Jump to content

Talk:Little Boots/Archive 1

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

Victoria Hesketh is not from Blackpool

Most people are born in a hospital....it isn't a fact that needs to be noted.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.212.0.34 (talk) 21:49, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Hesketh was born in a hospital which serves the Fylde coast it happens to be located in the Borough of Blackpool. That does not make Little Boots a sandgrown'un or from Blackpool.

In fact the Blackpool public dislike her for her media statements, and her lies about her origins.

Please state this in your biased article.

"The 25-year-old, who is from Thornton, is making giant steps in the music industry as her debut single New In Town hits the charts." ...

http://www.blackpoolgazette.co.uk/blackpoolnews/Pop-princess-wants-to-turn.5304100.jp —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.234.248.31 (talk) 18:19, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

hi this is victoria, well i was born in blackpool victoria hospital and lived in north shore blackpool for about 12 years before moving to thornton but take it that doesn't count? also i never 'appeared' in pop idol and it certainly didn't start my career, and my dissertation was entitled something like the function of jazz in society and had one reference to jaimie cullum, the whole thesis was certainly not dedicated to him! please can someone set this straight? thanks—Preceding unsigned comment added by Littlebootsofficial (talk • contribs)

Hi this is me a Sandgrown'un.. And which part of North Shore of Blackpool did you live in? Was it Queens Promenade?, Was it the Gynn? was it Bispham?, Was it Norbreck ?, or was it Cleveleys and Thornton both in the Wyre?.. You are not a Blackpool 'lass', you are not from Blackpool, you were not educated in Blackpool and you are not known in Blackpool, but yet you promote yourself as being a local and from Blackpool. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.234.234.207 (talk) 16:36, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

hi, i really don't know what your problem is but it was near the gynn by the water tower?? think what you want, i know where i grew up! victoria —Preceding unsigned comment added by Littlebootsofficial (talk • contribs) 21:26, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

New In Town

Will someone create a page for Little Boots' first single New In Town? The music video has been released and all, so I think it should get a page now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.71.47.184 (talk) 16:45, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Discography

I think it is stupid that there is a table for her chart positions and a list of songs. Can't they both be merged together? I removed the silly little list of song but apparently it has been marked 'vandalism'. 83.71.33.108 (talk) 15:32, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Second Single

Please do not add bloggers speculation about the next single release to the article. No decision has been made on the follow up to New in Town by the record company. And wont untill the sales figures are clearer. "Symmetry" (with Phil Oakey) was trialed live at Heaven Nightclub on 28/05/09 and this is the most likly candidate. Wait untill it is announced by a WP:RS before adding it to the artlcle.andi064 T . C 21:45, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Going to make changes if you dont mind

Hi, I think this article needs an overhaul completely in terms of layout and structure.
On the other hand there does seems to be a decent amount of info on Little Boots, it's just that the article is all thrown together. Secondly the In the Media Section has to go and the info redistributed where needs be, because otherwise it's just a trivia section.

I think a Formation/Early Years section and a Hands section would cover all the info contained in the article, with possibly also a section on Touring. I also would like to re-write the article entirely so it flows better. I'm going to go ahead with these changes and would like some feedback on these ideas.
Thanks, --RavensFists (talk) 11:17, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed Edkollin (talk) 04:39, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


Also have changed quality rating on this article as it's just not up to a C class yet.--RavensFists (talk) 11:20, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Controversy section taken out.

There are two issues here. The material comes from an unreliable source and the material is unencyclopedic

The material came from The Sun a notoriously unreliable source. The other sources are slightly more reliable BUT they quoted The Sun in writing their stories thus the prime source is still The Sun.

For arguments sake lets assume this material came from The Times this is still not encyclopedic. The sexual lives of musicians are not encyclopedic unless it is an part of their public persona or the musician has discussed the role their romantic and sex lives have played in their music. This incident was trivial.

