Talk:Josh Groban/Archive 1

Spam?
"HE loves Dallas and wants to sing there in June or B.J.'s Birthday."

You're absolutely right, taken care of, but next time please sign in & you could also feel free to revert the vandalism yourself. Thanks for letting me know, Danypo 19:43, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Tenor Vs. Baritone
Josh is a light lyric baritone. Please do not revise it to say he is a tenor (I have reversed it) and if you are going to make revisions at all, please sign in and post something on this page regarding any changes. Thank you! Danypo 16:01, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree... he's no tenor. I don't think he can fit in any operatic roles, so he's better off doing popera. <<The preceeding anonymous comment was left by Boipussi.

Hi. Technically "popera" is a misnomer (I mean, there is no such thing as pop opera). He sings popular music with a slightly more classical approach then, say, the Backstreet Boys. He has better breath control, and no doubt better training. I wouldn't expect to see opera from him for another 5 to 10 years, but I won't be terribly surprised when it does show up. I can think, offhand, of a dozen baritone roles he would be great in. Just not the way we're used to hearing him now. If you wouldn't mind signing in before leaving comments... thanks. :-) It makes it easier. Danypo 17:12, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

He has rather unique voice range from F2 to A4 so he can also can sing bass-baritone roles. Another person with such range is Joshua Kadison. The latter often uses falsetto so he exceeds beyond C5 slightly.

Josh's own official webpage lists him as a tenor! I think we should go with what he bills himself, people.


 * Where, on his official site, is his vocal range listed? I can't find it anywhere. I'd say he's a baritone primarily. Most of his songs I can sing, and I'm a baritone, who's occasionally journeyed into second tenor territory. Unless someone can come up with specific references to his tenor-osity, he should stay listed as a baritone in the article, IMHO. --Ebyabe 14:23, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello. I tread on broken glass with this edit, I know. However, Danypo, I would hope that someone, such as yourself, who listens to artists such as Il Divo would know that there IS such thing as pop opera. Your proclamation that there is no such thing bothers me when I find out that you know full well who Il Divo is and yet persist with your comment of: "I mean, there is no such thing as pop opera". There indeed is and, as I have mentioned, Il Divo is one example of the pop opera or, as it is popularly known, popera, sound. However this particular section in which I am leaving my edit is for the tenor v. baritone debate and therefore I think that your bringing up the debate on whether or not pop opera exists was unnecessary. Hypocritical though that may be as I have continued the debate, this was my only way of expressing my feelings to you and I hope that this discussion would either end here or continue somewhere far from this spot in order to save others from the bickering that may well be a result of my edit. Thank you.

Hello. In taped interviews in 2007, Josh himself describes his current range as "high baritone". He further states that it is his understanding that as his voice matures, he may end up as a tenor. His understanding is that Pavrotti (of which he does not jest to compare himself)was a baritone at his age(26) and that when his voice fully matures at around 35, he is hoping to achieve tenor status. Only then will he attempt arias and operatic roles. He also describes himself as a "pop singer with classical influences" and detests the word 'popera'. He has yet to do a single operatic song, and frankly doesn't understand why people insist on labeling him an opera singer of any kind. He feels his voice is most suited for Broadway-type musicals but enjoys pop too much to give it up for now. The interviews I reference can be found under 'media' at www.thatjoshgrobanguy.com  If this is not helpful to your article, please feel free to remove it. (joleighva 01:40, 2 September 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.230.211.24 (talk)


 * Hello all. Josh Groban's website says he is a tenor and he frequently sings high As and B flats which puts him solidly in the tenor range. He also has a more tenor vocal timbre and vocal weight as opposed to a baritone quality. If he were doing opera, he probably would sing tenor buffo roles right now and eventually grow into the light lyric tenor repetoire. I suggest going with tenor as his own website says.Broadweighbabe (talk) 17:52, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Where on his site does it say he's a tenor? I can't find anything talking about his range there at all. He sounds like a baritone to me, but that's just an opinion. We need sources, one way or the other, please. --Ebyabe (talk) 17:58, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * In this interview, he says he was a baritone, but implies that his voice changed later to a tenor. Can that happen? I've not heard of a voice going up like that, only down. Hmm. --Ebyabe (talk) 18:03, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes that happens frequently actually. See voice type article. Many singers start out in one category and then their voice develops either through physical maturity or training into another. Many young men actually start out as lyric baritones and end up as tenors as they hit their late 20s. Many Helden-tenors actually start out as baritones. Also his website does say if you read the bi=line given in the search engine which would come from the website "Official site of tenor Josh Groban".Divinediscourse (talk) 18:32, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


