Jump to content

Talk:Joss Stone/Archive 1

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

Copy protection

The copy protection on the "mind body & soul" disc is really annoying. You have to install their anti-copy software or else regular playback will skip. Ugh. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.229.232.159 (talk • contribs)

If you own the disc then it is undisputedly legal to rip the tracks to yor computer. I use CDex to rip my CDs, usually into OGG Vorbis, but this talk doesn't _really_ relate to Joss Stone. Brinkost 04:36, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
It is disputedly illegal. In the United States, it is illegal to intentionally bypass electronic copy protection, even if you would normally have the right to fair use copying of the material. It's called the Digital Millenium Copyright Act.--Tenfour 19:53, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
I believe this is incorrect. It's been awhile since I did my college paper on copyright laws, but if I recall correctly, the DMCA actually made it illegal to sell or give away technology that would allow one to bypass electronic copy protection. It isn't actually illegal to attempt to bypass that protection yourself, if you legally have access to the material. The people that are breaking the law in this case are those that have created the programs that allow for bypassing the protection. I think. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.103.58.220 (talk • contribs)
I think thats exactly what it is, its like drinking underage, its not illegal to drink underage, its illegal to be sold alcohol. anyways, my copy of The Soul Sessions has this copy protection too and its affecting the sound quality, but did you know that copy protection is usually only on one track in the album, doscover which and download it, a backup copy, of course... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bivis (talk • contribs)

Out of order

The events are out of chron. order. In 2005.... Then in 2003.... --Tenfour 19:53, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Devon

She's from Devon, not Dover —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.7.123.194 (talk • contribs)

It is referenced in numerous places that she was born in Dover but spent a good part of her childhood time in Devon. Vandelay 01:59, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
That's right. She was born in Dover, Kent, but spent part of her childhood years in Ashill, a small village in Devon. Funk Junkie 21:02, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Agreed, She was one of my Army Cadets, when I was her Adult Instructor. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.168.14.108 (talk) 18:39, 1 January 2007 (UTC).

Public images

http://flickr.com/photos/rocktographer/36494446/ http://flickr.com/photos/barefootphotos/19436533/ --Mt7 23:10, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

These are not images we can use until someone convinces those photographers to drop the "non-commercial" stipulation. — coelacan — 17:18, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

NPOV in "Introducing Joss Stone"

The editor, Paddy31 inserted an NPOV template in this section, but didn't start a section discussion, so I am. I fail to see what is not neutral about the disputed section. Would someone like to explain? Mr Twain 10:19, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry - forgot to add discussion section. I don't think that the article is encyclopedia or even relevant to the topic. The phrase "speaking in a faux American accent" is hardly neutral (see discussion above) and the incidents mentioned are definitely intended to show her in a negative light. Furthermore, the sources used are gossip columns, which do not actually cite their sources (a close friend or an insider). This doesn't seem to be right to me.

I think the first part of the section is very good, but the second and third (and 4th even) paras are not related to the album, and not really biographical either.

Perhaps a section called "Controversy" might be appropriate, but I would just delete the lot and have done with it. What do you think? Paddy 14:12, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

The fact that the material might not portray Stone in a "positive" light is neither here or there. Wikipedia reports dispassionately, neutrally. Joss Stone did speak at the Brit awards with a "faux American accent". That's a plain fact. If it said "Joss Stone thinks she's American" or "Joss Stone made an arse of herself at the BRITs", that would be delibrately provocative. Also, the citations are sound as far as I can see. These incidents were very widely reported - I'm sure that futher references could be found for those incidents to back them up. And around 8 million people saw her appearance on the BRITs...

I think *deleting* this content would be an NPOV violation. Some of the more emotive parts could be trimmed though. The "cheesecake" line is clearly there to ridicule her. Mr Twain 16:06, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

What if we deleted the "thank-you list" thing? This is nonsense, and it's really negative. The "impromptu press conference" thing also sounds ridiculous. We should also the incident with Christina Milian — this sounds like gossip. Funk Junkie 22:16, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Trivia

"Mentioned singer Christina Milian in an interview for Giant magazine and stated that there were many things about Milian the world does not know about. It was because of the fact that her ex-boyfriend, Beau Dozier, is also Milian's ex-boyfriend and there was apparently some discretion between the two. However, Milian's publicist said that Milian had no idea what this could be about. When reminded that she is on record, Stone said that she is "just honest"."

Aside from being badly written, this seems to be entirely pointless gossip. What is 'discretion' in the context above? Delete?Paddy 08:43, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I've deleted a whole load of stuff and tried to integrate an ":Other Achievements" section. Paddy 03:28, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Other achievements

I moved a lot of things from the album sections and the trivia section to form this section. I felt that the Album sections should stick to discussing the albums and that the other stuff needed a space. Paddy 03:47, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Picture

We should add a fair-use picture of her new look. Also, the current one looks quite blurry. Funk Junkie 21:50, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. If we can't get a better picture, then maybe the article shouldn't have a picture at all. Anthony Rupert 15:00, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
No fair use images of living persons for the purposes only of illustrating their appearance. See wikipedia:fair use. Anyway, the blurry picture was not worth having at all. I've removed it. — coelacan — 17:17, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I meant "freely-licenced", not "fair use". What about these ones? They look really great, though they are a bit too large, but we can easily work this out. Funk Junkie 17:05, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Height

One IP user added that she was 6'10" high, but on verification I found she measures somewhere between 5'7.5 and 5'10", so have removed the statement. EvocativeIntrigue 18:59, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

6'10" is pretty damn tall lol, like bastketball standards! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.129.31.222 (talk • contribs)
Yeah, she's 5'10 -- 85.243.38.251 17:13, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Is Joss dating Raphael Saadiq?

