Jump to content

Talk:Adam Lambert/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Sources proving that having a chart with a "Performance Order" column isn't OR

  1. Boston Globe
    Again this source only quote a blogger that the last position is seen by fans is garnering more votes. -- Banjeboi 02:40, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
  2. Reality TV World
    Not reliable. -- Banjeboi 02:40, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
  3. MTV
    This doesn't support that the order means anything but it does show that it's relatively random and done to avoid slow start and to aim for a big finish. "One, I would never put somebody first or last two weeks running. And if someone's first, then generally speaking, they've never been first before or they've been first like, seven or eight weeks ago. And, secondly, I would never start with someone doing a really slowed-down ballad; I'd start the show with something up, if it existed. And I finish with something up, if I can." -- Banjeboi 02:40, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
  4. More MTV
    This one only support that Hicks thinks going second in the finale show helped him. -- Banjeboi 02:40, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
  5. Foxes On Idol
    Not reliable. -- Banjeboi 02:40, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
  6. Zap2It
    Only supports that one contestant blamed her elimination on going first. -- Banjeboi 02:40, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
  7. TheRockRadio.com
    Also not reliable. -- Banjeboi 14:20, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
  8. The National Ledger
    This source is sometimes reliable but of their many writers and editors that are listed as being under editorial control this is not one of them, the overly casual style is a bit of a tip off, so, no. Not reliable. -- Banjeboi 14:20, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
  9. New York Magazine
    This one only supports that there is a "pimp spot" slot. -- Banjeboi 14:20, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
  10. NJ.com
    Ditto. -- Banjeboi 14:20, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
  11. The Boston Herald
    This only states "a coveted spot called the “pimp slot”", it doesn't support any of the novel original research that the order number of all the performances affects voting, just that some think the last spot gets more votes. No proof of that seems to exist however. -- Banjeboi 19:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
  12. The New Economist
    This is another quite interesting source but it doesn't support the concern at all. It does suggest some relation to how the judges on AI and similar shows comment on your performance based on if you either perform at the beginning or end of the show or after a very good or poor performance. It says nothing about any conclusion that can be interpreted from week to week or that the actual Order # influences anything beyond how the judges comment on you. -- Banjeboi 23:19, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
  13. The Wall Street Journal
    This is the closest we've come so far, it’s better for a performer to belt out tunes toward the end of the show. It remains less clear, however, why. It may have something to do with the effect that preceding performers had on assessments of later contestants. Or later performers might just fare better because their effort is fresher in the judge’s mind. Of course, it could be a combination of the two. Ergo we still have no reason to suggest that the performance Order # is important as the only source that comes close also states the why is unknown and the study only seems to be looking at who placed in the bottom two. If anything this could be bundled with a sentence about him being in the bottom although he performed late in the show which would suggest he shouldn't be there. -- Banjeboi 23:27, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


Response

Your "not reliable" analysis is little more than your own opinion. The people at this page can judge the relative merit of your claims of "original research." Apparently you will have a response either dismissing the source, or characterizing the mention of "performance order" in whatever sources I post, so (for real, this time), I'll leave you to it. But please do not attempt to remove the columns again without consensus here to do so. I'm not unwatching this page, just disengaging from this unproductive exchange. Interestingly, some of the sources you casually dismiss as "not reliable" are currently cited in the article. UnitAnode 02:45, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually I will defer to the reliable sources noticeboard. I agree that many blogs are reliable but those I cited seem not to be. As a general rule if something is not reported in solidly reliable sources it's likely not notable to include in an encyclopedia. -- Banjeboi 03:54, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
  • It's amazing, as I'm further researching this, how often "performance order", "pimp spot", or other related words actually are mentioned in stories about American Idol. There's absolutely no way that anyone can claim this is somehow original research at this point. UnitAnode 13:31, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
    • What's amazing is how dreadful these sources are that are suppose to prove the Order # column isn't original research and that these are what's on offer to make the case. This is pretty common actually, using sub-standard sourcing to promote what amounts to fringe theory/novel synthesis. I was hoping someone would swoop in and post a stellar article all about how the "Order #" greatly affects votes but it seems it really is about their talent, ability to choose songs and personality that makes the most difference. I'm quite hapy to look at any more reliable sources that could disprove this column as being original research but we're no where near that and as much as it will be a fools errand it seems likely we really should remove these columns from all the articles. Correct me if I'm mistaken here - the only GA or FA biography article in the AI Wikiproject is the one I brought to GA status - it would seem that really I have the best of intentions here. The project's own guideline also conspicuously doesn't mention having "Order #" and "Results" columns. Really, if iy actually was encyclopedic I'd want to check that source to ensure we're presenting it accurately then use it. But we have nothing yet that the Order # is of any interest to anyone but the fans and maybe conspiracy theorists. -- Banjeboi 14:20, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
      Wow. Now you're making the blatantly bad-faith assumption that the belief that performance order is somehow a "fringe theory"? Good grief. I'm done with this debate, as that's just beyond the pale of reasonable discussion. I'm truly amazed that you would take your attempt to get these columns removed this far. I've shown over and over and over that the belief that performance order matters isn't original research. Anyone who impartially reviews this "discussion" will see that there's no "original research" involved here. This has become a waste of my time, though, as you're never going to change your mind. You got this done at the Archuleta article, and you're determined to get it done here. UnitAnode 14:47, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
      • Please present any reliable sources that the order number each week in anyway made a difference to Lambert or the outcome. I really think these columns should be removed from all the AI articles as there really seems to be no sourcing to support keeping them. -- Banjeboi 15:17, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
        • The Boston Herald does, but will you find some reason it's not really saying what it's clearly saying? UnitAnode 15:23, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
          • The sum total from that article is "a coveted spot called the “pimp slot”", it doesn't support any of the novel original research that the order number of all the performances affects voting, just that some think the last spot gets more votes. No proof of that seems to exist however. -- Banjeboi 19:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
            I've shown very clearly that numerous reliable sources refer to performance order as having an effect. This is far more than enough to support including the column. People can judge for themselves now whether it's original research. You've made your intractibility very clear. UnitAnode 20:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Outdent. You can stop implying I've made my "intractibility very clear", indeed I've asked for reliable sourcing to lead the way and the lack of any that supports your broad assertions would indicate my concerns are correct. The only thing these sources supports in this debate is that teh last position has been termed the "pimp spot" or "pimp slot" and some fans feel it garners more votes. No evidence that the order number for all the other spots affects anything and no evidence that the order number actually affects anything has been presented. I'm eager to be proven wrong on this so we can explain to our readers why this information is relevant and should be a part of the article. If not it should go. -- Banjeboi 21:19, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Last try