The policy for biographical articles of living persons are strict to the point of paranoia. Immediate removal of material is encouraged in certain situations. Edkollin (talk) 04:47, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I tend to agree, this is barely news worthy and has nothing to do with the article. Now if she had been kissing me ... :-) --Triwbe (talk) 06:24, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Why was this section deleted? wikipedia is not censored. The Sun is the UK's largest National Newspaper and therefore there isn’t a much better WP:RS. There is the actual photograph of Hesketh kissing Welch in the Sun's article in a public place, which is pretty irrefutable evidence, and she has since been labelled bisexual in the media. (Google Little Boots & Bisexual for about a dozen sources and stories on the subject.) Ergo: it was a bonafide 'Controversy'!! Since all this took place in the public domain and Hesketh has discussed her sexuality with The Sun voluntarily as a result of this 'Controversy' there are no WP:BLP issues here. Can’t see the problem, it sticks to the facts, therefore restored as this section is actually setting the record straight (quite literally) . Archivey (talk) 06:42, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
It's not a question of truth or verifiability (even if it is The Sun) it just not important. I don't see what difference it make if the she is or is not Bi. In fact the article does not claim she is bi it just says she denies it. IMO it's just an excuse to print a photo that Sun readers would like. --Triwbe (talk) 07:31, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
I think it should be in a in the media section but someone has deleted that. There are about 132 sources for this on google so it's notable enough to appear in the article, Hesketh obviosly thinks it important enough to issue an interview to rebutt the suggestion that she is Bi. I believe it was all staged for publicity, perhaps someone can find a source for that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.139.15 (talk) 12:08, 20 June 2009 (UTC)


What you completely fail to understand fail to understand is that Wikipedia has a tighter standard for publishing information then even mainstream newspapers. Here are the policies you are violating
“Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for fact-checking. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional in nature, or which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions”
“We must get the article right.[1] Be very firm about the use of high quality references. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.
"Biographies of living persons must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid paper; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. The possibility of harm to living subjects is one of the important factors to be considered when exercising editorial judgment".
"This policy applies equally to biographies of living persons and to biographical material about living persons on other pages. The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia rests with the person who adds or restores material, and this is especially true for material regarding living persons. Therefore, an editor should be able to demonstrate that such material complies with all Wikipedia content policies and guidelines”
The Sun has been proven time and time again to have printed false information, they have a poor reputation for fact checking and rely heavily on rumors. This article MAY damage the reputation of Florence Welsh by implying she is a lesbian. Are some of these policies overly paranoid? Yes, in my view. Believe or not I am way more open minded then most editors about what is allowable and about BLP but there is nothing here that is allowable under any interpretation of reliable sourcing ,BLP or notability. And I am obligated by Wikipedia policy to remove it immediately.Edkollin (talk) 07:30, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Errrr...... where do you get your information from? Florence Welch is openly bisexual, which probably was why she was hitting on Little Boots. I think she'll be more offended by you calling her straight. Check your facts. Estragons (talk) 08:43, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
If this is that well known it should be easy to get reliable sourcing on this and possibly use it in The Florence and The Machine article. Edkollin (talk) 18:04, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


Agreed, well done. --Triwbe (talk) 08:09, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Last warning...Stop censoring this because it doesn’t fit with your personal prejudices and trying to hide behind WP:BLP to justify it. WP is not censored, nor is this a fan page; and like it or not this was her biggest media controversy. Go google it! The mention on this article does not break a single Wikipedia rule (certainly not in WP:BLP and is staying whether you like it or not). You clearly cant be bothered to check the sources because this is what Hesketh says in that 'inaccurate' Sun report "

"We were drunk and I was shocked out of my skin. I was not kissing back. "As much as I love Florence, not in that way. She is crazy, in the best possible way." "Lots of singers are saying they're bisexual these days." "I'm definitely not in that camp. But great for all the people that are." – Victoria Hesketh

A national Newspaper subject to the UK Libel Laws IS a WP:RS, The Sun is used as a RS in thousands of articles on Wikipedia. Since this is proven fact, it cant be a rumour can it? (Perhaps the photo should be added to the article for verification then?) The incident in a public nightclub is not denied by either party and is Public not Private. Both Hesketh and Welch have spoken on the record about it and their sexuality, and are not bothered by it. (No differant to Elton John discussing his sexuality) So it is not causing harm. So exactly what part of WP:BLP is this breeching?

