Jump to content

Talk:Zara Larsson/Archive 1

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

Triple Platinum

File:Zara Larsson By Daniel Åhs Karlsson.jpg
3× Platinum award for Introducing.

Zara Larsson visit Sommarkrysset again 2013, on Gröna Lund, Stockholm (Sweden)

The source [1] (an article in Aftonkuriren) says that she received a 3× Platinum award for "Uncover".

Zara Larsson fick motta trippel platina skiva för sin sköna ballad – Uncover.

— http://www.aftonkuriren.se/?p=64236

But in a photo from the same event [2], she is holding a 3× Platinum award for Introducing (EP), not for "Uncover". I think Aftonkuriren confused the song and the EP.

There's another source for the single becoming 1× Platinum [3] (it's already being used in the Wikipedia article). I suggest using Aftonkuriren and the photo as a source for Introducing. And changing the certification for "Uncover" to only 1× Platinum. What do you think? --Moscow Connection (talk) 19:12, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Zara Larsson. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. 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}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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 03:41, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Zara Larsson. 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}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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) 07:59, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

"Man-hater"

I'm currently in an edit dispute with some other users over a statement about Larsson being a "man-hater". As I said on my talk page in response to another user a few days back, the term "man-hater" isn't very encyclopedic. The "man-hating" is described in four articles I found [4], [5], [6], [7] and by her on her personal website, where she says she hates the "patriarchal society" and "macho culture", and how men in groups "oppress and threaten". The inclusion of the "man-hater" statement may imply that Larsson is a misandrist. What I read doesn't indicate she is a misandrist (someone with an irrational dislike or fear of the male gender) to me, and the statement may viewed as defamatory. Linguist 111talk 22:05, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Zara Larsson has stated on her own twitter account that she hates men. If we are to uphold the same standard as we would with a celebrity that said he hated women, this would have been in the article. Her exact statement is "i hate boys, hate, hate, hate." It does not get any clearer than that. --194.213.120.14 (talk) 20:32, 4 July 2016 (UTC)Tweet and article here.
Tweets from personal Twitter accounts are generally considered primary sources, which alone are not suitable when it comes to controversial info about living persons. Besides, taking into consideration the nature of what she usually writes on Twitter, even less so. Linguist 111talk 20:41, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
I guess that is female privelige for you, the luxury of having other to interprert and defend own public statements. --194.213.120.14 (talk) 12:45, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
I'm not "defending" what she says at all. The topic of discussion here is what is suitable for the article. "Misandry" and terms related to it are pretty strong, technical, and controversial terms, so using them in articles, especially biographies of living persons, is risky, because their use in articles may reflect a personal interpretation that readers may not share. And using personal tweets as a source—even worse. Another option is to include the "man-hater" version, but this is also not a good idea, because (A) this term isn't very encyclopaedic, (B) it is too vague and doesn't reflect what is really meant by it (which is described in the articles and Larsson's website that I posted above) and (C) it may mislead readers, as it may be viewed as a synonym for "misandrist". What I think would be a better idea, if we are to include this "man-hating" stuff at all, is to describe in detail, using what is written in the articles, what is specifically meant by the "man-hating" thing. Linguist 111talk 15:33, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
Agreed, it should be in the article. It even explains why she received so much hate, "death and rape threats". The way the article is currently worded sounds like she got this merely for identifying as a feminist and not because she calls herself a "man hater". There is obvious bias here. And this is coming from someone who fully supports feminism. Stevenbfg (talk) 19:13, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
No bias at all. This is just controversial info which needs to be worded carefully. Linguist 111talk 20:12, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

I think Larsson's point of view about men isn't that controversial. Her point of view is clear and should be mentioned in the article, this is not primary source like her tweets: http://www.nme.com/news/various-artists/94802. Article says now ”Larsson has voiced several feminist comments and received multiple rape and death threats for them” and it would be good if those comments of her which led to threats, were mentioned. And I agree, ”man-hater” is not encyclopaedic. But it was her comments about men which led to threats. --Cary (talk) 13:51, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

I'd be fine with having a detailed description written based on the sources we have, including the one Cary mentioned and the ones I mentioned, using quotes etc. That was what I had wanted to do, but while I understood the general gist of what was written in the sources I posted, which are all written in Swedish, I couldn't do a word-for-word translation of what was said. Linguist 111 Who, me? Who? Me 14:12, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Awards

