Talk:John Paulus

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Portal:Biography
 Biography Portal
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]
This article is within the scope of WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class.
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 23 February 2006. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

Contents

[edit] original research

I cited the source. It was published elsewhere by a reputable source. It is NOT original research. You even use hardcopy Books and Magazines as a source - that a person might have to buy or go to the library to get. At least I cited a source that IS online. 69.19.14.15 21:59, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Please see no original research and citing sources. Wikipedia standards do not allow linking to message boards, message board profiles, blogs or main pages of public records databases that require registration. If they have to dig or search out the material in any way that would be original research. It must be a published and citeable/linkable source. A news article or other published reference about the info in question may suffice. Even the actual cases themselves. Where was it published elsewhere? Cite that then. A newspaper article, the magazine article, anything. I'm not opposed to the info coming in. It just has to be by the established Wikipedia standards. --Rabinid 22:03, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Your source still does not meet Wikipedia standards. At this point, I'm be ready to submit this issue to Wikipedia admin for mediation. --Rabinid 22:17, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

How do you conisder that blogs meet the standards for Wikipedia:reliable sources, but an official U.S. government site does not? Please explain. -Will Beback 06:53, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
I have never asserted the position that blogs meet the standard for Wikipedia:reliable sources as I am aware they clearly do not, and am unsure where you may have gotten that perception. --Rabinid 08:53, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
If you review the source as was cited by unregistered user 69.19.14.15 it is only the main page of a government records database (which requires a registration password to access). That page does not reference Paulus or the bankruptcy information the editor is trying to include in any way. In this instance the inclusion could be likened to an Wikipedia article that included a sentence on the topic of the Bush Administration's policy on Abortion and then only citing the main page of WhiteHouse.gov. Or another example of a sentence on the topic of military presence in Iraq and rising insurgency and then only citing the main page of the Pentagon website. They are not specific to the topic, and as such it does not meet the standards of a Wikipedia cite. In this case the information has yet to be cited in any other Wikipedia:reliable sources fashion (a news article or even an open link to the actual case paperwork from the government website). As such, it constitutes original research and thus far is not appropriate for inclusion. --Rabinid 09:47, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
I agree that the link doesn't point to a specific page, but I don't understand your claim that summarizing court records, or whatever they are, is original research. Can you point me to the part of that policy which applies? Thanks, -Will Beback 21:41, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
I quote directly from no original research: In order to avoid doing original research, and in order to help improve the quality of Wikipedia articles, it is essential that any primary-source material, as well as any generalization, analysis, synthesis, interpretation, or evaluation of information or data, has been published by a reputable third-party publication (that is, not self-published) that is available to readers either from a website (other than Wikipedia) or through a public library. It is very important to cite sources appropriately, so that readers can find your source and can satisfy themselves that Wikipedia has used the source correctly. Further: Articles may not contain any unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas; or any new analysis or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas. In this instance as the bankruptcy information can not or is not available to be cited either directly, or published by a reputable third-party publication (such as a news article, The ACTUAL COURT RECORD(s), magazine article, etc.) it is a new analysis or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas. So it does not adhere to the Wikipedia standards for inclusion and constitutes original research. The policy is clearly spelled out. Lastly, this particular information only came to light because of angry Aiken fans accessing public records databases seeking out what they believe to be damaging material in an attempt at retribution against Paulus. Again, I'm not against the information being included, as long as it is NPOV and can be cited appropriately. --Rabinid 01:55, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
