Talk:Danny Gokey

American Idol
28 May 2009

I have attempted to add a comment pointing out that Gokey was never in the Bottom 3 during the season, a feat he shares with Melinda Doolittle and 5 winners of the show. I've tried to add this about 3-4 times but it keeps getting deleted. This is not an opinion, but a fact; it is non-controversial, and I had it properly referenced. I think this is a pertinent piece of information and belongs in this section. So I do not understand why it keeps being deleted. Can someone please explain? Heliotrope66 (talk • contribs —Preceding undated comment added 11:27, 28 May 2009 (UTC).

The external link is wrong and is a 404 -- her name isn't Sofia, it's Sophia, right? http://www.sophiasheart.org/

Personal Life
'Together for 11 years', would be nice to add how long they were married, if someone has the information with a source.
 * I added the source for this.

Prosperity gospel and FBIM
The external links to FBIM are unacceptable, and the fact that the church teaches prosperity gospel has no relation to Danny's notability. 05:05, 21 February 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Watershipper (talk • contribs)


 * You are quite mistaken. This is a central and core principal of the church and Gokey's foundation. He attributes his progress to his faith repeatedly. We don't just report on what we like but what is relevant to the subject.
 * It doesn't matter if I'm "mistaken." Those facts do not matter to Gokey's encyclopedia entry AT ALL. Additionally, there's no reliable sources that say what Gokey does or does not believe theologically. That -- and only that-- is what matters. This article is NOT a tract for FBIM, oneness doctrine, and/or the prosperity gospel, it's a biography of Danny Gokey. If you continue attempting to insert unsourced information into this biography, you stand a very good chance of getting your IP blocked. H2O Shipper 03:15, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You can take your bad faith accusations and pray on it. I'm not a member of the church but have certainly read about them as well as Gokey's blog and his foundation's website - it's all there. You can delete this all you want but it still remains true and verifiable. Oh, and thanks for threatening me with a block, unlike your user page mine doesn't lie. Although you may have started this page I wrote it - you're just trying to delete parts you don't care for.
 * WP:OWN Hermione1980 03:09, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Exactly, Watershipper doesn't own the article, I have only added true and verifiable material.


 * It has to have reliable sources, period. I'll not be "praying about" anything regarding this article, as that's not what WP is about. I didn't threaten you with a block at all. I warned you that if you continue trying to force unsourced and VERY poorly sourced material into a BLP, you risk a block. H2O Shipper 03:47, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You threatened to block me after accusing me of adding false material, check the record, every source added, it was from me. Everything added, true and verifiable. Go ahead and accuse me of anything you like it only shows you as a bully when I have been adding sourced material.
 * I can't block anyone. I'm simply telling you that you're edit-warring to try to include unsourced material in a BLP. If you keep doing that someone will block your IP from editing for awhile, as that violates WP:BLP. H2O Shipper 04:33, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I see you finally added a source, no new information but another source. It's a start at least. I think you're the one who is edit warring, I've only been adding true and verifiable material with sources. You've only been deleting material you don't like. Thanks again for reminding me that you're more interested in getting me blocked than writing the article - very constructive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.139.12.246 (talk) 21:40, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you serious? You've been trying to enter things that are not sourced at ALL, such as his supposed belief in the Oneness doctrine, and you're insulting ME? I'm not "interested in getting [you] blocked" at all. I'm telling you that if you keep trying to insert things that are not reliably sourced into a biography of a living person, the likely result will be that you could be blocked. That's not a threat, or a hope, or anything other than informing you about what the likely consequences of your actions. H2O Shipper 21:47, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * They are sourced Watershipper, you just like arguing and deleting everything about his religion which is central to who he is. He is a charismatic singer in the New Testament tradition and leads praise and worship at several church services each week. It's OK if your wrong just don't pretend your version of reality is correct and every one else should be blocked. It doesn't violate BLP if it is true and verifiable and well as notable to the person. American Idol doesn't strip away who someone is and neither should you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.139.12.246 (talk) 00:54, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh good grief! Find a reliable source that calls him "a charismatic singer in the New Testament tradition." All -- and I mean all -- I care about is keeping this article reliably sourced and relevant. He may be all the things you say. Until a reliable source (read: not an irrelevant blog) says them, they don't go in the article. Gokey seems like a genuinely good person, and I would like him a lot, from what I know of him. However, you are doing him no great service with your current conduct. H2O Shipper 01:02, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Good grief yourself, you're edit warring and arguing, again, about the same issues and yet I keep added sources and content to improve the article. Just go pick on someone else please. Enough already. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.139.34.174 (talk) 01:16, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

