Talk:Clay Aiken/Archive 2

Fansite links
I notice that there are no less than eleven links to fansites. This strikes me as excessive, so which ones should make the cut? --Calton | Talk 5 July 2005 06:13 (UTC)


 * Clay Nation News, Clayversity, the Clackhouse, Openly Clay, the Clayboard and the Official Fanclub Board pretty much cover the spectrum of what a curious Wiki user wanting an entry into his fan board world would need. I would eliminate the rest that are listed, and add this ezboard site http://p081.ezboard.com/bchautauqua.  It is a comprehensive, chronological archive of concert and appearance dates, setlists, and recaps.  It is very complete and a useful reference. --User: WebTraveler July 5 2005 16:51

Listed fansites

 * http://clayonline.sparkart.com/?
 * http://www.claynationnews.com - Clay Nation News
 * http://www.findingclayaiken.com/

edited to remove extraneous links.

My general opinion is that the last three should be cut immediately, since they're not even dedicated URLs: it speaks of amatuerishness. What about the rest? I'm not really equipped to judge their value.

And come to think, what IS the value of linking to a fansite? What is there that is missing from/unavailable to this article? --Calton | Talk 6 July 2005 00:33 (UTC)


 * I don't think you're equipped to judge their value, period, as you seem to know little about them. The domain Snowcream.net is owned and operated by the admins of Openly Clay and is used exclusively for the Openly Clay board. The board may not have registered the domain name "Openly Clay" but the board is as professionally run as any other. And as mentioned previously, it is the only board that allows open discussion on all subjects and has no censorship. The Lecherous Broads may only be part of Diaryland, but they are one of the most popular Clay sites, and very different from other sites. Clay Nation News is also different from other sites and should be kept. As to the rest, most of them are indistinguishable from the others.

I know I'm not equipped to judge their value, because I wrote I'm not really equipped to judge their value. Reading comprehension is not big with you, apparently. You DO seem to have specialized knowledge, since you write they are one of the most popular Clay sites. Is there a Clay Aiken site Neilsen ranking that you're drawing on for this, or is it merely handwaving weasel words? Would you mind providing some verifiable data or comparisons instead of the angry handwaving?

The simplest solution would be delete all but the official fan club and be done with it and not ones being pushed by fans as their personal favorites. --Calton | Talk 6 July 2005 02:54 (UTC)


 * It's you who need to brush up on your reading comprehension. First, I am quite aware you said you were "not equipped to judge" the remaining fan sites listed. I was expanding that to include all Clay sites, as you obviously have little knowledge of them. This was not intended as the insult you took it to be. Second, I was not angry, I was simply giving my opinion on the various fansites listed. Ask any Clay fan about the Lecherous Broads and they will tell you how popular they are. Whenever they update their site it is posted on virtually every Clay board. Obviously I cannot quantify this, but anyone reading the Clay boards knows this. Also, you completely ignored the fact that I was recommending keeping a variety of different sites rather than simply picking ones based on whether they had purchased their own domain name or not. Openly Clay, Clay Nation News and the Lecherous Broads are all quite different from generic Clay boards and as such would have a broad cross section of appeal and interest. Others of interest would be the Clayboard (biggest fan site) and the Clay Dawgs (male Aiken fans).


 * The only links that are needed are the Official Fanclub

http://clayonline.sparkart.com/?


 * and Finding Clay Aiken

http://www.findingclayaiken.com/


 * The rest are personal favorites and are not needed.


 * Please, sign your posts, all of you who didn't. It's hard to tell when one person's comments start and another's end. Keep the official sites &mdash; keep, maybe, the three or four most popular (most visited?) fansites &mdash; keep Openly Clay for the sake of quantifying that contentious paragraph. That's my opinion. Hermione1980 6 July 2005 15:23 (UT


 * I agree with Hermione1980's assessment, though I still don't agree that Openly Clay's existence in any way quantifies the contentious sentence. That sentence and the fact that the speculation exists qualifies Openly Clay, if anything.  Most of the links listed are fluffy fan silliness with no unique content.  --User: WebTraveler July 6 2005 14:21

If you decide to include the Openly Clay link you'll be inviting elementary aged and middle schoolers who use Wikipedia as an online encyclopedia to visit a sex site. Its completely inappropriate. Of the hundreds of fansites, that each have their own special flavor, this one is not to be singled out and highlighted. Why not ClayNation Singapore or ClayAikenKids instead? I think you should not link to individual fansites at all. If you consider it then have one of the editors take a good look around Openly Clay. Get the admin to give you access to the members only area. If you don't do that you will be recommending a site irresponsibly. Are you willing to contribute to endangering the welfare of a child and inviting children to view pornography? Be sure you really know what you are doing. Think about how easy it is to ruin a public person. Sure you have the right to whatever you want to print, and you can hide behind your disclaimers, but is it the right thing to do?

