Talk:Kelly Clarkson/Archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Sentence problem

I hate this last sentence in the lead in. "Although she had been criticised for her American Idol image, Clarkson has begun writing and composing more songs, and plans to release a third album in 2006."

What does being criticised for her image have to do with writing songs?
The girl has been writing for a long time — she hasn't just begun.
She wrote six of the songs on Breakaway and co-wrote a few on Thankful.
Plans for the thrid album now say late '06 early '07.
I'm stumped as to how to rewrite this. Help! - Maria202 21:20, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I sort of messed it up when I originally wrote it. Perhaps it should just be removed and new content could be included. —Eternal Equinox | talk 22:05, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I didn't know you wrote it nor what you were trying to say. How about something like this: Distancing herself from her American Idol image, Clarkson took more creative control, and through considerable experimentation, developed a rock-oriented image for the release of her second album Breakaway (2004), which spawned four U.S. top-ten singles and won two Grammy Awards. While on tour in Europe in 2006 Clarkson was writing and composing songs for her third album which she hopes to release in late 2006 or early 2007. - Maria202 22:51, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

That's much better. However, instead of "in late 2006 or early 2007", I think it would be preferrable if you wrote "within the next year". —Eternal Equinox | talk 22:56, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Sounds good. Do you want to change it? - Maria202 23:04, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes. —Eternal Equinox | talk 23:54, 15 April 2006 (UTC)


WP:NOT#Links, images, or media files states that "There is nothing wrong with adding a list of content-relevant links to an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia. On articles about topics with many fansites, including a link to one major fansite is appropriate, marking the link as such". I have been reverting this fansite because I've been to it before and it doesn't prove to be very large. Perhaps there is another which supplies a more relevant basis?

Secondly, Image:Since You've Been Gone.jpg has stronger fair use rationale than Image:KellySNL.jpg, which currently provides no relevance to the text and paragraph beside it. In addition, the image is of poor quality, but since it is low resolution, I don't find a major problem with it. Clarkson's article, at this point, is filled with enough images and/or media. —Eternal Equinox | talk 14:14, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

You know, Eternal I'm getting really sick and tired of your garbage. You don't own this page, it's not up to you to decide what goes and what stays. Every time you add something to this article, you remove something that I supplied to put in its place. I'm sick and tired of having to OK, everything by you to make sure you don't revert it. It's this attitude that got you in trouble with the admins in the "We Belong Together" featured article candidacy page. I (as does everybody else) have as much of a right to edit this page as you do. That picture does add relevance ... there is clearly a line that I added that talks about the appearances she made to promote her album. HeyNow10029 17:29, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
I did not get in trouble there. If you see the archived discussion at Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates, many of the users who accused me were not aware that I had been compromising with Wikipedia:Vandalism. Anyway, on to this topic: you do not make such statements as "garbage", which I could register as a personal attack. It is not garbage: it is policy. Your image has no relevance to the text that it is sitting beside, and I am not removing your image simply because it is yours. I removed it because its fair use rationale is weaker than the image I happened to upload, and in addition, because it provides no relevance. I have to revert your edits again. Also, please do not remove the fact that Clarkson has achieved one Canadian number-one. If she were Canadian and not American, would we remove the fact that she attained only one U.S. number-one? I doubt it. —Eternal Equinox | talk 19:25, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
I do not make such statements? What language is that? This is the English Wikipedia, not the simple English wikipedia. Seriously. You talk about my image not having relevance to the text, yet it does. Even after you removed the text I wrote, which I re-added again today, and you removed again. Read the article it mentions her performance on Saturday Night Live
About the Canadian thing, if you have a problem with that respond to the previous article becuase I'm reverting that too, maple leaf. ... You know what, Eternal_Equinox, I'm sick and tired of running things through you, you don't own this page. If you have a problem with me re-adding that image, seek mediation cause you're not an admin (even though you act like you created all of Wikipedia through your terminal in that stuffy library you spend your entire life in) and I don't need permission from you. And since you seem so fond about throwing out Wikipedia policies, how about you see the WIKIPEDIA POLICY ON OWNERSHIP, SINCE YOU MERCILLESLY COME IN AND EDIT THE ARTICLE AFTER ANYONE HAS MADE EVEN THE SLIGHTEST CHANGE. WP:OWN I can understand if maybe you wrote well, but someone who uses the phrase "emancipating from their throats" to describe talking ... I mean, who are you, Data from Star Trek? lol HeyNow10029 22:07, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
"who uses the phrase "emancipating from their throats" to describe talking" LMAO. Oh dear God, please stop it! Sarah Ewart (Talk) 01:28, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
LOL. I know, don't you just love it?! "emancipating from their throats" I think I'm going to make it into a t-shirt -- maybe sell it on Ebay. lol. HeyNow10029 02:12, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Talk:Kelly Clarkson#Redundancies for elucidation. —Eternal Equinox | talk 22:31, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Interesting edit, by the way. Should I assume good faith? —Eternal Equinox | talk 22:32, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