You don’t approve of The Sun, another prejudice! But are you seriously suggesting that The Sun mocked up a photograph of Welch and Hesketh together with look-alikes, and then published a totally made up quote from Hesketh herself,and syndicated the story without being sued? That over 100 other sources around the globe likewise ran the story without sanction? By all accounts Hesketh has benefited from the publicity this has generated, is quite happy to discuss this. She may even have staged it for publicity, (which is worth mentioning when and if a source is found). This section is about that controversy, not that she is or isn’t bisexual, which she clearly states she isnt. Remove it again and you will face WP:3RR sanctions. andi064 T . C 08:31, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

  • <Personal attack removed. — Satori Son 14:55, 23 June 2009 (UTC)> Why is Little Boot's bisexuality [or not?] or Florence Welsh's lesbianism something to be embarassed about or censered?! Its obviously not an issue for the ladies thermselves is it. Also we dont all read the frickin guardian are you sayin only left wing rags are releable newspapers then 86.132.36.107 (talk) 14:07, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
    • OK then if Im not aloud to say that a person editing is homophobic here.. I ask would people be rushing to delete this if Little Boots was involved with a famous male person in the newspapers...I think not...it reeks of homophobia to me86.132.36.107 (talk) 15:50, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
It is not motivated by homophobia, prudishness or prejudice against The Sun. It is the overwhelming editor consensus in articles that I have edited that tabloid publications are unreliable sources.
Funny you mentioned lawsuits The Sun has been sued successfully several times for publication of false material. Maybe they are more careful now but why should we trust them as a reliable source? I “picked” on The Sun because that is the particular tabloid you used as a cite. The problem is not The Sun per se, it is using tabloids for sourcing. “Material from mainstream news organizations is welcomed, particularly the high-quality end of the market, for example the Washington Post in the United States and the Times in Britain, as well as widely used conglomerates such as the Associated Press”. They include left wing publications such as The Guardian but also include more conservative outlets such as The Times and The Wall Street Journal. It is simple, tabloid sourcing is frowned upon, mainstream media is looked upon more favorably. POPULARITY DOES NOT EQUAL RELIABILITY. If a publication is popular, it is notable and deserves a Wikipedia article about them. This does not mean it should be used as a source. As for Hesketh motivations you may or may not be correct. If it was done for publicity it would it would be of questionable article worthiness because using Wikipedia for advertising is frowned upon. Until you can prove any of this, it is all speculation as is your and Hesketh’s assumption that what happened was a result of homosexuality or bi sexuality. If Welch has talked about or in the future talks about her sexuality it MIGHT be material for the Florence And The Machine article. I am not against putting highly personal material in. It has to be notable for some reason or have a proven relation to their work. Dusty Springfield immediately comes to mind as far as notability is concerned because she came out as bisexual in 1970 when it was highly uncommon. Amy Winehouse is an article where a large part of the article is dedicated to highly personal and potentially embarrassing material. In her case it has been deemed for whatever reasons by reliable sourcing that her personal life is an important part of her notability. The personal material is sourced for the most part if not entirely by sources like The BBC and The Times.
You do not know me. You really do really do not understand how laughable the accusation that I am standing behind BLP is. I suggest you go to The Lily Allen Talk page under the section “Encyclopedias, biographies, and rational editing” It is a pretty confusing and I may need to briefly explain it, but hopefully you will get an idea why that accusation is laughable.
If you have a problem with Wikipedia guidelines and policies (and in my view you have some legitimate ones) go take your complaints to those responsible for them, not the editor enforcing them. The BLP says "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, POSITIVE, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion". So even if the ladies did actually love it the material needs to be deleted. But even if The BLP policy is revoked today this is still not article worthy. This is unreliably sourced material based on a unproved assumption about an artist whose personal life is not notable. Edkollin (talk) 16:50, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Your argument seems to be based on that The Sun has made all this up despite, the photographs and Little Boots interview on the subject discussing it. Here for heavens sake LOOK!!! AFTER ELLEN - News, Reviews & Commentary on Lesbian and Bisexual women in Entertainment and the Media If there was any doubt, no photos, just 3rd party eye witnesses, I might side with you. But there isnt, none what so ever, she did it! she said it! and numerous sources have reported on it. Little Boots is fine with it. So what exactly is your motivation for wanting it removed other than you just dont approve of bisexual women. Sorry but you're making an idiot of yourself here. Estragons (talk) 20:23, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