If you really have a problem with publicly accessible online court records, it's a simple enough task to place the information into Wikisource and link to that. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 02:01, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I should not write, in a Wikipedia article, that the sky is blue because I looked at it, or because I attended a lecture where someone said so, or because my analysis of Rayleigh scattering proves that the sky must be blue. Nor should I speculate on the nature of a blue sky, or its effects. But I may summarize the thoughts of someone who has done so in a reliable source. I may also summarize a book on the atmosphere that explains the blueness of the sky, and even quote from an online government table of sky color measurements. It is not original research to summarize a published document, such as an article or a government record. It would be original research to draw new conclusions from that information, but I don't see that being the case here. However there are other tests that apply, including NPOV and basic relevance. Criminal convictions are public knowledge, and are legitimate biographical details, but administrative procedures, late fees, back taxes, etc, are less important, possibly less accurate, and tend to skew an article so as to break POV. Cataloging each instance of "spitting on the sidewalk" without also cataloging each "dollar given to beggars" is inappropriate. So, in summary, I believe that the tax material is not original research but it is not encyclopedic either, so it should be omitted. -Will Beback 23:37, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Since the entire reason for this article to be here is to document this persons claims, and since those claims are unsubstantiated in any manner, the reader has nothing to use to draw a conclusion about the claims, except the character and motivations of the person making the claims. I suggest that financial difficulties may be a leading contributor to the origin of these claims. The only way to provide the reader with information relating to that is to provide factual information about this persons abilities to manage their finances. Michigan user 20:49, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
This article is a biography of a person who is included because someone thought him sufficiently notable to be included in an encyclopedia. If he is not notable enough in his own right then the article should be deleted. We're not here to make decisions about the veracity of Paulus. If he were a financial planner offering advice then his personal bankruptcy would be relevant. But the bankruptcy of a former soldier/porn-star wannabe is just not important. -Will Beback 01:44, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
I have to agree with Will. On its merits alone, whether or not this person filed for bankruptcy isn't really interesting enough to include here, just as we wouldn't list all his traffic tickets. It's not as if he's applying for a job, or is Alan Greenspan. Now that would be news. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 05:09, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Substantial changes were made by an anonymous IP with no previous edits. POV was indicated in some of the changes; for example, a revision indicated that Paulus was fired after Remax learned of his tryst with Aiken. We have only Paulus' word for either claim, and these claims were stated as fact in the edit. I have reverted to the version just prior to this one, but have included the change in place and date of birth stated by the anonymous editor. -Jmh123 22:17, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Removed Aiken impersonator conspiracy speculative info added by anonymous IP. Referenced source ran a follow-up article correcting spectulation. --Rabinid 08:01, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
But the speculation exists. Clay denies being gay - that does not stop references to it in Wikipedia.
The claims about Clay are more than just mere speculation. There are multiple verifiable published sources and a single individual, Paulus, that has gone on record with his allegations. I am not willing to start an edit war over the Collins reference, but the latest follow-up reporting on Paulus claims about Aiken must be included then to give balance. A mediator or admin may still feel differently and remove the Collins info entirely. Lastly, please sign your contributions. --Rabinid 20:57, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
I can't sign my contributions because the software that Wikipedia uses does not play well with some Satellite modems. There are many people who have SEEN the picture of Paulus and Coti Collins on the wall of Legends. Collins denial is extremely questionable. 66.82.9.74 16:06, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Readding March 2006 National Enquirer and Star follow up reporting to Paulus claim - both reference Paulus and his claims. See cited source. I'm willing to see this referred to mediation and admin staff, as although I'm trying to assume good faith the edits seem to be bordering on POV vandalism.
  • If you want to post links - they should be to Paulus related sites. Not fun news stories that you think will prop up his story. If you like the guy so much, make him a website, and link to that. There you can post all the link farm that you want.