This is a good man who tries hard to be a good role model for children. He's a spokesperson for Ronald McDonald House Charities, The US Marine Corp Toys for Tots, he is sponsored by Disney, he contributes to the Disney Hand charities and Youth Service America, he will be this year's Unisef Trick or Treat Campaign spokesperson. He has his own foundation, The Bubel Aiken Foundation, and he founded and implemented Camp Gonzo in several cities for the YMCA and has been on 2 Unicef Field Missions in the past 6 months. He contributes his time and money to other children's charities as well as several Aids charities. This man does not deserve to have his image destroyed in the eyes of the public and particularly children for the sake of a few people who get entertainment out of sexually objectifying him. These people don't care if they ruin him, they just want to have fun at his expense. Its a travesty!

--User: Miklos Szabo July 6 2005 15:19


 * You seem to be well-acquainted with Openly Clay's contents. I suppose that means you or one of your "circle of friends" are a member, since you keep talking about the members-only section. I am fairly sure there is something in the disclaimer stating something to the effect of "Wikipedia is not responsible for the content of sites linked to in its articles". We are not "inviting" anyone to visit any of the links listed anywhere in the whole encyclopedia. They are only listed here for further reading if you feel like it. Can anyone else involved in this discussion verify your claims about the content of Openly Clay? Hermione1980 6 July 2005 23:23 (UTC)

Hermoine1980 said, "However, I do think you are making a mountain out of a molehill about this paragraph."

So are you, Hermoine. May I ask why?

You also seem quite a bit more informed about the content of Openly Clay than you let on. I strongly suspect that you are a member and have an AGENDA!

Would you like posts from that site to back up the claims that it is not a good idea to link to it? You'd be amazed at the links to things I could provide you from various members.

There is a very good reason that Openly Clay could not get the domain name for their website, but I won't bore you with the details. It involves a whole lot of legalese and some VERY high-priced lawyers.

User:Marie Lavaux 6 July 2005 23:59


 * edited to remove content copied from a private, password protected website*

User:Miklos Szabo 6 July 2005
 * I'd venture to guess that this hand-picked missive is hardly representative of all of the forum's members. &middot; Katefan0(scribble) July 7, 2005 04:31 (UTC)

I would guess that you are a member as well, Katefan. You people don't hide your agendas very well. User:Marie Lavaux 6 July 2005
 * Uh, okay. What agenda is that, exactly?  If I were a member I wouldn't have a problem mentioning it, but I'm not.  Personally I find Clay Aiken to be a joke (sorry Hermione); I only came here because about a month ago someone listed it on RFC.  Beyond which, I'm a woman.  What interest would I possibly have in a gay Clay Aiken fansite? &middot; Katefan0(scribble) July 7, 2005 04:40 (UTC)


 * They are all women.


 * edited to remove content copied from a private, password protected website*
 * edited again to remove pointless and obviously inventive domain registry information*
 * This is getting into fan in-fighting that was cautioned against further up in this mess of edits. As the original matter of the wording of the statement has been conferred on and agreed upon by no less than three editors, I would suggest locking down this page. -- User: WebTraveler July 7 2005 05:00

So much for not believing in censorship. I guess you believe in it well enough when it doesn't suit your purposes. My posts did not quote anything from another board. They were personal opinion, but got deleted anyway.

User:Marie Lavaux7 July 2005

katefan0 and WebTravelor are trying very hard to end this discussion but the truth about the nature of the Openly Clay site can be proven. Hermione asked if anyone can back up the allegations that the members only area contains pornographic language and images. Entire edits have been censored and deleted to the point of removing signatures so that it looks like they never existed. A few were censored but the signatures remain. It is not a true reflection of how much is missing and the explanations for the edits are not true. The domain name registration info for snowcream.net is factual and on record with dreamhost.com

I saved this page before the edits. It can be re-created. These people (Openly Clay members) are bound and determined to keep the truth from Wikipedia. The evidence is repeatedly deleted. They call it a fanwar because they want to minimize the impact of the evidence that was deleted and they want to prevent the posting of any more. Openly Clay has a vested interest in keeping Wikipedia from the truth.

