Jump to content

Talk:Corey Clark

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled

[edit]
/Archive 1
/Archive 2 (Some further evaluations)

More material and sources added

[edit]

Okay, I've gone through the article to clean it up a bit, and added lots of material from sources I've come across in my research. Among my edits:

  • I added two sections to the article, one on his Early life and career, and a Trivia section. Though they're almost at opposite ends of the article, both are mainly derived from the same source.
  • I've provided sources for his legal troubles, passages for which had been tagged for some time in both the Idol section and the Legal Troubles section. The arrest for which he was disqualified from the show, for example, was the Smoking Gun, which was listed in External Links. I moved that to the passage in question, and put another SG page as a link to a different passage.
  • I noticed that some links were given as both sources in the References section, and in the External Links section, and removed the latter as redundant.
  • I wrote descriptions of the sources in their tags more in keeping with proper endnote writing.
  • I removed two links entirely from the article: This one, because the information therein bears no relevance whatsoever to the article, and this one because the information that was once on it that was pertinent to the article is no longer there.
  • Detailed reaction from an Idol producers to the Primetime Live story, and a rebuttal from Clark to those statements.
  • I came across a source that actually supports the assertion by Clark that his entourage was present during the food fight, which was not in the article back when that detail was in it. I re-inserted that point, and that source.
  • I added much information on the details of the arrest that led to his disqualification from Idol (it was not obstruction of justice), including Clark's account of the matter with the contract and the attorneys. The source for that account from him makes it explicitly clear that contrary to what the article had previously said, he did make the allegation of the affair with Abdul to producers at the time. He did not make that revelation until two years later. Nightscream 08:24, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Liaishard continues to insert material that either has no source, or that is not supported by the source provided:

couple whom met while following their own musical aspirations No source given for this.

he was shown a taser and warned he would be shot in the mouth The source given for the incident does not mention anything about his "mouth".

"it was the police not her brother whom got out of hand" This quote was not found in the source provided.

Clark maintained that this couldn't be true as all background checks are conducted by using peoples unique social security number which Clark had provided to producers in his contract, as a lot of people in the united states alone have the same name. No source given for this assertion.

Clark's account of his dismisal from the show is that he was punished not for his legal troubles, but for causing conflict with producers behind the scenes. According to Clark, after he made it to the final twelve finalists' round, he and the other finalists were unduly pressured by producers, who gave them two days to sign a contract, and select one of two attorneys offered to them for representation, or be un-cerimoniously dismissed from the show, as in Clarks' case. In Clark's account, he and ten of the other finalists knew that having the producers select and pay for an attorney for them was a conflict of interest, and that Abdul had told Clark "if you and half of the other finalists stand up to the producers and demand your own attorney they won't be so inclined to kick off half of their final twelve contestants as they would if only one or two of you stand up" . The other contestants decided to support him in standing up to producers, and consulted with Paula Abdul's lawyer from New york city Howard Siegel,[1] on Abdul's recommendation through Clark. Two weeks later after the smoking gun broke the story, producers began asking Clark... The link given is simply to Siegel’s website, and does not support any of this.

multiple eyewitness accounts of Clark and Abdul being intimate together in public and private places including Abduls home including Abduls home... If they were in her home, who exactly were the eyewitnesses? Her three dogs?

...that she never lies saying... The passage already contains this assertion by Abdul. Including another one is redundant.

…and pointed out that all of the judges make song and wardrobe selections. This passage, which I had put into the article, was deleted, despite the fact that the source provided clearly supports it. I restored it.

http://www.foxesonidol.com/cgi-bin/ae.pl?mode=1&article=article1147.art&page=1 this same link as above also portrays that both ricky and rueben were clarks room mates and that Abdul was one of the biggest sweethearts in his life, this interview was done shortly after clark was disqualified but before the allegations of his relationship with Abdul publicly arose... Other sources were already provided to establish who his roommates were. The “sweethearts” passage has nothing to do with the alleged affair.

"could not corroborate Clark's allegations or evidence",< ref>Foxs press release saying Abdul admitted to phone conversations with Clark</ref >

The original quote said “substantiate”, not “corroborate”, and did not include the phrase “or evidence”. Liaishard made this change even though it’s supposed to be a direct quote, making it incorrect, and the msnbc source she provided does not contain this new version of it. The closest that site contains to this new “quote” are these three passages:




Since Liaishard insists wording this matter in a way that acknowledges the word “evidence”, I have inserted the last two of these three passages into the article. Hopefully that will satisfy her.

performed on and hosted the 2005 New Music Weekly Awards. The source provided does not indicate that he hosted.

