Talk:Hayley Williams/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Better image

A better image is free. --Efe (talk) 12:45, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

File:Hayley Williams from Paramore.jpg Magog the Ogre (talk) 13:28, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Why this one? the old one was better than this, but theres also File:Hayleyw5.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dboy05 (talk • contribs) 15:44, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Dboy05, did you really take that image as the license says? It looks very professional? Vints (talk) 22:15, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

These are the imo best images at Commons.[1] Which should we have in this article? Vints (talk) 09:33, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

erm no i didnt, theres jus loads on google images and i love that one. but erm i like the 2nd one and the 3rd. ~ Dboy05 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dboy05 (talk • contribs) 20:55, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

OH SOMEONE PLEAAAAAAAAASE, change the iamge, and quickly... Dboy05 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dboy05 (talk • contribs) 17:12, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Citation Needed For

• "She performed backup vocals for the Say Anything songs "The Church Channel" and "Plea". She has also performed on the songs "Keep Dreaming Upside Down" by October Fall, "Then Came To Kill" by The Chariot, and "Fallen" by the band Death In The Park." I am on my way out the door but google searches confirm these, just gotta find the best ones to use as a source! cheers. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 21:33, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

• "Hayley william's grew up in cyrus and develpoed a love of music from a young age Her first childhood sweet heart was a body builder called Eden.mclovin" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Now05ster (talk • contribs) 08:14, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Chad Gilbert

To whomever continues to add the information that she is dating Chad Gilbert of New Found Glory: please provide a reliable citation with the claim, or it will have to be removed per WP:BLP and WP:Reliable Sources. Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:43, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Personality section

Another person on a dynamic connection has been removing the "personal life" section. At the moment, this only contains the information that Williams is a personal family friend with the "Cyrus clan". I do not believe this is unencyclopedic; could you please explain your removal of the section? Thanks. Magog the Ogre (talk) 08:17, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Maybe expanding it might help. --neon white talk 01:42, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Is it even relevent information she has only stated in a couple of interviews because she defended Miley Cyrus on her photo scandal and there's really nothing else in the personal life section and people need to stop adding that shes dating chad gilbert because they have not officaly confirmed it. 222.154.97.118 (talk) 04:35, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I think I generally agree about the Chad Gilbert thing (see above). However, the source says that Williams is a "family friend" of the group - it certainly gives the impression that the relationship goes beyond a bathing suit photo. Magog the Ogre (talk) 05:32, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok i'll stop taking it out but i don't really agree with it and i reckon if hayley gets to have her own page the other members of paramore should have their own page too because there is so much attention on hayley and not the whole band and paramore is a band not just hayley (don't get me wrong i think hayley's amazing and has an awsome voice and i LOVE her hair) and i know the members of paramore get annyoned with just the attention on hayley even hayley does and i know she has done a little work outside the band like singing in other bands songs and stuff but i reckon josh, zac, jermey and taylor should get their own pages too or just keep everything under 1 page on paramores page.222.154.119.169 (talk) 02:55, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

You need to read WP:N for the basic principles of notability, this is how we decide what subjects need a page rather than personal opinions. This page itself is still in dispute above. Please remember that not every subject needs a page especially if they can be easily contained in a parent subject. You can add info about the band members to the section in the paramore article. --neon white talk 15:48, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree they may be notable as well. That being said, it was a fairly steep uphill fight for Hayley to have her own page (see the top of this page). I would suggest trying to get consensus on this here and on the Paramore talk page. If you think you have a fairly decent consensus, try Wikipedia:DRV. Magog the Ogre (talk) 09:02, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

New Section

Chad Gilbert shouldn't it be included that she is infact dating Chad Gilbert of New Found Glory... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hardknocklife4you (talk • contribs) 02:02, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

It's not a false internet rumour. Hayley has confirmed she is dating chad gilbert, and chad has confirmed he is dating her too. Plenty of times. http://musicblogr.com/chad-gilbert-interview-hayley-is-my-best-friend.html Iwearconverse (talk) 01:02, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

No, wikipedia does not repeat false internet rumours. --neon white talk 06:05, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Hayley Williams & Chad Gilbert's Relationship

Okay, I know everyone has heard enough of this. But someone on the Paramore talk page has brought a source about it. I think it should be added to her "Personal Relationship's" section. The source they brought has Chad Gilbert stating that he is in a relationship with Haylay Williams. Here is the source, please take a look at it and let me know what you guys think about adding it. SOURCE: Emo777 (talk) 15:04, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Also, in case the source won't bring up the website, he's the address: http://www.rocksound.tv/news/article/chad-gilbert-hits-out-at-critics. Thanks in advance! Emo777 (talk) 15:04, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

personal life section?