 * (comment left by Nrswanson at User talk:EarthFurst): Josh is a tenor. If you do a search for him in yahoo or google and read the bi-line for his official website in the search results it says Official website of tenor Josh Groban. Thos bi-lines are generated by the actual website. I would assume then that if the official webste says tenor he is a tenor.Nrswanson (talk) 19:36, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * (reply to Divinediscourse and Nrswanson): I don't have an opinion on what Groban's voice type is (I only learned of his existence about two weeks ago). I can't find any use of the word "tenor" or "baritone" on Josh's website nor his myspace (but both use the word "vocalist" to describe him). thatjoshgrobanguy.com refers to Groban as a baritone.
 * As for the Yahoo description, it seems to be derived from Yahoo! Directory and not from Groban's website.
 * The google.ca description I get for joshgroban.com is "Official site for this young vocalist who is best remembered for his appearance on the 2001 season finale of Ally McBeal, and at the Closing Ceremonies of ...". When I try google.com I get forwarded to google.ca, so I used workfriendly.net to see google.com search results and also get that Google description ("Official ... young vocalist ... Ceremonies of ..."). --EarthFurst (talk) 21:52, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Although I have once seen "tenor" listed on Josh Groban's web site, I have reason to believe that labeling his voice type as tenor is incorrect. I am currently a vocal performance student in a Bachelor of Music program in college and getting rigorous classical voice training. I can personally testify from constantly listening to many trained singers from all different levels what a tenor, baritone, bass, alto, mezzo, or soprano sounds like. First of all, I am identified as a mezzo-soprano (which is sort of the female equivalent to a baritone). I can sing all of Josh Groban's songs if I sing them one octave higher than he does, which is to be expected since a mezzo-soprano's range is approximately the same as a baritone, just one octave above. Second, although Groban has an impressive range and is capable of hitting A4 and B4, this is not uncommon for a well-trained baritone. He does sometimes struggle in the upper extremes of his range and often reverts to falsetto, which is unnecessary for a true trained tenor at this high range. Also, I am a mezzo-soprano (a medium-voiced female singer) and, on a good day, I can hit a B5 and sometimes even a C6 (high C), but this does not make me a soprano. Third, tessitura is the most important factor in correctly determining a singer's voice classification, although the singer may be able to hit "high" notes, it is the singer's most COMFORTABLE singing range that classifies his or her voice type, as well as that range of the voice which possesses the most "color". The singer's timbre is evidence of the singer's true vocal classification as well. Groban's comfortable tessitura and the timbre of his voice both fit the classification of a lyric baritone. It is in the low-middle part of his range where he possesses the richest timbre, best tone quality, and seems to sound (and look) the most comfortable when singing. I hear no evidence for tenor classification at all in his voice. He is also pretty solid singing low notes where a true tenor would barely be capable of making much sound. In addition, I have also seen video clips of interviews or disscussions where he himself has called himself a high baritone. While it is true, that low or mid voices may become higher as they mature, I don't hear this is in Groban's voice. I have listened to his recordings and televised performances since the beginning of his career until now and his voice sounds lower and darker than his early beginnings, which seems to cement his voice in baritone classification. If he were shifting towards tenor classification, it would no doubt sound higher, lighter, and brighter as his voice matured. Lastly, he is not a classical or opera singer. Most of the songs that he sings live and/or records is not from the classical music period. With the exception of his Christmas album, which contains some traditional songs, he has not sung or recorded any music in the classical vocal repertoire. He recorded "Jesu, Joy of Man's Desiring" by J.S. Bach on his first album, but J.S. Bach is a composer of the Baroque period, not classical. Also, he is not an opera singer, since he has never performed in an opera, nor has he recorded or publicly performed an aria from an operatic work. The music that he sings are mostly contemporary songs that he has either written, had written for him, Broadway/musical theater hits, a few cinematic themes, or cover songs from other popular artists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.123.57.76 (talk) 04:51, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Well you raise some interesting points. However, I take issue with several of them and I am a professional opera singer and a lyric baritone. First, you make no allowance for human growth and development. The voice for men is still in a highly flexible phase during their twenties. Women's voices tend to mature and settle earlier, usually in the mid 20s (of course every voice is different and some will earlier or later). Men on the other hand, often don't find their voices completely settled until their late 20s to early thirties. It is for this reason that several music conservatories and young artist programs have higher age caps for male singers than for female ones. Also, most male voices drop lower and then move up. I myself was a bass as an undergraduate student but my voice raised considerably in my late 20s. Second, their are tenors with a more baritone quality to the vocal timbre which are refered to as Heldentenors. It does not necessarily follow that the voice must take on a lighter or brighter timbre. There are just as many types of tenors as other voice types with varying degrees of vocal weight and vocal timbre. Read the tenor article for goodness sakes. Third, the mezzo-soprano voice is not equivalent to the baritone. Mezzos tend to have larger ranges for one and the fach for a mezzo has more sub divisions. They are similar in being the most common voice types of their sex and being the middle voice types but I wouldn't take the similarity too far. The mechanics of singing for men and women is different as well as men have to "cover" in the upper part of the voice and women do not. Also the vocal transition points or passagio lies in different places. In my personal professional opinion Josh's voice hasn't stopped growing and it is currently unclear as to where his voice will ultimately settle. I will say though that he has an uncommonly high upper extension for a baritone and it is my suspicion that he may be a tenor. To my ears his voice doesn't have a rich enough lower register to be a true baritone. Right now it is just uncertain and only time will tell. his website does market him as a tenor so I would say that the article should reflect that.Nrswanson (talk) 20:24, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I am a member of his website and it is incorrect to say that it lists that he is a Tenor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Swabbi (talk • contribs) 11:42, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

This site says that he's an operatic tenor: http://www.pbs.org/wnet/gperf/shows/joshgroban/joshgroban.html, but no where on his site (www.joshgroban.com) nor his fanclub (which I'm a member of) is he listed as a tenor. Narmowen (talk) 10:44, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Discography
I went in and made his studio albums clickable (take you to the album page) and hope to do articles on the 2 PBS specials next when I get a chance. Danypo

bias
The last couple of lines on the Groban page, regarding the MTV awards, seem slightly biased: "Still his live performance of "Remember When it Rained", backed by a full orchestra, was most memorable." I think this entire sentence can be removed.


