Talk:Clay Aiken/Archive 11

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Trying to cure the chronic logorrhea 1.1 With Paulus 1.2 Without 2 Compromise? 2.1 Paragraph using references 2.2 References

[edit] Trying to cure the chronic logorrhea

Here are two more proposals, since it appears mediation was unsuccessful:

[edit] With Paulus

Due to speculation that he is gay, Aiken has been the subject of gay jokes by Conan O'Brien, Kathy Griffin, and Mad TV, among others. While a few communities among his internet fan sites speculate about his sexual orientation [1], many do not. Aiken denied being gay to Rolling Stone in June 2003, and, when he appeared as the musical guest on Saturday Night Live on February 7, 2004 [2], he lampooned such speculation in the opening monologue, which featured him as a member of a gay men's chorus.

One of the most prominent examples of this gossip occurred in January 2006 when ex-green beret turned gay porn actor John Paulus told the National Enquirer and Howard Stern about an alleged sexual encounter he had with Aiken. To date, neither Aiken nor his representatives have acknowledged Paulus' claims, and have instead declined to comment.

[edit] Without

Due to speculation that he is gay, Aiken has been the subject of gay jokes by Conan O'Brien, Kathy Griffin, and Mad TV, among others. While a few communities among his internet fan sites speculate about his sexual orientation [3], many do not. Aiken denied being gay to Rolling Stone in June 2003, and, when he appeared as the musical guest on Saturday Night Live on February 7, 2004 [4], he lampooned such speculation in the opening monologue, which featured him as a member of a gay men's chorus. In early 2006, a new series of stories emerged, including alleged sexual encounters with men he met over the internet and an FTC complaint [5].

Even more to read, I know ... --Hamiltonian 05:17, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

• I know it seems to everyone that I'm in this to be an asshole, but I'm really not. I understand where you're all coming from as fans of Clay Aiken's even though it comes into conflict with my opinion. At the mediator's request I'm taking time off from editing this to clear my head and stress levels. Though I can't expect the same of everyone else involved, I think it would be nice if a week from now I came back and saw that there had been no discussion while I was on break. I think that we would all benefit from letting this go for a while and discussing it later. So it's Wednesday now, I propose we let it go until Wednesday, April 5th. I hope you all understand this is a sincere request, because despite the animosity I'd rather we came to a civil agreement instead of something being decided out of our control. For my part, when I return I will do my best to curb my sarcastic comments in the spirit of compromise, and hopefully we can all sit down and hatch something out gracefully. - mixvio 05:24, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

• I am fine with that as long as the article stays locked in the meanwhile. Note that I would go along with Hamilitonians second suggestion. -- 66.82.9.76 11:40, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Bringing over my last suggestion from the mediation with a few modifications, as an alternative proposal. OK with me to let all this go for awhile, providing the article remains locked. Edited to incorporate Maria's revision, which I think is good.

Due to speculation within American popular culture that he is gay, Aiken has been the mark of gay jokes by Conan O'Brien, Kathy Griffin, and Jay Leno, among others. While a few communities among his internet fan sites speculate about his sexual orientation, many do not. Aiken denied being gay to Rolling Stone in June 2003, and, when he appeared as the musical guest on Saturday Night live on February 7, 2004, he good-naturedly lampooned such speculation in the opening monologue, which featured him as a member of a gay men's chorus. More recently he has been the target of internet gossip blogs and tabloid allegations of a gay sexual encounter that have been repeated in other media. Early in 2006 he became the target of tabloid allegations of a gay sexual encounter, and that was repeated by internet gossip blogs and other media. He describes the incessant jokes and gossip as "like having a gnat in your nose. You just want to kill it. [laughs] It becomes unfortunately a negative part of what you do, and you need to kind of live with it. But if you could get up your nose and kill it, you would do it. [laughs] It’s not so easy sometimes." [6] -Jmh123

• I have no problem with waiting until 4-5-06 to continue this conversation. I also think that JMH123's suggestion addresses the fact that there were allegations, and notes the fact that they stayed at the tabloid and gossip level, and then counters with a comment from Clay, which is only fair. -- Michigan user 14:54, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

• Waiting is fine by me. Jmh123's paragraph is fine with me except for this sentence. "More recently he has been the target of internet gossip blogs and tabloid allegations of a gay sexual encounter that have been repeated in other media." I suggest "Early in 2006 he became the target of tabloid allegations of a gay sexual encounter and that was repeated by internet gossip blogs and other media." We do need to be clear on when this occured. - Maria202 15:48, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Compromise?