<---undent The sources you add don't support the CONTENT you have added that has had to be removed again and again, and not just by me. Hermione has tried to talk sense to you. Aspects has tried to talk sense to you. You won't have it. H2O Shipper 01:25, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Please show anything in the article that I have sourced that isn't true and verifiable. If not then move on. Your special brand of edit warring is hurting the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.139.34.174 (talk) 02:22, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You added a wikilink to the Oneness Doctrine article. Might be true, but not reliably sourced. You added (and readded when it was removed) external links in violation of WP:EL. Again, I'm not edit-warring with you. You've been reverted numerous times, by multiple editors. The only difference is that I've tried to engage you and explain what you're doing wrong. H2O Shipper 11:48, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Whatever you're smoking seems strong, maybe you should come down a bit first. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.139.23.124 (talk) 03:10, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Glad to see you're attacking me instead of actually responding to what I wrote. It doesn't surprise me one bit. If you continue to behave this way, I'm certain that someone will block you, as it's completely unacceptable. H2O Shipper 03:30, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Watershipper, you're simply full of hot air and misguided blame. The bulk of the article was written and sourced by myself although you seem to take ownership of it. Nothing I wrote was untrue or unverifiable. This has been response before but I imagine you will again choose to ignore it. Thank God other editors are more reasonable and wise than you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.139.23.124 (talk) 04:04, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It's YOU that has been reverted by multiple editors, not me. You keep trying to make it seem like I'm swimming upstream against consensus. YOU'RE the one doing that. You've been reverted numerous times, by more than just me. You've violated WP:OWN numerous times, just as you did in the above post. All -- and I mean, ALL -- that I've been doing is keeping unsourced things like the Oneness thing out of the article. H2O Shipper 04:20, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Whatever, keep edit-warring away! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.139.48.220 (talk) 02:40, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * To paraphrase a great movie: I don't think that means what you think it means. H2O Shipper 04:04, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Watershipper, give it a rest, I have added sources and brought the article into compliance with policies while you have filled up these pages. I have added all but one or two sources while you have worked to delete material, not because it was false either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.139.47.44 (talk) 04:13, 28 February 2009 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.139.9.33 (talk)
 * For the record, I had nothing to do with blocking your IP before, but you're going to get blocked again if you don't stop this stuff. H2O Shipper 01:11, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Performance Order #.
Please do not remove this. I integrated this into the charts very successfully last season. (This applies to all of the Top 12 contenders.) It is factual information, in that it is an indisputable order in which the contestant performed on that particular night. And it is relevant to anyone doing a review or synopsis of the show who wants to analyze statistics and such. (Notice how all 3 who performed last on their respective nights made the Top 12.) It is an especially good record one they all perform on the same night. Thank you.--Cinemaniac86Oy_gevalt. 00:24, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Are you some kind of a hypocrite? Gokey not in the bottom two, he was, didn't you notice that he was eliminated because he was the lowest vote getter for the top 3. I can see it every article related to A.I, and even Melinda. I believe it should only be for the Top 2 contestants for not having been in the bottom 2 or 3.

"Safe" versus "Top 2"
Ryan never said "this is your top 2" or anything like that. Unitanode 02:36, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe Ryan announced Adam, Kris, and Matt as the "bottom three." Therefore, Danny and Allison would have been the top 2.Bodypuzzle (talk) 04:28, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Jamar Rogers
I think the part about Jamar Rogers is pretty relevant for this page, but it seems to insinuate they met at the auditions and became good friends as the competition progressed. Correct me if im wrong, but I thought they went to the audtions together already being friends. I think it should be changed if I am right, because it really gives out the wrong message as it is, unless of course I am mistaken. :) (Kyleofark (talk) 17:20, 14 May 2009 (UTC))


 * According to this article they met at church and have been friends for three years. Paul Erik  (talk) (contribs) 22:13, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Yay i'm glad I wasnt talking crazy. I think the way the article reads now is much clearer :) (Kyleofark (talk) 18:25, 15 May 2009 (UTC))

Jamar Info
I found: Danny Gokey recently lost his wife and auditioned in Phoenix with his friend Jamar Rogers who got cut tonight. The 28-year-old music teacher has had solid performances through all three rounds of Hollywood..........

at this link

I Seek To Help &amp; Repair! (talk) 22:30, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

