Talk:Sandi Thom

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

The song lyrics[edit]

Normally it would not be allowed but it seems as if it has come from the official producers, so is it possible to make an allowance? MrDark 13:22, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're allowed to quote reasonable extracts, which this article would seem to need. Tyrenius 14:28, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From Google blogsearch and trends[edit]

First references are in July/August 2005 - apparently she'd had a song played on Radio 2 by Terry Wogan : "I Wish I Was A Punk Rocker".

Three people blog about seeing her live on September 22, 2005. It appears she played a gig that day. The song seems to have got further radio airplay in September and October. There are references to a "video" for the song as well. Then not much happening until February, when we get a claim saying she deserves "musical glory", and then finally on 7 March we get a reposting of a reuters story about this webcast thing.

So, no impact on Blogosphere AT ALL, despite the gigs from home thing being a succesful meme?

Google trends doesn't show very much before about April, when she'd signed.

Morwen - Talk 10:58, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone try to find out when these supposed 21 nights were? Morwen - Talk 14:37, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, why does google for ' "Viking Legacy Records" -Thom get zero hits'? [1] claims that "Brown was introduced to Thom by her Scottish multimillionaire backer, founder of Orkney Island-based Viking Legacy Records. Room With A View studio-owner and audio-wizard, Stephen Darrell Smith appears as one of four producers on Thom's debut, 2005, single "I Wish I Was a Punk Rocker"." Morwen - Talk 15:02, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Arse, part of the article has been copyvioed from [2]
Interview with her manager [3] here which seems to shed quite a lot more light on it, her manager Ian Brown (presumably not that one) being quite frank. Morwen - Talk 16:43, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There's a weird vagueness about the viewing figures for the webcasts, with the terms "fans", "audience" and "viewers" being used in different articles.

That song[edit]

I don't know if she's being an ironic smart-arse or a just stupid hippie, but if she was a punk rocker with flowers in her hair all the other punks would kick her teeth in and the gob all over her. Not such a romantic image now, is it our San?--Crestville 11:50, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That grated on me too when I first heard it, but I think I know what might be going on. "Flowers in my hair" fits perfectly for a hippie chick in 1969, but note that she sings about "'77 and '69" - would 1977 be right for punks? If so, perhaps she's merging two different times when, subjectively at least, music was really significant and "going to change the world". The "punk rocker with flowers in her hair" is a composite of the two - she's not wishing she was literally dressed in a particular way at a particular time, but that the world could be like it was at one of those times (doesn't matter which... they're all the same... they're before she was born anyway...) when music was truely important.
Or that could all be bollocks and she's just thick :-) PeteVerdon 21:13, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, it's on purpose and it's a composite. Ironic smart-arse, yes. Morwen - Talk 21:21, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, any comments on my rewrite? I've written an lj entry about the whole thing here. It looks like we could have well been astroturfed mildly, but it might just be an enthusiastic fan, or whatever. Although I can come up with a plausible narrative linking the events of late 2005 with the tour, I don't have any references for it. It must have been pretty awful having the single go in at #55 when she'd been hyped so much, though. Morwen - Talk 21:23, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I found the board entry where they were talking about this, eventually. Just a case of overenthusiastic fans. Morwen - Talk 02:13, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nice re-write--Manc ill kid 20:50, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I never get why people need to ask this question. No one ever seems to slag off The Beatles because they are obviously NOT "the Walrus" and therefore their song can't be taken literally oh silly Liverpudlian scallywags, etc. Nor do they feel the need to question whether Queen really do think the world only rotates because of the ladies with large posteriors ("Fat Bottomed Girls you make the rockin' world go round"), but for some reason the lyrics of this song need to be held up to a higher level of scrutiny? I just don't get it ... --Stenun 00:10, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
She just wants to be a revolutionary. Sweetie Petie 14:45, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The lyrics to this and other songs can be better understood in the context of their being written by a team of professional songcrafters - the same people who write hits for boy bands such as Westlife, Blue, Busted and The Noise Next Door. Men, and middle-aged men, such as those comprising Thom's songwriting team - including John McLaughlin, Ian Brown, Simon Perry - tend to have a different world-view to women, and young women at that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.216.5.7 (talk • contribs)