  • The text can be seen here and no it doesn't address the core issue here. It implies a causal relationship that judges comments sway actual votes, which would seem logical. But the study researches how positively the performances are reviewed by the judges and compares it to who ends up in the stated bottom slots at the results show. That is not the same as inferring that position 2 or 5 or 12 is the best or is greatly meaningful. This supports a statement - a study suggests that being one of the last contestants to perform or performing after another well-reviewed performance is more likely to keep a singer out of the bottom slots at judging panel. The idea that is presented here could be used in an article about the show itself but still amounts to original research that being in slot 5 vs. 8 actually means something. We think it may mean more and fans think it certainly does but reliable sources do not support that novel synthesis. It might mean something more but reliable sourcing doesn't state that connection, only we do. -- Banjeboi 23:49, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
  • If those don't satisfy your "needs", then nothing will. Your position is the definition of intractable. I give up, but yes, if you try to remove the columns after all the research I've posted, I will be restoring them. They're clearly not based on my own original research. I'm done discussing it here, though, as you're clearly not interested in changing your mind, no matter what research I do. UnitAnode 00:32, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Please don't characterize me as unyielding or in any way close-minded. I have patiently read each of the sources you presented and none of them support this content as being meaningful to this article. A case could be made that the reliable ones could be used on the main AI article and possibly on some of the eliminated contestants but really that seems undue. Good to know you intend to continue revert-warring, at least now I know fully where you're coming from and it wasn't just a process issue as had been alluded to previously. -- Banjeboi 01:30, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
      • It's not how I'm characterizing you, it's how you are being. And it's not about revert-warring, it's about my having proven beyond any reasonable doubt that it's not OR to have a performance order column. And it's about that you're unwilling to consider any evidence I find that a performance order column doesn't constitute OR. You don't get your way just because you keep saying it over and over. I've spent quite a lot of time researching this, and all you've done is refuse to even consider changing your mind, no matter what I've found. I'm done researching, and I'm done arguing with someone whose mind won't be changed no matter what. I just find it particularly sad that if you don't get your way on this issue, you're not going to try to get it to GA. I'm not into all the awards and buttons of this project, but if you think that having two extra columns in a chart will keep it from GA, then that's a big problem with GA. And if you'll just be mad that you didn't get what you wanted, and so you won't try for it, then that's a problem with you. Either way, I've worked very hard to support my position in this debate. You've done nothing to show that the columns actually should go, except mischaracterize the sources I've dug up. I'm finished at this talkpage, as it's clear you're not willing to move on the issue, and I've already wasted way too much time trying to convince you. UnitAnode 02:10, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Just weighing in here, the performance order is not original research by any means. Its a fact and should be treated as such. What Banjeboi is challenging is the notability of the info. All (or at least most) of the sources that have been provided have been blogs, which are not acceptable reliable sources because they do constitute as original research of a non-established source. The simple fact that Lambert performed fifth in Top 11 week is a simple fact that could be verified even with citing the primary source, just a plot of a book, or a summary of a TV episode. The notability of the information is in question though. Why does it matter that he performed in a certain order and the sources provided only find that there might be a correlation between performance order and result. But there isn't anything specific about Lambert performing in a certain order affecting his result. BOVINEBOY2008 02:25, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Album release date

Somebody posted that the album is going to be released on November 17th but there's no citation. Is this fact true? If it is, please put the citation and if you're certain it's not, delete it. --Kyzo76 (talk) 19:55, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I think it would be helpful to add a link to the article "American Idols Live! Tour 2009" somewhere in this article. Perhaps in the 'post idol' category? Example: As one of the Top 10 contestants of American Idol, Adam Lambert performed in the nationwide concert tour "American Idols Live! Tour 2009" from July to September 2009. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.171.157.201 (talk) 23:23, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Zodiac Show Movie

I don't know if this is important enough to merit inclusion or has reliable sources, but I just wanted to put out there that it exists. From http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1485108/ and http://www.rockstarweekly.com/content/view/925/149/ he's supposedly going to be in a movie about the Zodiac Show. Snood199 (talk) 20:31, 24 September 2009 (UTC) (I forgot to sign earlier)

Time for Miracles

Adam confirmed this won't be his single. It should be deleted from the singles table!--78.2.6.234 (talk) 19:32, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

No, but Want isn't "his" single either. If we're judging singles by the criteria of songs Adam has sang and will be released in a format like a single, then TFM is a single. Generally speaking, more extensive discographies break up singles into "promotional singles" and singles the singer and the record company purposefully release, so if you want to edit in details, then be my guest. Kyuu (talk) 05:35, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

On With the Show release date

I would like to point out that it is no longer summer and HiFi has not released the CD nor has released any other statements since the end of June. Therefore, I'm just going to assume they're not releasing it and delete extraneous information of including OWTS off the discography. Kyuu (talk) 05:37, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I would like to just say, Adam Lambert should get out of the music business. What he does on stage is not entertainment, unless you want to see pornagraphy. A new low in the entertainment, and I use the work loosely, industry. That's what happens when the talent pool is so small. I will no longer watch ABC, FOX (American Idol). Have a wonderful life singing and dancing in smoke filled rooms that offer lap dances for entertainment.