The IP editors are correct you seem only to be motivated by homophobia! It isn't contentious, is factual and doesn't breach guidelines in any way. Take it to the BLP project if you disagree as there is obviously no reasoning with you. andi064 T . C 19:54, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
If I was motivated by homophobia why would I support the inclusion of Dusty Springfield "Sexuality" section?. Why would I consider putting Florence Welsh sexuality in her article if a reliable says source makes that claim. I do not know if the The Sun made it up. I do know they have a history of doing that. And I do know this is a Little Boots article where Florence Welsh's sexuality is irrelevant. You gave me a blog as evidence, again not a reliable source. 5000 sources can make this claim unless one of them is reliable it can not go into the article period. You are right about one thing though it does have to go to the BLP board. I will attempt to sanction those that accuse me of bad faith. Edkollin (talk) 20:57, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
I cant be bothered with this silly argument anymore. On my watch list I noticed you took the Bisexual catagory off Florence Welch and unlike Little Boots Florence really is bisexual. Now I'm not going to replace it as I can’t be bothered. But if I was a Homophobe – I’m not, but just saying I was for sake of argument - If I was a nasty homophobe with a problem with gay women, that is definitely the sort of edit I'd make too. Peace Estragons (talk) 21:10, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
    • So if it isnt in the Times The Guardian or on the BBC its not true then?. Well, hell lets better delete half of Wiki then. "After Ellen" (a leading gay womens website seems to think its newsworthy). Those photos look real to me. And if it isnt a controversy then no one would be discussing this here or on websites like AE would they?. If all this is a media invention why has little boots done an interview about it. Or are you saying the media made that up too.

"I will attempt to sanction those that accuse me of bad faith" sorry but you bring that on yourself and I too question your motivation. Its not looking good is it. 94.196.192.54 (talk) 21:31, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

All those involved in this discussion may like to know it is listed here too: Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive66#Little Boots -- andi064 T . C 00:16, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

First of all, folks, it is completely improper for personal attacks to be made, even in contentious content disputes. It is bad faith for anyone to jump to the conclusion that anyone is editing out of homophobia or any other kind of prejudice, not once, not twice, but over and over on more than one talk page. That must stop, it is squarely against Wikipedia policy. That it is a chorus taken up by other editors does not make it acceptable and only compounds the policy violations. And for the record, Estragons, your comments expand upon that and make even more disturbing personal attacks. Please consider this posting a warning to all who would continue to make such assertions. The next step would have to be WP:AN/I.