What that I moved a sentence around? Or that I called you genius? Don't you think of yourself as a genius ... I sure do. lol. HeyNow10029 22:47, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
If you want to avoid personal attacks, do not place them in an article in the first place. —Eternal Equinox | talk 22:55, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
This isn't an article, Eternal. It's a article's talk page. HeyNow10029 23:01, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
What's your point? Please respond to your objection as well, please. —Eternal Equinox | talk 23:14, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I believe that HeyNow10029 is being unpleasant, but so is E. E. Really, HeyNow is being incurably unintelligent and rude, and E. E. is being incredibly neutral, so neutral it's hard to believe he's a human and not a computer. MorwenofLossarnarch 23:34, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
lol. I must've missed the post where someone asked for your opinion. HeyNow10029 01:26, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I really agree with MorwenofLossarnarch. It's about time someone told you that you have been nothing but rude and impolite, and this sort of behaviour is rather frowned upon. Of interest to you may be the policy "Don't be a dick". And don't dare asking who invited me; as an Administrator, I am entitled to intervein in any dispute I see fit. Oran e (t) (c) (e) 02:00, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you should read the post she wrote before you barge in here throwing around threats. She wrote .. "HeyNow is being incurably unintelligent". Secondly, she wasn't commenting on the matter for our dispute, she was making personal comments about me. So I have every right to answer her back. And don't I dare ask you? Don't I dare? Who are you, God? What are you going to do, block me for asking you a question? And where do you get off saying this, "It's about time someone told you that you have been nothing but rude and impolite". HeyNow10029 04:56, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Firstly, I have not threatened you, so don't falsely accuse me of anything. "Blocking"? Have I ever mentioned anything about blocking you? You just love stirring controversy, don't you? No, I am not God, and I've never implied that I am (in fact, that point was just plain silly, so I will comment on it no further). And yes, its about time someone told you that you have been nothing but rude and impolite. Never mind "where I get off" doing so. From reading all of your above posts —"even though you act like you created all of Wikipedia through your terminal in that stuffy library you spend your entire life in", "I'm getting really sick and tired of your garbage", "I must've missed the post where someone asked for your opinion."— I'm more than justified in telling you this: you need to just calm yourself down; Wikipedia is a community, not some random messageboard for uncivil, belligerent editors to run rampant. Frankly, its this type of behaviour that is clouding the goal of Wikipedia, and is perpetuating the corrupt nature of the place. Oran e (t) (c) (e) 19:50, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
I'll give you that one point, that time when I lashed out at E.E. was uncalled for. That's one instance when I lost my cool after over two months of disagreements with an overtly zealous user. As for Morwen, like I said, she came out of the blue and instead of commenting on the article disagreement, took the oppurtunity to make a personal comment calling me unintelligent. I thought there was a Wikipedia policy on personal attacks? HeyNow10029 04:58, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I've edited the article once again, to where the images are appropriate, and removed all speculation. It surprises me how I've had to take the step forward and compromise each issue thus far. All users should contain the common sense to negotiate. —Eternal Equinox | talk 21:19, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I apoligise, HeyNow. I was wrong, but you are being a bit rude. This discussion has become a series of personal attacks, arguement, and rudeness. MorwenofLossarnarch 17:17, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

BTW, I didn't mean it in a good way when I said that EE was being neutral MorwenofLossarnarch 15:44, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

What happened to all the Kelly Clarkson American Idol Songs? The other American Idol contestants have all of their songs listed on their pages!

French Wikipedia article on Kelly Clarkson

Hey guys, yesterday I went to the french version of wikipedia and searched on kelly clarkson. The french article is of very poor quality. It doesn't even mention that Kelly Clarkson released Breakaway. I added some information to it, mainly regarding Breakaway. I also addded the discography table there. I would like to upload some photos in the article, it doesn't have any. I don't know how to do it so can someone please add them? Also, anyone who is fluent in French can please modify the article to improve its quality? Kelly Clarkson is now getting success in France. Because Of U recently entered the Top 20 and is currently the best video there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rd21 (talkcontribs)

In order to upload images on the French Wikipedia, one would have to register an account. Now, I may be Canadian, but I am barely fluent in French and can only speak a fragment of what residents of Montréal are capable of emancipating from their throats. Therefore, it would be very difficult for any one of us whom do not speak French to succeed with Clarkson's article on the French Wikipedia. —Eternal Equinox | talk 16:29, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Early life

Although it is widely believed/reported that Clarkson's LA apartment "burned down", it isn't exactly true. The confusion is perfectly understandable since the event's been misreported frequently.