#1

Should someone write that Adam is no. 1 at Amazon?--78.2.16.8 (talk) 13:47, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

No. Chart positions from individual retailers are not allowed on Wikipedia articles. lone_twin (talk) 15:02, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Genre

Should Adam Lambert's style really be called glam rock or experimental rock? This citation suggets Alternative rock, musical theater and pop idol as genres. Listening to his Lambert's music, it doesn't seem to follow the definitions of the genre from these sources [1]. Can we have this corrected? Andrzejbanas (talk) 06:08, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

As no one has voted a disagreement, I will change the genres on the page. Andrzejbanas (talk) 01:05, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
For the record, should this ever become an issue again, I strongly disagree with anyone categorizing his music as rock/alternative, as it is nothing of the kind. Him singing a rock song or two or three on the show for specific themes does not make him a rocker; otherwise, I should classify Kris Allen as disco or rap, for reworking certain songs. Glam rock fits, electropop fits, and pop rock just sorta fits. Alternative rock is not only pushing it, it's off the cliff's edge.--Cinemaniac86Dane_Cook_Hater_Extraordinaire 15:48, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Since there seems to be a lot of changing of his genres, whatever we put in there needs to be sourced, but right now all we have is the pop rock genre. Until we have something sourced, I would suggest just putting rock music as the genre instead of a specific subgenre, but I know that would get changed, so at this point I am willing to put up with whatever gets put in the genre field barring edit warring until his album comes out. Aspects (talk) 16:39, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
I'd agree with this below statement of rock. Also Cinemaniac, how does glam rock fit? It does not follow the definitions as labeled in the above descriptions that I've cited. Andrzejbanas (talk) 02:39, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
He is not a rock artist and he doesn't sing rock songs. It's almost insulting to other rock artists to misconstrue genres in such a way. Glam rock is more appropriate since he has a delusion that he's David Bowie and sings screechy anthems of the like. I mean, personally, pop rock is just fine. I'm just trying to appease the crazies with other options, since often artists can't be pigeonholed into one single genre--especially not in these days of musical experimentation. But pop rock, as its sourced, will do. And I think based on his current single, electropop is suitable as well. (It's quite possible that once the album is debuted, he will be labeled as such by professional institutions, and thus, we can source it.) And I don't see where you gave a definition of glam rock.--Cinemaniac86Dane_Cook_Hater_Extraordinaire 05:04, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Here's the source again source. Andrzejbanas (talk) 07:27, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

'Rumors' section

There seem to be a great many eager editors (mostly unregistered IPs) who keep trying to change the title to "Personal Life." As it is, the section I feel is accurately titled, since it is devoted to rumors about his sexuality that came out during and after his stint in AI. (Note its placing in the article, under the "American Idol" heading; it is addressing a controversy that emerged while he was on the show.) If people want to start an actual Personal Life section, find other material besides rumors about his sexuality, then you can possibly justify changing the section title, maybe even moving it to another part of the article. But since all we have is material relating to rumors about his sexuality while on the show, and his addressing of such, it should remain the way it is. SchutteGod (talk) 02:27, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

It seems ridiculous to call them "rumors", now that he's confirmed he is, in fact, homosexual. If you were to just label it "Sexual orientation" or something, until someone expands on his personal life and dating Drake LaBry or whatever the @#$% his name is, that would suffice. Or, perhaps, expand on his Rolling Stone cover story, so the content isn't primarily his time on the show, but post-show as well. But I agree with the most recent reverter at the time of my talk page reply, Unitanode: a "Rumors" section is simply nonsense. However, you are correct that it should be separated from American Idol.--Cinemaniac86Oy_gevalt. 05:48, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
I made a bold change, that I think puts the information in its proper context, as simply a part of who he is. UA 06:30, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Kudos. I was thinking about merging them as well, but was too lazy to read through Early Life to notice what you did. Good call, I say =). All this really needs is a tiny expansion about the Rolling Stone article and I think it's all set.--Cinemaniac86Oy_gevalt. 06:49, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
It did not work in context, since so much of the original paragraph was about the rumors' impact on the show and Adam as a contestant, and not necessarily his "personal" life. Most of that has been moved back to the "AI" section, though the stuff about Lambert actually coming out and making his relationship with LaBry public should stay in "Private Life." I too can be bold. SchutteGod (talk) 17:43, 28 October 2009

Yo the one part says Digital "s"lbums

 Done — fixed typo. EnDaLeCoMpLeX (talk) 01:03, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

AMA's

Shouldn't you put a bit more stuff that critics were saying? RS: http://www.rollingstone.com/rockdaily/index.php/2009/11/23/full-frontal-glambgasm-rob-sheffield-on-adam-lamberts-amas/ - Rolling Stones reacted positively. --Kyzo76 (talk) 21:04, 23 November 2009 (UTC) another one: http://watching-tv.ew.com/2009/11/23/adam-lambert-ama-performance/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kyzo76 (talk • contribs) 21:30, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

And it should be edited to read 11 pm eastern, 9 pm pacific time, just to clarify that some viewers WERE within the limits of the FCC's standards. The original edit only says 11 pm eastern and pacific, outside the realm off FCC's normal standards, which is certainly confusing and almost tries to skew the facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Squintdrummer (talk • contribs) 21:17, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

The show was tape delayed on the west coast, so it would have been seen at 11PM there as well. Also, parts of the performance were cut for the west coast showing. DCEdwards1966 21:24, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Section headings

I have asked User:Benjiboi to start a discussion here about the section headings, but since he has not I will. Per WP:HEAD: "primary headings are then ==H2==, followed by ===H3===, ====H4====, and so on." The section heading are needed so editors can easily edit each section should they want to. There is also no reason to limit the MOS since it is not overly long now and the difference only makes it three lines shorter.

