Talk:Greyson Chance/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Notable enough for an article?

Yeah, ok, he just got signed. But beyond being a YouTube sensation, is there any reason for him to have his own article already? He hasn't released an album or even a single yet. I think it would be best to wait until an actual career of some sorts flourishes so that there can be a REASON for this article to exist. The hype from his YouTube video will die down very quickly, and this article will look pointless as a result. 24.189.90.68 (talk) 00:19, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

A record deal is not confirmed yet, but I would argue that he is eligible for inclusion per notability requirements for a musician under #1 - Has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician or ensemble itself and reliable. BBC, Yahoo! Music, CBS News, MTV, Washington Post and more meet the requirements. He has already received more press coverage from more sources than many existing artists included in Wikipedia); and #7 - Has become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene of a city. He OWNS the sixth grade scene in Edmund, Oklahoma. Refinnejann (talk) 03:08, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Alright, but can we at least wait a little while to see if the hype is more than just, well, hype? Right now, all the article says is how old he is, which school he goes to, his musical inspirations, his rise to popularity on YouTube and his appearance on Ellen, and an unconfirmed record deal. That's the extent of his "career". Not really much of one, it's barely enough to make for a stub. Even if he is really signed to a label, that is no guarantee that he will release an album, because many artists get dropped by labels before they release anything. Unless the media coverage continues for an extended period of time, or he gets offers that leads to a real career (music, TV, movies, books, SOMETHING) there's no need to create an article for him NOW. Suppose this doesn't go any further than him "owning the sixth grade", will this article's existence be justified? Better to wait and see, it's not like there's a time limit on creating an article for him. 24.189.90.68 (talk) 04:58, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I say keep the article up. The kid's going to win at least one Grammy before all is said and done. Wikipedia needs to stay up-to-date. 24.119.156.33 (talk) 05:43, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

That statement is a prediction, not a fact. Wikipedia doesn't do predictions. 24.189.90.68 (talk) 06:08, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

There are a lot of articles on wiki that are for nothing. But this boy has talent! There has to be an article for him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.22.242.254 (talk) 08:58, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Since this is more about social phenomena than music, if included in Wikipedia, what about placing the story in context - like the "Balloon Boy Hoax?" This is a creation of corporate media - there were only 46,000* views on YouTube when Ellen's producers booked Chance. There are countless performers with many more views - so this was not by chance. Then, the media attention and spin creates the hysteria. It's a manifestation of what Lou Pearlman noted when he created Backstreet Boys and *NSYNC - in America, there's Coke and Pepsi. Justin Bieber is making a fortune for his makers, and Greyson Michael Chance is the product that others will use to gain market-share. There are many young boys and girls who are genuine musical prodigies - on piano and other instruments. Chance is a marketing phenom, not a musical phenom. If Wikipedia is to be something more than just a pr tool, any coverage of this situation need reflect the fuller context. RodeoDriver (talk)

NB actually, Yahoo.com (the first reference on the article page), says the video had only something "more than 36,000 views" when Ellen booked Chance - which indicates the mainstream media attention and hype precipitated the "viral sensation" RodeoDriver (talk)

I don't think anyone is contending otherwise? --Pontificalibus (talk) 09:44, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

The article on Wikipedia stated Chance is a "viral sensation" - and that is also what dozens, if not hundreds of news stories you can Google now are saying. Wikipedia should be more about the truth than allow itself to feed the myth. RodeoDriver (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:46, 16 May 2010 (UTC). RodeoDriver (talk)

The guy's video became popular after being featured on TV. As an encyclopedia, we report that fact without engaging our own opinions. If other reliable sources discuss the "viral" or otherwise nature of the video, we can report that discussion if it is notable.--Pontificalibus (talk) 09:51, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

No, YOU wrote that bit about it being a "viral sensation", Wikipedia didn't magically state anything. Also, please present the sources that you claim exist supporting your viewpoint. Wikipedia is about facts, not personal observations. 24.189.90.68 (talk) 09:55, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

With all due respect, the article on Wikipedia, in its previous iteration, did indeed state Chance was a "viral sensation" - that was the cause for editing and correcting it. It takes some time to type, but, if you look through the edit history, you'll see that is the case. RodeoDriver (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:06, 16 May 2010 (UTC).

He definitely deserves this article don't take it down Sarahgib (talk) 05:04, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

"web sensation", "viral sensation", "viral presence" and the rest of the spin being used to portray this as an internet-spawned event is simply misleading. It's not in the marketer's game book any more to say it's a calculated pr campaign, an "Ellen sensation". If everyone with 36,000+ views got a spot on Ellen, THAT would be remarkable. Old school pr meets the new media. RodeoDriver (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:33, 16 May 2010 (UTC).