Frankly, it could be argued that insistence on retaining content wherein she was described as "intimately kissing" makes an implication for which she then "was forced to issue a statement denying that she was bisexual". That way of presenting it could be viewed as homophobic itself, regardless that it was slightly reworded. She was forced? It is possible to interpret that as denial, although I am not saying that it is. It would be extremely instructional to see news items where it was a controversy prior to Hesketh's denial. The bias in the way this section is worded is one issue that is troubling. That it is referenced from The Sun, which, like it or not, is considered a questionable source, and by two other sources using The Sun article as their sources, is another. If this is that widely reported and highly controversial, then the solution is simple. Find reliable third party sources for it that aren't considered questionable and common gossip. Present it in a non-biased and neutral way that avoids drawing conclusions. If it can't be, then it doesn't belong in the article - it creates controversy where it isn't clear that any exists. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:09, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Your words would have more value if you were not colluding with Edkollin at his/her request for favorable comments. (User_talk:Wildhartlivie#Request_for_Advice.2FInvolvement) Please try harder to prove there is no agenda going on here. Which is the reason most people have their backs up over this over what is quite a simple and harmless subject. Estragons (talk) 03:54, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
And your assessment of it once again reflects bad faith and a POV assumption of bias. To assume I was asked to collude borders on yet another form of personal attack and it is more than time for all of the opposing editors who have commented here charging homophobia and bad intent to stop discussing the contributor, or in this case, the contributors and actually attend to what has been said about the content. Yes, I have issues when a group of new editors and IPs whose sum total of contributions is less 100 start flashing around words like homophobia and censorship and making personal attacks. It isn't acceptable. Edkollin asked me to look at what is going on. At no point in his short note on my talk page did he ask me to make favorable comments nor mindlessly back up his edits or his point of view. In fact, had he done so, I would have been skeptical about it since we have generally butted heads over content. In fact, Edkollin and I have argued and disagreed many many times more often than we have ever agreed on anything, but contrary to what is being said here, it has never immediately disintegrated into name calling and attacks. Regardless, I was actually surprised he asked me to look. He asked me to look at what has transpired and comment or make suggestions to him regarding the discussion. I have no intention of trying to prove anything about agendas, that involves drawing conclusions that you cannot back up with anything but empty accusations. If you are so convinced that any editor's edits reflect homophobia, then back that up with appropriate diffs and examples from the editor's history to support that it is true. In essence, prove it beyond your POV. Otherwise, it is so much empty talk with no basis or foundation but assumptions which cannot be proven or disproven. In any case, it does not negate my suggestion that if this is actually that notable and has raised such a widely noted controversy, then it is absolutely reasonable to conclude that it has been reported in sources that are widely considered reliable by WP:RS standards. The Sun is a tabloid and is not considered widely reliable. That's part and parcel of the whole issue, especially in cases involving WP:BLP. One must go beyond a minimal effort to source controversy. If you can't, there either is no controversy or it can't be included. Anything else you're suggesting and accusing is subterfuge and quite honestly, more than one Wikipedia policy regarding editor conduct, sourcing and a neutral tone of content needs to be reviewed. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:14, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I wrote this yesterday and I see it has been deleted (bias) Edkollin wrote: "This article may damage the reputation of Florence Welsh by implying she is a lesbian." So being considered a lesbian is bad for your reputation is it? If there are allegations of homophobia and bias flaring around this discussion it is easy to see why. That comment is highly offensive. UNDERSTAND that Little boots kissing Florence Welch in a national newspaper is not harmful to either women's reputations. 82.132.139.17 (talk) 05:50, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

