Talk:Anthony Callea

Bedroom
Hey, my wife read in I think it was Women's Weekly that he has a very tidy bedroom. What do you reckon? Shall we add it in? It's verifiable.Dr Zen 08:29, 17 November 2004 (UTC)
 * It's not verifiable unless you can remember the source. Is it notable? See below. -Willmcw 09:27, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

OF course his bedroom is tidy, he never spends time at his house! He always is somewhere else e.g. recording things in studio, appearances on television and ceremonies like the Dolly Teen Choice Awards, writing songs overseas, touring the nation, et cetera... thats a useless piece of information Wiki doesn't need... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.177.78.154 (talk) 08:23, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Julia Gillard
does anyone know whether it is true or not that Julia Gillard once told the House Of Rep.'s to vote for Anthony (when Australian Idol was running) because he lived in her electorate? I heard this somewhere but I can't remember where. Can anyone verify this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.50.80.247 (talk) 03:17, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * (I guess: )--Greasysteve13 07:14, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Added stuff
Well, that's good, I just added a ton of crap to improve some stuff, most notably added pages for both of Anth's released albums...if it seems a little n00bish I'm new to wiki, so yea...--SilverNightFire 03:36, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Sexuality
Can we come to a consensus about whether we should include the "rumours" that he is gay? It's been changed constantly the last few days, deleted, then added, then deleted, depending on the user's own views. I thought the previous section titled "Personal Life" was appropriate and didn't actually SAY he was gay, just the fact that he was allegedly outed. Any opinions about whether the section should be included? (I vote yes) Benjitan 15:39, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Well it is sourced, so I don't see anything wrong with including it. --clpo13 19:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I do and exclude it I Vote NO and anyway you don't own this domain or this profile. It has nothing to do with his career and achievements. I doesn't belong here, gutter press at its best. dwally 16th March 2007 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dwally (talk • contribs) 15:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Saying that someone claimed he was gay is not the same thing as saying he actually is. Considering it's just about the most press he's had in a while, it's probably notable. If you look at Tom Cruise, you'll see the gay rumours reported there too.
 * I don't understand what you mean when you say "anyway you don't own this domain or this profile". Wikipedia (the domain) is owned by a nonprofit foundation, and Wikipedia (the text) is free for everyone. We determine what to include by determining a consensus of those editing the article. - Mark 02:59, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I say that the sexuality should go in. It's notable information about a notable guy. He's appeared in the press repeatedly over his sexuality. Sexuality is an issue for a guy who sings love songs. If he were a professor of engineering, I could accept that it's irrelevant. The text from my edit is, I think, the best attempt at including the info in a way that's verifiable and sourced. - Richard Cavell 04:40, 17 March 2007 (UTC)


 * While the text, as written, was not the cleanest, it was sourced properly. And it noted what the Australian radio announcers said, as well as Gallea's denial, which counters any POV claims.  I believe it belongs in.  As for not having anything to do with his career and achievements, I'd like to point out that a full quarter of the news reports cited on Google News are about the outing - quite a bit of publicity for his career! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs)  04:45, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you include every media article on Anthony then?? and not just what you percieve to be of interest. It has nothing to do with anything. This profile, is about Anthony's achievements.No relevence whatso-ever. It may have been sourced but I would hardly call Sydney Confidential the most reliable source of information and the whole issue is about a Traffic Reporter gossiping on a Radio programme where he was there just to do the traffic. User:Dwally — Preceding undated comment added 12:46, 17 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, the profile is about the person, not just his career. Anonymous editors are adding the same content, and consensus seems to be building towards including it. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs)  14:17, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Anthony has enough talk and speculation on the WWW about his without it being on here as well. As, has been said it is unsubstantiated gossip and Anthony has said he wants to keep his private life separate from his work life. Don't see any sense on putting gossip on a profile. refer Marks comments below dwally — Preceding undated comment added 15:26, 17 March 2007 (UTC)


 * What I added wasn't gossip - it was a properly referenced statement that a radio announcer said he was gay. It also said that Anthony denied it.  All of which is notable and referenced.
 * So far, your reasons for removing the info have been:


 * 1) Anthony doesn't want it. Besides sounding like WP:OR, that also has no bearing on the information or the article.  I'm pretty sure Ted Haggard doesn't want the controversy surrounding him to be on his page, either.
 * 2) It's gossip. As I said above, speculation about his sexual orientation is indeed gossip.  But the controversy around a radio announcer outing Callea isn't gossip - that's news.
 * Do you have any other objections that would keep the info off the page? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 15:42, 17 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Mark's comment below says he is opposed to the use of the category (I agree on that point) and above he mentions consensus. As per WP:Consensus this subject is still under discussion and consensus has not been reached, so it is premature to remove the information.  At the moment there are some people in favour of keeping the information.  I will add myself to that list.  I dislike the tendency of some articles to submerge themselves in gossip, but in this case we are reporting what has been said about him and we are linking it to an acceptable source.  The comments made about his sexuality have been reported in various media and we are doing no more than reporting what has been said.  It may be "gossip" but if someone's  career is potentially impacted by public and media speculation about an aspect of his personal life, then mentioning it our biographical article is fairly important for comprehensiveness, as long as care is taken to avoid giving the subject undue weight.  It could have an impact on his career, much more than if he worked in a non-public field so in this case it has relevance.  We are not (and we must not be) using this speculation as a way of presenting this information as fact.  Furthermore Callea's wanting "to keep his private life seperate from his work life" is not relevant. He's chosen a career as a public figure and the media are going to talk about him and write about him.  Biographies of living people is the main thing to look at here in terms of determining what is appropriate.  I feel that we are well within this policy.  I'm going to revert the text.  Please leave it there until this discussion reaches consensus. Rossrs 15:53, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Gay categories
Twice today I have removed gay-related categories from this article. If this trend continues, I will semi-protect this article.