A partial fire at the apartment complex did occur causing extensive damage and displacing approx. a dozen people in the 71 unit complex (per Fox News 11 report). However, Clarkson's and her roommate's apartment wasn't visibly damaged. Definitely didn't "burn down". Video of this event is at [[1]]. Download the Inside Edition 2002 vid. It shows Clarkson at the complex post-fire, discussing the fire, saying "We were lucky", and jumping on the bed.

Someone else can reword the correct information about the fire however they wish. 01:09, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Gay film

If you don't want to use the words "Gay film" you need to state something that gets the idea across that it was a questionable/"sexual content" film (of course they carefully emphasised that it was NOT porn. . . . exactly, nothing graphic). The point is that she was desparate enough to take the role. Without that it sounds like she was getting roles - so why go home? It confuses the facts. Frankly I think that "Gay film" sounds better than "soft porn video". It is not like SHE was playing a Gay role - but you deleted the phrase that clarified that. -- 21:11, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

This film is never mentioned by Kelly, anyone doing an article on her or on any of her fan boards. I can't help wondering why you feel it's so important to include. - Maria202 21:49, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Well, it is as important as the Sabrina reference. She did do this. Actually I would suggest using the wording "sleazy film" but it does not sound very encyclopedic. Maybe "cheap video"? Although I don't know for a fact that it was cheap, but it gets the point across that she was desparatly trying to make it in Hollywood somehow. -- 22:06, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
I'd heard she did it as a favor for a friend. Do you have proof she was paid for her appearance? She'd have received at least scale for Sabrina since it was a tv show. - Maria202 22:31, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
There is no valid reason to mention that Issues 101 is a homosexual film. We do not state that Sabrina, the Teenage Witch is a heterosexual film; it wouldn't make any sense. Issues is not any more significantly important than Sabrina and even though she was desperate for money at the time, this does not expand upon the content very well. —Eternal Equinox | talk 22:34, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
I already took out the reference to "gay" before you edited it again. "supplied a role" sounds weird. And you can't just invent titles to articles that are the reference. -- 22:43, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
If you can source that she really did not get any money for this - then I would not mind removing the entire mention. It only has relevance in showing how hard she was trying to make it in Hollywood. But until then I am going to correct the article title and fix the wording. -- 22:56, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Actually, since you put it in, you should be the one sourcing that she did get paid. - Maria202 00:00, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
But the norm is that an actor gets paid for acting. There is no reason to think that Kelly did NOT get paid - except your statement. Therefore the mention should stay in. -- 00:34, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Currently, the reference is incorrect and there are grammar errors. I don't understand why the anonymous user is continuously conducting inaccurate edits. There is no point in mentioning that Issues is a homosexual film; this is better-suited for the article on the actual subject, evidently. —Eternal Equinox | talk 01:14, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Have reworded it to "and played a small role in the film, Issues 101", and I think that's all that needs to be said about it. It's worth mentioning insofar as it's her film debut. But the film and her appearance in it are both minor (the poster says "Cameo performance by Kelly Clarkson as Crystal" - no doubt added after she achieved fame). The subject of the film, whether it's homosexuality or nuclear physics, is irrelevant. Rossrs 08:19, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Her role in the film and the film itself should be at least briefly characterized. Wiki is not paper; we've got room. Everyking 08:28, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Why does the reference say "A Biography of Kelly Clarkson"? There is nothing in or near that source article that says that. -- Michigan user 12:59, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I changed it to mention it's a gay film. That is the film's most notable characteristic, and it is otherwise obscure; a brief characterization such as that is appropriate. The argument that we don't call Sabrina a "heterosexual show" is incorrect, because the central idea of that show isn't heterosexuality—the characters just happen to be heterosexual. But this film apparently is based around addressing homosexuality. Everyking 11:22, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