Clarks heritage is of Hungarian Jewish < ref>wiki page on Jews history in Hungary</ ref> and African American < ref>wiki page on African American history</ ref>descent. These links are simply to the Wikipedia pages on Jewish-Hungarian history and African Americans, and thus do not support this assertion. Nightscream 08:39, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ one of abduls entertainment attorneys

April 5, 2007

[edit]

In this edit, Liaishard:

  • You added "due to what he accounts as police misconduct in handling the matter stating that he was beaten by". What is your reference for Clark stating that?
  • You de-capitalised "Taser". Taser is a brand name of electroshock weapon, so it should be capitalised.
  • You added "in the mouth" but that phrase or even the word "mouth" doesn't appear here.
  • You added "However both Corey and his sister Alysha have thouroughly denied that he ever physically touched her..." but [1] doesn't say that. It does say "Clark has said in interviews that he never hit his sister" and "Alysha Clark told both Access Hollywood and People magazine that Corey never hit her." The words "physically touched" and "hit" are not the same.
  • You added "Alysha echoed her brothers account of the way the situation transpired saying that "it was the police not her brother whom got out of hand" but [2] doesn't say that. It simply says "She also echoed Corey's account."
  • You added "Initially, the city court decided not to file charges against Clark and refunded him his bond money when he traveled back to Kansas from Nashville for a November 11th, 2002 court date." Neither "refund" nor "November" appear at the given source, TSG.
  • You added "Clark maintained that this couldn't be true as all background checks are conducted by using peoples unique social security number which Clark had provided to producers in his contract, as a lot of people in the united states alone have the same name." What is your reference for Clark stating that?
  • You added "Abdul had told Clark 'if you and half of the other finalists stand up to the producers and demand your own attorney they won't be so inclined to kick off half of their final twelve contestants' " but [3] doesn't say that. It does say "So in talking with Paula, she said, 'Look, if you can get six of your fellow contestants to stand up with you and say, "We want our own attorney, we're not rolling with this stuff you want us to do," they won't kick off the rest of the cast.' " Please do not misquote people.
  • You added "after the smoking gun broke the story" but the source given, [4], doesn't mention The Smoking Gun.
  • You added more to a sentence that already had a request for direct quote, without providing a direct quote. Please add a direct quote from his book or the Primetime Live interview mentioned.
  • You added "that she never lies saying" but the source given, [5] doesn't say that. Nor does it quote her as saying "Not only do I never lie, I never respond to lies".
  • You added "or ignore" but the word "ignore" doesn't appear at the source given, [6].
  • You changed "could not substantiate Clark's allegations" to "could not corroborate Clark's allegations". The first source doesn't mention anything about this. The second says "found nothing to corroborate Clark's claim" and the third says "could not substantiate Clark's allegations"

