Talk:Adam Lambert/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

"Distinguish" tag

Not to be confused with Adam Lamberg.

The tag was initially in the article but it was mysteriously removed (see link), so I restored it again. I think the rationale of the tag is that both of the names are similar and only differs by the last letter, and due to the letters "G" and "T" being close to each other on the standard US English keyboard, which can cause typos. kotakkasut 16:10, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Freddie Mercury

Not that I disagree that Adam Lambert bears a striking resemblance to Freddie Mercury, but does one poorly-written blog item really constitute a been-compared-to claim? I could have said the same thing on my own blog and sourced it here, but that doesn't make me necessarily reliable. Just a thought, really. Now, if you'll excuse me, my chicken's burning. Bodypuzzle (talk) 05:06, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

It seems like fansite fodder and likely should be removed unless more RS cover it. -- Banjeboi 20:34, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Whether the blog post is a valid citation or not can be left up to someone else. However seeing that same citation is used to claim comparisons to Steven Tyler and Mick Jagger -- when there is no mention of either in the post-- I have removed those comparisons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.231.176.102 (talk) 12:40, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I've removed it. It's a non-notable opinion expressed in a poorly written blog site. I don't see it as a reliable source and to include it in his article implies that it's a widely held view, when there is nothing to confirm that this is the case. Rossrs (talk) 13:06, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Sexual Orientation Tag?

Resolved

 – As sourcing allows we can entertain what content is suitable. If Lambert outs himself in some way the appropriate category can then be added. -- Banjeboi 21:26, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Since he has not mentioned it yet to my knowledge, it wouldn't be appropriate to incorporate it into his bio, I don't think. And the pictures that have been posted of him kissing other men, while seemingly obvious, wouldn't be "encyclopedically factual", would they? But he did have all of those pictures tagged as "Me (Adam) and my lover/boyfriend Brad", so would that be enough to stub this article with an LGBT singer tag? I think it would, because by referring to him as his lover/boyfriend, he's at least bisexual, if not homosexual, and it fits. Thoughts?--Cinemaniac86^Oy_gevalt. 00:30, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

His sexual orientation would have to have been mentioned in a reliable source (e.g., mainstream media article). If it's only on YouTube or MySpace, I'm pretty sure that doesn't meet Wikipedia standards. Additionally (my own thoughts here only), if we can't find a reliable enough source to include his sexual orientation in the text of the article, then we haven't found a reliable enough source to categorize his article based on it, either. Hermione1980 17:31, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Category tags for sexuality and religion come last per policy. First we need reliable sourcing and the content to be in the article, then the cats can be added. -- Banjeboi 03:22, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

How about the LA Times? :o) — OwenBlacker (Talk) 23:50, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I would have linked to another article too, but the domain associatedcontent.com is apparently blacklisted. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 23:50, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to revert, but I would like to point out that this article is still only saying "it's obvious", with no actual proof backing it up. (Before anyone accuses me of being homophobic, let me say that I don't care if he's gay or not; I just want very good sources before it goes in the article.) Hermione1980 00:00, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

The LA Times article linked above doesn't do it actually for a cat but can hint if worded neutrally. I hope to redo this entire article so if RS support the cat I'll certainly use them. -- Banjeboi 01:36, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

What about something regarding the photos surfacing of him making out with other men? -- Erroneuz1 (talk) 19:57, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

We need a reliable source discussing them. -- Banjeboi 20:33, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

So because a newspaper didn't necessarily pick it up, we ignore that the photos were released altogether? -- Erroneuz1 (talk) 18:58, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

The reasoning is that we don't put much weight on gossip - if something is important enough the mainstream media will cover it. I have little doubt that something pop up as he's doing quite good and those who want someone else to win will dig it out and try to scandalize it or someone from his past will kiss and tell. -- Banjeboi 01:39, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

is he gay?? :::::I don't think so. I think it's possible to be neutral - and it is scandal, considering past contestants were kicked off the show for being homosexual. -- Erroneuz1 (talk) 08:21, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

No one has ever been kicked off the show for being gay. The British Idol from a few years back was openly gay. It's not a big issue. -- Banjeboi 09:59, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I just wanted to add that those photos of him kissing other men have been aired on Fox News on the Bill O Reilly Show. -- 13:15, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a link to a video clip? We should see what is stated and judge if and how it can be used. -- Banjeboi 02:07, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I found the videoclip [1] -- Erroneuz1 (talk) 06:27, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Outdent. That's a great video! Yes we could work with that to report that photos of him kissing another young man surfaced and Fox News commentators discussed that this implied he was gay but that it likely would have no effect on his AI status as the show is based on talent and the demographic of the veiwers and voters was much younger and that his sexuality was of little consequence. -- Banjeboi 11:53, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

• Until a better source than a youtube video is found, the information stays out. If it's not important enough to be reported on by the standard media outlets, it shouldn't be in yet. Unitanode 13:12, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
  • The source is Fox news which is considered reliable, the content does need to be written neutrally and sourced to Fox with teh youtube link only as support. -- Banjeboi 21:09, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
    • I did write it neutrally, I wrote it similar to what you suggested! -- Erroneuz1 (talk) 06:36, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
      • Adam Lambert also responds to the photos. [2] -- 22:26, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Stop adding the sexuality stuff without reliable sources

YouTube is not a reliable source. Until reliable sources cover this, it's nothing more than the original research of the people trying to add it. And as this is a WP:BLP, reverting this "Controversies" section out is NOT a violation of 3RR. Unitanode 15:39, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

[3] BOVINEBOY2008 15:41, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

This says, "He may be. He may not be." It says that insinuations are caroming around the internet. How is this REMOTELY close to the standard required for a BLP? Unitanode 21:25, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

It's not, but there is something to be said about some kind of controversy about whether he is or not. It SHOULDN'T be a controversy, but it has been reported in several notable examples and should be noted somewhere in the article. BOVINEBOY2008 03:43, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