i mean seriously do we even need that? like people care that she spoke up for miley...you may as well add that shes good friends with katy perry or rihanna...at least add something else (like her relationship with chad for example) or just merge it with the biography section xx

edit: oh and ermm can you change the main picture as well? (dno what to call it) because that pictures at least a year old, and her hair colours changed (it's all orangey-red now)theres alot of newer ones out there check her twitter :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.36.160.39 (talk) 00:23, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

We can't just put whatever picture we want in this article. While there are many pictures of her out there, they have to be compatible with Wikipedia's licenses (Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License 3.0 and the GFDL). Most pictures on the internet are not. →javért ^stargaze 00:55, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Jennifer's Body Soundtrack

Maybe we should mention her song "Teenagers" being featured in the "Jennifer's Body" Soundtrack. Agree? Source:http://store.fueledbyramen.com/albumview.asp?idproduct=75867Bobby9608 (talk) 12:49, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Genre

Hayley HERSELF said in an interview that she was of the emo genre. And please don't delete that genre because it is validly sourced Emorocker777 (talk) 04:16, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Picture

Has anyone got a newer picture of Hayley to use in this article ? Hayley doesnt look like this anymore and she seems to be squinting in the picture. Parafan (talk) 07:23, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I have already changed it guys Parafan (talk) 09:47, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Genre

I put a valid source of Hayley stating in an interview that her genre was emo, but it was still deleted then i asked whoever it was not to delete things with valid sources then my section of the talk page was deleted.

Emorocker777 (talk) 21:57, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

See Paramore#Musical style and influences where the characterization of Paramore of "emo" is well-sourced. I have restored Emo and it should not be removed. Mike R (talk) 13:12, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Josh, Chad, Hayley

Please direct your attention to the October 2009 issue of Alternative Press. In the interview, it confirms that Hayley and josh were dating until 2007 when they decided they didnt want it to interfere with their music. It also states that Hayley is now dating Chad from New Found Glory. Conflict between Hayley and Josh about Hayley dating chad caused them to cancel their remaining shows of their tour in early 2008.

Here is the reliable soruces: (Scans of the actualy article. Number 5 is the one to read)

THE FOLLOWING PAGES WHERE SCANNED DIRECTLY FROM ALTERNATIVE PRESS MAGAZINE


[1] http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_pke6KfyqZB8/SpNZbK_D_pI/AAAAAAAAIZs/uf_qTVLAATQ/s1600-h/3.jpg
[2] http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_pke6KfyqZB8/SpNZbjO0_wI/AAAAAAAAIZ0/0e1VNxuxKMA/s1600-h/4.jpg
[3] http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_pke6KfyqZB8/SpNZcFWffxI/AAAAAAAAIZ8/IeZljrbK428/s1600-h/5.jpg
[4] http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_pke6KfyqZB8/SpNaAwYrT7I/AAAAAAAAIaE/fsepm1YW9i0/s1600-h/6.jpg
[5] http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_pke6KfyqZB8/SpNaBAdmSQI/AAAAAAAAIaM/w1zcaNqIO5M/s1600-h/7.jpg
[6] http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_pke6KfyqZB8/SpNaBh-hBOI/AAAAAAAAIaU/GhtpZWTGiJ8/s1600-h/8.jpg
[7] http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_pke6KfyqZB8/SpNaCCFpEAI/AAAAAAAAIac/4FCrGA8EOUY/s1600-h/9.jpg
--Dem467 (talk) 13:04, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I have provided GOOD SOLID VERIFIED sources that their relationships (chad and hayley 08-now) (josh and hayley 04-07) in the Paramore discussion but these two statements where deleted, why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.134.81.223 (talk) 01:34, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Blogspot.com is not a reliable source. Regards, Javért  |  ^Talk 01:38, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

well maybe blog spot is not but Alternative Press and Rock Sound magazine are, or am i mistaken?

I looked through the history of the article and didn't see anything referencing that other than the blogspot link. However, it is entirely possible that I just missed it. Do you have the links to the other possible sources that you mentioned? I'd like to look over them. Regards, Javért  |  ^Talk 00:07, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Heres the Interview with Chad Gilbert (Rock Sound magazine): URL(just in case):http://www.rocksound.tv/news/article/chad-gilbert-hits-out-at-critics and heres the article found in issue #225 (i think) of Alternative Press magazine (either this month, or last months issue): —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.134.69.134 (talk) 22:40, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello Javert - the links are not for a blogspot page, it is scans from a magazine that are simply being hosted there. If you read the magazine article it is an interview given by Hayley, and she does in fact clearly state that she and Josh dated for 3yrs, and that now she is dating Chad Gilbert. Whether this is relevant enough information to be included in the wikipedia page I wouldn't like to say, but if it is this is certainly concrete evidence. Rakie love (talk) 21:13, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Awards Section