I have made changes that I believe match the sources given. --Geniac 15:22, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Never lies" Actually, Geniac, the source in which Abdul states that she never lies is this one, and is indeed in the article. I know because I reviewed all the linked sources, including that one.
"Ignore" I think this is something that can be understood by reading that source, insofar as Clark's stated reasons for coming forward with his story. Some modicum of interpretation or paraphrasing may allow this, I think. What do you think?
Smoking Gun The Smoking Gun is the source that broke the story, and that link is indeed cited at the end of the first paragraph under the "American Idol scandal "section. Nightscream 08:25, 7 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Re: "Never lies". Ok, I've re-added that, but with hopefully clearer attribution for each quote to their different sources.
Re: "Ignore". Fair enough. Re-added.
Re: Smoking Gun. Fair enough. Re-added.
Now that the article is at a fairly stable version and the previously anon IP has become a registered user, there's not much point in keep the article semi-protected, so I'm going to unprotect it now. --Geniac 05:56, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I edited the new material in the Early life and career section, for length, relevance, and to make it read better, placing the sources in the proper tags. I also removed the unsourced/non-NPOV material again. I also resolved one of those three assertions for which Geniac placed a direct quote request tag, namely, the "manipulation" comment. I found a source in which Clark makes a nearly identical-sounding comment, but in which he uses the word "exploitation" instead of "manipulation", so I changed the word and provided that source. Nightscream 10:26, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I edited Liaishard's most recent edits for grammar, length, relevance, and proper formatting. Among the edits:
  • The "Early life and career" passage about Clark's parents, which stated that they were "two singers who met..." was changed to "whom". I assume that was a typo of some sort, so I changed it back.
  • The material that Liaishard added about the matter with the attorneys is just way too long, and indeed, the Edit page cautioned me during the most recent edit that the article was 31 kilobytes long. While adding direct quotes to an article is generally a good idea, we have to exercize judgment about their length and overall volume. That quote doesn't really add any relevant detail that was not in that passage to begin with, so I reverted most of it. I kept, however, the bit about Clark not knowing that Siegel was one of Abdul's attorneys, and the attribution of this assertion to the Chapter 7 of Clark's book. Liaishard instructed us in her most recent Edit Summary to "PLEASE DO NOT CHANGE DIRECT QOUTES.", but there is certainly no Wikipedia policy, nor any bit of reasoning that I know of that says that direct quotes are any less subject to editing than any other type of passage. It should be pointed out, incidentally, that the crux of the conflict over this passage was Liaishard's assertion that the legal conflict of interest involving the attorneys was a fact, rather than an opinion, hence her insistence on using the phrase "Clark knews" instead of "Clark felt". The addition of the new material does not change this, but since the passage now reads in the proper way, that the conflict was one that the contestants concluded, based on Abdul's adivce, I'm hoping this point has been resovled.
  • I reverted Liaishard's edit about the phone conversations. The length of the conversation is already covered in the paragraph dealing with the evidence Clark provided, and the previous edit (the one to which I reverted it) already indicates that Abdul admitted to them. Mentioning their length a second time is redundant. Moreover, Liaishard deleted the portion of the passage that read "The investigators further added that "Ms. Abdul acknowledges that she had telephone conversations with Mr. Clark while he was a contestant. Their accounts of those conversations, however, differ greatly and no evidence was uncovered to resolve the conflicts in their accounts." Why is this? Naturally, I restored this.
  • I reverted the passage about Clark's record deal with Bungalo Records so that it again reads as a paraphrase, and not a direct quote, but kept the attribution of it to Chapter 8 of Clark's book, and formatted that source properly.
  • I edited part of Liaishard's additions to the passage on Fantasia Barrino. I did this mostly for length and relevance, and also formatted one of the quotes that I left in with the "cquote" tag, to make it look nicer. The passage, however, does not present any evidence by Clark that Fox or the record label has the legal authority to "allow" Fantasia or any other winner to speak or not speak to anyone, so I paraphrased that portion of the passage, so I'm hoping that point is also resolved. Nightscream 16:40, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • looks good nightscream, i was only quoting you when i said to not edit direct quotes, because that's what you had told me not to do to the quotes you edited into the article. I was trying to make you see how silly that was as you had already edited several direct quotes that i had edited into the article from the book, and i was sure after i edited in these direct quotes that you would edit those as well, but as i said, no big deal, it reads good, gets both sides of the point across and we are only presenting facts here nightscream remember??? not opinion or evidence, which was heavily my argument at the start of this edit war, was that clark had waaaaay more evidence to prove his side than idol had to disprove him, and you guys told me that evidence had nothing to do with it, and to not draw my own conclusions based off of what i fealt the evidence pointed to. you didn't know i was quoting clarks book but that's okay because i guess i hadn't put that part in there. Above you said that clark doesn't provide evidence in his passage about idol having the legal authority over everything the winners do including interviewing, and we aren't here to look for evidence, we are here to simply present what clark and the others did and said in the manner that he said or did it in, and correctly attribute that to them or him. Anyways it's just a plain FACT that Clark said what he said about idol allowing barrino to interview to cause a bias against him, now if you want to change what clark said to read differently or how you feel the paragraph reads to you, than you'll just have to start a corey clark fan page because wiki isn't about what you take from what clark or idol say, it's just simply a place for what he or they said, or the fact that they said or did certain things, wiki isn't a place to draw opinions or conclusions or search for evidence on what was said or done, only to verify what was said or done. I know i'm right because that's what you guys told me, at the start of all this. Take care. 68.52.30.94 00:03, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
i was only quoting you when i said to not edit direct quotes... I never said anything about "editing direct quotes". Those are your words, not mine. My admonition to you was not to treat quotes and paraphrases as interchangeable, which is what you were doing. You would repeatedly refer to info from a source with a paraphrased bit of wording, but put quotation marks around it, and call it a "quote". I never did this. The only "editing" I did with regard to quotes was to remove some of them because the article or section was too long, or when I rewrote it as a paraphrase, which is perfectly acceptable so long as you write it in the third person, and remove the quotation marks. It was your inability or refusal to do this repeatedly that required me to explain to you what the difference is between a direct quote and a paraphrase.
...and you guys told me that evidence had nothing to do with it... What "we guys" told you was that you could certainly mention evidence, so long as it was sourced, and so long as it was presented in a neutral manner, without any indication by the editor/article as to its validity.
...and to not draw my own conclusions based off of what i fealt the evidence pointed to... Nope. Sorry. Those are your words, not mine. You are free as an intelligent human being to draw whatever conclusions, you like. What you were told not to do was to insert those conclusions into the article so that it appeared that the article appeared to take those conclusions itself. No one ever said anything about whatever conclusions you feel like drawing yourself.
...Anyways it's just a plain FACT that Clark said what he said about idol allowing barrino to interview to cause a bias against him... And what information does he present to argue that the producers/record label have the legal power to restrict someone's freedom of speech and association? Hmmm?
...now if you want to change what clark said to read differently or how you feel the paragraph reads to you, than you'll just have to start a corey clark fan page... Nope. I don't. If an editor feels that a passage needs to be changed, then they are encouraged to edit it. No one here has to go elsewhere, nor is it your place to tell others they have to. It is you who has to learn to conform to the site's policies. Not the rest of the site's editors who have to conform to your whims. Nightscream 03:56, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • again nightscream is lying, on this talk page =====>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:68.52.30.94 , you said "that has nothing to do with changing a direct quote". As to inform me on why I shouldn't change direct quotes that you have added, why do you lie so much? So as you see night scream those ARE your words and not mine. I wasn't admonishing quotes or paraphrases anymore than you have been, like when you admitted to consistently leaving the word food out of food fight while editing that section on Clarks life. If a direct quote is word for word what someone said, than why do you continue to edit Corey Clarks direct quotes from his book which i insert into the article. Regardless of how long they are, they are his direct quotes, word for word, and you are altering them, bottom line.