[edit] Abuse on this page by POV-pushing Claymates

69, 66, whatever you want to be called by, my patience with you has broken. Stay on the Clay Aiken page and leave this one entirely alone. You have nothing to edit here and need to stop, because you're only making it clearer that you've turned the Clay Aiken/John Paulus issue into your personal crusade and it totally renders your argument ridiculous and cheap. Leave it alone or I'm going to ask that you be blocked. - mixvio 02:23, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV-NPOV

  • Rabinid, I disagree that 66.82.9.74's edit is POV. I'm rather weary of hearing that term, frankly. You don't have a POV, Paulus doesn't have a POV, the Enquirer doesn't have a POV, Lucas doesn't have a POV--all of you are just truth-seekers. Paulus doesn't have a DVD coming out, no one benefits financially from this, everyone involved in this story is incredibly noble and of high purpose. We who think that there's something wrong with an entry in which every other word is "allegedly" or "claimed", where the evidence is flimsy at best, and where the list of sources would make the New York Times blanch, we are just silly POV fangirls protecting our guy. Bull. I am no more POV on this topic than you are.
  • Not every word originating in tabloids and gossip columns is true. Stop for a moment when you're in line in the grocery story and read a tabloid sometime. I don't think you're going to feel like you are in the presence of great journalism, or rock solid truth. The fact that those stories are being picked up in so-called mainstream media doesn't make them more true. Putting these words in Wikipedia doesn't make them more true either, but the same sort of person who reads the Courier-Journal's gossip column, skips past the allegedly's, and assumes what they see in print is true, will see this in Wikipedia and think that because it is an encyclopedia, it must be true. Ironic, because you claim it is believable because it's being printed and talked about, but you also are personally responsible for it being printed and talked about here. Where someone who thinks like you do will see it and think--"it must be true".
  • I won't get into an edit war with you over this sentence on this day, but I am hereby registering my objections to your efforts to bring other Aiken tabloid stories into JP's bio. They are not relevant. -Jmh123 02:40, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Mixvio - please just listen to yourself. You are no less of a crusader here. -Jmh123 02:42, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Jmh, you don't dictate, decide, rule, postulate-- any other adjective you choose to impliment-- what is relevent or not. You wanted Paulus out of the Clay Aiken page and for the time being it is. You've no basis to choose what belongs on freaking John Paulus' page, and your continued involvement here, along with 66's, is beyond insulting. You're only here because you can't do anything on Clay Aiken right now. The other stories have absolutely every relevency to Paulus because every single story references John Paulus. The name of the section is "The Clay Aiken Allegations." Not the "John Paulus vs. Clay Aiken Allegations." Ergo, it's completely related and there's no reason, aside from the fact that you and 66 are clearly rabid fans of his, that you have any reason to be involved with this page. You cannot claim that you're not pushing an agenda because you've been involved in every single discussion on the Clay Aiken page, arguing against inclusion of the gay rumors, arguing against the inclusion of Openly Gay as a fansite link, and now this. Your involvement reeks of POV fiercely, whereas I'm only involved in this because you and 66 and a few other dedicated Claymates are trying to censor this story because you don't like it. I won't live in a world where that sortof menality becomes law. - mixvio 02:49, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Mixvio - you don't dictate, decide, rule, postulate what is relevent or not either. And you don't get to determine what my motivations are. As I have said before - you have to understand that I have fought to keep similar stuff off other articles also. Because I do not believe that malicious gossip (or any gossip) has a place in Wikipedia. I strongly want Wikipedia to be a respected source of information, and cheapening it like this damages that goal. The issue is much bigger than Clay Aiken and his particular problems. It is bigger than John Paulus and his cheap story. Just because like-minded folks and I can not keep all the garbage out - does not mean that it is not a goal to strive for. And I won't live in a world where people try to shove gossip and garbage on the rest of the world and expect us to put up with it without complaining. 66.82.9.54 04:25, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Mixvio is correct. Whether you think the sources are credible or not is irrelevant. What is relevant here is the fact that the National Enquirer DID report on this incident and DID report what the article says it did. You can consider the Aiken/Paulus tryst merely "malicious gossip" but the Enquirer and other sources printing these articles are objective fact, whether or not the Aiken/Paulus "castro" happened or not. You don't get to decide whether it actually happened or not. - PatrickLMT