Two different editors have reversed you on here and per WP:BRD, you should have discussed this instead of reverting at least five times recently with different edit summaries. Unless there is a consensus here that the section heading are unneeded or against MOS they should stay in the article. Aspects (talk) 01:30, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure you have a keen interest but your judgment on this remains inclusive of needless content similar to the last edit war where an entire column consisting of the fact he "advanced" to the final show devolved into nonsense. That very same section - "Performances" is completely unlikely to change until it is turned into a sortable table and those columns removed, it simply isn't need to burden the TOC with - yet another section break where none is needed. Similarly his discography section is belabored with extra section headings needlessly as if a single item needs to have its own section headings. This is the same nonsense that litters many of the AI and pop culture articles and is repellent as it invites cruft-like content of every stripe. We don't serve our readers by including everything we can and adding in section breaks to appear to have even more. It's needless and disingenuous as to suggest volume equals quality. It surely doesn't. It dumbs down the article when the subject deserves much better. But here you are to battle - unless someone else has done one - the writer of the only GA level AI article. I'm not suggesting my way is the best but just maybe the same standards that you think are needed to bolster up dozens of inconsequential subjects simply isn't needed here - it makes Wikipedia look like a bunch of fans which flies in the face of NPOV. -- Banjeboi 03:29, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
I can see where Benjiboi is coming from, and I basically agree, but I'll note that the more detailed version does adhere to MOS:DISCOG: "Separate types of releases (such as studio albums, live albums, extended plays, etc.) are generally split up into individual sections and tables." I think the best question is, should the discography material be summarized more tightly here, but presented in detail in an Adam Lambert discography article? A good example of this type of article might be the Clay Aiken discography page. Cosmic Latte (talk) 19:10, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


Some stuff you should put in the After Idol section

He is #3 Man of the Year by MTV (http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1628412/20091216/story.jhtml), Time's person who mattered this year (http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1946375_1946333_1946329,00.html#ixzz0ZsBND2NC), #3 in Twitter Trending Topics of 2009 (http://adamlamberttv.blogspot.com/2009/12/adam-lambert-is-3-in-twitter-trending.html), and Rolling Stone's #1 artist of the year (http://adamlamberttv.blogspot.com/2009/12/rolling-stone-top-artists-of-2009-adam.html). All of this matters because he was in a tough competition but still made great results.--83.131.203.211 (talk) 19:44, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Awards and nominations

Adam is nominated for a GLAAD award - Outstanding Music Artist. http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_2T3fS0kT2vc/S01jldu993I/AAAAAAAAD_4/uMgWbOxbSms/s1600-h/11.png —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.2.40.178 (talk) 11:09, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

About note 1: Other gay idols

Note 1 mentions Clay Aiken and Will Young as past contestants on idol shows who came out as gay after the fact. It might be worth mentioning in the note that Theo Tams, who won Canadian Idol in 2008 was openly gay during the time he was on the show. In fact (for those who might be interested), he first referenced his sexuality during the first live show performance (the top 24 semi-finals). When asked why he chose the song "Apologize" by OneRepublic he said, "I'd been through a relationship where I had to tell him 'it's too late to apologize.'" 142.68.46.30 (talk) 15:44, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

There have been many LGBT Idols and the franchise is worldwide with ... 70? or at least dozens of shows. The note is brief and relative to this article but if another article delves into LGBT people as part of the entire Idol franchise we certainly could link to it somehow. -- Banjeboi 16:01, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

openly gay musicians

Adam is NOT the first openly gay musician to be signed to a major label. I think people are forgetting about ERASURE, who are also openly gay, and adam was in diapers when they signed their contract with a major record label, so that is untrue. I think even the Pet Shop Boys are openly gay and they are on a major label. Sorry to disappoint, but Adam's not the first! Even though I love him! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.17.241.18 (talk) 23:01, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Erasure was a group with one gay member. Pet Shop Boy was not openly gay at the onset of their career. There were a lot of gay musical acts in the eighties. But no one really talked openly about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Susann72 (talk • contribs) 11:52, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Ani DiFranco, Teegan and Sarah, and oh yeah ELTON FREAKIN' JOHN, come one you people must be insane if you think that Adam Lambert is the only openly gay musician. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RayvnEQ (talk • contribs) 13:54, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

"First" gay musician??