 * Exactly how is it biased? The person was noting that many people who saw Josh Groban at the Grammy Awards at that time found his performance memorable. Lenne 08:11, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
 * It's not bias per se, but it is POV. It's making a subjective evaluation. This is an encyclopedic article, not a review. Citing a critic, for example, who said this would be okay, e.g. "Peter Snoodle of the New York Times noted that Grobin's live performance of 'Happy Birthday,' backed by a full orchestra, was most memorable." That's different than an individual editor here making that statement, which is subjective and POV, and therefore inappropriate for Wikipedia. The sentence had already been modified in the article, so this particlar matter is moot. Carmela Soprano 22:36, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't see anything at all about Live 8.

he looks like Tate in Ken Park. not noteworthy, i know.

He stated in an interview that his mother is from Norway, so I would say his mother was Norwegian, not Swedish. It's things like this that make the Wikipedia unreliable. You can read the interview at: http://www.grobanarchives.com/transcripts/tra021213a.html

Yes, but the genius of Wikipedia is that you can fix other people's errors if you have the right info... Vulturell 19:09, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

SweetTalker 01:45, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[01:39, 2 April 2007 (UTC) Groban's mother is of Norwegian descent and Groban has had his own family history traced back to some maternal relatives (long passed) to Toten, Norway. As of this writing, no known living relatives of Melinda (Lindy) Groban reside in Norway.

Blues
Blues?? Josh Groban is not a blues singer as far as I know. Why's he in that category?<<<<The preceding unsigned comment was left by I am I

Okay... the problem was with the stubs. You're right. Thanks for letting us know. You can feel free to change something like that yourself next time, just leave a note here stating what was done and why. If it gets messed up, we could always revert it. Danke schon! :-) Danypo 22:52, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Jewish-American Internal Link
Josh's mother is not Jewish, and although his father is Jewish, he converted to christianity. Josh cannot be considered Jewish under any Jewish sects such as Orthodox, Reform and Conservative. Therefore, I find Josh's Jewish-American status invalid. Alexisrael
 * It's an ethnicity-based category as much as anything. You wouldn't twitch an eyebrow if his father was an Italian-American and he was under the Italian category, would you? Vulturell 23:45, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, Josh has some Jewish roots, which only means that some of his grandparents were Jewish. Josh's father and mother both identify as Christian, and consequently josh is Christian himself. I am trying to point out that Josh lacks Jewish identity. It's ok to cite his Jewish roots, but it's inappropriate to say that he is Jewish. 68.196.189.251

Placing the ethnicity issue aside,the bottom line is that Jews do not see him as a fellow Jewish celebrity. He doesn't identify as Jewish, so it'd be insulting to say that. 68.196.189.251 05:19, 18 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, I don't know exactly which "Jews" you're talking about, but you are certainly not speaking for the whole of the Jewish people. In any case, "Jewish" is certainly considered an ethnicity beside being a religion, and in that sense he is just as Jewish as he is Norwegian. To use a neat example, Lindsey Vuolo, the subject of your last edit, has an Italian-American father who converted to Judaism when he married Vuolo's mother. Yet she is unquestionably half Italian, although she is definitely not Catholic - it is an ethnic and cultural link. Same for Groban - although he is not Jewish by religion - he is certainly part Jewish culturally and ethnically. No one would hesitate to list Vuolo under "Italian-Americans", and I don't see why the same standard shouldn't be applied here. Vulturell 05:55, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