  • If there are stories on the Paulus page that are ONLY there to try to bolster the credibility of a story that can not stand on it's own, then you can not be suprised if they get edited. Those stories do NOT relate to the Paulus crap, except that his name is in the same article. I left the references there - and reworded it so that the information on the Paulus page was only about Paulus. That is hardly vandalism. That is making the story NPOV. 66.82.9.54 04:25, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
The admin clearly disagreed with that. This isn't about cheap tabloid stories, this is about wikipedia containing all relevent information. John Paulus is relevent to Clay Aiken, you just choose to disregard that because YOU don't like the story. And your paranoid homophobic attacks don't make Wikipedia look respectable in the least. - mixvio 04:36, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
The admin certainly did not have a chance to understand both points of view. This has nothing to do with "homophobia" and everything to do with unsubstantiated malicious gossip. Actually weird as it may seem, I wonder if you do not have some of that oft tossed about homophobia yourself. You are so adamant about insisting that you hate Clay, you know that he is a "faggot". Why do you feel that you have to smear him just because you think that he is gay? Why does that mean that it is open season on spreading lies?? Especially unsubstantiated "anonymous" insinuations only mentioned in the sleeziest of tabloids? I will continue to argue that the information on the Paulus page should be limited to incidents relating to Paulus, not to list all sorts of other stories that Paulus was in no way involved in, just because you believe that it will lend some credence to the Paulus story. 69.19.14.35 11:36, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
When you really don't know what you're talking about it's probably best that you not make statements that are either completely wrong or asinine. It doesn't make you look particularly right. Yes, since you enjoy pointing it out ‘’so’’ often, two years ago I made a comment on my personal website after my roommate bought Measure of a Man that I felt Clay Aiken was gay. When I said I hated him, I meant that I found him annoying. I'm not adamant about insisting that I hate Clay Aiken, because aside from the one blog entry two years ago I didn't talk about him once until I made a post summarizing my opinion of this debate with you. During this debate I've never said I hated him, I've said I have his cd and I enjoy some of the songs and I think he has a good voice. I’ve said time and time again that the issue is not about him as a person. I don't think I need to be concerned with the scandals of a celebrity to enjoy their artistic outputs; they're mutually exclusive of one another. When I said, two years ago, that he was a "faggot," I used the term the way that many people in the gay community choose to refer to one another. The same way that black people choose to call one another "nigga" and Mexicans choose to call one another "beaner."
But you know what? The great thing about having a personal website that has no relevancy to this debate is I don't have to justify an entry I wrote approximately seven hundred and thirty days ago to you.
You fail to understand that the issue here is not about him being gay. It's not about Paulus' story being true. It's not about my faggy gay determined agenda to prove to the world that every celebrity likes to take it up the ass and I'll ruin all of their careers to do so. (The last one was sarcasm, since you seem to have difficulty distinguishing between reality and jokes)
The issue is that this story is relevant and belongs here. The other non-Paulus stories belong because they're related to his case, not because it lends credence. You want to believe this is a gay issue because you're upset that your idol is being attacked. Whatever. Get over it.
And finally, I don't need to provide any evidence of my lack of homophobia to you or anyone else. If anything I have fangirl-phobia. - mixvio 20:24, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Then be so kind as to not accuse anyone else of "paranoid homophobic attacks". No one else needs to provide any evidence of their lack of homophobia either. Your hypocrisy is blatant. 198.208.251.21 14:04, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
There's been plenty evidence of homophobic attacks in this discussion. Reread the entire episode if you're unconvinced. - mixvio 19:05, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Porn career

