanted to get more views, she likely started paying more attention to her appearance and went from average, almost plain, looking teenage girl like here to adding some makeup for a slightly more mature look like here to the attractive young adult (now over 18) that we see here.
While we're on the subject, she also changes instruments going from the black, small size student guitar to larger model first seen here. The girl's body is changing and she changes instruments, but no one takes this into consideration. Being ignorant non-musicians, they just focus on her anatomy. Plus her playing skill has improved immensely over the course of her videos as well. She's likely had to make changes to how she holds her instrument, her posture, or any number of factors. I've been a musician for almost 40 years and I learn new things all the time. Personally, I wish she'd expand her rif and rhythm strumming repertoire, but that's me being picky.
So what I'm saying is lets just stick to the facts and not fall victim to any hype or salacious attention she might receive. Just because something is written about her, doesn't mean we need to include it. Once there are enough other sources to pull content from, I'd be happy to drop the creepy blogger comments in a heartbeat (especially the slut shaming remark). But in the meantime, it provides praise and criticism.
The covers list serves 2 purposes in my mind. One, is shows the diversity of music that she covers, and two, its a means to display why she is a Yahoo personality because of her view counts. So at the very least her top viewed videos should be listed. And yes, I agree that the article would benefit from an image. Has someone tried contacting her on her Facebook page? I sent her a note on Twitter saying her article had been expanded. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 01:11, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, Scalhotrod, for your reply. As a native speaker of Spanish, and an occasional contributor to the Spanish Wikipedia, I can assure you that El Confidencial states clearly enough that Greenberg was 15 when she made her first video, but one must pay attention to the context of the paragraph. If I had any doubts, I would not have removed your note.
I agree with your arguments regarding the coverage of the controversial side of this musician. In fact, before changing anything, we should perhaps wait and hope that she herself says something about it, since after all it is a BLP. There's no doubt that she is very talented, and if you say that she has improved a lot, then that's commendable. We all know that countless musicians rely to some degree or another on their looks to become more successful. In some cases it's more obvious, and in other cases it's more subtle. We can't really draw a line, so, as I said, I agree with you. Greenberg should not be targeted. It's fine with me if you even remove the blog quotes. You decide.
In my opinion, her total number of YouTube views and subscribers would be enough to establish that she's a big YouTube personality, but of course I could be wrong. At least it would be better, perhaps, if the songs were listed by number of views, keeping Highway to Hell at the top.
Thanks for contacting her on Twitter. I hope she's around. I deactivated my Facebook account. If she replies to you, please ask about the picture. I really think that a screenshot from a video would be enough, and less complicated (if she has an email address associated with the website domain). In fact, there are two nice screenshots right on her website. Thanks again. Dontreader (talk) 02:02, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

video views

A listing of the views of each video is perhaps overkill. Even Fred Figglehorn doesn't have that.--Milowent • hasspoken 18:11, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Hey Milowent, that's a fair point, but the reason for the list is two-fold. First, it shows the diversity of the songs that she has covered. Is having 33 out of the 66 that she's done so far overkill, maybe? So I would be fine with fewer songs listed, especially the repeats. Second, as a "Youtube personality" I think it needs to be firmly established that she deserves this label, hence the views. There are thousands of videos that have been posted for much longer that have relatively insignificant numbers of views, so Greenberg attaining what she has is notable in my opinion. With regard to Figglehorn, admittedly I had no idea who this character was until your mention, but his Filmography section is far more extensive than Greenberg's song list. Furthermore, if his top 5 or 10 videos had the number of views listed, I think that would be OK for his article as well. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 18:42, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Reasons for popularity

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.

Shouldn't there be a section devoted to the real reason for her popularity? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.231.147.94 (talk) 15:39, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

I understand your point. However, please read Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. We have to be very careful when we write about living persons. I'll quote some key information from that page:
Material about living persons added to any Wikipedia page must be written with the greatest care and attention to verifiability, neutrality, and avoidance of original research.
Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page. Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity
We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be explicitly attributed to a reliable, published source, which is usually done with an inline citation. Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.
So, I think we would need an article published by a very reliable source that discusses the breasts physical attributes issue. [Edited by DonTreader so as not to mention a specific part of the female body] It would also help a lot if she herself made some statements about the matter in a reliable source, but she has said nothing. Dontreader (talk) 19:20, 20 August 2015 (UTC)"; edited 09:06, 1 September 2015 (UTC)"

This section is rude and disrespectful and should be deleted. Tuesdaymight (talk) 16:11, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

I have changed the section heading, as in my opinion... and based on what Dontreader has already said... it is inappropriate even on a talk page. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 17:32, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
  • If a performer is popular in significant part for physical appearance, and this is discussed in reliable sources, that is a legitimate issue for the article. Indeed I see this was discussed above in connection with various sources that comment on this. But we should be very careful not to go beyond the sources, and to remember that Wikipedia is not a tabloid, a gossip column, or a newspaper, so not everything in sources is appropriate for inclusion. But when something is sourced as a major part of a person's notability, it will normally need to be mentioned. DES (talk) 18:29, 31 August 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.

controversy?

