Talk:James Arthur/Archive 1

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

Single release[edit]

does anyone know when James Arthurs single 'Impossible' is being released? Tony (talk) 22:41, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They said on The Xtra Factor that it's already out now! Go get it! Unreal7 (talk) 23:06, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

does that include CD singles or just downloads? Tony (talk) 23:22, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just downloads, the CD has to be produced and distributed first. –anemoneprojectors– 17:04, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Place of birth[edit]

Where was James Arthur born? was it Middlesbrough or Saltburn? i know he lives in Saltburn but why do they always mention Middlesbrough, was he born there but moved to Saltburn? Tony (talk) 22:47, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think James was born in Middlesbrough but grew up in Saltburn. Unreal7 (talk) 23:05, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

im confused, ive now heard that he lived in the Middle east Tony (talk) 23:23, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Like Saudi Arabia? Seems unlikely. –anemoneprojectors– 17:05, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's true, he lived in Bahrain. –anemoneprojectors– 22:34, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

James was actually born in Middlesbrough, moved abroad for five years then back to the UK (Saltburn) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JamesADaily (talk • contribs)

ok thanks for finding out :) that means James Arthur was born in the same town as me :) Tony (talk) 13:26, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Years active[edit]

James Arthur has been performing for a few years now so should the years active have an earlier date rather than 2012-present? Tony (talk) 18:51, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He's only been professional for this long. Unreal7 (talk) 21:33, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly contest this 2012 as start of him being active. Just check the bands he was active in singing "original songs" of his own composition at times as far back as 2005. He had his own album called Sins by the Sea in 2011, a full album mind you! In 2011, he had 2 EPs as James Arthur Band. We can go much further back particularly with Save Arcade where he was lead vocals with the EP Truth in 2010. His "Said You'd Be There" with Moonlight Drive where he was lead vocals was in 2006! After the many additional infos I have added, 2012 is such an anomaly. And no, we don't quote starts of career with so-called "professional" status, but rather with an "active music debut" that has to be at least 2005-2006 not later. werldwayd (talk) 09:38, 17 December 2012 (UTC) werldwayd (talk) 09:50, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Need a photo![edit]

We clearly need a photo of this gentleman. Any suggestions or any authorized photographs? werldwayd (talk) 09:45, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We have one now thanks to User:Anthony Winward. –anemoneprojectors– 23:42, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Education[edit]

With me being from the same town as James Arthur and knowing people who know him i have had word that he use to go to my college which is Middlesbrough College where he did a music course, should i add this to his early life section?Tony (talk) 13:29, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No because that's original research. It needs to be verifiable from a reliable source. –anemoneprojectors– 13:46, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

James Arthur winners book[edit]

I have just recently read the James Arthur winners book which talks about his life and it has loads of information about when he was starting out as a singer which would be good for this article, i have not been able to find the book on the internet where i can get references from but does anyone know how I can get it up? Tony (talk) 22:54, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You can cite the book using {{cite book}}. –anemoneprojectors– 23:35, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus to move. While the current evidence suggests the singer may be the primary topic already, the feeling is that it may be too early to tell decisively. The question may be worth returning to in the future. Cúchullain t/c 16:03, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

– I can tell I'm going to get hit with "All down to recentism", but were the other four James Arthurs even that notable in the first place? Unreal7 (talk) 15:44, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose - Recent popularity alone does not make the singer primary. Neither would statistics. Let's wait for five more years. --George Ho (talk) 03:58, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Even if the singer never releases another song in his life, he will still clearly be the primary topic, having scored a number one single in both the United Kingdom and Ireland, number two in Australia and Switzerland, and number eight in Slovakia, in the process selling over 1.3 million copies (a pretty select group manage that achievement in the United Kingdom). The only two other people with articles on the disambiguation page are barely notable. Whilst I have been quite happy to oppose things on the grounds of recentism myself, this one really is a no-brainer. Skinsmoke (talk) 12:00, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The page views for the other 2 entries are very low, and as Skinsmoke says even if the singer was never to release another record his notability and popularity has already been established. I can understand users wanting to oppose these pop-culture articles being moved to PT but if looking at the page views I think the move is justified.