Zara larsson is nominated for the best international song in the NRJ Awards 2016 with This One's for You Sasha Leiva66 (talk) 01:35, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

And she was nominated to the best dance song in the latin american music awards for Never Forget You Sasha Leiva66 (talk) 01:40, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi Sasha Levia66! Wouldn't the nomination for "This One's for You" go to David Guetta? Zara is only featured on the song, right? Jith12 (talk) 01:45, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

@Sasha Leiva66: I noticed that you changed the status of Zara Larsson's 2016 MTV EMA nomination for Best Swedish Act from "nominated" to "won". According to the Swedish version of the 2016 MTV EMA's website, the award was won by the The Fooo Conspiracy, not Zara Larsson. If you have a source that says otherwise please show me by leaving a message on my talk page. I am going to change the status of the award back to "nominated" until we can find a reliable source that says otherwise. Jith12 (talk) 22:32, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi Well i don't know because when i watched the ceremony she won the two categories in the ceremony. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sasha Leiva66 (talk • contribs) 22:39, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Consensus for removal or restoration

Since the section Personal Life has been changed to Sexist views towards men and clearly shows undue weight toward NOTNEWS trivia; I am bringing the discussion of removal (or clean-up to better represent biographical prose) of the current content regarding sexist views and uncyclopedic trivia ("Larsson is an active Twitter user") here. Furthermore, "Fuse" as a single source does not warrant the inclusion of such a strong statement by a subject's opinion that normally requires several reliable sources quoted over an extended period of time to be considered "notable" contrary to trivia. The line: "On separate occasions she went on a 'Men are swines' tirade after being insulted online" is not representative of the actual article cited; (not to mention it does not support the claim: "on separate occasions") and not utilized to the benefit of the subject for an encyclopedia. This section requires removal or extensive clean-up. Please do not further edit the section until a consensus via discussion is agreed upon here. @Echoedmyron: Thank you. Maineartists (talk) 01:01, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

title is changed because that was the section dominates. there's nothing about her personal life. and no writing down the fact that she identifies as a happy man hater is not sexism or men'rights whatever. NFLjunkie22 (talk) 01:11, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

fine then. i removed it. still the title personal life isn't justified since there's nothing about her personal life. also, the fact that she a self proclaimed misandrist needs to be highlighted. NFLjunkie22 (talk) 01:17, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