• Okay, so I know I'm early, but it's almost Wednesday. :P Hopefully we’re all sane and rested now. I know that you guys to varying degrees feel that Paulus doesn’t belong at all. I disagree (and were I the only one I’d drop it for the majority viewpoint, but I’m not) and I think he should be included. Unfortunately there’s no way to compromise that, so the only thing we can do (assuming we’re all willing to compromise and hopefully that’s the case) is make an agreement on the level of mention that Paulus gets here. So I offer this as my compromise and I hope that we can work with this before this issue has to spiral upward any further, because I’m sure you guys are just as tired of refreshing your watchlists as I am:

Due to speculation that he is gay, Aiken has been the subject of gay jokes by Conan O'Brien, Kathy Griffin, and Mad TV, among others. While a few communities among his internet fan sites speculate about his sexual orientation [7], many do not. Aiken denied being gay to Rolling Stone in June 2003, and, when he appeared as the musical guest on Saturday Night Live on February 7, 2004 [8], he lampooned such speculation in the opening monologue, which featured him as a member of a gay men's chorus. He describes the incessant jokes and gossip as "like having a gnat in your nose. You just want to kill it. [laughs] It becomes unfortunately a negative part of what you do, and you need to kind of live with it. But if you could get up your nose and kill it, you would do it. [laughs] It’s not so easy sometimes."

One of the most prominent examples of this gossip occurred in January 2006 when ex-green beret turned gay porn actor John Paulus told the National Enquirer and Howard Stern about an alleged sexual encounter he had with Aiken. To date, Aiken and his representatives have not acknowledged the claims in Paulus' story, and instead have relied on "no comment". Star Magazine did include the following response from Aiken's representative: "Clay's on a flying saucer with his alien parents, busy kidnapping monkeys. We cannot comment till he gets home from Pluto."

While on the whole I didn’t have much of a problem with Jhm’s text, I preferred Hamiltonian’s better. I think it was more neutral; “good-naturedly” tends to lean towards a bias when lampooning was fine as it was, for example. I know Hamiltonian was big on word counts and such but I can’t think of a way to shorten it while still maintaining the spirit of the original paragraph. The Aiken quote needs a citation though, since I don’t know where it came from. So here we are at a standstill. Wikipedia policy states “As counter-intuitive as it may seem, the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth.” We can verify that Paulus made the accusations. We can verify that National Enquirer and Howard Stern ran them. We can verify the response (and lack thereof) by Aiken’s reps. It’s not our responsibilities to check up on Paulus’ story to see if it’s true, and I don’t want it included because I think it’s true. I can’t think of any other way to cut the Paulus story down and I tried my best to remove all possible bias or word-choices that could imply I felt the story was true. Because, really, that’s not what I care about at all. So please guys, personal feelings aside, is there any way we can compromise on this text? I’m coming out to you with an olive branch and I’ve really got no further idea how to edit this if we can’t agree and I doubt any of us really have the patience to sit through another mediation or arbitration. Please everybody, work with me. :) Truce? - mixvio 03:04, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

• Well I see that your mediation did not work out. So I have to say that I do not think that this topic belongs in Wikipedia at all. This is an encyclopedia - and the topic is a scandal sheet item. To me it looks like a bunch of folks trying to leverage the story for attention. There are already rumors mentioned in the article - they cover this topic adequately just the way it reads now. I say leave it out entirely. Triage 11:20, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

