Talk:Corey Clark/Archive 1

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 1 Archive 2

This article is as close to the facts as i've seen...

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.

Why is there so much libel and misrepresentation in this article?

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

I don't know what you consider "libel", but I found much material in the article that was clearly in violation of NPOV, as well as external links for images in the body of the article, sources that turned out to be defunct web pages, or that did not support the assertions. I broke up the article into sections, cleaned up a lot of obscure wording, removed legitimate links that were given two or three times, etc. Let me know what you think. Nightscream 09:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
I was referring to a previous version where the article stated that he was arrested for allegedly planting a bomb in a Manhattan subway and a recent arrest where there was a restraining order issued against him. Neither was cited with any valid information. Your edited version is well organized and about an unbiased as it can reasonably be. Hopefully, it will not be reverted by individuals who want to use this a platform for a fan-site. Ptah3773

March 2007

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)

Just two points that caught my eye...
"highlight abdul and clarks name every time it came up" - Please don't do that. Clark and Abdul are both disambiguation pages. Links should point to the article that deals with the specific meaning intended. That would be Corey Clark (this article, so a link is not needed) and Paula Abdul. Not every occurrence of "Abdul" should be linked to her article. Please see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links)#Overlinking and underlinking: what's the best ratio?, particularly the fourth bullet point.
"after a few trial and errors i finally got it right" - Please see Help:Show preview.
--Geniac 15:51, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
The statement that the only edits he made were the overlinking, billboard link and removal of the word "allegation" is transparently untrue, since comparing the edits shows that he again inserted unsourced and non-NPOV material, though admittedly less of it than he previously did. Quite telling as to his understanding of simple terms like "allegedly" (unless he was attempting to make a joke) is his statement that he removed the word "allegedly" from his police encounter because Clark "never says anything about allegedly". You just have to marvel at that level of reasoning. As for the his other unnecessary POV flourishes:
  • No source is provided for the statement that Fantasia Barrino asked about Clark's claims.
  • That Soul Train is "legendary" is POV.
  • I don't think it's necessary to tell the reader that 2003 was 38 years after 1965. The reader can figure that out.
  • I also don't think that separating the Idol scandal section into a separate section named "Corey Clark's Perspective" is necessary or appropriate. For one thing, all of the material previously in that one section is about the scandal, and is not too large to require a second section. More prominently, that section also includes the findings of the independent counsel hired by Fox, which did not find Clark's assertions to be conclusive, and the parody of the flap that aired during that season's finale, neither of which would fall into the category of "Clark's perspective".
Other than these five things, and the overlinking, the article looks better than before. So what do we do now? Nightscream 16:17, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
  • not a problem geniac, i am still getting my wiki skills under control, but i'm improving i understand more and more each day. 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, many articles and television show have described soul train as such, and at least to the people of the african american community this show is legendary, but we don't want to start crossing color lines here because their are other races of people whom watch soul train as well. They'd have to for it to be running for that long. Even in the caucasian community a television show running for over 30 years is a huge accomplishment. Give credit where credit is due. That's like saying that nat king cole wasn't a legend, there are just some things that can't be disputed. As far as my Fantasia quote, she was interviewed on Extra and other talk shows of the sort, which goes along with the negative line which nightscream is okay with in the article where he cited that most of the other contestants (which i did edit to some of the other contestants) dismissed clarks claims as lies, and Fantasia was one of those contestants, that's why it's important to point out that clarks room mate and season 2 winner Rueben studdard, whom lived in private quarters with clark, knew him personally and competed against him during the same season and could have given a more accurate description of what clark was doing while he was a contestant, has never been interviewed about clarks claims, yet barrino, season 3's winner, whom had never even met clark personally or competed on the same season as him, was given the floor of the national media to discredit clark, much to the approval benefit and graces of idol, (i wouldn't be surprised if idol made it that way). 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. 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. 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. 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. Which again, there are no facts or proof contained in that released statement to disprove or discredit any of the hard evidence or multiple eye-witnesses Clark provided on ABC on a world wide aired special. And it doesn't help your case any that Abdul publicly admitted to the phone conversations which all occurred for hours at a time at 2,3 and 4 'oclock in the morning. A statement isn't proof enough to discredit Clarks evidence, eyewitnesses, and proof that he has provided, and accurately details how all of that came together in his book, and some of the american idol contestants back him up as well. some people may argue that those contestants are disgruntled because they like clark weren't the winners, but the same can be said of the contestants whom came out against clark and defended idol, because most of them are still working with idol, or getting jobs through idol, so they owe idol. these other contestants don't owe clark anything, so the more you actually start to look at it the more an intelligent person can see that clark has evidenc idol doesn't, 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, thanks take care 69.180.238.139 17:08, 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:

Clark, along with the other second season finalists, recorded RCA Records' The American Idol Season 2: All-time Classic Love Songs soundtrack. Clark's version of the song "What the World Needs Now is Love" debuted at #6 on the Hot 100 singles sales Billboard Magazine Chart, beating out Jackie DeShannon's 1965 debut of the same song in at #7.

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)

  • 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, to leave a legacy behind my dear boy, you have to be a legend, you can't be a dweeb like i don't know you, and just take a legends hard earned status away just because you watched band stand. I'm really just bsing you i just want you to see how silly it looks for a grown boy like yourself to try and tear someone else down using what qualify to you as big words. I bet you it feels good all alone in that little dome of yours laughing at all of your inepts you throw my way or maybe by stating i don't know what words mean, no sir, it's waaaaay more funny if you're going to try and cap on someone or bag on them or in your case say unkosher things to them, if you say blunt quick easy curse words, and throw in the word pig or butt pirate every once in a while, i'm telling you that stuff shirt room you are used to being a part of will come rolling out of the door laughing, now this takes practice don't just walk into a room full of grown people and start trying to be funny no no, than they'll start having secret meeting without you, you have to develop a sense of humor, and no matter how you slice it, or say it, COREY CLARK IS THE ONLY ONE WHO HAS EVIDENCE TO BACK UP WHAT HE IS SAYING WHICH IN TURN WOULD MAKE IT FACT, IF I SAY I CALL GIRL A AT 2OCLOCK AND I HAVE A PHONE BILL VERIFYING THAT, AND THE GIRL SAYS YEAH HE CALLED ME, AND WE TALKED, BUT I DON'T KNOW WHAT WE TALKED ABOUT, AND OH YEAH HE'S A LIAR, AND THEN YOU GO ON TO PRINT IT AS FACT, WHERE'S THE EVIDENCE, OR PROOF, OR FACT IN A PRESS STATEMENT. COMEONE, YOU CAN'T WIN THAT ARGUMENT EVER, JUST SAY IT, SAY I CAN'T WIN, I COULDN'T EVEN WIN IF I WAS PAYING THE ADMINISTRATORS TO WIN, I DON'T HAVE A LIFE IF COREY IS SEEN IN A POSITIVE LIGHT, DUDE LET IT GO, I WON'T REMOVE YOUR EDITS AND YOU WON'T REMOVE MINE, OR WE CAN WRITE TWO TOTALLY SEPARATE articles on the same page and see which one fairs out. just look at all the awards cited with thee quotes i told you about for soul train here http://www.soultrain.com/stweekly/weekly.html

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

  • As did you enter unsourced info by stating most of the other contestants said clark was lying, which contestants and when? i know Fantasia was one, carmen was another, as was clay, but really who else? i've referenced and sourced the contestants i say backed clark. you must not read all the posts and you keep eluding to the fact that you think i'm incompetent or something, is that because i don't have a decreased libido from staying on wiki forever to make sure that no one gives a positive "opine" on mr clark as you do. 69.180.238.139 11:40, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