It is NOT a "controversy", and every "source" I've seen is just saying "well he might be, or he might not be, who knows?" I'm sorry but this is NOT enough for a BLP. Unitanode 13:02, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

but Fox News is reliable, and if that's the source in the video, than it's reliable. Sorry. --Erroneuz1 (talk) 20:33, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

For this kind of thing, mere ruminations by an opinionated COMMENTATOR are not enough for inclusion in a BLP. Unitanode 22:17, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

It's not so much about the ruminations as it is about the photos being released, which is the issue. -- Erroneuz1 (talk) 08:52, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Is it known for certain the the photos are of the subject, or should we say that they "appear to" show him?   Will Beback  talk  20:33, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

It's him, but it's NOT clear (because he's never spoken publicly about it), whether the photos are just him being goofy (and potentially bi-curious), or if he actually is gay. Until something is known for certain (i.e. Elton John), it's my undersanding that the policies of Wikipedia don't allow the information into the article. Unitanode 20:36, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

How do we know it's him? He looks like lots of goth/emo guys (to my eye at least).   Will Beback  talk  21:10, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

It sure LOOKS like him, but you raise another point against inclusion. Unitanode 21:39, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

It's him, he acknowledges it's him in another link someone else posted above. It's all verified to be him. He has spoken publicly about the photos. -- Erroneuz1 (talk) 23:30, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

• The ABC source changes things. Very detailed, straightforward analysis of the claims/issue. I now don't have a problem with a neutrally-worded paragraph addressing it. Unitanode 01:03, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

That is a big help. Why don't we use that rather than getting into what the talking heads on the O'Riley Factor said? I don't think their comments are really worth reporting.   Will Beback  talk  01:11, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

You're all welcome. Honestly the only difference to me is that it's not a video as it states the same things, but I'm glad it helps everyone out. -- Erroneuz1 (talk) 03:16, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

• comment I've cleaned it up and I think per wp:undue it can just be part of the section rather than a "controversy". -- Banjeboi 03:55, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I think it should get a "controversy" section. David Hernandez has one for being a male stripper, and Antonella_Barba has a "controversy" section for leaked online photos, which is the same as this. Frenchie Davis too. -- Erroneuz1 (talk) 05:39, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

No. If I read the policies right, "Controversies" sections are highly discouraged. There's no need for such a short graf to have its own section, other than to throw more weight to it than it deserves. Unitanode 05:52, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Per WP:LIVE, we should not claim that someone's gay based solely on a YouTube video. Also, there's no "implication" that Lambert's gay, only an allegation. Until he confirms he's gay, for Wikipedia purposes, he's not gay.--Yolgnu (talk) 14:35, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Youtube is not a reliable source? Even when the subject of the article is actually telling the audience flat out that he's gay? Come on, people. Knock off the homophobic bullshit. I mean, really. --Ragemanchoo82 (talk) 02:01, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

No, YouTube is not a reliable source. If he admits as much in an interview with a reliable source (which, to my knowledge, he has not done), then it's included. As for being homophobic, your accusations are more than a bit over the top. Unitanode 16:34, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Well YouTube can be reliable but at this point usually isn't. Where is that video by the way? -- Banjeboi 21:28, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

"Another man" is "alarmist"? What?

Resolved

 – The wording is fine and neutral now. All other issues boil down to style and civility. Let's call this done and agree that we can all be nicer to each other. -- Banjeboi 21:29, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Please explain yourself on this matter. Also, I struggle to understand how making the note about Simon's critique MORE wordy is helpful to the article. Unitanode 02:54, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I just think "another" is wordy and needless when you can just use "an". And "standing ovation was the best critique of Lambert's performance" could be interpreted to mean that there were multiple critiques and a standing ovation was the most positive one, while what Simon meant was that giving a standing ovation was the optimal way to critique his performance.--Yolgnu (talk) 02:59, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

You made the latter more wordy, and I'm still not understanding to what purpose you did so. Also, you made clear in your edit summaries that your REAL problem with the wording of the former was that it was "alarmist." Unitanode 03:10, 17 April 2009 (UTC)\

I don't have the patience to deal with someone who attacks people with capital letters and rhetorical questions and seems determined to WP:OWN the article and drive away potential editors. I think I'll stick to editing more friendly articles like Lil Rounds and Allison Iraheta.--Yolgnu (talk) 10:34, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

So, now I'm "attacking" you because I pointed out that your changes weren't helpful? And capitalizing the word "real", in order to emphasize it, somehow also attacks you? Feel free to stick around and edit here or to leave. There are several of us that try to keep this article maintained, and we can always use more eyes. But if you're not willing to discuss, and honestly explain your changes, then perhaps this isn't the best place for you. Unitanode 15:19, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Performance Order #.

Please do not remove this. I integrated this into the charts very successfully last season. (This applies to all of the Top 12 contenders.) It is factual information, in that it is an indisputable order in which the contestant performed on that particular night. And it is relevant to anyone doing a review or synopsis of the show who wants to analyze statistics and such. (Notice how all User:Cinemaniac86|Cinemaniac86]]^Oy_gevalt. 00:27, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually that would be fine on the season article but not on individual ones. Same with results column, it's redundant to what should be in the article text - "__ came in fifth", etc. -- Banjeboi 03:21, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Article overhaul

I intend to work on this article to bring it to GA like I did with David Archuleta from last year. This is a new and short article so I don't expect anyone would mind but I thought I'd post a heads up. -- Banjeboi 20:33, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Highlights Only

User:Cinemaniac86 has suggested that "it will be too cluttered in each Idol's individual article if you mention all performances - it's best to keep it condensed to the positives, for the Top 5" and that "Lambert's page mentions each and every performance - that is ridiculous". I agree, and am cleaning up the article so that, as with Kris Allen and Allison Iraheta, only the highlights are discussed. It's ridiculous to discuss all of Lambert's predicted 20 performances.--Yolgnu (talk) 03:21, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Exactly, thank you. Semi-positive performances are permissible though, I feel. Such as Kris's "Falling Slowly" (Randy aside, the others loved it.) and "Ring of Fire" (Everyone but Simon dug it.). But overall, it's basically best to only discuss the notable performances--the ones that get the most attention overall.--Cinemaniac86^Oy_gevalt. 03:40, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Ring of Fire was probably the most controversial performance in the history of AI, so it deserves to stay. I think most people have forgotten All She Wants To Do Is Dance by now, so that can stay out of Kris's article.--Yolgnu (talk) 03:58, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Who was that man?

