![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
before i edited there were several "mistakes" on the facts of this situation. Clark was never arrested for assaulting his sister which she and he and their family denied in a 2003 issue and a 2005 issue of people magazine. The fact that clarks booking photo was his main picture was disgusting. It was as if a normal picture wasn't even sought out as there were plenty of others to choose from. It was almost like a bash corey clark article with plenty of unsourced material, and nothing from the positive side of clarks life was portrayed whatsoever. The old comments of negativity have essentially been left alone with the exception of a few minor edits to make them facts and not slander, i simply put a few positive sources in with the negative ones to even the article out. Clark is a talented musician and none of us can argue that, regardless of what Idol wants people to believe as they shove their propaganda about Clark down peoples throats to simply save face because they are trying to protect their show and Paula, not the facts of the situation, and that's what wiki is supposed to be about, Facts. Clark is an eyewitness himself to the different accounts of what he has said happened, and he detailed everything in his released book, which ironically no one has ever pulled from, yet every news article or press conference that there ever was where idol and abdul have been the source were used here in this article, and i don't see how that can be fact simply writing and pulling things from one side of the facts and not both. thanks for your time. ( Liaishard 23:46, 29 September 2006 (UTC))
Holy lord this page was nothing but uncited libel - and I'm sure if anyone actually cared about this guy (and rest assured I certainly didn't even know who he was until today) Wikipedia could have been sued for defamation. At any rate, I fixed that problem - although the page has a serious lack of anything on it and if anyone wants to actually post valid information that would be good (valid information doesn't mean your editorial stance on whether or not taking responsibility for one's actions is good or bad... true though it may be, it has no bearing on this page). Then again... who really cares about Corey Clark? I don't. I just care that Wiki isn't being used as a platform for libeling people or in any way misrepresenting facts or truth.
Sean W. Malone
02:18, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Everything posted was either out of a legitimate news article or review, or from the released book of the eyewitness himself. Nothing was uncited. It seems weird that when there wasn't anything positive to say about corey in the article no one cited libel. There are facts in what i have re-edited so please don't erase the facts.
it is clear to me now that my edits continue to be reverted by people who don't like corey clark. this is not a matter of liking someone, this encyclopedia is meant to spread fact. why is it that when my edit is reverted it goes back to just being a negative article about this man and his work, he's done plenty of positive things that are worth mentioning here that can be fact checked. like the fact that he was on soul train, that keeps getting erased, or the fact that he has his own record company. positive things like that, which can be fact checked are being erased to simply leave the article saying, he got sued for passing bad checks and he got arressted. there are more facts to this mans life than that.
This article keeps getting reverted to some overly opinionated diatribe by those who either love him or completely hate him, neither of whom are staying consistent with facts. Many of the comments are libelous or are the comments of some crazed fan. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 144.147.1.66 ( talk) 18:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC).
Did Corey Clark write this? This article is a joke. However, the last thing I want to do is start an "edit war," especially since I'm unregistered. So despite my complaints, I didn't change anything. Let me just offer that this is particularly glaring:
"Although the media was hard at work trying to portray Clark as a vandal, charges were never filed against the young R&B heart-throb as it came to light that Clark was simply a part of a group of people whom were all involved in the noisy and messy yet light hearted breakfast free for all."
R&B heartthrob? This is Wikipedia, right? Not CoreyClark.com?
I agree, this is NOT Corey Clark's website; it's Wikipedia. It appears the edit wars are well underway here between individuals who idolize him and those who want to smear his name...or a sick combination of both. There's too much bias in the previous versions, and too much emphasize on his legal issues, with many of the comments libelous. Ptah3773
At User talk:Cbrown1023#Corey Clark, User:69.180.238.139 stated "hi, i no longer have an editing issue, geniac the administrator and a few other people fixed the article the way it should properly read. thanks for your time". However, the last 13 edits are by that editor. This seems contradictory. Any comments? -- Geniac 08:55, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
The only edits i made after geniac had fixed the article was to highlight abdul and clarks name every time it came up, and some errors i had made about linking to billboard magazines wiki page, i had only put the word billboards which linked to a wiki page of actual billboards or signs and not the magazine, so after a few trial and errors i finally got it right and got them all to link to billborad magazines wiki page, and i added the words legendary back into the soul train dialog, there really is no disputing that. but those are all very minor edits. I also took the words allegedly out of the line where clark stated that he was beaten by topeka police officers, because in Clarks book, my source of most of clarks quotes, he states that he was beaten by 4 officers that night, he never says anything about allegedly. 69.180.238.139 15:29, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
First of all, please do not rearrange the order of posts on Talk Pages. Let's keep them sequential, shall we?
If a television show has been on air for more than 30 years as soul train has, when a normal television shows life span is 3-5 seasons it can very easily be described as legendary it's not my point of view, it's a fact... No. It's an opinion. The only way it becomes a "fact" is if you either don't know what that word means, or if you deliberately ignore it.
many articles and television show have described soul train as such Then quote them, and provide a source for them. Otherwise, it's not appropriate for inclusion.
Give credit where credit is due. It is not the role of Wikipedia to give credit. Any such opinions are only appropriate for inclusion if they're attributed to credited sources.
That's like saying that nat king cole wasn't a legend... For some people, maybe he wasn't. What's your point? That every biographical article on Wikipedia should reflect the the consensus of perceptions of its subjects as you perceive it?
As far as my Fantasia quote, she was interviewed on Extra and other talk shows of the sort... You didn't cite Extra or "other talk shows". You simply placed that bit in the article with no source at all.
When someone says they were beaten i'm sure they would know better than anyone, so to say allegedly beaten when clark states in his book that he was beaten, not allegedly beaten, is a shot at continually trying to portray clark as a manipulator or liar. If night scream was kneed in the nuts by some cops as hard as clark describes that he was he wouldn't be saying allegedly. Good lord. You know, I really do hope Geniac, Ptah, and any other interested editors and admins are reading this, because it demonstrates the truly debaucherous depths to which 69.180.238.139's ignorance (deliberate or otherwise) of basic vocabulary and its use descends, and how puerile this discussion is. You want me to explain the a-b-c's and 1-2-3's of fundamental logic, reason and diction, 69.180.238.139? Okay, here it goes. When you describe something in a first-person manner, naturally, you're not going to use the word "alleged". You're going to describe the events in a matter-of-fact manner. But Wikipedia isn't written in a first person manner. It's a THIRD PERSON REFERENCE SOURCE that does not make its own personal conclusions on the statements of the various subjects quoted in its articles. Thus, it can only refer to what each person says. This is all the word "allegation" means. It means that the article is saying, "This subject said this," and "That subject said that". It is precisely why media outlets also use the term. Unless they have videotape of the incident, or the other party confirmed what the first party stated happened, they have no way to verify it as a matter of fact, and thus, simply report the statement. Using the word, therefore, does NOT connote a judgment on the part of the speaker that the accusation or incident being recounted is not accurate. Nor does it mean that opposite, that the statment is accurate. It is a term of NEUTRALITY. It is, after all, is synonymous with "claim", "assertion", "charge", "accusation", or "statement", so if I said, "Clark said this", or "Clark made this accusation", how does that connote the implication that Clark is a "manipulator" or "liar"? This isn't even about a good faith disagreement on how well WP's rules are being implemented. It's a paranoid rant that stems directly from your total ignorance of the meaning of the word, and the delusional belief that any sort of neutrality advocated on my part that isn't totally in line with your agenda of "giving Clark credit" and "looking out for him" must be the result of some sort of vast media conspiracy that includes some schmoe in New Jersey who hands out invitations to movie screenings.