Seems so. Funk Junkie 18:51, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

This "news" is pretty old... It even says it is from April. Do you think they can hide a relation ship for about.. 6, 7 months? I haven't seen them together for ages and Joss always denied having a boyfriend. So... no. Not really. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.240.168.201 (talk) 12:43, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Criticism?

i deleted the comment in section as it seems that most of you are haters and this is a site thats ment to be edited probably and but adults in an adult manner its sound like (by the comment made) that you read to much of the papers and gossip magazine and only adding the cristim things to say hatered things. Yes i agreed with people on here that the pages on here should be nuetral and not from all fans but it shouldn't be readin by hater of joss so maybe adims or people that are long trem members of this site should only edit this joss stone page the way the brits section was edited it some like someone who has a real bad hate for joss wrote it and lots of people i have talked to have said it so maybe it should be re-done and not have the title 'the Brits 07' because its not a thing that shouls have it's own section and it really doesn't need to be as long and details and the others things on here isn't but like have the title 'Critism' as the tilt instead and then other things can go on the if people find some sourses

thank you

it says at the top of this page no libelous things to be posted and report any if people see some i this brit awards section really has nothing to do with the biography of someone which wikipedia is about this is the meaning of libel: a malicious publication printed for the purpose of defaming a living person.

look up malicious and defaming if you don't understand so i'am reporting this the whole point of wikipedia is to get info on things (in this case and not put up gossip to thats really not facts but just a couple of people thoughts and things that user on here got from newpapers and gossip magazines —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.31.178.60 (talk) 22:52, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

"Origin"

According to the article she was born in Kent and did not move to Cornwall until at the start of her teenager years. Late-mid-teens she went to the US. She has probably spent less than a third of her life in Cornwall but did grow up in Kent and learnt to walk, talk, read, sing and do whatever else there. So why is there an "origin" (from Cornwall) section in the infobox? (Whoever added it and whoever protects it please look up the definition of the word for a start because its use in this context is completely wrong). Her origin is Kent for heaven's sake! What is the purpose of this information, completely wrong use of the word aside? -- 86.17.211.191 11:28, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

What am I thinking, of course you're not going to look up the definition of the word. So here you go:
  • or·i·gin [awr-i-jin, or-] - noun
1. something from which anything arises or is derived; source; fountainhead: to follow a stream to its origin.
2. rise or derivation from a particular source: the origin of a word.
3. the first stage of existence; beginning: the origin of Quakerism in America.
4. ancestry; parentage; extraction: to be of Scottish origin.
5. Anatomy. a. the point of derivation; b. the more fixed portion of a muscle.
6. Mathematics. a. the point in a Cartesian coordinate system where the axes intersect; b. Also called pole. the point from which rays designating specific angles originate in a polar coordinate system with no axes.
Now, see anything here that says "Where someone lives, or lived for part of their lives"? Or indeed anything else that justifies its use in this context? No, didn't think so. But no doubt it will be restored by some fan - probably with a D or lower in English Language. Plus ca change. -- 86.17.211.191 11:36, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Well that shut the fans up! Well done! 195.92.40.49 18:19, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

For some reason, the info box on the side list her "origin" as New York City. That might be where she lives... but it's not where she comes from. Mr Twain (talk) 12:58, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

If you go to Template:Infobox Musical artist#Origin, you'll see that the "origin" field is for "the city from which the singer or group originated (that is, the city where the group was founded; or the city where individual performers started their career)". Joss auditioned for Steve Greenberg in New York City, and that's how she got a record deal. Funk Junkie (talk) 15:17, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
In that case, the template rules are arbitrary and wrong. That definition might work for groups who are "founded", but individual artists are born. The field could just as easily have Shepherd's Bush, London as her "origin", because her first professional performance was for the BBC. If the field was labelled "Signed", then fair enough. As it stands the origin field should be removed - because it makes no sense. Mr Twain (talk) 10:10, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Note, after a brief review of other pages, it seems that the "origin" field is frequently used to describe place of birth or upbringing in the case of individual performers, or is ommitted entirely. CF: KT Tunstall, Tom Jones, KD Lang (origin given as place of birth or upbringing) and Paul McCartney, Björk, Kate Nash (origin omitted). Given that wikipedia rules are guidelines for conduct rather than hard and fast laws, I suggest again that the origin field be removed as it is confusing and misleading. Joss Stone cannot in any sense be said to have "originated" in New York.Mr Twain (talk) 10:57, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
According to Template:Infobox Musical artist guidelines, the "born" field must contain the artist's date of birth as well as the city where he/she was born, while the "origin" field must contain the place where the individual artist/group started his/her/their career. You should start a discussion at the template's talk page if you find it all confusing, but Joss Stone's musical origin is unarguably New York City. Funk Junkie (talk) 22:12, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
To call this issue "unarguable" (sic) ignores the fact that I've just argued against it - point by point, with examples. The "origin" of Stone's career could have been any number of places. Choosing the city where she signed to her label is entirely arbitrary. Guidelines are guidelines not rules. The fifth pillar of Wikipedia is there to prevent pedancy of this nature. As I previously suggested, the "origin" field does not even have to be there (as can be seen in other entries) - I would counsel removing it as a compromise to work around the current flaws in the Template:Infobox Musical artist. So, what's more important - that we adhere to the letter of Template:Infobox Musical artist or that this article makes logical sense?.Mr Twain (talk) 10:23, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Sorry for the late reply. Well, perhaps we should omit the "origin" field to avoid further confusion then. Funk Junkie (talk) 16:26, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