To use "gay film" as a term is POV on behalf of the author of the Yahoo article and it's unencyclopedic here despite the fact that it's quoted from source material. I don't see a problem in categorising the film although I don't think it's necessary, but it should be reworded to make it less vague, and less colloquial. I think "played a small role in the gay-themed film, Issues 101" would be better. This is the term used twice in the article itself and quotes the film makers/promoters. There is no arguing that it's "gay themed" but "gay film" is just too broad. Also the word "supplied" is awkward. Actors play roles, they don't supply them. I'll change it. Rossrs 12:07, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Well, I don't know anything about the film's content, so I figured I'd just quote what the article called it, to prevent any inaccuracy on my part. Everyking 13:40, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
No, I don't know anything about the film either, only what I've read in the Yahoo article, and I looked on IMDB. I can't even figure out what Kelly was required to do. Rossrs 13:57, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Apparently, her role was to accept a sexual invitation and then walk off with the guy. Everyking 14:03, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure. Does anyone else have a comment about the writing in its current form? —Eternal Equinox | talk 19:43, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
It absolutely NEEDS the reference in there as that is the source of the information. -- 11:18, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
That is factually incorrect — wouldn't we require a reference for Clarkson's appearance on Sabrina? —Eternal Equinox | talk 19:39, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Agree. When the term "gay film" was used in a previous version, the reference was necessary because we were quoting the term used in the Yahoo article. It had to be clear that we weren't using the term ourselves - that would have been POV. Now we're saying it's a gay themed film and Clarkson was in it. Nothing controversial or open to discussion there. It's a fact. We've linked to Clarkson's page at IMDB at the bottom of the article and anyone who wants to check it, can do so very easily. We should avoid cluttering the article up with needless references - this one is absolutely not needed. It would also be wrong to use the reference, because we have used nothing from the Yahoo article. Rossrs 22:00, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I agree. —Eternal Equinox | talk 12:28, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
The existence of a reference is necessary anyway, quote or not. Our information needs to be clearly and easily verifiable. Clutter—who cares? The reader will be more concerned about our accuracy and verifiability than any so-called clutter. Everyking 08:24, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
What's to verify? Does Meryl Streep have a reference for every film mentioned in her article? Or any other actor/actress/director/singer/entertainer? Today's featured article, Diane Keaton has 11 films mentioned just in the lead paragraph and not a single one of them referenced. This should not be causing confusion to any readers and I'm sure it's not. All we are saying about Issues 101 is : 1. Clarkson was in it, and 2. it was gay-themed. There's nothing controversial or disputable here. It's no different to saying The Godfather was a drama, or Annie Hall was a comedy set in New York - nobody is going to contradict statements like this. As for clutter - a lot of people do care. Verifiability is very important but in this case it's not necessary. Rossrs 11:31, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Good article

I thought this article was good enough in its current form to justifying confirmation of Good Article status, after someone else recently nominated it. (I did take the opportunity to do some light copyediting.) Well done to those who've worked on the article, and good luck in improving it further. Metamagician3000 11:11, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Studio album addition?

I'm considering adding a reference to her third album in the 'studio albums' section. Probably something like 2006/2007? Unknown. Something like that. Bye! MorwenofLossarnarch 16:18, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure. If it is currently untitled, I don't believe it should be included yet. —Eternal Equinox | talk 23:16, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I'll preview it and see how it looks. If it looks bad, then I'll kick it. MorwenofLossarnarch 14:44, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Referencing of film failure in lead section

I have taken the time to locate two references which indicate the failure of From Justin to Kelly at the North American box office and with a few critics. With the material now sourced, the information in the lead section should no longer be removed since it no longer leans on breaking the neutral point of view policy. —Eternal Equinox | talk 23:16, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I'll let you slide on this one. The line "it was not well-received by critics and fans" should actually say "it was not well-received by critics by Pete Croatto". Your POV and weasel word is the unamed fans. --Supercoop 21:00, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
EE - I see you have worked on the opening sentence. Now that shows good faith so lets agree to integrate that line into the body of the article. I would like to have a good intro for her without negativity so soon. Let try re-writing the opening paragraph to talk only about her and then we can talk about the disastrous movie debacle. --Supercoop 15:07, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


Is Kelly Clarkson's mother full Greek? The article doesn't state any other ethnicities yet Jeannie Ann Taylor is most certainly not a Greek name. Can anybody clear this up? Cypriot stud

I'm just curious why she has to have a full Greek name in order to be Greek? —Eternal Equinox | talk 13:50, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

She got the name 'Taylor' from her second husband (Kelly's stepfather) Jimmy Taylor. How can anyone determine what nationality a female who has been married twice is from a last name? If you really want to get down to it, Kelly's last name was originally CLARKSON, it was changed by her family before she was born due to a serial killer itn he same town having the same last name and them being harrassed for it (source: Kelly herself in more than one interview). ~kellysgirl

I didn't say that one must have a full Greek name in order to be Greek, but the name Jeannie Ann is most definitely not a name a born-and-bred-in-Greece Greek would ever be called. It would be useful if some information on this could be retrieved. Like if she changed her name (from Ioanna I would imagine) or goes by an American name.

But still, referring back to my original question, is there any strong piece of information that confirms that Jeannie Ann is Greek?