And why do you get so technical about what i'm saying? Do you honestly think that when i said you guys told me not to draw my own conclusions, that i honestly allowed you to affect the way i think in everyday life? Your assertions above telling me i can draw whatever conclusions i like as an intelligent human being are very condescending and the very notion of you saying "what we told you to do" implies as if you are in charge of something except your big mouth and you aren't. I know damn well i can make my own mind up, and was only referring to inputing that opinion into the article, you or anyone else here have no bearing over my life outside of wiki so i don't need your Permission to make my mind up about anything, we were simply talking about the rules of wiki. So keep it there. Besides the fact that COREY CLARK had to sign the same agreement as fantasia barrino rueben studdard and kelly clarkson, his proof or evidence is his direct interaction and involvement with the subjects here, American Idol. And besides, he doesn't need proof, as seraphim blade said, all we can do here ON WIKI is QOUTE CLARK AND PROPERLY ATTRIBUTE HIS WORDS TO HIM, not try to prove or disprove that what he said is true or false. That is not the purpose of Wiki, it's a place only for the facts of what happened or what was said. So i printed the FACT that Clark said this in his book about American Idol and Paula Abdul, and i quoted it word for word, i just copy and pasted. And he's not saying they restrict the contestants free speech, he's saying that anything that has to do with AMERICAN IDOL IN ANY INTERVIEW HAS TO BE CLEARED BY IDOL TO ALLOW YOU TO TALK ABOUT AMERICAN IDOL OR ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE SHOW IF YOU WERE A CONTESTANT ON THEIR SHOW AND SIGNED ONE OF THEIR CONTRACTS, that is if you are not being black balled by the show in the music industry like clark and you have nothing to lose by telling the truth. I'm sure you'd agree that someone in the good graces of idol, unlike clark, like a winner of one of the seasons fo idol perhaps like fantasia, would feel almost obligated if not contractually bound, that they have a lot to lose if they talk out against idol, or not follow the gameplan of backing idol. Like Clark said in his book, it's funny they would talk to the winner of a season he wasn't a part of, but they won't talk to the winner of the season he was a part of, the winner of season 2 was even clarks room mate on the show, so even more pressing would the issue be to talk with him don't you think, unless he's not playing ball %100 and chooses not to lie on behalf of idol against his friend mr. clark. Liaishard 14:56, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

you said "that has nothing to do with changing a direct quote". I already explained to you, explicitly, what forms of editing of direct quotes are acceptable, and which are not. Using elipses, brackets, paraphrasing, or removing parts of them outright for length, is acceptable. But changing one's words without removing the quotation marks or altering the wording to read in the third-person is not. I have certainly engaged in the former. Only you, on the other hand, engaged in the latter, for which even Geniac admonished you. Pretending not to have read this distinction that I explained to you, and to engage pointless rhetorical accusations, is not going to convince anyone.
I wasn't admonishing quotes or paraphrases anymore than you have been, like when you admitted to consistently leaving the word food out of food fight while editing that section on Clarks life. What in the world does the matter of the food fight have to do with “admonishing quotes or paraphrases”? For that matter, what exactly does “admonishing quotes or paraphrases” mean? I already pointed out in my April 3 post on this board (In the third quote-and-response exchange) that after you pointed out this error on my part, I admitted it, and fixed it, and that you informed Geniac on his Talk Page that I was doing this deliberately—two days after I admitted that error. Moreover, it wasn’t “consistent”, as that is your word, not mine. As I recall, it happened exactly once. In looking through the article’s History, and looking at the edits I made right after yours, that omission on my part occurs exactly once. There were no instances of it after you pointed out that error, and I couldn’t find any that occurred before. What this has to do with quotes or paraphrases, I don’t know, but anyone who looks at those links will see I’m telling the truth.
And why do you get so technical about what i'm saying? Do you honestly think that when i said you guys told me not to draw my own conclusions, that i honestly allowed you to affect the way i think in everyday life? No, I do not, which is why you should not have implied that indicated as much. To get back to the original point of that matter, you accused us of telling you "not draw my own conclusions based off of what i fealt the evidence pointed to," which is false. We told you not to put your personal conclusions into the article. We never told you not to make them. Thus, my comment that you are free to do what you wish in that regard, when read in context was simply a casual comment made in passing in order to underscore that point. It was not the implication that we had any authority to keep you from doing so, but rather an acknowledgement of the opposite, that you indeed had an inalienable right to that effect. How you turn that into a statement of the opposite meaning, I don't know. Your problem is not that anyone here is trying to infringe on your freedom of thought. Your problem is that you simply cannot be honest about what people actually say, and suffer from this unfortunate tendency to accuse them of saying things they did not, and then of being "technical" when they are forced to correct you in defending themselves. If you cannot tolerate this, then I would suggest you stop changing one statement into a completely different one, because if you keep doing that, they're going to correct you. Stop changing things like "don't put your own conclusions into the article" into "don't draw your own conclusions", and I won't have to be "technical", and stop changing one instance of an omitted word into “consistent” omissions, to name two examples.
Besides the fact that COREY CLARK had to sign the same agreement as fantasia barrino rueben studdard and kelly clarkson... How do you know which contracts they signed? Clarkson, Studdard and Barrino won' their seasons, which means they may have signed additional contracts that Clark never did. And again, if they signed the same agreement, and speaking out required "permission", then Clark would've been legally liable for speaking out. Even if your earlier assertion about him having a chance of surviving the suit because of Idols improprieties were true, he would still have to fight it in court, which according to him, he could not afford, and therefore, could not be certain that the producers would not slap him with a lawsuit, simply because they could afford to do so. He would also have no way knowing for certain that the judge would rule in his favor on the exact basis that you suggest.
...if you are not being black balled by the show in the music industry like clark and you have nothing to lose by telling the truth. He has plenty to lose. Lawsuits cost money, even if you win. Clark would've had to hire legal representation if the producers threatened him with legal action. And they could indeed make that threat, even if they knew they'd lose the suit, if they felt that they could afford it, and Clark couldn't.
anything that has to do with AMERICAN IDOL IN ANY INTERVIEW HAS TO BE CLEARED BY IDOL TO ALLOW YOU TO TALK ABOUT AMERICAN IDOL OR ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE SHOW IF YOU WERE A CONTESTANT ON THEIR SHOW AND SIGNED ONE OF THEIR CONTRACTS... And by your own admission and Clark's, Barrino wasn't asked about what went on with the show, since she wasn't on the same season as Clark. She was asked her opinion of the alleged affair; that is, whether she thought it plausible. So she wasn't asked for any behind-the-scenes tidbits pertaining to what happened during Season 2.