World record

I've seen Stone's name on the Guinness World Records (I think it was the 2006 edition) a few months ago — she was claimed as the youngest solo artist to win a BRIT Award. I think it'd be really interesting to add it to the article. However, I've searched the whole Internet unsuccessfully. It is even listed on the list of records of the UK. What do you guys think? Funk Junkie 21:18, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

yea i think your right about that but we'll have to wait untill we got a secource first she is also the youngest Female solo artist to have a number one album in the u.k (with mind body and soul)i've read it in the Guinness World Records book it was avirl lavigine who once holded the recorced maybe if we find a secource we can add that in to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.31.178.60 (talk) 03:55, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Personal life

I think the personal life section should be expanded by adding where Stone currently resides, her relationship with Beau Dozier, things like that. I also think that the whole BRIT Awards incident doesn't really belong to this section. And what about the controversy involving Stone, Christina Aguilera, and Dallas Austin? Adding this to the article could be considered unencyclopedic? Aguilera's personal life section does mention this. Funk Junkie (talk) 21:38, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

yea your right and the brit awards thing shouldn't be on the personal life section as it has nothing to do with her personal life they should have a critisms section where things like that should go and the brit awards section NEEDS!!! to be re-word i've done it many times and they keep putting it back their is no need for it to say thing like that in their at all —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.31.178.60 (talk) 05:56, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Brit Awards

I thought this was a good compromise for this part of the article. A section is possibly more than it needs, as it is really a gossip thing, not important biographical info. Paddy 03:45, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this section seems a better fit, but you've removed far too much material. I've put back everything that was verifiable, leaving out the speculative paragraph following it. Mr Twain 10:02, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

The source you've used is someone's blog and this is not a "verifiable, authoritative source". I'm not going to mess with your edit, but I wonder if you might find something a bit more reliable as a reference?

Furthermore, I still feel that the tone of the para is negative and the point trivial. I think we might want someone else to review it and give another opinion.

While I'm thinking about it - my major concern about this section is whether or not it deserves to be included in an encyclopedic article. Is it of sufficient importance to merit inclusion? Personally, I don't think it is. Paddy 11:31, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is unique, in that it's in a position to respond to current events as its users deem fit. Stone has had much more publicity for her behaviour in recent months than she had from her work. Almost every professional review of "Introducing Joss Stone" mentions her BRIT appearance - so I think it's valid to cover that. I don't see the "negative" tone you ascribe at all - I was careful to remove emotive terms. Wikipedia should cover everything, not just an artist's "achievements". Most entries on living persons have some section devoted to criticism. A balanced resource should allow for that.

As for the blog citation - that's a pretty faithful transcription of events as they unfolded. Short of linking to a film clip of her BRIT appearance (which were removed from YouTube for copyright violations) I think its reasonable to use it. Mr Twain 17:22, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

There has been no coverage of the BRIT award thing here (NZ), just the odd mention of "wild behaviour". http://www.stuff.co.nz/4017956a20855.html http://www.stuff.co.nz/4017953a4500.html http://www.nzgirl.co.nz/articles/7806 http://www.1website.co.nz/music/moreinfo/B000MTPAGI.htm?q=Introducing%20Joss%20Stone

I believe that we do need to sort out the reference to her accent. How would anyone know it is 'faux'? Stone herself says it is her natural accent now. http://www.nzherald.co.nz/search/story.cfm?storyid=00042418-6633-15EC-863483027AF1010E Labelling the accent is emotive. Paddy 10:10, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

My suggestion -

Stone presented the award for "British Male Solo Artist" (won by James Morrison) at the 2007 BRIT Awards ceremony, but her appearance was notable for her bizarre behaviour. Speaking in an American accent and walking around the podium, she gave a rambling speech which was described by critics as "cringe-making".[7]

The BRIT Awards appearance was the beginning of a string of incidents that the UK press reported as examples of Stone's increasingly erratic behaviour. [8][9]

Is something like this acceptable for you? extra reference - http://showbiz.sky.com/showbiz/article/0,,50001-1251671,00.html

I'm not sure we should use the brits.live blog. It only has a very small section on Stone's appearance.