I'm really glad that we've included the Awards section to document the many super serious and prestigious awards this talented young artist has been nominated for and won and I don't at all think this section needs to go and the whole article would be more informative if blanked than left as is. - Dem467 (talk) 12:58, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Awards Section

I'm really glad that we've included the Awards section to document the many super serious and prestigious awards this talented young artist has been nominated for and won and I don't at all think this section needs to go and the whole article would be more informative if blanked than left as is. - Dem467 (talk) 12:58, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Page Usefulness

This page is just a copy/paste off the Paramore page with very little other info included. I've seen better pages on this site deleted by zealous editors on the above basis. How did this survive the cull? 203.217.72.177 (talk) 01:19, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Hair color + Icon

I Think something should be included about her hair color, its blonde now. And something should be added about how shes an idol to many people. Could someone add this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.98.226.108 (talk) 00:04, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

No, because her hair color is kind of irrelevant to her career unless that's what shes famous for; and as for her being an icon and hero to many so are basically every other celebrity, dont get me wrong i personally admire her very very much but in reality its not what this page is for. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.134.94.150 (talk) 01:54, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Instruments

You might wanna add that she also plays guitar, watch: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dKNWKa4T80E —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.189.90.68 (talk) 22:40, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

She also plays the drums [she said it was the first instrument she ever learned to play], she mentioned it on an interview on The Sauce (aired on Fuse). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.134.92.50 (talk) 02:43, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Genre

mazzy star's style is poppunk and gothic rock, not emo (She said it, and Paramore guys too). Listening to her songs and paying attention, you will know it's not emo, it's really far away from it. They sound it's like Green Day, a little bit soft and with romatic lirycs.

No Hayley said (i even have seen it sited on one of the paramore pages) that the band was emo and so was it's music, and so do the reviewers. It is emo and pop punk, as reviewers have said, and what is agreed on... Terminus777 (talk) 05:18, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

new picture?

i think a new picture of Hayley should be posted. new hair, new look, so her wiki picture should be updated as well. simple suggestion(: and i was also wondering why no one has re-posted, the Hayley Williams relationship with Chad of NFG and her former relationship with her band mate Josh. its all ben confirmed in the Sept 2009 issue of Alternative Press magazine.

heres some pictures of Hayley with her new hair: http://hayley.checkered-vans.com/

here are the pages scanned directly from alternative press magazine:
[1] http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_pke6KfyqZB8/SpNZbK_D_pI/AAAAAAAAIZs/uf_qTVLAATQ/s1600-h/3.jpg
[2] http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_pke6KfyqZB8/SpNZbjO0_wI/AAAAAAAAIZ0/0e1VNxuxKMA/s1600-h/4.jpg
[3] http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_pke6KfyqZB8/SpNZcFWffxI/AAAAAAAAIZ8/IeZljrbK428/s1600-h/5.jpg
[4] http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_pke6KfyqZB8/SpNaAwYrT7I/AAAAAAAAIaE/fsepm1YW9i0/s1600-h/6.jpg
[5] http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_pke6KfyqZB8/SpNaBAdmSQI/AAAAAAAAIaM/w1zcaNqIO5M/s1600-h/7.jpg
[6] http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_pke6KfyqZB8/SpNaBh-hBOI/AAAAAAAAIaU/GhtpZWTGiJ8/s1600-h/8.jpg
[7] http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_pke6KfyqZB8/SpNaCCFpEAI/AAAAAAAAIac/4FCrGA8EOUY/s1600-h/9.jpg

Done, added new pic 122.57.153.243 (talk) 06:51, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Voice

Hayley Williams is classified as a soprano. Her recorded vocal range in her songs became impressive, and is close to 3.4 octaves (D3-A6), and realizes that her voice is in constant evolution. According to her, her real power used to be 4.5 octaves, until you have a blood blister on the vocal cords caused by stressing in August 2006, which reduced its length to 4 octaves, when healthy, we can see that is true, since, during the implementation of the A6 in whistle register she can appear to rise even higher notes.

Lower notes: Teenagers (D3), Another Day (EB3), For a Pessimist I'm Pretty on Optimistc (E3), Emergency (F3), Hallelujah (F3), We Are Broken (F # 3), Misery Business ( G3). High notes: That's What You Get (C # 5), Hallelujah (Eb5), Decode (F5), Turn It Off (F5), Conspiracy (F # 5), All I Wanted (F # 5), My Heart ( Live, from 2007 - G # 5). Longer notes: Decoy (6 seconds), All We Know (7 seconds), Decode (8 seconds) Whistle Register: for vocal exercises before a concert in 2009 (A6). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.242.63.200 (talk) 23:04, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

That's lovely. Cite reliable sources and it can go in the article. The Hero of This Nation (talk) 14:44, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Having removed the unreliable blogging citation that was recently placed at the beginning of the article in regards to Williams having a 'Contralto' voice I would appreciate if people could keep an eye on this issue as it left misleading and conflicting information on the page. Whilst personally I agree that Williams is indeed a Soprano I see no evidence of this claim either. I wonder until we have solid evidence either way is it necessary to have her voice type in the article at all? BrotherDarksoul (talk)

New hair, yet again.