It's clarks factual account of what happened that night, it's basically an autobiography on his life and career up to the point of idol that clark himself wrote. Right. But Wikipedia is not. Wikipedia, in fact, expressly FROWNS ON AUTOBIOGRAPHICAL edits. Clark's book is naturally written from his first-person perspective. Wikipedia's, on the other hand, is a third-person perspective that cannot make any judgments as to the factual worth of his assetions. All it can do is properly attribute them to him.
Your opinion about what you think is necessary to tell the reader is irrelevent because the fact is the song was released 38 years later, it's a fact so what's the problem with that. some readers might be able to read well but can't add or subtract, so for those people out there the time difference is necessary, and in my opinion, which has nothing to do with the fact, it's okay to have that there for the readers, it's more in depth. First of all, no editor's opinion is "irrelevant". The fact that we all get a say here, and can affect the outcome of these articles is proof of that. As for the passage, I admit that it's more a question of aesthetics, and not pertinent to the NPOV and source problems that you and I are discussing, but definitely a matter of good writing that flows properly, which is also important. It's a comparatively minor point, but perhaps a rephrasing could be suggested to make the passage read a bit better. I'm not going to bother dignifying your remarks about people who can read it but somehow not add or subtract, or that gratuitous detail, in and of itself, necessarily adds "depth". I'll simply present a re-edited version of the passage that separates it into two sentences, instead of the unwieldly single run-on sentence that typifies so much of your writing, and let others tell us what they think:
And the findings of the independent counsel hired by fox have never been released to the public, only their publicity statement on the matter has been released. Last time I checked, The Internet Movie Database, which is the source you provided for the findings of the independent counsel's (which you falsely referred to as investigators internal to Fox), IS a public site. And the source indicates what its findings were.
...and to simply not include clarks evidence into the article simply because idol and abdul say it's not true is pure pov as you put it... And as soon as you can point out one instance where any of Clark's evidence was "not included" in the article, let us know. Because so far, you haven't done so, as I've already pointed out. Nightscream 04:07, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
read it and weep. I like my eggs sunny side up, in the mornin with a little bit of run, i like my bacon crisp. get to it now a.m.chef. 69.180.238.139 12:16, 9 March 2007 (UTC) 8======================================================~'pting
8=================================='pting
8=================================='pting
8==========================='pting
8==========================================='pting
8================================'pting
Do not edit my posts. Put your own posts after the one of the person you're speaking to, and stop vandalizing the Talk Page.
allrighty than mr. dummy pants here's one source now which says soul train was an instant hit, and also talks about the soul train legacy... Your source for the statement that Soul Train is "legendary" is the show's own website? Um, no. The subject of an article cannot be a source for material in that article, particularly when it's of non-empirical value judgment or critique. Since Soul Train is a TV music show, a proper source would be a movie or TV critic, or some publication dedicated to those industries. And in any case, that's appropriate for the article on that subject. Not Corey Clark's.
COREY CLARK IS THE ONLY ONE WHO HAS EVIDENCE TO BACK UP WHAT HE IS SAYING WHICH IN TURN WOULD MAKE IT FACT No, that's not what the word means. Who is telling the truth requires a personal conclusion that is different for each individual, which is why the article must remain neutral on it. Do you dispute the site's neutrality policy? Or do you just not understand it?
As did you enter unsourced info by stating most of the other contestants said clark was lying... I did no such thing. That information was in the article before I began editing it. Given the sorry state that the article was in when I first found it, and all the information I had to sift through when copyediting it, it's not unusual that something got left in that doesn't have a source. I'd be more than happy to search for a source for that passage, or remove it entirely if I can't find one.
so why not just say clark says in his book, like i've done numerous times, but you keep erasing to put alleged, now your interjecting what you feel is appropriate into something that's already self explanatory, clark explains in his book, therefore you don't need to say alleged. Wrong. The word "alleged" does not mean "something that isn't self-explanatory". It's the proper word used when attributing information to another party in a third-person manner. The article does say what Clark says in his book, and inserting the word "alleged" does not amount to an "erasure".
when you quote abdul you don't interject your case into her words, you just tell it like she told it to the press, abdul (and producers and other contestants you add as well) dismissed clarks claims as lies you say, no alleged in there at all. Because the idea is implicit in the way the passage is phrased. When one says, "Paula Abdul dismissed this..." or "Paula Abdul said that..." the phrasing makes it clear that you're attributing words to another person, without making a judgment on the truth of that statement. The meaning is the same. But you don't have to use the exact same wording on every line of the article. Each party is alleging things about the other, but proper writing requires that one not be so repetitive, and that you use different words and phrases to make it read well.
why not say this since you are so hard up on using the word alleged, paula abdul said that clark was allegedly lying in her statement about his alleged claims of their affair... Because that's not how the word is properly used. You use when referring to the statement made by the person. You don't place the word in that person's statement, because it's not what they said (pretty much the same point you yourself made when you pointed out that "Clark never says anything about allegedly"). The word is used when the person's statements are being related by another person. It's not asserted to have been used by the person themselves.
you keep deleting his assertions out of the article while leaving in abduls and idols assertions I've done no such thing. The only things I deleted were the sources provided that did not support the material they were placed after, and your own remarks and comments, which I mentioned above. If I deleted any assertions, then you'd have pointed out one example when I challenged you to. You didn't, because you knew full well that there aren't any, because you just made this accusation up out of whole cloth, and can't back it up.