Let me know. Paddy 10:29, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

With respect, that's more emotive than the current edit - calling her behaviour "bizarre" and her speech "rambling" makes a judgement about how she presented herself. The description that is there now seems to me to be a passive, neutral description of what actually happened.Mr Twain 16:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed - bad choice of adjectives by me! We wil have to differ on this, so I'll leave this for a week or two and come back to it, if it still seems important. Paddy 10:40, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

“The BRIT Awards appearance was the beginning of a string of incidents”. The referenced articles mention only two other incidents. One was that she started a show late and the other that she shouted “'My hair’s in my eyes!” on an occasion that is so vague that it may or may not come after the Brits. There have been precious few, if any reports of repeat behaviour by Joss since March. I suggest you drop the sentence and the references. Occasional reports from those who have first hand experience of Joss suggest that she is still as level-headed and down to earth as ever. Here’s an example, http://www.eonline.com/gossip/partygirl/detail/index.jsp?uuid=7b96beb8-d749-4726-8947-039b63531d61. Perhaps thee should be a mention of her charity work. http://www.barnstaple.co.uk/jossstonebarnstaple.asp [teejay] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.64.201.133 (talk) 23:03, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

what about this below (in the bullet point) as we have to change it because you can't keep it like that not with the thing about Rusall Brand "he was worried about the poor cow" what has he got to do with it and whats with the walking around the poduim thing why add that it's like well of cause she would walk around it's not like she is going to sit down on the stage,lol and it's not a fact that she spoke with and amercian accent it's just some people thought that if you listen to an americian they sound nothing joss she had an english accent their with an more amercian twang (or what ever you like to say)

And also what about adding about her interview with chris moyels on radio 1 couldn't we say something about her saying how she's spent most of her time in amercia from about 16 (when she first got her record deal) and that she's herself doesn't realise her accent changed, maybe someone can get a secource on that and add it in

  • Stone presented the award for "British Male Solo Artist" (won by James Morrison) at the 2007 BRIT Awards ceremony, but her appearance was notable criticised by tabloits for Speaking with a more American tone accent she gave a speech with which she stuck up for robbie williams and sang a line from Amy Winehouse's 'rehab' which was described by critics as "cringe-making".[7]

I feel that the American accent at the Brit awards deserves more attention - Everyone was talking about it - indeed, today, Scott Mills on Radio 1 was talking about it today one year later. It's not a crime to change your accent - This sentiment should be made clear - I, personally, have more respect for her for it it but it was entirely noteworthy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.97.199.209 (talk) 21:45, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Cleaning up

i'm just thinking the other purits part should be made in like smaller sections cause it's really long section the part of like Media Attenion for all the media things thats there and like advert deals (Flake, and Chanel ad)etc.. then like another one for world records she's made and duet's she done with people :) etc...

yea what do people think it'll make the page better. i thought i would ask then someone who know's how to work wikipedia well can do it

okay i've changed it as no one has answered me i think it looks better like that if people want to change it then fine but don't put it back to the way it was changed it better like the way i did it in sections in all in one long long part it doesn't look good —Preceding unsigned comment added by Veggiegirl (talk • contribs) 01:55, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

i also add the christina millian part in the media attenion section i think that goes well their and also i have not deleted anything only moved it hope i've improved the article if changes are made please comment here first so i know thanx oxoxoxo —Preceding unsigned comment added by Veggiegirl (talk • contribs) 02:13, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Stop changing the start of the page

at the start of the page it said joss was nomited for three grammy but someone put THE ALBUM AND SINGLE (mind body and soul, YOU HAD ME) was nomited for one award each and joss her self was nomited for best new artist but JOSS was nomited for all three not the album if she would've won the awards they would've bein all hers

if you want to change this can you explain why here pleaseVeggiegirl (talk) 22:32, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Changes

it says here quote: "Speaking in a transatlantic accent (although several press reports claimed she sounded American)" transatlantic accent means a amercia accent so should we delete that or just change it to an amercia accent cause it's the same thing also shouldn't we add about the free music she gave away at christmas thats partly why she wants to leave EMI and cause they haven't let her do a video for her single baby baby baby or pormote it for her and she got into trouble for giving music away i'll try and find resourses —Preceding unsigned comment added by Veggiegirl (talk • contribs) 00:12, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

The transatlantic article says that this term "refers to the exchange of passengers, cargo, information, or communication between North America and Europe", so I believe transatlantic should be kept. As for the whole Christmas free music thing and the fact that her label didn't allow her to promote "Baby Baby Baby", sources must be provided to claim that. Funk Junkie (talk) 21:21, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

okay if i find sources then i'll put it in if you think it's worth putting in the article. As for the transatlantic word if that means amercian accent then do you real need "(although several press reports claimed she sounded American)" cause thats saying the same thing i just think why would we want to repeat it, it's like saying: Speaking in a U.K accent (although several press reports claimed she sounded British) it's the same and sounds like someone really thick wrote itVeggiegirl (talk) 22:30, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Then maybe "Speaking with what press reports claimed to be an American accent" would sound better. Funk Junkie (talk) 23:50, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Jewish origin?

Is she? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.106.243.30 (talk • contribs)

I dont think she is, ive heard her talk about Jesus before. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.129.28.94 (talk • contribs)
Yes, she is. See [1]. Funk Junkie 17:07, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Any other sources, or some more precise info? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MartinUK (talk • contribs) 01:00, 6 May 2007 (UTC).