Haley Williams who was born in Hebron, Connecticut recently moved to Los Angeles to pursure her music carreer. Now singer in the Grammy Award winning band Paramore --Dem467 (talk) 15:24, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Changed it again, not sure if any good though. Mcrfobrockr (talk) 08:08, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

We don't change the infobox picture everytime someone gets a new hairstyle. We would have to update Lady Gaga once a week then. Nymf _hideliho! 01:25, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

It's okay so anyone knows it — Mr.sweet lover (talk) 03:24, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

It would be easier if you just put the most recent picture of her and be done with it! Coltsfan (Talk to me) 06:45, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 86.169.202.226, 14 April 2010

{{editsemiprotected}}

Please could you change the picture of hayley williams because the one used isnt a very recent picture and she doesnt look like that so could you use this one: http://i59.photobucket.com/albums/g314/Rossi69/Hayley_Williams5.jpg 86.169.202.226 (talk) 12:18, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Not done: You'll have to upload that first. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 13:31, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Citations/Guest vox

{{editsemiprotected}} Would the following link work as a citation for her vocal lessons with Brett Manning? It's her endorsement from his official site.

http://www.singingsuccess.com/endorsement/hayley-williams

ETA: Also, a lot of the citation issues could use links that refer to the same information on the Paramore page.

Also can we put all her guest spot information down in that nice little table?

Meretricious (talk) 22:20, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

DoneSpitfire19 (Talk) 23:52, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit Request

I'm not sure if this is a proper citation, but in this youtube video, released on their Final Riot! DVD, Hayley Williams is clearly playing the keyboard. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZV4i5-GkctA —Preceding unsigned comment added by Efitz11 (talk • contribs) 20:32, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Not done: Playing the piano in one song does not make her the band's keyboardist, unfortunately. --TorriTorri(^talk/_contribs) 21:30, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I thought about going to find her playing keyboard in all of their songs (not many, actually) but then I found this page http://www.roxwel.com/artists/artistpage/Paramore.html that lists her as the keyboardist. Efitz11 (talk) 03:20, 29 May 2010 (UTC)efitz11

Partly done: I've actually added another source for her being the keyboardist. --TorriTorri(^talk/_contribs) 06:49, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 81.157.75.99, 6 June 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} Please feature a paragraph about Hayley Williams being hacked and a pornographic picture of her being released on the internet.

81.157.75.99 (talk) 17:33, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

On the 28th May, a topless picture of Hayley William was posted on Twitter. She says it was a hacker, as later she posted on Twitter 'well... my night just changed drastically. got hacked.' It was later deleted, but Perez Hilton, the infamous gossip king and runner of the biggest celebrity gossip website in the world, as still got footage of it. It is thought that she took it for her boyfriend, and someone hacked her account posting it online.

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. I would also like to stress the fact that the sources must be reliable. -- /DeltaQuad|Notify Me\ 18:18, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

We had a discussion about this above^, and apparently this is not added. Maybe it will at some point if it causes a response from anyone noteworthy, which hasn't yet happened. ×××BrightBlackHeaven^(talk)××× 19:44, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Controversy

I have a comment about the last sentence of the section called Controversy, concerning the actuality of the picture posted on twitter. It is confirmed the picture was posted from her phone, by her. She just doesn't want to admit it. In order to make the article true, the statement must be reworded to where it admits that she was, indeed, not "hacked" as she claims.173.30.247.30 (talk) 04:27, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

There is no proof that she wasn't hacked, she simply stated that her account was hacked. Never acknowledged the photo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.182.150.180 (talk) 05:01, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

All signs point to it being impossible she was hacked. It was sent from her phone. Remote hijacking of phones doesn't work like that.173.30.247.30 (talk) 05:16, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that the section uses the phrase "images was". I assume it's not open for general editing due to the likely flood, but this grammatical error irks me. Ruricu (talk) 05:04, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I am astonished by the speed with which this article was updated. Anyway, I think it is still pretty early to tell what actually happened--it is possible that she got hacked. Wait for the official press release? 24.0.90.93 (talk) 05:19, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Not relevant to the article. Absolutely zero reliable sources to back up these claims, and remember exceptional claims require exceptional sources). Shouldn't be mentioned in the article at all. End of discussion 82.44.55.254 (talk) 08:21, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Please refer to this comparison[2] made by a crack team of virgin neckbeards. The EXIF data may be viewed here[3], showing the picture was taken just before the alleged tweet. It's most likely the image was meant for a significant other but was instead tweeted in error. 68.116.80.17 (talk) 11:24, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Please refer to wp:original research 82.44.55.254 (talk) 15:06, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Still not relevant and still has no reliable sources. It's true but nobody here cares I take that back, apparently we do have a reliable source, NME.com. I reverted this one because we can't have anything like "shocked the world" and "boobs" in an encyclopedia. Use neutral and encyclopedic wording and it may even stay up there in the article. ×××BrightBlackHeaven^(talk)××× 11:33, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Wording is now appropriate, sourced, and its relevance is evidenced by the fact that this conversation is ensuing, hehe. MXVN (talk) 22:44, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