If you are only going to put facts on this page than clarks assertions are the only ones that should be printed because he's the only one with evidence and facts, facts meaning he provided documents showing his involvement with abdul during his time on the show which she admitted to... No, that's not what the word "fact" means in this context. That the article provides the information that Clark presented is enough. It does not need to form its own conclusion as to the quality of that information, simply because an anonymous editor with a poor sense of vocabulary who goes out of his way to show contempt for the site's policies has.
and they produced a press release which denounced clark that you are citing as fact... If they did produce such a release, and it has been cited/sourced, then it is a fact. Whether its contents are is another story, and for the reader to decide. Are you arguing that the article shouldn't even mention their denial?
...because an independent councel was hired, the so called independent councel that always works for 19 entertainment the parent company of idol. If you think that that's relevant, then please provide a source for that.
So how independent is that? As independent as the word "independent" indicates, since that's what they do for a living, regardless of how frequently they work for a particular client. The most frequent client of my company is the Weinstein Co., but it doesn't change the results of the questionnaires we report to them after a test screening. If the audience scores a film poorly, we tell 'em. If they score it positively, we tell 'em. Our independence of them is why they hire us. In the same vein, the same thing occurs if we do a screening for Paramount, MGM, etc. It remains that they are our clients, and we don't work for them, at least not the sense that a payrolled employee does.
forget how independent is that, where is their facts to disprove clarks facts, do you mean to stand here before your editing peers nighttime and say that you are sighting a press release as fact over clarks evidence and eyewitnsses? No answer I give to this question will help as long as you continue to ignore the difference between third party attribution and validation. When we say that they issued a press release, that is a fact. That is, the fact that they issued it. Whether the contents of that release are accurate is not. The article simply makes no judgment on that point.
it wasn't clarks song he sang on it with the other contestants. Sorry, I didn't know that. How's this:
Better?
Every instance you erase my edits is when you leave out his side of things. A lie. Every version of my edits is retained in the article's History, and anyone who reads them can see that his side of things, and the sources that attribute it, was left in. The only thing left out were sources that did not say what the preceding material indicated, and your personal comments. I asked you to cite one example of any information pertaining to his assertions that I left out, and you failed to do so. Thank you. Nightscream 16:06, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
8===============================~'pting
Please see Help:Edit summary#Use of edit summaries in disputes. "Avoid using edit summaries to carry on debates or negotiation over the content or to express opinions of the other users involved. Instead, place such comments, if required on the talk page. This keeps discussions and debates away from the article page itself." Thank you. -- Geniac 12:46, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
These are the 6 points that continue to be sources of contention:
I do not dispute the passage about the food fight injuries, as I did not alter it in my last edit, with the exception of adding one conjunction. Please weigh in on this matter with your thoughts. Thanks. Nightscream 14:19, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
http://abclocal.go.com/wpvi/story?section=entertainment&id=3343548
the independent councels remarks clearly saying that they could not corroborate the evidence found, because there was evidence found, to substantiate mr. clarks claims, they just couldn't corroborate it...
http://abclocal.go.com/wpvi/story?section=entertainment&id=3343548 This source says no such thing. The very opening line of this new article you are now citing says:
“ | There is no proof that "American Idol" judge Paula Abdul had an affair with one of the show's contestants, according to Fox TV, which said Abdul will remain on the show. | ” |
It further states:
“ | Fox said the two lawyers it hired could not substantiate Clark's allegations. | ” |
and
“ | The investigators concluded that Clark's claims of a sexual relationship "have not been substantiated by any corroborating evidence or witnesses, including those provided by Mr. Clark | ” |
Nowhere in that article does it say that they "could not' corroborate the evidence found, because there was evidence found", or words to that effect. Your statement that it does is a lie.
i did insert the source. if you would have read the passage instead of being so edit happy and gung ho to attack my character which is very juvenile, you would have clearly seen where i inserted the source from, it's in the same line as the quote itself, and it's in your own edited message here on this talk page, which you just stated yourself, so how you are raising concern trying to say i didn't input a source when you yourself just cut and copied what i said which included the source is beyond me. I qouted my source as Clarks e-book. You did no such thing. In the first place, you only altered that passage in one of your most recent edits. Prior to this, it contained no such reference. Second, there is no "quote" whatsoever in that passage, as it is a third-person attribution. A quote has something called quotation marks, and when citing a book as a source, you place a citation at the end of the passage, preferably with a page number. You did not do this. If you can produce an actual quote and the page to which it's attributed, then do so. Otherwise, we will be forced to accept the assertion at face value solely on your say so, and given your history of dishonesty and lack of objectivity in this article, I think others will understand when I say that I don't think that's appropriate. Even the passage itself makes no sense. Idol "allowed" Barrino to be interviewed? How are they in any positiion to "allow" or "disallow" anything? They have no control over whether a former contestant speaks to someone. Barrino won American Idol on May 26, 2004. The independent counsel's investigation was conducted in the summer of 2005, according to this new source you provided, so Barrino was no longer sequestered with the other contestants in Hollywood. Perhaps Clark does mention Barrino somewhere in his book, but I suspect that as with the numerous other sources whose content you distorted, that it does not read exactly as you claim it does. I would request that you provide a direct quote.
if you would have read the passage instead of being so edit happy and gung ho to attack my character which is very juvenile....you would have realized that you were erroneously telling people false information about me, trying to paint me in a false light... I have not told anyone false information about you even once. Every single criticism that I have leveled at you regarding your edits and your sources is accurate, and I have detailed them here on this page, including in this post. For your part, you have been unable to refute them. Attacking one's character is not juvenile, provided that the criticism is illustrated in a cogent and intellectually honest manner, which I have done. Anyone who looks at my first post to you on both your old Talk Page and your current one shows that my posts to you there, like those here, while being assertive, were polite. Your response? On your old Talk Page you responded by saying, "first off let's not give your journalistic opinion another thought it's not worth it. So who is engaging in attacks? Reverting edits because they do not coform to WP policy is not an "attack", nor an "insult". But your numerous gratutious insults and namecalling certainly are, and it is for that reason that Geniac has had to warn you, and not I. You asked him if I would get the same warning. Sure I would. Provided you can point out a single instance of my insulting you. You failed to do this, just as you failed to respond to my refutations of your statements time and again on this board. Why, after all, did you not respond my statements regarding the food fight not including an "entourage"? Or about your writing being grammatically poor? Or about your insistence on using "where" instead of the more proper "in which" to describe Clark's encounter with the cops that beat him? Why did you tell Geniac that I deliberately omitted the word "food" from the food fight passage, when I had already responded to your having pointed that out to me by fixing it, and explaining to you on your Talk Page that my omission of that word was an accident? Can you answer these questions? When you systematically fail to respond to refutations and debunkings of your statements over and over, it shows dishonesty on your part, and when you make unfounded false accusations about some imagined connection between my job handing out movie invitations to people on the East Coast and a television show produced on the West, and then accuse me of making false accusations, it reveals you to be an irrational hypocrite, one whose rantings should not be taken seriously. This is evident to any who read these threads, which is why Geniac and Ptah, for example, have stated that they don't buy your paralogia. But if you can point to one statement about you that I've made that is "false", or that constitutes an "attack" then I challenge you to quote it. Otherwise, you'll only be reaffirming your reputation as a liar.
i fixed the line about nasheka myself, so it didn't even need your edit for that My edit was made before yours. You reverted my edit, and then fixed that line. So this statement of yours makes no sense. Nightscream 18:00, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
.............................