Contrary to popular belief, not every celebrity is partially Jewish. Seems like this is a recurring theme in the Wikipedia article of almost every noteworthy name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.197.233.139 (talk • contribs)

This is nonsense. Is the Liberal Synagogue not a reliable source? We report what reliable sources say.--Habashia (talk) 12:12, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
I believe that if Joss were Jewish, this would be a widely known fact. I did a Google search on the topic, which produced no valuable result. Besides, why isn't Amy Winehouse's name listed here? Funk Junkie (talk) 20:57, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Firstly, this is clearly original research and doesn't prove anything. Secondly, do you expect the site to list every Jeish person in Britain? The only valid arguments would be to produce concrete evidence that she is not Jewish or that this is not a reliable source. I shall restore the categories until this is done, and urge editors not to remove sourced information without good reason.--Habashia (talk) 12:55, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
I have no opinion on whether or not Joss Stone is Jewish, but I wonder whether liberaljudaism.org can be classed as a site reliable enough to support, on its own, a claim that a celebrity is Jewish. Some people can be a little, er, liberal in their definition of a Jew. For instance, Rolling Stone reports that The Forward has put Madonna on the list of the most powerful Jews in America because of her long association with the Kabbalah Centre and her studies of the Kabbalah, while some other Jewish organizations do not consider the Kabbalah Centre to be Jewish in nature. I don't know whether this is a case like that, but if Joss Stone has not discussed religion or cultural heritage in interviews or on her website I see no reason to stress her putative jewishness in the absence of solid evidence. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 13:37, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
We are talking about the official web site of a significant religious denomination. Why should it not be a reliable source? We cannot dismiss it because there is a report that a completely different site may have made a false claim about a different issue. What is solid evidence, other than a clear statement in a reliable source?--Habashia (talk) 13:58, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
But that is my question: is this a reliable source on the subject? If a longstanding Jewish newspaper is making contentious statements, why should we expect a younger Jewish sect to be any different? (The Forward was founded in 1897, UK Liberal Synagogue in 1902). I don't rule out the possibility that the Liberaljudaism site is a reliable enough for the purposes, but I'm undecided on the matter and, if anything, apt to be skeptical on the subject in the absence of other sources. Do you see what I'm saying? If the bio on her website mentions it or the has discussed religion in interviews, that would be great. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 14:08, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
The official web site of a group of synagogues is saying that they accept her as Jewish. That's a different issue from a statement in a newspaper. How can someone be Jewish other than by being regarded by an official synagogue movement as Jewish?--Habashia (talk) 12:32, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
I still believe there should be a more precise source which explicitly states Stone is Jewish and doesn't just put her name in some list. What about a request for comment? Funk Junkie (talk) 18:07, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

BLP

I have removed sections from the Personal Life section due to BLP concerns. Though sourced, I do not believe that Contactmusic.com in particular meets the required reliable sources status for these very serious allegations in the first sentences. Do not replace this section without better, more mainstream sourcing. The section about Christina Milian appears to be better sourced, from Giant and Complex magazines, but unless more sources can be found to show that this is an important episode in her life, the addition appears unencyclopedic and given undue weight in the bio. --Slp1 (talk) 22:39, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the comment about the California age of consent. She was of age in the UK (over 16), and there is no suggestion that California law was broken. The comment seemed to me to be there mainly to excite prurient interest by referring to California's rather high age of consent. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 10:27, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

The "pop" thing

I suppose we could class Long John Baldry and Jacques Brel as "pop", because they've had pop hits and won pop awards. I think Joss Stone's scope of recognition is as a Rhythm and Blues or (if you will) Soul singer. -Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 01:26, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Fully agreed. Joss Stone's music is predominantly soul and rhythm and blues and does not have significant pop elements. Stone herself has stated many times how much she was influenced by soul giants such as Aretha Franklin. I can't see any reason why Stone should be classified as pop. Funk Junkie (talk) 18:34, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes she SINGS in that style, but the music she records it too, is focussed mainly on release as pop. I'm not saying she isn't r&b. What I am saying is she is also Pop. If she wasn't, then 150 experts at classifying styles, wouldn't say so. In fact she was considered it strongly enough, to be in the top 5 at it. There is a big difference in someone that releases the music to their style stations and it crosses over to pop, and someone that focuses on releasing to pop stations. Also most of Joss Stone's scope of recognition is as a Rhythm and Blues or Soul singer within the world of Pop. And I say Pop, not bubble gum pop, or teen pop. Also you only need to look at the "Stylistic origins" of pop to see where Pop is rooted.Swampfire (talk) 03:40, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

The "world of pop" embodies several music genres, that's not a reason for classifing every artist as pop. Many artists were nominated for a Grammy Award for pop music without performing prominently in this genre. In a recent edit you said, "also notice she was not nominated for an R&B award". She was not only nominated for but also won the Grammy for Best R&B Performance by a Duo or Group with Vocals in 2007. If you insist on keeping the pop tag I suggest we place a adult contemporary tag instead, which is a subgenre of pop and suits her style better. Funk Junkie (talk) 16:07, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
I added the fact the SHE, recording as Joss Stone did not have an R&B nomination, which she does not. But I figured you might to try to say she did. So I deleted it. But the fact is, Joss as recording by herself does not have an R&B grammy or nomination. Her grammy for R&B came as a part of ""Sly & the Family Stone with John Legend, Joss Stone and Van Hunt for "Family Affair"" So you need to think about what you just said but like this. Many artists were nominated for an R&B award as part of a duo or group that they are not a permanent part of, without performing predominantly in the genre. In fact you could have placed all those names together and Put Christina Aquilera in there instead of Joss and it would have still gotten the awards for R&B.Swampfire (talk) 16:18, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Stone however happens to be a predominantly R&B singer. Funk Junkie (talk) 16:36, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
That's your personal opinionSwampfire (talk) 16:43, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Not at all. It's a pure fact. Funk Junkie (talk) 19:58, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Joss Stone's genre is RnB/Hip-hop/Soul/Funk. That is what she is credited as by musicians, the industry, music critics, and reporters. Only one of her singles has been released in pop radio format (Tell Me About It) and charted on a Pop music chart. All of her other singles chart on Adult top 40 and RnB/Hip Hop charts. She is an RnB artist not a pop artist. I agree with funk junkie if you want to make that "pop distinction" your going to have to say top 40 because besides Rnb/Hip-hop that is predominantly what her music charts as. PhoenixPrince (talk) 20:02, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

