Jump to content

Talk:Kelly Clarkson/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8

Firing Guitarist

Shouldn't there be some statement in the article about Kelly firing her guitarist? It's all over the [gossip] news lately. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.237.194.41 (talk) 19:55, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

not encyclopedic enough.. artists fire supporting musicians all the time, it's not a big deal. Clarkson is a solo artist with a backup band.. the band can be replaced at any time (and with many solo artists, including Clarkson, often is). Alan - talk 22:34, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
I thought that wasn't the real guitarist? If you watch the video the guy is far far left stage, not even with the other poeple. and the spotlight hits him before she takes him offstage. I'm pretty sure it was just some guy tryinig to make an ass of himself. 72.220.125.86 (talk) 10:23, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Well, she at least knows his name and has a speech at the end about how Dwayne was ruining the show. As for it now being encyclopedic enough, that's simply not true. This was noteworthy if you were going to give someone a one hundred word description of points of interests about Clarkson and her history. The entry is much, much longer than that. Furthermore, it is probably one of the more interesting firings that has happened, as it took place on stage. 67.149.196.50 (talk) 12:26, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

New Album 2010

Kelly Clarkson plans to create a fifth album in Fall of 2010. She stated that it would be music unlike all of her other albums...being rock and pop. She still hasn't announced who the editor is going to be, though.

and when there is something official released by her mamagement/label about it, it will be added to the article, for now, it's all heresay, and jsut because Kelly says hopefully by the end of the year, doesn't mean it will be. Alan - talk 23:45, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Ancestry

Sounds a bit English to me Clarkson son of Clark, what do you recon? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.186.3.245 (talk) 03:57, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

She is of Irish decent on her paternal side as her dad last name is Clarkson, Yes Clarkson is of English origins, though it must be said that her Irish Ancestry maybe her dads parents maybe mother or father. On her Maternal side of the family same again maybe of ancestry through her parents-parents because she is of Greek heritage. (talk)

She is off Irish and Greek ethnicity. This is obtained from an interview of Kelly Clarkson where she discusses this. I am not sure how to reference it on wikipedia, as I am a new user. She discusses her ethnicity around the 1.50 minute mark. The source is http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D18UsuIZ8hI (talk)


Kelly Clarkson tracks Greek heritage American songstress has tracked her Greek ancestry in the show Who Do You Think You Are?


Singer Kelly Clarkson. Photo: Dario Cantatore/Invision/AP.

8 Jul 2013 American songstress Kelly Clarkson has tracked her Greek ancestry in the TLC show, Who Do You Think You Are?. Clarkson's mother's side is Greek, while she is also of German and Irish decent. Clarkson has been vocal about her Greek ancestry, saying despite her multicultural heritage, she considers herself mostly Greek and can speak the language fluently. During one interview, she attributed her body type to her Greek roots: "I like my waist because it's the smallest part of me! I love my figure but I'm part Greek which means I'm curvy."

Source: Greek Reporter Hollywood58.169.191.7 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:18, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Update Main Picture

I don't know the exact term for it but the picture used in the info bar at the top of the page should be updated. It looks like it's from the American Idol or Thankful eras. An AIEW era pic should be used. She looks different now. Fan4me (talk) 17:05, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes thank you for doing that! Fan4me (talk) 13:24, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 124.182.51.171, 28 August 2010

{{editsemiprotected}}

Her popularity skyrocketed in 2009 & 2010. 124.182.51.171 (talk) 14:39, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. --- cymru lass (hit me up)⁄(background check) 19:59, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

kellyclarkson.com for website as well as kellyofficial.com

why should only 1 go there? Britney Spears' page has 2 websites listed. Fan4me (talk) 18:37, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

It's fixed. You can have one offical label site and one official fan club site. Maria202 (talk) 17:43, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

what do you mean it's fixed? there's still only kellyofficial.com listed. Fan4me (talk) 18:37, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Did you check where the links go or just look at the text? Maria202 (talk) 22:38, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

umm i dont exactly know what you mean by that so I'll say this: I mean the links should be in the info box at the top of the page next to "Website". Only kellyofficial.com is listed there. I know they're both listed at the bottom under "External Links" but it should be up there too. Fan4me (talk) 01:15, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Add Heritage

She is of Greek, Welsh, and Irish descent. She is bi-lingual and speaks the Greek language fluently. This is very well documented in numerous places (which a simple Google search will reveal). --Nikoz78 (talk) 23:32, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

If you can find a reliable source to verify her heritage and being able to speak Greek fluently, then you could add the information. Aspects (talk) 02:40, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

OMG i didnt know she could speak greek! Fan4me (talk) 18:19, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

No she cannot speak fluent Greek its just her ancestry that she has greek. stayg86 (talk) 17:26, 23 September 2010 (GMT) Link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D18UsuIZ8hI on here she states that she doesnt speak greek.

hmm well then that person 4 messages above mine needs to fix their shtuff. Fan4me (talk) 01:17, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