Adam paving the way as a gay singer in America?? What am I missing here? Has anyone heard of Liberace? Johny Mathis? Freddie Mercury? Elton John? Clay Aiken? George Michael? Boy George? K.D. Lang? Prince? Melissa Ethridge? Tracy Chapman? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.214.36.41 (talk) 01:55, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I think you are right. I vote to remove it. Nowyouseeme - TALK 04:14, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
There is a difference between openly gay and later came out of the closet, etc. Lambert is notable for this to a certain extent. -- Banjeboi 17:39, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Again, Teegan & Sarah, he's not really notable at all...13:54, 17 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by RayvnEQ (talk • contribs)
Can you provide a source to verify that, because the current reference attached to it isn't regarding that statement. Nowyouseeme - TALK 19:00, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
It was already there - He is also, importantly, the first openly gay mainstream pop artist to launch a career on a major label in America. There are some key qualifiers that I think make this true. Being openly gay when he launched his career on major label and being mainstream. Oh, and doing so in America. -- Banjeboi 00:01, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Good enough for me, bud. Nowyouseeme - TALK 00:32, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

It's being removed Adam Lambert's situation is by no means unique. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.148.72.220 (talk) 18:30, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

You can state your opinion, but it is not solely up to you, a consensus must be reached between editors. Please sign your posts. Nowyouseeme - Tà£k 05:18, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Post-Idol

Adam Lambert's first official solo concert was held February 27th, 2010 at Fantasy Springs Resort and Casino in Indio, CA. He performed to a sellout crowd of 3,500 fans from around the world, including Thailand, Australia, Canada and Mexico.[1] Dougburr (talk) 23:44, 1 March 2010 (UTC) 

      Add it. Nowyouseeme - TALK 02:20, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

For Your Entertainment Single Chart

The single For Your Entertainment has reached #3 in Japan's Billboard Hot 100. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bestbuy99 (talk • contribs) 15:14, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Then why didn't you post it yourself??                     ~Rayvn  13:56, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

WTFRedirect

Why does this page redirect to itself?                     ~Rayvn  13:56, 17 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by RayvnEQ (talk • contribs)

Merge to Adam Lambert discography

I'm proposing that the discography section be merged into a new article, Adam Lambert discography. The main page is getting very long, and this will only get larger as time moves on as well. EnDaLeCoMpLeX (talk) 19:53, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Edit request

{{editsemiprotected}} I have split the discography into a new page (Adam Lambert discography). Please reflect this in the article. Thanks. KingOfTheMedia (talk) 23:50, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

 Done See [2] --Mikemoral♪♫ 00:10, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Remix Album

New album called Remixed is now available. Respective pages should probably be reflected on this page, discography page, and have its own.

Source: http://www.sonymusicdigital.com/adam-lambert/pages/4439408/ 12.162.122.5 (talk) 19:14, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

We Will Line the Streets With Blood?

WTF? Adam was never in a band like this. The idea is right, but the band wasn't named something so violent and they certainly weren't deathcore. MotherFerginPrincess (talk) 14:02, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Mad World

I can't be bothered to make an account and the page is semi-protected, but a comment in the page says that Lambert sung Gary Jules' Mad World in American Idol. This is incorrect; the Tears for Fears cover of Mad World was by Michael Andrews, with vocals by Gary Jules for the film Donnie Darko, of which Michael made the score.70.75.183.12 (talk) 00:39, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

The original perfromer of "Mad World" is Tears for Fears and that is why they are listed in the table. Aspects (talk) 22:26, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
I know, I said that. Read it again closely. 70.75.183.12 (talk) 20:06, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 92.3.244.95, 31 May 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} adam also has a brother called Neil Lambert which i think should be mentioned on wiki for adam lambert info. If you do this then thank you very much!

from a devote adam mitchel lambert fan

92.3.244.95 (talk) 20:45, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Not done: Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate repository of information, and unless Lambert's brother is notable in some specific way to the article's content, he probably need not be referenced. Thanks for the recommendation though! haz (talk) 20:53, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
It's a pretty basic and uncontroversial thing to mention siblings in articles. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 04:36, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Malcolm Weisford

As evidenced by his own Wikipedia entry, Malcolm Weisford is the producer of the early demo tracks from which Adam Lambert now distances himself. It seems likely that Weisford himself inserted the sentence about having guided Lambert's career; this sentence should be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.156.138.2 (talk) 18:00, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Backing band

Monte Pittman - lead guitar Tommy Joe Ratliff - bass Longineu W. Parsons III - drums Camila Grey - keyboards

Adam has expressed a desire to have his band members play on his next album. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cherrysplash (talk • contribs) 19:05, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Adam Lambert

"He is the first openly gay mainstream pop artist to launch a career on a major label in America" This sentence doesn't make sense. Firstly there's plenty of gay mainstream pop artists in the US (Elton John, George Michael, Michael Stipe, Jake Shears, Lance Bass). Secondly if it implies that he was first to be openly gay before he launched his career then it is also false as he refused to declare his sexuality until after the show (and after he was "launched" into the public sphere): http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1613628/20090610/story.jhtml —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.132.241.6 (talk) 12:23, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Pretty sound argument. Remove the term "first"?--Cinemaniac86Dane_Cook_Hater_Extraordinaire 16:05, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Boy is in love. :D

guess that doesnt rate a mention tho nothing means anything without connection. :( —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kallen.adams (talk • contribs) 14:34, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I have attributed the claim to the source: what is verifiable, not what is true. Active Banana (talk) 15:50, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Also, he was not the first openly gay American Idol contestant (and no I am not reffering to Clay Aiken as the first), Jim Verraros of Season 1 is gay. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 02:29, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Lambert is flashy now because he had ugly duckling complex in high school

http://articles.cnn.com/2009-12-01/entertainment/adam.lambert.ellen_1_adam-lambert-sirius-satellite-radio-impression?_s=PM:SHOWBIZ

"I suffered from a little bit of an ugly-duckling complex in my early 20s. When I was in high school I was 250 pounds and that creates some stuff ... some body image stuff, some confidence issues. And I got a lot of my confidence from the validation I got as a performer." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geemoney713 (talk • contribs) 17:11, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Minor edit that should be made, pls

{{edit semi-protected}} in the lead, "pop artist" should be "pop artists" given the grammar in context. thanks. 75.202.151.159 (talk) 18:13, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

 Done ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 18:16, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Article needs to removed from Adam Lambert page and added to Justin Beider

^ 74 "Justin Bieber Wins Big At Teen Choice Awards".