Conflict of Interest

[edit]

In placing a link to Answer.com's page on "conflict of interest", Liaishard wrote in her Edit Summary: "definition of conflict of interest for those like nightscream who don't seem to know what one is." First of all, please do not use Edit Summaries to insult or attack other editors. Second, the issue is not what the "definition" of a conflict of interest is, nor have I stated or otherwise indicated that I do not know what a conflict of interest is. Your Straw Man argument to that effect is simply another example of your tendency to stray from the central point of a disagreement by insulting me. The point is whether the situation described in the article is indeed one, and that calls for a legal conclusion by a judge. Opposing lawyers argue whether situations are conflicts of interest in courts all the time. Thus, it is not a fact, but an opinion. Specifically, it's Clark and the other contestants' opinion, and while it may be a perfectly valid one, it is not appropriate (or even necessary) for the article to indicate whether it is "right" or "wrong". It only needs to state what Clark's position is. Your repeated brazen attempts to change the language of the passage is simply your attempt to make the article agree with his opinion, as if it is somehow a fact. This is a violation of the NPOV policy, which Wikipedia is not going to suspend or reconfigure just to suit your personal vanities. It is only necessary to state what Clark's position was. It is not necessary for the article to take a position on whether it is right or wrong. Keep changing that passage, and it will be reverted, and you will be blocked for your repeated violations of the site's policies. Nightscream 20:43, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

    • Clarks words exactly were that he and the other contestants KNEW that it was a conflict of interest, not felt. Clark has been in the music industry for 13 years now, and in his book has described multiple conflicts of interest between not only him and idol but other companies whom he's had dealings with in the past as well. The link that i provided clearly points out what a conflict of interest is to those people who don't know what a conflict of interest is. The CENTRAL POINT AND FACT OF THIS DISAGREEMENT IS THAT CLARK SAID IN HIS BOOK WHICH I'VE ALREADY SOURCED THAT HE AND THE OTHER CONTESTANTS KNEW NOT FELT! OKAY. You no longer have an argument nightscream, Seraphim blade even told you and I on this page =>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Corey_Clark/Archive_2 that "Again, I remind you to state the conclusions the SOURCE draws, not draw further conclusions of YOUR OWN which it does not explicitly state, no matter how obvious or true those conclusions may seem. The first is attributable information from a reliable source, but the second is original research. Especially with potentially contentious claims which involve living people, it's EXTREMELY IMPORTANT to stick close to the SOURCE and not draw any novel conclusions.

Clark's own book should be treated as a primary and potentially biased source, AS SHOULD ANY SOURCES self-published by the others involved, and used very sparingly and mainly as a source of information on itself. If the claims it makes have not been corroborated or republished by reliable independent sources, any sections regarding accusations from the book should be very careful to attribute the claims to Clark ("In his book, Clark asserts that..."). If allegations or responses made by a party weren't picked up and reported on by secondary sources, they probably shouldn't be in the article. If they were, THEY CERTAINLY CAN BE, attributed to that source and carefully phrased to make it clear that it was an allegation or statement, not something the source reported as factual. (OF COURSE, THOSE THINGS which SOURCES DID REPORT AS FACTUAL CAN CERTAINLY be PRESENTED and REFERENCED that way.")

I am in the music industry and have a plethora of knowledge of what is contractually acceptable and what's not, according to law mind you, and i have no personal vanitys about the way i want the article to read i just want the truth in the article, yet i continue to get only your harpings in my ear of what you claim to be wiki policy, you try and hold policy against me in an attempt to make an edit of your own and discredit me to other editors and administrators and than violate the same policy by putting your own opinion into how the article should read, NICE SLIGHT OF HAND NIGHTSCREAM.

