# Talk:James Blunt

@Koompfah19:, @Risker:
Can you explain why this content was removed? "In August, 2020 it was reported that Blunt had developed scurvy from eating a meat only carnivore diet for two months."
The Independent and Self (magazine) are reliable sources. The story was also covered in many other UK newspapers. The definition of trivia is "details, considerations, or pieces of information of little importance or value". How is James Blunt having scurvy of little importance? How many other celebrities or musicians have been diagnosed with scurvy in the 21st century? I believe the content should be restored. The content itself is a single line and was positioned in the "Personal life​" section. I don't see how this content is off-mission. Psychologist Guy (talk) 18:57, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

"James Blunt did something stupid in uni", or even "James Blunt had a bad diet while in uni" does not constitute an encyclopedic or in any way significant fact about Blunt. There are all kinds of "well-sourced" silly stories about Blunt out there; I can think of at least 30, although that's probably because I've paid attention over the years. Just because something is appropriately sourced doesn't mean it should be in this article. Why do you think it's important to mention  in this article that Blunt did something silly when he was in his late teens, when he wasn't a notable person, there's no indication that it had anything to do with his future notability, and it's the kind of thing that probably more than half of all university/college students do at some point?  It's not only off-mission, it's no more important than that he dyed his hair purple at one point.  (And no, don't bother searching for references for that, I made it up; but there are lots of similarly irrelevant stories out there about Blunt.)  Risker (talk) 19:56, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
I am looking at this and I have made a mistake. I didn't read one of the sources correctly. I didn't realise this was about his university days, I thought he got scurvy in August 2020. The media have been quite deceptive about this, its not mentioned in most of the sources. The way it has been presented especially in the headlines I thought he had scurvy this year from trying the carnivore diet which is the latest fad diet in the west. It turns out it was a long time ago whilst at uni. So yes the story is sensationalist, so I agree it is trivia. I agree leave it off the article. Sorry about that! Psychologist Guy (talk) 20:06, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
No worries, Psychologist Guy - an easy mistake to make. The media is sometimes so desperate to fill column inches and airtime that they treat genuinely insignificant matters as equivalent to state secrets, for some reason. The irony is that there's a pretty good chance the story isn't even true, and that it's just something Blunt made up; he's been known to do that.  Risker (talk) 00:56, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't see anything in the biography about Amanda Ghost collaborating with Blunt on the song "You're Beautiful", and then dragging him around to various labels trying to get him signed to a new contract. Sources exist for this stuff: 

Interview with Joni Mitchell in which Ghost says, "With James Blunt, I took his music around to every label I could think of to try and get them interested and they all passed..."
BMI reprint of MusicWorld piece, "Ghost began channeling her creative energies into songwriting and, through mutual friends, started writing with a rising singer/songwriter named James Blunt. Together with Sacha Skarbek, they composed two songs for Blunt’s debut album, including international hit 'You’re Beautiful.' "
The Guardian in 2011, "While living in Los Angeles... a mutual friend introduced Ghost to a soldier with designs on becoming a singer. She invited James Blunt over to LA, and they wrote together. 'When I came back to London with him, I put [him] on some gigs and took him to a few record labels,' she recalls. 'I wasn't making any money out of it, it was just because I wanted to help him out.' "
Ghost told The Guardian with a bit of hyperbole that she co-wrote "You're Beautiful" five years before it became a huge hit. That would be the year 2000, when Blunt was still in military service. Clearly she collaborated with him in 2003 when they were both in Los Angeles, and the song waited only two years to become a hit. She said the song was written in one afternoon. Binksternet (talk) 18:38, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