8=================================='pting

  • 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. 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. 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, now everything is alleged and there is no fact, so you as an editor do have an obligation or ethical duty to those reading to decipher fact before you print it, sometimes it's right in front of you sometimes it's not, but if you are going to use the rule on one side of the fence it's got to be the same on the other side, which doesn't really make sense because than you are left with almost nothing for the article, so again it should be left how it is, it's pretty neutral right now. If you stripped it down to just facts, it would be nothing on the page from idol and a couple of things from clark, because he was the only one out of the whole shebang to produce any evidence or fact. idol did nothing but run their mouth and put their money behind it, and here you call yourself an editor, go stand yourself in the corner for 2 editing hours, don't cry just do it. 69.180.238.139 11:40, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

8=================================='pting

  • by the way it totally makes me hot and turns me on when you talk dirty to me like that so i'd be careful if i was you naughty boy, you may find yourself with a new best friend named dexter the dude playing the starring role of the evil pillow biting ass pirate. I'm just joshin' ya i love ya midnightbreeze you're my type of role model, i'd like to be bald just like you when i grow up.69.180.238.139 11:40, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

8==========================='pting

    • you keep deleting his assertions out of the article while leaving in abduls and idols assertions, so no judging, as if they aren't sourced and they are from his book, and from the ABC SPECIAL. 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, and they produced a press release which denounced clark that you are citing as fact, because an independent councel was hired, the so called independent councel that always works for 19 entertainment the parent company of idol. So how independent is that? 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? or just that the fact the press release is out there it needs to be included, caus if so than we finally see eye to eye, if their press release to cover their ass can be ascertained as fact without anyfact to disprove actual black and white evidence, than both sides of the story need to be included and that's what wasn't happening on this page before i got here ok, so we are square now, there's no more issue69.180.238.139 11:02, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

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:

Clark, along with the other second season finalists, recorded RCA Records' The American Idol Season 2: All-time Classic Love Songs soundtrack. Their version of the song "What the World Needs Now is Love" debuted at #6 on the Hot 100 singles sales Billboard Magazine Chart, beating out Jackie DeShannon's 1965 debut of the same song in at #7.

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)

  • duskbreeze i don't understand how you can actually think that the way you type something in a certain manner can't be eluding to certain things. regardless of what you try to say you erased my edits for the food fight several times, and kept inserting your edited version which simply said fight and continued indicating that troy had minor injuries like clark attacked her, when the article clearly states that both parties injuries were minor scratches on both of their arms, once i figured out how to talk with you about it, i saw that you had already begun to attack my charachter to other people, so that's why you are a tight a$$. I'm not as well versed in wiki as you, but that's not an issue here because wiki is designed for all level users, so the fact that you keep attacking the way that i don't source something in the exact correct technichal manner when i have told you time and again where my sources are referenced from, why don't you help me edit the sources correctly or insert them yourself since i've told you so many times now where my sources come from and you seem to know it all instead of attacking me and erasing what i have expressed and proven are facts, as factual as you make this independent councels press release out to be. Yes it was a fact that they released it so it should be included in the article of course i don't dispute that, but you make no deviation in the article of what idol and abdul said, you just printed what was said, and did not insert allegedly as you did in clarks statements. If wiki is abut facts as you say, than you would have to put allegedly in their statements as you do clarks to make it conform to the guidelines of fact as you put it so tenderly sweet bottom, as their opinion can not be proven and we are here to make no judgement on that at all anyway so the word allegedly applies to their statements as much as you say that it applies to clarks statements that's my point bottom line. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Clarks statements are his own, as are abduls and idols, you lend more credibility to one when you elude to using the word allegedly to describe someones statements and not the other sides statements. Since you and no other editor are supposed to judge what was said than you need to simply put the facts of what was said. As far as your 1st person 3rd person perspective, you know that you lose focus of that yourself as soon as you start describing abculs statements? SO you speak in third about clark but almost in first about abdul as though you were the magazine editor who interviewed her and is putting out her opine in your tabloid magazine, you aren't sticking to your own statements and if you read through mine you'll see where i've pointed out i feel that you've made mistakes. thanks!69.180.238.139 19:37, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