She wrote it herself and recorded it on a shoestring budget didn't she? BTW - everyone spent ages trying to work out who "the walrus" was - John had to write a song explaining there was no walrus and then another in which he accepted it. Then there was that stupid "Paul is Dead" theory/ People still talk about it. And women with fat arses do make the rockin' world go 'round.--Crestville 16:47, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The song is credited to Thom/Gilbert. Gilbert is apparently a pseudonym for her manager. Secretlondon 17:00, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I feel so violated. In that case, which one is the smart arse wanker? Or is it a little from column a) a little from column b)? Ahh, the punks can just batter both of them.--Crestville 09:17, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

God, you are so arrogant. just because it doesn't make sense to you immediatly doesn't mean you can just slag her off on wikipedia. she IS trying to embody the two styles, like the smart person who commented after you said, shes not saying she actually WANTS to be a punk rocker with flowers in her hair, and if you listen to the rest of the song then you'll realise shes talking about the TIME when she thought the world was a better place.

Yeah, I gathered that. I'll let you in on a little secret: I've heard the song and I secretly knew what she was getting at all along. It's what is known as a piss take, I'm guessing the clever person who followed me knew that and so did everyone else involved in this discussion bar you. I took the piss out of the song because it was written by an ironic pain in the arse (and her manager, apparently) and it does my head in. She prattles on about how it was recorded in her bedsit - get this: it fucking sounds like it was recorded in a bedsit. BTW, you can slag off someone on wikipedia just becuase you don't get their song. I wouldn't do it myself, but you can. You can slag anyone off for any reason whatsoever (unless its another user, obviously). It's not arrogance, it's the joy of the freedom of speech.--Crestville 17:09, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if its freedom of speech, then you have no right to 'bar me' from this discussion, or is that just your arrogance again? and so what if it was recorded in a bed sit? if she prattles on about it, she obviously doesn't care, i don't care, nor do the other 40,000 people who bought her record. who also don't care if her lyrics are 'technically' wrong to the imediate listener who knows nothing about her, aka you.

I think I'd get more done talking to a brick wall. At the very least they'd not get the wrong end of the stick and proceed to swing it wildly. Example: "everyone bar you" in this context is not an invitation to bar you from the discussion, but rather a statement that everyone except [bar] you was in on the joke. --Crestville 15:19, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1967 was the summer of love of course, whereas 1969 was the summer of the Charles Manson killings. When it comes to songs about 1969, I prefer Bryan Adams. At least there's a possibility he was sincere. - --bingo99 14:55, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ha, I concur.--Crestville 17:33, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dates[edit]

This thread on a music industry board has lots of info (see [4] for example). It is claimed that the last date was 16 March 2006. It is also claimed that she performed at the Windmill Pub in Brixton on the 13 March.. Secretlondon 14:05, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Macorkindale ( http://www.myspace.com/chrismacorkindale ) writes in his blog ((linked removed because of spam filter) - this has now been made friend-viewing only ):

Tuesday, March 14, 2006

SANDI THOM ROCKS! Current mood: tired Category: Music

Dear readers...I'm going to use this blog space to share my experiences of attending live gigs, listening to new music and to reflect the process of doing my own music.

Sandi Thom. Now there's a subject...don't get me started...oh, all right then! In my capacity as a freelance talent scout for the Windmill Brixton, I have recently been scouring low key venues in London for promising new acoustic acts. The purpose of this is, primarily, to assist my associate Mark Spall in putting on acts at the next acoustic festival at the venue (hopefully sometime in May with a barbecue, folks!). I'd just recommended two brilliant young singer/songwriters (Dominic Weeks and Rory Nunn) when I came across a news report on Channel 4 news (later repeated on the BBC). Apparently, there was a young female singer/songwriter who was broadcasting a webcast of a nightly gig she and her band had been performing in the basement of their rented house in Tooting, South London (a stone's throw from where I live) for the last two weeks. It transpired that, not only did she have a small audience in attendance each night, but upwards of 160,000 people had logged on to view the webcast.

I checked out her website, heard some of the songs (although I didn't have the chance to view the whole webcast), noting that she had management, a video and an album coming out. I then called my old pal Mark and he took her under consideration.