All of these reports are sourced to Ghost saying that she did these things. There are no contemporaneous or third-party reports of anything other than getting co-writing credit for a couple of songs, and singing some backup vocals; they're covered under the articles for the songs/album.  (She also has a co-write credit for the song Billy and backup-vocal credit for Wisemen, all from the same Back to Bedlam album.) The timing in the Guardian article doesn't make any sense; the song wasn't copyrighted in 2000 (it's copyright 2003) so there's no way it was finished then.  As for Los Angeles in 2003, that's when Blunt (already signed to a label, and having a music publishing contract as well) was fine-tuning and recording Back to Bedlam. Blunt says that the (core of the) song was written in just a few minutes after the event that inspired it, so cleaning it up in an afternoon would be reasonable, if not expected. There's an early demo floating around from 2002 that used to be posted on Blunt's website 15 or so years ago, and it's obvious the song had some polishing done to it (that's what Skarbek and Ghost did), but that the core was already there. I can't link to any legit copies of it, unfortunately.  Incidentally, the interview you've attributed to Joni Mitchell is actually an interview with PRS for Music which Mitchell has posted on her site because it mentions that Ghost interviewed Mitchell; we at Wikipedia would probably debate whether or not the inclusion of that entire article is actually "fair use". As best I can tell, the only person who says Ghost knew Blunt before being asked to help out on Back to Bedlam is...Ghost.  Given Blunt already had a manager in 2002 (the same one as Elton John), it's unlikely that Ghost would have been getting him gigs or introducing him to recording companies. Now, I'm the first to admit that record companies are notorious for re-writing the histories of their performers - when Back to Bedlam was released, they were saying Blunt was only 23, which would have had him joining the military after university at the ripe old age of 17 - but even still, Ghost has the third writing credit (they are listed in order of contribution to the song) for YB, which indicates that she had something to do with it, but not a lot.  She says she made millions on the song, but that would be true even if she was only receiving 5% of the royalties, given its ubiquity.  Risker (talk) 03:00, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

I want to return the snippet of You're Beautiful to the article.  I don't actually understand why it has been removed; it was considered important enough in the article back when it was made a Good Article back in 2008, and nothing has changed.  I put it to you, Binksternet, to demonstrate why it should not be included. It is the song for which Blunt is best known, it made his fortune and his name (and arguably his entire career), and it gives the reader that snapshot of what Blunt is known for.  Risker (talk) 03:00, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

As per usual, the GA review of this article was by one person who was the sole decider about listing. I wouldn't put so much stock into the state of the article at the time of GA listing. One person doesn't catch all the problems.
The first problem with the .ogg file is that it was 30 seconds, about 14% of the song, though our guideline at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Music samples says 10% maximum. It should be 20 seconds long. Amazingly enough, there is a file that has been edited down to 20 seconds: File:James Blunt - You're Beautiful (Edit).ogg.
The requirement of WP:NFCCP #8 is that every non-free music listening sample should have "Contextual significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." The usual solution for this requirement is to describe what the music is doing – maybe about style or instrumentation or performance – making a connection between what is heard on the sample and what is written in the literature. Otherwise, the caption underneath the listening example could stand by itself as bare text. The caption of the disputed file said, " 'You're Beautiful,' Blunt's break-out hit was the third UK single and first US single from Back to Bedlam." Nobody would ever have to hear a listening sample to understand that sentence. So the listening sample is not needed if that's the message below it.
When I'm doing a listening sample, I first have a musical concept that I want to illustrate for the reader's sense of hearing. Like I might want to say that a song was known for its distorted guitars, as noticed by music critics. So then I would create a listening sample highlighting the distorted guitars, and I would cite the observations of the music critics.
I recently included a listening sample at the album page, Back in the High Life. The sample has musical information to convey.
Hope that helps. Binksternet (talk) 03:40, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

... should his (joke) threats to release more new music w/r/t the Joe Rogan/Spotify controversy be included in the article? It seems trivial but does show that he is wading into the debate. —AFreshStart (talk) 17:48, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