A question. If Little Boots kissing Florence Welch in a national tabloid is not harmful to either woman's reputation, why did Little Boots jump immediately to give a quote denying that she is lesbian or bisexual? The denial would seem to be more indicative than just the kiss or the picture. The picture isn't the alleged scandal or controversy being alluded to in this section, it's the fact that a statement was thought to be necessary following it. In retrospect, it is entirely possible it was a publicity stunt, although I'm fairly certain no one has considered that. If that is the case, there is no controversy regardless of the press coverage, any more than the Madonna-Britney Spears kiss on MTV. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:37, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
The journalist conducting the interview probably asked her if she was Bi and she answered with that quote! So what exactly is your point or are you trying to suggest Little Boots is homophobic which is ridiculous given the amount of gay fans she has. The anti gay agenda just continues doesnt it 86.149.9.236 (talk) 00:00, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
The publicity angle was brought up briefly in these discussions. If we are to criticize others for bad faith we must assume good faith in the subjects we write about. Specifically unless a reliable source tell us otherwise we must assume that Hesketh had no ulterior motives and her quotes were honestly made. As for Welsh dispute repeated assertions that "everybody" knows she is bisexual nobody has come up with a quote in a mainstream or tabloid publication where she has said this. Until I see otherwise I don't have a clue about her sexuality or how she feels about all this. I do know that the very onerous BLP rules were made up partly out of a fear of Wikipedia getting sued for libel or slander. That is why you see references to the word libel in the BLP and other rules. The law that Welch could hypothetically sue under seems to be the Slander of Women Act 1891. I am no expert on UK libel laws but I doubt in 2009 this would be used and I don't think it ever has been used. In the articles I have been involved with (until this one) the overwhelming consensus has been to have the strictest interpretation of the BLP. I have not brought up this "libel" stuff until now because libel is a very loaded word as I very well understand having been accused of it for wanting to add material. "This article may damage the reputation of Florence Welsh by implying she is a lesbian" that you all think is homophobic was a horrendously worded attempt to allude to the "libel" stuff.
Despite Archivey's good faith attempt to find a compromise we can not go further until the the bad faith and incivility is dealt with by Wikipedia administrators. Until they deal with it in a way they feel is best for their project I have nothing further to say Edkollin (talk) 06:22, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

This is a ridiculous amount of a heat for a Man Does Not Bite Dog story. Not everything reliably sourced belongs on Wikipedia. Delete already. WP:NOTNEWS. Disembrangler (talk) 19:04, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I've re-created an In The Media section which is where this event/subject belongs. Hopefully that is acceptable to all sides, and a line can be drawn under this before it turns into the mother of all edit wars. Thanks Archivey (talk) 00:33, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

  • I'm afraid I agree with the hypothesis that if Victoria Hesketh had been linked to an equally famous male celebrity in the media and then done an interview discussing it in a national newspaper that there would have been no issues. Because it was a Bisexual public display of affection certain editors have obsessivly tried to delete it, and then cry foul when challenged. The charge that it can't be true because it was in The Sun was absurd to the point of hilarity. No media source is perfect, but when said source carries photos and an interview of Hesketh on the subject,; then dismissal of that source is at best biased. The BBC as quoted in WP:RS for instance has been found to frequently make inaccurate reports and show deep left wing bias to the extent they are boycotted by Isreali media. There is no such thing as a totally reliable source. Take as you find. There seems to be a very unsavory agenda surrounding Little Boots sexuality in this article. Like I said if this was a guy she

he was with, certain editors wouldn't be saying it 'could harm her reputation' Homophobia, not sure. Bias certainly reputation94.116.39.213 (talk) 14:41, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Re: Bias. So when selecting what sources are acceptable for this article we must follow this principle...

Oh no there is no Left Wing or Hetrosexual bias at all here is there! 86.145.91.128 (talk) 15:37, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