For the record here are page views over the last 90 days:

[1] James Arthur (theologian) has been viewed 409 times

[2] James Arthur (mathematician) has been viewed 3001 times

[3] James Arthur (singer) has been viewed 397686 times

As for users screaming WP:RECENT it's worth pointing out that both the other 2 articles have less than 50 edits each, and were created in 2006 and 2007. Zarcadia (talk) 17:40, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. Basically what George Ho said. The singer's views are high because he's current. Give it a few years and the views may be as low as other winners of The X Factor such as Matt Cardle or Leon Jackson. The page views for the other two James Arthurs aren't that low either. –anemoneprojectors– 19:06, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The views for the last 90 days for:

[4] Leon Jackson 59819

[5] Matt Cardle 150678

...still heavily outweigh the other 2 James Arthur's, therefore disproving your point. Zarcadia (talk) 19:15, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Somehow those aren't the results I saw when I looked. But it doesn't disprove my point. My point is that what George Ho said is correct. Recent popularity and statistics wouldn't make a subject primary. They were just additional comments, not my actual point. –anemoneprojectors– 09:49, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Actually, I'm begining to wonder what anemone would consider to be a WP:PRIMARY TOPIC in this case. The other two articles attract minimal interest, whether in incoming links, page views or edits. Given that, I fail to see the advantage in forcing the considerable number seeking the singer to go through a disambiguation page to find the article they want. As has already been pointed out, that imbalance between the singer and the other two pages is highly unlikely to be reversed in the future. It might be worthwhile reminding ourselves what the guidelines state:

Determining a primary topic
There are no absolute rules for determining whether a primary topic exists and what it is; decisions are made by discussion among editors, often as a result of a requested move. Tools that may help to support the determination of a primary topic in a discussion (but are not considered absolute determining factors) include:
(1) Incoming wikilinks from Special:WhatLinksHere
(2) Wikipedia article traffic statistics
(3) Google web, news, scholar, or book searches.

Skinsmoke (talk) 10:47, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Yes, it is recentism. He may very well disappear without trace as previous talent show winners have done. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:12, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: He may well do. But with 1.3 million copies of a single sold he will always be far more notable than either of the other two entries. He is one of only 117 artists to sell more than a million singles in the United Kingdom since records began in 1952. He may vanish from the music scene in the future, but the sales achievement will stand in the records whatever happens to him. Skinsmoke (talk) 12:36, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Wikipedia:Recentism does not mean that we cannot take recent events into account. That essay (not even a guideline) states:

Recentism is writing or editing without a long-term, historical view, thereby inflating the importance of a topic that has received recent public attention...

It goes on to advise:

In ten years will this addition still appear relevant? If I am devoting more time to it than other topics in the article, will it appear more relevant than what is already here?

In this case, we have to decide, in ten years time is this James Arthur likely to be the primary topic out of the articles we have on the disambiguation page today. Given that the others are barely notable, the answer has to be yes. Skinsmoke (talk) 15:02, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support there is good reason to believe that this person is the primary topic both now and in the future. Tiggerjay (talk) 04:39, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Belgium reference[edit]

What's up with the Belgium reference? Unreal7 (talk) 11:42, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There was a return between "cite" and "web". –anemoneprojectors– 17:33, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 2[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Andrewa (talk) 19:14, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

– Almost a year since the last requested move, and he doesn't appear to have vanished yet... Unreal7 (talk) 23:09, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. Still too recent to say. The 2nd year is usually the tell-all for these artists. If he's still relevant a year from now I would support.--Tuzapicabit (talk) 23:46, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - sorry still WP:RECENT, it would need 2-3 years for an X Factor winner to establish himherself as a long term significant primary topic for an encyclopedia. The former President of the American Mathematical Society and the 17th Century theologian haven't vanished yet either. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:30, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Still WP:RECENT. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:38, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 3[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. Clear consensus that the singer is the primary topic, the page view stats are compelling evidence. Jenks24 (talk) 06:03, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]