Next thing I know, the Windmill had a band cancellation and were looking to fill the night of Monday 13 March at short notice. Bingo! She's playing! Mark had contacted her management and she was only too happy to transfer the gig from her basement (don't blame her...performing to 10 people in a confined space every night would get me down) to the Windmill. Mark had also tried to contact Rory Nunn about playing, but I guess he didn't get the message in time.

On the night, support was from Michael Tyack and Will Summers from Circulus. They're sort of a psychedelic instrumental acoustic rock outfit with a strong mediaeval theme but, on this evidence, they reminded me of what Sid Vicious would sound like if he was an Elizabethan. Will exuded a certain downbeat urbane charm on flutes and Michael was positively a whirling dervish on guitar and drum (as much as you can be sat on a stool). It was entertaining in a weird sort of way, although it got a bit much when Michael started gesturing at the crowd with two curved swords. Don't ask...

Then on came Sandi. A decent sized crowd had arrived to see her and she didn't disappoint. She's only a little lady but she had a great voice that packed a punch. Both she and her band were tight as a gnat's arse, as you'd expect from a group that played together every night. Her songs varied from breezy uptempo nu-folk numbers to very effective slo-mo ballads. The only slight disappointment was that she chose to play two covers (Stevie Wonder's "Living for the City and Thunder Clap Newman's "Something in the Air"), which is not normally done at a serious venue like the Windmill, but was probably down to Sandi having to prepare a longish set at short notice. However, the quality of her performance was uniformly excellent, she has a bright future and we'll definitely have her back!

Please note that you can read more about Sandi Thom, Circulus, Rory Nunn, Dominic Weeks and the Windmill Brixton on myspace.com. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.216.5.7 (talk • contribs)

Recent original research[edit]

Citing google trends directly and particularly referring to companies house records is Wikipedia:original research, and we shouldn't be doing that. If the press is doing that we can certainly pick up on what they are saying.

However, in reality, there is a Legacy Records registered, company number SC264518, which appears to be the one involved (its registered office is in Aberdeen). This demonstrates the pitfalls of doing original research. Also, using google trends to check for viral marketing itself is flawed: obviously if something is being forwarded around between people, there will be no need to google for it (similarly, alexa probably won't find webcast traffic). Morwen - Talk 11:55, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who are the principals of the Aberdeen registered Legacy Records Limited? ie. who is Angus Sinclair and any others associated with this entity? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.216.5.7 (talk • contribs)

Seven-piece urban band[edit]

There's no evidence anywhere that she was in "an unnamed 7-member band which got to the semi-finals of BBC Radio 1's urban music awards." It would have been between 1999 and 2003, Radio 1 didn't have any urban music awards then, and how could a seven-piece band in a competition have no name?--Manc ill kid 20:50, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the hundreds of media stories saying she did would have to count as evidence, to some extent. It's an extremely unusual thing to fabricate. In fact, have a look here, which appears to be the competition in question: although it's not clear which year her band entered. seems to go back to 2002, at least. I've been unable to find stories specifically referring to the band in question, mind. Morwen - Talk 12:11, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Aye, but there's also been hundreds of media stories saying she's been compared to KT Tunstall and Janis Joplin. None of them have justified this by explaining that in such comparisons she comes out as worst.--Manc ill kid 10:09, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One reason you may find it difficult researching this combo - the group did not use a name for its title, but, instead - used a symbol of a cat; it is, literally, a no-name situation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.216.5.7 (talk • contribs)

God, she's as bad as the artist formerly known as the artist formerly known as Prince. -- Dandelions 16:28, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy[edit]

Shouldn't the controversy over the allegations (Guardian) of her public relations funded rise to fame be mentioned in the article?

http://arts.guardian.co.uk/netmusic/story/0,,1786403,00.html --hugo 06:23, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is. In fact that article is already listed as a reference.
Nb just putting this link here for a moment-> [5] as it didn't fit with the referencing system used. We need a paragraph or two about the actual critical reaction (or rather: the lack of it), this should be used as a reference. Morwen - Talk 23:27, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Narrative flow[edit]

The recent reorder has been generally good: but it has broken the narrative flow of the article : in particular the first mention of the York & Wales gigs is now after the second mention of them. The story about the breakdown needs that context. Not sure what to be doing here? Morwen - Talk 23:30, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox[edit]

I added an Infobox, not sure how complete it is/accurate. What's the standard for sorting out Genre's, and label wise I'm not sure how changes are listed, so it needs editing to make it accurate. I'm also putting Year as 2005 because that's when the single Punkrocker was first released.