You are mistaken about where they have been released. Charting in a format and being released to a format is 2 different things. Also Grammy disagrees with you, along with 748,000 websites. ((google search "pop singer joss stone" you get 748,000, "soul singer joss stone" you only get 79,000, and "r&b singer joss stone" you only get 243,000)) Of which I have not started citing them. Because then it would just get ridiculous, because then all forms would need to be cited on the page. Also the category this is going on about, is not what type of artist she is. But genres she is a part of. Of which allmusic has this to say about her in the main paragraph of her Bio ""British vocalist Joss Stone was only 16 years old when she appeared on the universal pop/rock radar in 2003, ready to challenge the pop domination of Britney Spears and Christina Aguilera with a grownup sound that belied her young age. Positioning herself among the more established and credible artists (Norah Jones, Jill Scott, Nikka Costa), Stone soon garnered a devoted audience at home and abroad, first for her reinterpretations of classic soul gems (The Soul Sessions) and, one year later, for her songwriting chops and sultry delivery (Mind, Body & Soul)."" Also if the charts you are referring to is billboard, the billboard chart Pop 100 wasnt even created until 2005. But you also need to realize the billboard charts them selves are really the "billboard pop charts" of which they have the main stuff, then they have sub-genres.So if you hit the main charts like (billboard 200) you hit the pop charts. And also billboard is primarily a U.S. charting system. Don't get me started on Joss charting on "Top of the Pops" Swampfire (talk) 22:08, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I have done posted the main bio from allmusic.com stating pop. Along with the fact that over 70% of websites refer to her as pop over anything else. Also the uk website itself links turn into josstone.com ones, because the uk one is a mirror style site, of Jossstone.com. The main official site.Swampfire (talk) 03:46, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

The Google search is not valid as it includes unofficial sources such as blogs and forums. I really, really suggest that we pursue request for comment or dispute resolution, otherwise we're going absolutely nowhere. We could also classify her under sophisti-pop—according to its article, the term is "used to describe a certain kind of smooth radio-friendly pop music with a jazz or soul tinge." Funk Junkie (talk) 00:08, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Do not log out to try and hide the fact, that it is you that removed pop, after you were warned. I have all the proof to have you blocked for being a wp:sock puppet after you were warned. So i think it would be best if you just left things as is. Because once you logged out to try to hide it being you. I could of immediatley started to process against you. But I really dont want to have you blocked.Swampfire (talk) 01:40, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Before everyone else thinks I'm a sock puppet—which I know I'm not—, I'll repeat what I told Swampfire: That wasn't me. My "IP user" is 200.138.194.254 (talk · contribs), and I haven't used it since I created this account. Funk Junkie (talk) 02:14, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Nice try, Do you really want me to post the proof? Such as the very first edit with the IP was coming directly to this page and removing "Pop", Something a first time user would not do . Along with the fact that every contrib page under that IP is also in your contribs. You also just said you have not used 200.138.194.254 since creating funk junkie. Something else i can prove isn't true. Do you really want me to pursue a sock puppet case? Because if you continue in this manner I will.Swampfire (talk) 02:29, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
This matter has been resolvedSwampfire (talk) 03:08, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
After admitting it was him, on my talkpage, he has now returned to do it again using the same IP I then gave him one final warning. and he still did it one more time. A sock puppet case is now being brought against him at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Funk Junkie Swampfire (talk) 20:43, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
This issue doesn't belong on this talk page. Take it to the userpages and deal with it that way. Or at least get admin assistance.(Xu Davella (talk) 04:16, 22 July 2008 (UTC))
Do not remove content from talk pages. That is considered vandalism. Also WE have now found more false IP's rhat are believed to be sock puppets of Funk Junkie and not just by me. The case can be viewed at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Funk Junkie and admins are already involvedSwampfire (talk) 04:20, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Joss+Stone+pop+singer&btnG=Search I did the search and that's the url above. Results as follows.

1) It is irrelevant if you google "pop star Joss Stone". If you do you get back all results that include the key words Joss, Stone, Pop, and singer. For instance the very first result is a link to an aol page that never even refers to Joss Stone's music, however it includes a description of "Columbian pop singer Shakira". It uses the word Joss, Stone, Pop, and singer, but it's not all related. http://music.aol.com/picture/joss-stone/singer-joss-stone-attends-the-wallop/07-s180987-5747

The second link is a yahoo.com/answers page, in other words a blog site. http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080707004648AAoTdlF

the third link gives a biography that directly refers to her a soul singer, despite the use of pop in the title of the link http://www.cyloop.com/jossstone and it continues on like this so like I said a google search is completely irrelevant.