– It's been three years since James Arthur won The X Factor, and, unlike Steve Brookstein and Leon Jackson, he's still in the public eye. His new album comes out in 2016 and IMO all he's done already (and will do in the future) still outweighs anything any of his namesakes have done. One of the opposers of the second move request said they'd support him being the primary topic if he wasn't irrelevant within a year, and he isn't. Unreal7 (talk) 15:58, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose still not more important than all James Arthurs in world history combined. He is a (singer), there's no shame in having (singer) after the name. In ictu oculi (talk) 18:06, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Who said anything about shame? It's an unnecessary inconvenience. Unreal7 (talk) 22:44, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. The singer received 56,184 page views in the last 90 days, over 6x more than all the other ambiguous topics combined: 6102 for James Arthur (album), 1655 for James Arthur (mathematician), 301 for James Arthur (poet), 202 for James Osborne Arthur, and 109 for James Arthur (theologian). The fact that the second most viewed "James Arthur" is the singer's own album is another strong indication that he's the primary topic, as does the fact that the dab page received 1728 page views, more than all of the other topics not associated with the singer.--Cúchullain t/c 18:29, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Cúchullain. 87% of pageviews after all this time is compelling. Dohn joe (talk) 20:53, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The pageview stats show he is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Out of curiousity, I checked the stats for July 2015 (when the latest series of The X Factor wasn't on), and the singer received 85% of the pageviews, and his album received 11%. AnemoneProjectors 13:27, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Cúchullain. Film Fan 20:56, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Still hasn't released a second album yet. Let's wait for that and then we can reassess.--Tuzapicabit (talk) 11:46, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Obvious WP:PRIMARYTOPIC per Cuchullain's analysis. Cavarrone 20:26, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on James Arthur. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 20:49, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on James Arthur. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 08:48, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on James Arthur. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 09:10, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unreliable Sources[edit]

I think we need to check the reliability of some of the listed sources. If they're not reliable, we'd have to replace them with more reliable sources. Agree? 86.29.64.45 (talk) 20:03, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

{{sfn}} or {{sfnp}}?[edit]

Would you lads prefer {{sfn}} or {{sfnp}}? --Biscuit-in-Chief (Talk – Contribs) 19:02, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Some stuff that got removed that I want back on the page[edit]

A few days ago the stuff I had put on under "Personal life". I understand that some of it was encyclopedic, but I still want to discuss a few things:

  • The source I used was a book written by James Arthur. According to the reverter, Begoon (talk · contribs), that's an unreliable source (at least he stated What you [Biscuit-in-Chief] added to that article [James Arthur] was badly sourced gossip here). I'd like to know why.
  • Some of the stuff that was in the particular section before I started editing it was just plain wrong; for example, according to Arthur's book, he moved back to England from Bahrain when he was 13, not 14 which was previously written.<ref>Arthur, James (2017): Back to the Boy
  • @Begoon: You commented er, yeah - no when you reverted this. I'd like you to clarify what you meant with this.
  • I understand that "eye injury" needed to go, but I don't understand the need to all the other stuff I'd written.
  • Begoon, you threatened to block me if I didn't stop, which I find completely unfair. Please, see WP:FAITH2#What "Bad Faith" Is NOT.

In general, I'm quite upset about this whole thing, and I'm sorry if I pissed anyone—especially you, Begoon—off. But you pissed me off and made me upset, too. So, please, give me reasons to the questions above. --Biscuit-in-Chief (Talk – Contribs) 15:14, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to revert you again or enter into a long discussion, for fear of "upsetting" you further, so I suggest you add whatever you think is encyclopedic, relevant and well-sourced, and other editors can decide whether it is appropriate or not. -- Begoon 00:01, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:James_Arthur/Archive_1&oldid=1079342662"