Paulus' aspirations to be a porn star preceding his firing. He did not take up porn because he was fired. -Jmh123 17:08, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Prove it. - mixvio 17:37, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

What source do you have that the statement is true? I have modified the statement in a way that I hope you will find acceptable. -Jmh123 18:08, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

If there's no reason to believe otherwise, as clearly there isn't, then the default viewpoint is that he chose to do this because of the hype around the story. If he always wanted to be a porn star then he probably would've done it before Clay Aiken, right? But if it makes you feel better to play semantics, go right ahead. - mixvio 18:21, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Am I correct in thinking that Paulus' career as a "porn star" has been limited to one scene in a movie? In other words, a single day of work? Is "career" even the right word? -Will Beback 18:30, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Actually, Will Beback, it was an audition tape, not a movie. Given that even with all the tabloid hype, Paulus' "career" has fizzled, I suggest that your "default" viewpoint is invalid, Mixvio. Not everyone who wants to be in porn movies is successful in getting that opportunity. -Jmh123 18:43, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
And not everyone who once entertained the idea of doing it sat around formulating ways to achieve that "dream." This argument is really ridiculous and preposterous. His says that he was fired because of the story coming out and it having a direct result on the amount of clients he brought into his company. Having worked at a real estate agency myself I can assure you this is standard procedure. An agent that fails to bring in clients and close deals is often dropped. There's no reason to think he lost his job otherwise. He was fired, and because he was fired and now popular for a scandalous reason he took advantage of the hype to land a porn contract. You have absolutely no proof to challenge his statements. You're just arguing to be contrary. - mixvio 18:49, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Of course Paulus' story changes on a regular basis. Paulus himself said that he had been thinking of doing movies for quite some time in one of those interviews. Sigh. I suppose that I will have to listen to the darn things to figure out which one it was. Maybe this weekend. -- Michigan user 18:54, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
You all like to say that, but of the many articles and such I've seen regarding Paulus I've never seen his story change at all. Some interviews contain more detail than others, but I've never seen anything contradictory. And I don't even like him. - mixvio 18:57, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Before the story even came out in the Enquirer, Paulus was bragging in Perez Hilton's blog that he had hopes of recreating the 90 minute miracle in a porn film. Further, in Lucas' blog, February 10, Lucas states, "When John Paulus contacted me, I had no idea who he was. When John explained that he wanted to film a movie with me...." Plans for the film about Paulus' story were later abandoned. -Jmh123 19:07, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Be that as it may, it's not contradictory. He never said one thing had happened in the interview and then in another interview said something else happened. I don't think anybody disagrees that his motives are slimy, whatever he hopes to achieve. But I really wouldn't trust Perez Hilton further than I can throw him, and he's a heavy man. - mixvio 19:16, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Hey Mixvio - I agree with you on something. I wouldn't trust PH either. LOL. Anyway, in one of those interviews Paulus really did talk about the fact that he had been thinking of doing movies for a while. And the list of his story changes is long. First it was ValleyPrettyBoy sending IMs (See the NE story). Then - OOPS no it was Revnoles. That change happened after he found out that ValleyPrettyBoy was a known screen name of a gay Clay fan. Of course the Revnoles ID was not created until Jan 12 - so that is a bit of a problem, but since he has not had to really defend or prove any of this. . . . First there was 30 minutes of pillow talk after the event and Clay talked about all sorts of personal stuff. Then OOPS, no it was an aggressive encounter and there was no talking after at all. First he talked about shopping the story around to the tabloids. Including an offer of $800,000 for an exclusive. Then OOPS no - he didn't get any money for his story. (At least not yet-tabloids are known to withhold payment for a while so that the source can really say that they did not receive money). The list goes on and on. -- Michigan user 19:38, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Like I said, I looked extensively and I didn't see anything about his story changing. On the Clay Aiken talk page I already went through finding "ValleyPrettyBoy" on several gay personals sites and they all had similar information in them which looked to me like they either were the same person or were made to look like the same person. Same with Revnoles. And you might not know this, but amongst gay people online, if they're on a couple of different personals websites they don't all use the same screenname for all of them. It's very possible for ValleyPrettyBoy to be on one site and Revnoles on another and they still belong to the same person. Since beyond saying that his own profile was on BigMuscle Paulus otherwise hasn't mentioned where his profiles were, I can't say for sure. But anyway, it's all irrelevent. We're not here to prove Paulus' story for him. Just because it's not proven doesn't mean it's not newsworthy though. - mixvio 19:45, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Well for this page I agree that his shifting story really doesn't matter all that much. However, if we are going to have a page for him (and you know that I don't think that he is notable enough), I don't want to give the impression that he HAD to resort to porn acting when in fact he intended it before he sold his story. It would be misrepresenting what really happened. -- oops - got logged out somehow. -- Michigan user 20:03, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
"Had" to resort to porn acting. Right. Anyway, like I said, you've no proof to the contrary of what he said and no proof of what you say "really" happened to be misrepresenting anything. But since you seem to have such intimate knowledge of Paulus perhaps you can get him to weigh in on this debate personally? - mixvio 20:05, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Army Discharge