@NFLjunkie22: You are correct, re: "title personal life isn't justified". That's what we are hoping to rectify in this discussion. Whether to remove the section entirely; or try and create an entirely new personal life biographical prose section. Thanks. Maineartists (talk) 01:31, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
Zara Larsson is a Swedish singer and songwriter—that is why she is notable and why this article exists. Her comments regarding people who rape women during a concert are not part of her notability, and that is why, if they are to be noted at all, they are part of "personal life". At any rate, BLP articles in particular do not feature section headings to alert the reader that the subject is a bad person. Johnuniq (talk) 01:19, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
you're sexist. plain and simple. you defend an openly misandrist person. NFLjunkie22 (talk) 01:22, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
@NFLjunkie22: Thank you for bringing the discussion here. I appreciate that. It is much more proactive than constantly rv'ing. The point I think that is trying to be made here is that what is now presented on the subject's article page (Sexist views towards men) is uncyclopedic and NOTNEWS trivia. The subject is only 18 years old. She does not have enough reliable sources to claim the opinions stated for inclusion as a lifelong notable trait and/or mentality. "Fuse" is a single (non-notable) trivia source. To warrant such a section on a BLP, you would need several reliable and notable sources that cite numerous occasions where the subject expressed her views and opinions on the matter separate from each cited source. You have not done that here. The fact there is no "Personal Life" section is irrelevant. The inclusion of NOTNEWS trivia is the discussion here. Secondly, the question of undue weight is highly in need of discussion regarding what should be a Personal life section. Best. Maineartists (talk) 01:23, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
@NFLjunkie22: Oh, dear. I really wish you hadn't gone there. You may be blocked from editing this page for that comment. It was unwarranted. Johnuniq is editing this article correctly per WP requirements on BLPs. It has nothing to do with personal opinions or beliefs; but NPOV on editing an article correctly. Please refrain from name calling in discussions. Best. Maineartists (talk) 01:26, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
Maineartists why not? he made this edit post on a notice board while trying to play nice. That changes the "Personal life" section to "Sexist views towards men"—ridiculous. The "Men's Rights" sanctions might be available. Johnuniq (talk) 00:55, 3 December 2016 (UTC). - basically implying to admins that i'm a sexist behind my back for daring to rename the section into what would imply she can be sexist towards men. which she is. she happily bragged about it herself. on camera. NFLjunkie22 (talk) 01:32, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
@Maineartists: I have to agree with you on all of the above. Is there anything constructive that we can include in the "Personal life" section or will it be deleted altogether? Jith12 (talk) 01:35, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
@Jith12: Absolutely. I would imagine that the consensus would be (once the rv'ing is brought under control), that the section be removed of all BLP violations and NOTNEWS trivia; renamed: "Personal Life", and notable inclusions relating to the subject's actual life sourced. However, at age 18, there may not be a lot out there to warrant a full section. But we can see. Maineartists (talk) 01:51, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
Jith12 your page says you're a fan of Zara Larsson, which means you're unable to be unbaised on the issue. as highlighted in this statement. NFLjunkie22 (talk) 01:38, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
@NFLjunkie22: I understand your frustration; but it is becoming somewhat obvious that there is an intention of not wanting to better the article page but to express a personal opinion in regards to the subject herself. This may be a COI. An article page on WP may not be the best place to vent such feelings and emotions. It certainly does not allow for a clear NPOV in editing. IMHO. Best. Maineartists (talk) 01:44, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
Maineartists why is this an issue? she said she hates men. the section title should reflect that. it's that simple. there are no hidden agendas here. NFLjunkie22 (talk) 01:49, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
@NFLjunkie22:You are absolutely correct. The title should reflect the content. However, the discussion here is not the title, but the actual content itself; thus in turn changing the title on its own accord after the fact. We can't keep trying to put the cart before the horse here. Maineartists (talk) 02:05, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
@NFLjunkie22: I most certainly am a fan of Zara Larsson. However, I am not suggesting any changes to the article. I am merely supporting the opinion of a neutral and asking if there will be any changes to the section in question. Jith12 (talk) 01:47, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
it's says so right there on the front page of your profile. this user is a fan of zara larsson. why do you have to lie. see? Maineartists now this is frustrating. NFLjunkie22 (talk) 01:49, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

User:Jith12/Userboxes/Zara Larsson here's the little box i found on your profile Jith12. you should add. this user lies advance his/her views on wiki. NFLjunkie22 (talk) 01:52, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

@NFLjunkie22: You might want to reread my comment. It says "I most certainly am a fan of Zara Larsson". I am not lying to you or anyone else. Wikipedia was founded for a great purpose. This certainly was not the purpose. How about we try to make Wikipedia a better place with constructive edits and comments? Jith12 (talk) 01:56, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
  • NFLjunkie22, let me give you some old man's advice. Stop playing the man: play the ball. Attacking someone because they like this person is silly; liking them doesn't make them biased. By the same token, I can claim that you're biased because you don't seem to like her. Moreover, there's a few things going on here: she made her comments apparently after certain horrible events (sexual assault is not some ordinary things we should gloss over) during her set--Johnuniq suggests something like this, I believe. But your edit places a comment about man-hating first, and buries the rest in the paragraph. Moreover, we are talking about a single incident: a few tweets and an interview? Please read WP:UNDUE: this is undue. If this is to be in the article, and as yet I don't see why, it needs to be done properly, giving proper context, noting from the get-go that this is a response to a horrible incident during her set, while she is on stage entertaining people. Drmies (talk) 02:04, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
NFLjunkie22agreed. sexual assault is definitely nothing to gloss over. neither is sexism or racism. if she would of said black people are all pigs or i happily hate black people i would consider her a racist. the same applies to sexism. she's not a child. i'll take her statements off views over yours in what she thinks. she's a grownup treat her as such. NFLjunkie22 (talk) 02:17, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for telling us what you would call her. However, at Wikipedia, reliable sources are required, and content must be "due". At a single festival where the singer appeared, five women were raped. The singer made a few heated comments as a result. That does not make her misandrist—not unless reliable sources say so. Johnuniq (talk) 04:03, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
  • I would kindly suggest to all that we redirect our focus and attention on gathering reliable sources to provide content for a better "Personal life" section; and not so much with arguments towards each others personal beliefs (which I don't think will ever be assuaged here in discussion). If the subject, given her age, continues to vocally advocate cited beliefs and begins to introduce them into her career several years down the road to where it becomes synonymous with her notability, then perhaps inevitably this topic will find itself back within the article as a more prominent factor. But for now, I think it best that we calm the waters a bit, take a step back, and figure out a consensus of approach in going forward. Best. Maineartists (talk) 04:40, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Having recently carried out a thorough clean-up of the article's inline citations, (removing undue weight, NOTNEWS trivia, placing dead link tags where necessary, and studying each reference provided) it would seem that we may be facing a somewhat difficult task in creating a Personal life section substantial enough for inclusion on this subject, as all the sources reflect her opinions and ideas relating to music and life via interviews and reviews. There is very little regarding her personal background and life history. Furthermore, in carefully assessing the article itself, it reads very much like a resume, and not like an encyclopedic article. I have gathered as many new 2016 sources not included in the references listed currently, and will try and attempt to extract as much personal life material as is possible for this subject. Any and all additional contributions to this section are certainly welcome and appreciated! Thank you. Maineartists (talk) 14:08, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