The mediation had no bearing on whether or not it belongs. We're attempting to make a compromise on this before further steps in the dispute resolution process have to be taken and more of our time and lives get taken up by this issue. Don't get me wrong, I'm more than happy to keep this going if that's what it takes, but I'd rather this be decided by us on our own rather than have the admins weigh in. The mediation wasn't to decide if the issue belongs, it was to get us to compromise. I provided my example here on the assumption that we all really want Wikipedia to work out and are willing to make allowances with things we might otherwise disagree on. As has been made clear twice now, I'm not the only person who feels this belongs here, and I'm not even in the minority. So there's really no way to compromise that. The only thing that can be discussed is how much Paulus belongs here, hence my suggestion. If you disagree with this being here entirely, that's great and certainly your right, but I'd like this space to be reserved for discussion on an actual compromise, not another list of "no's" and "yes's." Again, I'm making the assumption, incorrect/stretched or not, that at the end of the day we all do actually want to get along with one another. If that's not the case I'm fine with asking the arbitration team to review the issue if we can't figure it out on our own. - mixvio 11:57, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

• Well, actually I agree with Triage that the article already addresses rumors, and adding detail is just gossip-mongering. However in the spirit of compromise I am willing to go along with Jmh123's suggestion, which mentions the episode and the tabloid coverage of it, and includes a comment back by Clay:

Due to speculation within American popular culture that he is gay, Aiken has been the mark of gay jokes by Conan O'Brien, Kathy Griffin, and Jay Leno, among others. While a few communities among his internet fan sites speculate about his sexual orientation, many do not. Aiken denied being gay to Rolling Stone in June 2003, and, when he appeared as the musical guest on Saturday Night live on February 7, 2004, he good-naturedly lampooned such speculation in the opening monologue, which featured him as a member of a gay men's chorus. Early in 2006 he became the target of tabloid allegations of a gay sexual encounter, and that was repeated by internet gossip blogs and other media. He describes the incessant jokes and gossip as "like having a gnat in your nose. You just want to kill it. [laughs] It becomes unfortunately a negative part of what you do, and you need to kind of live with it. But if you could get up your nose and kill it, you would do it. [laughs] It’s not so easy sometimes." [9]

-- Michigan user 14:43, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't consider Jmh's suggestion a compromise. It's not about expanding the rumor paragraph, it's about mentioning this specific story. Claiming "the rumors have already been addressed" isn't the issue, and a suggestion that omits Paulus isn't a compromise. - mixvio 14:52, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

• I honestly just want to get this over with. If the two sides are (a) mentioning Paulus and (b) not mentioning him, then a piped link seems like a compromise:

Due to speculation that he is gay, Aiken has been the subject of gay jokes by Conan O'Brien, Kathy Griffin, and Mad TV, among others. While a few communities among his internet fan sites speculate about his sexual orientation [10], many do not. Aiken denied being gay to Rolling Stone in June 2003, and, when he appeared as the musical guest on Saturday Night Live on February 7, 2004 [11], he lampooned such speculation in the show's opening monologue, which featured him as a member of a gay men's chorus. In early 2006, it was claimed in both the National Enquirer and on the Howard Stern show that he had engaged in a sexual encounter with a man that he had met over the internet. He describes the incessant jokes and gossip as "like having a gnat in your nose. You just want to kill it. [laughs] It becomes unfortunately a negative part of what you do, and you need to kind of live with it. But if you could get up your nose and kill it, you would do it. [laughs] It’s not so easy sometimes." [12]

Incidentally, I wish to get rid of the phrases "within American popular culture" and "good-naturedly" in any event. They seem weasel-like. --Hamiltonian 15:47, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Mixvio, I appreciate that you are now willing to compromise. Thank you.

I've taken part of Hamiltonian's paragraph and part of Jmh123's paragraph and put them together with my own edits. Now that we have agreed to address the tabloid stuff we cannot limit it to just one story since there have been a few in the past and more than likely will be more in the future. A blanket statement covering both the past and future is, in my opinion, the best way to go. To single out one story and give it more prominence than any other tabloid story is, again in my opinion, subscribing to POV and not adhering to Wikipedia guidelines of being NPOV.