Link takes reader to an article discussing Justin Bieber

This added like article number 74 takes the reader to an article that discusses Justin Beider vs Adam Lambert and therefore should not be listed on Adam Lambert but Justin Beider Ovationimpact (talk) 02:43, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

You are correct; this link does not support the material it is supposed to be citing. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 17:54, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Media

In Adam's other media you should 2009-10: General Hospital Unknown episodes - "Mad World" — Preceding unsigned comment added by HerMostSecretiveObsessions (talk • contribs) 22:24, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Origin

His ancestry on father's side is Scandinavian (especially Norwegian). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EG_gRia_MRE Add this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.179.82.178 (talk) 10:36, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Needs updating - DVD/CD release

to include GlamNation DVD/CD release, preferably with credits Springtimeflowers (talk) 20:17, 23 March 2011 (UTC)springtimeflowers more details about the tour need to be added, not just the DVD/CD release. he did more than 110 shows internationally, most of them sold out. he was the first or only idol contestant of any kind (winner or not) to headline a world tour right after his first CD release. there are no sales figures for the cd/dvd included (last known are from adam.official 8/31/11 putting it at 41,000. 50,000 is RIAA standard for gold on a DVD/long form music {{User:Jordan200/talk/11/11]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jordan200 (talk • contribs) 03:47, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Needs updating - Second CD release

Adam Lambert's Second CD is now set to release Early 2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.74.169.140 (talk) 07:56, 16 September 2011 (UTC) Lambert has stated the first single from the sophomore album will drop in October-ish, then November. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jordan200 (talk • contribs) 04:13, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Songwriter?

How exactly is Lambert a singer-songwriter? Based on the page for For Your Entertainment, he has barely 4 credits to his name and they are all minimal since he listed towards the end of each of the songs he's credited in.

98.109.0.244 (talk) 01:51, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

What does it matter if he has 4 credits or 4,000 credits as a songwriter? If a person writes even just one song, that person is a songwriter. He may have written hundreds of songs that we aren't even aware of. But because we may not know about them doesn't discount the fact that Adam did, in fact, write the songs. If you wrote a ton of poetry and only published say 4 of your poems, does that discount your work? Does that mean you aren't a poet? Where is the rule that shows where a certain number of songs must be written solely by a person for that person to be regarded as a songwriter? And name placement is irrelevant to the argument of whether or not he is a songwriter. His name is credited on the song - he is a songwriter. Using the poetry analogy again. Say you and 4 friends wrote a poem and you only contributed a few lines to that poem so your name is last in the credits. You get credit for what you, a poet, DID write. Do you see what I mean? Give credit where credit is due.  :) YummyLambert (talk) 06:32, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

i think he should be considered a songwriter. adam has said he will be writing on nearly all the tracks for the 2012 release. he also wrote for citizen vein -- a pre-idol band whose music was released and marketed under his name (and over his objections) before FYE; and is about to be released for a second time (again, preceding his official RCA release, which is slated for spring 2012). {{User:Jordan200 talk]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jordan200 (talk • contribs) 03:58, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually he has been also credited with writing and recording 10 songs while with his band TCV which have not yet been released but are available for free on the internet. And with all the information available from current musician/songwriters who have been working with Adam on his second album and have mentioned being impressed with his songwriting skills, so I don't know why this is even still being discussed. Obviously when his new album is released this will never be brought up again, but it needs to be dropped now. --Omgoodnessme (talk) 07:37, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

The real question is how is he an actor? I don't see any sources. --QuickEditor (talk) 04:29, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Read the article, it says that he was a theatre actor. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 04:39, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

read the wiki article is right! he acted in a number of professional productions including Ten Commandments, a European touring company of Hair and Wicked in LA. His theatrical background is absolutely relevant to how he presented himself and his music on Idol, in his debut cd (FYE) and in the creation of the Glam Nation Tour, which has the structure and feel of a show jordan200 talk

Understood, but the term "actor" should be removed from the first paragraph because his theater acting is not notable or relevant to his career. In other words, his theater acting does not have have notoriety to include "actor" after "Adam Lambert is a singer," Delete it. --QuickEditor (talk) 00:07, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
Not to mention, there are no reliable sources that prove that he is a working actor or has acted in association with a notable company. Please see Wikipedia:Notability if you are still unsure. --QuickEditor (talk) 03:39, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
He was in a fairly notable presentation of The Ten Commandments back in 2006. However, that seems to be it. Based on that and the fact he doesn't seem to have any upcoming acting jobs, I'd support removing the "actor" part since he's so much more notable for his singing career. Dayewalker (talk) 03:46, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
I agree. Is this what you are talking about? 1 That is him in a musical, not a notable major motion picture, not to mention that is only one credit if even credible. Yes, he is a card holding SAG member, but being a reality tv show contestant and in a musical does not make you a reputable actor. --QuickEditor (talk) 03:57, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Rumors regarding his relationship