Narrrrrrberth![edit]

How come noones mentioned that just before she started doing internet gigs she went to an acoustic gig at Narberth?

Huh? HUH?

Jetamo

Cover band[edit]

It seems very unlikely that you could be in a The Residents cover band called The Residents. That would be passing off, wouldn't it? Secretlondon 21:52, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the same thing.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 23:52, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am the subject of this article[edit]

I'm the subject. I own this article. --Sandi Thom 23:06, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No you are not. You seem to be a sockpuppet and you first edit on Wikipedia was to delete Allison Stokke. Not really normal for Sandi Thom (or a newbie) to go on and start talking about WP:FANCRUFT. Between 13:30 and 14:15 on 8 June 2007, it seemed that many new accounts are made specifically for supporting the deletion of Allison Stokke. This can be found near the bottom of this page.

Image copyright problem with Image:Smile...It Confuses People cover.jpg[edit]

The image Image:Smile...It Confuses People cover.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --02:58, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits[edit]

Daschund, Skinnylizzy: can you two please discuss what you're up to here, rather than constantly reverting each other?

Daschund, this is not a minor edit; it's reverting back to your preferred version.

Daschund, Skinnylizzy: a good policy on Wikipedia is bold, revert, discuss - you edited boldly (good), Skinnylizzy reverted you (good), then the pair of you proceeded to edit war over it (bad). Both of you - please start discussing your edits instead of edit-warring.

Sorry to be so abrupt, but you're both good editors and should be acting like good editors ;-)

Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 18:18, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Page is being reverted to fan site information that is directly being used on promotional sites for artist, when i ask for citations to confirm changes nothing seems to happen except another publicity shot, so revert to original. also D seems to think that i am in fact resonsible for anything that is not promoting artist when in fact th 99% of my changes were grammatical and anything i have published is all verified. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skinnylizzy (talk • contribs) 18:27, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I do have some sympathy for your position; I've been in discussion with Daschund recently and I understand that they feel the article is overly critical. I've explained Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy but I'm not sure if it makes sense yet to Daschund (there are a huge amount of policies to learn and understand). In the meantime, everything can be solved by discussing the issue with each other instead of constantly reverting. Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 18:33, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou, D has again removed all reference to Sandi Thoms affiliation to SNP in Biography and this is an integral part of Sandi Thom information as she appears at many snp confrences and does publicity work for snp abroad, why does it have to be removed? i cant seem to restore it but will continue to try. could you possibly revert this for me if you think appropriate? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skinnylizzy (talk • contribs) 18:43, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see it being removed in the last three edits, so I presume it was removed in the earlier round of editing and will be virtually impossible to easily undo. Best thing would of course be to ask Daschund why it was removed. I can think of reasons for keeping it and for removing it: as I understand it Sandi Thom isn't an SNP member, so it may give undue weight to apparent political beliefs, but on the other hand it is a well-documented aspect of her life. Anyway, best bet is for the pair of you to discuss it, and reach a compromise/consensus position. Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 18:47, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
...I've added a {{fact}} tag to it; can you add a reference (and remove the fact tag)? In fairness I should add I also fixed and reinstated the tags you added earlier and that were removed! Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 18:54, 13 March 2009 (UTC) Reference added by User:Skinnylizzy - thanks! This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 19:00, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Sandi"[edit]

Just a general comment - there are a few places where the article's subject is called "Sandi". Per WP:NPOV she should either be called "Sandi Thom" or "Thom". "Sandi" implies familiarity which is inappropriate and non-neutral. If I get time later I'll go through and fix, but I thought since there's a lot of editing right now editors could either make sure they use "Thom" for new text, or fix old text in passing.

Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 18:58, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


A lot of these are the quotations and paragraphs that are being lited wholesale from promotional info from subject altho im sure im guilty as well. Id like to thankyou again for putting me in the right direction. Skinnylizzy (talk) 19:03, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

duly noted re the thom/sandi thom t-bob.