May 15th updates
Danny now has an official Twitter account (twitter.com/dannygokey). He discusses a deal in progress. AH WI (talk) 00:17, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I added the Twitter link and re-worded the foundation link. AH WI (talk) 04:16, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Reversions
Unitanode, I'm wondering if you could be more specific about your objections. The material I restored seemed noncontroversial and sufficiently sourced. Are you contesting the addition of the spouse as unsourced or the criticisms revolving around Gokey's back story? — Bdb484 (talk) 21:23, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * First, the stuff about Gokey's backstory is gossip tabloid stuff, which has no place in a BLP. Second, adding his wife's full name in is pointless, as it's not even showing up in the infobox. Unitanode  22:20, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see a problem with including hidden information in an infobox, but if you feel strongly about it, I'm willing to let it go. Your point about the backstory leaves me confused, though. In your edit summary, you called it "hidden, unsourced POV." It looks to me like the Yahoo source provides a pretty solid reference. Are you contesting its reliability, or is your concern just that the material doesn't belong in the article? — Bdb484 (talk) 22:53, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The problem is, claiming what that claims is inherently POV -- at least the way it was worded when I removed it. Unitanode  23:18, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you may be misinterpreting WP:NPOV. The rule says that you can't put your own point of view into articles, not that articles can't detail other points of view that are verifiable and presented through reliable sources. I don't see what the difference is between what you've done and striking, for instance, commentary from the judges. — Bdb484 (talk) 23:44, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * If you are able to gather consensus for it, fine. I find it inappropriate for a BLP. Unitanode  04:03, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, that's not how Wikipedia works (see (WP:IDONTLIKEIT). You don't get to remove relevant, appropriately sourced content because you don't like it. It's going back up. — Bdb484 (talk) 12:55, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Please refrain from lecturing me on the workings of Wikipedia. Two things I'm sure of: 1) Wikipedia works through consensus; and 2) blogs are NOT appropriate sources for contentious material. Find better sources, or it stays out. And if you continue trying to force it in, I'm pretty sure there's a BLP noticeboard we'll need to be taking this to shortly. Unitanode  13:48, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Your certainty on the question of blogs is nice, but it's actually not rooted in WP policy. There is no blanket restriction on using blogs; there is a restriction on using self-published blogs. The blog I was using as a citation is not self-published and is an acceptable source. Just the same, I went ahead and added some more. I hope you can accept Rolling Stone, Entertainment Weekly. Because I've found better sources, I'm assuming that you're OK with me re-adding the material and will do so now.


 * As a side note, you should revisit your interpretation of WP guidelines that have led you to believe that you need consensus to add new BLP material in article space. That is not the case. — Bdb484 (talk) 14:46, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Not "new material", but "controversial material", which this certainly is. I've removed it, and I've already posted this to the BLP noticeboard, to see if I'm being too stringent here. Let's see what they think before reinserting the text. Unitanode  15:03, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I guess I don't understand how you think this is controversial. I don't see how you can argue that the criticism didn't exist or that it wasn't covered in the various sources I've cited. Further, there doesn't seem to be anybody who objects to it besides you. I'd say that consensus is on my side.


 * In response to the comments at the BLP noticeboard, I'd agree with you about MJ's blog. I was not relying on it for my original edit and was basing the restore solely on the content in the Yahoo source. When I restored it, it was only because it was already there when I executed an undo. I don't care if it stays or goes. I'd disagree with you, though, if you're arguing that the Yahoo source is unacceptable because it is a blog. It is not self-published and is hosted by an organization with (de minimis) editorial credibility and a full awareness of the dangers of libeling someone.


 * However, your edit summaries seem to be suggesting that your problem is that the material is POV. As I mentioned before, I'm having trouble understanding what you're talking about when you say that. There was criticism of Gokey, the criticism has been addressed in numerous reliable sources, and those sources have been cited. — Bdb484 (talk) 18:26, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm going to keep this succinct, since I'm tired of running in circles with you. The "Yahoo source" is a blog, and they don't exercise anything resembling the editorial control of a newspaper. Furthermore, the Rolling Stone "source" didn't offer support for the most POV-ish wording, especially regarding "average" performances and the like. [Full Disclosure: I couldn't stand Gokey, and am in no way removing this out of some form of fannishness. BLPs are just different than normal articles.] Unitanode  19:04, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment. Get ready ... you're both right. The sourcing needs to be strong and reliable, some blogs are and some are not. Just because other Idol articles use a lot of blogs hardly means it's OK to do so here. Gokey, as well, has been shown in many reliable sources to be favoured with media attention because his story was featured early, prominently and repeatedly. It just wouldn't go away. I don't think you can call it a controversy, however. Find a neutral way to word it ala - "mainstream media noted that ____'s death was featured prominently and early in the season. RollingStone (or another credible source like Billboard speculated he rose higher in the finals because of extra sympathy" - or something similar. Billboard.com, or the most mainstream newspapers with Idol articles will likely help here.  -- Banj e  b oi   14:55, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking the time to comment here. My main problem was with controversial (and likely to be challenged) POV language like "average performances" and things like that being sourced only to blogs. One thing I learned from the whole Boothroyd kerfuffle is that BLPs are a very different animal than standard articles, so perhaps I suffer from an overabundance of caution in this regard. Unitanode  15:03, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * My feeble brain doesn't recall what the Boothroyd one was but yes, BLPs are extra watched mainly because American society is so litigious. Generally Wikipedia does a reasonable job of keeping nonsense off but not all the time. And what we write here is broadcast worldwide and accepted as true. So we need to use extra caution. -- Banj e  b oi   15:37, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