Hi! So, just for a public FYI, I have changed the wording "is dating [Sauli Koskinen]" to "has been rumored to date" for quite a many times. None of those two have said "yes, I am dating Adam/Sauli" according to those sources, so it is all rumors until either one mentions any name. IMHO, considering the actual wordings of the sources, this should not even be up for discussion. -- Frous (talk) 15:48, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I made a change here to "in a relationship with" now that Adam has confirmed this in The Advocate interview outtakes posted by The Advocate editor. Problem is my link is not working to here http://news.advocate.com/post/11735531870/reinventing-adam-lambert-the-outtakes Would someone check this and let me know where I went wrong and/or correct [72] for me. Thanks --Omgoodnessme (talk) 02:35, 22 October 2011 (UTC) oops.... I found my mistake. It works now --Omgoodnessme (talk) 03:33, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

link #3 "Adam Lambert, the new face of glam rock, Malcolm Mackenzie, The Times, 4 February 2010." needs to be fixed. It links to the Times current front page - link is broken to the article as it is now too old to be archived online. A copy of the article can be still be found here: http://adam-lambert.org/adam-lambert-the-new-face-of-glam-rock-times-online/ (Omgoodnessme (talk) 23:16, 1 November 2011 (UTC))

Link #41 ""The ultimate 'American Idol' power ranking". The Times. 2009-05-21. Retrieved 2010-03-24." broken because article is too old to still be archived online. Only copy of article I can find at the moment is in forum here http://idolforums.com/index.php?showtopic=651236 (Omgoodnessme (talk) 23:31, 2 November 2011 (UTC))

Edit request from , 2 November 2011

Under the subsection "Awards and Nominations," please add that the album "For Your Entertainment" won International Modern Pop/Rock Album of the Year at the 2011 Fonogram - Hungarian Music Awards.

Sources: 1) Link to the Fonogram website listing the 2011 winners of each category: http://www.fonogram.hu/?menu=nyertesek 2) Also a link to a news article on Adam's official website (maintained by his label) mentioning the award win: http://www.adamofficial.com/us/news/hungarian-award-adam Stsung (talk) 22:34, 2 November 2011 (UTC) Edit completed (Omgoodnessme (talk) 02:25, 3 November 2011 (UTC))

Edit request from , 8 November 2011

Belfast, Northern Ireland

85.211.220.50 (talk) 22:17, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. --Jnorton7558 (talk) 23:13, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit Request

In the "Advocacy" Section, in the paragraph about his water charity, it says "birthdwhatay". This needs to be changed to "birthday". (94.198.190.2 (talk) 15:55, 16 December 2011 (UTC))

Done. Edenc1 • Talk 19:17, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Reworking this article on my user space

To all who may be interested, I'm currently reworking this article (see User:Stephenjamesx/Adam Lambert) in the hope that I can further its potential for GA status. Stephenjamesx (talk) 20:26, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Stephen there are many of us interested, but i think it's fair to say that the BOLD edit you presented yesterday really crossed the line. you deleted massive amounts of data, reverted controversial and carefully worded sentences and phrases, re-organized in your own fashion, changed the pictures etc. i can see that you gave a warning, but how is that sufficient justification for what you did? i think we would appreciate it if you might give a statement as to your overall intent (beyond that you intend to improve the page; i certainly realize it has redundancies and could be a lot better organized, for e.g.). IMO it's impossible to work around (i began to try) or add to right now. much that you removed, i see you have stated, you will be adding back in. so we wait and guess? there are things i want to update but why would i touch the page when you might just wipe out (even) the entire section i choose to write in? out of consideration to other users, perhaps you could present your edits in smaller chunks and give an explanation/justification alongside. why, for example, did you add in a picture with monte? or with alison and kris. you added and deleted in a fashion that to me is not neutral. since you changed not just the organization of the entries, but also many of the entries themselves, i would suggest that demonstrates a particular POV. i'd love to choose what to say/which facts in a life to include or not -- but in the 2 months or so that i (along with a few that i work in tandem with) have been writing on adam's page, i have tried to be respectful of the work that came before. i thought that was at least as important as being bold on wiki. (Jordan200 (talk) 05:42, 22 January 2012 (UTC))

Stephen - when I first saw you were reworking the Lambert article I was really pleased as it certainly needs improvement. But I certainly did not expect you to sweep in and make major edits in such large increments with no explanation of deletes, additions, edits, moves, etc other than you are making it better and promise to put back deletions later - does this mean ALL deletions? I thought you were merely in the process of working things out and would add in an appropriate manner, perhaps similar to how you handled this. I have had a number of interested users contact me because important material they worked on or entered recently has vanished and other entries were added or moved that made no sense. I certainly understand BOLD and know that all these entries were made in good faith, but you need to be careful in doing this in such huge blocks without any explanation, that it's impossible to follow or even know where to begin to make sense of it or to fix some of the problems. A number of users have been laboring on this article, not all autoconfirmed and making the actual edits. You are not the only interested user trying to make positive changes to this page. I went in to revert 2 of your major entries and ask that they be entered in smaller increments with explanations, but arrived too late as minor corrections had already been made so a revert was not possible, and everyone is now stuck with time consuming manual edits of massive amounts of material dropped into just a few edits. I have deleted 3 of the pics and will start a category to cover this here. I also will start one for Personal life category as there have been many questions surrounding this because you put it under a "Sexuality" sub-category. Also please note that I commented in your Talk twice now asking you to please correct your insufficient citations and dead links - have you not seen this? I don't mean for all of this to sound negative as your work on Lambert's page is very much appreciated - it's just how you went about it that has made things very difficult for other users involved in the process. Would inviting users to comment in Talk for your Lambert article be an appropriate solution in heading off future problems? or will you make edits in smaller increments with explanations in the summaries in the future? Your comments on this are appreciated. (Omgoodnessme (talk) 09:07, 22 January 2012 (UTC))