As a musician or historical figure, it is surely debatable whether or not this merits inclusion in Wikipedia. As a social phenomenon, and an example how media and marketing from the old world of pr now interface with new media to create a "star" or "sensation", the involvement of such major news organizations as are cited in the article start to give the story some meaning. The key element of the myth-making generated in stories, particularly after this media "big bang", is the inversion of the chronology. The factual chronology shows that Ellen booked Chance when the Paparazzi video was a blip in YouTube numbers. The "viral sensation", "internet sensation", "YouTube hit", or numerous variations on this labelling now appearing in print, was created by the media coverage itself - rather than the other way around eg. massive YouTube viewership did not lead to the publicity and booking on Ellen. That is what happens from this time onward - now the myth has been born. There are other interesting details in news reports that point to how myths are created in the recording industry and corporate media. For example, the math teacher at Cheyenne Middle School debunks Chance's story told on Ellen of being text'd in the middle of math class - but, these are small beans. The essential history that is most relevant is that which puts the pr horse before the viral cart as it actually occurred. Citations are now posted, and, I trust clear. RodeoDriver (talk) 21:14, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Can you give me the link for the math teacher debunking it? 24.119.156.33 (talk) 03:32, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

The significance of the chronology has been highlighted on Famecrawler, by a post: "via Wikipedia: 'On the afternoon of May 11 Yahoo! Music reported: “As of this writing, the video has gotten more than 36,000 views so far, and he’s even been invited to perform on The Ellen DeGeneres Show” (for a May 13 interview and on-air performance).[1] Mainstream media, including The Wall Street Journal[6], Los Angeles Times[7], CBS[8], and FOX[9] as well as bloggers and tweeters reported word of the Ellen show and video and an online sensation was created. Chance now has many fans on online social sites such as Facebook and Twitter.[10]'

The hype was generated after he got the call from Ellen’s show. Why would Ellen’s producers invite him to appear on the show when his video only had 36,000 views? They had to have known it was going to explode, and based on the number of videos on YT with less than 100K views that don’t go viral (AKA virtually all of them), the only way they could have known this is if they knew a giant campaign was being launched to hype the video, and the fact that he was going to appear on Ellen was what created much of the initial hype. It all points to a very deliberate viral marketing campaign. From the looks of things, Greyson uploaded the video, and around two weeks later some record exec saw it and decided to make him The Next Big Thing." RodeoDriver (talk) 18:53, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Ellen's talk show has featured a "Wonderful Web of Wonderment" segment and contest for the month of May 2010, which might explain why he would be invited to the show. Others, with few YouTube views, have been invited to the show to perform; these others have not subsequently become so-called "viral" phenomena, nor were they viral phenomena before being invited to her show for that special segment/contest. Therefore, basing the "viral legitimacy" of the Greyson video on how many views it had before Ellen's invitation, and introducing speculation of back-room deals between Ellen's show and "some record exec", are mere speculation without solid evidence or proof for such. Of course, none of this means that the Ellen appearance and support for Greyson Chance had no effect on the viral phenomenon; obviously, it and all the articles referencing it help accelerate the phenomenon. I do not believe that viral phenomena are defined as being solely "outside the mainstream" events, in any case? Cgweeks (talk) 21:37, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

P.S. I would also note the Wikipedia page on viral phenomena which states "The viral spread of an Internet message involves a convergence of modalities, including blogs, social networking sites, and mass media coverage. It is common for the message to spread and obtain notoriety via Internet modalities some amount of time before such notoriety is reported by mass media sources." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viral_phenomenon) --While it may be "common" for notoriety to occur before mass media sources take up the meme, it is not a requirement for definition of a viral phenomenon; a "convergence of modalities" may occur, so the Ellen appearance and Yahoo News! article, etc., may only be part and parcel of this phenomenon. On the other hand, with today's evolving infosphere, I wonder if the Wikipedia article on viral events may be a little outdated. I.e., if mainstream media is keeping an ever-closer watch on "Internet modalities", the window between a purely non-mainstream event and mainstream coverage may be shrinking, reducing the likelihood of an event occurring "some amount of time" on the Internet before mainstream media picks it up. None of this ipso facto verifies some back-room deal and media manipulation by record execs and Ellen, beyond the normally occurring interplay between Internet and mainstream media. For instance, RodeoDriver's concern that "They had to have known it was going to explode" could just as easily be related to the quality of the Greyson performance/vid (assuming value promotes itself) and their own awareness of the effects highlighting that video would have. Cgweeks (talk) 23:47, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

It's a media hype. Doesn't matter if it'll be a single event, it's historic. Many 19th century Wikipedia biographies don't have 25 refs. It's a pity that many professors with 200 publications don't have a Wikipedia biography. Chris.mobile (talk) 12:26, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

cgweeks, re-read the contents above. It's not I who wrote they knew it had to explode - that is a quote from Famecrawler. And so on. RodeoDriver (talk) 01:20, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Record Deal Rumoured

NewsOK article referenced in article states:

Scott Chance said he and his wife will seek opinions from people in the music industry before signing any contracts. "We want to regroup and take the weekend to study how we want to proceed,” he said. "Next week we’ll make some inquiries and start interviewing some people, not to necessarily sign some deals, but get advice on what we need to do next.”