5th Studio Album 2010-Present

Kelly Clarkson officially announced June 22nd 2010 on her twitter account that she has finished recording her 1st song for her 5th studio album. The song is also confirmed to be a duet with a unannounced artist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdealornodeal (talk • contribs) 20:55, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I think that SHOULD be added to the article, that she has confirmed to have recorded a duet for the next album. It IS confirmed and IS news. Fan4me (talk) 19:38, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Kelly confirmed on Twitter that the album will most likely be pushed back until early 2011 however she feels the first single off the album will be released before the end of the year. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdealornodeal (talk • contribs) 01:03, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

social networks are not a reliable source under wikipedia guidelines. Very often a celebrity says something will happen, then it doesn't happen when they claim, or something totally different happens. Nothing is for certain until an official release is out from management or label (with a few exceptions. This includes thigns Kelly says (has has mentioned songs on albums in the past that never happened, singles that were never released because they were switched last minute, among other things). Wikipedia is an encyclopedia of verifiable facts of the present and past, not the future Alan - talk 04:59, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Picture

I know there have been age-long debates in this talk page in years past when I was previous editor of this article under a different name, but can we please change the picture in the main article. It's terrible and worth considering. I move to change it to this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Kelly_Clarkson_at_Joint_Reserve_Base_Naval_Air_Station_in_Fort_Worth_Texas.jpg

from the American Idol 1 page.

I'll leave this out there incase anyone has any better suggestions. Ball00naticFan (talk) 11:15, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. There are so many other better pictures of her out there. Surely there must be something in public use that we can use. B4theword (talk) 20:34, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Main Picture + Associated Acts

I have no idea how to change the recent pic (which is not her best one) ! here is a link of a nice and more recent one :

http://en.terra.com/addon/img/c7bd4c51-kelly-fight%20(6)p.jpg

( discription of the pic would be : Clarkson performing at the "Celebrity Fight Night" in March 2011 )

Could someone please change it ? thx =)

also, it'd be nice if Avril Lavigne and Pink (singer) were listed as associated acts.

She has never recorded with, or toured with either, so how would they be associated acts? and images can't be used on Wikipedia without copyright permissions 98.254.114.74 (talk) 05:31, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

File:Kelly2010.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Kelly2010.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 1 August 2011
What should I do?
A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 19:05, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Clarkson performing at the Celebrity Fight Night in March 2011.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Clarkson performing at the Celebrity Fight Night in March 2011.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
What should I do?
Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Wikipedia, so there is no rush to respond. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 23:15, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Kelly Clarkson - NRL grand final 2011.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Kelly Clarkson - NRL grand final 2011.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
What should I do?

Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 18:01, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

"vocal praise"

Excuse me for the "attitude", but how does a section composed of random soundbytes from Clarkson's friends/former bosses not seem inappropriate and completely uninformative. Most of these quotes say nothing about her voice itself, just that is is amazing. Then there's this phrase "praise from critics and celebrities alike," who cares. Does "praise" from Simon Cowell tell me anything about her voice? No it doesn't. If you (Cartoon Boy and your numerous IP addresses) had read, I had retained the most descriptive quotes that were not from her associates. You're just creating a slippery slope where we can add all sort of "praise" here, like maybe next week we'll have a soundbyte from Kim Kardashian on how amazing Clarkson's voice is. So excuse me for being a little heavy handed with the wording, but you're just trying to disguise a peacock section as a legitimate section. Fixer23 (talk) 23:31, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree. And furthermore, aren't terms like spinto, lyric, dramatic, ... only used for singers with classical trained / operatic voices. At least that's what I found out from Voice classification in non-classical music. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.187.102.123 (talk) 01:01, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree totally with both comments above. And as such I will be keeping an eye for changes such as biased commenting ect. Also in regards to her voice being classed as spinto I agree, whilst some voices can be called 'lyric' sopranos outside of classical singing its very rare. I have never heard of 'spinto' for a non operatic voice, however Clarkson is both classically trained and also possesses some of the qualities that a spinto has. Check out her performance for the pope in which she sang Ave Maria, then read the spinto soprano page, she has some of those qualities! Also as the source states that she is a 'spinto' I will leave the data for now! I would however be grateful if anyone could try and hunt down some more citations so that more clarity can be gained on the subject and the necessary changes can be made. Thank you.BrotherDarksoul (talk) 21:06, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
After having a good think about this I have removed the Spinto descriptor as you are right. Contemporary singers cannot and should not be given these terms, regardless of the qualities the voice itself may have. This is due to an entirely different technique between the two genres in terms of ability of the voice and the demands that are put on it. I have left the article stating her soprano range as both sources clearly state. The information is more than adequate for the page and should help in not confusing people and perhaps even being misleading. I hope this clarifies the issue. Thank you.BrotherDarksoul (talk) 09:15, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Hey guys random question moment, a few good moons ago I remember someone making an edit into the artistry page in regards to her 'exact' vocal range (which I think spanned over 3 octaves) I wonder if anyone knows what that range is and perhaps if they could prove the data? These I believe are interesting things in regards to the technical ability of a singer which a lot of people seem to like to know. If not its ok, but the more technical data we can add and the more citations in regards to such data the more interesting and better informative the article. Any other ideas in regards to the general artistry area would be much welcome too! Thanks guys. BrotherDarksoul (talk) 08:26, 08 February 2012 (UTC)