It says that Adam Mitchel Lambert was kissing another man. Who was the man he was kissing? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.249.225.41 (talk) 23:03, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

We may never know. -- Banjeboi 02:40, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

On the photo account, it was tagged as "my lover/boyfriend Brad" in each one. Since Adam's single, it's obviously now an ex of his. But it's certainly not relevant for the article. However, hope the info makes ya happy, random IP person =).--Cinemaniac86^Oy_gevalt. 09:33, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

well, we do know, and have known. and we can even occasionally know what he eats for dinner or when he takes his showers, thanks to twitter. "we may never know?" very little private information about public figures is sacrosanct nowadays. 75.72.20.232 (talk) 07:05, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

It was Kara who said that "If I can't have you" was Adam's most memorable performance, not Simon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.110.238.163 (talk) 18:33, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Picture?

It would be nice if there could be a picture of him on the page. That's all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 153.106.4.94 (talk) 04:01, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Allison/Adam versus Kris/Adam

The Kris/Adam friendship is discussed in reliable sources. If the Allison/Adam friendship has similar sources, use them. If not, you simply can not "source" your observations to YouTube videos and interpret them as you like. That's original research and it's not allowed. Unitanode 16:49, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

They're not just "various YouTubes". They're footage from the show and an uncontroversial interview with Rickey Minor. I'll remove the "I love you" bit since it could be misinterpreted. All I'm doing is recording Rickey Minor's opinion.--Yolgnu (talk) 01:00, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

The point is, videos are primary sources, which are not allowed to be used as sources. Unitanode 20:53, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

• If you continue to add poorly sources material to this BLP, you will be reported. We've been patient enough with you on these matters. Either find a reliable source (not a primary source) for your addition, or it stays out. Unitanode 22:39, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Question!

is it okay to add stuff about kris & adam's friendship? for example (i got this from topidol.com--yea, i know it's a blog & i think they got it from kris's official fansite): "Adam painted Kris's thumbnail after the homecoming visits and removed the polish from one of his own nails, stating 'If you can carry around a piece of me, man; I can do the same for you.'" or is that just completely irrelevant. 76.197.57.235 (talk) 01:32, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Seems too trivial; if we were writing a book it may make for interesting filler. -- Banjeboi 01:38, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Years active

I think 2008 isn't the right date since Adam definitely had a career in music before this. What's the qualification for years active? Regardless of what it is, it's definitely not the one that's listed. Kyuu (talk) 04:03, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Official artist website

Adam's official website just launched at www.adamofficial.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kozpod (talk • contribs) 15:43, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Adam's iTunes rankings

Top 100 Songs: #4 Mad World, #16 A Change Is Gonna Come, #36 One, #40 Cryin', #45 Slow Ride, #64 The Tracks of My Tears, #68 Ring of Fire, #77 Whole Lotta Love, #89 Black or White, #98 Born to Be Wild Top 100 Albums: #1 Mad World, #2 No Boundaries, #3 A Change Is Gonna Come, #15 Cryin', #16 One, #19 Mad World, #23 Slow Ride, #26 Favorite Performance, #30 The Tracks of My Tears, #33 Ring of Fire, #41 Whole Lotta Love, #45 If I Can't Have You, #50 Born to Be Wild, #54 Play That Funk Music, #56 Black or White, #58 Feeling Good Top 100 Music Videos: #6 Mad World, #8 A Change Is Gonna Come, #9 Mad World, #11 No Boundaries, #12 The Tracks of My Tears, #25 One, #30 Cryin', #44 Play That Funk Music, #45 If I Can't Have You, #51 Born to Be Wild

• As of May 21, 2009 Adam has 10 songs, 16 albums and 10 music videos on iTunes respective charts. Adam has more albums on the iTunes chart than any other person in history.

The issue as always, is sourcing. Do we have independent sourcing of this or a way to confirm the Itunes data? -- Banjeboi 09:46, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

the iTunes rankings are trivial. Billboard is what matters.--23prootie (talk) 11

02, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. It's policy to not include iTunes rankings, only Billboard.--Yolgnu (talk) 11:08, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I completely disagree that Itunes ranking, aka sales, are trivial, they seem to be the leading seller of digital music. To me the issue is only that we provide context and sourcing which I think has remained an issue with Itunes. We do include Itunes information if it is otherwise sourced, that is my point. -- Banjeboi 11:12, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Proof of Lambert's sexuality

http://www.rollingstone.com/rockdaily/index.php/2009/05/22/adam-lambert-talks-idol-finale-sexuality-katy-perry/

It States "As to whether the speculation surrounding his sexual orientation impacted the final vote, Lambert simply laughed, and answered, “Probably.”"