Cypriot stud

I am not quite sure, sorry. —Eternal Equinox | talk 22:38, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Her mother was born "Jeanne Anne Rose" - Taylor is her re-married name. But of course, Jeanne Anne Rose isn't any more Greek than Jeanne Anne Taylor. Mad Jack 17:12, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
This article states something different. [2] Michael 02:23, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

What does it state different? It doesn't say anything about her mother's birth name Mad Jack 06:40, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Umm...No, I was talking about her heritage. Instead of Welsh, it says Irish, and it also says she is German (as well as Greek). Michael 06:53, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, as for that, I have got no clue. I've seen an interview she says "I'm Greek" (cited on the List of Greek-Americans). I have not seen any other first hand info - be it Welsh, Irish, etc. And quite obviously, the site you used is a trivia website that probably got its info from the old IMDB piece that said she was Irish and German. So I don't know about her father's ancestry from a reliable source. Mad Jack 07:14, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, well, it was stated on IMBD? I see... Michael 21:49, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

The IMDB used to say her father was Irish and German. Now they say just Irish. This apparently quotes [3] a Q&A done with Clarkson's friend, who says Clarkson's grandparents were from Wales. Seems reliable and trumps any IMDB claim Mad Jack 22:52, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, good, then... Michael 00:02, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

KElly and her family are American's... where her ancesters are from has no relevence to her career. Maverickfl 03:26, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

FA nomination

Do you think this is good enough to be an FA? I'm considering putting it up. A second peer review before that is always an option. TheKillerAngel 17:12, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

The article is not ready for featured article status quite yet. I do believe that it is prepared in the sense regarding references, but I don't think it would become an FA based on the current content, especially since nobody — including myself — has taken the time to write about Clarkson's film career yet. In addition, there should be more information on her "Image", and a section titled "Artistry" which is currently present at featured article Mariah Carey could be developed. Any comments? —Eternal Equinox | talk 18:48, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
Should we put up a "to-do" list for this article? TheKillerAngel 18:54, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
TheKillerAngel, Eternal Equinox isn't exactly the person to ask when it comes to a site's chances as a featured article. I think this page has what it takes, and it wouldn't hurt to give it a test run and see what people think, then go from there with the comments they make. If you nominate it, I'll vote to support. :) HeyNow10029 03:44, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

It would be diffacult to completely document Kelly's film career since she was an extra in several tv shows and movies before going on Idol. The only known footage available is Issues 101 where she was paid to have a one line bit part, That 80's show where she was an extra, Sabrina the Teenage Witch where she was an extra, Fro Justin To Kelly where she was a costar, and her many appearances during and after American Idol. All of her jobs before IDol as an extra went uncreditted except for Issues 101 which slapped her name on everything hoping it would sell the movie on DVD. ~kellysgirl

Nonetheless, the film career she has managed would be notable as it currently stands. Yes, a "to-do list" would be appropriate. —Eternal Equinox | talk 22:39, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Before Your Love

Why is "Before Your Love" constantly being removed from the article? It was in fact a single released with "A Moment Like This", and did in fact reach #1 on Billboard. It actually received radio play before "A Moment Like This" and reached the charts first.

Some people here seriously need to do some RESEARCH and stop argueing with those who have followed Kelly's career since the beginning. ~kellysgirl 8 May 2006

Please sign your message with four tildes (~~~~). See Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages. Going back to the article; can you provide proof, in the form of an article or reliable website? TheKillerAngel 21:08, 9 May 2006 (UTC).

I took another look. That song is included with A Moment Like This. Check . TheKillerAngel 21:14, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

But there was a video for the song. It was featured on MTV's Making the Video and it was directed by Antti J. Want proof? Look here and here. Anthony Rupert 19:19, 25 November 2006 (UTC) was a single....I believe, unless I'm mistaken, that A Moment Lke This/Before Your Love was a double A-side single....and I have both of the videos on I'm sure it was. 06:07, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Breakaway Album Singles

The song "Breakaway" was a single by Disney Records before the Breakaway album was made. It is not an official single from the 'breakaway' album.. which means.. Since U Been Gone is the first single from the album itself. Behind These Hazel Eyes is the SECOND single from the album. Because Of You is the THIRD single from the album. Walk Away is the FOURTH single from the album. ~Kellysgirl 8 May 2006

How many times do you have to be told to sign your posts with four tildes? And you should realise that Breakaway was on the album, so technically it is a single FROM the album. Another thing, it was what the articles call a stopgap, which means that it was a point between albums. MorwenofLossarnarch 18:02, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

A chart position of 101 is non-existent. Billboard's chart only goes up to 100 spots. A song Bubbling Under at #1 is not necessarily chart song 101 because a song that hasn't gone recurrent could theoretically drop off from, say, #95 down to #101. That song would not be listed on the Bubbling Under chart because it already charted, but it would still be ahead of Bubbling Under #1 even though it can't be seen. Therefore any chart position outside of the top 100 should not be listed and should be removed. "The Trouble With Love Is," therefore, should be listed as a non-charted song and not as a peak of #101. 16:06, 24 August 2006 (Dave)


