Talk:Cameron Carpenter

Clean-up

This article reads like it's copied from a periodical or an ad for digital organs. Any thought on clean-up? Tinuviel91 (talk) 17:16, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

It does need some work, i'll put it on my list. Hopefully I'll get to it this year! --Ged UK (talk) 20:31, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Article seemed OK to me. Glad wikipedia has something on the artist. Sorry if you're against progress and electronic organs. -Phil —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.251.72.144 (talk) 19:21, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

It's much much better than it was in November, but it still needs some work doing. --Ged UK (talk) 19:37, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Name (again)

There are persuasive citations to reliable sources that someone billed as "Taylor Carpenter" is the same as the organist calling himself "Cameron Carpenter". But there is no citation to any reliable source as to the individual's birth name or full name. While there are non-reliable sources that indicate what it might be, that is not sufficient for a BLP. Please, no more insertions of unreferenced inference (no matter how likely that inference may be). Bongomatic 05:30, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, but why the change of heart? I removed the unreferenced Taylor stuff three days ago, and you were the one who immediately added it back, along with a reference...

—BMRR (talk) 16:50, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

No change in heart. It seemed to me that there was sufficient demonstrable evidence for BLP purposes to go as far as I did, but no further (despite the almost certainly WP:TRUE statements for which no evidence has been offered). Bongomatic 01:30, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Vendetta?

This article had a lengthy, questionable section subtitled "Criticism" recently added to it, which read like something written by an individual who has a personal vendetta against the artist (the section ran to ominous purple prose about a "loyal, dedicated and growing" group of people devoted to the artist's failure, or some such negative bias. On the basis of 1. obvious bias shown, 2. selective interpretation of existing reporting (for instance, siting only negative reviews that the artist's website itself provides as a kind of tongue-in-cheek send-up of "the haters" etc.) and 3. incongruity with the tone and balance of the rest of the article, I've deleted this section. -Shanezenith (1/30/10) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.199.80.218 (talk) 03:48, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

This section did not maintain any sort of bias, as you mention, rather it was demonstrating the controversy of an extremely controversial artist. You have been reported to the Wikipedia authorities, as your edits say far more about your bias than the original section. Hopefully your edits will render this article locked, as I have been suggesting to them for ages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nr8586 (talk • contribs) 01:51, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

The section is sourced to the subject's own website. It appears that the subject invites the controversy and the discussion of the controversy, so it's hard to say it's inappropriate. The idea of a vendetta is particularly ridiculous, unless the subject has a vendetta against himself. ^Bongo_matic 03:00, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Personal Life/Sexuality

Please discuss the relevance of this subject. It's one thing to genuinely report on a personality's life outside their work. It's another to say "he's gay" without even knowing his birth date. I suggest that until someone is able to come up with more than the 5 lines of text under the "Work" sub-head, the "Personal" section (which is also 5 lines long) be deleted. At this stage in his career Cameron's work is of far more relevance than what he does in his free time (unless he incorporates it into his performances in ways other than his sequins and high heels). He is a flamboyant performer and that is worth stating because it is a part of his showmanship.

When he gets as famous as Liberace, then his sex life might become interesting. May his art always dwarf such things. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Starfish warrior (talk • contribs) 26 April 2010

• I concur. The whole section seems irrelevant. -- What bearing or effect, if any, does Mr. Carpenter's sexuality have upon his musicianship? -None, that I can tell. This section is superfluous. Sbattles 07:45, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
• He has also composed/published classical music for peters edition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.229.171.143 (talk) 13:05, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

The citation supporting his bisexuality seems not to be accessible, even in the archived version, which to me gives error "issueNotAvailable". I've substituted another source, without the quote, at least for the time being. Davidships (talk) 18:50, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Citation Overkill

This article suffers from a case of Wikipedia:Citation overkill in the Work section. At one time, the section concluded with 15 references, with no apparent connection to the actual facts within the section. Though I've whittled the bloat down to 11 references, I'm finding that several of the remaining references are redundant, providing little in the way of new information on the artist. It looks like an earlier editor may have engaged in a bit of Wikipedia:Bombardment to ward off possible deletion. It's hardly necessary, as Carpenter appears to satisfy at least 3 notability criteria for Wikipedia:MUSICBIO (he has received serious press profiling from reliable media sources, was nominated for a Grammy in 2008 and was featured in an interview with Jim Svejda on nationally syndicated The Record Shelf). So perhaps some judicious culling is now in order. --Waldhorn (talk) 06:21, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. –BMRR (talk) 13:30, 7 September 2011 (UTC)