Looking through your edits shows that you also omitted much material of mine, quite arbitrarily, it seems, that made the article read better and more accurately:
1. the city court decided not to file charges against Clark due to police misconduct during the arrest in which Clark was allegedly beaten by four Topeka Police officers. Why did you change "in which" back to "where"? Do you even know how to properly write a sentence in the English language? Are you completely unfamiliar with prepositions?
2. I inserted the passage: " May 4, 2005 interview with ABC's Primetime Live that Idol judge Paula Abdul decided to take Clark under his wing to coach him on how to succeed in the competition, including selecting the right songs and clothes, etc., and that this mentorship developed into a three-month-long sexual relationship.", which is taken from the Primetime Live story, and you deleted it. Why is this? Do you dispute this? Doesn't it contain more detail than it did before? You also replaced it with the statement "he and Idol judge Paula Abdul had an affair during the second season, and that she coached him on how to succeed in the competition and avoid the show's manipulation of young hopefuls' careers like Clark himself." I don't care what your opinion is of Idol or its "manipulation" of its contestants. It has no business being in the article. And for that matter, why did you delete the exact date of the Primetime Live segment, which is taken from the sources? And why do you keep wikilinking "coach"? Did you even read the changes I made before reverting them?
3. Nasheka Sidall, who it was stated on Primetime Live first heard "whispers" of the affair after she was elminated from the competition. [1] First, you omitted the link to the YouTube video of the Primtetime Live segment. Why would you do this? You don't want readers to able to check out the source itself? Second, you replaced this passage with one that states that Sidall "stated on Primetime Live" that she heard about the affair. But she didn't do this. The segment's narrator, John Quinones, referred to this assertion in the third person, which is why my version is written as it was complete with the phrase "whispers", which is a direct quote. What was your reason for reverting this?
4. The bit about the investigators and Clark's evidence has been discussed. You insist on replacing the passage with one that reads "concluded that they could not corroborate any evidence or eyewitness which Clark provided to support his claims...", when the sources you keep pointing to do not say this. Nightscream 18:00, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
"Fox said the two lawyers it hired could not substantiate Clark's allegations." this is cut and pasted directly from the link to this talk page with no alteration of mine and you can clearly see the words could not, almost implying like they weren't allowed to. Either way the fact of the matter is, the article states they could not.
You said point out somewhere where it factually says they "could not corroborate" clarks claims, i've done that and you still insist on erasing my edits. Trying to falsely imply that the article doesn't state that is wrong a lie and misleading on your part nightscream. i don't wiki link anything anymore since geniac asked me not to overlink so the word coaching was previously linked by someone else and has just managed to stick around through all these edits. on page 142 in clarks book which i bought when it was released through wraptor media, he talks about idol going to great lengths to sully his name, even getting the opinion of other idols whom have a huge fan following behind them like barrino, someone whom had never met clark he says and never competed against him, and she's being asked to validify or debunk his claims. He factually said it, as you pointed out that abdul factually dismissed his claims. It's fact because it's in his book and we are not here to attribute to the fact that it may either be false or true, we here at wiki are just required to print the fact that he said it in his book on page 142, and that he also states in his book on page 136 and in the prime time live interview, that abdul was helping him avoid idols manipulation of young hopefuls careers, young hopefuls like himself. And do you know that in your haste to change my edits and say false things about my edits to other people on this articles talk page that you erroneously called paula abdul a man and referred to her several times in your edits as a him? Not quite sure you should even be editing if you are going to make obvious simple gradeschool mistakes like calling paula abdul an obvious woman, a man. the article is within wiki standards as it stands now. it's just not within your standards and that's what's bugging you. Liaishard 21:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
I fixed the "coach" bit the "in which" bit, reinserted the YouTube link, the "whispers" quote, and the details about Abdul and Clark's relationship and its development. I'm hoping Liaishard won't have a problem with these. The only disputed portion of the article that I edited was the passage about the independent counsel's findings, in which I inserted the exact wording that Liaishard herself pasted in this Talk Page, so I'm hoping this will be acceptable to her. If you don't like them, Liaishard, then please don't simply revert the entire article. Edit just the portions you take umbrage with, okay? Nightscream 00:14, 20 March 2007 (UTC
Well, a good few issues here! Let's start with the some points addressed above:
In essence, be careful to state what the source says, not what you think or how you interpret it. Do not "correct" anything you think the source got wrong, just attribute it to them. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:27, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Any contract violation by Clark would arguably be overlooked in a court of law due to improprieties on the shows behalf during taping, as with the survivor scandal if you are at all versed in that matter. I said nothing about Clark himself notifying producers of his relationship with abdul, it said due to the revelation to producers, a revelation being an internal mental breakthrough or realization, it was Clarks actions that got him and abdul found out. Clark stated in his E-book that close to the time he was disqualified he had been telling the other finalists that he was receiving help from a higher up in the show and that none of them should be bullied or threatned by the shows top brass into signing a contract full of conflicts of interest for the contestants or made to pick an attorney that idol was going to pay for and control. So Abdul provided the contestants with her own attorney through Clark whom wrote in his book that the attorney also represented Justin Guarini in his dealings with idol during the first season and knew the contract very well and made the season 2 finalists the highest paid group of idol contestants to date. When the producers found out it was paula abduls attorney and it was she whom clark had told the other contestants that was helping him out, they had to get rid of him. Lastly i spoke about abduls situation and her cover ups because it's a clear illustration of what clark is talking about when he says that people are going to great lengths to cover this up. If people are lying and covering things up in other areas and aspects of their lives when ever trouble arises whats to stop them from doing it again. It's a pattern, and it has to do with this article because clark spoke about it, we are speaking about clark, and anything that clark factually said, like you said wikis articles arent a medium for consideration of the facts it's simply a place to say what the facts of the situation are, and the facts are, that's clarks side of the story, and it seems like he's sticking to it. take care 68.52.30.94 00:28, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
“ | Due to his failure to disclose this matter to producers, and the allegation to Idol producers that Clark was romantically and intimately involved with the shows only female judge, Paula Abdul, during his time on the show, the American Idol producers disqualified Clark from further participation in the competition. | ” |
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
before i edited there were several "mistakes" on the facts of this situation. Clark was never arrested for assaulting his sister which she and he and their family denied in a 2003 issue and a 2005 issue of people magazine. The fact that clarks booking photo was his main picture was disgusting. It was as if a normal picture wasn't even sought out as there were plenty of others to choose from. It was almost like a bash corey clark article with plenty of unsourced material, and nothing from the positive side of clarks life was portrayed whatsoever. The old comments of negativity have essentially been left alone with the exception of a few minor edits to make them facts and not slander, i simply put a few positive sources in with the negative ones to even the article out. Clark is a talented musician and none of us can argue that, regardless of what Idol wants people to believe as they shove their propaganda about Clark down peoples throats to simply save face because they are trying to protect their show and Paula, not the facts of the situation, and that's what wiki is supposed to be about, Facts. Clark is an eyewitness himself to the different accounts of what he has said happened, and he detailed everything in his released book, which ironically no one has ever pulled from, yet every news article or press conference that there ever was where idol and abdul have been the source were used here in this article, and i don't see how that can be fact simply writing and pulling things from one side of the facts and not both. thanks for your time. ( Liaishard 23:46, 29 September 2006 (UTC))
Holy lord this page was nothing but uncited libel - and I'm sure if anyone actually cared about this guy (and rest assured I certainly didn't even know who he was until today) Wikipedia could have been sued for defamation. At any rate, I fixed that problem - although the page has a serious lack of anything on it and if anyone wants to actually post valid information that would be good (valid information doesn't mean your editorial stance on whether or not taking responsibility for one's actions is good or bad... true though it may be, it has no bearing on this page). Then again... who really cares about Corey Clark? I don't. I just care that Wiki isn't being used as a platform for libeling people or in any way misrepresenting facts or truth.