The grand sum of all the sources relating to Callea's sexuality amounts to speculation, and no solid proof. Whilst by all means we can report on the speculation, to take that one step further and say that Callea is gay is wrong. Here is a quote from the guidelines on categorisation of people:


 * "Inclusion should be justifiable by external references. (For example, even if you have personal knowledge of a notable individual's sexual orientation, they should only be filed in a gay-related category if factual, reliable sources can be provided to support the assertion.)"

My reading of that is that such categories should not be used if such sexuality is equivocal. Because Callea says he is not gay, we should not say he is. - Mark 14:51, 17 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Thankyou Mark dwally — Preceding undated comment added 15:19, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree Mark and am wondering, while it keeps being added, about the 'revert' rules. This was not widespread 'news' but appeared in some states only. It's unsubstantiated gossip and not relevant to his career or work. That certain elements of the press discuss people in the public eye in this way is not a reason or justification. Saying that it will 'potentially damage his career' is a value judgement I disagree with. If it were true, then all the more reason not to print it. Print details about his career and recent performances rather than meaningless unsubstantiated speculation by someone who's basically little known and who should have been talking about the traffic.(Darllenwr 16:42, 17 March 2007 (UTC))

Controversy
I've added a "controversy" section that I hope presents the information in an NPOV way. I agree that the categories should stay off. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 15:21, 17 March 2007 (UTC)


 * So you have the transcript of the conversation from the Radio station? As I have read it in no way did the traffic reporter say that he was gay!! I am wondering your source, It sounds a bit like Chinese Whispers to me sourced from a blog as the detail you "thoughtfully" added is not in any reputable publication I have read. I am also now wondering your interest in this whole article. Have you added achievements to his profile in the past or just this one from this tabloid Sydney Confidential hardly known for their headline breaking articles. dwally
 * I see the article has now been edited to only include what was reported & not someones spin.User talk:dwally — Preceding undated comment added 07:17, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protection of article
I have semi-protected this article as a result of the continuing blanking of the controversy section by anonymous contributors. - Mark 01:24, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Thankyou for that, some people have nothing better to do.dwally — Preceding undated comment added 02:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Anthonycallea anewchapter.jpg
Image:Anthonycallea anewchapter.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 20:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I was unable to establish fair use for the image on this article, though I was able to assert one for the album itself, so the image won't be deleted. &mdash;Elipongo (Talk|contribs) 05:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

March 2008 cleanup
This article has gotten a bit out of hand with both slavish un-encyclopedic language and obsessive attention to fan trivia. I deleted the "Career Highlights" section tonight, as it represented both trivia and a list of performances with no sources suggesting that Callea regards these as his career highlights. I also did some slashing throughout the tour and concert sections, as several parts seemed to be nothing more than lists of people he had worked with, effectively hijacking this page for their own promotion. -- Lenky (talk) 13:13, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

In 2010, this article still has a lot of information put here with no citations to support that this information is true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.78.9.131 (talk) 23:25, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Popstars Audition
I was just watching a repeat of Popstars (aired early hours on Wednesday 21 May 2008 on channel 7 in Sydney) and it featured an audition of Anthony Calea. I think this may have been from the 2002 series, but not sure (no copyright date given during the credits). Does anyone know any details on this? How far did he go in this show? Which Popstars series was it? Should there be a reference to this in the main article? Cheers Mark in oz (talk) 16:06, 20 May 2008 (UTC)Mark_in_Oz
 * Thanks, but no. Manytexts (talk) 00:18, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Link
Anthony Callea is the link to chinese wikipedia.Fferic (talk) 10:05, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Anthony Callea
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Anthony Callea's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "news": From Thirty (album): http://www.news.com.au/entertainment/music/anthony-callea-has-past-covered/story-fn93z1ud-1226629164185 From Beyondblue:  

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:30, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Discography
Does the article really need "a complete discography of every album and single released by Australian pop music artist Anthony Callea." when the article verges on this anyway? This likely exists on the fansite/own website/Fox in any case. Am asking in the interests of doubling-up problem when it's all in the body copy (not to mention scroll-hogging verbiage).

Also with respect, the article reads like a past CV so have made efforts to prose-modify "list" mode & to date the wording. Style-note: much overweening emphasis on the man's achievements can have the opposite of impressing. Manytexts (talk) 00:13, 7 April 2014 (UTC)