If there is not enough material for "Personal life", maybe section should be renamed to "Personal views"? Her comments about men are not "NOTNEWS trivia" and Fuse is not a single source. There are several reliable sources, also listed on this talk page, about several occasions Larsson has spoken her mind about not liking men. --Cary (talk) 15:03, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

@Cary: Good thought! However, the problem with renaming the section Personal views would be trying to find enough substantial filler to warrant an entire section based on the subject's "views" (and all that which they encompass) as a whole, not just based on her views toward men. It would still pose the problem of "undue weight". Re: "several reliable sources" -- by all means, this is what the discussion is for: if you have reliable sources that clearly state occasions separate from the incident claimed within the article, please offer them here for review (translated, of course): direct quotes from those articles will be needed in citing them within the reference template. Last, "Fuse" is the only single source citing said inline claim, since Twitter is not a reliable source. For such a strong claim of a subject, more references need to be cited separate from that occasion. Furthermore, the "Fuse" reference does not support the inline claim: Larsson described herself as a "man-hater". The idea is promoted by the interviewer: "... is not afraid to tell you that she's a man-hater". No where in the link does Larsson "describe herself as a "man-hater". A better source is needed to back such claim; or change the wording to reflect the actual source cited. Best. Maineartists (talk) 16:59, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
It's true that Twitter is not a reliable source (Larsson has tweeted, for example, that "man hating is my hobby", "man hating won't hurt a fly" and "feminism and man hating is two different things. I support both"). Anyway, If you re-check the Fuse reference, Larsson indeed called herself a "man-hater" and the idea wasn't promoted by the interviewer, or the reporter, because Larsson said it herself in the video. According to Fuse, "Zara Larsson is not afraid to tell you that she's a man-hater", and that's LITERALLY the case. And yes, later I can bring other sources too of her not liking men (both Swedish and English). --Cary (talk) 17:45, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
@Cary: You are absolutely 100% correct! my apologies. It slipped right past me! Good for you in bringing it to my attention. Thanks. Maineartists (talk) 18:35, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
lol. must have been hard for you to come to grips with that. NFLjunkie22 (talk) 22:22, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
@NFLjunkie22: Actually, not really. You'd be surprised my opinion on this matter. However, regardless of my personal feelings toward this subject, my sole priority as an editor at WP is to make sure there is a clear consensus of agreement regarding editorial content, no violations pertaining to BLPs, and conveying at all times a neutral-point-of-view regardless of personal feelings. I have found myself many times yielding to WP policy over strong opinion and belief (even on occasion having to remove myself from a subject I found personally effecting). But WP guidelines take precedence in these matters; and even if I disagree with the consensus, the neutrality of opinion must prevail. Best. Maineartists (talk) 23:07, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

I think we need another consensus. There seems to be an edit war going on about whether there should be a link to misandry on the words "man-hater". Johnuniq brought up a good point in his edit summary saying that on top of a possible misunderstanding that if you add a link to a quote it is a violation of WP:MOS#Linking. What do you all think? Jith12 (talk) 16:33, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