Sean W. Malone
02:18, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Everything posted was either out of a legitimate news article or review, or from the released book of the eyewitness himself. Nothing was uncited. It seems weird that when there wasn't anything positive to say about corey in the article no one cited libel. There are facts in what i have re-edited so please don't erase the facts.
it is clear to me now that my edits continue to be reverted by people who don't like corey clark. this is not a matter of liking someone, this encyclopedia is meant to spread fact. why is it that when my edit is reverted it goes back to just being a negative article about this man and his work, he's done plenty of positive things that are worth mentioning here that can be fact checked. like the fact that he was on soul train, that keeps getting erased, or the fact that he has his own record company. positive things like that, which can be fact checked are being erased to simply leave the article saying, he got sued for passing bad checks and he got arressted. there are more facts to this mans life than that.
This article keeps getting reverted to some overly opinionated diatribe by those who either love him or completely hate him, neither of whom are staying consistent with facts. Many of the comments are libelous or are the comments of some crazed fan. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 144.147.1.66 ( talk) 18:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC).
Did Corey Clark write this? This article is a joke. However, the last thing I want to do is start an "edit war," especially since I'm unregistered. So despite my complaints, I didn't change anything. Let me just offer that this is particularly glaring:
"Although the media was hard at work trying to portray Clark as a vandal, charges were never filed against the young R&B heart-throb as it came to light that Clark was simply a part of a group of people whom were all involved in the noisy and messy yet light hearted breakfast free for all."
R&B heartthrob? This is Wikipedia, right? Not CoreyClark.com?
I agree, this is NOT Corey Clark's website; it's Wikipedia. It appears the edit wars are well underway here between individuals who idolize him and those who want to smear his name...or a sick combination of both. There's too much bias in the previous versions, and too much emphasize on his legal issues, with many of the comments libelous. Ptah3773
At User talk:Cbrown1023#Corey Clark, User:69.180.238.139 stated "hi, i no longer have an editing issue, geniac the administrator and a few other people fixed the article the way it should properly read. thanks for your time". However, the last 13 edits are by that editor. This seems contradictory. Any comments? -- Geniac 08:55, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
The only edits i made after geniac had fixed the article was to highlight abdul and clarks name every time it came up, and some errors i had made about linking to billboard magazines wiki page, i had only put the word billboards which linked to a wiki page of actual billboards or signs and not the magazine, so after a few trial and errors i finally got it right and got them all to link to billborad magazines wiki page, and i added the words legendary back into the soul train dialog, there really is no disputing that. but those are all very minor edits. I also took the words allegedly out of the line where clark stated that he was beaten by topeka police officers, because in Clarks book, my source of most of clarks quotes, he states that he was beaten by 4 officers that night, he never says anything about allegedly. 69.180.238.139 15:29, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
First of all, please do not rearrange the order of posts on Talk Pages. Let's keep them sequential, shall we?
If a television show has been on air for more than 30 years as soul train has, when a normal television shows life span is 3-5 seasons it can very easily be described as legendary it's not my point of view, it's a fact... No. It's an opinion. The only way it becomes a "fact" is if you either don't know what that word means, or if you deliberately ignore it.
many articles and television show have described soul train as such Then quote them, and provide a source for them. Otherwise, it's not appropriate for inclusion.
Give credit where credit is due. It is not the role of Wikipedia to give credit. Any such opinions are only appropriate for inclusion if they're attributed to credited sources.
That's like saying that nat king cole wasn't a legend... For some people, maybe he wasn't. What's your point? That every biographical article on Wikipedia should reflect the the consensus of perceptions of its subjects as you perceive it?
As far as my Fantasia quote, she was interviewed on Extra and other talk shows of the sort... You didn't cite Extra or "other talk shows". You simply placed that bit in the article with no source at all.
When someone says they were beaten i'm sure they would know better than anyone, so to say allegedly beaten when clark states in his book that he was beaten, not allegedly beaten, is a shot at continually trying to portray clark as a manipulator or liar. If night scream was kneed in the nuts by some cops as hard as clark describes that he was he wouldn't be saying allegedly. Good lord. You know, I really do hope Geniac, Ptah, and any other interested editors and admins are reading this, because it demonstrates the truly debaucherous depths to which 69.180.238.139's ignorance (deliberate or otherwise) of basic vocabulary and its use descends, and how puerile this discussion is. You want me to explain the a-b-c's and 1-2-3's of fundamental logic, reason and diction, 69.180.238.139? Okay, here it goes. When you describe something in a first-person manner, naturally, you're not going to use the word "alleged". You're going to describe the events in a matter-of-fact manner. But Wikipedia isn't written in a first person manner. It's a THIRD PERSON REFERENCE SOURCE that does not make its own personal conclusions on the statements of the various subjects quoted in its articles. Thus, it can only refer to what each person says. This is all the word "allegation" means. It means that the article is saying, "This subject said this," and "That subject said that". It is precisely why media outlets also use the term. Unless they have videotape of the incident, or the other party confirmed what the first party stated happened, they have no way to verify it as a matter of fact, and thus, simply report the statement. Using the word, therefore, does NOT connote a judgment on the part of the speaker that the accusation or incident being recounted is not accurate. Nor does it mean that opposite, that the statment is accurate. It is a term of NEUTRALITY. It is, after all, is synonymous with "claim", "assertion", "charge", "accusation", or "statement", so if I said, "Clark said this", or "Clark made this accusation", how does that connote the implication that Clark is a "manipulator" or "liar"? This isn't even about a good faith disagreement on how well WP's rules are being implemented. It's a paranoid rant that stems directly from your total ignorance of the meaning of the word, and the delusional belief that any sort of neutrality advocated on my part that isn't totally in line with your agenda of "giving Clark credit" and "looking out for him" must be the result of some sort of vast media conspiracy that includes some schmoe in New Jersey who hands out invitations to movie screenings.