User:Miklos Szabo7 July 2005
 * You might like to be more careful with your allegations -- I haven't deleted any discussions. &middot; Katefan0(scribble) July 7, 2005 16:05 (UTC)

The format of this board is confusing so I hope I'm posting this right. I don't think the Openly Clay board should be linked or referenced here. I've seen the board and it is extremely hateful towards Clay. Why "fans" would want to spend so much of their time tearing someone down is beyond me, but I can only imagine that they have nothing better going on in their lives. That board should not be listed with actual fan sites.--Mouse316

section break and moved text
If you're going to continue to post these ridiculous diatribes that have nothing to do with ANYTHING here on Wiki, at least have the decency to put them at the end of the articles. I still move for protecting this page, it is quickly becoming among the most ponderous, and likely most pointless, of WP:RFC. - User: WebTraveler July 7 2005 19:37


 * "I have visited this site (the articles at least) many times as Clay's career keeps getting bigger and more diverse. And each time it disgusts me to see the gay reference here.  This has nothing to do with his career and why he merits and encyclopedic entry.  And to have Openly Clay listed as a fansite is a joke.  The entire Clay Nation, with exception of that site, knows that they are not interested in his career or him.  Their main interest is who they can match him up with.  They write disgusting fiction and photoshop disgusting pictures of him with every male in sight.  It has nothing to do with believing in or supporting gays.  The fact that he says he is not, he has NEVER been seen in anything compromising (such as their make believe pictures) and nothing has ever been revealed of life to indicate he is gay.  Basing speculation on someone's looks or movements is what is homophobic and stereotypical---not the fact that his fans don't want to hear it or read it.  I don't care who is or isn't gay.  But when someone says they are not, that is the end of the discussion and speculation.  Expecting someone to prove their sexualty of preferences is utterly ridiculous.  It's like taking the constitutional right of a person, innocent till proven quilty to the extreme---gay until proven otherwise.  Well, just how do you prove it to idiots who are adamant in believing it.  Even to the point of saying they don't care what he says, if he marries, who he dates---they believe he is and WANT HIM TO COME OUT.  These members of this board are mostly loners, depressed in real life--by their own admissions.  Read their board and you will see it.  Many have been suicidual.  They have found a fun game and hobby in running around the web insisting that Clay is gay everywhere they can.  They want his other fans to leave the fandom.  They love his hairdresser but not him.  They are ridiculous and it is totally disrepectful and pathetic that this site takes their word and views (of 300) over the thousands of loyal Clay fans on other boards---that are there to support his career, follow his music, discuss his music and charities.  Openly Clay only writes porn fiction and discusses where else and how else to stir up more on the web.  And yes, many people have tons of proof of what is behind the "closed doors" at that site. It is not something most people, and certainly not young fans, should be around.

A Fan who cares about Clay --- not a gay agenda."


 * I am fed up. I leave the decision of keeping Openly Clay as a reference between Miklos, Katefan, and whoever else might join this discussion. All I ask is that the last paragraph of the "Aiken fans" section be kept in the article. Hermione1980 7 July 2005 23:39 (UTC)


 * Thank You.

User:Miklos Szabo7 July 2005

I have a question. Miklos Szabo just removed an entire comment by MatthewUND regarding the fansite Openly Clay. Is this allowed? Shouldn't MatthewUND be the only one who can remove his own comments? Also I don't know if you are aware that while having Finding Clay Aiken as a link and removing most others is not a bad idea, it effectively links every fansite EXCEPT Openly Clay because Finding Clay Aiken refuses to link to that site. I assume Miklos Szabo is aware of this which is why he or she did it. If the general agreement here is to remove all reference to Openly Clay that's one thing, but please don't let one person with an obvious agenda dictate how you run your site. Thanks for listening. ---Clay fan


 * I find it quite revealing that none of the other fansites are here pushing to have their personal favorites listed. Many fans have come to read this site and have been concerned about the discussion but not one of them is pushing their agenda except Openly Clay. I don't appreciate the accusations or the personal attack by the way. I'm surprised you have the nerve to sign yourself as ---Clay Fan. Clay is a polarizing celebrity and there are those who would like to destroy him.