I made a new section for such a discussion, see #Misandry below. Johnuniq (talk) 01:16, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Misandry

Edit warring is not permitted and consensus for edits is required. However, the issues concerning the 11:00, 4 December 2016 edit may as well be explored. That edit changed

Larsson described herself as a "man-hater",

to

Larsson described herself as a "man-hater"

which links to misandry where the lead states:

Misandry is the hatred of, contempt for, or prejudice against men or boys. It is parallel in form to misogyny, and either "misandrous" or "misandristic" can be used as adjective forms of the word. Misandry can manifest itself in numerous ways, including sexual discrimination, denigration of men, violence against men, sexual objectification of men, "or more broadly, the hatred, fear, anger and contempt of men."

Reasons for not linking to misandry include:

  • WP:MOS#Linking says As much as possible, avoid linking from within quotes, which may clutter the quotation, violate the principle of leaving quotations unchanged, and mislead or confuse the reader.
  • There is no evidence that Larsson intended to declare that her views accord with misandry. She said what she said, and no more. A reliable secondary source would be needed to interpret the comments.
  • Larsson's quotes come from what the source with the quotes described as a "twitter rant". Twitter is for feelings-of-the-day—it is always a bad idea to interpret what someone says on Twitter as their definitive view on a matter.
  • I have not seen a reliable source describe Larsson's comments as misandrist, so it would be original research for this article to draw that conclusion.
  • Rather than linking to misandry, why not link to hyperbole? Both would be original research, but the latter is a much more likely interpretation.
  • Linking to misandry entirely misses the point—Larsson was reacting to the rape of five women during a festival where she had performed. It is not misandry to make over-the-top statements in reaction to such a situation.

Johnuniq (talk) 01:15, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Johnuniq Wow. Wonderful discussion with concise points of understanding. I think WP:MOS#Linking pretty much rules in this case, since most of what we are drawing from are direct quotes. I agree with your points; however, I myself see no need to link the self-proclamation based upon further confusion to the reader and drawn assumptions by the editors. At this time, as I alluded to before, the subject is quite young and reacted to a singular event. I feel that if these views and opinions are true to her nature, this may not be the last we will hear from her. IMHO. Who knows, there may come a time when either a second source comments on the matter, or the subject herself comes out and identifies as such (which is not that far-fetched). At which point, linking might prevail. Since the term has been kept in my sandbox template, should we dispel with the linking? or the objectionable quote / term all together? In other words: is it encyclopedic enough to even keep? I've read dozens and dozens of interviews regarding the subject's music and life and never has she touched upon these "man-hating" views outside of this particular response: if she had, then we might have a legitimate debate. Many celebrities have said offensive and objectionable things in the heat of one, isolated incident; but it does not define them on WP. Case in point: Linda Rondstadt attacking Robin Quivers on The Tonight Show see here TALK PAGE: [8]. Best. Maineartists (talk) 01:53, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
I think work should continue at your sandbox to draft what might be a replacement for the current section. However, it is important to also deal with the current issue in the article and I ask that anyone with an opinion add a response now. The longer misandry remains linked in the article, the more people will be able to argue that its acceptance shows a consensus for its inclusion (see WP:SILENT). Johnuniq (talk) 02:05, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
that is straight up BS and you know it. this is not excessive WP:MOS#Linking. it's only one link. your just a starstruck fan who lives in denial that her favorite little singer can be a sexists and brags about it. NFLjunkie22 (talk) 16:09, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
Agreed. Maineartists (talk) 02:08, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
she said what she said. she said she's a man hater (at 0:55 of video provided here [1]), which is THE definition of Misandry. no ifs or buts. we have NPOV issue here. you guys just can't be unbiased on the issue. this is what happen when fanboys/girls take ownership of an article. NFLjunkie22 (talk) 16:02, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
Drmies (talk · contribs) The current state of the article contains a link to misandry diff. Given sanctions, I have not edited. There is also an EW ticket open. Jim1138 (talk) 07:36, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
@Jim1138: To help assess consensus, please state an opinion: should the misandry link be retained or removed? Johnuniq (talk) 09:06, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

I think we have reached a consensus and misandry link can be removed, altough I'd like to point out that at the time Larsson described herself as a "man-hater", she wasn't reacting to sexual assaults because she gave the statement prior to the attacks. --Cary (talk) 12:47, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