It's clarks factual account of what happened that night, it's basically an autobiography on his life and career up to the point of idol that clark himself wrote. Right. But Wikipedia is not. Wikipedia, in fact, expressly FROWNS ON AUTOBIOGRAPHICAL edits. Clark's book is naturally written from his first-person perspective. Wikipedia's, on the other hand, is a third-person perspective that cannot make any judgments as to the factual worth of his assetions. All it can do is properly attribute them to him.
Your opinion about what you think is necessary to tell the reader is irrelevent because the fact is the song was released 38 years later, it's a fact so what's the problem with that. some readers might be able to read well but can't add or subtract, so for those people out there the time difference is necessary, and in my opinion, which has nothing to do with the fact, it's okay to have that there for the readers, it's more in depth. First of all, no editor's opinion is "irrelevant". The fact that we all get a say here, and can affect the outcome of these articles is proof of that. As for the passage, I admit that it's more a question of aesthetics, and not pertinent to the NPOV and source problems that you and I are discussing, but definitely a matter of good writing that flows properly, which is also important. It's a comparatively minor point, but perhaps a rephrasing could be suggested to make the passage read a bit better. I'm not going to bother dignifying your remarks about people who can read it but somehow not add or subtract, or that gratuitous detail, in and of itself, necessarily adds "depth". I'll simply present a re-edited version of the passage that separates it into two sentences, instead of the unwieldly single run-on sentence that typifies so much of your writing, and let others tell us what they think:
And the findings of the independent counsel hired by fox have never been released to the public, only their publicity statement on the matter has been released. Last time I checked, The Internet Movie Database, which is the source you provided for the findings of the independent counsel's (which you falsely referred to as investigators internal to Fox), IS a public site. And the source indicates what its findings were.
...and to simply not include clarks evidence into the article simply because idol and abdul say it's not true is pure pov as you put it... And as soon as you can point out one instance where any of Clark's evidence was "not included" in the article, let us know. Because so far, you haven't done so, as I've already pointed out. Nightscream 04:07, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
read it and weep. I like my eggs sunny side up, in the mornin with a little bit of run, i like my bacon crisp. get to it now a.m.chef. 69.180.238.139 12:16, 9 March 2007 (UTC) 8======================================================~'pting
8=================================='pting
8=================================='pting
8==========================='pting
8==========================================='pting
8================================'pting
Do not edit my posts. Put your own posts after the one of the person you're speaking to, and stop vandalizing the Talk Page.
allrighty than mr. dummy pants here's one source now which says soul train was an instant hit, and also talks about the soul train legacy... Your source for the statement that Soul Train is "legendary" is the show's own website? Um, no. The subject of an article cannot be a source for material in that article, particularly when it's of non-empirical value judgment or critique. Since Soul Train is a TV music show, a proper source would be a movie or TV critic, or some publication dedicated to those industries. And in any case, that's appropriate for the article on that subject. Not Corey Clark's.
COREY CLARK IS THE ONLY ONE WHO HAS EVIDENCE TO BACK UP WHAT HE IS SAYING WHICH IN TURN WOULD MAKE IT FACT No, that's not what the word means. Who is telling the truth requires a personal conclusion that is different for each individual, which is why the article must remain neutral on it. Do you dispute the site's neutrality policy? Or do you just not understand it?
As did you enter unsourced info by stating most of the other contestants said clark was lying... I did no such thing. That information was in the article before I began editing it. Given the sorry state that the article was in when I first found it, and all the information I had to sift through when copyediting it, it's not unusual that something got left in that doesn't have a source. I'd be more than happy to search for a source for that passage, or remove it entirely if I can't find one.
so why not just say clark says in his book, like i've done numerous times, but you keep erasing to put alleged, now your interjecting what you feel is appropriate into something that's already self explanatory, clark explains in his book, therefore you don't need to say alleged. Wrong. The word "alleged" does not mean "something that isn't self-explanatory". It's the proper word used when attributing information to another party in a third-person manner. The article does say what Clark says in his book, and inserting the word "alleged" does not amount to an "erasure".
when you quote abdul you don't interject your case into her words, you just tell it like she told it to the press, abdul (and producers and other contestants you add as well) dismissed clarks claims as lies you say, no alleged in there at all. Because the idea is implicit in the way the passage is phrased. When one says, "Paula Abdul dismissed this..." or "Paula Abdul said that..." the phrasing makes it clear that you're attributing words to another person, without making a judgment on the truth of that statement. The meaning is the same. But you don't have to use the exact same wording on every line of the article. Each party is alleging things about the other, but proper writing requires that one not be so repetitive, and that you use different words and phrases to make it read well.
why not say this since you are so hard up on using the word alleged, paula abdul said that clark was allegedly lying in her statement about his alleged claims of their affair... Because that's not how the word is properly used. You use when referring to the statement made by the person. You don't place the word in that person's statement, because it's not what they said (pretty much the same point you yourself made when you pointed out that "Clark never says anything about allegedly"). The word is used when the person's statements are being related by another person. It's not asserted to have been used by the person themselves.
you keep deleting his assertions out of the article while leaving in abduls and idols assertions I've done no such thing. The only things I deleted were the sources provided that did not support the material they were placed after, and your own remarks and comments, which I mentioned above. If I deleted any assertions, then you'd have pointed out one example when I challenged you to. You didn't, because you knew full well that there aren't any, because you just made this accusation up out of whole cloth, and can't back it up.