Question about sourcing[edit]

skinny lizzy please explain the fan site you are getting your info from and please elaborate on where you think im getting my info from wholesale please —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daschund (talk • contribs) 19:08, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Will verify.
As you can see it is not me who is replacing whole sections you deem unsuitable and information that you think is degrogatry toward subject.
Subject is in print verified as supporting SNP and official SNP literature is available to view on page with Thoms signature and image. It is not something that should be removed because subject now wants to distance herself from politics. Support and denial citations are both on page.
Wiki is about neutrality and there are many sections that i took part in that are favourable to subject. The fact that since the launch of second album things havent gone in subjects favour does not mean fact are glossed over as can be seen on many other wiki pages where a career has hit problems. Everything is documented and this is not a promotional site or fan site for any of the subjects on wiki so deleting information just because it does not put subject in good light isnt really the idea of this place. :Skinnylizzy (talk) 19:33, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

how can you say that, when the only info on this page paints subject in a bad light, wheres the neutrality? wheres your objectivity? subjects page as it stands is promoting a wholly negative view, if anything its a fan site for haters. its like reading comments on you tube.

there is nothing factual about it. its all hearsay, rumour and conjecture.

i already said re the snp snippet, im not deleting it entirely, just from the bio section at the beggining, i fully intend to discuss in detail subjects affiliation with snp, but im not allowed the freedom and time to discuss her parents and upbrigning because my every effort is thwarted.

honestly this is like trying to write an essay and having every paragraph deleted on completion. there is a lot of info on this page, which i know for a fact to be untrue and i am trying to present the facts.

i sincerely doubt if i was on lily allens page trying to say she won an ivor novello award, id encounter this much resistance.

you obviously follow subjects career from the opposite side of the fan spectrum than i do and clearly have a problem with subject.

please, allow me a little latitude, some breathing room, allow me to re-write some sections un molested. you dont hand in an essay after the first draft.

i am in possession of the true facts.

Daschund (talk) 19:59, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Daschund, one of the problems I'm having with all this is I can't see that the (old) article did paint the subject in a bad light, or in a wholly negative way. It seemed fairly balanced to me, as an uninvolved observer who knows very little about Sandi Thom. Certainly I didn't read the article and think "she's an evil witch" ;-)
Your point about the SNP affiliation makes sense to me - I don't think it's relevant to a biography section, but is certainly worth mentioning elsewhere.
The Ivor Novello award should not be in the introduction (in my view) as the introduction should establish why Thom is notable ("she's a singer") and awards should be discussed later on (for much the same reason as her political affiliations should be left until later in the article).
I don't follow Thom's career at all (I realise you were speaking to Skinnylizzy, but be aware that it's not just fans and critics who edit or read the article).
True facts are all well and good, but the article has to have verifiable statements from reliable sources. This helps prevent the article be abused by critics who invent false and unverifiable claims, as it means all claims in the article can be checked. This is a good thing, even if it makes it harder for people who might have "inside information".
Finally, you should aim to have each edit to the page be a complete edit - i.e. don't add a claim with the intention of adding a reference to support it later - find the reference, then add both in one edit. Alternatively, you could rewrite the article in your own userspace (for example, create a copy of the article at User:Daschund/Sandi Thom) and move it here when you're satisfied with it. The disadvantage with that, however, is that the main article may well be edited in the meantime.
Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 20:16, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rumour heaesay conjecture? im sure if you look at the article all citations have been added (not all of them by me) Lily Allen? what on earh has lily allen to do with this. I can only come to the conclusion after your comment that you are a big follower of subject. Im certainly not "Coming from any agenda or dislike of subject, Far from it. By your statement "I am in possesion of the true facts" it could mean a number of things, firstly you are in paid employment of the subject, or you are a personal friend of subject or you are as i say a very big fan of the subject. either way or if none of those, it is now fairly obvious you can not be objective over the subject as anything that does not sit comfortably with your view is deemed as an attack on the artist in question even if those facts have been verified and your version of events have to be taken as read and the truth without question because as you say "YOU know the truth!". I have at all times in my editing tried not be seen as coming down either side of the fence while stating facts that have at times been both supportive and sometyimes not of subject. There is a balanced view of Thom on page but it seems you are determined to remove anything that you do not agree with. That is not the basis that Wiki works on and if your version of events leaves out any of the surrounding controvery or claims and denials that have have all been verified already your page will be altered to show these omissions and any new information that you do put forward will all have to be verified in citation and not by as you say hearsay or your confirmation that it is true because you say so. I will also not allow a "Little latitude" on your view of subject when it comes to sources information or promotion. I wholeheartedly aggree with the Wiki policy of balance and would not want a page or its editor to given "Latitude" because it is declared that they "Know the truth" Where would that end on here? "I know the truth" is not a valid statement for rewriting a page that already has verification on it a great number of times.Skinnylizzy (talk) 20:35, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