User:Miklos Szabo8 July 2005

There was no agreement to remove the link to Openly Clay so I put it back. It appears to be correct that Finding Clay Aiken does not link to it so it would seem right to link to it here. RBA 7/8/05


 * There was no agreement to include it by any stretch of the imagination. The default should be to remove it, unless it is agreed to include it. I see no reason why a link to a site that ridicules and humiliates Clay should be in an article about him. I'm sure that the sites that ridicule and objectify other celebs would not be deemed appropriate for a reference article that outlines a career, as opposed to a report on a specialized sub-set of women who entertain themselves at the celeb's expense and want to recruit others like themselves. The focus of an article on Clay should be on Clay. Openly Clay is not about Clay, he is merely the object of their obsession.

User:Miklos Szabo8 July 2005


 * No, no, no. Default should be to keep until there is a consensus to delete. It's like the process at WP:VFD. Something is kept unless there is a clear majority opinion to delete &mdash; say, 66-70%. I count myself, Katefan, Matthew, and an anon or two in favor of keeping; I count you, Marie Lavaux, and an anon or two in favor of deleting. That translates to no consensus, which translates to "Until there is consensus, it should be kept." Hermione1980 8 July 2005 18:10 (UTC)
 * By my count, pro keep: Me, Hermione1980, MatthewUND, Blu Aardvark, WebTraveler (who is a new user), and possibly others if we took a quickpoll.  Pro delete:  Miklos Szabo and Marie Lavaux, who are both new users (and have suspiciously similar talk page habits).  Unless I'm missing another registered user, that's a pretty strong consensus to keep. &middot; Katefan0(scribble) July 8, 2005 18:34 (UTC)


 * New is not less valid kate0. If the staff care to check, I am not anyone else here. If you OC people found the site first and have recruited others to create a very tiny majority, that may be temporary and the consensus is not in numbers but in the opinions expressed here. I see no counter arguments to the accusations made about Openly Clay. Is that because they are true? I know they are but if you ignore them its not looking good for Openly Clay.

User:Miklos Szabo8 July 2005


 * Sometimes new users' views are discounted, depending on the scenario -- particularly when it comes to official voting. Regardless of what the situation might be, it's common practice to note such information.  I didn't mean it to cause any offense.  Also, you should start using the standard notation to sign your posts -- if you type four tildes in a row, it'll automatically insert your user name and the date and time ( ~ ). It's much easier. Additionally, I haven't "recruited" anyone. All of us have been Wikipedians for quite some time, with the exception of WebTraveler. Besides, new doesn't mean less valid, right? &middot; Katefan0(scribble) July 8, 2005 19:45 (UTC)

Taking consensus of the few people involved in this discussion: bad idea. Openly Clay is neither a representative nor a popular website--just vocal. OC is not unpopular with many because of their focus, but, because of the way in which they pursue their agenda. If they succeed in getting a ruling that their web link should stay, they will be back with another controversial entry, such as, perhaps, linking the name of a particular individual to Clay's. It will not stop. I know that I'm new here, but I did make some positive contributions to this Wikipedia entry some time ago; I haven't been back in a long time. Just wanted you to know that there are others who believe that the link should not be there. If there were a long, long list of sites, that would be one thing, but the current listing creates a false impression about the types of sites that exist. There are literally hundreds!

Jmh123 8 July 2005 19:56 (UTC)


 * has never made any contributions under that username except two to this talk page. Not that that makes his her vote less valid, or anything, and possibly this user contributed under an anonymous IP address, but I'm just noting facts. Hermione1980 8 July 2005 20:07 (UTC)

Good grief! My IP address is not anonymous. And I am a she. I am a member of the O-fficial Clay Aiken Fan Club under this username. I'm an active member of the Clackhouse, Clayversity, and the Clayboard under a different username. Prior to that I was active at one time or another on RHT, WMS, Clayton's Place, Idol Forums, and That's The Clay, under that other username. Was a log-in required at Wikipedia back when this entry was being built? If there was, then I may have another identity here that I've forgotten about. Jmh123 8 July 2005 20:28 (UTC)