NFLjunkie22: You call me a fan of hers and I'm supposed to be the delusional one? Sure. Personally, I think some of her statements can be seen to be misandrist and she even said herself that she's "happily a man-hater" (but didn't clarify the statement). It doesn't really matter what I, or you, think because it's not up to us to make that decision. There isn't any reliable sources describing her as misandrist. --Cary (talk) 16:35, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
actually it is up to us to make the decision. I think some of her statements can be seen to be misandrist no shit! you know why?? because they are misandrist. if someone told me they hate black people, i would call them a racist. why because hating someone based on their race is racist. simple logic. call spade a spade. she's a misandrist and she's happy about it. SHE SAID IT HERSELF!!!!!! NFLjunkie22 (talk) 16:40, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
NFLjunkie22 Please refer to the extensive debate for the subject Jared Taylor, who many editors wanted to label him as a "White Supremacist" on WP due to their opinions. Not only did it exhaust itself on the Talk Page, but it went into a Noticeboard discussion at considerable length (and this man has made a lifetime of his ideology and beliefs). In the end: consensus ruled (backed by WP policy, not personal opinion) that "White Nationalist" must prevail in linkage. If you can find a reliable source where the subject specifically calls herself a misandrist, or secondary sources referring to the subject as such in print or video, then I will include it. Best. PS I am not a fan of this subject, just so you know. Maineartists (talk) 16:48, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
(at 0:55 of video provided here [2]) or is there another, non misandrist type of man hating? no there isn't. NFLjunkie22 (talk) 16:54, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
  • I understand your point of view. However, the newly constructed section is now in place, and the 3RR has been reached on the article page regarding the term. It would have benefited all if the discussion could have continued before the last reversion was edited. Best. Maineartists (talk) 17:06, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U7WO54OJ9fY&ab_channel=FM
  2. ^ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U7WO54OJ9fY&ab_channel=FM

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Zara Larsson/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Carbrera (talk · contribs) 02:00, 20 January 2017 (UTC)


I'm sorry but I'm afraid I will be quick-failing this article for several reasons. Mainly because it does meet the requirements per criteria 3a, which means the article must be broad in its coverage in all aspects. The article really only discusses the success of her singles and doesn't mention anything regarding her singing/musical style, which is practically a standard on singer articles. Several sections end without citations, with ""My Heart Will Go On", originally sung by Celine Dion, was later released as Larsson's debut single.", "Larsson performed four new tracks from her album in an event in Sweden recently, called "Wanna", "Funeral", "Mississippi" and "Permission"."The song sold platinum in Sweden after two weeks."and Larsson was featured in the official song of UEFA Euro 2016, David Guetta's "This One's for You". "Not to mention the article is suspected of 90% plagarism.

Some of the citations also don't backup what's being said, such as Ref #25 which doesn't backup all of the chart positions mentioned, and Ref #26/27 doesn't call MNEK a Grammy-nominated artist (which is original research). Also, several paragraphs within the sections are just sentences, and the bulk of the article's length is a list of awards, with her pending nominations at the BRIT Awards being completely unreferenced. I'm additionally not sure how reliable websites like Posh24 are, and there is not a consistent date format for the citations. Even Ref #35 lists 31 January 2017 as the publication date, which is impossible considering today is 20 January. I'd highly recommend sending this to WP:PR before resubmitting this for GA review. You're on the right track but the article is a bit too far from meeting the current criteria at this time. Regards, Carbrera (talk) 02:15, 20 January 2017 (UTC).

@Carbrera: Hi! Thank you very much for the feedback and I will most certainly use it to improve this article. However, I am not so sure about the plagiarism accusations. It looks like urban96.fm has copied their bio for Larsson from here. If you look a the line at the website where they say "The five-song EP, Allow Me To Reintroduce Myself, was released on 5 July 2013." there is a [19] next to it. That line is where reference 19 was located before I added a bunch of citations yesterday. What do you think? Regards,
@Jith12: If that is the case, then the reference would be considered unreliable and therefore should not be used. Carbrera (talk) 01:53, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
@Carbrera: Many apologies for the extremely late reply. I never received the ping from you reply. I have removed the reference to urban96.fm. Does the article still need the plagiarism tag or can it be removed now? Thank you, Jith12 (talk) 02:17, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Sandbox Invitation - New Section