  • No legal conclusion by a judge is needed to prove what a conflict of interest is, only if one has occurred. I only inputed the DEFINITION of a conflict of interest into this article because it explains to people who don't know the legalities of the music industry as i do, what a conflict of interest is, and it gives a perfect example about two lawyers not being able to represent opposing sides in a legal matter. Which is WHY CLARK AND THE OTHERS KNEW IT WAS A CONFLICT OF INTEREST, THERE IS NO ARGUMENT. I'M NOT SAYING THAT THE LINK STATES ANYTHING ABOUT CLARK AND HIS COMPATRIOTS KNOWING WHAT A CONFLICT OF INTEREST IS, I'M SAYING THAT CLARK ALREADY POINTED OUT IN HIS BOOK THAT THEY "KNEW" IT WAS A CONFLICT OF INTEREST TO HAVE A LAWYER PAID FOR BY FOX, TO NEGOTIATE THE CONTRACTS DRAWN UP BY FOX FOR THE CONTESTANTS IN THE CONTESTANTS BEST INTEREST, WHICH IS A GENERAL KNOWLEDGE IN THE MUSIC INDUSTRY, WHICH IS WHY I INPUTED THE LINK WHICH DESCRIBES THAT A LAWYER CAN NOT REPRESENT BOTH PLAINTIFF AND DEFENDANT IN ANY LEGAL SITUATION. there are rules and laws against it before it even ends up in a court of law. People who end up in court because of conflicts of interest, ie. a producer who is also an artists manager as well is taking too much of an artists salary, therefore it is a conflict of interest, that's why managers or producers always tell you I can't be both manager and producer to you because it's a conflict of interest, I HAVE TO BE ONE OR THE OTHER, AND THAT'S IF YOU FIND AN HONEST MANAGER. Your simple explanation about attorneys arguing about conflicts of interest all the time does not change my FACT into your OPINION. If two lawyers are arguing than it's because there is a conflict of interest law, otherwise they wouldn't be arguing. Because there would be no argument if there wasn't a law against it duh, and one side (normally the perpatrator of the crime) is trying to disclaim conflict of interest or avoid losing all of the money that was obtained because of a conflict of interest that they've so routinely stolen from music artists.
  • And lastly don't ever f****** threaten me with blocking again nightscream, you have no authority here. Who do you think you are that you can edit your non-npov into the article anytime you please? My arguments about you and subsequently others whom bash Corey Clark is the same thing, you keep inputing your own opinion into the article which before i came along was painting clark in a totally negative light. I'll end here. If you've ever played the Star wars role playing game on either ps2 or Xbox, they have a feature in this game which allows you to build your own character and choose whether or not throughout the game if the character will become part of the darkside or follow the light. Through the characters transformations you will notice how twisted his appearance becomes and that his background becomes ever increasingly red, and the more towards the light that he leans the whiter his back light becomes and the more he looks like a regular person. When i arrived at this article and began editing, Clarks background was completely red and he looked evil up there with a mugshot as his main photo. He came across as evil and untalented with no positive assertations to his career or life what so ever, these comments about him were left un-edited, and no one took it upon themselves to even research something positive about him, but the more i edited the more lighter his background became. People including nightscream didn't like that because they started seeing this person become a tolerable character. No one was arguing about the article when it was entirely red or negative, but now that we are here to input some positive facts into Clarks article, there's a problem. The article as it stands is somewhere in the grey area or middle ground, or lighter area if you will, the article is beginning to look more fair, honest and completely factual on both negative and positive findings about Clarks life and career, with a few minor exceptions from night scream but we are working on that. Liaishard 21:53, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The passage is not written in his words, it is written in the form of a third-person paraphrase, which is why it should merely state his position. It is not necessary to relate it in a factual manner, as I've already explained to you. So long as his position is stated, what difference does it make to you if the article takes a position itself on that notion? The site forbids such things, but you should be satisfied that Clark's point of view is presented and attributed to him. Whether you or Clark have experience in the industry doesn't change this, since any other person or set of people could argue that it was not a conflict of interest. Hence, it's an opinion. Not a fact. Putting the definition of the term is neither relevant nor appropriate. If you want to argue that Clark is correctd, do it on your own website, and not on one that requires neutrality.
I have not threatened you. I simply warned you that you would be blocked if you continued to violate the site's rules, which is reasonable.
I have not placed any opinion of my own into the article. I have simply edited it to remove yours. Continuing to bloviate that your opinion is a "fact" does not change this. Placing "positive facts" in the article isn't the problem. It's your insistence on making your positive opinion of him explicit in the article, which is a violation of WP's fundamental policies.
And why did you re-insert the dead link? Nightscream 22:30, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I took the dead link back out, i messed up on that sorry, Clarks book is not written in third person form as this phrase from the Corey Clark article clearly shows it's written in first person:

“ When the curtain went up the first night, I was floored by the response from the sell-out crowd. I’d never been on stage as a professional singer before, and I got to see someone at the peak of his career working the stage and the audience. Every night he made his performance feel fresh, not just going through the motions. Experiencing the energy of a live show wasn’t at all like listening to a tape or a CD, I realized. It was magical. I was hooked"!

  • the noun I, which is repeated throughout that paragraph refers to a first person perspective nightscream, not a third person perspective. So it SHOULD read the exact way that Clark said it.
  • And your fact that someone COULD raise an argument in a court of law over what constitutes a conflict of interest in their own opinion is true, but you or any lawyers opine or argument does not change what the FACTS of a conflict of interest are, they simply argue the conflict of interest in a court of law because there are laws prohibiting conflicts of interest such as those which were being pressed upon Mr. Clark and his fellow finalists, to try and reduce the damage caused by the perpetrators actions. And as defined in the link that i provided to answers dot com, http://www.answers.com/topic/conflict-of-interest#copyright , it says and i quote, "A conflict of interest is a situation in which someone in a position of trust, such as a lawyer, a politician, or an executive or director of a corporation, has competing professional or personal interests. Such competing interests can make it difficult to fulfill his or her duties impartially. Even if there is no evidence of improper actions, a conflict of interest can create an appearance of impropriety that can undermine confidence in the ability of that person to act properly in his/her position.