• Aiken has been the subject of gay jokes by Conan O'Brien, Kathy Griffin, and Mad TV, among others. While a few communities among his internet fan sites[13] speculate about his sexual orientation many[14] do not. Aiken denied being gay to Rolling Stone in June 2003, and, when he appeared as the musical guest on Saturday Night Live on February 7, 2004[15] he lampooned such speculation in the opening monologue, which featured him as a member of a gay men's chorus. Aiken has also been the subject of tabloid speculation and in early 2006, a series of stories emerged alleging sexual encounters with men met over the internet. Aiken describes the incessant jokes and gossip as "...like having a gnat in your nose. You just want to kill it. [laughs]... It becomes unfortunately a negative part of what you do, and you need to kind of live with it. But if you could get up your nose and kill it, you would do it. [laughs]... It’s not so easy sometimes."[16] - Maria202 16:10, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I suggest we add a reference or notes section at the bottom of the page similar to what was done on the Kelly Clarkson article. - Maria202 16:40, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I've always been willing to compromise. That was never an issue. Again, though, this isn't about all the other incidents, and this specific incident HAS more notoriety than the other ones, which is why more prominence is perfectly valid and NPOV. The paragraph as I put it did not limit the story to the one incident, but it gave it more visibility because other tabloid stories didn't also go to Howard Stern and other people who claimed to have slept with him didn't also end up in gay publications like Next and HX. The issue that we have to compromise on is how MUCH Paulus is mentioned, folks. NOT whether or not he’s here. NOT whether or not we use his name. There’s no reason that he shouldn’t be here – as stated previously, Wikipedia’s guideline says that verifiability, not truth, is the determining factor. We can verify that Paulus made his claims, we can verify where they were printed, we can verify what his reps responded with. Ergo, there’s absolutely no reason why it should not be here. Hence, this isn’t the debate now. The debate is how much of Paulus we include and where. That’s why I provided my paragraph as such. If you guys don’t want to discuss that paragraph and instead choose to get back to the debate about whether or not Paulus belongs here when Wikipedia guidelines and standards clearly say he does, when two snap polls show that it’s not the minority opinion that he belongs, then let me know and we can vote on sending this to arbitration. - mixvio 16:33, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

• I could go along with either Hamiltonian's or Maria202's versions. A couple of things though. I think that the quote should be italicized, and I think that there should be a source link back to FindingClayAiken.com after the "speculate about his sexual orientation many do not" statement, because of several comments questioning the "many" - and yes there are many. -- Michigan user 16:59, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Done - Maria202 17:16, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

• How about using a similar linking strategy as what was used for the Openly Clay reference?
  
  Aiken has been the subject of [[gay]] jokes by [[Conan O'Brien]], [[Kathy Griffin]], and [[Mad TV]], among others. While a few communities among his internet fan sites[http://www.snowcream.net/openlyclay] speculate about his sexual orientation, many do not. Aiken denied being gay to [[Rolling Stone]] in June 2003, and, when he appeared as the musical guest on Saturday Night Live on February 7, 2004[http://www.saturday-night-live.com/snl/reviews/03-04/mullally/link.html], he lampooned such speculation in the opening monologue, which featured him as a member of a gay men's chorus. Aiken has also been the subject of tabloid speculation, and in early [[2006]], a series of stories emerged alleging sexual encounters with men met over the internet.<ref>see [[John Paulus]]</ref> Aiken describes the incessant jokes and gossip as ''"like having a gnat in your nose. ... You just want to kill it."'' [http://www.flymagazine.net/archive_bands_article.cfm?id=e6d73996]
  
  I experimentally shortened Aiken's quote, since it's a quarter of the paragraph text. Possibly the [laughs] should be removed too. I added a source for the quote, and italicized it (although it doesn't show inthe source above) as well.
  I don't like the added link to FindingClayAiken.com -- there's already a link below in the references section, and the point of the inline link to Openly Clay was that it was the only place that everybody eventually agreed on to put it. ArglebargleIV 17:25, 5 April 2006 (UTC) (slight typo removal by ArglebargleIV 17:28, 5 April 2006 (UTC))