I am inviting all editors involved in this discussion to my sandbox here: [9]. Please allow it to serve as a template for a newly inserted section to replace the current Personal views within the article. As you will see, I have gathered sources and filled out the undue weight with additional information that does not place the argumentative and questionable statements at the top of the section. Nothing has been removed, but wording has been changed to better reflect the actual sources and to provide a NPOV. Personal opinion on my part has been left out. Please feel free to leave comment or opinion regarding the newly created section here, or feel free to add appropriate edits to my Sandbox. This is in effort to create a Personal life section that can be added to in the future; and displace the undue weight within the article on one specific "view" by the subject. Thanks! Maineartists (talk) 16:50, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

*If there is a consensus, I will add it once all edits are approved. Best. Maineartists (talk) 16:51, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

@Maineartists: Great idea! Thanks for taking initiative! Jith12 (talk) 17:11, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

@Maineartists: I feel that it would be more appropriate to say "Larsson is a self-proclaimed fan of Beyonce" rather than "Larsson is a self-proclaimed member of the 'Bey Hive'". I think that it will sound more encyclopedic that way. What do you think? Jith12 (talk) 18:49, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

@Jith12: Great! Thanks. Maineartists (talk) 19:51, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Maineartists Thank you, you've done a great job. However, I have one suggestion for improvement. After becoming aware of rape at festival, Larsson condemned it but also held all men responsible for the act and Fuse isn't the only source. According to Aftonbladet Larsson commented, for example, that girls feel insecure and can't even go to one festival because of men, and that she hates guys (x4). She faced a lot of criticism for her statement, and she added: "People have to understand that to generalize a privileged and socially powerful group is harmless". So I'd replace "Larsson went on social media via Twitter to condemn the act and (in the words of reporter Emilee Linder) "blaming all men for the attacks" by "Larsson went on social media via Twitter to condemn the act and held all men responsible as a group for the attacks". And maybe that she faced criticism because of the generalization (also according to SVT[10].--Cary (talk) 00:06, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