• Woman has breasts, Twitter knows it - and this is a controversy? It's barely notable. I've renamed the section (from "Controversy!!!1!!1!one!!!" to "Twitter") and made it a sub-section of "Personal life" to avoid giving undue weight to this one incident. Frankly, I think the whole section is non-notable. TFOWR^propaganda 12:06, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

It is notable, because she is known for her Christian faith, and these topless photos would come as something of a shock to fans who admire her for that reason. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Greenhplover (talk • contribs) 16:20, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

The picture was taken on the same day it was uploaded. having saved the pic, and seen the properties, i can say they she most likely was not hacked, and just made a poor attempt at a cover-up, and there have also been pictures made that can prove that it is indeed her. zzz (talk) 12:09, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Are you new here? This is a talk page about how to improve the article, not a discussion forum about the article's subject. ×××BrightBlackHeaven^(talk)××× 12:12, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

...and this addresses my concern that this incident is as notable as cheese - how, exactly? More importantly, your views - fascinating though they are - aren't really appropriate for an encyclopaedia article. TFOWR^propaganda 12:14, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Until there's more sources than gossip articles from sites which are notoriously unreliable, it shouldn't be in the article. 82.44.55.254 (talk) 15:01, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Broadly agree, except in as much I'm not convinced it should be added even then (I don't think the NME is particularly unreliable, it's more that I think the incident is non-notable). The incident is newsworthy, for a certain class of news provider, sure, but not yet notable for an encyclopaedia. TFOWR^propaganda 15:05,GVBVB7VB999999999999999999999999 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed it's not notable in so far as I don't think it is a big deal. However, notability can surely be pointed out from the vast number of websites that are covering it? That shows people care, ergo it is deemed notable by a large enough collective to warrant inclusion. It needs to be handled carefully as per WP: BLP, but not just not included. There WILL be conservative parents in some places that stop their kids listening to Paramore, and there will be thousands of us leeches all curious and checking out the picture on the net. It's got enough people that care that we should aim to be the place that documents the incident accurately. (The Elfoid (talk) 15:20, 28 May 2010 (UTC))

There IS nothing to document. A picture leaked, woo. Until someone actually says something of substance about it, it shouldn't really be on here. ×××BrightBlackHeaven^(talk)××× 15:27, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

It's notable because people care about it. It made news. People who hadn't heard of Paramore heard of the incident. It isn't a big *deal* but is more news relevant than who she is dating, by some degree. MXVN (talk) 22:48, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Note that I said "not yet notable..." ;-) When reliable sources discuss parents banning their kids from listening to Paramore, etc, then it may be notable.

Fully agree re: WP:BLP. Hayley Williams is a living, breathing human being and like all living subjects we have to treat her sensitively, per WP:BLP.

Cheers, TFOWR^propaganda 15:32, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

There are more sources now, and I think it will inevitably be added to the article eventually as more sources will show up. As BrightBlackHeaven said, the information should be stated in a "neutral and encyclopedic" way. I might do it later if no one else does. Sources if anyone needs them: [4][5][6][7][8][9] CShephard (talk) 16:09, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

You're saying that you consider this notable now? What new thing has happened to make the Twitter incident notable? TFOWR^propaganda 16:11, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Verifiable information/reliable third-party sources are pretty much there. Worthy of notice is a matter of time, maybe one could argue whether or not it's worthy of notice right now, but if not now, then tomorrow or next week. It won't be long before sources like ABC/FOX/MSN report it as well, and for a while, it will probably be re-mentioned on any news article that concerns Hayley. It's almost always the same with such controversies. CShephard (talk) 16:27, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Right, but that wasn't my point. Plenty of stuff can be independently verified, it doesn't necessarily make it notable. We're not a indiscriminating list or a news service. I also take issue with the idea that this can be described as a "controversy" - the only apparent "controversy" is whether or not she initiated the Twitter post. TFOWR^propaganda 16:36, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, there's definitely a healthy amount of 'online debate'. I'm pretty sure it fits the definition of controversy but time will tell. I'm in no rush and we'll see how this plays out, pretty sure it's just the beginning in terms of the 'buzz' it's getting. Also, CBS news just reported it: [10]. I understand that notability is your point (and not reliability), and I think we have everything excluding 'ongoing coverage', since this is something new, and this is where "articles should not be written based on speculation that the topic may meet the criteria in the future" fits in. So yeah, I guess we'll have to wait a bit. CShephard (talk) 16:53, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'm all for reliability too! Cool, I agree there's no rush. I'm also not dead set against including this, just mindful we need to be careful with this one. (It's always better to take it slow for WP:BLPs). Cheers! TFOWR^propaganda 17:00, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