The meaning of the term "original artist"
This should not be rocket science, but the term "original artist" has a pretty clear definition in the context of the music industry. Whoever is the first to record and release a song is the person/group who is considered the original artist. An exception to this would be when a song becomes well-known based on unrecorded performances, as with a number of songs written for older Broadway musicals. This stands to reason as the word "original" generally refers to someone who is first. Lulurabbit has argued first, that every artist who performed a song can be counted as the "original" artist, but this is not a way anyone uses the term. Lulurabbit then argued that if we count the first artist then we must always count the writer because they always record it first. But this is also not how the everyone understands the term "original artist". If the writer records and releases the song first, then they are the original artist. But if it is just a demo that gets shopped to other artists, whoever releases it first is considered the original artist. This is the universally understood meaning of the term "original artist".

So for this article, if the column header for Gokey's American Idol performances is going to say "Original artist", then for "What Hurts the Most" the artist listed must be Mark Wills, for "Stand by Me" it must be Ben E. King, and for "Come Rain or Come Shine" it must be Sy Oliver with the Tommy Dorsey Orchestra. But if the artist listed is to be the one related to the theme of the week, then it should be Rascal Flatts, Mickey Gilley, and Frank Sinatra respectively and the column header cannot say "Original artist" because none of these are the originals. It should say "Theme-related artist" or something similar to that. I really don't care which of these two options is chosen. My only concern is that the article not contain claims known to be false. By universal understanding of the term "original artist" Rascal Flatts are not the original artist for "What Hurts the Most", so the article cannot make that claim. 142 and 99 (talk) 14:07, 2 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Lulurabbit, now you say, "Every other idol's wiki has the more popular 'original artist' listed. Danny's should be the same." This is not true. On some of the pages the header is "Original artist", and for those ones the original artist is listed (there is no such thing as "the more popular 'original artist' ", as only the first is the one and only original). Some of those listed are not the most popular or best known artist. On other pages the column header just says "Artist", which leaves it open as to who might be listed and why. But there is no idol page that has a column header saying "Original artist" where the artist listed is not the one and only "original" (first) artist. 142 and 99 (talk) 16:58, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Danny Gokey. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090321072938/http://www.wnct.com:80/nct/lifestyles/faith_values/article/american_idol_finalists_are_church_worship_leaders/32095 to http://www.wnct.com/nct/lifestyles/faith_values/article/american_idol_finalists_are_church_worship_leaders/32095/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 02:37, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Danny Gokey. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090421002658/http://www.wnct.com:80/nct/lifestyles/faith_values/article/american_idol_finalists_are_church_worship_leaders/32095 to http://www.wnct.com/nct/lifestyles/faith_values/article/american_idol_finalists_are_church_worship_leaders/32095/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 13:17, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Danny Gokey. 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:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20150911090802/http://www.jesusfreakhideout.com:80/news/2015/07/23.NewSongs%20Beating%20Hearts%20Tour%20Features%20Mandisa%20and%20Danny%20Gokey%20This%20Fall.asp to http://www.jesusfreakhideout.com/news/2015/07/23.NewSongs%20Beating%20Hearts%20Tour%20Features%20Mandisa%20and%20Danny%20Gokey%20This%20Fall.asp/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 18:27, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Danny Gokey. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160111190016/http://doveawards.com:80/nominees/ to http://doveawards.com/nominees/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:40, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Danny Gokey. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151118223244/http://www.missionmgmt.net/2010/03/10/danny-gokey-achieves-best-first-week-album-sales-by-a-debut-country-male-in-18-years/ to http://www.missionmgmt.net/2010/03/10/danny-gokey-achieves-best-first-week-album-sales-by-a-debut-country-male-in-18-years/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100213003745/http://www.jsonline.com/entertainment/83923832.html to http://www.jsonline.com/entertainment/83923832.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120426075846/http://obit.churchandchapel.com/obitdisplay.html?task=Print&id=559976 to http://obit.churchandchapel.com/obitdisplay.html?task=Print&id=559976
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120105113830/http://www.sophiasheart.org/news.php?city=Nashville to http://www.sophiasheart.org/news.php?city=Nashville

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:12, 21 December 2017 (UTC)