I Think This Answers That Question —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bvernon199 (talk • contribs) 17:31, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

If the question is "is Adam Lambert gay," then no, it doesn't. It only states that speculation over whether or not he is gay was part of the outcome. As far as I know, the only thing Adam himself has said, in the context of acknowledging that photos of him kissing other men are authentic, is "I know who I am." Maybe he's gay. Maybe he's bisexual. Maybe he's straight but he kisses men. We don't know. Exploding Boy (talk) 17:36, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, we do have plenty of sources that state he's openly gay so we can talk about the subject but we should do so conservatively. There is quite a bit of media coverage if his being gay impacted the final vote so that is likely where the content should be addressed. I'll do it if no one else does. -- Banjeboi 20:17, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not saying I don't think he's gay, only that this source doesn't confirm it. Exploding Boy (talk) 22:00, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

No problem, I was more addressing the issue but agrre we have to stick with the sources and let them lead. -- Banjeboi 22:33, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a simple formula for certain types of discussion. Lets use the Duck Test on Lambert and see where it gets us.--Jojhutton (talk) 22:36, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Lol! The duck test won't be acceptable in this case I'm afraid although that's an interesting proposal. We're in no rush and the world will keep spinning until we find NPOV and reliably sourced way to include this content and context. -- Banjeboi 23:04, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:DUCK is only an essay, useful in some instances, not in others. In this instance, if we have reliable sources indicating Adam's gay, then let's use them. But french kissing someone of the same sex does not lead to the inescapable conclusion that someone is gay, as the "duck test" suggests. Exploding Boy (talk) 23:06, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Just checking, would his own Friendster profile be an acceptable source for everyone since it does belong to Adam Lambert himself?

http://profiles.friendster.com/3761487

In the "More about Adam" section it states "Openly Gay. Honest. Anylitical." which kind of leads me to believe that he is gay. Ixistant (talk) 15:23, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

And a poor speller. But are we sure he's actually running that page? Exploding Boy (talk) 15:25, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Age

Adam Lambert was 27 years old when he was born? johno95 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:28, 27 May 2009 (UTC).

Bottom three

Adam was in the Bottom THREE -- Not the bottom two! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.145.185.163 (talk) 19:04, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, see also this discussion further up the page. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:12, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Chart position for Idol performance's songs?

I checked on Billboard today and find the following article: [4]. It does stated in there chart position for Lambert and Allen's idol performance so would it be reliable source? Coz' I checked Archuleta's article and in the discography, there was section for the idol performance as well as other single. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Karius13 (talk • contribs) 19:22, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Billboard is reputable and generally the Archuleta article is also up to snuff. -- Banjeboi 00:04, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Bottom 2

It should be noted that at no time during the 4/29 elimination episode did Ryan actually say that Adam and Matt were the "bottom 2" contestants. On the contrary, Adam, Matt, and Kris were presented as the bottom 3, Kris was sent back to safety, and then Ryan said it was "between Adam and Matt." I put this here simply because there has been much internet chatter over the possibility that Kris was sent to safety first as a means to create drama on the show, the presumption being that it would be a shock to viewers to see Adam (a perceived frontrunner) standing in the spotlight with Matt as one of the "bottom 2." No action necessary, really, just making a point that this particular topic seems to have become a point of contention over the past week. Bodypuzzle (talk) 04:16, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out. Other editors have been attempting to change "bottom 3" to "bottom 2". This article in Reality TV World supports your statement. Also, sources such as this one at MTV.com seem careful to say "bottom three" but not "bottom two". Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:41, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I haven't changed this back to "bottom 3" because another editor already reverted me once when I did, so I will leave this to others. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 18:42, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Religion

{{editsemiprotected}}It is notable that Adam is Jewish. Please add Jewish as the religion to the infobox with the following reference: http://www.jewishjournal.com/hollywoodjew/item/adam_lambert_the_jewish_american_idol_20090429/

Wikipedia guidelines say: Category tags regarding religious beliefs and sexual orientation should not be used unless two criteria are met:

• The subject publicly self-identifies with the belief or orientation in question;
• The subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to the subject's notable activities or public life, according to reliable published sources.

Adam does publicly identify himself as Jewish and it is relevant since he has performed at many Jewish events.

Thanks.

Not done: The reference is a blog. To meet those criteria, you need some reliable source or sources in which he is quoted or said to have self-identified and somehow to have tied that to his notability. Celestra (talk) 14:56, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, there is this video of him singing Shir Lashalom in hebrew:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aNb2Qsh0F_Q&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Epollsb%2Ecom%2Fpolls%2Fp2098688%2Damerican%5Fidol%5Fadam%5Flambert%5Fsings%5Fjewish%5Fsong%5Fhebrew&feature=player_embedded There aren't many people who just happen to pick up hebrew on a whim. It's pretty good hebrew, too. I don't see how it's related to the article, however, unless he's the first Jewish person to win. Then it might deserve a bit of mention. - 71.193.11.63 (talk) 19:12, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

155.239.195.240 (talk) 20:38, 25 May 2009 (UTC) There are some sources that state he is Catholic, and furthermore vidoes of Kris performing in Hebrew and is in fact Christian. There are testimonies out there that state his old MySpace Page stated this. Therefore any respecting human being may perform in any language to honour any culture or religion that he or she sees fit.155.239.195.240 (talk) 20:38, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Adam confirmed he is Jewish and discussed going on Birthright with Michelle Collins of VH1, http://www.bestweekever.tv/2009/05/28/the-adam-lambert-interview-that-will-change-your-life/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.96.92.181 (talk) 05:41, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Categories for sexuality

Yes, he's most likely gay. No, he hasn't self-identified in any reliable sources. No, the categories don't belong, at least not yet, and if they keep getting added to this WP:BLP, the people doing so will be blocked. Unitanode 23:13, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. -- Banjeboi 01:37, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Amtrak11 is adding them again. Trust30H3 (talk) 21:14, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Can we change the sentence from says he is "a homosexual" to he has come out as gay? Less clinical and also the term he is using. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dharveyfm (talk • contribs) 21:53, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I edited "a homosexual" as it's clinical, outdated, and bad writing, though it remains directly piped. If anyone takes issue with this change, feel free to challenge it, but realize that "a homosexual" gives off POV vibes.Ademska (talk) 08:43, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Adam Lambert and Queen