8===============================~'pting

Edit summaries

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)

Sorry, Geniac. I was just trying to be descriptive in my edits without having to make an entire entry here. For future reference, I'll be more succint. :-) Nightscream 14:21, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Continuing Edit Conflicts

These are the 6 points that continue to be sources of contention:

  1. Initially, the city court decided not to file charges against Clark due to police misconduct during the arrest where Clark... The proper prepositional phrase, I believe, is in which. Not "where".
  2. ...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. In the first place, the comment about "the show's manipulation" is clearly non-NPOV. In my edit, I not only removed that, but added more detail to the passage that clarifies what she offered to do, and how (according to Clark) their relationship developed with this version: 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. There is also no reason for the word "coach" to be wikilinked, as it does nothing but bring the reader to a disambiguation page.
  3. Clark provided, as evidence of his affair with Paula Abdul... Liaishard continues to delete the word "alleged" from this passage, despite the fact that it is valid. His prior assertions about this word show that he has no idea what it means, or how it is properly used.
  4. ...second season semi-finalist Nasheka Sidall, who stated on Primetime Live that she had heard about the affair after her time on the show as a contestant... This is false. Sidall never said any such thing. Anyone who watches the Primetime Live story "Fallen Idol" will see this. The relevant clip of that story can be seen here, and at the 2:42 mark, the story's narrator, Primetime Live correspondent John Quinones, says, "Nasheka Sidall says she first heard "whispers" shortly after she was elminated." Thus, she did not have knowledge of the alleged affair during the competition. Rather, it seems she heard of it afterwards, which means she cannot corrorborate that it actually occurred. I corrected the passage to reflect this, and Liaishard reverted it.
  5. ...yet Idol has allowed third season winner Fantasia Barrino to be questioned on the validity of Clarks' claims and Barrino has neither met Clark personally nor has she competed against him on the same season of Idol. I find it highly unlikely that anyone would question a contestant from a different season as to an alleged affair that happened during a season on which they didn't appear. If I had to guess, I'd imagine that if Barrino was at all questioned about the matter, it was probably along the lines of someone asking her opinion on the matter, and not whether she could corroborate it or not. Mind you, I do not know that this is the case. But when Liaishard's low attention to the facts and accuracy are taken into account, I don't think we should accept this passage merely on his say-so. He even claimed in his Edit Summary that he "inserted the source of fantasia quote from clarks e-book". But in fact, he did no such thing. There is no source at all at the end of that passage, which anyone can see for themselves. The passage, in fact, isn't even a "quote", as he calls it. But if he can insert an actual quote, complete with quotation marks, and cite the page of the book, then I encourage him to do so.
  6. In August 2005, after an internal investigation by an "independent counsel" appointed by the network, which included interviews with Abdul, Clark and other witnesses, Fox concluded that they could not corroborate any evidence or eyewitness which Clark provided to support his claims... The sources (which Liaishard provided, not I) do not indicate that the investigators (of which there were two, according to the tv.com source) "could not corroborate Clark's evidence." They stated that they could found no evidence to support [Clark]'s claims about the coaching relationship. Moreover, Liaishard wrote a description of the source in the External Links section in his 04:24, 13 March 2007 version of the article that states, "story on council saying the evidence they found didn't effect the show". It does not say this. It says that they found no evidence, either that their relationship affected the show, or that it was sexual in nature. Liaishard cannot accept this, so he decides to rewrite what the source actually says. This description is not in his most recent edit, thankfully, but the passage in the article's text remains inaccurate in his version, as he wishes to impose his personal viewpoint instead of just relating what the article actually says.