I would also like to say that this article is not just about you either. I am making edits that I think will benefit this article for its status as GA. My edits have made this page go from a massive 88,000 to 80,000 kb. I am not just updating it for the benefit of myself. Stuff I've removed is either irrelevant or too puffery for GA status. Please bear in mind that this article is about Adam Lambert. I understand that it is completely wrong of me to just seemingly take over but I'm not trying to at all! The article was a mess; I'm trying my best to sort it out. If you want specific details of each thing I've removed, I will give you answers. The television section on this page is completely unnecessary too. The appearances don't give us any detail about Adam's career, although the citations might. I am sorry for being a pain but I was just trying to help! Maybe I shouldn't in future... Stephenjamesx (talk) 13:52, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Stephen instead of taking offense (and since you say it's wrong to "seemingly" take over), why don't you start by telling us what in your opinion specifically will help give it GA status? So far it's unclear that the writing or the organization has been improved based on what you've put forth (i tried to help but gave up). instead, you have made quite a few decisions that affect/affected the sense of the artist. as for things like the television section: bare in mind that when this particular section was begun -- as when much of the other info that was added in the past 2 months started appearing -- the page was grossly outdated and neglected. . . nearly untouched for more than a year. not even his GNL tour, the spin off albums, major television appearances or cover stories had a mention. early life and career dominated, many of those links were poorly documented or dead. with the new material/album coming, it was important to at least update the page w/o wiping out what others considered important at the time. important has a habit of looking different in hindsight. there's no disagreement about the page needing work. -- please don't pout though!; just give us something we can work with so that this can continue to be collaborative. some of your adds (and changes) in content, were not in the spirit of reducing puffery! to the contrary (e.g., you provided more details about what he did in the short time he was away from Wicked, but where is mention of the Rolling Stone cover story -- their biggest selling issue of the year? somewhere in your work space, i don't know!). -- we're all trying to be effective -- and the hours spent trying to throw up more current info was in the hopes that a more coherent picture might emerge. this we do need and it cannot be just one person's interpretation or perspective of puffery vs. not. don't you agree? please start with the GA status details and why you made the changes you did. that's a lot of work, i realize -- but that's what we're all left with now and still (Jordan200 (talk) 00:35, 23 January 2012 (UTC))
Perhaps reviewing Be helpful: explain your changes and Be cautious with major changes: discuss. would help you better understand where other users are coming from. No one is questioning your motives or that you were trying to help, but how you went about it. A little cooperation between everyone goes a long way when trying to make an article GA and the process beneficial for all involved. And yes, this would be helpful: "If you want specific details of each thing I've removed, I will give you answers." The removal that Aspects reverted was obvious, but trying to locate other removals and moves is slow and difficult for some users when your edits were so massive at one time. (Omgoodnessme (talk) 05:35, 23 January 2012 (UTC))
Stephen - You made such massive edits in only a couple entries that it is taking forever to try and make sense of some of it - what has been deleted, moved, added, where and why. Your good intentions and perhaps really great and certainly needed changes have been carried out in a manner that makes it difficult for other interested users to participate in this process. It would help the other users and aid in continuing efforts to make this article better if you would enter the edits as soon as possible that contain important items removed by you. Hopefully we can then move on from there and work together with better communication in the future. Also would you please keep in touch on the talk page so we can avoid any misunderstandings. There is no reason we can't all work together harmoniously, keeping in mind at all times the goal of making Lambert's article the very best it can be. Thanks, Stephen. (Omgoodnessme (talk) 06:24, 25 January 2012 (UTC))
If you don't plan on doing further edits on this page utilizing the deletions you made, as promised, then would you please advise so other users can start the unpleasant task of putting back one by one some of the important entries you highjacked and said you had plans for and would return. This is not helping improve Lambert's article which I thought was everyone's goal here. (Omgoodnessme (talk) 20:21, 29 January 2012 (UTC))

Pictures deleted

I am posting this here rather than on the Talk page of Stephenjamesx because too many other users have voiced their concern over these and challenged the selection. I'm hopeful that other users will weigh in on this since they have expressed their opinions to me. In response to those comments I deleted 3 pictures added by Stephenjamesx for reasons noted in the summaries. Adding any picture simply for the sake of having pics in the article without concern of whether they are of importance or enhance the article is not helpful. If pictures in these areas would be good, please pick more appropriate ones. In my opinion no one is interested in what Lambert's high school looked like and it certainly does not add to his biography - are we that desperate for pics that anything will do? Re AI pic: I think a picture of Adam performing a song during his AI experience would enhance the AI category, since this is his biography. Readers can go to AI Season8 Wiki or individual wiki biographies of Allen and Iraheta if they want pics of them - you certainly won't see a pic of Adam on their wikis. Readers come to Lambert's wiki to read about him and see pictures of him. Re the GNT pic with Monte - Adam has made it clear many times that he is a solo artist and not a frontman for a band (recently on Twitter he said "I'm my OWN frontman"). This is not Monte Pittman's biography and he was never exclusively Lambert's guitarist. Monte is also guitarist for Madonna, but you won't see his pic on her page because she is a solo artist. I don't ever see other solo artists with pics of them with a backup band member, especially if they are hired for one gig only (ie GNT). If it is difficult to find a great pic of just Adam performing on stage during GNT, please advise here and perhaps Lee Cherry who has taken many amazing GNT photos would provide one that could be used - he is easy to contact.

There have also been questions as to why other pictures were replaced without any explanation. I know wiki is not a democracy and anyone can make edits, but this process involves an summary explanation for the edit, especially when there are so many at one time. (Omgoodnessme (talk) 10:19, 22 January 2012 (UTC))

  1. ^ http://www.kesq.com/Global/story.asp?S=12058801
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Adam_Lambert/Archive_3&oldid=1142751393"