If you are only going to put facts on this page than clarks assertions are the only ones that should be printed because he's the only one with evidence and facts, facts meaning he provided documents showing his involvement with abdul during his time on the show which she admitted to... No, that's not what the word "fact" means in this context. That the article provides the information that Clark presented is enough. It does not need to form its own conclusion as to the quality of that information, simply because an anonymous editor with a poor sense of vocabulary who goes out of his way to show contempt for the site's policies has.
and they produced a press release which denounced clark that you are citing as fact... If they did produce such a release, and it has been cited/sourced, then it is a fact. Whether its contents are is another story, and for the reader to decide. Are you arguing that the article shouldn't even mention their denial?
...because an independent councel was hired, the so called independent councel that always works for 19 entertainment the parent company of idol. If you think that that's relevant, then please provide a source for that.
So how independent is that? As independent as the word "independent" indicates, since that's what they do for a living, regardless of how frequently they work for a particular client. The most frequent client of my company is the Weinstein Co., but it doesn't change the results of the questionnaires we report to them after a test screening. If the audience scores a film poorly, we tell 'em. If they score it positively, we tell 'em. Our independence of them is why they hire us. In the same vein, the same thing occurs if we do a screening for Paramount, MGM, etc. It remains that they are our clients, and we don't work for them, at least not the sense that a payrolled employee does.
forget how independent is that, where is their facts to disprove clarks facts, do you mean to stand here before your editing peers nighttime and say that you are sighting a press release as fact over clarks evidence and eyewitnsses? No answer I give to this question will help as long as you continue to ignore the difference between third party attribution and validation. When we say that they issued a press release, that is a fact. That is, the fact that they issued it. Whether the contents of that release are accurate is not. The article simply makes no judgment on that point.
it wasn't clarks song he sang on it with the other contestants. Sorry, I didn't know that. How's this:
Better?
Every instance you erase my edits is when you leave out his side of things. A lie. Every version of my edits is retained in the article's History, and anyone who reads them can see that his side of things, and the sources that attribute it, was left in. The only thing left out were sources that did not say what the preceding material indicated, and your personal comments. I asked you to cite one example of any information pertaining to his assertions that I left out, and you failed to do so. Thank you. Nightscream 16:06, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
8===============================~'pting
Please see Help:Edit summary#Use of edit summaries in disputes. "Avoid using edit summaries to carry on debates or negotiation over the content or to express opinions of the other users involved. Instead, place such comments, if required on the talk page. This keeps discussions and debates away from the article page itself." Thank you. -- Geniac 12:46, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
These are the 6 points that continue to be sources of contention:
I do not dispute the passage about the food fight injuries, as I did not alter it in my last edit, with the exception of adding one conjunction. Please weigh in on this matter with your thoughts. Thanks. Nightscream 14:19, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
http://abclocal.go.com/wpvi/story?section=entertainment&id=3343548
the independent councels remarks clearly saying that they could not corroborate the evidence found, because there was evidence found, to substantiate mr. clarks claims, they just couldn't corroborate it...
http://abclocal.go.com/wpvi/story?section=entertainment&id=3343548 This source says no such thing. The very opening line of this new article you are now citing says:
“ | There is no proof that "American Idol" judge Paula Abdul had an affair with one of the show's contestants, according to Fox TV, which said Abdul will remain on the show. | ” |
It further states:
“ | Fox said the two lawyers it hired could not substantiate Clark's allegations. | ” |
and
“ | The investigators concluded that Clark's claims of a sexual relationship "have not been substantiated by any corroborating evidence or witnesses, including those provided by Mr. Clark | ” |
Nowhere in that article does it say that they "could not' corroborate the evidence found, because there was evidence found", or words to that effect. Your statement that it does is a lie.
i did insert the source. if you would have read the passage instead of being so edit happy and gung ho to attack my character which is very juvenile, you would have clearly seen where i inserted the source from, it's in the same line as the quote itself, and it's in your own edited message here on this talk page, which you just stated yourself, so how you are raising concern trying to say i didn't input a source when you yourself just cut and copied what i said which included the source is beyond me. I qouted my source as Clarks e-book. You did no such thing. In the first place, you only altered that passage in one of your most recent edits. Prior to this, it contained no such reference. Second, there is no "quote" whatsoever in that passage, as it is a third-person attribution. A quote has something called quotation marks, and when citing a book as a source, you place a citation at the end of the passage, preferably with a page number. You did not do this. If you can produce an actual quote and the page to which it's attributed, then do so. Otherwise, we will be forced to accept the assertion at face value solely on your say so, and given your history of dishonesty and lack of objectivity in this article, I think others will understand when I say that I don't think that's appropriate. Even the passage itself makes no sense. Idol "allowed" Barrino to be interviewed? How are they in any positiion to "allow" or "disallow" anything? They have no control over whether a former contestant speaks to someone. Barrino won American Idol on May 26, 2004. The independent counsel's investigation was conducted in the summer of 2005, according to this new source you provided, so Barrino was no longer sequestered with the other contestants in Hollywood. Perhaps Clark does mention Barrino somewhere in his book, but I suspect that as with the numerous other sources whose content you distorted, that it does not read exactly as you claim it does. I would request that you provide a direct quote.
if you would have read the passage instead of being so edit happy and gung ho to attack my character which is very juvenile....you would have realized that you were erroneously telling people false information about me, trying to paint me in a false light... I have not told anyone false information about you even once. Every single criticism that I have leveled at you regarding your edits and your sources is accurate, and I have detailed them here on this page, including in this post. For your part, you have been unable to refute them. Attacking one's character is not juvenile, provided that the criticism is illustrated in a cogent and intellectually honest manner, which I have done. Anyone who looks at my first post to you on both your old Talk Page and your current one shows that my posts to you there, like those here, while being assertive, were polite. Your response? On your old Talk Page you responded by saying, "first off let's not give your journalistic opinion another thought it's not worth it. So who is engaging in attacks? Reverting edits because they do not coform to WP policy is not an "attack", nor an "insult". But your numerous gratutious insults and namecalling certainly are, and it is for that reason that Geniac has had to warn you, and not I. You asked him if I would get the same warning. Sure I would. Provided you can point out a single instance of my insulting you. You failed to do this, just as you failed to respond to my refutations of your statements time and again on this board. Why, after all, did you not respond my statements regarding the food fight not including an "entourage"? Or about your writing being grammatically poor? Or about your insistence on using "where" instead of the more proper "in which" to describe Clark's encounter with the cops that beat him? Why did you tell Geniac that I deliberately omitted the word "food" from the food fight passage, when I had already responded to your having pointed that out to me by fixing it, and explaining to you on your Talk Page that my omission of that word was an accident? Can you answer these questions? When you systematically fail to respond to refutations and debunkings of your statements over and over, it shows dishonesty on your part, and when you make unfounded false accusations about some imagined connection between my job handing out movie invitations to people on the East Coast and a television show produced on the West, and then accuse me of making false accusations, it reveals you to be an irrational hypocrite, one whose rantings should not be taken seriously. This is evident to any who read these threads, which is why Geniac and Ptah, for example, have stated that they don't buy your paralogia. But if you can point to one statement about you that I've made that is "false", or that constitutes an "attack" then I challenge you to quote it. Otherwise, you'll only be reaffirming your reputation as a liar.
i fixed the line about nasheka myself, so it didn't even need your edit for that My edit was made before yours. You reverted my edit, and then fixed that line. So this statement of yours makes no sense. Nightscream 18:00, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
.............................