2) The grammys have given her a nomination for a pop vocal album, yes. Does this make her a pop artist? No. For instance Beyonce is credited as a RnB/hip hop and pop artist, has she been nominated for any pop awards by the grammys for her solo work? No. Yet her album B'day is considered, (by critics and wikipedia itself) as RNB and Pop.

3) A bunch of critical reviews for he albums where either she or her music has been referred to as predominantly Soul, RnB, Funk, and Hip-Hop.

http://www.nowtoronto.com/issues/2007-03-15/music_discs9.php

http://www.billboard.com/bbcom/bio/index.jsp?pid=533313 You used this source from billboard to back up your claims however the article claims the her very first album "the Soul Sessions" is a Neo soul album (Neo soul is a genre of contemporary RnB).

http://www.billboard.com/bbcom/discography/index.jsp?pid=533313&aid=897545 (this article, a review of the album "Introducing Joss Stone" distinctly labels Joss a neo soul singer.

"Typically, artists dispense with introductions after their debut -- after all, that is an album designed to introduce them to the world -- but neo-soul singer Joss Stone defiantly titled her third album Introducing Joss Stone..."

http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20015126,00.html refers to her music as RnB

http://www.rollingstone.com/reviews/album/13623552/review/13711248/introducing_joss_stone refers to her music as pop wise RnB, soul, and funk.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/19/arts/music/19choi.html?_r=1&ref=music&pagewanted=all&oref=slogin refers to her as a 19 year old British RnB singer

http://www.nme.com/reviews/joss-stone/8281 refers to her music as sugary RnB and hip hop

http://www.billboard.com/bbcom/discography/index.jsp?pid=533313&aid=644845 refers to the music on her album "Mind Body and Soul" as soul music

Keep in mind that all of the above links are to critics who are professionals and throughout all of her critiques no matter positive or negative the consensus is clear. These professional people, who get paid to recognize and critique genres of music, directly and flagrantly refer to her as a RnB and soul artist. The refer to some of her songs a crossover pop but never, not once is she called a pop singer. Based on that alone, your argument is invalid, and trust that there are plenty more where those links came from, look her up at metacritic.com. There are also magazine interviews, televsion interviews, and all the like which refer or introduce her as an RnB soul singer. The links that I have provided alone are enough by wikipedia's standards to include RnB and Soul as her primary genre. PhoenixPrince (talk) 10:39, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

You what?

"The lead single, "Fell in Love with a Boy", which was a reworking of The White Stripes' 2001 song "Fell in Love with a Girl"..."

It's not a White Stripes song! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.106.135.156 (talk • contribs)

"Fell in Love with a Girl" is a White Stripes' 2001 song; Joss re-recorded the song in 2003 under the title "Fell in Love with a Boy". Funk Junkie 21:02, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
What made you think it is not? lol. -- 85.243.38.251 17:14, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Her version of the song has the same lyrics, except for substituting 'girl' for 'boy'. It is sung at a different speed in a different tone and style, but there is no doubt it is a cover of the WS song. Nietzsche 2 (talk) 03:50, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Bonus tracks

Does anyone know whether the bonus track ("Daniel") is included in all copies of Mind, Body, and Soul or just in the early ones? Brinkost 04:38, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
According to MusicBrainz, the bonus track is called "Holding Out for a Hero". Where did you hear it was called "Daniel"? Cparker 20:59, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
"Daniel" is actually a hidden track, included on the standard version of the album. "Holding Out for a Hero" is a bonus track to the Japanese edition. Funk Junkie 15:32, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
In the site Mind, Body & Soul Wikipedia site the "Holding out for a Hero" song is credited to the ones who did the 80's version, but it's not a cover! It's a song about her half-brother Daniel. Why is it credited to the other ones? --Sajmonh 00:53, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
On my copy of "Mind, Body & Soul", it says that the bonus track is called "Holidng Out For A Hero". "Holidng Out For A Hero" is the name for the full version of the song, the version I have on my CD is the short version, which should be called "Daniel". Andyroost 19:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

OK , let me clear this up, it's very simple: The hidden song on "Mind, Body & Soul" is called "Daniel" and NOT "Holding Out For A Hero". "Holding Out For A Hero" is a completely other song. It IS a cover of the well-known 80's song "Holding Out For A Hero" (best known as "I Need A Hero") from Bonnie Tyler. It's as simple as that. -- 85.243.38.251 17:19, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

OKAY YOU LOT ARE ALL WRONG IF YOU LISTEN TO BONNIE TYLERS "I NEED A HERO" AND JOSS' HOLDING OUT FOR A HERO THEY ARE NOTHING ALIKE JOSS STONES SONG "HOLDING OUT FOR A HERO" IS A SOUND TRACK FOR THE MOVIE THE FANTASTIC FOUR THE HIDDEN SONG IS COMPLETELY DIFFERENT LOOK BOTH UP ON YOUTUBE ("JOSS STONE HOLDING OUT FOR A HERO" AND "JOSS STONE DANIEL") —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.31.178.60 (talk) 02:58, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
The song Stone recorded for the Fantastic Four soundtrack is titled "What Ever Happened to the Heroes". Apparently "Daniel" and "Holding Out for a Hero"—not a cover of the Bonnie Tyler song—are the same songs, but the latter could be seen as a full version to the former ("Daniel" is 2:46 long while "Holding Out for a Hero" is 3:35 long; not yet sure if these are exact numbers). Another difference between them is that "Daniel" is a hidden track on the main edition of Mind, Body & Soul (therefore it's not mentioned on the back over or the booklet) and "Holding Out for a Hero" appears as a bonus track on the album's Japanese pressing (on which it is listed on the back cover). Funk Junkie (talk) 18:19, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello!?.. As I told you before (IP: 85.243.38.251) "Daniel" is a hidden song on "Mind, Body & Soul". It has NOTHING to do with "Holding Out For a Hero".