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)


  • i will compromise to say that the evidence clark provided on his relationship with abdul instead of affair because it has been proven fact that they did have some type of relationship going on by the phone bills alone and abduls admittance to phone conversations.
  • 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

  • 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. If you weren't so busy trying to prey on other peoples low attention to detail or fact by over-exxaggerating your concern for my edits to simply raise alarm amongst the administrators as a young sibling does to their older sibling by screaming out loud for their parents help as if they were being skinned alive making somebody think that something is deathly wrong, you would have realized that you were erroneously telling people false information about me, trying to paint me in a false light if you will by telling people i didn't cite sources when i did, to get your point across. Please don't be so rude, and condescending when dealing with me. i fixed the line about nasheka myself, so it didn't even need your edit for that, but if you had a higher attention for detail yourself (which is ironic that you would blame someone for your own similiar faults) or were truly interested in making sure the facts stay the facts, then you wouldn't have edited or posted your comments about this dispute, maybe you should do your homework. Liaishard 16:20, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


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:

It further states:


and


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)

I've requested a Wikipedia:Third opinion. --Geniac 18:35, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
  • i'm not sure if you are blind or not, but the source and link i provided to the story on fox's press release clearly says in the middle of the statement...

"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)

...the source and link i provided to the story on fox's press release clearly says in the middle of the statement... "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 Right. On this Talk Page. But not in the article. Instead, the article reads, ...they could not corroborate any evidence or eyewitness which Clark provided, which is your way of inserting your personal opinion into the article, insomuch as you have been insisting all along that they "could not corroborate the evidence found, because there was evidence found", as you stated in your last post. Who cares what you cut and paste on this Talk Page? Why not cut and paste it in the article?
...so the word coaching was previously linked by someone else and has just managed to stick around through all these edits. It has not "stuck around", since I fixed it, and you deliberately reverted it, as you did with the phrase "in which", the more precise placement of sources in the Idol scandal section, the details I added, the more precise relation of Sidell's statements, and so forth, none of which you have even attempted to justify, despite your petulant insistence that my version was "full of errors" too many to list, and so forth.
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. Wonderful. Please provide an exact quote.
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... You did not present that passage as a quote. There are no quotations marks around that passage, so it appears to be an opinion expressed by the article itself. If you want to include that passage, then please provide an exact quote, with the page numbers indicated in the source notes.
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... I'm still waiting for you to cite one example, Liaishard.
...that you erroneously called paula abdul a man and referred to her several times in your edits as a him? No, and I didn't know that, and in looking through my version of the article, I can't find a single instance of this, either by using my browser's Find feature, or by comparing our two edits. Can you cut and paste one instance of this?
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. Even if this new assertion of yours were true, everyone makes typos now and again. You, on the other hand, can barely conjugate coherent sentences with proper syntax, puncutation, spelling and sentence structure, so this doesn't come off as a particularly impressive criticism by you. Like your bloviating about my occupation, it comes across as trolling. But let me ask you something: If having made these typos that you've imagined means that I shouldn't be editing here, would that mean that your far more numerous errors would exclude you as well?
the article is within wiki standards as it stands now. A statement that means little, when one considers that you have expressed complete ignorance and/or contempt for every single one of them, even after they were pointed out to you.
And you still haven't addressed the issues I brought up in the last section of my last post (particularly the first three items). If I reverted those, would that be okay with you? Nightscream 00:14, 20 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