the only reason i included the ivor novello tid bit was because after looking at other artists pages for guidance on how to format it, all their intros had grammy this, brit award that, emmy, oscar you name it !

when i say bad light, i dont mean the page paints subject herself to be a monster, i mean the facts themselves are posted in a wholly negative way.

i understand the concerns about promotion etc, but where is the line drawn on smear tactics, it is far from balanced.

look, when i write something and preview it before saving, are you able to reveiw the previews, can the previews be saved?

from now on , i will not touch the existing text, i will create new sections , surely i dont have to provide a link to whatever govt dept has an on-line record of where she was born and to whom ?

please allow me some latitude.

Daschund (talk) 21:19, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In my view those other articles are largely wrong ;-) Sandi Thom isn't defined by the fact that she's won an Ivor Novello award, she's defined by being a singer. This is one of those things that battles are fought over, however, and many articles will contain awards in the introduction simply because they're at that stage in the battle ;-)
I have to admit I still don't really understand what you mean about the way Thom is presented - could you give an example?
We can't review something when you're still previewing it on this article, but if you copied the article to a subpage of your userspace (e.g. to User:Daschund/Sandi Thom) then we could.
Ideally you would provide references even for birth date, parentage, etc, but realistically references are only needed for claims that are likely to be disputed. In practice aim for somewhere in the middle - provide references for what you can. Un-referenced claims can be removed, whereas an edit that removed a referenced claim would most likely be regarded as vandalism and reverted, so references are a good idea where ever possible.
Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 21:29, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

D i just dont see where the bad light thing comes from. you are NOT being objective. i have learned on here over time that information must be verified and citation given other wise your work will be remeoved very quickly. Which i now stick by. Removing cited work is not the thing to do, even if you see it as unfavourable to the subject. This site is not the place to go into an in depth study of Subject and any information not deemed necersary to the page gets removed as i have found out. If its an in depth fans eye view you want to publish there are better sites than this to do so., just remember that anything and everything does get questioned and you getting upset and accusing others of being haters while proffesing yourself to be a big fan of subject could be seen as something of a bias on your part by other editors meaning that any work that is published could be looked at much more carefully than it normally would. Skinnylizzy (talk) 21:42, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Oxfam section factual and concise!!..add your citations, then they are here for ever. Skinnylizzy (talk) 21:52, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Daschund, I've left a note on your talk page about references. If you're still unsure, post the URL (web address) here and I (or Skinnylizzy) can add it for you. Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 21:55, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Structure[edit]

Daschund, Skinnylizzy (and anyone else who's interested): I've been catching up with your work over the last few hours (it was bedtime in my timezone!) and you both seem to be making good progress. I noticed some comments about having the Nitin Sawney episode in the Homecoming section, and that got me looking at the layout of the article. Could I suggest something like:

  • Biography
    • LIPA
  • Career
    • Re-Release of "I Wish I Was A Punk Rocker" & Success
    • Performing
    • What if I'm Right/Lonely Girl
    • 21 Nights From Tooting & Surrounding Controversy
    • Webcasting
    • Promotion
    • Sony (RCA)
      • Signing with Sony (RCA)
      • Doubts about the webcast
      • Sandi's response
      • The Devil's Beat, Saturday Night and The Pink & The Lily
      • Dropped By Sony (RCA)
  • Discography
    • Albums
    • Singles
  • Tours
  • Personal life
    • Oxfam Ambassador
    • Homecoming / 2009
  • Discography
    • Albums
    • Singles

How does that look? My thinking is that it groups all the music stuff apart from discography into career; the political stuff is in "Personal life" (maybe come up with a better section title than "Personal life"?), and stuff before her career took off is in Biography (including LIPA). How does that sound? Does it make the career section too long?