While I think Adam Lambert is one of the most gifted singers since Freddie Mercury, I don't think that Brian May's comments in any way lead to the conclusion that they're considering him as a member of the band. All the cited says is that Brian May respects him as a great singer ("That is one amazing instrument he has there") and that he, Brian, would like to talk to him regarding potential collaboration. As a lng time Queen and since Hollywood week Adam fan, I think they'd be very well suited, although I have major doubts as to whether any such collaboration should be billed as Queen. Therefore I'm going to reword that section to reflect more accurately what Brian May said, rather than what people would like to read into it. Wavy (talk) 17:09, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, because of the (probably necessary) semi-protection on the page, I can't make that change, but I would be grateful if some one would. Wavy (talk) 17:12, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 Not done

The source, Billboard, is reputable, the title of the article is "Queen Considering 'Idol's' Lambert As Frontman" with the lead sentence - "American Idol" runner-up Adam Lambert's performance with rock band Queen on the finale of the TV singing contest this week has the British band thinking about a new front man. supporting exactly what we have. -- Banjeboi 19:49, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, though I just thought Billboard were reading into it more than was there. Also, Ryan Seacrest mentioned on the Tonight Show with Conan O'Brien, 05/06/2009 (fifth June) that Adam would be touring with Queen, and Seacrest should know;o) 60.48.253.72 (talk) 16:03, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Jewish?

Wait, if we can't say Adam is gay, why is it okay that we're saying he's Jewish? First of all, I know he's Jewish (by heritage) and I believe it, but the sources aren't really credible. One is a blog. If Out/The Advocate - which are credible sources - publish entries about Adam being gay and we still can't put that on his page, then I don't see how different media outlets (especially blogs) publishing that he's Jewish is more credible. As far as I know, Adam hasn't self-cited as being Jewish or practicing Judaism (he's cited on his myspace that he's agnostic, which is also not sourceable, but I'm just making the point). Isn't that a double standard when it comes editing? I'm taking it off, but if you want to argue your case, go ahead.Kyuu (talk) 03:44, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Mako is a reliable source, since it's the official website of the biggest news company in Israel. They made a report about American Idol's final but most of this report is about Adam being Jewish. Edenc1 • Talk 03:56, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Jewish Journal and other sites like it don't care if they're reliable. Really their only intent is to "add another person to the club." They're sources are that he sung songs in Hebrew and his surname has something to do with Passover. Which is, suffice to say, a big stretch: Lambert (surname). Until there's a public statement clear enough, I've removed this information. Bulldog123 10:47, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Again, Mako isn't "other sites like it". I'm not gonna add it back, but if there's a reliable source you shouldn't remove it. And we can't "judge" sites, it's really not NPOV. Edenc1 • Talk 11:57, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

How about this interview? (The lines right after the image that says "My new life picture.") All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 18:52, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

That's a much better source, but even that felt icky to source it with ('mmm hmmm'?). In the same way that we respect excluding the numerous sources that say he's gay, we should respect excluding these (for now) - especially given other statements where he says he's "atheist." We're not getting into Jewish maternal lineage (if it is maternal lineage?) or Jewish ethnicity here either because it's absurd and irrelevant. We don't know anything about his parent's backgrounds. If this becomes relevant in some way, like his sexuality, it can be returned, preferably with something less loaded. Bulldog123 02:30, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

He says he's Jewish, what more do you want? It doesn't matter what his parents are, or if he was born Jewish or not. Edenc1 • Talk 07:17, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd agree. BTW, I've not seen any actual references that state he's an atheist. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 10:24, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't matter whether you agree or not. We have to respect WP:BLP. The jump from "mmm hmm" to categories like Jewish American musicians with people like Bob Dylan is your personal additions, not something actually verified to the fullest and clearest. It is entirely possible that he would not agree with this classification, and we're not ones to decide that. Nonetheless, we're not adding him to any other categories. I wouldn't add an agnostic category either. For the same reason, we're not going to include him in Category:LGBT musicians. Bulldog123 03:00, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Please stop vandalizing Adam's page, Bulldog. These are reliable sources, and Adam identifies as Jewish. Why would he be offended to find himself categorized as Jewish on Wikipedia?--Yolgnu (talk) 07:17, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

That is not your decision to make. "Mmm hmm" is simply not good enough to certify him as someone who's Judaism is at all relevant to his career, which is the only reason he has a wikipedia page to begin with. You must understand that removing this information does not make him "not Jewish," in the same way that not putting he's gay does not make him "not gay." It simply does not advertise the information to dubious lengths, which is what these sentences and categories do. If you're so obsessed with advertising it, make a fan page. Bulldog123 16:10, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

His Judaism is not at all relevant to his career? Really? Well then why have videos of him singing "Shir LaShalom" in Hebrew, "As You Walk With Me" in Hebrew, and "The Prayer", also in Hebrew and in the synagogue on Kol Nidre, the holiest night of the year, become hits on YouTube? He's said he's Jewish, he sings Jewish songs in Hebrew - what further proof do you need? Look Bulldog, I'm not even Jewish, but it's clear to me - and everyone else, it seems - that Adam is, and your mindless blanking of the facts is unnerving. If you continue to edit war and revert irationally even after mountains of proof, the inevitable inference will be that - whether consciously or subconsciously - you're exhibiting antisemitism.--Yolgnu (talk) 00:05, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

A) There are no "mountains of proof." There's a strangely resistant "mm hmm," and, had you read what I wrote, I said that not including this doesn't mean he's "not Jewish" anymore than it means he's "not gay." It just means we're not forming connections with it. B) You're tying his alleged Judaism to his singing of songs in Hebrew - taking from it some type of "obvious" pattern. That's pure and simple synthesis of research. You can't do that. I'm not here to lecture you on how wikipedia works. But again, you seem to ignore WP:BLP. There's actually nothing wrong with the mention of his singing songs in Hebrew, so I've come up with a way to neutralize this. Hopefully you'll be receptive to it. Bulldog123 00:34, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