  • I don't puncuate every single point of mine i simply speak in paragraph when writing. Idol has to allow barrino to interview because idol controls the winners career contractually after their time on the show which includes all press and media requests for interviews, so idol had to have let her interview about this scandal because she would be sued if she did it without consulting with them first. They only allowed people to talk who were going to say what they wanted them to say to help bolster idols presentation of clark as a liar. Which is why no one heard from studdard because he was un-willing to lie on behalf of idol about his former room mate Corey Clark. I do have sources close to American idol as well, you didn't think that they'd put all that money into someone to make that persons name a household name and just let that person go do you? I have pointed out several times in my talks with you and others the points i know that you are wrong about, it seems like you read right over them. But in my last edit you can compare the two selected versions and see where i edited out the fact that you called paula abdul a man, really you referred to her as a him you didn't call her a man persay, and although it was only one time in that edit it was about three or four times in your previous edit. But i have no problem with your edits as they stand now with my minor corrections, the article seems pretty fair, neutral, and factual. It details negative and positive factual accounts of Clarks life and time on idol and afterwards, which the article was heavily lacking at first, it was very one-sided, a very negative outlook on clark if you will, it now is appropriately evened out, it states factual accounts of both parties involved doings, and the best part is it meets wiki standards. I'm happy now if you are nightscream. take care. I'll see you in new york sometime, maybe you can teach me about my syntaxes and sh** like that. easyLiaishard 16:56, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Third opinion

Well, a good few issues here! Let's start with the some points addressed above:

  • "In which" actually is better formal tone, but the best would be to split the sentences. "The city court decided not to file charges against Clark due to police misconduct. During the arrest, Clark was allegedly beaten by four Topeka Police officers." No need for either that way.
  • "manipulation of young hopefuls' careers", as stated in that sentence, reads like undisputed fact. It doesn't belong there. If you can reliably source and attribute someone stating careers are manipulated, put that in a separate sentence and attribute it to the source.
  • "whispers"-is that a direct quote? One-word quotes in the middle of a paraphrase are poor for context, either use a whole quote or a full paraphrase. If it's just scare quotes, those are inappropriate with formal tone. As to the YouTube link, we should have full verification that the YouTube video was uploaded by, or with the consent of, the copyright holder. If that can be verified, it's absolutely appropriate to link to it, else it is not.
  • The source I see states that evidence could not be corroborated, not that there was none. (Even Clark's accusation and story is some evidence, so there is not a total lack.)

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)


Thank you for your thoughts, Serphimblade. Your suggestions seem reasonable. In answer to two of your points, however: 1. Yes, the word "whispers" is from the story, which you can see was used by John Quinones, but I don't think it's absolutely necessary to include it. It was more important to me to fix the statements that incorrectly stated that she heard of the affair during her time on the show, and later, that she made the statement herself on Primetime Live, when it was the narrator speaking in third person. 2. I directly quoted the statements made by the sources Liaishard cited regarding the evidence. I was not attempting to make a judgment on the evidence Clark provided, but merely respond to Liaishard's insistence that the source stated what she claimed it did, but this seems moot now, since Liaishard seems to have accepted the wording now in the article. Other points that still stand include:
  • The placing of eight different souce notes at the end of the second-to-last paragraph of the Idol Scandal section, reverted from my having placed them after passages where each was more individually relevant. This allows editors and readers to see which sources go to which specific passage. Why did she revert this?
  • Liasihard claims that "Idol has to allow barrino to interview because idol controls the winners career contractually after their time on the show which includes all press and media requests for interviews, so idol had to have let her interview about this scandal because she would be sued if she did it without consulting with them first. They only allowed people to talk who were going to say what they wanted them to say to help bolster idols presentation of clark as a liar." As far as I know, Idol doesn't control the winner's careers, the record company does, and that only goes to their music. Not who they speak to in interviews. They have no legal authority to "allow" or "prevent" a winning contestant from speaking to anyone. If they did, then how was Clark able to speak to Primetime Live, having suffered no lawsuit afterwards? I could be wrong, of course, so if Liaishard can provide sources for this assertion, then I would ask that she provide it. Otherwise, the word "allow" is not appropriate for inclusion in the article. I would also reiterate my request that Liaishard provide a direct quote for Clark's statement about Barrino, because I strongly question whether he said what she claims he did in his book.
  • Liaishard has inserted a couple of assertions, one or two of which is new: That Abdul released two different statements, one in which she refused to respond to Clark's claims, and a second in which she dismissed them as lies. It also says that in the first statement that she claimed that she "never lies". No source was provided for the "second" statement, nor could I find any mention in the source provided for the first that she said she "never lies". Can she point out these to me?
If you could chime in on these other points, Seraphimblade, it would be appreciated. Thanks again. :-) Nightscream 14:49, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