James Blunt claims he changed his age on his Wikipedia page -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:29, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Well yeah, way back in the early part of his career, his promotional materials proclaimed him to be between 2 and 4 years younger than his actual age. And given the number of IP edits back in those days, I'd think it's reasonably likely that he or someone close to him edited the page. As far as I can see, the most recent change was someone coming along and making him 10 years younger because they couldn't do math. Risker (talk) 11:25, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Blount was born in February 1974,as shown by his entry at Companies House here, and as corroborated by FreeBMD here. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:17, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. FreeBMD is not valid per WP:BLPPRIMARY, and I have seen some editors challenge the use of the Companies House as a source, but it is in use in some articles so probably OK to use here. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 21:27, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
One might argue that the GRO Register itself is WP:PRIMARY and that the transcription (sometimes with an added descriptive postem) makes it somewhat secondary? I also think FreeBMD is perfectly reliable. But the Companies House source is more accurate, as it gives the exact month. Perhaps a source for the day could now also be located. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:49, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
The question of an accurate DOB for him has raged for years, seemingly largely fuelled by some earlier subertuge on his behalf by his 'advisers'.  However, despite all that, and to partly confirm your earlier comments above, AllMusic states "February 22, 1974 in Tidworth, Wiltshire, England".  Surely, that should all be good enough, (given that is the date shown in the exisitng article) even for Wikipedia's twisted policies. - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 22:48, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
The point here was that there was no source cited at all, which is strictly against policy.  WP:ALLMUSIC is questionable, and there is WP:BLPPRIVACY to consider, which says we should err on the cautious side, so personally I would stick with month and year per the Companies House source. (What was there before is irrelevant at this point.) Laterthanyouthink (talk) 00:52, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
Yes, of course there should be no claim, or Category, without a source. Companies House is used in many BLP articles. What was there before may be irrelevant, but it seems more than coincidental. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:16, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
I've added month of birth using that source now, thanks Martin. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 00:24, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

@Martinevans123, Derek R Bullamore,  and Laterthanyouthink: I’m sorry to comment in what seems to be a resolved topic, but as far as I can see, the Companies House register is definitely not usable as a source for birth-date information: the register is a UK-government-agency-maintained record of company (& company officer) information; so, as far as I can see, it is absolutely a public record that WP:BLPPRIMARY prohibits the use of for this information. If Companies House is used as a source for this kind of information in other articles (I haven’t checked, but I’m willing to take other editors' words for it), that seems unfortunate to say the least, but it doesn’t in itself mean that we can also use it here in the face of BLPPRIMARY. All the best, ‍—‍a smart kitten[meow] 23:34, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Sure and thanks, a smart kitten (sorry, can't seem to tag you). I was never keen on using it myself, but after seeing it used in other articles have occasionally added it, or at least viewed it to verify information found in other sources. Perhaps this (and FreeBMD) should be specifically named in the BLPPRIMARY guide as examples of what not to use then? (And/or discussed first on that talk page.) Laterthanyouthink (talk) 02:07, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
Blunt has confirmed his birthday on Twitter and other places (including at performances) on several occasions. I don't do Twitter so am not in a position to look there. Risker (talk) 02:59, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
February 22, although he's playfully cagey about the year. https://x.com/search?q=%7Bfrom%3AJamesBlunt%7D%20birthday&src=typed_query  -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 03:05, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
Well then, there's bound to be some RS article about him turning 50 this year. (It's also the 20th anniversary of the release of Back to Bedlam, so there's a fair amount of media about him right now.) Risker (talk) 03:51, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
Well, there's this podcast from January 2024, where the presenter says "you're turning 50 this year" and Blunt replies "40"....then admits to changing his Wikipedia page. I'll keep looking. Risker (talk) 03:59, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
Is there any reason we can't just use https://www.salisburyjournal.co.uk/news/24138024.james-blunt-tidworth-singer-celebrates-50th-birthday/ ? Salisbury Journal isn't exactly The Times, but it seems serviceable for a straightforward claim. We could throw in the interview too, but I'm not sure it's even necessary.  -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 05:30, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
Sounds good, Tamzin. I was just mentioning to a friend that I first had this discussion about James Blunt's date of birth way back in 2005, before I even registered my account.  (Back then, his publicity people were still trying to say he was 5 years younger than he really was.)  Risker (talk) 06:20, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