This contradicts the source previously quoted in the article. So, let's not add in any rumours from blogs etc until any deal is confirmed by multiple reliable sources. --Pontificalibus (talk) 20:25, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

There have been other sources, see below:

Biggest European Newspaper: http://www.bild.de/BILD/unterhaltung/musik/2010/05/16/greyson-michael/youtube-star-12-justin-bieber-zittern.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.175.223.154 (talk) 21:54, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

More sources: http://www.zimbio.com/Lady+Gaga/articles/fKK9T0V0EZP/Greyson+Chance+Signs+Record+Deal+Interscope —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.175.223.154 (talk) 21:56, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

These seem to report the original crazedhits.com posting. We need something more reliable given that the interview contradicts this.--Pontificalibus (talk) 22:33, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. Crazed Hits is an insider music industry website that always reports record label signings and they are reliable. There is no interview that was done after the Crazed Hits post was made, hence why the interview is not valid as a source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.175.223.154 (talk) 22:42, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

84.175.223.154 - what a coincidence! You are located in Caan, Germany. Do you know Alex Wilhelm and Crazed Hits (see below)? RodeoDriver (talk) 00:14, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

"Crazed Hits" has only existed since February 2008. http://www.genyrockstars.com/2010/04/alex-wilhelm-crazed-hits.html It is a person named Alex Wilhelm who explains: "In early 2008 I decided to start a website where I’d post the best unsigned artists that I came across. That’s how it all started. I had absolutely no idea how to design or run a website. I spent a few days figuring it all out and then launched Crazed Hits on a $150 budget out of my bedroom in Germany. At that point, I was 22 and had absolutely no connections to anyone in the music business. I never worked at a label or any other music company before. I was probably as far removed from “the scene” in Los Angeles and New York as anyone could be."

This helps explain the German media repeating his information. And, it is not to say that Interscope or anyone else will not sign Chance or any other artist Wilhelm dba "Crazed Hits" says - as he is apparently acting as a conduit for the news and hype that these companies etc. want publicized. It does mean, though, that Pontificalibus is being prudent in asking for credible, unbiased, established sources before committing news to fact. Wikipedia should not become a pr tool of record companies, media corporations etc. RodeoDriver (talk) 22:59, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

p.s. I agree that more reliable information is needed before the Wikipedia article lends authenticity to any "record deal"; Chance's father is on the record as saying they will take their time before signing anything. Alex Wilhelm's is touting a deal has already been signed. Maybe it has, maybe it hasn't. No credible sources have stated that publicly. If the "Crazed Hits" announcement remains in the article, and it may fit as further evidence of the social phenomena and pr gamesmanship, then better context is needed so that readers understand how things work. Again, what may be most interesting about this story is not the music as much as how the pr wheels of the record industry machine turn - with such cogs as Wilhelm greased and rolling. RodeoDriver (talk) 23:18, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Until such time as any "deal" is confirmed by reliable sources, and not contradicted by the Chance family - calling it a "Record Deal Rumour" appears most accurate. Whether or not Wikipedia should be reporting rumours - that's something veteran editors can say. RodeoDriver (talk) 23:54, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

The NY Post is reporting today: "The boy's school-aged sister and dad confirmed the Interscope deal to The Post, but said they're under orders to keep quiet about it." http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/label_signs_lady_lovin_web_phenom_V8vMmBwSUyHEfHOvyzSfVP#ixzz0oJ8O1Ivj The Post is hardly an impeccable record, but, it does cite their sources, and it is the family, so, this info is included in the article. "Officials at Greyson's campus, Cheyenne Middle School in Edmond, Okla., referred all calls about their gifted student to his new rep -- Hollywood heavyweight Guy Oseary, Madonna's kabbala-preaching manager." —Preceding unsigned comment added by RodeoDriver (talk • contribs) 18:45, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Refinnejann has added the latest note - that Ellen has announced the launch of her own record label, with Chance her first artist. The next word - a la David Letterman's similar announcement of a few weeks back - will be to disclose the record label partner(s) who will distribute any recordings put out by Ellen's label. What's Crazed Hits say? RodeoDriver (talk) 01:38, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Associated acts: Lady Gaga?

Does covering a song count? Because he has never performed or collaborated with her. 24.189.90.68 (talk) 23:22, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

That seems a very good question. Any longtime editors here able to say if covering a song defines an act as "associated"? (Which is currently how Greyson Chance and Lady Gaga are billed in the article's box.) RodeoDriver (talk) 13:48, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

The connection to Lady Gaga seems a very strong connection, perhaps largely responsible for the viral nature or at least reception of Greyson Michael Chance's performance. Not only did he cover the song, but Lady Gaga's phone call to him on the Ellen show congratulating him, and, should it be verified, his signing to Interscope, the label which also has Gaga among its artists, have produced a strong connection. Most Google News search results for either Chance or Gaga currently pull up articles connecting the two of them. Cgweeks (talk) 23:03, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Seriously?

Are you serious? What has this kid ever done.... he's got a wikipedia article longer than bands that have been around for decades, and all he did was cover a song? This is insane.

Officials indicate that, at the present rate of progression, the entire music industry may eventually consist entirely of teenagers with high-pitched horrid girly voices whose gender is not quantifiable by traditional biological standards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.54.112.159 (talk) 06:21, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

It's sad but true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.79.13.92 (talk) 00:08, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

This kid deserves it

This kid is truly talented. Being a musician who has had a Wiki article twice, and had it deleted both times, I know it's truly an honor to have one, and this kid deserves one. He's going to be the American Justin Bieber, except a million times bigger. Give the kid a chance. He's really good. I honestly was trying to sign him under my label, but someone beat me to it. Don't chew him up, let his article alone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.185.2.34 (talk) 18:46, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

This kid hasn't even let out one record yet and his wikipedia page is longer than the pages of bands who've been around since 1976 (like HEAVY LOAD)

The music business nowadays is more complicated for newer, emerging artists, than for older, seasoned artists. A new artist establishing themself might have a heftier resume due to all the hoops they jump through.