Should we archive at least some of the discussions, as this talk page is extremely long and many of the discussions are no longer active. MorwenofLossarnarch 18:06, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

It'd be a good idea. —Eternal Equinox | talk 19:39, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

How exactly do you archive a page? Is there a Wikipolicy on it? MorwenofLossarnarch 13:33, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Nope! There is not a Wikipedia policy, let me complete the procedure. —Eternal Equinox | talk 22:14, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Process complete. —Eternal Equinox | talk 22:19, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! MorwenofLossarnarch 02:03, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


Should we make an article on Clarkson's new song 'Go'? I personally don't think so, but others might differ. Bye!MorwenofLossarnarch 16:12, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

No, it has not been released as a single. —Eternal Equinox | talk 17:39, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Yep, just what I was thinking. MorwenofLossarnarch 22:32, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Go isn't even a new song. It's just the jingle for the Ford Commercial. It's been on the commercials even before she was on them, so it is NOT her song.

I just went to Kelly Clarkson's concert in Irvine, and she is going to release that song on her new album due out in 2007. She was in the studio and recorded "Go" as a full song.

Kelly's exact words about Go at several concerts was 'It was written 2 years ago'.. and that was it, never any mention of it being a single, or on any album. There is video from each concert of the addicted tour and KElly talking about go before she performs it, which verifies. Maverickfl 03:14, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia's focus?

I am new to the editing and review of Wikipedia. But as someone working on their PhD in history, I can't help but wonder why Kelly Clarkson rates such a long and detailed entry, when Carole King's entry is a third of the length of Clarkson's. It's not that I am biased for or against one or the other. I am just trying to understand why someone (King) who wrote over 500 songs that are well known to the American listening public does not warrant the same amount of detail as someone (Clarkson) who won a television contest. Again, not that I am biased for one or the other - I am just trying to understand. Is it because Clarkson is a current thing? I recognize that cultural importance is hard to gauge and measure, but are current things more important to the Wikipedia audience than historical things?

Merle rickard 14:29, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

It's because Wikipedians have written more about Clarkson than about King. One principle of Wikipedia is that there is no limit on the amount of content there can be (limit on the size of an article, sure - but that just means that overlarge articles get split into smaller chunks). Wikipedia has no focus beyond the simple fact that Wikipedians write about what they know and what interests them. Wikipedia, fundamentally, is written for its writers, not for its audience. Richard Gadsden 18:15, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
It's simply due to the fact that Kelly Clarkson is a current star - she's in the public consciousness much more than Carole King, so people tend to write more about her. That and Kelly's fans probably use the internet a lot more than Carole King's fans. Article length really has little to do with importance of the subject. But feel free to write more about Carole King. GrahameS 23:34, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Image on left side

Could I ask Hotwiki why he is constantly placing the image of Clarkson on SNL on the left side of the screen? This results in the music-sample box and the image to force the content and text to the middle. Is this necessary? —Eternal Equinox | talk 17:49, 4 June 2006 (UTC)


Info on Clarkson's third album

I'm going to add some information on her third album, and I can source it here: Signed, MorwenofLossarnarch 19:32, 11 June 2006 (UTC)


Hi! There's a problem on the italian article is translated from this one and we suspect that it's copied from Is that right? Is the site that has copied from wiki? Thanks and excuse my bad english. Amon

The site is most likely copied from the wiki. Look in the article's edit history. Øřêōş 18:05, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

a good site

I would like to include as one of the external link for Kelly Clarkson. can you please advice. Thanks. Heart Malta 03:07, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

It's alot better to have content and not links, I think it would be preferable to see how said links meet WP:WEB. Yanksox 03:09, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Links to external 'fansites', is alloowed under Wikipedia guidelines, and can be beneficial to articles, providing the fansite is popular and resourceful (the one mentioned here seems to be just another under low scale, low price hosted fansite like hundreds of others) Maverickfl 03:24, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Free-licensed images

I've restored the free-licensed images I inserted earlier today, because the ones that were previously on the article were fair use. Per Wikipedia:Fair use criteria, "Always use a more free alternative if one is available. Such images can often be used more readily outside the U.S. If you see a fair use image and know of an alternative more free equivalent, please replace it, so the Wikipedia can become as free as possible." Remember, this is a free content encyclopedia: unfree material should ideally be kept to a bare minimum. Extraordinary Machine 23:12, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Some changes

I think the images of Kelly during a concert should be removed. It is not clear and we do not even see Kelly on there, she's so small. And the TRL Stats can be moved to the discography section. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 08:23, 15 July 2006.