  • Nightscream, i have no problem if you want to line up the source directly by the qoute to be more accessible to the reader and be more relevant to what they are reading. Here is a link of abduls statement saying she never lies...http://www.livedaily.com/news/Briefly_James_Brown_Scott_Weiland_Paula_Abdul_Mindy_McCready-8123.html , the reason idol or abdul arent suing clark is because he is telling the truth and it's about their improprieties backstage, so they know they would be a fool to take on clarks truthful allegations in a court of law because it would only prove him further right, they chose to publicly humiliate this man with gossip and slander, which he does talk about in his book, and they put all of their industry ties and money behind it because idols integrity was involved. They threatened to sue abc and clark before the story aired, but after his truths aired their was nothing they could do except go to court and lose, which is what i expect clark was banking on because in a couple of clarks post- abc interviews he has said that abc even curtailed some of the things he told them in the interview about idol, and made the special more about his relationship with abdul than about the improprieties of the show and their voting system, which was the whole reason abdul was helping him in the first place like clark said on the howard stern show. Just think if it would have been simon with a female contestant, or socially worse for him randy jackson, they would have been removed first and questions would have been asked later, but because the roles were reversed they were able to publicly play the whole thing off and make abdul seem the victim and change the whole focus of what clark was really trying to say. but that's just what i've gotten from the whole thing. I've followed the story very closely from day 1. Abdul is a big part of the show and they had to cover for her mistakes(she's had more than one, check this story http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:uGTAunIixOAJ:cnn.com/2007/SHOWBIZ/TV/02/14/people.paulaabdul.ap/index.html%3Feref%3Dsitesearch+paula+abdul+never+lies&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=4&gl=us, and then her whole hit and run incident, she and idol seem to have a lot more to hide than clark. Never had a drink? Never lied? She at first said she wasn't driving in that hit and run accident and then later admitted to being in the car but not remembering hitting the other car. so there is the link above for the story to abdul saying she never lies, but i will insert it properly into the article. after a contestant wins the show, idol becomes the winners' management team, production team, they get the winner a record deal which they have a heavy hand in, regular managers in the industry, even top rung managers like johnny wright, or benny medina get %20 of an artists income, simon fuller the owner and co-creator of idol gets a whopping %50 of the winners income as their manager, here is a story illustrating the lengths that they go to and have these kids seriously tied up in..http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,87857,00.html. just my 2 cents.Liaishard 00:29, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


  • Here is a link of abduls statement saying she never lies... Thank you. I've inserted that into the article. But just out of curiosity, why didn't you produce it earlier, and insert it yourself?
  • the reason idol or abdul arent suing clark is because he is telling the truth... It doesn't matter if he's telling the truth, since we're not talking about libel or slander. Remember, we're talking about a contract violation. You stated that Idol controls who they speak to in interviews. Let's put aside the fact that one would have to repeal the First Amendment to do this (and for that matter, the 13th) to do this, and say, for the sake of argument, that Idol has its contestants sign a contract forbidding them to talk to reporters, even two years after they've been disqualified from the competition (which is stretching credulity pretty thin as it is). If Clark signed this contract, then he was in violation of it when he wrote his book or spoke to Primtetime. Whether what he said therein was truth or not is beside the point, and would regarded as irrelevant in a court of law. The issue is whether he did something he agreed not to in a contract. Not if he was telling the truth.
  • after a contestant wins the show, idol becomes the winners' management team, production team... No, Simon Cowell's record label and Simon Fuller's production company does. Not the show.
  • here is a story illustrating the lengths that they go to and have these kids seriously tied up in.. That story says nothing about Cowell or Fuller forbidding interviews, or even having the power to do so. It merely says that the contestants are signed up to their companies when they join the competition. Nothing more. Once again, a source you point to does not say what you claim it does.
  • You still haven't explained where the notion of two different press releases by Abdul comes from. Can you provide this?
  • I've also noticed one other item: The end of the first paragraph in the American Idol scandal section says that Clark was disqualified from the competition both because of his legal difficulties and because he notified producers of his affair with Abdul. But that season of Idol was in 2003. Didn't he not make the allegation about the affair until two years later in May 2005? Can anyone clarify this?
  • Lastly, Liaishard, I would also suggest that you not use this Talk Page to go on and on about your overall criticisms of the show, Abdul's DUI, and other things that have nothing to do with this article. This Talk Page is to discuss the article. Nightscream 07:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