While not commenting on this discussion, I will say that Bulldog123's last edit was a violation of Wikipedia:Three-revert rule, as he reverted four times in the span of 24 hours (02:59, 5 June 2009, 16:04, 5 June 2009, 21:20, 5 June 2009 and 00:40, 6 June 2009). All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 00:47, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay woah. I started this conversation so I'm going to butt in now. I called out the double standard in editing because it's a double standard, but if he cites in an interview - first hand information - that he is Jewish, then I don't see why it's something that we should refute. Bulldog, if you go on to read in the interview, he actually explains his Judaism a little more than "Mm hmm." I don't see how that makes it strangely resistant. Adam has never cited himself to be atheist though. I'm not linking them, but he has social networking sites where he listed his religion as "other" or "agnostic." Still, it was a direct question (Are you Jewish?) opposed to the roundabout way to get to his sexuality (Did speculation, etc.?) so it's kind of hard to refute a reliable source like that. Kyuu (talk) 06:39, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Bulldog, you keep saying "it's not your call". Well it's not your call to make that "mmm hmm" means "no". It seems you wouldn't be satisfied unless Adam had answered "Yes!!! I am Jewish!!!11" to the question. There's a very clear consensus here that he's Jewish - you're the only one in denial - and if you continue to violate 3RR, edit war and spit in the face of consensus, I'll have no choice but to assume you have some sort of agenda. You're a known disruptive editor, and concerns have already been raised at WP:ANI[5].--Yolgnu (talk) 13:54, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

It's almost as if you ignore everything I write and just maintain this same confused mindset. I'm not interpreting "Mmm hmm" as meaning "I'm not Jewish." He is Jewish in some way, else he would have never said "Mmm hmm." However, not including the associated categories on a living person does not mean he's not "Jewish," it just means it holds no relevance to this article. Attributing him as a "Jewish musician" because he said "mmm hmm" and connecting his singing in Hebrew as an open embrace of Judaism is plain and simple WP:SYNTH. You're forming conclusions in this article that shouldn't be formed by editors. We have no indication that his Jewishness has anything to do with his career, and you're making it seem that way. In fact, his obvious reluctance to even openly talk about makes it really icky to categorize him like this. If this wasn't a WP:BLP issue, there wouldn't be a problem. If you found out his grandfather was Norwegian, would you jump into categorizations of Category:Norwegian musicians... probably not... because it seems totally irrelevant. Adding it is like adding trivia. Even the interviewer says that this information seems to only concern "Jewish parents." Bulldog123 19:42, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

If I may correct a few points here - I've seen a lot of people who indeed only had a Norwegian grandfather or great-grandfather be immediately classified as "Norwegian American" (see Category:Norwegian Americans), i.e. Paris Hilton (great-great-grandparent), James Cagney (grandfather), Iggy Pop, etc. (I'm not saying that I agree with these classifications; I'm simply saying that you were not correct when you said "If you found out his grandfather was Norwegian"...). Also, stating that Lambert had an "obvious reluctance" is your opinion - there's no particular indication of that in the interview - if he was reluctant, I doubt that the interviewer would have continued discussing his and her Jewishness, as she did (and "mmm hmmm" could actually be said in several different ways, from reluctant to enthusiastic to uninterested, just as "yes" could be). That's my opinion, of course, but so was the "reluctant" comment on your part. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 20:08, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

First of all, most of the examples you give (like the Paris Hilton one) are strongly opposed by many editors. There's a dearth of edit warring over including this type of material. Just because they manage to sneak in (it's impossible to control all of wikipedia perfectly), doesn't mean you have anything that "corrects" what I say. Also, you misunderstood. It's not the "mm hmm" that makes it obviously reluctant (though it is an intentionally ambiguous response, and I'm not the only one that notices that), but the general lack of information on this from anybody but bizarrely unreliable Jewish sites. It makes it trivial, not essential to an article. Yes, he's probably of Jewish heritage, but I'm saying if he was of Norwegian background, it is highly unlikely we'd be arguing over including "He is of Norwegian heritage" - nobody would care whether or not it was included because nobody sees it as important to the article's worth. I don't think Category:LGBT musicians should be included either once the "gay" thing is confirmed. It's a case of WP:OC because these categories should only be created if the combination "is itself recognized as a distinct and unique cultural topic in its own right." That means we make Lambert join the unique-culturally significant Jewish musician group now? It seems absurd. Bulldog123 21:24, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

According to Bulldog's user page, he was the orchestrator of a failed proposal, "Overlistification". He clearly has a POV against lists and categories, but it's a POV that shouldn't be permitted to enter this article. Let's remember that it was a failed proposal.--Yolgnu (talk) 22:59, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

This is not a list, it's an article. And WP:OC, which I quoted directly, is a guideline, not a failed proposal. If you have problems with that, you can draft your own and open it up for proposal. Bulldog123 23:44, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

• This seems nonsensical. He clearly confirmed he was Jewish in the interview. What's the problem here? Unitanode 14:16, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree that him singing in Hebrew is non-notable in itself but it can be fitted into the sentence about his being Jewish. I've removed "Hebrew language singer" since it's potentially misleading and I doubt he'll be doing much more of it after participating in AI (I had a Freudian slip and said "winning AI" in my edit summary). Now, if you'll excuse me, I've got a source on another page to deal with[6]--Yolgnu (talk) 14:42, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