I'm not going to get into an edit war with you. Yes the link is dead which I did not realize would happen. However, that does not negate the fact that the edit I made was factual and the information was published. Bolding is mine.

" Fayetteville Observer, The (NC) - March 7, 1997

GI TELLS ARMY HE'S GAY FORT BRAGG STAFF SERGEANT TO BE DISCHARGED By J.S. Newton Staff writer Army Staff Sgt. John Paulus wasn't asked, but he told anyway. ``It's difficult day in and day out lying to yourself, and lying to the military," Paulus, 29, said last week -- three days before walking into his commander's office to tell him he was gay. ``You know, they teach you about honesty and integrity. But at the same..." - Maria202 17:34, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Statements must have references. Your quote has no reference, ergo it's unsubstantiated. As soon as there's another link then I'm happy to have it included but unfortunately I couldn't find that statement myself. Sorry. - mixvio 17:46, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
The article is archived and can be retrieved for a small fee. Go to [1], look for the link to "search archives" on the left-hand side navigation menu, search for John Paulus "all years". ETA: Deleting full text per Will Beback's comment. Full text does confirm Maria202's quote. Jmh123 18:27, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
If I may inteject with a small correction. The name of the newspaper, at the time of John Paulus's discharge at least, is the Fayetteville Observer-Times. It was born from the merger of the Fayetteville Observer and the Fayetteville Times. I haven't lived in Fayetteville in six years, and it may have changed since then, but the paper, at the time of JP's discharge was the Fayetteville Observer-Times.
  • As a requirement for a source in Wikipedia, links cannot link to articles that require memberships or payment to verify. But regardless, I reverted it because it went to a dead link and the sentence included was immensely gramatically incorrect and didn't even make sense. Sorry. - mixvio 18:45, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
    • I believe you are cpnfusing two policies. Wikipedia:External links suggests that we should not link to sites which require payment. Wikipedia:reliable sources never says that for-pay websites cannot be used as a source for material in an article. Regarding the posted text above, once we've verified whatever needs verification we should delete it, as it is copyrighted material that we have no right to post. -Will Beback 20:21, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
I wasn't confusing anything, that's exactly what I just said minus the specific links. So since it's clear that this is a story that's printed in a for-pay website it cannot be used as a source for this story. - mixvio 20:25, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
No, you are still confusing sources used as a reference, covered by WP:RS and external links provided for more information, which are covered by WP:EL. WP:EL has nothing to to with what we may use as a reference for an article. -Will Beback 22:27, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Citing sources goes into detail about this type of situation. It is clear that a newpaper article which can be verified is an acceptable source. "It is particularly important in the case of online newspaper articles to include byline, headline, newspaper, and date of publication, because many newspapers keep stories online only for a certain period before transferring them to the archives. With a full citation, readers will be able to find the article easily even if the link doesn't work." - Jmh123 20:46, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
It's not about finding the article. It's about the article being available only to those who pay for it. That's not an acceptable source according to Wikipedia guidelines. - mixvio 20:52, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
If that were true, then no article cited from Time, Newsweek, the New York Times, or any other publication that maintains a fee-based archive would be a valid source in Wikipedia. -Jmh123 20:58, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
I disagree with that since these things are available in print as well, but regardless, I don't make the rules. Under Wikipedia:External links, "#6: Sites that require payment to view the relevant content" are to be avoided - mixvio 21:03, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
This is not an external link, so your quote it irrelevant. It is a reference source. It has different rules. `` 66.82.9.84 23:07, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Excuse me? No, it's a reference source provided on an external link. It has the rules I linked to. - mixvio 00:14, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
  • No fee is required for the part I quoted. The Fayetteville Observer, a newspaper printed in Fayetteville, NC is the source. I'm a bit confused about quoting. I've seen quotes from out of print hard cover books used as references. What happens when current on line links expire, do those sources become invalid? - Maria202 21:02, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
The Fayetteville Observer is available in print as well. At any rate, the question is moot, because, as Maria202 says, the section quoted by her is available for free, by merely searching for the article in the archive, following the instructions I posted earlier. -Jmh123 21:09, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lucas Entertainment