Looking through your edits shows that you also omitted much material of mine, quite arbitrarily, it seems, that made the article read better and more accurately:
1. the city court decided not to file charges against Clark due to police misconduct during the arrest in which Clark was allegedly beaten by four Topeka Police officers. Why did you change "in which" back to "where"? Do you even know how to properly write a sentence in the English language? Are you completely unfamiliar with prepositions?
2. I inserted the passage: " May 4, 2005 interview with ABC's Primetime Live that Idol judge Paula Abdul decided to take Clark under his wing to coach him on how to succeed in the competition, including selecting the right songs and clothes, etc., and that this mentorship developed into a three-month-long sexual relationship.", which is taken from the Primetime Live story, and you deleted it. Why is this? Do you dispute this? Doesn't it contain more detail than it did before? You also replaced it with the statement "he and Idol judge Paula Abdul had an affair during the second season, and that she coached him on how to succeed in the competition and avoid the show's manipulation of young hopefuls' careers like Clark himself." I don't care what your opinion is of Idol or its "manipulation" of its contestants. It has no business being in the article. And for that matter, why did you delete the exact date of the Primetime Live segment, which is taken from the sources? And why do you keep wikilinking "coach"? Did you even read the changes I made before reverting them?
3. Nasheka Sidall, who it was stated on Primetime Live first heard "whispers" of the affair after she was elminated from the competition. [1] First, you omitted the link to the YouTube video of the Primtetime Live segment. Why would you do this? You don't want readers to able to check out the source itself? Second, you replaced this passage with one that states that Sidall "stated on Primetime Live" that she heard about the affair. But she didn't do this. The segment's narrator, John Quinones, referred to this assertion in the third person, which is why my version is written as it was complete with the phrase "whispers", which is a direct quote. What was your reason for reverting this?
4. The bit about the investigators and Clark's evidence has been discussed. You insist on replacing the passage with one that reads "concluded that they could not corroborate any evidence or eyewitness which Clark provided to support his claims...", when the sources you keep pointing to do not say this. Nightscream 18:00, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
"Fox said the two lawyers it hired could not substantiate Clark's allegations." this is cut and pasted directly from the link to this talk page with no alteration of mine and you can clearly see the words could not, almost implying like they weren't allowed to. Either way the fact of the matter is, the article states they could not.
You said point out somewhere where it factually says they "could not corroborate" clarks claims, i've done that and you still insist on erasing my edits. Trying to falsely imply that the article doesn't state that is wrong a lie and misleading on your part nightscream. i don't wiki link anything anymore since geniac asked me not to overlink so the word coaching was previously linked by someone else and has just managed to stick around through all these edits. on page 142 in clarks book which i bought when it was released through wraptor media, he talks about idol going to great lengths to sully his name, even getting the opinion of other idols whom have a huge fan following behind them like barrino, someone whom had never met clark he says and never competed against him, and she's being asked to validify or debunk his claims. He factually said it, as you pointed out that abdul factually dismissed his claims. It's fact because it's in his book and we are not here to attribute to the fact that it may either be false or true, we here at wiki are just required to print the fact that he said it in his book on page 142, and that he also states in his book on page 136 and in the prime time live interview, that abdul was helping him avoid idols manipulation of young hopefuls careers, young hopefuls like himself. And do you know that in your haste to change my edits and say false things about my edits to other people on this articles talk page that you erroneously called paula abdul a man and referred to her several times in your edits as a him? Not quite sure you should even be editing if you are going to make obvious simple gradeschool mistakes like calling paula abdul an obvious woman, a man. the article is within wiki standards as it stands now. it's just not within your standards and that's what's bugging you. Liaishard 21:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
I fixed the "coach" bit the "in which" bit, reinserted the YouTube link, the "whispers" quote, and the details about Abdul and Clark's relationship and its development. I'm hoping Liaishard won't have a problem with these. The only disputed portion of the article that I edited was the passage about the independent counsel's findings, in which I inserted the exact wording that Liaishard herself pasted in this Talk Page, so I'm hoping this will be acceptable to her. If you don't like them, Liaishard, then please don't simply revert the entire article. Edit just the portions you take umbrage with, okay? Nightscream 00:14, 20 March 2007 (UTC
Well, a good few issues here! Let's start with the some points addressed above:
In essence, be careful to state what the source says, not what you think or how you interpret it. Do not "correct" anything you think the source got wrong, just attribute it to them. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:27, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Any contract violation by Clark would arguably be overlooked in a court of law due to improprieties on the shows behalf during taping, as with the survivor scandal if you are at all versed in that matter. I said nothing about Clark himself notifying producers of his relationship with abdul, it said due to the revelation to producers, a revelation being an internal mental breakthrough or realization, it was Clarks actions that got him and abdul found out. Clark stated in his E-book that close to the time he was disqualified he had been telling the other finalists that he was receiving help from a higher up in the show and that none of them should be bullied or threatned by the shows top brass into signing a contract full of conflicts of interest for the contestants or made to pick an attorney that idol was going to pay for and control. So Abdul provided the contestants with her own attorney through Clark whom wrote in his book that the attorney also represented Justin Guarini in his dealings with idol during the first season and knew the contract very well and made the season 2 finalists the highest paid group of idol contestants to date. When the producers found out it was paula abduls attorney and it was she whom clark had told the other contestants that was helping him out, they had to get rid of him. Lastly i spoke about abduls situation and her cover ups because it's a clear illustration of what clark is talking about when he says that people are going to great lengths to cover this up. If people are lying and covering things up in other areas and aspects of their lives when ever trouble arises whats to stop them from doing it again. It's a pattern, and it has to do with this article because clark spoke about it, we are speaking about clark, and anything that clark factually said, like you said wikis articles arent a medium for consideration of the facts it's simply a place to say what the facts of the situation are, and the facts are, that's clarks side of the story, and it seems like he's sticking to it. take care 68.52.30.94 00:28, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
“ | Due to his failure to disclose this matter to producers, and the allegation to Idol producers that Clark was romantically and intimately involved with the shows only female judge, Paula Abdul, during his time on the show, the American Idol producers disqualified Clark from further participation in the competition. | ” |