Whistle Register and range

Having researched the discussion archives and various composition data here I have calculated that her range spans from E3 - G6 the latter note being that of a whistle in 'Honestly' from 'Stronger'. She has also previously hit the whistle register live on several occasions and her famed Idol performance of 'Natural Woman' (F#6). Do you think we could add a snippet in regards to her having over a 3 octave range with the ability to access the whistle register? BrotherDarksoul (talk) 09:13, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I am going to remove the information you added because this is the classic example of WP:Original research. You added the information in the middle of a sourced sentence without a new source making it seem like the current source backs up the sentence, which it does not. If you find a WP:Reliable source that can back up the octave information you are trying to add, then the information can be added back to the article. Aspects (talk) 01:55, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Profile Pic

Please note I have changed the pic as the previous one was innapropriate for an opening pic due to its pollution of the heads of others etc and brands no less, I have added another being 'File:KClarkson2010.jpg' as its tidier and better suited to that of an info box image. If anyone would like to change the image please refer to here first with decent reasoning before just reverting it back to the grim image that was there before. Thank you BrotherDarksoul (talk) 04:40, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I Have to say I totally agree with you, the pic that you posted is a better picture, please note that if it is continually reverted I will be happy to keep an eye and revert when necesarry. Its a shame these people have not bothered to come to this page and notify anyone on the changes they make. Rather than just do what they like. 02:37, 23 January 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.176.105.153 (talk)
I disagree, and consider that the original "polluted" pic is the better of the three so far posted, in that it's not cropped, or from a poor angle making her look flatteringly "crumpled", or unflatteringly, fat. It's a slap-bang profile pic direct of her face - exactly what the lede picture should be. "These people" are not required to come to the page and explain their actions - according to Bold Revert Discuss, it is the responsibility of the changing editor to explain why they believe their actions and changes should be considered the new consensus. I am also quite happy to keep an eye on the page and change it each time - hey let's edit war why not? I am reverting back to the original picture, which is the one to be changed under discussion. Once you have all convinced all the other editors of this page that your changes are positive, then we can have a new picture, however - in the meantime, the original should stay, as per the "revert" part of the BRD. Now we enter the "discuss" part of the BRD. a_man_alone (talk) 13:17, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
I actually disagree with you, firstly whilst it may be the case that people are not required to explain their actions its merely good manners to do so and the request 'to do so' is that which makes good pages via clear and fair debates and discussions, hence the existance of these areas! Secondly a picture that represents a page should be that of a tidy and well presented image (regardless of the inane issues you talk about ie, weight - which should not even be an issue unless your ignorance truly knows no bounds!) and be reflective of what the person on the page is (in Kellys case a singer). But clearly I am wasting my time on this clique of a page (one of which has zero interest in any kind of standard) and those clearly have no interest in the thoughts of others regardless making your introduction into "discussions" irrelevant and pointless, bearing in mind I already started that part. Do what ever you like, I am done wasting my time, the page can look a mess! BrotherDarksoul (talk) 16:11, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
Having got into a heated,relentless and silly debate in regards to this issue. I now relent and shall not be making any further edits/reversions in regards to infobox images. Also I regret to admit I was wrong to state that this page is a 'clique' as I know that the majority of editors in this page are not only adept but extremely conciencious in regards to their work on this page, so for that I apologise! Recently also I got into a rather messy argument with another editor which was also not necessary, (I will deal with that personally). My main reasoning for wanting the change of image was for the quality of the page and how it reflects as an article on first look. Unfortunately though the database on the commons does not contain a huge amount of Clarkson images so I guess until someone gets camera happy we will have to make do with what we have. Again I apologise and do not mean to cause offence, this is a page that I feel extremely passionate about (as I assume many of you do also) and is one I have followed since joining up to the site.BrotherDarksoul (talk) 08:44, 08 February 2012 (UTC)
Can Kelly's profile picture please be changed to a picture that is more flattering and shows her face more unlike the one that is used now? There is quite a few people who agree with me about changing the profile pic. Thanks. :) ~174.111.68.211 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.111.68.211 (talk) 03:49, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
What are your suggestions of freely licensed content to replace it? We need content, please; complaints without suggestions are meaningless. Elizium23 (talk) 16:47, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
Also, there are not necessarily "quite a few people who agree with [you] about changing the profile pic" - the original (year old) discussion was between myself and Brotherdarksoul over a completely different image, which has since long gone. Not only that, but BDS and I have since moved on and both seem to agree on the general content of the page.
I do agree that it's not the most flattering image of Kelly, but it is the most recent and representative of her, and also one that fits Wiki licensing, ergo there's no reason to remove it. Chaheel Riens (talk) 17:10, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
Well someone did change it around January 6th I noticed, it was sometime right after I first brought up the subject of changing the photo. It was a recent picture because she was wearing one of her tour outfits from her latest tour and in the caption I remember it mentioning The O2. So it must have been taken during Kelly's concert at The O2 in Dublin from this past October. That picture was up there until sometime last night/early this morning. It was then changed to that picture of Kelly at the 2006 Winter Olympics but someone else changed it back to the current picture that is up there now (Kelly at Jiffy Lube Live). I wish whoever uploaded that picture from The O2 would uploaded it again of course if it does fits Wiki licensing, etc. It was descent, flattering and you could see more of her face. Anyway have a great day everybody. :) ~174.111.68.211 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.111.68.211 (talk) 23:04, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict) The photo that was added on January 6, File:Kellyclarksonlondontour.png, has two problems. It is poor quality: overexposed, obscured face, far away, low resolution, etc. It is also missing copyright permission, which means that we cannot be sure it is freely licensed content, which is mandatory for using in a biography of a living person, mainly because a public figure such as this can always be photographed by someone. The other photo changed since January 6 is File:Kelly Clarkson in February 2006 cropped.jpg, which is not so great, low resolution, and is ancient history, seven years old. However, it is free content. It would be useful in the body of the article, but I think the Canberra photo is more than adequate to represent that time period. You are more than welcome to peruse commons:Category:Kelly Clarkson to see if there is any other suitable image there, but I really think we should use a very recent photo, because Clarkson's look is apt to change year by year. So, basically, we are at the mercy of generous photographers who do quality work and are willing to upload their material to Wikipedia with a permissive license. You are welcome to try this yourself. Elizium23 (talk) 23:16, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
Oh, okay. Thanks for the explanation. I did not know that the photo that was added on January 6, had problems with it to where it could not be used. I do agree about using a very recent photo of Kelly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.111.68.211 (talk) 23:27, 10 January 201