About not being relevant to the article; I feel like if her relationship status is relevant, and CBS News, MTV, Billboard, NME, and several other reliable news sources think it's relevant, it should be mentioned in the article. Heck, Google lists over one-hundred news sources on the subject of Hayley's breasts on Twitter. And I fully understand that you want to "protect" her because she's a living person, but maybe this picture getting out will be good for her. Look at where Paris Hilton is. And Kim Kardashian. She got her own TV show because of her boobs on film. --Piroteknix (talk) 18:06, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

About not being relevant to the article - at this time. Paris Hilton is a great example: the sex tape became a major hugely notable. Williams' Twitter incident may yet do so too.

The WP:BLP aspect - "wanting to protect her" - is more about wanting to avoid false claims as to whether or not someone or someone else was responsible for the Tweet. Wikipedia isn't censored: we shouldn't be preventing the photo from being discussed in the article because we're prudish or want to protect Williams' honour; rather, we must avoid making un-sourced claims. That's to protect us - or Wikipedia - as much as it to protect Williams.

Cheers, TFOWR^propaganda 18:15, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I understand that it might not impact her career in as much of a way as Paris' sex tape impacted hers. However, at least for today, her Twitter is relevant. As I said before, Google News has links to over one-hundred (and counting) properly-cited, reliable news sources. Many of these articles present her Tweet without bias; for example, the NME article that was previously cited here states "Despite some gossip sites claiming that the picture was in fact posted in error, and were meant for an individual rather than the public, Williams insisted she was the victim of a cyber attack. 'Well... my night just changed drastically,' she wrote after the image was deleted, 'got hacked.'" That doesn't sound like gossip, rumors, or slander to me. They quote verbatim Hayley's tweet. --Piroteknix (talk) 18:27, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

It already has impacted her career. MXVN (talk) 07:52, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

All good, but the key part is "...it might not impact her career in as much of a way as..." When/if it does - i.e. it becomes notable - it should be added. Right now it's just another blip in the blogosphere ;-) TFOWR^propaganda 18:31, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

See, I feel the exact opposite. I keep repeating "over one-hundred articles" because I feel it's an extraordinary number for a "blip in the blogosphere." Every few minutes, there's another news article on the subject popping up on Google by increasingly-reliable sources. Today, she's relevant, and should be mentioned in Wikipedia. If she's not tomorrow, then the section can be removed. But until then, it should be mentioned. Wikipedia isn't forever. --Piroteknix (talk) 18:38, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I fail to see how being "relevant today" makes it notable, at all. At this point in time, it's only claim to notability would be the fact that people are blogging, twittering and filling the forums with it. 82.44.55.254 (talk) 18:45, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

As I mentioned before, a number of reliable news sources are posting articles about the subject; MTV, NME, Billboard, CBS news, among others, have all published articles on the subject. Google currently lists 116 news articles related to "Hayley Williams' twitpic." I fail to see how that's not notable. --Piroteknix (talk) 18:51, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

The majority of those "news" articles are not reliable, and the ones that are have little-to-no actual information beyond "she posted a pic". There's been no demonstration of why her posting that pic is notable; it hasn't affected her career, there's been no direct reaction to it from her or anyone associated with her - all it's notable for right now is for being a topic of gossip on the internet. Until there's some other claim to notability it should not be included in the article. See wp:Note "The evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition, and that this was not a mere "flash in the pan"" 82.44.55.254 (talk) 19:04, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) News isn't automatically notable - it's one incident in the subject's life.

Over one hundred articles - I honestly have no idea whether that's notable or not. I'm simply not qualified to judge. Fortunately, that doesn't matter - our policy on secondary sources means I don't need to engage in original research. We simply wait until a reliable source comments on the notability of "over one hundred articles". At that point it's notable, we can cite a reliable source, we're golden.