Crazed Hits

Three different IP addresses, all located within a 5 mile radius in Germany, have, over this past week, made repeated attempts to insert content in the article that promotes a music "tip sheet" site called Crazed Hits and/or to remove content from the article which appears not conducive to Crazed Hits' business. As appears earlier on this discussion page, the first of these IPs - 84.175.223.154 - tried to install unsubstantiated content, whose only source was, and still is, CrazedHits.com. Pontificalibus flagged this and called for more reliable sources - to which 84.175.223.154 responded: "I disagree. Crazed Hits is an insider music industry website that always reports record label signings and they are reliable." Today, May 20, the IP 84.175.188.166 inserted a direct link to http://www.crazedhits.com in the body of the article. As well, 84.175.188.166 twice removed mention of Guy Oseary, the major L.A. manager (for Madonna, Ashton Kutcher, Penelope Cruz et al) even though it is elemental to the chronology of Greyson Chance. (If the article ends up being deemed not for deletion, these details are highly relevant.) 84.175.187.130, an IP located nearby in Germany, did the same thing today (once). It appears that the inclusion of Oseary, who would have brokered any record deal, (such deal as now more than rumored but less than confirmed), posits a potential problem for Crazed Hits. As such, that site and its operator, Alex Wilhelm, or parties acting in their commercial interest, may attempt to remove it. What, if anything, does Wikipedia do about such things? RodeoDriver (talk) 21:31, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Too many references!

Cuurently there are 22 ref, but 20 of them comes from one week period. Is it really possible that all of them contains a new information? I hardly believe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.97.41.44 (talk) 19:15, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Greyson Chance has only existed in the public news sphere for a little over a week. Thus all references can only be for that period. If he lasts in the public eye for six months, then, there can be references for a longer period. And so on. If you look at each individual reference they do contain unique information that verifies the content to which they are posted as citation. Would you rather an article about a media sensation that lacks verifiable citations? It would serve the interests of promoters and publicists to have a Wikipedia article that is rife with unreferenced rumour and hype. We've already seen that attempted by some IPs - posting spam links to cite, and trying to delete references that establish activities and the actual chronology. At this stage - as folks point out at the top of this page, it's a stretch to even consider Greyson Chance merits a page in Wikipedia as a musician, singer-songwriter etc. What is his body of work? He's covered one song, and written two songs. And he's sold a grand total of zero downloads or CDs. If this is enough to get in Wikipedia, then, pretty much anyone in the world who's touched an instrument or written a poem, etc. would have entries. So far, the reason Chance is even being considered for inclusion is because of all the media coverage. He is a creation of the industry publicity machine. Ellen Degeneres show has helped with the manufacturing of a media sensation. Now, in such a whirlwind of fast-moving hype and rumour and deception, Wikipedia needs as many references and citations as can verify what it presents to the public. Otherwise, and this may happen eventually, the tides of the pr machine just wash over everything, and the article becomes pr bumpf, packaged lies that help sell the product. RodeoDriver (talk) 23:11, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

p.s. if Chance actually has a career - whether it be in the next 6 months, or, in years from now when he's out of school - then, the article can be expected to be about that career. Right now, Chance is not a career musician and his story is more one of media creation (and manipulation). In this context, citations are the pegs on which the facts are tethered. What do you say, Alex? RodeoDriver (talk) 23:26, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

On "It would serve the interests of promoters and publicists to have a Wikipedia article that is rife with unreferenced rumour and hype." - The Lefsetz Letter citation included in the "Media and Marketing" section of the page on Greyson Michael Chance is itself a double- or treble- reference to rumor and hype. The reference to the Lefsetz Letter seems to be to a blog post composed entirely of links to other references already included on the Wikipedia article, with the addition of a quotation of a comment or email sent to Lefsetz from some relatively unknown and unverified source. The Lefsetz Letter links to a speculative article at Christian Science Monitor article which questions the legitimacy of the Gresyon Chance viral phenomenon, already used as a separate reference in the Wikipedia page; the Lefsetz Letter also links to the DailyMotion video which has already been used as a separate reference in the Wikipedia page. Indeed, the Lefsetz Letter offers nothing new itself, beyond the quotations of that unverified comment/email quoted within it from a relatively unknown source, and should not qualify as a valid citation within the section on "Media and Marketing". Another source which would perhaps add to the value of that section, Christian Science Monitor's follow-up article stating "Reports so far suggest that the Greyson Chance YouTube video is legit" at http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Society/2010/0518/Greyson-Chance-What-is-real-in-an-age-of-media-manipulation has however been left from that section; either this is an oversight, or the combination of the inclusion of speculative, rumor-based citations and this omission seem themselves to be an attempt to manipulate perceptions of the Greyson Chance phenomenon. Cgweeks (talk) 22:04, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

The only conspiracy I can see is the one you imagine, Cgweeks. The Lefsetz Letter, as you know was pointed out to you on a media site where you tried to make the same conspiracy claims, is an email letter. Yes, it was sent out originally on May 18. And, yes, it was first archived on the Lefsetz website with an URL for citation on May 19. There is nothing mysterious nor conspiratorial about such fact. RodeoDriver (talk) 01:26, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

"Twelve-year-old Greyson Chance was invited onto Ellen DeGeneres' daytime talk show last Thursday after impressing over eight million YouTube.com watchers with home video footage of his church talent show cover of GaGa's hit." The Toronto Sun