Conflict Of Interest related to the practice of law In the legal profession, the duty of loyalty owed to a client prohibits an attorney (or a law firm) from representing any other party with interests adverse to those of a current client. The few exceptions to this rule require informed written consent from all affected clients. In some circumstances, a conflict of interest can never be waived by a client. As perhaps the most common example encountered by the general public, the same firm will not represent both parties in a divorce case.

A prohibited or undisclosed representation involving a Conflict Of Interest can subject an attorney to disciplinary hearings, the denial or disgorge of legal fees, or in some cases (such as the failure to make mandatory disclosure) criminal proceedings. In the U.S.A., possible conflicting clients of a single attorney are deemed as possible conflicts for all lawyers associated with a law firm. Law Firms often employ software in conjuction with their case management and accounting systems in order to meet their duties to monitor their Conflict Of Interest exposure, and obtain waivers when necessary or appropriate.

Conflict Of Interest generally (unrelated to the practice of law) More generally, conflict of interest can be defined as any situation in which an individual or corporation (either private or governmental) is in a position to exploit a professional or official capacity in some way for their personal or corporate benefit." End quote

  • And you did threaten me, you can't threaten to block me when i am simply trying to make the article read as factually and impartial as possible as you claim to be doing as well. There is nothing wrong with that. But you keep insisting on involving other people and using big words to make it seem as if you know more about what you are talking about than i do, as to discredit my edits to other people. Who cares if you know how to put a sentence together better than I? Not me. It still doesn't change the fact that you WERE EDITING BLINDLY or without common knowledge on the subject you were editing before you even researched what i was editing about what Clark had publicly said. You like me have inputed non-npov edits into the article, and you, un-like me, have never admitted to these mistakes. You simply keep making yours while drawing peoples attention to mine. EVERY SINGLE THING IN THIS ARTICLE WHICH I HAVE EDITED HAS A SOURCE WHICH I HAVE REFERENCED, THERE SHOULD BE NO MORE TALK OF BLOCKING ANYONE, GENIAC IF YOU ARE GOING TO THREATEN ME YOU NEED TO THREATEN NIGHTSCREAM AS WELL. THERE IS NOTHING ELSE IN THIS ARTICLE WHICH I HAVE INPUTED THAT IS NON-NPOV, AND GENIAC JUST BECAUSE NIGHTSCREAM SAYS IT IS DOESN'T MAKE IT THAT WAY, I'D APPRECIATE IT IF YOU WOULD LOOK INTO THE ACTUAL PROBLEM THOUROUGHLY BEFORE REVERTING MY EDITS AS YOU HAVE PREMATURELY DONE BEFORE, AS IN READ WHAT I'VE INPUTED INSTEAD OF JUST TAKING NIGHTSCREAMS WORD FOR IT AND REVERTING MY EDITS. THANKS Liaishard 00:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say Clark's book is written in the third person. I said the passage about the conflict of interest is. Calling it a "direct quote" or "first-person", therefore, as you have insisted, is false. We're not talking about his statement about being on a stage with Barry Manilow.
If you want it to read as Clark said it, fine. But the passage does not read in a first-person perspective now.
No, they don't change what the facts of a conflict of interet are, nor have I stated that they do. What I stated is that whether a given situation is a conflict of interest requires a legal conclusion that two sides can debate. Therefore, whether the situation in question was a c.o.i. is going to be something on which the producers and Clark and the contestants are going to disagree. It doesn't matter if you and I agree with Clark. We cannot claim that Clark's side of the dispute is a fact, or something that they "knew".
I did not threaten to block you, I simply warned you that you would be blocked if you continued reverting the article, which is true. An administrator can do this. I did not claim any intention (or the ability) to do this myself.
If "involving other people" you mean collaboration, well then yes, that's part of editing on Wikipedia. You might want to read up on that.
I have not edited blindly, nor have you established that I edited without reading the sources provided. If you can back up with accusation with evidence that you can point to, then please do so.
No one here has argued that something is so because I say it is. If it is so, it is so by virtue of the evidence and reasoning I provide as the basis for a given conclusion, and in part perhaps because of the credibility I enjoy among others here you can compare my behavior to yours, and see that I follow the site's rules and politely back up my assertions with reasoning, while you do not. Bold assertions that I have somehow edited without knowledge, that I have put my own POV into the article, etc., aren't going to impress anyone if you don't provide evidence of this. Nightscream 01:04, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First-Person wording and Third-Person wording

[edit]

Third person wording refers to when a writer is relating what someone else says in the form of a paraphrase. When one says, for example, "President Lincoln said he wanted to pass this law...", they are speaking in third person. First-person wording, on the other hand, is when the writer and the person speaking are one and the same, and would read as follows: "I wish to pass this law." The passage "Clark felt" or "Clark knew" is not a first person passage, nor is it a "direct quote". A direct quote, as I've informed you numerous times, is when you repeat the person's statement word for word, and with proper quotation marks. "Clark knew" is not a "direct quote copied and pasted word for word from Clarks book", unless you're asserting that Clark has a tendency to speak of himself in the third person. Nightscream 23:41, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