He was raised Christian, by Christian parents. Lindsey Vuolo is different. First of all, Lindsey is Jewish by traditional law, and second of all, she and her parents follow Judaism, and she fully identifies as Jewish. Alexisrael 20:12, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Josh Groban is not even considered ethnically Jewish by any Jewish community. This is a complex issue, but the bottom line is that he's not Jewish. For those who are ignorant, they should read articles such as Jew. Alexisrael 20:26, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * You just completey missed my point, which was that Vuolo was unquestionably half Italian (obviously she's Jewish, that wasn't the point), despite her father's conversion from Catholicism - both Lindsey and her father are Italian by ethnicity and culture, and no one would question their inclusion in an "Italian-Americans" category. Same for Groban, both him and his father are unquestionably Jewish ethnically and culturally. I don't see why the same standard that is applied to Italian-Americans shouldn't be applied to Jewish-Americans. If you check out the parent category, Category:Jewish Americans, it explicitly states "American of Jewish ethnicity/descent" (converts have a special category, "Converts to Judaism"). Obviously, in that sense, Groban is just as Jewish as Vuolo is Italian. Vulturell 00:33, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Because the Jewish ethnicity issue is unique and unlike any other ethnicity. Notice that when talking about Jews, a double ethnicity is used, such as Jewish American, Jewish Russian, etc. For non-Jews, it's only appropriate to cite one ethnicity. In case you missed the point, here are the three standards of being Jewish: Born to a Jewish mother, convert to Judaism, or born to Jewish father AND maintains Jewish culture and identity. Notice that Josh almost qualifies under the third standarrd, HOWEVER, he is a Christian convert and lacks Jewish culture and identity. HE'S NOT JEWISH IN JEWISH EYES. PERIOD.
 * "Jewish American" is a refernce to an ethnicity and a nationality, not two ethnicities (since American is certainly not an ethnicity). Same for Jewish Russian. What is the standard for Norwegian-Americans? Italian-Americans? Eh? All the "standards" you gave me have to do with the Jewish religion. None have to do with the Jewish ethnicity. That is because there are no standards for the Jewish ethnicity, just like there usually are no standards for any other ethnicities. Josh is Episcopalian by religion (and is listed in that section), and is Jewish and Norwegian by ethnicity (and is listed under those sections). It doesn't get any simpler than that. Some people may not think of him as "really" Jewish, and for all I know some Norwegians may not think of him as "really" Norwegian. But the "Jewish-American" label is inherently one of ethnicity, not religion (as the category identifies in its description, and as it implies by the "-American" part, since there are no "Catholic-American" categories or any such similar ones for other religions). Logically speaking, he can't possibly be listed under Norwegian-Americans without being listed under Jewish-Americans. Besides, how do you know that he has "Norwegian identity and culture"? Moreover, I just realized that if it was his mother who was Jewish, and had converted to Christianity, etc. then we wouldn't even be having this discussion, and that's really annoying. Ethnicity, religion and ethnic identity should not be ruled over by a group of laws that are followed only by one or several groups. Wikipedia is run from a neutral point of view, not from the point of view of the combined Jewish religious denominations, so we have to treat the Italian, Norwegian, Jewish, and any other ethnic groups equally. Vulturell 04:53, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Whatever. Josh simply has Jewish roots and all that means is that his older generations were part of the Jewish people. Today, Josh is not part of the Jewish people. I guess Josh's Jewish ethnicity is purely for historical records. He can't erase his Jewish roots, but he surely volunatrily walked away from the Jewish people. Today, he is absolutely not Jewish. So let's close this deal.

You know how most Jews react to Josh's case? they are proud of his Jewish roots but disappointed in his current status. End of discussion. Alexisrael 20:02, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Vulturell 21:14, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

How other Jews feel on the issue is irrelevant. He does not self identify as a Jew, and does not practice Judaism. Therefore, he is not Jewish. This whole talk of disappointment, how different sects feel, etc. is entirely irrelevant.

omg...cant believe ppl could debate this for soooo long. i mean....why not just call him american...or californian for now. for the whole jewish identity thing...we could sand him a email or somethin' and ask him directly (if he would answer it.)

Whether any religious group considers him to be Jewish can not change the fact that a significant part of his ancestry is Jewish. He is ethnically Jewish, which means that he is to be included in the Jewish category. This is not my opinion; this is Wikipedia's standard. If *anyone* is to be considered Jewish by ethnicity (exactly like being ethnically Irish or Italian), then certainly, this is not to be treated as an exception. Wikipedia's policy is clear.

New album?
The question is in the title.?.

Hi: Josh has plans to release his 3rd studio album in the fall of 2006. It will coincide, most likely, with the start of his fall tour, to promote the album.

Thanks! Danypo e  18:18, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

The Name is "Awake" and will be released on 11/7/2006.

Album Released Today
Josh's new album was officially released today, entitled "Awake." Blondie16 22:11, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

New Mix
There's a CD released in Gold Crown Hallmarks that was made for Valentine's Day. It consists of songs from his first and second albums, but it also has two new songs. I'm not sure what the two songs are. I don't know if this would go in his album info or not. It's part of Hallmark's 3 card promos. Below is the link.

http://www.hallmark.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/article|10001|10051|/HallmarkSite/GoldCrownStores/GROBAN_CD

Picture
Somehow I don't think that, that is a picture of Mr. Groban would someone please take care of that? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.2.126.55 (talk • contribs).
 * It's fixed now. --Ebyabe 13:04, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Stuff About Josh
I found out that Josh's full name is Joshua Winslow Groban. Cool! Winslow is kind of a funny name. --We can do without emotional embellishments. This isn't a fan board.SweetTalker 02:13, 1 April 2007 (UTC) [SweetTalker]

Please read Don't bite the newcomer, as your comment was unkind. Bouncehoper 03:58, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Emotional embellishments and cavalry arriving to the rescue aside, Bouncehopper, Groban HAS a place for this kind of gushing commentary; the slang term is Official Forum. Whether or not the name "Winslow" is "cool" or "funny" is irrelevant. This isn't A fan board and it isn't HIS fan board. As for unkindness, your pot is calling my kettle black. The debate is over. User:SweetTalker 23:40, 24 May 2007 (UTC)SweetTalker

Ok, so you think that by using big words and insulting people, you're suddenly able to tell people how to talk? Oh yes, that's really kind of you. The person DID NOT put this on the actual article, they put it on the TALK PAGE. There's a talk page for a reason; namely, for things that don't necessarily go on the article. And what debate? I was just saying you need to chill out. I've never seen anyone so rude before, over a few little words! This person didn't even sign their name, probably because they were too friggin' scared of you biting their head, which you did. You really need to calm down before you edit Wiki. And where was I not kind? Please try to make sense the next time you lash out at people. It's not nice, it's not logical, and it's not wiki-style, either. Get a grip.