Yes, but those images are under a free license and we're supposed to use them wherever possible. Though they're not of the highest quality, I think both are clear enough that you can identify Clarkson and tell that she's performing on a stage. I think the TRL stats should be removed; this info is better suited to the single articles. Extraordinary Machine 22:11, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Why do the free-licensed images keep being removed? I know the concert ones aren't the best (though I've been told that free images should take precedent regardless of quality), so I've left them out for now, but Image:Kelly Clarkson in February 2006 cropped.jpg is a very good quality image, at least at the quality level where we can't argue "fair use" on any other image. Extraordinary Machine 13:45, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. The quality is not good at all. It's an encylopedia article on someone and you can barely make out their face on the front page image. She's looking down you can't even see her face. What's the point if you can't make out who the subject is? Just try to find a better image. TheKillerAngel 23:05, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Film/Acting Career

I'm starting a section on it. TheKillerAngel 23:06, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Templates proposal

I've outlined a proposal designed to clean up the clutter of the templates at the bottom of the article here and would appreciate comments. If I don't reply here, please remind me on my talk page! EVOCATIVEINTRIGUE TALKTOME | EMAILME | IMPROVEME 12:09, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Breakaway Section

The Breakaway Section is becoming too long. Anyone who wants to edit the article to make it shorter but of good quality is welcome. I also think one photo is enough.

TRL video stats article

What happened to it? It's gone. TheKillerAngel 19:04, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Changes to lead

I added a sentence on Breakaway to the lead section, since it's represented a major point in her career. I also removed the part about From Justin to Kelly, since it hasn't really been a major point in her career - she hasn't done any other acting and she's not well known for the movie at all. GrahameS 23:49, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


Which reference states her ability to sing in the whistle register? Wiki is really cracking down, so if one isn't already there, someone should add one fast. Unfortunately audio proof is no longer enough. It sucks, I know.


I really love this article because of course its about my favorite singer kelly clarkson. It has updated information and all of it correct.

Same here,I LOVE HER! ( 08:55, 20 February 2007 (UTC)). - highly rated?

Let's get a discussion going here regarding and whether or not it's highly rated. What's the story here? Who thinks it's highly rated and what is the proof? —Wknight94 (talk) 02:44, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

There is no rating system on which it was rated "highly". It is a fan website, which is what it should say. The website's owner keeps editing to make the site look good. -- 02:56, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

What's up with this edit? —Wknight94 (talk) 03:05, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
I do apologize for that. A friend did it while screwing around on my computer. I didn't realize it until I got the warning, and went to check it out. I didn't know how to do see what was written. Anwyays, that's when I began to change it to just a "fan website." -- 03:07, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
the first edit by this person was, and this is a direct copy and paste from the history.. — a poorly made but frequently updated fansite made by a pedophile -- which i placed the warning template on their talk page for, someone else reverted it, and the edit they did after as well. That alone should be enough proof that they are simply on a personal attack and the fact that several days later, are still editting the lin, which was placed there by someone other than myself, should be proof enough that the first edit was indeed them on that IP address, which reports back as University Of Austin, TX (yes, I followed the wikipedia guidelines on it from the start) Alankc 03:13, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Like I said, it was my friend on MY computer, so of course it'll be the same IP. :) -- 03:17, 12 October 2006 (UTC) has explained that and we need to assume good faith. One other issue is that WP:EL#Links to be used occasionally states that one fan website may be appropriate but there was already an official one present in the article. Another issue is the WP:NPOV policy which would lean towards removing the "highly rated" note without proof. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:19, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

It's still your computer, and your the one insisting on changing the link. If it wasn't for that first edit, I would not care at all about the edit. The first edit, as even wikipedia states in the warning template, leaves YOU open to a lawsuit, no matter who is on your computer, your responsable unless you can prove it was done without your knowledge. If it was a "friend", you should be more aware of what your friends do on your computer. Alankc 03:20, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't mean any disrespect but give it a rest. You aren't running anything here, Wknight is. We already settled this. -- 03:33, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
That's not helpful. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:34, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Okay, granted. Now back to the article in its current state... —Wknight94 (talk) 03:22, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
I'd be fine with the link not being there at all, but someone is bound to just add it again. Alankc 03:22, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Do we want to make a deal that the link can stay but the "highly rated" attribute goes? —Wknight94 (talk) 03:30, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
whichever you decide is fine with me. Honestly.. msot of the large KElly Clarkson fansites are gonenow, it's almsot the last of it's kind, which is why I think it was placed there to begin with.. it is a source of accurate and docuemnted information that has been used in this article. I'm not just saying it because I own the site, I own many other celebrty sites, fan and official, I dont have their links on any wikipeida pages. Alankc 03:34, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Then we'll consider this issue closed for now. I recommend everyone take a short break from this article to cool down!  :) —Wknight94 (talk) 03:40, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Edit war