“Once the video hit YouTube, within 48 hours it had become viral with more than 1.5 million hits on it.” The Edmond Sun

Anyone visiting the link to the Lefsetz Letter given in the citations to this article on Greyson Chance would see that it is merely the relinking of sources, several of which are already used as citations in this article, plus a quotation of an unverified email presumably sent to Lefsetz Letter. The Lefsetz Letter "citation" does not offer anything original on its own, indeed doesn't present a view other than the views of others (via the links it gives plus the quotation of that email that isn't written by Lefsetz Letter.) While RodeoDriver would attempt an ad hominem argument by trying to present me as a conspiracy theorist, I'm confident that any rational observer can follow the link in the citation and see these things for themselves. Cgweeks (talk) 03:04, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, it's nothing personal. You post repeatedly about conspiracies, and you suggest that Justin Bieber's "managers and record label might try to cast dispersions on the Chance viral event to limit their own future losses". What is that but a conspiratorial POV? RodeoDriver (talk) 03:41, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! A good demonstration. I wrote that in this context, as anyone going back to the original statement can plainly see, "For instance, any media moguls or record execs who stand to lose from the rise of Greyson Michael Chance could be initiating a counter-hype campaign to diminish the event. (Again, this would be no more than speculation, similar to the speculation that the Greyson Phenomenon was an organized campaign in the first place." -- So you see, I said it would be mere speculation, and equated it to the speculation that the Greyson Phenom was some kind of organized campaign. But here, RodeoDriver, have used selective information, which I suppose you might call "just the facts", in order to mislead and advance your ad hominem argument; whereas, anyone actually reading the context would see that I am concerned that neither bias is given priority, speculation pro- or anti- the supposed viral/organic phenomenon. Whether inadvertently or purposely, selective use of facts can mislead--even if the person doing the selection believes he is just trying to eliminate one bias or another. Cgweeks (talk) 03:54, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

P.S. I would also note that the Lefsetz Letter blog post citation dates that post 18May2010; other reference to it were written on the 18th; but the actual post is dated 19May2010. It would appear that the Lefsetz Letter blog post had been deleted and then reposted a day later. I noticed this originally when I tried to find the L.L. post from earlier links to it (dated the 18th) but could not find it on the Lefsetz Letter web site, only to be able to find the mysteriously re-appearing blog post on the 19th. Certainly, this is only anecdotal evidence resulting from my own following of the media, as it occurred, concerning the Greyson Michael Chance phenomenon. My point here, and in my last comment, is simply that we have no proof whatsoever that the Chance phenomenon was some back-room media manipulation by record execs -- only speculation within the sources. Including a section on potential media manipulation seems legitimate if that section is presented, as it seems to be, as representative of some of the speculation surrounding the phenomenon, although the Lefsetz Letter citation seems itself illegitimate, being a redundancy (merely requoting/relinking other sources, and thus little more than counter-hype) or including the weak and unverifiable quote from an email or comment perhaps left at the theoretical original posting dated the 18th (now deleted from the Lefsetz Letter.) If the Wikipedia page should refrain from hyping the viral nature of the Chance phenomenon, we should also be aware of the potential of a counter-hype campaign. For instance, any media moguls or record execs who stand to lose from the rise of Greyson Michael Chance could be initiating a counter-hype campaign to diminish the event. (Again, this would be no more than speculation, similar to the speculation that the Greyson Phenomenon was an organized campaign in the first place. For instance, if Justin Bieber stands to lose in sales, in the future, with the rise of Greyson Michael Chance, it would not be beyond thinking that his own managers and record label might try to cast dispersions on the Chance viral event to limit their own future losses.) Cgweeks (talk) 22:45, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Wow. To think that this could all be a conspiracy by Justin Bieber's backers to discredit Chance - cgweeks, you really do have an interesting take! Still, for Wikipedia purposes, better to address the facts. RodeoDriver (talk) 03:37, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

It's not whether a person deserves noteriety or fame, it's about whether one has it

Many of the arguments presented concern whether this artist deserves the attention he has drawn and/or whether it was manufactured. None of that matters. Wikipedia provides encyclopedic information, including information about social phenomena. Ten years from now someone might ask: who was that kid who did the Lady Gaga cover? Wouldn't it be nice of there were some online encyclopedia where that answer could be found? Isn't that truly our shared goal? Like him or not, the kid got at least his 15 minutes of fame and Wiki is here to chronical it. I suggest trimming it down and moving on to other more interesting issues.67.83.20.137 (talk) 13:34, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Occupation: student?

{{editsemiprotected}} Please change the occupation to "musician" or "singer" or a variant of such, as the last time I checked he did not become a YouTube sensation, end up on Ellen DeGeneres and get signed by a major label just for being a "student". 24.189.90.68 (talk) 21:50, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

DoneRemoved Occupation from the infobox. SpigotMap 22:13, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Discovery?

By any chance, are you the same cgweeks who posted this to http://www.greysonchancefansite.com/2010/05/16/interscope-records-sign-greyson-chance :

"Written by CGWeeks about 1 week ago. Also, Greyson now has an official Twitter account (which he posted to his YouTube channel) – @chance_greyson or http://twitter.com/chance_greyson . Looks like he just started that Twitter account. Interestingly enough, he was only following 3 people: Lady Gaga, Ellen, and Guy Oseary. And, Guy Oseary had started following Greyson’s account.