Not sure about the title. It is interesting to note that the comments sections of all Ms. Greenberg's videos have exceptionally lively discussions on a number of reoccurring topics. First, She is an exceptionally attractive and generously proportioned woman who always records videos in a top that reveals ample cleavage. Because she has an excellent voice this leads to a discussion about sex, music and show business. People expressing disappointment that she uses her appearance when clearly her talent is enough. Others support her choice and point out that it brings her a greater audience. There is general agreement that the musical arraignments she writes to allow her to reproduce the work of a complete band on a single acoustic guitar shows another area of talent. There is also a general consensus that her playing is clumsy and lacks finesse. I believe that any musically trained person would agree with all these points: she is an excellent vocalist, has a talent for arrangement and plays guitar like a drunken chimp. However, how would one go about finding "references" for these things that meet Wikipedia's standards? Would a sort of statistical analysis of comments with quotes suffice? 75.93.51.156 (talk) 06:30, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, if such an analysis were carried out by a recognized expert in the field. As Wikipedia editors, you and I do not venture into original research on such matters ourselves; we merely report on what reliable sources... ideally, experts in the field... say. It is very rare that pseudonymous commenters on YouTube videos can be identified as recognized experts. Nor do we consider "any musically trained person" such an expert.
So, all that needs to be done is to identify which reliable sources (books from reputable publishers, reputable newspapers, academic reviews or magazine articles, online sites with a reputation for accuracy and reliablity, such as Grove Music Online or Rolling Stone) express or summarize the "general agreement" and "general consensus" that you mention. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 07:34, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jess Greenberg. 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) 19:44, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Phenomenal audience response

The response of Ms. Greenberg's audience on social media is overwhelmingly positive: I can't remember a public person whose comment sections would contain as few critical comments as hers do. I haven't researched her amazing success with her followers thoroughly, so my opinion on the matter is of little worth, I'm only afraid that we may be dealing with an overlooked phenomenon definitely worth mentioning in the article. I've also not been able to find this topic covered by authoritative sources; hopefully, somebody else will be luckier. — Fobemipa (talk) 23:10, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Phenomenal audience response

The response of Ms. Greenberg's audience on social media is overwhelmingly positive: I can't remember a public person whose comment sections would contain as few critical comments as hers do. I haven't researched her amazing success with her followers thoroughly, so my opinion on the matter is of little worth, I'm only afraid that we may be dealing with an overlooked phenomenon definitely worth mentioning in the article. I've also not been able to find this topic covered by authoritative sources; hopefully, somebody else will be luckier. — Fobemipa (talk) 23:10, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Phenomenal audience response

The response of Ms. Greenberg's audience on social media is overwhelmingly positive: I can't remember a public person whose comment sections would contain as few critical comments as hers do. I haven't researched her amazing success with her followers thoroughly, so my opinion on the matter is of little worth, I'm only afraid that we may be dealing with an overlooked phenomenon definitely worth mentioning in the article. I've also not been able to find this topic covered by authoritative sources; hopefully, somebody else will be luckier. — Fobemipa (talk) 23:10, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Album

Amazon has 4-song album (or is it a EP) with name "Bold as Love" with date 23 May 2018 (containing songs Bold As Love, Jumpin, Little Wing and Child Slight Return). Should it be in the article? I have no idea what are the requirement(s) for these. 86.115.191.166 (talk) 03:00, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Phenomenal audience response

The response of Ms. Greenberg's audience on social media is overwhelmingly positive: I can't remember a public person whose comment sections would contain as few critical comments as hers do. I haven't researched her amazing success with her followers thoroughly, so my opinion on the matter is of little worth, I'm only afraid that we may be dealing with an overlooked phenomenon definitely worth mentioning in the article. I've also not been able to find this topic covered by authoritative sources; hopefully, somebody else will be luckier. — Fobemipa (talk) 23:10, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

An independent reliable source that makes that observation is necessary. Schazjmd (talk) 15:52, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
I'm looking for the source. The reason why the section is here is to get some help with finding one. IMHO, the phenomenon is worth trying to explain it. — Fobemipa (talk) 15:58, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jess_Greenberg/Archive_1&oldid=1075153114"