P.S. The article sounds pretty low-key, but the way you've portrayed it here shows that you actually WANT to piss off the "Grobanites." That's not classy, either. Plus, the interviewer (whether you or someone else) went out of his way to ask the picking the nose question. It's not necessary in the article, and it sounds childish. Bouncehoper 16:13, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Bouncehopper, your attitude, constant deletions and personal attacks are typical Grobanite and welcome on Groban's Official Forum but out of place here. User:SweetTalker

And your rude edit comments and personal attacks on not just me, but anyone who tries to edit on here or the article, smack of "out of place" more so. And whoever said I was a "Grobanite"? I'd never even heard the term before I came here. I was just editing the page because I happened upon it, and found the "controversies" part of the article a little over-reaching, compared to the referenced article. Like ANY USER on wiki, I exercised my right to edit what someone already put there, to IMPROVE it.

Can we settle this, please? I'm really not sure why you're so upset or why you feel the need to insult others on this page. There's really no reason to not be calm about this. Bouncehoper 03:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with the Controversies article as I wrote it. Deleting less than angelic references to a man who fully admits he has a dark side doesn't improve the article, it sterilizes it and it won't restore his virginity, despite Grobanites' best ostrich "stick your head in the sand" efforts. Now you can lob your "personal attacks" comments (which is typical textbook Grobanite behavior by the way) if you want. But we'll just continue this dance of you vandlizing my article and me restoring it to the original

Controversies
I noticed that the recent change to Josh's controversies is not cited. The line added was "However, this article was more or less a fake. Groban later said that he found out that sarcasm doesn't come off very well in print." As it is written now it sounds like an attempt to compensate for the negative light of his comments. The sentence would be strengthened by a source. ProGeek314 20:20, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe the source was his own web site: www.joshgroban.com. It was not necessarily an apology to the fans, but more of an explanation of how what he said was taken out of context. 4gop72.145.102.96 22:20, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I deleted the references. I wrote the Controversies article and I did not include Josh's comments about his sarcasm coming through. Any time Grobanites get their socks in a bunch over something he says that shows his edgy side, Groban always comes out and says something to placate them but he was not taken out of context. And I refuse to pander to their hysteria. The usual and sundry Grobanite is not the demographic Blender shoots for. If you don't want to see shock and edge, then don't read Blender.

Also, the Blender article is not a fake. I can't tell you how many times I have provided the links to the article itself. Grobanite Purists might not appreciate this quirkier side of Josh but constantly vandalizing and changing and deleting my piece will not make it go away or make him any more virginal or change the comments that he's made here and elsewhere. SweetTalker May 13, 2007


 * I have carefully considered this issue for some time. The inclusion of the entire paragraph rely upon a single premise.  Josh Groban is viewed by Grobanites as being a perfect angelic classical artist.  Without that statement, the rest of the statements do not really belong in the article. I have two issues with this.


 * 1. The statement is essentially a straw man argument filled with weasel words. Because some Josh Groban fans feel a certain way (Devoted though they may be), rather improper character evidence is allowed in.  Is it really needed in a wiki article that Mr. Groban uses the F word?  I think we would be adding that sentence to quite a few articles if that was the standard for inclusion.  Similarly, having tried pot a single time would require that particular notes inclusion in more than a few article.  Realistically speaking, I can only think of a single instance where "trying pot once" would be mentioned in a wikipedia article, and that is in reference to Bill Clinton's "I tried but didn't inhale" incident.  The only questionable issue is him making booty calls. Again though, that relies upon if the statement contributes anything to the article. Is it a main stream belief that Josh Groban is a perfect classical angel?  Or is the paragraph a refutation of the minority view? Which brings me to my second point.


 * 2. Is Josh Groban, in general, viewed as a perfect classical angel? It would seem the answer is no.  It seems evident from the article that he has non-classical influences.  Further, it does not appear he or anybody else makes claims that he is perfect.  I actually went to the Josh Groban Grobanite forums in order to see if anybody viewed him as an absolutely perfect person. That does not seem to be the case.  In other words, this is point 1 in different wording.  Point 1 is the refutation of point 2.  Both weigh against inclusion in the main article.


 * Here is an example of why this is the proper standard for inclusion. Suppose in the main body of the article, Christianity, there is a statement along the lines of Some Mormons believe in XYZ. First, it wouldn't be fair to add that in unless more than just "some" Mormons believed XYZ.  Second, it isn't fair to add in the rebuttal of XYZ, namely a statement along the lines of, "However, the holy Bible Says ABC, therefore XYZ is wrong."  A more relevant example may be the Charlotte Church article, which omits mention of the boobs in the cell phone incident. Although the incident is true, it just doesn't need to be in the article.