Guy Oseary is a big-time manager, who has managed Madonna. Does this mean Greyson is going to be managed by him? HMMMMM…"

If so, what sort of "neutrality" is cgweeks seeking? RodeoDriver (talk) 02:09, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

That was me speculating on a fan site, before the Oseary connection appeared anywhere else that I could tell. A fan site is not Wikipedia. Also, the fact that I have been following all this closely might serve at least to show that I'm not merely pulling all of this out of thin air. "Neutrality" with respect to Wikipedia does not require Asperger's Syndrome or any sort of non-human non-bias. Are you attempting an ad hominem argument? I would not do so myself; I believe that your comments several sections above already show, on their own, that you are coming to this article predisposed to believe some unproven back-room deals or clandestine manipulations account for the Greyson phenom. Cgweeks (talk) 02:39, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Fan sites are great for fans. The point is that Wikipedia need hew to the facts. It doesn't last, sure, and, over time, this article will be rife with puffery and fan content. At least it starts from a factual base. Unlike you, I don't see a conspiracy in the factual chronology, it's the way things happen. It is, of course, factually important to not repeat the false and misleading reports of the millions of views happening before the Ellen happenings. The facts show the viewership followed not preceded Ellen's booking. Nothing conspiratorial in stating the facts! RodeoDriver (talk) 02:57, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I see an attempt to present a bias via selective presentation of facts, which includes selective omission of facts and misleading wording included to make those facts dance to a certain bias. The facts also show the viewership followed not preceded the Yahoo News! article. In fact, if we are going to be as honest as possible, we could also say that many views followed the election of Ronald Reagan to the office of President of the United States -- factually true, but that would be at best not germane and at worst misleading. Cgweeks (talk) 03:12, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Could neutrality for the Discovery section of the article be achieved simply by removing the Billboard reference (first sentence, entirely), followed by removing the word "however" in the second sentence of that section? One good reference to the timeline for discovery might be found at Advertising Age; at least, the video had been linked by others than those mentioned prior to the announcement that Greyson Chance would appear on Ellen. As worded, there is an apparent bias on the third sentence as well, a too-heavy stress on the number of views before the Ellen announcement; the fact that other links to the video prior to the Ellen announcement are glossed or omitted from the article may give the impression that the Ellen announcement (and coverage of that announcement) alone are responsible for the rise in views. (In all likelihood, the Yahoo News! article had much more effect, from all appearances, in itself; and, it only mentions the fact that he would be appearing on Ellen, as a supporting statement in the article.) Perhaps the Ellen reference could be moved later in that paragraph, after the mention of the Yahoo News! article. Cgweeks (talk) 22:34, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

False media reports such as: "Twelve-year-old Greyson Chance was invited onto Ellen DeGeneres' daytime talk show last Thursday after impressing over eight million YouTube.com watchers with home video footage of his church talent show cover of GaGa's hit." and “Once the video hit YouTube, within 48 hours it had become viral with more than 1.5 million hits on it.” - these need be addressed. The Wikipedia article includes just one example, that from Billboard. If, as you want, cgweeks, this is removed, then, you have effectively removed a critical element of the story of Greyson Chance. If you add in all the examples, in addition to the one from Billboard, it makes an already big article even bigger. RodeoDriver (talk) 03:18, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

"Twelve-year-old Greyson Chance was invited onto Ellen DeGeneres' daytime talk show last Thursday after impressing over eight million YouTube.com watchers with home video footage of his church talent show cover of GaGa's hit." The Toronto Sun

“Once the video hit YouTube, within 48 hours it had become viral with more than 1.5 million hits on it.” The Edmond Sun —Preceding unsigned comment added by RodeoDriver (talk • contribs) 04:06, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Those are quotes which have been published internationally, the first in dozens of sources that repeated this claim made by the WENN publicity wire. The second in Oklahoma media, principally. Both media statements are false and misleading. And, these are not included in the Wikipedia article on Greyson Chance. The article is already long, and to include all such references would bloat things further. So, there is the one example - from Billboard - included and cited. To remove it, as Cgweeks wants, is to eliminate what is, in the full context, a key element of the factual chronology. For whatever reason, be it ignorance or design, the publicity on this is falsely stating the web sensation led to Chance's invite and appearance on Ellen. The facts show, clearly, things happened the other way around. Simple enough, and not a conspiracy. RodeoDriver (talk) 01:57, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