Edit request on 4 July 2012

Category:American pop rock singers

Amy Traynor 19:42, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Done Elizium23 (talk) 20:23, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Carole King and Gerry Goffin wrote the song "You Make Me Feel Like a Natural Woman"

At least twice in this article about Kelly Clarkson, it identifies the song as Aretha Franklin's. Aretha did record it and make it a hit. However, the song was written by the famous songwriting team of Carole King and Gerry Goffin. Carole King also recorded it and had success with it.

Aretha Franklin did not write that song. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.182.136.192 (talk) 04:57, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

It does not identify Franklin as the writer. It identifies her as the original artist, and she is the one most identified with the song. It is usual when listing American Idol performances to list the original artist, the one best known for performing the song, not the writer. Elizium23 (talk) 10:23, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Excessive Lead section?

I understand that this is a lengthy article, but is the Lead section commensurate with the content? I am hoping a more experienced copyeditor might be able to assist with this.Soulparadox (talk) 11:50, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Clean up references and standardize

I have repaired the bare URLs that remained; however, I also identified a Dead link and a References error message persists at the bottom of the References section. Can anyone help with the error message?--Soulparadox (talk) 12:07, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Political views

I object to the inclusion of this "political views" section. It is filled with trivia about how she is going to vote, and sourced essentially to a few Tweets; the citations are to blogs and not reliable secondary sources. Elizium23 (talk) 20:45, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I tend to agree, although it doesn't really matter much at this point, since the elections are just a couple of weeks away. But, since Paul isn't really in the running, it certainly could be removed now. --Musdan77 (talk) 23:04, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Country music genre in infobox

I've moved this discussion here so that other editors may contribute:

The next time add a reference if you are going to do this. She rarely sings country music, she is not a country artist per se. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 05:37, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

