Talk:The Veronicas

Balance

This is exemplary of the problem that is running all over our BLPs. It's a tiny stub, a dozen sentences long, that is supposed to be an encyclopaedic entry on a musical group. Not on genealogy or the ethnic make-up of its members. If the entry were longer, with sections and other details to fill them, then there would be room for that kind of information. Instead, we've got details on the members' ancestry going into the third sentence. As though it's one of the first things you need to know about them, way more important than their music (what they're notable for).

It doesn't matter if they think it's important. It's not why they're notable. It's not what they have an article here for and it's not what most of the readers will be reading their article for. This kind of thing introduces an imbalance in the content towards personal life and trivia. I will always strive to remove that imbalance, because it's policy. Eventualism does not apply to BLPs. Osiris (talk) 07:26, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

There's no eventualism involved, and ethnic identity is not trivia. They identify as Italian as well as Australian, and have an obviously Italian surname. It is relevant if the subject thinks it relevant, because in an article about a person or group of people, a person's identity is one of the most important things about them. I don't know why you think that ethnic identity is trivia. I've never encountered anyone who agrees with you about that. Try removing Barack Obama's ethnicity from his article. Presumably you think it irrelevant to his biography, even though he disagrees with you, because 'we're not writing his article for him'. Ethnic identity is as relevant as nationality or sexuality. Some people from immigrant families identify more by which part of the world their family is from than by where they are from themselves. For example, Dappy, who was born in London and has lived there all his life, identifies as Greek, not British. Ethnicity is of enough relevance that is is not undue weight to include it in a stub. Jim Michael (talk) 08:50, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

WP:BALASPS:

An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. [...] Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements.

The article is about a musical duo. They are notable for their music. The article should therefore focus on their music. Details about their ancestry and ethnic make-up, sexuality, crimes, diseases, and all these other things you add and claim as part of their "identity" are secondary details. They are the kind of thing you expect to find contextualised in a full biography, in a section specifically dedicated to personal information. Not in a tiny stub ("quantity of text"), and not in the third sentence ("prominence of placement"). It makes the articles imbalanced towards secondary details. On other articles, you may be able to justify that with eventualism but the policy for BLPs explicitly rejects eventualism. Look at Pamela Anderson, an example I have cited before. In the opening sentence, it gives a list of things she's notable for. It doesn't say she's notable for having hepatitis C, but nevertheless that appears as the fifth sentence in the article. None of the other sentences draw on what she's notable for (other than giving the decade in which she was primarily active). This sort of thing makes our biographies look ridiculous.

The details that you, and, you say, they, claim as their "identity" are of secondary importance for our readers. When it comes to defining their identity, we repeat what is written in reliable sources proportionately to its prominence. They're Australian, as any sampling of similarly short introductions will show. That's enough for now, until there is room to expound on it. It's not relevant to the brief encyclopaedic description that we have of this musical duo what their ancestry is or whether they're gay or have been diagnosed with hepatatis C. It's trivial in such a brief description, when it isn't part of why they have an article. If, on the contrary, those details are part of what makes them notable – as is arguably the case for Barack Obama's ethnicity considering that a significant amount of reliable coverage has made notable his claim to being the first POTUS from the second-largest racial group in the U.S. – then it would be relevant.* But the Veronicas being of Italian descent isn't part of why they're notable. A simple Google search will show that it's not mentioned when they're introduced; the amount of reliable sources introducing them as "Australians of Italian descent" will never be considerable.

The primary focus here is their music. When there is sufficient room for such secondary details, they can be added. But they need to be expanded first. Osiris (talk) 09:46, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

* To the introduction. I'm assuming you meant its placement in the introduction here, since the quantity of text on that article is not a problem. Osiris (talk) 10:14, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

You've complained about me adding ethnicity in the third, fourth or fifth sentence. Obama's ethnicity is stated in the first sentence of his article. It is mentioned before stating which political party he is in and when he became President. If anything is undue, that is. Are you claiming that his ethnicity are more important than those things?

This is the only band article in which I have added the ethnicity of the members, all the other examples are biographies, and ethnicity is not trivial to a bio, even a brief one. I watched The Veronicas being interviewed: their Italian extraction was mentioned early in the interview, and they didn't say it was irrelevant.