 * When it comes down to it, another argument is the information is much like trivia. Of a more inflammatory nature, but still trivia without more context (Such as the majority of Josh Groban listeners believing Josh is a perfect PERSON).  Otherwise, people could add in Josh's favorite color is pink, he likes sour apple suckers, drives a Toyota Prius, and his favorite video game is Madden 2005.  Each statement may be true. Each statement may be published. But each statement is also trivia that is not needed.  Sentineneve 22:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. That makes a lot more sense that what I was doing.[User:Bouncehoper|Bouncehoper]] 02:46, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Loud and clear People. Like I said before, I can do a Lionel Ritchie. I can play this All Night Long. I wrote the Controversies article, I researched the Controversies article and there is nothing wrong with the Controversies article. Vandalizing and deleting what is printed fact will not restore Groban's perceived angelicism, virginity or image as classical darling. The only discourse directed at this article comes from upset Grobanites who hate the very idea of their darling as anything but perfect when Groban himself is working overtime in articles and appearances on Jimmy Kimmel Live to debunk the very squeaky clean, virginal image Grobanites tenaciously cling to. (Lest we forget the Panda Sex song and ensuing debacle). This discussion and emotional bickering and fighting et all is classic Josh Groban Official Forum fodder and that's where it belongs. This is the end of the debate on this.

You have two choices: complain to Wikipedia who will probably find NOTHING wrong with my content or go snivel to Brian Avnet and Warner Brothers. While that works on getting people booted from the Official Forum, you'll find it will do you precious little good here. Bottom line: There is nothing wrong with the article and NOTHING that Groban has not said and done in public. Deleting it will not make it go away and will not stop Groban from continuing to show the public that he's not a teenage boy anymore but a grown man. SweetTalker

WHAT is your problem? Someone completely out of the entire mess decided to do something and solve it, and yet you completely disregarded it.

A. No one gives a damn about Jimmy Kimmel or "panda sex" or whatever you're babbling about.

B. No one cares if Josh isn't "virginal". Duh. He's how old?

C. EDITING is not VANDALIZING. Vandalizing would be "ohmygod i love josh!!!111 and he's so not into casssueal sexx!!1 and he's gonna mary me!!!1" or replacing the entire page with "JOSH GROBAN IS A A GIANT CHOAD." that's vandalism. Editing something for further clarity or because there's been a controversy (ironically over a controversies article) is not vandalism.

D. "This is the end of the debate on this." WHOA! That's not Wiki attitude, hon. Sorry sorry.

E. Neither Sentineneve, nor I are "Grobanites." Your beef seems to be with people who aren't on this page. In fact...

F. "While that works on getting people booted from the Official Forum, you'll find it will do you precious little good here." a-HA! so THAT'S why you're all up in their mess. You got booted off the official forum and decided to take your malarkey here? Bouncehoper 00:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I believe my contributions page speaks for itself. I have exactly one round of modifications to Josh Groban.  Grobanite, I am not.Sentineneve 00:10, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Speaking from a relatively neutral point of view, good faith edits are not vandalism. The controversies section is sourced now with one source - there is a second source that I have read before but the link to the LA Times appears to be dead.  I do have a slight problem because of this - it is unsourced and may be removed per WP:BLP.
 * Wikipedia is under no obligation to expose every pop star's bad habits, controversies, temper tantrums, shocking revelations, and so on. If controversy is well-sourced and notable, and does not unbalance the article dramatically, it can be included.
 * And one last point - nobody owns an article or portion of it. You put the content on Wikipedia - you licensed it under the GFDL - you lost your rights to "copyright" your edits, section or article in doing so.  And please cease the threats to keep reverting - this is called edit warring and you can be blocked for it - as well as WP:3RR.  So I suggest everyone here take a step back, and remember to stay civil when discussing.  x42bn6 Talk Mess  01:20, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia- I fully understand what you are trying to impart, but there is absolutely nothing wrong with the Controversies article as I contributed to it. Everything in that article is easily verifiable, is factual and accurate. New fans come to Wikipedia to learn about Josh Groban. Outside of Googling random articles, Wikipedia is a first source to get quick information about a subject. Fans want a clear picture, not a sanitized version. Groban made these comments himself and they weren't just off the cuff remarks. These comments have been the subject of great discussion with Grobanites deciding to delete any and all reference to them whenever and where ever they go despite what a fan might want to know and learn. Perhaps it isn't entirely necessary to bring up some of his bad habits such as nose picking, but that was not the intention of the inclusion. The intention was to show all facets, nuances and quirks of the artist in order to get a clear and less sanitized, sterile version of the overall picture. Wikipedia does include and allow such content for other artists and other notables such as drug use and other less desirable qualities especially when backed up with references as my contributions have been. The artist DOES have an official forum where this kind of squabbling and content cleansing goes on daily. I stand behind my contributions as accurate and non damaging and apologize for my part in the squabbling. SweetTalker 12:33, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm going to tell you this once - "my" version (nobody owns an article, please remember) - the one I edited - is better. It has proper formatting in, and the LA Times article no longer exists for some reason, and I have attributed it better (casual sex does not even get a mention in the former article - drawing any such conclusions is original research).  x42bn6 Talk Mess  13:33, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

My question is why do we need to know what little negative things Josh does? Does he not have the right to privacy? I am not trying to be combative, just logical. He was trying to be himself and it bit him in the rear end as it tends to all celebrities. This doesn't mean that the entire world needs to see his quirks as controversies. Is there any way to adjust some of these?