TB, First of all, I didn't add it in the first place. But, it is not incorrect. The other genres don't have sources do they? It doesn't need a source when it is corroborated in the article. It mentions the word "country" (and the fact that she sings it) a dozen (12) times. I checked before I edited it. The fact that she's "not a country artist per se" doesn't mean that country isn't one of her genres. --Musdan77 (talk) 06:04, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
You "didn't" add it, but you restored it, that means you re-added it. If the other genres are unsourced, that can be easily solved. Now, if you believe that her pop rock career, where her five studio albums are labeled as pop rock, and her only non-remake country song ("Don't You Wanna Stay") is enough to qualify her ten years' career as a "country-pop" artist, you will need a strong reference. Taylor Swift experimented electronic music on Red, is that "one of her genres" now?Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 06:19, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I restored it, because it was removed by an IP without explanation, or a valid reason. She didn't just record one country song. She's had four songs on the country charts -- and three of those were in the top 20. The genre parameter is not like the associated artists parameter where it has strict guidelines. This one basically goes by what's in the article text and the consensus of the editors -- and that's why this should be discussed on the article talk page. --Musdan77 (talk) 18:40, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
The four five songs she has had in the Country Charts are:
Clarkson has launched five studio albums and a compilation album, as well as some EPs. All of them are labeled as "pop" or "pop rock", with some other styles varying. If we are going to decide to label a ten years career of pop/pop rock albums upon one original country song, two country versions of previous released songs, a collaboration as featured artist, and a song that appeared in a chart that is not the song's main genre, adult contemporary music is, along with pop, the main "genre" of Clarkson (although AC is not a genre). Check her AC chart history, Clarkson has appeared there multiple times, she has even reached the #1 twice, in 2005 and in 2012. We can't base genres upon charts, and that's why I asked you to not act as a "newbie". These editors, most of them new users, some others long-term genre-warriors, change genres upon three main excuses:
  • "The other listed genres are unsourced as well" – Poor justification considering it is OK to remove unsourced content, but it is not OK to add it, especially if it's based upon their WP:POV.
  • "Listen to the [record], this is definitely [insert genre here]" – That is a WP:NOR violation.
  • "Check the charts, if this song is not [genre], why did it charted at Billboard [genre] Chart?" – See "A Moment Like This". I don't know why the song charted in X chart, but if it managed to do so it is listed. I don't own or work at Nielsen Media to control in which charts the records chart.
Independent of the record charts, of course, we need some kind of consensus to add "Country", but you need to prove she is, after ten years, a country music artist, and her charting history is not enough to do so. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 20:34, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
The proof that she has and does record country is found in the article (and the charts). No one's saying that she's a "country music artist". She doesn't have to be in order to have it as a genre. There is a difference. All that is really needed is consensus. That trumps anything else (except for policy). --Musdan77 (talk) 05:48, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Could this please be reviewed now that she has released 'Tie It Up' (an solo original) and is featured on Trisha Yearwood's 'Prizefighter'? She is also rumored to have an upcoming country album. 14.203.39.54 (talk) 04:32, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

GA Review?

Does anyone else think that the page is now worthy of reassessment in regards to being that of a GA? I believe so, I feel it meets the necessary criteria. Let me know if you guys agree please add your comments, over the past few months the input from all editors has significantly improved upon the quality of the content in the article as well as the reliability of the sourcing amongst other things. I wanted to get peoples opinions before just going ahead and nominating it again. Many thanks. BrotherDarksoul Blether 11:40, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

References section

What's the deal with the References section for this article? I don't remember seeing an actual list on the edit page of an article instead of just {Reflist} or {Reflist|30em}. It also looks strange that (on the actual article) it's all one list instead of two columns. --Musdan77 (talk) 05:44, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Marriage and new last name

She's apparently officially now Kelly Brianne Blackstock.[1] -- Puisque (talk) 18:56, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I can find no reliable sources to see that she has taken his last name. Her webpage, twitter account and facebook account all still state "Kelly Clarkson", so I am going to change the name back until some reliable sources can be found. It seems to me that she was using "Mrs. Blackstock" to say she got married and not that she has legally or commercially change her last name. Aspects (talk) 16:00, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Years active

I noticed that there is written "Years active: 2005 - present" in the infobox. In fact, she's been active since 2002, when she won American Idol and released her debut single A Moment Like This. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.160.62.158 (talk) 14:37, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

BLP

How does including the name of a non-notable minor child (who has no contribution to anything other than being born) improves a BLP article? While not a specific policy, it's always been understood (by me and several long-time editors I've come across) that the names and identifying information of non-notable minor children are to be left out of articles for reasons of privacy. Nonetheless, the following (found at WP:BLPNAME) is policy: "The presumption in favor of privacy is strong in the case of family members of articles' subjects and other loosely involved, otherwise low-profile persons. The names of any immediate, ex, or significant family members or any significant relationship of the subject of a BLP may be part of an article, if reliably sourced, subject to editorial discretion that such information is relevant to a reader's complete understanding of the subject. However, names of family members who are not also notable public figures must be removed from an article if they are not properly sourced." is clear. The name of a non-notable minor child that doesn't enhance a reader's understanding of the article subject. It should be left out on this premise alone. While some might argue that the names of celebrity children are announced publicly all the time, therefore, their names should be included in Wikipedia articles, this is true and not true. Kanye West and Kim Kardashian's child, North, falls into this category. We are all aware of how over publicized the couple is. The same would be true with Michael Jackson's children when they were born and growing up. Siri Cruise's name would also apply here. These children, however, attained notability because of the amount of publicity their parents/families allowed prior to and after their births as well as during their growing up years. The children of Ginnifer Goodwin/Josh Dallas and Kelly Clarkson do not fall into this category. Their minor children remain non-notable. When they become notable (whether as minor children or as adults upon reaching age 18), then it would be appropriate to name them in the articles on their parents. At this point in time, knowing the names of these children do not enhance the article nor does it assist in the reader's complete understanding of the article subject. That is how the policy reads. I maintain that leaving these names out of the respective articles is the correct action in accordance with policy. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 17:05, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Winkelvi has been edit-warring to remove my posts from this talk-page discussion so that only his own comments appear. I won't be baited into edit-warring, as he's doing, and I've taken this up at an ANI. But removing another editor's comments so that only your own comments appear on a talk-page discussion is completely beyond the pale. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:33, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