Cheers, TFOWR^propaganda 19:07, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok, so get this. In the entire "Personal Life" section for Hayley Williams, only one claim about her relationship status is cited, and the citation leads to a two-sentence "blip" (not even a full article, but a mention of her in passing in a full article about Lady Gaga) from some New Zealand-based radio station website. A tabloid-esque article from overseas talking about her relationship status can have its own section, but her boobs on Twitter, cited by MTV, NME, CBS, etc. on Google can't be mentioned? And that's not even the worst of it; the same website that Wikipedia cited for her relationship status currently has an entire article on the front page about her Twitter. See for yourself; Latest Music News: Fri 28/05 - Hayley Williams tweets nude pic of herself! Same website. Already cited. Own article. Front Page. I really don't understand why this wouldn't be notable but who she's with is, especially coming from the same source. --Piroteknix (talk) 19:11, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

It's not that it can't be mentioned. It's that it's not yet notable. Sure, it's made the news. Sure, it may yet become notable. Right now it's just another Twitter user with a semi-naked picture online. News-worthy, sure. Notable, no. Not yet.

When Paris Hilton's sex tape appeared, it wasn't notable. Newsworthy, sure. Notable, no. Then the story grew and grew - it had an impact on her career, people were writing about the tape and the impact it had on her career, etc etc. There were sources we could quote describing how notable the sex tape was and why.

Right now with Williams' Tweet, all we have is lots of news stories. No idea whether the story will still be around tomorrow. Maybe she'll sign a huge sponsorship deal because of this. That would be notable. That would make the Twitter incident notable.

Anyway, there's no rush. We can wait for notability.

Cheers, TFOWR^propaganda 19:23, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

My argument is the fact that news articles are picking up on this Tweet, and that over one-hundred different sources — some reliable, some not — are showing up on Google about the Tweet makes it notable. I know I'm not a "reliable source," and that this is personal research, but if CBS finds it relevant enough to write up a news article about it, and NME finds it relevant enough to write up a news article about it, and Billboard finds it relevant enough to write up a news article about it, and MTV finds it relevant enough to write up two news articles about it, it should be relevant enough to mention in one sentence here. --Piroteknix (talk) 19:41, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

And not only those unarguably-reliable sources find it relevant enough to write up a news article about it, but the only other website cited under her "Personal Life" section finds it relevant enough to write up a front-page news article about it. --Piroteknix (talk) 19:44, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Let's get one thing out of the way here. Notability does not apply to article content. So we've got NME [11], MTV [12] [13], Billboard [14], the Toronto Sun [15], The Register [16] (NSFW), and CBS News [17] covering the story. Please explain to me why this cannot be included under personal life: "In May of 2010, a topless photo of Williams was posted to her Twitter account. Williams deleted the picture and claimed she was hacked. EXIF metadata showed that the picture was taken eight minutes before it was posted. (Source: [18]). --TorriTorri(^talk/_contribs) 19:13, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

You're right, notability applies to the subject of an article. But it's a useful benchmark for content, since Wikipedia is neither a place for indiscriminate information nor news. No one's disputing that this happened. What I'm disputing is whether this news item has any place in the article right now. It's a Tweet. It's a Tweet that drew a lot of attention. Is it hugely relevant to the article's subject (Williams)? I don't know. We don't know. When reliable sources decide, we'll know. TFOWR^propaganda 19:23, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

The actual "benchmark for content" says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. The sources I've listed are clearly prominent, and that many sources are pretty significant. And of course it's relevant to Williams. Who else would it be relevant to? --TorriTorri(^talk/_contribs) 20:02, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I think the point they're trying to make is... this is (for now) inconsequential to her career as a singer, as a celebrity, as... well, anything. I understand there are tons of citable news sources regarding this incident, and I understand that according to the standard which you quoted, that would mean this page would be about a woman who showed her breasts on twitter, with a brief aside about her career as a singer. We live in an age of tabloid news, where things of this nature get blown way out of proportion. If we're not going to detail what she eats for dinner each night, if we're not going to detail who her friends are, and what influences they've had on her life (arguably far more important to who she is than this picture), then why does this picture constitute anything important? It doesn't. If it weren't for TMZ and the likes of useless tabloid press, this would be nothing. Wikipedia needs to hold itself to a higher standard. DTXBrian (talk) 18:49, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely. That said, the inclusion now is shaping up OK. My concern was (and still is) that WP:BLP issues would slip in - that we'd describe the incident without any explanation as to why it's significant (which would be bad (from a WP:BLP standpoint, as well as an encyclopaedic standpoint), as it would leave the reader wondering why the editors here thought the Twitter incident to be significant). Now we've got commentary on the incident I'm a great deal happier. We're not leaving the reader to infer why this is significant - we're providing cited explanations as to why the incident may be "controversial". (My view is that this is about as controversial as water, but my view doesn't count - it's what citable, reliable sources say that counts). TFOWR^propaganda 18:59, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

That's a good point. It is pretty inconsequential. I was wrong. --TorriTorri(^talk/_contribs) 21:36, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