There is no controversy. She got drunk and kissed a member of her own gender. Everyone will do that once in her life. We don't need to make a big deal out of it. A whole section for this minor incident is way out of proportion and fails WP:BLP by a long shot. And if it was a bloke, it'd still be not acceptable for Wikipedia. We're not a tabloid press, we write conservatively about living people. Oh, and the distinction between the Sun and the Guardian: to the best of my knowledge, a whole city hasn't refused to sell the Guardian on a matter of principle. Sceptre (talk) 17:48, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Septre and Edkollin. There is no controversy. Although there is very little doubt that the same sex kiss did occur, this single event is trivial, non-encyclopedic and violates WP:NOTABILITY, WP:BLP, WP:NOTNEWS, and WP:UNDUE. Same lack of notability and importance if it was a male she kissed. The BLP violation alone would be enough to delete the content. Basically, mountain out of a mole hill. If this becomes a really big deal in the press, or impacts her career in some very demonstrable way, and that really big deal is multiply reported in much more respectable and reliable sources than the Sun, then revisit it. Further, this is not an issue of homophobia, nor of any other biases or agendas such as heterophobia, whitewashing, left or right wing, or censorship in my view. It's about BLP, notability, and undue prominence, nothing else. — Becksguy (talk) 04:32, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Comment I don't know how many people read my comment at WP:BLP/N so I'll repeat it here:
I don't think it's normal practice to cover every single tabloid allegation about a celebrities private life, heterosexual or otherwise. Particularly when we are referring to someone notable/famous for something other then just being a celebrity/famous (i.e. it's not as if we're talking about Paris Hilton here). As it stands at the moment, this is only sourced to a tabloid, "A news portal for Indians in Thailand" and a third site which appears to be primarily notable for its forums Digital Spy. In other words, I'm not convinced this belongs in the article regardless of the sexuality issues involved given the sources at hand. Furthermore, this is under a 'controversy' section, but none of the sources clearly establish existence of a controversy. If there are better, non tabloidish sources, (in other words if this is really 'global news') then please bring them to the table. P.S. The fact that this appears to be the only mention of any aspect of her private life in the article speaks volumes. You say 'if Little Boots been linked to a male celebrity', yet she's 25 and in this modern age, I somewhat doubt this is the only person of either gender she has been linked to. Indeed a quick Google finds [1] where she mentions her boyfriend. In fact, despite your accusations of homophobia and bias, in reality I suspect if it wasn't for the fact the person was female, we wouldn't even be discussing this because no one would have tried to include it in the article and if they did, it would have been quickly removed. P.P.S. To put this a different way, I would have no problem mentioning a long term partner of either gender, who is mentioned in most biographies about her; mentioning everyone she was once caught pashing while drunk, regardless of gender, however is quite a different matter particularly when she had denied any relationship and it's only briefly covered in tabloids. Nil Einne (talk) 13:22, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
for emphasis, I'll repeat again. Despite the unfounded accusations of homophobia towards any editor who wants to exclude this, the simple reality is, no one would be even proposing we add it were it not for the fact the person she was caught kissing was of the same sex and so there was a minor fuss in the tabloids and among gossipers about whether she was bisexual. The simple reality is, celebrities are caught kissing people on camera all the time, particularly when drunk. Yesterday, I was going thorough some silly tabloid photo stream of people Lindsay Lohan had been linked to. There were like 30 people or something. If you go to here article, we mention about 3-4 people, those that she was linked to for long time. This is the way things should be since a single mention of a celebrity kissing someone is rarely in itself notable. As I noted as well, it is unlikely this is the first person Little Boots was caught kissing. Why don't all those people yelling to add this incident try to add these other people to this article, or to the thousands of other celebrity articles lacking a list of every single person they were ever caught kissing or otherwise showing some signs of intimacy with? Nil Einne (talk) 14:10, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

There is a new interview [2] in a tabloid magazine with Ms.Hesketh in which she goes into a bit more detail about the Welsh incident. A few editors mentioned long term relationships as article worthy material. In the interview she talks about her boyfriend of one year. Positive messages in her music is an article worthy topic. The paragraph about how her "roller coaster" career effects her personally might be article worthy. But the source sucks big time. Edkollin (talk) 16:33, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Little Boots Tweets "I Hate Wikipedia"

On 6 July she tweeted "I hate wikipedia, people just make up so much untrue crap about you then i get asked about it interviews all day long... nice 1". [3] Edkollin (talk) 08:06, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

It was about her and the allegations that she lied about being from Blackpool, that was on her article. Not her Bi-sexuality, she did interviews about that long before it appeared on wikipedia. Florence3rules (talk) 12:00, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Florence3rules explanation is a plausible one. It is also possible that it was a stream of concesoiusness rant, they were two unrelated topics in the same tweet. She did do an interview about the Welch incident after the Wikipedia article and since the Welch incident was in the article more recently it is possible it was about that. Bottem Line, this is interesting but way to vague to draw any conclusions.
There were no tongues involved with Welsh and she did not kiss back. Edkollin (talk) 16:25, 9 July 2009 (UTC).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Little_Boots/Archive_1&oldid=1157533262"