 * Calm down. My bad. It's a habit of mine to refer to any users whose username gives no clue as to their gender as "he". And I wasn't talking about your contributions anywhere, under any name, except those you have made under this username here at Wikipedia. I'm not saying you haven't contributed &mdash; far from it &mdash; I'm only saying you haven't contributed under this username. No offense meant at all. "Anonymous IP address" was probably a redundancy on my part &mdash; I only meant you contributed while not logged in to Wikipedia as a registered user. Hermione1980 8 July 2005 20:37 (UTC)


 * I'm just learning how this talk section works, and reading more of the discussion here. I have to say that on first observation, I was under the impression that everyone involved was a fan.  As I read some of the other areas of discussion on Clay's entry, it seems that this is not the case, thus my "credentials" above are more or less irrelevant.  I do believe there is at least one OC member involved in the discussion.  My concern here is not so much that link to OC, as it is with the assumption that the voices of so few people should be taken as any kind of consensus in the larger world of the readers of your encyclopedia.  As I have already said, if this battle is "won", there will be another.  The word "vocal" is well chosen in your first conflict resolution.  Linking to a fan site with an agenda creates an imbalanced perception.  I saw a mention above that indicated that 61,000 posts was an impressive number.  In the world of Clay fandom, this is peanuts--Clackhouse has 273,000 as of today, Clayversity 189,000 (and this board just opened in January).  The Clayboard lost most of its posts in the EZboard hacking incident, but there must have been millions.  Clay's thread on TwoP (Television Without Pity) has over 9,000 posts and well over a million views, and that particular thread is the most recent of some 25 or 30.  I am not a conservative Christian, and I have no anti-gay agenda. I am arguing against a fringe group that is using Wikipedia as a means to an end.
 * Jmh123 8 July 2005 21:25 (UTC)


 * ETA: I finally figured out what the "anonymous IP" lingo stands for here. In the world of the message boards I frequent, an "anonymous IP"--that is a disguised/undetectable IP--is used by someone in order to troll, that is, disrupt the conversations.  I realize now that here it simply means someone who is identified only by their IP.


 * Jmh123 9 July 2005 08:05 (UTC)

Katefan said, "Pro delete: Miklos Szabo and Marie Lavaux, who are both new users (and have suspiciously similar talk page habits)."

Did it ever occur to you, Katefan, that more than one person shares similar views? You know, kind of like how you and Hermoine, and every other person on this page who is advocating for keeping Openly Clay linked? One could presume you are all the same person, since you all have the exact same agenda and use the same tired arguments.

What it boils down to is that you are going to strong-arm your belief that Clay is gay down everyone's throats, and woe to the person who tries to defend what HE HIMSELF has stated! You all think you are so much more informed of his preferences than he is. It's hard to take the views of a group of women on the OC who are mostly psychotic, suicidal, come from broken homes, and want everyone they admire to be gay over a man that has done so much to try and show LOVE to people. That is a concept that none of you and your fellow agenda-pushers seem to understand.

Are all of you so horribly insecure that you need validation from others to hold onto your beliefs? Can you not feel good about yourselves in any way, shape, or form unless you bring someone else down to your level and recruit more yes-men?

You have yet to explain why the unfounded rumors about Clay have been included in your website. They have no bearing on Clay as a person. He didn't start them, and has denied them. Yet, you feel the compelling need to not only "inform" your readers about malicious gossip, but to link to a whole website that does nothing but further this approach.

You can try to explain it any way you like, but it makes you no better than the other mudslingers. I hope this has made you feel better about yourselves as human beings.

User:Marie Lavaux 8 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Read No personal attacks. I am not a "psychotic, suicidal&hellip;horribly insecure" woman who comes from a "broken home" and wants "everyone [I] admire to be gay". Neither am I a member of Openly Clay. I will admit I have been taking the word of Katefan and MatthewUND about Openly Clay's contents over yours and Miklos Szabo's, because they have exhibited more logical and cool-headed behavior than you and Miklos have. There has been an RfC, RfPP, and 3RR violation posted about this page already. I don't know what else there is to do.


 * Neither I, nor Katefan0, nor MatthewUND have "recruited" each other; we are all simply concerned editors, and we are absolutely not the same person. A check on our contribs will show a vastly different swath of interests; a check on our IPs would most likely reveal they are completely different. I am tired of your and Miklos' constant attacks on my and Katefan's integrity. You see us as "pushing an agenda"; we see you as biased and antagonistic (or I do, anyway; I won't speak for Katefan). There seems to be no compromise here. Hermione1980 9 July 2005 00:17 (UTC)

I was accused of being the same person as another poster. See how you like it, Hermoine. I didn't appreciate the attack on MY integrity, either.