"Holding Out For a Hero" IS a cover of Bonnie Tyler's song (if you have the song, then listen to it's lyrics and you'll see it IS a cover!).

I hope this is cleared up now. No matter what you write, what I wrote IS true (I know this sounds stupid, but how can one make you just believe it is like this?? It's a FACT!).

I've got all the four songs - Daniel, Holding Out For a Hero (Joss's and Bonnie's version) and Whatever Happened to the Heroes? (which has nothing to do with this anyway). Stop discussing this, OK? Thank you! --84.39.93.197 (talk) 23:12, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Foreign?

How obvious this page was made by an American..... How about 'non-American' instead of foreign? --Flying Dutchman 08:37, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes, you're right that sentence is US-centric and needs to be changed. I think its best to mention her nationality as "non-American" could still be read as somewhat US-centric. Signaturebrendel 03:08, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
How obvious that a Dutch man would bitch about something like that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.65.33.193 (talk • contribs)
Please refrain from offensive comments as the one above. Mutual respect and professionalism are among the cornerstones of Wikipedia. Please, be polite and respectful. Thank you. Regards, Signaturebrendel 03:08, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Please refrain from offensive comments like "how obvious...an American." As any red-blooded American, I continue to be perplexed why some Europeaners continue to hate us even though we saved their asses from Hitler...sigh. 68.65.33.193 23:47, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
I am a citizen of the United States and a European... perhaps you should be more careful in heated discussions and abstain from nationalistic comments. BTW: Are you native American or an immigrants like all other Americans? Signaturebrendel 03:28, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Actually "how obvious that a Dutch man..." was used, and by the way, if it wasn't for us europeans, there wouldn't be an America...sigh —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.159.25.6 (talk • contribs)

On a serious point, as Joss Stone is British, should the article use British English? (e.g behaviour)Paddy 08:45, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, strong national ties to a topic mean that the article should use the appropriate version of English. Nietzsche 2 (talk) 03:50, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
If Joss Stone is British, as the major part of this article seems to suggest, where does the reference to Kyrgistany in the first sentence come from? Or is someone trying to sabotage the artice?

86.16.134.133 (talk) 23:11, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Philanthropy section

What. The. F***? Examples of Stone's philanthropy ("the effort or inclination to increase the well-being of humankind, as by charitable aid or donations") include being voted Best Celebrity Dog Owner and World's Sexiest Vegetarian? 86.7.211.128 (talk) 23:39, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Hatnote

I can't think of any reason why Jess Stone should redirect here. I propose that page be disambiguated and thus the removal of that hatnote. She's never been referred to as Jess Stone, has she? Fixer23 (talk) 02:58, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Racial background

is she half black? i could of swore her mother is black? anyone can confirm it? Phu2734 10:06, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

No. She is not Black. Paddy 11:35, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

her mother is white i've seen pictures maybe you saw her with an afician-amercian and thought that was her mum (she has backup singers and a band with amercian people init) or maybe you've read people saying she has a voice of a Black person (some people have said that for some reason) so yea shes white far as we know (don't know about her dads racial backound through) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.31.178.60 (talk) 03:50, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

There's something unusual about her eyes and nose - I wouldn't be surprised if she has some non-white blood (note that some sites dubiously claim her to be Jewish)--MartinUK (talk) 14:53, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
A photo of her mother appears in the London Metro paper of today. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.194.200 (talk) 12:41, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Not neutral

This reads like corporate propaganda for some over-hyped girl with average voice. You might as well add "EMI" and a copyright symbol at the bottom....grrrrr --IndieStonerKid (talk) 18:03, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't it just! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.166.43.218 (talk) 06:05, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Joss Stone on piracy

I just skimmed through the article, but it looks like these interviews (YouTube) aren't mentioned, but think it's quite relevant. --Athaba (talk) 17:06, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Wrong role

Joss stone did not play Anne of leaves in the Tudors; she played Catherine Howard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.181.18.234 (talk) 00:12, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry but you're wrong. Joss played Anne of Cleves in the Tudors, not Catherine Howard. I guess Tamzin Merchant is the one who played Catherine Howard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.226.113.229 (talk) 21:23, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

"Free Joss Stone"

Can anyone explain why, a couple of years ago, sources and even emails I received from some of my photographer friends had "Free Joss Stone" written upon them? If I came across it, while working on a Derek Trucks-related article, then, what was that? I never took the time to ask, but if it was so prevalent, then, I'm curious, and if it's noteworthy, perhaps mention of it belongs in this article. --Leahtwosaints (talk) 10:40, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Joss Stone. 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 to let others know.

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 13:21, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Joss Stone. 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, 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:44, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Joss Stone. 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) 02:14, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Joss Stone. 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) 17:03, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Joss Stone. 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) 04:27, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:31, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

To add to article

To add to this article: in how many countries has she performed as of October 2022? 173.88.246.138 (talk) 23:27, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Joss_Stone/Archive_1&oldid=1121202423"