Please don't edit war. The article has been protected while this highly rated issue is discussed. As an outsider I think it is POV to described the fan site as highly rated since there is no criteria for judging the goodness of external sites. --Peta 02:55, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup tag

Just did a little bit of editing. What needs to be cleaned up now? RaNdOm26 14:20, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

they are refering to the use of album covers in the article as stated in the use of album covers in the wikipedia guidelines (which states not to do it, having the album cover on the discography page is enough, however, they are letting it slide if there is a consensus to keep the images where they are on this page). In short, album covers and tons of images can make a page look tacky, or look like an advertisement rather than an article. They are also making referance to the album.single stats, and having any album/single info at all in this manner when there is a seperate article jsut for her discography (which keeps this article within the size limits of wikipeidia article guidelines) Alankc 12:30, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Just Missed the Train

Hello, can someone explain the song 'Just Missed the Train' by Kelly CLarkson to me? I love the song, but I don't really understand it. Thank you.

KCFan, 11-26-06

missing a chance for a relationship with somebody, I believe...I could be wrong. 06:11, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

That would make sense! Thank you so much!

-KCFan, 12-1-06

Sorry if this is a bit rude (and dated), but this talkpage is not for the discussion of such. If you want to see song meanings, go to TheKillerAngel 22:51, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Third album

Please stop adding information about her third album if you cannot source it! It'll just be removed from the page. If you have any information about it, add it to the article unless you are unable to cite it in any way. Øřêōş 18:10, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

yeah as new single

someone should delete that information unless that person who put it has the citations needed >.> Blackred9 06:37, 15 January 2007 (UTC) January 14, 2007

I removed it and changed other information regarding the third album as nothing has been announced, released, or confirmed as of yet and it is all heresay at this point in time. Even if Kelly herself says a song will be released or on the album, until management has a press release and/or confirmation, things can, and usually do change. Alankc 22:21, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


This article stayed vandalized for over six hours until I reverted it just now. Usually that sort of stuff gets reverted within seconds, but this time it slipped through the cracks. *Dan T.* 13:34, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


someone deleted all the popular culture what the ...! 05:25, 19 January 2007 (UTC) January 18, 2007

Fixed it. That user blanked out quite a few sections. Maria202 18:59, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


Check the discography section when it talks about Breakaway. First it says the U.S. certification is sextuple platinum, but then it says the sales are 5.6 million. Which is it? Anthony Rupert 01:05, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I was working that one out myself. I'll look the album sales up. Acalamari 02:42, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Sadly, I think 5.6 million, not 6 million, is correct. However, finding a good source for this is a problem. A page on her website said that she had sold over 5 million copies of her album, but that was from about a year ago, and I'm not sure how many exactly have sold now. Acalamari 02:52, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
RIAA certification is based on units shipped by the label to retail. Sales are based on units sold to the consumer. Both are correct. - Maria202 03:29, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
I corrected the label so it's not so confusing. - Maria202 19:57, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Perfect. That's that sorted out then. Acalamari 19:58, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Christian artist

Kelly Clarkson should be put on a category for Christians.

Short article on Kelly's faith —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 01:35, 6 February 2007 (UTC).

No she shouldn't be: all because she might be a Christian doesn't mean she is a Christian Musician. I have dealt with the situation before, and have to continually explain. A Christian Musician is a musician who sings about Christianity, while a musician who is Christian is a musician who follows the religion, but doesn't actually sing about it. Kelly Clarkson's music is not Christian. Acalamari 02:48, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Then, she should be put in the american christians category, right?
Has she admitted she's a Christian? Do you have a reliable source to prove it? If not, no. Acalamari 16:36, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

"Too much trivia?"

The trivia section says,"This article's trivia section has too much trivia..."What do you mean too much it only has 3 trivia, who ever put that notice, please reply here, please? I REALLY APPRECIATE THAT! Thank you!(Trampton 03:53, 11 February 2007 (UTC)).P.S. If you don't explain why you put that notice, I will ask it to be deleted.

You can remove it if you want. I think it was tagged when the trivia list was long - then somebody cleaned it up and failed to remove the tag. You can do so if you want. Fighting for Justice 06:08, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for replying,please visit my home page at User:Trampton and you will find more about me,(Trampton 09:48, 13 February 2007 (UTC)).

Please replace the Olympics Picture with a updated picture

Someone please replace the main picture (Olympics Picture) with a much more updated picture. She has brown hair now! I think it should be updated with a picture from the Daytona 500. Thank You

Addicted2kc 03:32, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Awards and Nominations

I found a wiki page on Kelly's awards and nominations(more complete then the one on the article). I don't really know how to put it in though... so here's the link: Can someone put that in?(Also, they left out that Kelly was AOL Music's Artist of the year for 2005[4], so you can someone add that too.) Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 03:14, 25 February 2007 (UTC).