Anyway, these are just thoughts - feel free to throw in your own!

Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 09:11, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


looks good to me , if you want to re-structure the page like that, i have no objection,one thing only do i have to add, i think the discography should be at the end, tables, charts , graphs, stats etc belong at the very end i think. what you reckon ?

Daschund (talk) 10:14, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me - I had a quick look at other artists' and bands' articles and the usual practice does seem to be to have discography last (the one exception was Chumbawamba - typical anarchists!) so I've amended the list above accordingly. I'm probably not going to have time today, but there's no hurry - it'd be good to have other editors' thoughts on this too before I charge in! Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 10:23, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no conspiracy going on, what do you mean conspiracy? yes you did edit section and removed links i had to to restore them.where you quoted Nitin Sawhney and there was no quote. Stick to the facts! Skinnylizzy (talk) 10:42, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've chanegd the structure to provide more of a chronological flow: since every mention of her in the media starts with Tooting, it makes better sense before signing and re-release. The Oxfam stuff is non-musical so I've put it up in Biography.86.155.14.132 (talk) 11:52, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced material and inaccurate citing[edit]

When looking at over this today I found large amounts of contentious unreferenced material. I've removed this per Policy on BLPs. Elsewhere, existing citations to a section didn't back up the swathes of info, names, dates in the section. I pared that down. But it raises the question of whether the other citations accurately verify the text, on the Career section in particular. I've added a tag to call attention to that.

Content composed of loose interpretations of sources or weasel wording of contentious material should be fixed/removed as necessary. I spent about an hour working on the article today, but the more eyes the better. Thanks. –Whitehorse1 21:45, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

General tone and balance[edit]

This page started out a detailed summary of coverage of her sudden rise to prominence and the sceptical responses that rose. The tours section continues in this way, with a lot of comment on shows that were planned but cancelled or poorly attended. I would say that in musician BLPs we usually adopt a fairly forgiving stance and merely report activities rather than critiquing press statements unless those lead to significant coverage. I would therefore propose to cut down the he said / she said elements of the webcast section in favour of some neutral account, drop the direct quotes from The Automatic which I think are marginallly notable and certainly undue, and drastically reducing the Tours text to a list of tours and key performances. This would I belive give a much more readable short introduction to her work and career. Martinlc (talk) 16:10, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article is now been directly quoted word for word from the artists bio/pr page as placed by P Noble pr and is being edited without the impartiality usually given to wiki pages.User:skinnylizzy —Preceding undated comment added 23:04, 17 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]

I agree. I just looked at this page and think the criticism section should be changed. I think someone saying that someone would get the s*** kicked out of them is just like quoting someone talking like a thug. It also describes James Frost and Robin Hawkins as being 'fellow artists' but they are not mentioned in the Wikipedia anywhere as having any connection to Sandi Thom so that does not seem accurate language. Yes I think it might be okay to mention the public relations in this article although also think it is good if a product is marketed well. However mentioning musical tastes would not be relevant. Personally I remember liking the song mentioned. I also would question if the two people quoted really know what being a punk is about, as thought it was supposed to be about being an individual rather than telling other people what they can and can't wear, and certainly not about kicking the s*** out of them for it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.32.98.201 (talk) 11:30, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Material from Thom website[edit]

Regarding the mini edit war about the material from Thom's website, Skinnylizzy is correct. We cannot cite to a self-published source for this kind of promotional self-aggrandizing material. If you want to add more facts about Thom's career, they need to be based on secondary reliable sources.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:45, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with excluding material form the website but more on the grounds of notability / undue weight - anything that is so trivial that no independent source can be found it probably not worthy of inclusion.Martinlc (talk) 19:16, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Sandi Thom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:51, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Sandi Thom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:50, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Sandi Thom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:21, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Sandi Thom. 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) 04:21, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Sandi Thom. 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) 00:31, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Sandi Thom. 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) 22:45, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnicity[edit]

An editor has raised a query about the description of her ethnicity as Gypsy or (in earlier versions) Romani Gypsy. I believe that we would usually use whatever their self-description is. If there are any sources which show this it could be included. In the meantime I have deleted it. (She has used Gypsy as an identifier in songs but so did Stevie Nicks). Martinlc (talk) 12:04, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sandi_Thom&oldid=1206669809"