"Cgweeks aka Chris.mobile" is false, and another example of poor fact checking. I have no idea who Chris.mobile is. The factual chronology is that the sudden spike in view appeared after the Yahoo News! article appeared; that article mentioned the upcoming appearance on Ellen, but only as a sideline and supplemental factoid about the "Lord Gaga" phenomenon it was principally reporting; and, the spike in views could have come as more of a direct result of the Yahoo News! article (which gushed about Greyson in extremely hyperbolic language) rather than as a result of the Ellen announcement. However, the Wiki as it is now worded attempts to make the analysis that the forthcoming Ellen announcement was the primary cause of the spike in views; 1) "It did not get above 40,000 views total prior to publicity surrounding Ellen." --This sentence could as easily and as factually read thus, "It did not get above 40,000 views total prior to the Yahoo News! article", and 2) the concluding sentence lumps together several mainstream sources' mention of the Ellen appearance as well as Kutcher's tweet and concludes with "and an online sensation was created"--this seems added to give the impression that the Ellen announcement in collusion with these reverberations from her announcement were the primary movers of the meme causing the surge in views. While I would agree that the media mentions of the forthcoming Ellen appearance had a large effect on the number of views, I believe the section is misleading, as worded, and purposely attempts to present that view from an analytic p.o.v. (personal analysis) rather than merely present the facts. E.g., if we revised the sentence previously mentioned in #1 above to state that the video did not get above 40,000 views until after the Yahoo News! article, and removed "and an online sensation was created" entirely from the paragraph, the paragraph would be factually accurate and nothing substantial (beyond personal analysis) would be lost. Cgweeks (talk) 02:33, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I see, RodeoDriver, that you have edited out your "Cgweeks aka Chris.mobile" comment. I suppose I will take the time to sleep now (it is late here) and not worry so much about this present discussion if you are going to edit your comments after I have responded to them; I don't want to have to recheck all such comments in this discussion, which would take too much time, and am losing faith in the good-faith nature I had presumed existed in these discussion pages. Cgweeks (talk) 03:30, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Fine, there's nothing insidious or conspiratorial in that reference. It just appeared from the edit page. And, it's now corrected. You are cgweeks only. The fundamental problem that appears, if I understand your many posts on this, is that you don't want the factual chronology to rrecord that media - such as Billboard, Wenn, The Toronto Sun etc. - have falsely reported how the video became "viral". You don't like the fact that these media sources have it wrong and that's pointed out. They did, though, and that's simply part of the chronology. Your very conspiratorial view of things is interesting, but, ultimately, does not address the fundamental facts. RodeoDriver (talk) 03:12, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Your persistent attempt to use ad hominem argumentation is displayed by your attempt to paint me as a conspiracy theorist - slash - obsessive fan. The facts will stand. Your selective use of facts may be misleading, as I believe them to be; others can come along and make the edits if they agree with me, or not if they don't. That is the point of this discussion page after all. Cgweeks (talk) 03:19, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Alternately, or additionally, perhaps the section on Media and Marketing could be combined with this section on Discovery, since they are basically addressing the same thing, and -- with the reservations vis-a-vis particular citations for that section which I've already outlined elsewhere -- this could add overall balance to the issue of his discovery via different media and modalities. Cgweeks (talk) 22:34, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

The reality is that the article is one that people already consider too long. Until a few days ago, it was open for deletion. The media coverage, as you will see reading above, not the musical career, of Greyson Chance is cited as a principal basis on which the article has a place on Wikipedia. Your viewpoint would seek to have a different article. But, if you remove the Billboard reference, then, you'd be remiss to not replace it with a Toronto Sun or other reference that sources the same point. The Ellen announcement preceded the Yahoo! posting, so, if you want to dance around that, and the many other points, sure, that's your right. But, you are not pointing out factual errors in these things, and your suggestions for changes point to lesser accuracy, and/or, a much lengthier article. Both of these may result, but, for this moment, some effort has been made to not go so crazy. RodeoDriver (talk) 03:30, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

On second thought, one way for achieving neutrality would be simply to list the media mentions or events chronologically without tying number of YouTube video views to each citation. Tying viewcount to specific mentions/appearances, with no way to actually list all possible linking to the video w/ corresponding viewcounts at time of linking, verges on analysis rather than unbiased description. For instance, although Ellen's announcement via Twitter that Greyson would appear on her show may have occurred while his YouTube vid had fewer than 40000 views, we have no way of knowing for certain that subsequent views came as a direct result of her mention or occurred via the previous Reddit etc. links or other social networking; similarly, we do not know number of views generated by other publications mentioning the Ellen appearance vs. number of views generated by Reddit and so forth subsequent to the Ellen announcement. (I first saw the vid when it was at 200K views, before I knew Ellen had invited him on her show, via a Twitter link a friend had posted saying, "Hey this is pretty good!" We really don't know how the linking occurred or primary causes for every individual link to the video.) Cgweeks (talk) 23:27, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

There is no conspiracy other than what you imagine. The fact that things happen a certain way is just that. And, the dates of the upcoming appearances, of tomorrow and the next day, could be put in future tense, it makes no difference. It does save someone having to edit a single word after the fact. And, fwiw, the AdAge article contains a chronology that is less complete and less accurate than is the one here on Wikipedia. RodeoDriver (talk) 01:17, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

The counter-spin continues in the Discovery and Appearances section, creating a suggestive, analysis-driven bias, with the most recent line "Following this May 13 broadcast, Ellen broadcast appearances by Chance (May 26) and Kutcher (May 27)." Note how the edit was made on May 25th but written in the past tense, as if the May 26 appearance had already occurred, and also how the Kutcher appearance, which is not germane for an article on Greyson Chance, is not scheduled until the 27th. The attempt to draw a conspiracy by previously mentioning Kutcher's Tweet (but no other celebrity attention) and then making special note that Kutcher would appear on Ellen one day after Greyson's appearance is glaring. Cgweeks (talk) 23:14, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

The signficance of Ellen and Ashton Kutcher in this context is the fact they are acknowledged as the titans of Twitter. Ellen's website notes: "Ellen is on her way to hitting 5 million Twitter followers, but there’s one guy who might beat her to it: ASHTON KUTCHER." That both Ellen and Kutcher tweeted of Chance prior to his appearance - that's the Twitter equivalent of having the two biggest forces in the medium promoting the same video. Very germane to things.RodeoDriver (talk) 01:09, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