Anyone who feels articles are too short is welcome to expand them. Jim Michael (talk) 12:07, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

You've missed the point of what I've written. Obama's race is part of what makes him notable. It is significant to the topic. The fact that he is the first African-American POTUS has been deemed significant through its constant repetition in reliable media and it's what, if nothing else, he will be remembered for among the line of U.S. presidents. So yes, one could argue that it is more important than dates and allegiance. Just as Margaret Thatcher's gender—but not her race—is deemed a key descriptor for her biography, while Obama's gender is not. There's nothing wrong with mentioning details when they are called for. It does not tip the article's balance towards secondary details if the details are not of secondary importance.

On the other hand, the Veronicas won't be remembered for their Italian ancestry. It's not part of why they're notable. That detail is of secondary importance. So going into that kind of depth regarding their self-identity when considering its overall significance to the subject against the size of the article, is introducing an imbalance towards ancillary details. I know that you think ethnicity is not trivial to a brief biography, therein lies our problem. Whether it's a biography of an individual or a group doesn't matter, balance still needs to be considered. The amount of depth that we go into on any kind of details needs to be weighed against the size of the article and the overall significance of those details to the topic. There will be room to go into further depth once an article has been expanded. I'm sure there are plenty of brief descriptions of the Veronicas online to compare ours to, and I'd be surprised if their ancestry were consistently mentioned. I checked a few (aceshowbiz.com, starpulse.com, mtv.com, music.ninemsn.com.au) and it wasn't mentioned in any of them. Osiris (talk) 00:53, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Obama is notable for his political career. He isn't more notable because of his ethnicity - the media merely mention it incessantly, as they do with anything they consider to be a 'first'. Likewise with Thatcher having been female. She is more memorable than John Major, for example, not because of her gender, but because she was a very strong and divisive character, loved by millions of people for improving the wealth of many people (especially in London and SE England), but hated by millions of other people for having been a ruthless narcissist who caused large-scale unemployment by massively downsizing industry (especially in the North). She typically is featured highly in lists of 'best Britons' as well as lists of 'worst Britons'. Thatcher's policies were not influenced by her gender - during her tenure as PM, she never made a point out of being a woman and did not work for gender equality - she was an elitist, not a feminist. She surrounded herself with men who admired her, and never used 'positive discrimination' to promote women or any other demographic group. In comparison, Major is generally considered to be dull and has been forgotten by most people, despite the fact he is still alive.

I don't feel that the talk page of a music duo whom most people have never heard of is a suitable venue for this kind of discussion. Jim Michael (talk) 16:13, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Probably because that discussion isn't the one we're having...? What influence these details have on their careers is completely off-topic. Unless you're arguing that the Veronicas' ancestry is important to mention because it influences their music? It's probably influenced by many things, but unless it's "mentioned incessantly" in reliable media, then it isn't worth us mentioning it too until the article grows to a size sufficient for that kind of weight, that will allow us to contextualise the fact alongside other influences. You seem to be subjectively defining what's important based on your own perspective. Nobody has said that Obama's political career is not important, but if the media incessantly repeats the fact that he is the first African-American POTUS then we do too. We give it the same weight that reliable sources do, regardless of our own perspective on what is more "important" because importance is largely subjective. We merely report facts proportionately to their prominence in reliable sources. I don't understand how you can't see the difference between something that is repeated over and over and something that is rarely mentioned. Osiris (talk) 02:11, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't see that the media's obsession with a person's ancestry makes it more important, nor that being mentioned less often means it's irrelevant. The media obsess about Obama's ancestry because all previous US Presidents were white. Likewise, they obsessed about Thatcher and Julia Gillard being women because all previous British and Australian Prime Ministers were men. There is no shortage of people in the music industry whom are of Italian ancestry, so it's not unusual. The reason that no-one else has contributed to this discussion is that the vast majority of people have not heard of, or have forgotten about, the Veronicas. They have never been very famous, so there's not that much media coverage about them at all, let alone focus on their ancestry. Obviously, the most powerful person in the world receives thousands of times as much coverage as a little-known singing duo. Jim Michael (talk) 12:05, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

It does for our purposes. The significance of any detail is subjective. What you consider significant may be different from what another editor considers significant. But our personal opinions don't belong here. So editors weigh the prominence of each aspect against its appearance in reliable sources. Content on Wikipedia is determined by previously published information. If reliable sources prominently describe a particular fact, then we do to. What possible other definition of balancing an article's aspects could you have, if not that very practice? Fame is irrelevant; the policies do not differ according to the prominence of the subject itself. You drew the analogy. Draw a different one if you wish. Osiris (talk) 12:29, 15 February 2014 (UTC)