I removed it because copying and pasting entire user talk page entries is unrelated and inappropriate on article talk pages. I could speculate here why you did it, but won't. What I will say is that by copying and pasting directly from my talk page (and including content that was completely unrelated) you were commenting on an editor (me) rather than content and were not discussing how to improve the article. If you want to copy and paste your "four-part answer" and include it here, do it. But don't reference it and copy it as user talk page discussion including followup comments you made at the same page. My talk page contents are not germane to the discussion about this article. Frankly, I see the inclusion of such as an intimidation tactic bordering on harassment.

If anyone's interested in the particulars of Tenebrae's beef with me and his subsequent actions, it can all be viewed at ANI here: [2] -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 17:54, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

The post Winkelvi summarily and unilaterally deleted contained a four-part rebuttal to his fringe interpretation of BLP, so it was completely pertinent. I've never heard of someone owning a talk-page before, where only he can decide what other editors can and can't say in rebuttal to him, but that appears to be what is happening here and on two other pages he's taken over. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:13, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
To respond to Winkelvi's additions to his 17:05, 22 June 2014 post: He makes an arbitrary distinction based on his own personal gauge: Kim Kardashian and Michael Jackson's non-independently-notable children are fine to mention but not Ginnifer Goodwin's. What's his criterion? His own opinion of what's widespread-enough coverage. Where does one draw the line? One million readers/viewers? 10 million readers/viewers?
Whereas a completely objective and neutral criterion is whether the celebrity parents themselves chose to announce the births and names of their children in news releases to mass-circulation magazines, newspapers and entertainment-news TV shows. Some celebrities choose not to do that, and in those cases, we shouldn't make public what the parents themselves are keeping private. But when parents stand on rooftops and make announcements over megaphones, it's absurd to suggest they're demanding privacy, or that this biographical information that appears widespread in hundreds and hundreds of news outlets should be kept hidden and secret on Wikipedia. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:13, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
Policy on this remains clear:
"The presumption in favor of privacy is strong in the case of family members of articles' subjects and other loosely involved, otherwise low-profile persons. The names of any immediate, ex, or significant family members or any significant relationship of the subject of a BLP may be part of an article, if reliably sourced, subject to editorial discretion that such information is relevant to a reader's complete understanding of the subject. However, names of family members who are not also notable public figures must be removed from an article if they are not properly sourced."
Adding the name and exact birth date of a a non-notable low-profile minor child of a celebrity is not relevant to a reader's complete understanding of the article subject. Saying the child exists and giving a birth month and year is sufficient mention.
-- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 00:36, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes, the policy is clear: "low-profile". They are no longer "low-profile" when the parents put them on the covers of magazines or tell millions of people in magazines, newspapers, and entertainment-news TV shows.
And you keep repeating an irrelevant point: "if they are not properly sourced". Nothing in this discussion involves anything not properly sourced. It's a non-issue. We are only talking about children the parents themselves ballyhoo to millions of readers/viewers in magazines, newspapers and TV shows. --Tenebrae (talk)!
Also, I've got relatively minor surgery tomorrow, so if I don't respond for a couple of days, that's why. Please know I hope to remain a part of this conversation. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:09, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Please stop repeating the exact same comments/discussion across three talk pages. Consolidate discussion here, (or even another talk page, but mirroring the exact same conversation across multiple talkpages is painful and inappropriate.) __ E L A Q U E A T E 15:49, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Consolidated discussion

Discussion now on only one article talk page. Please take comments here: [3] -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 17:56, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Consensus + removal of content

Per consensus at the BLP noticeboard (here:[4]), all identifying information on the article subject's infant child have been removed. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 19:44, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I believe her legal name is now Kelly Blackstock after marrying Brandon Blackstock and taking his surname. 88.90.246.129 (talk) 09:25, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Awards and record sales

There is WAYYY too much detail about those record sales. Apparently this was written by her publicity people. Please edit to reasonable limits.Lynxx2 (talk) 17:50, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 April 2015

Please change "The cards are exclusivity sold at Walmart." to "The cards are sold exclusively at Walmart." to preserve continuity of phrase and adverb form. Thank you. 69.251.132.42 (talk) 02:16, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for bringing it to our attention. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:26, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

No 1 US Hits?