So I have replaced the Companies House source with a {cn} tag. Even though we all know he was born in February 1974, because it says so at Companies House. I agree that both Companies House and FreeBMD "should be specifically named in the BLPPRIMARY guide as examples of what not to use", provided consensus can be reached at WT:BLP. But I still intend to use them on BLP Talk pages as useful sources. It's obvious that, in this case, the subject is keen that the article should not to show their correct date of birth. As Derek has suggested above, I think that AllMusic could be used as a source. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:02, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Regarding using it as a source on BLP talk pages, I would also say to bear in mind that data from Companies House is not certain to be accurate/reliable — CH have a disclaimer linked from the top of their website stating that they do not have the statutory power or capability to verify the accuracy of the information that companies send to [them], and that the information has been placed on the public record should not be taken to indicate that Companies House has verified or validated it in any way. All the best, ‍—‍a smart kitten[meow] 10:37, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
I'd be tempted to see it as at least as reliable as AllMusic. Not sure AllMusic has such a disclaimer? In this case, FreeBMD suggests very strongly that Companies House is correct. But yes, any source may be mistaken. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:48, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
Allmusic seems to have a similar process to IMDb for correcting data - and who knows how thorough their 3rd party fact checking is?
That Salisbury journal ref posted above probably fulfils the criteria, although one never knows the source of their info - which could even have been from Wikipedia.
Do we favour what appears to be the subject's wish for non-disclosure here? Laterthanyouthink (talk) 11:33, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
If he is (still) concerned over disclosure, is there no formal process by which he could make this known here? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:36, 8 December 2024 (UTC) p.s. does anyone disagree that a birthdate of 22 February 1974 is a simple fact?
I have come across discussions in which BLP subjects have made requests (not sure by what mechanisms) that have been honoured. Can't think of an example now though.
No idea about his DOB, not having attempted a review of sources or deep dive myself. I just remove DOBs that do not appear to be properly cited. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 12:45, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
I'm sure you will want to consider all of the sources suggested in this discussion, before offering any opinion on what should be included in the article. :) Martinevans123 (talk) 12:58, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
You guys are all funny. There's nothing wrong with the Salisbury source; it's better than a lot that are used around this project. And who says Blunt doesn't want his DOB known? (Hint: way back when, IPs would randomly come by and put in the correct DOB that the record company publicists were trying to keep secret.) Take a look at his Twitter feed....Blunt is just a joker. Risker (talk) 15:02, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
Hooray ! If the above admin of years standing states the Salisbury Journal is a good enough source, then who are we to prevaricate further.  I have been immensely brave and inserted the reference and the full, correct date of birth and age, in to the article. As we Northerners say, 'Put that in your pipe and smoke it'. – Derek R Bullamore (talk) 17:14, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
I can confirm that Mr Blount is not a "joker". The  Salisbury Journal tells is he is a "POPULAR singer, songwriter and social media sensation." So there. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:17, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
Hey guys, just want you to know I had already added another source when I discovered this conversation. Thedarkknightli (talk) 00:39, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
Thanks. But is that WP:RS? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:12, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
Well, tbh, I'm not sure, but it isn't on WP:RSP. Thedarkknightli (talk) 10:29, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
That's no guarantee. Things only get there after a WP:RfD to discuss use of a source on a given article. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:35, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
Hi again, I've just replaced it with another one.
Regards, Thedarkknightli (talk) 22:20, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
Um, looks a bit better, but not sure if it's just a bot scrape. No author is attributed. Not even that one. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:38, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
How about this one? Thedarkknightli (talk) 14:39, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
Ostensibly much better, although I can't see it behind the newspapers.com paywall, and I'm not prepared to subscribe again just for that, haha! Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:11, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi, I propose omitting the subdivision (Hampshire) in infobox's birthplace parameter. MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE states, "Information should be presented in a short format, wherever possible, and exclude unnecessary content", and the UK is a unitary state, unlike Australia and the US. Any objections? Thedarkknightli (talk) 02:53, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

The county is often given in British biographies, especially for smaller places such as Tidworth where the placename on its own means nothing to the average reader. -- Wire723 (talk) 09:55, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
Agree with Wire723. Also possible confusion with the larger Tadworth (in Surrey). Martinevans123 (talk) 10:00, 27 December 2024 (UTC) p.s. also note it wasn't really Tidworth (village) but Tidworth Camp.

Does anybody know if James Bl(o)unt is descendant of the branch of the Blount Family who was of service to Henry VIII.? Glamourqueen (talk) 18:29, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

It has been a while since this article has been reviewed, so I took a look and noticed the following:

There are lots of uncited statements, including entire paragraphs and many of the awards.
Unreliable sources are used in the article, such as Hello Magazine. These should be replaced with better sources or the text it supports removed.
The 2017-2019 section is underdeveloped. This should have more text added to this section or have it merged with another section.
Should this article go to WP:GAR? Z1720 (talk) 19:59, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Very little point in disturbing the folks at WP:GAR, if we know the article will fall at the first fence.  Surely it's far better rallying editors to try to improve what we have (or moreover have not). - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 20:12, 4 November 2025 (UTC)