To be the Devil's Advocate, it does seem like it is the interviewer who cares so much about his Judaism and not him. He never actively engages in conversation about it. If singing in Hebrew isn't relevant, why are we taking the stance that him being Jewish is? Horvat Den (talk) 20:27, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but if a gay interviewer asked "Are you gay?" and Adam responded affirmatively and then the interviewer went to talk about how he saw Adam support in the LGBT community while Adam mostly didn't comment, does that make him less of a gay person? He responded affirmatively. It's not out place to judge whether he was "actively engaged" in the conversation about his Judaism or not. Kyuu (talk) 21:16, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Bulldog is at it again! He's now removed the references to Adam singing in Hebrew, and the Jewish categories. Lambert DOES NOT "indicate that he is of Jewish heritage", he says that he is Jewish. There's nothing about "Jewish heritage" in the interview, just Lambert saying he is Jewish. If anything Bulldog's new version is a violation of BLP. As Unitanode says, "This seems nonsensical. He clearly confirmed he was Jewish in the interview. What's the problem here?" I don't like to make accusations but at this point I'm virtually certain that Bulldog has an agenda, possibly an anti-semitic one. Bulldog's continued reverts are unacceptable and, if they occur one more time, I will be reporting him.--Yolgnu (talk) 22:52, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, he "indicated" that he is Jewish because not once in the interview did he "say" it. It was a question, and he answered in the affirmative. By definition, that's an indication. I'm not here to teach semantics. Feel free to "report" me. This is a content dispute, nothing more. Whatever personal demons you may have in calling me an "anti-semite" for a third time in a row, whether a persecution complex or personal offense, I don't know, but it isn't relevant to the problems at hand, which I have stated numerous times is a WP:BLP issue. I also suggest you read up on WP:OWN. You do not have sole power over this article. Bulldog123 23:40, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

That's certainly not the definition of "indication" in my dictionary, Bulldog. Please get consensus before restoring your controversial edits. And how am I "owning" this article? You're the one who violated 3RR.--Yolgnu (talk) 03:27, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Consensus? Exactly when did you get consensus for your current version? I don't remember having a "vote" here on whether or not to add the categories or the way in which you worded it. And there shouldn't be a vote because this content isn't really up for "discussion." Also, 3RR means more than three reverts. My fourth edit (00:40, 6 June 2009) was not a revert. Though, you probably overlooked that, because you blindly gather anything you can as ammunition for character assasination (ie: your mention of my failed proposal on lists or an unrelated and ignored AN/I complaint by a vindictive editor on a separate edit dispute) when you have someone who disagrees with the way you edit. Childish but not surprising given your WP:AGF and WP:NPA accusations of anti-semitisim. Bulldog123 04:07, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

The fourth edit was a revert, because a revert is defined on WP:3RR as "any action, including administrative actions, that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part" (you reversed the actions of the previous editor - adding in something new of your own doesn't negate that). All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 10:23, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

You don't remember having a vote? This isn't up for discussion? You're obviously clueless as to the way Wikipedia operates. I suggest you read WP:VOTE and other core Wikipedia policies before stirring up trouble on a BLP.--Yolgnu (talk) 04:29, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

• Consensus is not about holding a vote, Bulldog. It's about having a discussion, and the discussion here clearly is against you. I'm quite certain if you continue to insist on your version against consensus, you're probably going to find yourself blocked. Unitanode 04:33, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

If you want to be technical about it, consensus doesn't mean 'majority rules,' but rather a compromise or agreement between all users, and not to rain on your tidal wave of support, but I don't necessarily agree with the current version either, if only because most of it rides on the back of a single variety/entertainment interview, and not one of much prominence. The other references are either unreliable or mirrors. Exceptional claims need exceptional sources, either in quality or number, and if Adam wanted his Jewishness to be known, why is it not covered elsewhere by more prominent news outlets? Then, it truly does become a Biography of Living Persons issue. Also, I find it irksome that a user can differ in opinion and be called an antisemite or threatened with blocks. Bulldog is wrong-headed in his approach, but I only see Yolgnu and Unitanode actually making personal attacks. Horvat Den (talk) 06:33, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

• If YOU want to get technical about it, ONE PERSON is against this, and the rest are for it. That's consensus, and one person is not allowed to derail it. And for the record, I've made NO personal attacks, and any claim otherwise is nonsense. Unitanode 14:01, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't know this is going to make the situation it better or worse, but in this interview he says that he's not religious but spiritual. But it's first-hand information, so it's worth something. Kyuu (talk) 07:07, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, this issue is finally settled in that upcoming Rolling Stone article, transcribed today on MTV.com - [7] - "in the wide-ranging story, the 27-year-old San Diego native opens up about his childhood — he's Jewish, but never got a bar mitzvah and hated Hebrew school because he got a bloody nose on the first day". If this had been released a few days sooner, a lot of tortuous discussion could have been avoided (or at least I hope so). All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 18:53, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that source solidifies a category, but I still think the "singing in Hebrew" part should be separated from the "is Jewish" part. I don't think I need to explain, for the fifth time, why. I "of Jewish heritage" or "of Jewish background" is also better given we now have firmer sources indicating he's not religious. Bulldog123 01:54, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

• Keep mention of Jewishness in article (notable and sourced). Badagnani (talk) 07:12, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Hot 100 Digital Songs

{{editsemiprotected}} On the Pulse Music site, there was list of the 100 hot digital download from billboard. I saw that you guys include the ranking in No Boundaries for Kris Allen from 100 Hot Digital Download so should we include them for all other performance as well? #5:Heartless, #7: Mad World, #17: Ain't no sunshine, #32: Change is gonna come, #38: Apologize, #43: No boundaries (by Lambert), #57: One, #72: Falling Slowly, #75: Cryin', #84: Slow Ride, #87: What's going on, #94: To make you feel my love.
 Not done

Sorry, you seem to make a good case for adding something but it's not very clear what exactly. If you link to the source you think should be used that would be a start. -- Banjeboi 11:48, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

The Hot 100 Chart is different from the Hot Digital Song Chart. In the Discography section, I only see the chart position for Lambert's songs from CAN chart and US Hot 100 Chart. So from pulsemusic.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=gmn&action=display&thread=85366&page=3#2185586 and [8], it did say that on the Hot Digital Song Chart for 06/06/2009, #7: Mad World, #32: Change is gonna come, #43: No boundaries (by Lambert), #57: One, #75: Cryin', #84: Slow Ride. Can someone add this to the discography section, next to the song?User_talk:Karius13 May 30, 2009 - 22:34

Both those sources seem to be blogs/forums and not reliable sources. They may be accurate but we can't use them. Do you have a reliable source to the original? -- Banjeboi 23:20, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

On Billboard website, [9] provides the original list that the sources from above copied from. Karius13 - May 31, 2009 —Preceding undated comment added 12:33, 31 May 2009 (UTC).