Kristyn Dodge 07:42, 27 November 2007 (UTC) KE7EJX
 * And that is a question of WP:NPOV, WP:BLP and various policies. Would it be neutral not to mention such a thing?  Or the opposite?  To me, it's notable, sourced and doesn't unbalance the article - hence I see no reason why it shouldn't stay.  On the other hand, my opinion isn't moot in any way and I would not get angry if it were removed for a good reason.  As for privacy, I'm afraid he is as private as his own life - and as a singer, he is hardly one to try and stay private.  That said, we should avoid sensationalist conclusions and every single little detail.  x42bn6 Talk Mess  14:47, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Closercover.jpg
Image:Closercover.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. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

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 18:10, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey...
Does anyone know how many albums he sold altogether?

I know it's more than 2 million but how much more?

-Christine —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Special:Contributions/ (talk)

The last that I heard it was over 13 million. Impressive really.

-Brittany —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.147.42.85 (talk) 07:30, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Biased, Unnecessary, POV-driven Information In 'Controversies'
The reason I didn't respond sooner as to why I edited the info on this page was that I was new here and didn't know how; to be honest, this website isn't very user-friendly.

Just in case you're wondering [whoever you are] the LEGIT reason I kept editing the aritle was that 1. I found it offensive and 2. I thought [and felt] that a some biased fan posted it from a liberal standpoint. In other words, I felt that particular part of the article is POV-based and unessesary, because Josh Groban isn't a controversial, mainstream celebrity figure [like Lindsay Lohan, Britney Spears, Tom Cruise, Paris Hilton] and others. Moreover, I also felt that section of the article was unessesary lacked 'tactical grammer' and was very unprofessional. Why not air all of this guy's dirty laundry while all of the sh!t's on the table? Who cares what Josh said in one stupid article? How do we know if he wasn't drunk during the interview for that filthy article? He's nothing but a sell-out, as far as I'm concerned.

If you [whoever you dummies out there are] think for one single minute that Blender magazine article is the only thing Josh Groban's done that's got many of the Grobanites on the website's official forum talking, then you're as wrong as wrong can be and got change comin'; that's been going on for years [since namely 2003], but I guess that Blender article is the latest thing that really takes the cake. I must admit that it caught many of the fans [including myself] by surprise. I don't expect the man to be perfect, b/c none of us are; I just consider him a sell-out like many of the celeb figures from Trashy Tinseltown. I guess that's what wealth, fame, fortune, money, good looks, talent, and lots of compliments can do to a person after a while, especially a young person. After all, I thought posting unessesary, biased, POV-based information was against the rules and guidelines? If that ain't the mods contradicting themselves, then I don't know what.

I truly believe that section of the article was put up to strictly bug [and annoy] the more conservative Grobies [like myself] who happened to stumble upon that page; or perhaps it was some smart-assed, smart-alecky, bratty, snot-nosed, pissy, sour-grape, empty-headed, unscrupulous, idle asshead posted it simply b/c they had a bad day and didn't have anything else to do. The knucklehead said it theyself that they wrote the article. I don't give a frickin' flying kitty HOW accurate it is, or even if it's accurate at all; it should be removed. There's some things I would rather not know about. As a matter of fact, I didn't know about what Josh had said on the official website until I ran upon this article; I just don't keep up with celebs like that b/c many of the things I stumbled upon about them I wished I never found out.

Whoever you are, just in case you're wonderin' why I edited a section of both the discussion and article area of this page, then there; you got your answer, cuz I just explained myself. You happy now? There, I've said it; now you can go around the bend and smoke it if you want to. I'm done. *gets up off of soapbox*