In the article one line says:"In a career spanning over a decade, Clarkson has accumulated ninety-one number ones on the Billboard charts". According to Billboard's list of most no 1 artists that would make her over 4 times bigger than Beatles and 7 times bigger than Michael Jackson. Overall Kelly is number 75 on the Hot 100 list. I count to 3 no 1 entries according to these lists.

http://www.billboard.com/artist/305681/kelly-clarkson/chart?page=2&f=379 http://www.billboard.com/articles/columns/chart-beat/5557800/hot-100-55th-anniversary-by-the-numbers-top-100-artists-most-no — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.72.252.158 (talk) 12:29, 8 April 2015 (UTC)


-> The number ones include her every song or album that managed to reach the top spot on whichever Billboard chart, including for example Hot Dance Club Songs, Top Holiday Albums, Adult Contemporary etc. On Billboard Hot 100 she indeed has only 3 number one songs though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.160.34.67 (talk) 12:21, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Kelly Clarkson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:47, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Associated acts?

Should we consider putting Trisha Yearwood on that list? Since she (like Reba McEntire) and Clarkson had collaborated more than once ("Silent Night" and "Prizefighter"), based on the template's number 2 criteria on its "associated acts" section? McEntire did a tour with Clarkson, though. Chihciboy (talk) 16:33, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 18 external links on Kelly Clarkson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:37, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Kelly Clarkson Filmography

I have never edited a Wikipedia page and do not know how, but I see an entry on Kelly Clarkson's page which is likely incorrect (specifically a notation on Filmography, 2017, Star Wars VIII, Jabba the Hut). (and if it was added maliciously, it is offensive.) Can someone kindly review and remove, if appropriate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.74.51.100 (talk) 19:22, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Lede image

Ok, so there's a bit of back-and-forth regarding the potential lede images:

I am of the opinion that the first image is the one to use, for reasons below:

  1. It shows her actual face best of the three images. This article is about a person, and so we should choose the best image available of her
  2. Following on from the first reason, the second image is fine for the article itself, but the focus of the article is not what Kelly Clarkson wears, but who she is - her coat should not take up the majority of the image.
  3. The third image is too small in detail to adequately show who Clarkson is. Not only is she small in the middle, but her pose means that most of her features are hidden or obstructed.
  4. Although MOS:LEADIMAGE is not specific, it does say "It is common to use an appropriate representative image for the lead of an article—​​often in an infobox—​​allowing readers to quickly assess whether they are on the right page", and in this context a head shot of the article subject is more immediately clear than a full body shot.

I invite comments, rather than edit wars? Chaheel Riens (talk) 13:09, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Kelly Clarkson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:43, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Philantrophy and personal life sections

Although I appreciate the changes that were made on Kelly Clarkson's wikipage recently, I really do think that the sections about her personal life, political views and philantrophy should make a comeback. Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.91.51.153 (talk) 12:28, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Same here. In my opinion it was fine how it was for years. There is no need to reinvent the wheel. Once again just my opinion.:) —HappyAppy10 (talk) 02:09, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
I also agree, for now, and it should be discussed here. Unlike mentioned in the edit summaries, it looks like none of the information from the other ventures and personal life sections were not merged into the article. Her husband, Brandon Blackstock, and their children are not mentioned. Her book, River Rose and the Magical Lullaby is only in a bibliography section. Ron Paul, Idol Gives Back, March of Dimes, Houses of Hope, UNICEF, Opportunity Education and Feeding America are not mentioned.
If the example a good article to follow is Katy Perry's, then this information should be listed because her article has an Other ventures section, with Philanthropy and Politics subsections. At Perry's talk page, it is mentioned that there is not a personal section about relationships because it would turn into gossip, the opposite should be here when it consists of a husband and children. While I agree that the greeting card and Jane Austen ring sections are not necessary. As such I am going to add back the other sections, but not these two. Aspects (talk) 03:44, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
I'm going to make this article into WP:GA. So you guys, if you don't do anything useful, then just don't mess it up. Those very very little sections entitled Books and Personal Life already included on the main body, so it's completely useless and repetitive. As for political views, Kelly Clarkson is not a politician and hasn't done anything significant towards politics. Tweeting your President choice isn't included, sorry. Madonna is very very vocal about Politics, yet her page doesn't have Politic section. All we have to do actually is expand her Artistry section, she's a musician fo God sake. Bluesatellite (talk) 04:13, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
So, by your most recent edits, would admit that you lied that the Books, Personal life and Philanthropy were already included, since you just added them in the main body. It would be helpful for you to discuss the edits here, instead of continuing to make the same types of edits without a consensus formed for them. Aspects (talk) 04:31, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Oh lord, just take a look at my sandbox and see the history. Why would I lie? All I have done is just improving this page. Bluesatellite (talk) 04:35, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
I'd say that the Personal Life section is important, even if it was "short". I mean, the purpose of wikipedie is to contain information regardless of their length, isn't it? Same thing goes for the Jane Austen affair which was quite discussed at the time. Like, why delete information without including them somewhere in the article? I know that something about her husband and kids is currently included in one of the sections but if someone looks for such an information, he doesn't want to read 5 paragraphs just to find out whether she is married. Let alone the fact that the information there are incomplete as it is not mentioned anywhere there she has also a son who was born in 2016. Or at least I don't see this informaton. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.91.51.153 (talk) 11:56, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Genre

Kelly's work, especially her early work (see My December & Breakaway), have been described as either rock, or pop rock in their stylings, as can also be seen on their own album pages.