That Kutcher tweeted it is germane. That Kutcher has been booked to appear on Ellen a day after Greyson's 2nd visit is not germane to the topic of Greyson Michael Chance; in fact the citation link for that news leads to an item at Ellen's web site which merely states, "Colin Farrell and Ashton Kutcher will also drop by." Colin Farrell is not in this Wikipedia page on Greyson Chance. The fact that Kutcher's appearance on Ellen is listed in the same sentence which states Greyson's upcoming appearance seems merely added for the effect you are pushing: that the Greyson phenomenon, whatever it was, has somehow been orchestrated from the beginning. Cgweeks (talk) 02:17, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

How do you address such false media reports as these without mentioning they exist?: "Twelve-year-old Greyson Chance was invited onto Ellen DeGeneres' daytime talk show last Thursday after impressing over eight million YouTube.com watchers with home video footage of his church talent show cover of GaGa's hit." and “Once the video hit YouTube, within 48 hours it had become viral with more than 1.5 million hits on it.” These are not true statements. It's not clear from what you're asking, cgweeks, how that can be made known without stating it. RodeoDriver (talk) 03:22, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Greyson Michael Chance or Greyson Chance

I have seen usage of both forms. But for the main page, it is very valid to ask if Greyson Chance should be the main article, whereas the full name Greyson Michael Chance, just a redirect. werldwayd (talk) 08:09, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

His own Facebook and Twitter pages and YouTube videos use Greyson Chance, and Ellen DeGeneres' postings use Greyson Chance in the titles. It seems Greyson Michael Chance is being used mostly by some news organizations or blogs writing about him. Cgweeks (talk) 08:25, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

In my Google search I come across both, but Greyson Chance is more prominent. If this is true, then Greyson Chance should be the main article and Greyson Michael Chance the redirect. Almost all of us have the three names but in Wikipedia we use the shorter names. werldwayd (talk) 08:47, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Since no one seems to object I made the move. --Pontificalibus (talk) 09:20, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you werldwayd (talk) 14:08, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

For some reason "Greyson Michael Chance" has way more hits on Google, but the only reason it became popular was because the first fans to discover his name used his full name--perhaps due to the "other" version posted to Youtube? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VGe2cwsR-IQ) Unless that's been edited to include his name--I can't remember. In any case, it seems he does prefer Greyson Chance, although I can see "GMC" having some potential as a nickname. 24.119.156.33 (talk) 07:40, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Lefsetz Newletter link

While Lefsetz is a widely followed commentator on the music industry, the statement that he noted the elements of an orchestrated campaign was misleading. Lefsetz posted an email from a local music producer on his blog and threw in a few links to similar "debunking" comments. Lefsetz made no comment of whether Mr. Chance was part of a deliberate viral campaign. Had he, that *might* make it worthy of inclusion, Lefsetz being who he is. Just posting what amounts to a letter to the editor in a blog is not the same as reporting. Thus, the entry was misleading. 67.83.20.137 (talk) 20:50, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I concur. Cgweeks (talk) 22:08, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Management and Label Interest

The Management and Label Interest section, second paragraph, which deals with initial questions concerning Chance's quick signing to a record deal, contains three weak and misleading representations of the sources given and does not appear to adhere to the standards for biographical articles, per Biographies of living persons. 1.) The Flamecrawler reference is to a piece which merely quotes a section from a Christian Science Monitor article and reiterates questions raised there; not only is the mere sensationalist title of the Flamecrawler article given in this Wikipedia article, but the source appears to be a 2.2 Questionable source. 2.) The Christian Science Monitor quotation attributes analysis to "media and marketing experts" which are Weasel Words; this may be more of a problem with the particular use of a quotation -- the reference to CSM is ill-worded -- rather than the source itself. 3.) The reference to Alan Stevens not only links to a re-embed of an ITN News source on Daily Motion (rather than the original location) but also is interpretive in nature, or interprets the source in a misleading way (1.2 Using sources); Stevens questions whether the original YouTube video was made by an amateur or by a professional trying to make it appear to be the production of an amateur, but is inconclusive; he does not question the "viral" nature, indeed does not mention "viral sensation" -- given in quotation marks in this Wikipedia page -- in his interview. Cgweeks (talk) 23:01, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I changed the title of this section to "Early Media and Celebrity Attention" to reflect the focus on media which was given in the old 2nd paragraph's introduction of "The chronology of events has resulted in media analyses of the marketing phenomenon as separate from musical or biographical elements." In doing so, I've also added more detail of media attention, taking some references from the "Discovery and Appearances" section and adding others, plus rewrote those items mentioned above which questioned the authenticity of the Chance video and the viral nature of it -- in order to give more balance to these things, or allow the reader to decide for himself/herself. Cgweeks (talk) 03:53, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Opening Sentence

The last part of the first sentence doesn't even make any sense: "became a hit on YouTube when his May 13, 2010 performance of the song was publicized on The Ellen DeGeneres Show."

Anyone want to try to clean that up? 24.119.156.33 (talk) 07:23, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Done. Hopefully it reads better now? Eustacia42 (talk) 19:18, 8 June 2010 (UTC)