(Wikieuphoria 04:40, 31 August 2007 (UTC))
 * Indeed, you're not meant to soapbox anywhere (why?). And yes, you are new, so you will possibly have to learn some things about Wikipedia.  First, assume good faith.  Do not assume that the section was placed to "bug [and annoy] the more conservative Grobies [like myself]...".  Posting unnecessary, biased, POV-based information can be removed, true (via WP:BLP) but who is to say what is necessary or unnecessary?  Unnecessary might be to say, for example, that his favourite fish is carp and he his walking pace length is 1.2m.  It was notable, and got coverage, so it can be mentioned.
 * That said, you mention this:
 * "1. I found it offensive" - true, but see Wikipedia is not censored. What you see as offensive others may not.
 * "2. I thought [and felt] that a some biased fan posted it from a liberal standpoint." Assume good faith. I'll trawl through the history and figure out who added the information for the very first time, if you wish, but it is going to be hard to conclude they are a biased fan who is liberal unless they specifically say so.
 * "In other words, I felt that particular part of the article is POV-based and unessesary, because Josh Groban isn't a controversial, mainstream celebrity figure [like Lindsay Lohan, Britney Spears, Tom Cruise, Paris Hilton] and others." - That is what this talk page is for.
 * "Moreover, I also felt that section of the article was unessesary lacked 'tactical grammer' and was very unprofessional." - Again, this is what this talk page is for.
 * "Why not air all of this guy's dirty laundry while all of the sh!t's on the table? Who cares what Josh said in one stupid article? How do we know if he wasn't drunk during the interview for that filthy article? He's nothing but a sell-out, as far as I'm concerned. " - Agreed, Wikipedia is not meant to out every single dirty fact, but notable controversies should be mentioned, but not to the degree such that it becomes an attack page. Remember that Wikipedia is not censored, too.
 * The paragraph has been in dispute for quite some time now, and it has been removed, put back, cleaned up (by me, but I have no idea what happened to it after that), and so on - but being bold means you did nothing wrong. So take your grievances to this talk page, perhaps.  x42bn6 Talk Mess  06:40, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah. I remember this debate well. Yipers. User:SweetTalker was originally the one to put it in. He/she seemed really pissed off about the whole thing, and believed "Grobies" to be censoring the information included in the paragraph. I, too, have cleaned it at points to make it more palpable. I've also re-inserted it at times, rationale being that it is a valid point in his career, as it would be anyone's. No, he's not Lindsay Lohan, but that doesn't mean he's an angel. I didn't agree with SweetTalker's tactics (see edit history from this May, and the above Controveries discussion), but the general idea behind the paragraph is ok for the page. It's not attacking; it's just stating what's been said in the rest of the media world. Bouncehoper 08:27, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

For the record, SweetTalker was and never has been banned from any forum, board or anything of that kind in relation to Josh Groban or anyone else. Sweet Talker 03:10, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh dear God! Do you realize how pathetically sad it is that we're all arguing over what three sentences? I'm pretty sure that if Josh Groban were to look at this page and see the 'controversies' section he really wouldn't care. It's pretty minor when you really give it any thought. I would hardly consider it to be an issue. Maybe we should all just find hobbies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.147.42.85 (talk) 07:33, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * There are occasions when Wikipedians argue over more trivial things: See WP:LAME. x42bn6 Talk Mess  12:23, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

New updates
I just added a new update under charity about a donation Josh Groban recently made.Wolfman1992 21:35, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Concerts section
Is it normal/correct for the Concerts section to include non-concert appearances like the Macy's parade? Also, it seems wrong for appearances on other CD's like the Troy soundtrack to be included in the concert list. Seems like there should be a separate section for these. See Sting for an example of what I'm thinking of. Dstumme (talk) 15:55, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Proposed merge from Grobanite
It seems that Grobanite is kind of a stub, and I don't see it becoming a full article, somehow. Might I suggest that it be merged into a new section in this article? Please do correct me if I'm wrong and this shouldn't be merged. If nobody objects, in a few days I'll commit the merge.--I80and (talk) 00:58, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I dunno, I think it should be deleted, and made a simple redirect to Josh Groban. The "sources" in it are messageboards, which aren't reliable sources. Unless some could be found, I don't think it would be an appropriate addition to the article about Groban. It's more fancrufty than anything else, imho. :) -Ebyabe (talk) 01:04, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Interesting. That was my first reaction, too, but I figured this would be safer if someone actually did like the content on the article.  Should I just  redirect it instead?--I80and (talk) 17:34, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I highly doubt this article is verifiable, let alone notable. I'd send it through WP:AfD to see what happens.  x42bn6 Talk Mess  18:09, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm reluctant to nominate it for several reasons, but the most relevant is that it could be a decently helpful redirect, and according to WP:AFD redirecting is preferable to deletion if possible.--I80and (talk) 21:08, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd be happy to nominate it for AfD if you do not wish to. x42bn6 Talk Mess  23:43, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I was thinking redirect would be the way to go, too, actually. Maybe we could try that, and see if attempts are made to "recreate" it? -Ebyabe (talk) 00:26, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, I'll go ahead and make it redirect for now. If anybody wants to nominate it for deletion, I don't see a reason not to.--I80and (talk) 03:23, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I am closing the AFD as "merge" based on consensus, which means that the term will need to be mentioned in this article and some information on the phenomenon included. --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 15:01, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Josh groban album.jpg
Image:Josh groban album.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 this Wikipedia article 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. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

Wording of relationship
Hello, I'm new here and basically flying blind. I am a journalism student in Minnesota. Anyways, the wording of a sentence in Influences and personal details threw me off. '''He is single, but dated January Jones from 2003-2006, breaking up in the summer of that year. However, they "remain friends". I switched it to He is single, but dated January Jones from 2003-2006, breaking up in the summer of that year. They remain friends.''' That's a little bit less implicative. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.197.207.245 (talk) 00:09, 18 April 2008 (UTC) BetacommandBot (talk) 23:12, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

You are os cool. can you tell me how you started sing? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.88.200.125 (talk) 18:19, 18 May 2008 (UTC)