Therefore, in order for the genre in the infobox of this article to remain accurate, I propose that the genre should either be altered to Pop rock, or that Rock should be added as an additional genre.

Bhavik333 (talk) 22:49, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Simply releasing one or two albums, that are credited within the "pop rock" genre, does not mean she is a "pop rock" singer. Plus, pop rock is considered a fusion genre of pop music, therefore, it is covered under "pop" itself. Kelly, for the better part and most recognizable part, is a pop music artist. livelikemusic talk! 00:16, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
I think I'd disagree, many people agree that My December is solely a rock album, as it is credited on wikipedia itself. Furthermore, all of Kelly's work, in every album, have elements of rock, I don't think she only has a few albums which dip into rock, those were just examples, many of her songs are categorised under the pop rock genre (more recently Stronger (What Doesn't Kill You)). Also, I think (as I stated above) the genre can be altered to be simply pop rock, or "Rock" can be added as a separate genre, solving the problem of having both "pop" and "pop rock" as listed genres. Lastly, many artists who are recognised for the most part as pop artists, even some who I would say have less of a rock influence, and only sparingly have rock influenced songs, much less albums (such as Katy Perry have the sub genre of pop rock, or rock added to their info box. Other examples include Pink (singer) and Madonna. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhavik333 (talk • contribs) 22:32, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
I have to agree with "Livelikemusic" that "Rock Pop" is a subgenre of "Pop music". Also, I have a question, if Kelly is releasing an album that is a "soul" genre in the future, would that be added as an additional genre? Raritydash (talk) 23:37, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
Unlikely, which is why I would also not regard Kelly as a rock artist. When I think of rock artists, I go to Joan Jett or The Rolling Stones, etc. not Kelly Clarkson. Kelly Clarkson is a pop music artist. livelikemusic talk! 23:46, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
The thing is, of Kelly's 6 studio albums, 4 of them are classified as pop rock, so I think Rock probably should be added as a second genre this has been done for many generally regarded "pop" artists (like the ones I stated above) have, despite not being solely (like the ones you mentioned) rock artists. You don't have to think of her as a rock artist for her to have pop-rock music. e.g: Maroon 5, OneRepublic are more pop than rock. If you're adding soul, I'd say there is a definite need to add rock because Kelly only has one (unreleased) soul album compared to 6 albums, of which all of them have rock songs on and 4/6 have been listed as pop-rock, or rock on wikipedia.Bhavik333 (talk) 20:17, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

An infobox is a summary of the article. So let's look at what the article actually says. Her music is mentioned as: rock - 2 times, pop rock - 1 time, pop (alone) about a dozen times; also, soul - once, talking about a future album, and country - 4 or 5 times, mostly about her collaborations, but once about a possible future album. Now, my opinion is that I would not be opposed to "pop rock" or "pop, rock" (probably the latter would be better). But, I don't think that just "pop" is sufficient. When I think of a pop singer, I think of someone like Britney Spears. Even the "King of Pop" has (much) more listed than just "pop" (and that's a featured article). —Musdan77 (talk) 18:57, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

I think we also need to take into account that the pop rock genre was reliably sourced, which is more so that what normally happens during music genre edit wars. Currently her albums are marked in the infoboxes as pop (x7), pop rock (x4), rock, Christmas, jazz, country, soul, electropop, orchestral pop, power pop, EDM (x2), so both pop and pop rock would be a good overview of them. Currently her songs are marked in the infoboxes as R&B (x4), soul (x2), pop (x12), pop rock (x17), folk pop, power pop (x4), glam rock, alternative rock (x2), electropop (x3), folk blues, dance-rock (x2), electro, synthpop (x6), funk rock, rock, country pop, dance-pop (x2), country, country soul, soft rock (x2), Christmas (x5), neo-jazz, trance, gospel, EDM and electro rock, so both pop and pop rock would be a good overview of them, with maybe something along the lines of electro/dance. I would think having either pop and pop rock or pop and rock would be an accurate summary of her article and recordings. Aspects (talk) 04:16, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I have to agree on the fact that she should be credited as Pop-rock or else, both Pop, Rock. All of her albums include rock and pop rock songs, rather than "pure" pop music. She has sung other genres too, Country, Punk, Jazz, Soul, but I do not think they can sum up her whole career though, unless she changes her musical directions. It seems to be the case after her label departure, finallY! So probably Soul in the future, but that's only speculation. I provide references that classify her as Pop-rock or Rock-tinged pop. http://www.bbc.co.uk/music/reviews/2wgb/ --Hadriensaori (talk) 10:27, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kelly_Clarkson/Archive_7&oldid=1153938161"