wHAT YOU SAY HERE MAKES SENSE, THIS IS WHAT CLARKS SAYS WORD FOR WORD IN HIS BOOK: Saturday, March 8th, Nigel and Simon Lythgoe and another producer, Kenny Warwick, called the 12 of us together to inform us that we needed to pick a lawyer to advise us on signing the AI contract. They were going to start paying us $1,000 a week, we would be given a clothing budget, we would be receiving a fixed amount for tour appearances, and a percentage of royalties from the second season CD. The contract looked like it was a hundred pages, it was a weekend, and they informed us we had to sign it by Monday, since the contest to pick the winner of the 12 was starting on Tuesday. Otherwise, they threatened to put us off of the show. But the “good news” was, they told us, that they had already pre-selected two attorneys we could choose from and the show would be picking up the attorneys expenses. Paula had warned me that this would be a conflict of interest, since our legal advisors would be on their payroll, something I had know about from my earlier dealings in the industry. When I brought this up at a prior meeting on the subject, the face of the staff’s legal counsel had gone white as he brushed my question aside and said to discuss it with the attorneys who might represent us. While we were waiting for them to come into the room, I stepped out and made a call to Paula. She told me not to sign anything, and that the other contestants and I should unite and insist on having an attorney of our own. “There’s strength in numbers” she said, and then she recommended one who was a friend of hers, who had represented Justin Guarini against the show the first year. And though she didn’t tell me this high profile New York Music Attorney turned out to be an attorney of hers as well, the shows higher up brass had no problem figuring it out and started putting two and two together. “If we all stood together,” Paula said, “then Idol couldn’t fire all of us.” She believed that if we tried to go about getting our own attorneys separately the show would pick us off one by one, just like they did to Mario Vasquez the fourth season of idol. End Quote. That looks pretty first person to me. Liaishard 00:21, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Since i am transcribing what Clark said in first person to wiki readers, nightscream is right, that does make it a third person point of view, but i am only describing in third person what Clark said in first person when writing his book, which is that he and the other contestants KNEW it was a conflict of interest to take on idols hired attorney as their own, as it shows in the above passage taken from his book, not that they felt it was a conflict of interest.Liaishard 00:30, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And their position is their opinion. Because it is related in the third-person, it should be presented in a neutral manner. Oh, and as per your earlier comments your experience in the industry, and my supposed lack of knowledge of this matter, I refer you to Wikipedia:Ownership of articles, in particular, the third comment under "Comments".

Lastly, you in violation of the 3RR rule. I myself inadverdantly violated this rule a couple of years ago when I was new to Wikipedia, as I was unaware of it. Since you may not have known about it, you could be excused for this first violation. But your repeated insistence on reverting the article, even after you were warned, will further show administrators that you do not care about the site's rules, despite your earlier complaints that I never tried to "help" you fine-tune your wiki skills. As for your contention that I have also violated the rule, two points: First, reverting unsourced or non-NPOV material is an exception the rule, as stated under "Exceptions" on that policy's page. Second, even if this accusation of yours were true, you're not going to gain any credibility as a good faith editor by using violations of others as an excuse to commit the same violations yourself. I caution you to think before you proceed further on this course. Nightscream 00:48, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This was brought to WP:AN/I, and I had a few minutes, so I'm offering an opinion. In reviewing this section(the previous one has such awful formatting, random caps and lack of signatures as to be practically worthless), it is clear that Liaishard doesn't understand the difference between first and third person writing and a direct quotation and a paraphrase. Further, the text she herself provides as a direct quote shows that yes, these were the author's feelings, not his specific trained knowledge. As such 'feels' or 'felt' instead of 'knows' or 'knew' is appropriate for the article. ThuranX 05:26, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Two passages sourced

[edit]

Geniac, you placed citation request tags on two passages, but those two passages are already sourced. The source for the "conflict of interest" passage is placed at the end of that paragraph (Note #11), and is this page at mtv.com. The source for the quote about him being defamed is same source, and is placed at the end of the sentence that immediately follows that quote (Note #20), which ends with "...in order to ruin his career." I changed the former passage to "Clark and his fellow contestants' position was that having the producers select an attorney for them was a conflict of interest..." I think it sounds neutral enough, and doesn't use the word "felt", which Liaishard objected to. Nightscream 18:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for finding a wording that avoids "felt" and "knew". --Geniac 18:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No prob. But what happened to the article's accompanying photograph? Why was it removed? Nightscream 18:26, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's still there [7], but it's not displaying. Maybe there was another copy uploaded with an underscore in the filename, which had been deleted, but this one has a space in the filename... I'm guessing wildly here; I don't know enough about that to have an answer. Try asking at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). --Geniac 19:41, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

His book(s)

[edit]

I am very confused about how many books he's written, and what they're called - as it reads now, it appears that there is 1 e-book, and 2 other books, but after reading again, are the titles "Bloody Kansas" and "American Politics" CHAPTER titles instead of book titles? I do not know the answer to this, but can somebody please make this more clear —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.170.31.178 (talk) 16:15, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They are indeed chapter titles, which is why they're in quotation marks, rather than italics (Creative works like books, magazines, and albums customarily are italicized, whereas smaller portions of a given work, like an article, chapter or song are put in quotes).
And btw, it's customary to put new discussions and posts at the bottom of a Talk Page, rather than the top. And please sign your posts with by typing four tildes at the end. (~~~~) (Just FYI. :-) ) Nightscream 20:27, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Corey Clark. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:39, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Corey Clark. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:20, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Corey_Clark&oldid=1206710021"