@Cary: Great! Thanks for your efforts, as well! I am perfectly fine in changing the sentence. However, I have translated the article (and have seen the same interview / tweets by other sources, as well) and I wonder if you could provide the specific quote that I could use in the template that would back the changed line: "held all men responsible as a group for the attacks"? That would make the insertion a solid, tight edit that could not be contested (which is what we're going for, I believe). Thanks! Best. Maineartists (talk) 00:29, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
IF the spesific quote is needed, it could be the following: "F*** you guys for making girls feel insecure when they go to a festival. I hate boys. Hate hate hate." She was criticized for her comments which were seen as generalization of all men, which she admitted, and responded: "It's not hard to be generalized. It's hard to feel insecure at a festival where you just want to go to have fun and enjoy. But you can't, because of men." --Cary (talk) 12:47, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
@Cary: It's not necessarily "needed" per say, but it sure does help in the template and/or inline citation. Far too many editors do not use the "quote" reference template (especially with foreign language translations). Thanks so much for this! I have included your wording (practically verbatim) in the template on my sandbox and placed it within context with NPOV. See what you think. I don't believe either side can argue since nothing has been left out, and no one is bluntly calling her: a "man-hater" in the article. Best. Maineartists (talk) 14:30, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
Looks fine. Thanks. --Cary (talk) 16:38, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
  • SWF88 While I fully appreciate your rather hastily edits to the new section, your grammar is in need of improvement. The sentence: "Due to Larsson's public expressions ..." is not only a run-on, but incomplete and in need of correct punctuation. Please bring discussion here for such major changes. Thanks! Best. Maineartists (talk) 17:47, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
SWF88 If it's alright with you, I've fixed the grammatical / punctuation errors and condensed the sentences: "Larsson's remarks and opinions toward men have begun to draw attention in both the public and media due to public expressions via her blog in Sweden (some of which has garnered criticism). Certain followers have even taken to calling her a "man-hater"; which Larsson says she "happily [is]", stating: "It doesn't really hurt men if I hate them."[1]" Are we OK with this to insert? Maineartists (talk) 18:20, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
Almost, i would post it like this. "Larsson's remarks and opinions toward men have begun to draw attention in both the public and media due, some of which has garnered criticism. [----] followers have even taken to calling her a "man-hater"; which Larsson says she "happily [is]", stating: "It doesn't really hurt men if I hate them."[1]" SWF88 (talk) 18:53, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
SWF88 Great! Thanks so much! and also for the balancing! (I forgot to add a semi-colon and remove the extra "her") Will post. Best. Maineartists (talk) 19:03, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
i'll go ahead and correct it if that's ok with you Maineartists. Also, should we keep this part Her remarks and opinions toward men have begun to draw attention in both the public and media.? i believe it's redundant at this point. SWF88 (talk) 19:01, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
SWF88Well, what we're trying to say here (which is what this discussion has been all about) are her comments specifically linking her (or not) to "misandry". At present, she only has (2) incidents. The precedent set forth by the opening statement isn't the redundant part, the wording in which we present the follow-up incidents is in supporting the claim. I think the second sentence is redundant. You are correct. What about this: "Larsson's remarks and opinions toward men have begun to draw attention in both the public and media, some of which have garnered criticism. [----] followers have even taken to calling her a "man-hater"; which Larsson says she "happily [is]", stating: "It doesn't really hurt men if I hate them."[1]? Maineartists (talk) 19:14, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
i think we should highlight the fact that it was some followers have even taken to calling her a "man-hater". saying followers outright would give the criticism undue weight. as for the misandry link. yes, we should ad it if there are reliable sources to back up the claim. SWF88 (talk) 19:27, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
please watch this[1] video SWF88. at 0:55 you'll see she admit's outright brags about being a man hater. hating men or boys is THE definition of Misandry. what further proof do you need? and it's just one link, therefore excessive linking is not a good excuse not to post it. NFLjunkie22 (talk) 19:36, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
sorry a bit distracted here. SWF88 (talk) 19:27, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
SWF88 Ha. Perfectly understandable! If you are in agreement: "Larsson's remarks and opinions toward men have begun to draw attention in both the public and media, some of which have garnered criticism. [----] followers have even taken to calling her a "man-hater"; which Larsson says she "happily [is]", stating: "It doesn't really hurt men if I hate them."[1] -- please feel free to post. Just find another suitable replacement for "some" which has already been used in the prior sentence. Thanks. Maineartists (talk) 19:33, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
I can't find a suitable replacement for some in the second sentence, and replacing it in the first to for example; "Larsson's remarks and opinions towards men have begun to draw attention in both the public and media, a few of which have garnered criticism. Some followers have even taken to calling her a "man-hater"; which Larsson says she "happily [is]", stating: "It doesn't really hurt men if I hate them." doesn't sound encyclopedic. i'll post the last version without some in the second sentence, if this is alright with you. SWF88 (talk) 19:49, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
SWF88 "A few" is particular to the situation and sounds better to me. IMHO. I say: go for it! Thanks so much for working on this with me. It's a much better section because of your involvement! Best. Maineartists (talk) 19:53, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
    • Hi! @Cary: The reason why we placed quotations marks around that specific series of words is because the reviewer from the article here: [11] Emilee Lindner wrote the words exactly. Not only that, the specific act of blaming needs to be defined, as the sentence uses the term: "seen", which is not specific. The reviewer has stated this precisely, we have not proven that the followers have: thus the quotations (and implication). Further comments? Maineartists (talk) 21:58, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
Maineartists: I see, thank you for clarifying. --Cary (talk) 22:35, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Zara Larsson. 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.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:24, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Dancer?

Zara Larsson has been listed as a dancer. I would disagree, but I haven't watched her most recent live shows so I may be wrong. 37KZ (talk) 16:16, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Include Mention of the Roblox Zara Larsson Concert?

A few hours ago, there was a concert on the gaming platform ROBLOX, dedicated to Larsson. The event was an absolute disaster, from the videos I am seeing. Larsson cussed in front of many children (many streamers that appealed to younger audiences had that shown to them, to rub salt into it), there were multiple flashing lights throughout which hurt many people's eyes, and it was very boring with nothing to do. Plus, there were many glitches hat caused people to become naked. I think this should be included in the "controversy" section. Since my editing is rubbish, however, I can't do it. Should we include this? Or should we wait for reliable sources, and more time to pas to se what happened, in all? Pain is fantastic (talk) 01:06, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

  1. ^ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U7WO54OJ9fY&ab_channel=FM
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Zara_Larsson/Archive_1&oldid=1103575881"