• This is a biography of a living person, and its contents should reflect what is important in her life. For today, the media may think this is more important than, say, her faith, or her relationship with Chad Gilbert. On any other day, anyone suggesting that would probably be laughed at. We're not a news service. We probably shouldn't even be trying to evaluate the importance of this until the media fuss has died down. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:19, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
  • The BLP policy also says that if an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it, which pretty clearly applies here. --TorriTorri(^talk/_contribs) 21:34, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
    • Has this been covered by a notable source? Yes. NME have covered it. Is it relevant? Possibly. Considering the band, and by extension, her, have this media imposed image of being a good little band with solid christian ideals, I would say that on that basis alone, the incident deserves some mention, with the possibility of expansion/removal at a later date. Is the incident itself of note? Possibly, for the reasons above. Also (and I am fully aware this would be OR, and in no way should I say it should be implied in the article) but the timing of this, right after the announcement of a UK arena tour could be seen by some as a rather clever publicity stunt to put them in the public eye again 78.144.91.25 (talk) 23:01, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
      • Reliable source coverage of this one incident? Yes, certainly. Relevance? Far less clear (without a great deal of our own analysis. When a reliable source discusses the relevance to Williams', this should definitely go in. Right now this isn't notable or relevant (as far as we can demonstrate), it's simply well-documented. There's no "significant viewpoint" here - there's simply reports of a woman's breasts being shown to Twitter. When/if reliable sources start discussing the impact this incident had, then this becomes significant. Right now, our view on the significance of this - our view of how this sits with her personal and spiritual beliefs - that's all WP:OR. All we can say that an event occurred and it garnered a great deal of coverage in the media. That's not encyclopaedic, that's journalism. We're not a news service; we don't need to worry about getting every detail in as quickly as possible - we can afford to wait and see whether or not this incident becomes an important part of the subject's life/career. TFOWR^propaganda 09:53, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

How is this at all important? It has nothing to do with a biography. If the media covered it for whatever reason, would you also add in "Hayley Williams has sex with her boyfriend!"? I've seen the media cover what celebrities are EATING, yet I've yet to see mentions about that in their articles (disclaimer: I have never actually looked at Kim's article, if it covers that Kim ate a lollipop once my faith in Wikipedia is gone). It's simply insignificant. Just think of what this is going to look like two years down the line - absolutely inane. There has also been no consensus on this, so I'm removing it from the article as soon as I can - damn silver locks. Please provide a convincing argument and get a consensus before adding in pointless minutia like this. If this turns out to impact her career in any way, and the media says so, then it can be added in. As it is now, however, it's silly. DeutscherStahl (talk) 17:40, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I know there's some Wikipedia rule about not comparing articles ("If the Star Trek TV series can have an article about every single episode, then why can't 16 and Pregnant" or something to that tune) but Hayley's Twitter incident is very similar to the photo leak of Fall Out Boy bassist Pete Wentz. The entire section in Pete's article is four sentences long and uses one source, which sufficiently covers the topic. His nude pics slipping online to LiveJournal didn't have a huge impact — devastating or otherwise — on Pete's career; the article states that he later laughed it off and they parodied the incident in a music video. A full four years later, the section is still in tact. Using Pete's article as an example, Hayley's photo leak should be covered to about the same extent. Not too much more, not too much less.

--24.177.155.88 (talk) 17:17, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

There is a reason why that guideline is in place, you know. In this instance, that reason would be that you're following a bad precedence. I see no reason for something so insignificant to be included in his biography. At any rate, even if you would say it's significant enough to be included in his article, the circumstances are different - he explicitly commented on it, and it was apparently parodied. Hayley Williams has only made one very short tweet about this that doesn't even explicitly mention it (someone who didn't know better might look at her Twitter archives, see she said she got hacked, and have no idea it was relevant to her topless picture), and it hasn't been parodied either. DeutscherStahl (talk) 15:07, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break

The information has been re-added with the rationale "It happened, made news, is relevant." This does not appear to override WP:NOTNEWS, specifically "Routine news reporting on (...) celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia." --TorriTorri(^talk/_contribs) 20:08, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

The event is not simply a current-event news update, it's a highly-discussed event in her personal life that is gathering a ;lot of attention, positive and negative. It could be argued that her personal life in general (who she;s dating, for instance) is not relevant if the TwitPic thing is not. Granted, the TwitPic shouldn't be such a huge deal, but a huge deal was made of it, and it is what it is. I don't see why there's even a debate on whether it should be mentioned. 76.175.211.56 (talk) 07:10, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

See DeutcherStahl's response in the "I don't get it" section below. Specifically, "Until this actually has a noted impact on her career or life, and a cited source says so, it's pretty trivial." Just because it's been highly discussed does not make it worthy of inclusion. --TorriTorri(^talk/_contribs) 16:49, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Note: I have brought the issue to the BLP noticeboard: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Hayley Williams --TorriTorri(^talk/_contribs) 17:02, 10 June 2010 (UTC)