I struck out the laughs - when you remove text from a quote you need to indicate you did so by using 3 dots ... - Maria202 17:46, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I put the web site reference in line because I haven't yet learned how to link it to the reference at the bottom of the page. I do think we need the reference to the many other fan sites. - Maria202 18:05, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Many other websites are already referenced below, in the fansites section. FCA is a bad link for your purpose anyway, since I have been told that many of the fan sites listed in FCA do not even address the issue at all. ArglebargleIV 18:11, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

• Like I said, while great ideas, none of these things are compromises. They're once again pushing the POV removal of Paulus from the site, and if that's what we're going to argue over, then it needs to go to arbitration. - mixvio 17:31, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Just an aside: arbcom doesn't accept content disputes, only user conduct disputes. It would be fruitless to ask arbcom to rule on this particular dispute, because they simply don't do those sorts of things. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 22:08, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Not to stomp on your toes or anything, but I've seen arbitration on content issues before. Perhaps we're thinking of two seperate things then. - mixvio 23:06, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

We are not thinking of two separate things. There have been some rare exceptions, but on the whole, they do not take content cases except in the very worst of circumstances (which this is not). Even though I'm an experienced Wikipedian you don't have to take my word for it, but I can virtually guarantee that this case will be rejected. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 02:05, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

No. Not compromising would be leaving the article the way it is with no mention of the recent tabloid gossip. They are compromising by mentioning that the events happened, now you need to compromise by agreeing to not specifically mention the mans name. Otherwise YOU are not compromising at all. You would be just pushing through the statement that you originally penned up above with minor wording revisions. -- Triage 17:43, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Not leaving the article the way it is isn't even an option, so that statement is pointless and argumentative. The compromise is on how much Paulus is mentioned, NOT, as I've said now repeatedly, whether or not he's mentioned here. - mixvio 19:17, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh it is an option - and it is my preferred option. Your bias against it does not negate the option. Triage 20:26, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Your preference or not, no, dear, it's not an option. If there's one thing we all agree on it's that the page is changing. And pissy users with few edits who come suddenly to a debate really have little say one way or the other typically, nothing personal. I've been nice so far but if you want to continue insulting me and making snippy comments I'm happy to return in kind. Otherwise be nice. - mixvio 20:55, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

It is an option. I will be happy to compromise from there. And you can call me Sir. Triage 21:38, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Mixvio, what is your objection to what I did, wrong with moving the direct Paulus reference to a references section, with a link in that section to the John Paulus page? As a reference, I've created a test page, User:ArglebargleIV/DraftOfClayAiken, just so people can see how it looks. ArglebargleIV 18:07, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

My objection is mostly that I find it pretty ridiculous to talk about the specific incident, put details of the specific incident in the article, put a link to Paulus, but refer to him as "that guy" or "some guy" or "an ex-green beret turned porn star" just because they don't want John Paulus specifically. I don't see what the sense in that argument is aside from just splitting hairs and arguing for the sake of arguing. It's like giving gay people all the same benefits of marriage but refusing to call it marriage. I don't see the sense in that. - mixvio 19:17, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

It is not gay people that are the issue here. It is liars, like Paulus, that do not deserve to be mentioned. -- Michigan user 20:40, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say it was about gay people, I used that as an example. But again, it's your opinion that he's lying. But regardless, that's not the requirement that Wikipedia considers for mention, nor is the morality of his actions a qualifier for inclusion. - mixvio

ArglebargleIV, my problem with your suggestion is that using John Paulus as a reference is not verifiable and is not a published source. To do it your way we need to use the National Enquirer with the issue date (Jan. 26,2006) as the reference. - Maria202 18:40, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Granted, it's not a reference, and it shouldn't go in the references section, but I think it should go somewhere. A 'See also' section, perhaps? What I was trying to do was to split the difference -- one side wants John Paulus mentioned directly in the text, the other side wants Paulus not mentioned at all. Personally, I think that the existence of the particular rumor should be mentioned here, and that there should be some linkage between it and the John Paulus article. I wanted to provide a link to the John Paulus article without mentioning the name directly in the text, in the hope that it would be the beginning of a compromise, and perhaps a 'see also' section would do as well. ArglebargleIV 18:48, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