  • the notion of abduls dual press releases come from her and her publicists who released both statements.

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 care68.52.30.94 00:28, 31 March 2007 (UTC)


  • the notion of abduls dual press releases come from her and her publicists who released both statements. And I'm asking you for the source for this assertion. Is it in the article? If so, which one is it?
  • Any contract violation by Clark would arguably be overlooked in a court of law due to improprieties on the shows behalf during taping... No, it would not. This is not the Legal System According to Liaishard. It's the American Legal System. If you violate a contract that restricts divulging information about the goings-on at a private organization, unless the goings-on constituted an illegal act, then you are subject to liability. The legal system doesn't work on a basis of "Well, these guys did something shady, so that somehow cancels out your contract violation." A good example of a situation similar to this would be the Food Lion-Primetime Live matter, in which Primetime went undercover as employees of Food Lion to expose unsanitary conditions at Food Lion supermarkets. Food Lion sued ABC, not because it disputed the truth of the material Primetime aired, but because of the fraud, trespassing and breach of loyalty, they alleged was committed when the undercover agents misrepresented themselves when becoming employees. The judge found in favor of Food Lion. He didn't find in favor of ABC, simply because what Primetime showed happening at Food Lion was accurate. The accuracy of the story was completely irrelevant to Food Lion's reasons for suing. So please don't insist to me what would happen in a court of law, okay? The manner in which the law is applied in courts is not based on your misconceptions, whims, or flights of fancy. It is based on proper legal interpretations and precedents.
  • ...as with the survivor scandal if you are at all versed in that matter. As it so happens, I am versed in that matter, and it does not support your assertion. Survivor contestant Stacy Stillman sued the producers because she claimed that they interferred in the normal voting process of the contestants in order to keep Rudy Boesch, by having two contestants vote Stacy off. Producer Mark Burnett countersued her for $5 million, again, because, according to him at least, any truth in her allegations would not have pertained to the fact that she violated the terms of her contract, which barred her from speaking about the production of the show. If the judge found in Stillman's favor, and not in Burnett's, that might prove your point. But no such judgment happened: the two parties settled out of court. I really wish I could understand why you keep using sources and other arguments that you claim disprove my position and bolsters yours, but which so often turns out not to. I mean, at this point, doesn't it occur to you that I will just check the sources and examples that you keep pointing to, and expose this? Doesn't it occur to you to at least look over those materials yourself before using them in an argument?
  • 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... That is not what the article currently says. The last portion of the first paragraph in the Scandal section reads:
So again, I ask, when exactly did he first make the allegation about the affair, and can you provide the source for this? If it's the book, do you think we can make this point explicit?
  • 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. Wow. Well, this is a brand new assertion, somewhat convoluted, and if it's in Clark's book, then perhaps it should be in the article, with proper attribution.
If I'm reading the situation correctly, the points of conflict are the need for a exact quote for the "manipulated" comment, a source for the assertion about two different press releases by Abdul, and a source for the assertion that Idol producers can control who interviews contestants and winners, even years after the fact. Nightscream 01:08, March 31, 2007
  1. ^ Segment of "Fallen Angel", Primetime Live's May 4, 2005 story on the scandal, from YouTube.
Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Corey_Clark/Archive_1"