Remove Adam from the gay sections

He isn't "gay" until he actual comes out and says it. There has been no concrete evidence presented as of yet so I don't see why it's being done. Trust30H3 (talk) 20:56, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, get ready for it.. He will come out in next week's issue of Rolling Stone magazine. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 10:23, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Even that, it's a leap to categorize him as a LGBT musician. Bulldog123 03:24, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

US Pop 100 Chart - 06/06/2009

{{editsemiprotected}} From this: [10], Mad World is at #30 for the US Pop 100 Chart for this week. Can someone add this in? ~~Karius13~~

Is there any real use in adding that information? We already show that it achieved 19 in the Hot 100; is a lower position in the Pop 100 significant?  Chzz  ►  02:40, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, for all other singles, they do have all of those chart position from other charts where the song may rank lower than in the Billboard Hot 100 chart so I do not think that this is worthless information. Karius13 - May 31, 2009 —Preceding undated comment added 12:35, 31 May 2009 (UTC).

gayness

he's gay. add dat in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.71.56.210 (talk) 09:04, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

• Once he says it himself, it will be added into the article. Until then, no. Unitanode 13:49, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Awards

Can anyone create a section for awards? Adam will be receiving Young Hollywood's Artist of the Year award. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kyuu (talk • contribs) 07:09, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Bottom 2!Not Bottom 3!

Adam was never in the bottom 3. However,he was in the bottom 2 with Matt Giraud. I should know I watched every American Idol Season 8 episode since it's season premiere. Kris Allen was the only one in the Bottom 3 out of himself and Kris. So please take off that error.Thats revealing false information to the public. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.237.154.40 (talk) 23:08, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 14:15, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea why people keep insisting on putting "Bottom 2" when that's not the terminology used. Confusing. Unitanode 01:08, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Attacks against Lambert

Before he came out, he was criticized by people such as Perez Hilton, Entertainment Weekly's Mark Harris, Entertainment Weekly's Adam Markovitz, LA Times blogger Elizabeth Shead, and others- saying that he has a moral obligation to become a public role model and spokesperson for gay people and that by not doing this he is being a bad person.

Is this notable enough for the article? It comes up against WP:BLP, but- if anything- an example of how the gay community mercilessly ostracizes/bashes their own people will create sympathy for Lambert and not the other way around. The Squicks (talk) 00:31, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Disregarding some POV implied here, is there reliable sources that stated he had some moral obligation either before or after coming out that he be a role model or spokesgay of some sort? -- Banjeboi 21:55, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Want and On With the Show

Who removed No Boundaries and why was it removed? The single is Adam's, even if he's not the winner. It was released, and while not widely promoted, it is his single.

Also, Want is NOT his single. He's issued an [official statement] about it. I'm adding NB back, and y'all can debate if you want to keep Want or not, but it's not his single. And don't cite Perez as a source.Kyuu (talk) 01:46, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

• I agree, Want is not his single. You should correct that! He even isn't happy with the fact that that album is going to be released.--Kyzo76 (talk) 18:47, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay, there's actually a precedent for this. Christina Aguilera had something similar happen to her and her EP isn't included in her discography, so I see no reason to include Adam's. Kyuu (talk) 20:52, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

NB has been added back and resolved. I stand by my above statement and I don't think we should be adding Want/OWTS to his discography. Kyuu (talk) 05:12, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, finally found the section to discuss this. Next time, please provide a link and don't rename the section after you send someone to it. Regardless of whether or not Adam is "happy" about this album being released, it's still being released. We don't leave information out just because the subject is unhappy about it. He recorded the songs and it's being released by the label that owns them. As such, it's an Adam Lambert album and should be included. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 05:46, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

sorry I ran out of characters in the edit description. I thought changing the topic would help you find it. But regarding this statement: "We don't leave information out just because the subject is unhappy about it." For the record, I actually wrote the section about the album's release under Post-Idol with appropriate citations; you can check the edit history. I hardly think I'm trying to "leave information" out. This has nothing to do with Adam being proud of it or not - I'm using Christina Aguilera's precedent. Her a record company who owned her demo material also released an EP, but it's not included in her discography. She does have a description of it on her actual page, which is why I wrote the blurb after I deleted the Want single the first time. Unless if you can come up with a reason to go against precedent, I don't think OWTS should be included. I'll go check her discography talk history to see how/if they came to a conclusion, and if not, I'll ask. Kyuu (talk) 06:25, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

There's no "precedent". Maybe someone just didn't add it to her article in the list of albums. Just because it's not there doesn't mean it's disallowed in all of Wikipedia. I happen to believe that if she had an album released, EP or otherwise, with her name on it by any label, it should be included in her article just as is the case here with the Lambert article. It's just simple fact: An album, of songs in which Lambert is the singer, is being released. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 06:29, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay, well, I left a message on her [talk] but it seems underused so I don't know if anyone is going to reply. However, in her talk, her demo was definitely discussed circa 2006. At some point, it was removed but it was never clarified why in the actual talk.

And of course there is such a thing as "precedent". If there weren't, every wiki page would be formatted differently and all over the place and it wouldn't be standardized. Perhaps precedent isn't' the right word - consistent then. I'm not trying to exclude the information - it's ON his page already. I'm saying that it doesn't belong in discography. Kyuu (talk) 06:52, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Want and On With the Show shouldn't be there. They should just be mentioned somewhere because Adam DOESN'T support this.--Kyzo76 (talk) 11:22, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what Adam supports, it's still an album, being released, sung by him. Therefore, it's included under albums. We don't censor material just because the subject doesn't like it. If it's notable and verifiable, it's included. This album certainly is notable as it was all over the news and is the first official album being released for him - granted by a record label he used to work for but it's still an official release. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 18:02, 26 June 2009 (UTC)