ArglebargleIV, Can you edit your test page to have the link to the NE Article just like the Openly Clay link (in-line - not referenced below). And I think that you cut the quote down so much that it loses the snark factor, it sounds more like he is irritated rather than laughing. -- Michigan user 19:03, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

If there is absolutely no way any of you will accept John Paulus being referred to by name, ridiculous as I really think it is, I am willing to accept Arglebargle's text provided the footnote is changed to a link in the sentence. All right? - mixvio 23:16, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

• The inclusion of this claim by Paulus violates the Wikipedia:Reliable_sources guidelines in that Paulus has "an agenda or conflict of interest, strong views, or other bias," and there is no independent source to verify his claims. While the verifiability guidelines do state that verifiability rather than truth is the criterion, the Verifiability guidelines also state that, "Articles should rely on credible, third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Those third-party sources do not include gossip columns in reputable newspapers, or references to gossip, stated as gossip, in other media sources. In addition, the story violates the guidelines for biographies of living persons WP:LIVING which state that, "There should be no hint of a gung-ho, publish-and-be-damned attitude," and "Do No Harm."

• From this perspective, to mention the story at all is to compromise. Mixvio, in your proposed version, exactly what are you giving up? May I remind you that you too were "a pissy user with few edits" when you entered this debate, and that your participation in Wikipedia since that time has been almost exclusively limited to Paulus-Aiken. Please be civil.

• I see no need for a link or reference to Paulus, not do I view this as a matter of "splitting the difference" between mentioning Paulus or not. Even if I did agree with this assessment, a choice between a direct mention of Paulus in the text with a link, versus a hidden link to Paulus and a repeated link to Paulus mentioned by name in the reference section is hardly "splitting the difference." I support Maria's version. I also shortened the Aiken quote just a bit from Maria's version. I think we can leave out the ellipses as it is the parenthetical references to laughter that are being omitted. Arglebargle, I disagree that "FCA is a bad link for your purpose anyway, since I have been told that many of the fan sites listed in FCA do not even address the issue at all." The point being made is exactly that--that 'many fansites do not speculate about his orientation'. I also changed the RS phrasing a bit.

• Aiken has been the subject of gay jokes by Conan O'Brien, Kathy Griffin, and Mad TV, among others. While a few communities among his internet fan sites [17] speculate about his sexual orientation, many [18] do not. Aiken stated that he is not gay in an interview with Rolling Stone in June 2003. When he appeared as the musical guest on Saturday Night Live on February 7, 2004 [19] he lampooned such speculation in the opening monologue, which featured him as a member of a gay men's chorus. Aiken has also been the subject of tabloid speculation and in early 2006, a series of stories emerged alleging sexual encounters with men met over the internet. Aiken describes the incessant jokes and gossip as "...like having a gnat in your nose. You just want to kill it. It becomes unfortunately a negative part of what you do, and you need to kind of live with it. But if you could get up your nose and kill it, you would do it." [20] -Jmh123 23:24, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Can we change this sentence "While a few communities among his internet fan sites [21] speculate about his sexual orientation, many [22] do not." to this sentence? "While at least one community among his internet fan sites speculates about his sexual orientation, most do not." (With the references I'm too lazy to copy.) I only know of one and saying some to me is misleading. - Maria202 23:48, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I know of one other, Maria, and there may be a few more small boards that do. -Jmh123 00:00, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Ducky. - Maria202 00:05, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I would not support that change -- that sentence, in particular, is the thir rail for that paragraph, and trying to whittle down the meaning would be a problem. I still don't think a second link to FCA belongs there either. (Oops, forgot to sign this.. ArglebargleIV 02:05, 6 April 2006 (UTC))