As for your opinion, I couldn't care less. You are NOT concerned editors. You are agenda-pushers. If you aren't, then please answer my question about why it's so all-fired important to you to post mudslinging gossip about someone in your articles and link to a site that does nothing but more of the same. Until you can answer it - without the tired rhetoric about "not wanting to censor," you are going to continue to look like you have an ax to grind - whether you like it or not.

User:Marie Lavaux 8 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I have pleaded with you to go look for yourself, Hermione. The admins are now madly hiding and password protecting forums. How can you engage in this debate un-informed? It boggles the mind! What you are seeing is frustration that nobody will listen or investigate. Its maddening!


 * Miklos Szabo 9 July 2005 00:33 (UTC)


 * I don't think these personal attacks are helping our case one iota, but I'm sorry that everyone who argues against the link to the OC is now regarded as suspect. I do wish our voices were being heard.  I sympathize, Miklos.  I think your voice is passionate, but I haven't seen you attacking anyone except the OC itself.  Your depiction has been reasonably accurate to the best of my knowledge (haven't been there in months).  I guess it's too late now.


 * Jmh123 9 July 2005 01:21 (UTC)

Back to most records sold
BTW, Clay has still sold more CDs than Kelly at this point in time. His first full CD is over 2.7 million, his Christmas CD is over 1 million (certified platinum), his first single is over 1 million (certified platinum) and his single The Way/Solitaire sold over 350,000, which means over 5 million total so far. Kelly has sold about 4.7 million. My math says that means Clay is still the best selling. He is also the most successful in all aspects of Entertainment, not just radio. He has multi-platinum sales, more TV appearances and requests, more concert appearances and higher sales in tickets and money than any other idol. He is the only one to host his own show, of which he was an executive producer. He has written a best selling book. He has a hugely successful foundation that he started---that is getting major recognition from corporations and the US government. He is an internationally known Unicef Ambassador. He is becoming a much sought after keynote speaker on the education and humantarian circuits, with numerous appearances in the last 2 years---Caregivers, NEA, Pac Rim, Disney Teacher Awards, Toys for Tots, Unicef, and government agencies. I don't know how you measure success here, but he has it in spades over anyone else from AI. I think he is more successful than just someone on the radio, who has only to this point, been a singer and written a few songs.

AIFan


 * You are counting singles for Clay but not for Kelly, hardly fair. Kelly's article has her selling 4.7 million albums and 3.4 million singles, for a total of 8.1 million records, well more than Clay's 5 million.   Wasted Time R 8 July 2005 01:11 (UTC)


 * 3.4 million singles is impossible. RCA only released one physical single CD for Kelly. "A Moment Like This" Her total sales were well under a million. If someone is counting digital downloads of songs they don't count as single sales. Her only single was never released as a download. Clay had 2 physical singles. "This is the night/Bridge Over Troubled Water" sold just over a million and "The Way/Solitaire" sold 383,000 or so. She may have pulled ahead but not by much. His Sophomore Album will be out in Sept/Oct. Then he'll take the lead again while she goes into her own down cycle to prepare for her next CD. Its all cyclical and Kelly is 7 months ahead. Let's see how they stack up 7 months from now.

I notice that her radio singles are listed as platinum and 2x or 3x platinum in Canada. Do you realize that it only takes 10 thousand to reach platinum in Canada for a single? so 3x platinum is only 30 thousand and digital downloads of radio singles don't count.

User:Miklos Szabo7 July 2005


 * Since when don't paid digital downloads count as sales? They should; the Billboard chart uses them as part of their calcuations.  45s, cassette singles, CD singles, downloads, all just different technologies for delivering a single song.  That said, http://www.billboard.com/bb/charts/hot100.jsp shows a platinum single as having 200,000 paid downloads, so Kelly's two most recent (which are single and triple platinum) are 200,000 and 600,000.  The Kelly article may be thinking that platinum singles are a million downloads, which is inflating their singles calculations.


 * As to the larger point, you are right about cyclical releases and leapfrogging. Which is why it's silly for an encyclopedia to try to keep track of whether A or B has sold more records.  All these AI position claims should be removed from the articles.


 * As to the even larger point, who cares who has the most sales? There's room enough for both of them in the music world.   Wasted Time R 8 July 2005 03:03 (UTC)