I was here for the formulation that paragraph, and I do know how important every word was to someone. I have no objection to retaining that sentence as it is, and without the link. I do believe that we should be moving towards a full revamping of how we approach the issue of his orientation/the gossip/jokes/tabloids in the context of this article. There's virtually nothing about Aiken's personal life in the page, which is one of the reasons the article is so difficult to modify on this issue. Should we add more, create a new section? What kinds of things should be included? Several suggestions have been made for inclusion which have more to do with his personal life than his career (or at least his pre-career life): the boy's choir, the two fathers, religion. The addition of some sort of mention of business decisions vis a vis American Idol was also suggested. I've been looking at the standards for citation (notes, references) as well; we could do a better job with that than we've been doing. The Clarkson page is in the process of being reworked in accordance with Wiki:featured article standards, and it looks great. I, personally, don't have much interest in writing these new sections, I have to say, but those who suggested them or others who are interested would be very welcome to jump in and do so. -Jmh123 04:00, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't participating at the time but I was reading the feud. I also know how important this paragraph is and I'm not about to argue over any of the existing wordage nor make any changes to it without a consensus. One reason there is so little about his personal life is that he guards his privacy. - Maria202 05:07, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

•  : I'm not going to argue whether or not it belongs here with another person. Nor is another person going to bitch, whine, complain, etc about anything I say without having the hellfire of god descend vocally on their heads. I have come to this very nicely, very politely, and in the face of that you've all been argumentative brats. DEAL WITH THAT REMARK, because it's fully true. Those of you who aren’t know you aren’t and have no reason to feel offended by my following statements. I have not insulted anyone, and you can look back at my edits under this section to see that it wasn't until Triage (who came suspiciously out of nowhere with much animosity given the fact that he/she hasn't been involved in this debate at all) made several inflammatory remarks that I even replied with the minimum of annoyance. The point of the break was so we'd start fresh. Clearly none of you are interested in starting fresh. Clearly none of you care about ending this peacefully and politely. So here we go.

•  : TWO SNAP POLLS HAVE SHOWN THAT YOUR OPINION THAT PAULUS SHOULDN'T BE HERE IS NOT THE MAJORITY, IS NOT THE CONSENSUS, IS NOT CORRECT. I will not be told otherwise that this issue is within YOUR control, that to mention it at all is a compromise, because that implies YOU are right and YOU have the power. YOU HAVE NONE OF THESE THINGS. I will not be told that I should walk on eggshells around you because this issue is in your hands. IT. IS. NOT. IF I were the only one who thought Paulus belonged, I would back out in lieu of the majority viewpoint. If only myself and another thought Paulus belonged, I would back out in lieu of the majority viewpoint. That is not the case. So get off your high horses like you're the emperor and I'm begging for a petition. I'm not. You are nothing in this. Go ahead and bitch about what I say, I couldn’t flipping care less. You've earned it. - mixvio 23:37, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

• Two snap polls have shown that including Paulus does not have consensus either. I concur with the version proposed by Jmh202, with the edits proposed by Maria202. - 69.19.14.18 00:07, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I never claimed to have consensus. But you all certainly do, and you continually act as if you're in control of this issue and I have no recourse. I've submitted a request for arbitration on the matter, I don't think a solution is probable between us. - mixvio 01:36, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Paragraph using references

• Aiken has been the subject of gay jokes by Conan O'Brien, Kathy Griffin, and Mad TV, among others. While a few communities among his internet fan sites [23] speculate about his sexual orientation, many do not. In an interview with Rolling Stone in June 2003 Aiken stated that he is not gay. When he appeared as the musical guest on Saturday Night Live on February 7, 2004 [24] he lampooned such speculation in the opening monologue, which featured him as a member of a gay men's chorus. Aiken has also been the subject of tabloid^[1] speculation and in early 2006, a series of stories emerged alleging sexual encounters with men met over the internet. Aiken describes the incessant jokes and gossip as "...like having a gnat in your nose. You just want to kill it. It becomes unfortunately a negative part of what you do, and you need to kind of live with it. But if you could get up your nose and kill it, you would do it."^[2]

[edit] References

• Regardless of the RfA by mixvio I think it's best to continue working on reaching a consensus. I've incorporated most of the changes we've discussed in the above paragraph. I also switched around the third sentence because I thought it read better. - Maria202 04:42, 6 April 2006 (UTC)