  • Jmh, I'm curious, do you have my edit history on hand so you can follow me from debate to debate, or do you as a presumed straight male have uncannily similar interests in gay wikipedia pages as me? Just curious.
Anyway. The interview with Michael Lucas is the audition. Elsewhere in the DVD there's a sex scene with Wilson Vasquez, which is unrelated from the part where he tells Michael Lucas his version of the story. Why're you so determined to make it clear that he does two scenes in the video? Is it really necessary to have that information? Are you going to go help me rent every porno ever created so we can also add every single scene that every gay and straight actor has been in to their wikipedia pages? - mixvio 08:05, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
My interest is in the Paulus page and the Aiken page. Is it a surprise that I would respond when we are engaged in debate? The blurb from Lucas' home page says: Paulus "gets down to business in interviews and a hot audition w/Lucas Exclusive Wilson Vasquez! See it all online now! OR PURCHASE YOUR COPY OF THE DVD TODAY!" Should there be no mention of even one porn film he has made, especially in a section on his porn career? No porn, no notability as a "porn star". I would assume that is why Rabinid inserted this reference to the DVD. After all, the article is about Paulus, not Aiken, right? -Jmh123 08:22, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
I rewrote the section. It was very smarmy and promotional at the same time. Let's just present the simple facts and avoid any interpretation. -Will Beback 09:59, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Jmh, if you've actually seen the video, then you can comment. I have seen it. I know what I'm talking about. I'm assuming that Rabinid inserted this reference because that's where he retells the Clay Aiken story. And unfortunately Paulus is intricately linked to Clay Aiken. Will, your rewrite's fine. I was only changing the original text to make it actually gramatically correct. It's stood for months more or less the same until I changed it and suddenly Jmh "noticed" it for the first time and decided to continually change my edits. Huh. - mixvio 15:42, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Actually, Mixvio, I've been editing this article since Feb. 17, and you will see my edits on every page of the edit history. It was my edit here [2], in which I removed one phrase, that seemed to set you off. Thanks, Will Beback, for stepping in and resolving this. -Jmh123 17:06, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Right. That's nothing to do with what I just said. But thanks for making a point out of something that has no bearing on this. - mixvio 17:14, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Porn career

  • Stop changing this. He used to be a real estate agent. He's now in porn. There's no reason to delete career, because that's now his job. Regardless of the fact that you all have some personal gripe with Paulus, you need to get over it and let it go. I'm sorry Paulus hasn't been prolific enough in the sex scenes he's produced in a month or so after signing with Lucas to qualify that as his "career" for all of you, but that doesn't change the fact that this is what he now does. - mixvio 17:14, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Actually he is trying to get back into Real Estate and is upset because no one in North Carolina will hire him. -- 66.82.9.84 17:39, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
So. What? - mixvio 17:40, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Nothing - except that it is sort of ridiculous to call one afternoons work a "career". He may have intended that to be his career - but it did not work out that way. But, really, I don't particularly care which heading the section has. I was just clarifying a point. So carry on. --66.82.9.84 18:26, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Why is it important to establish that the photos are "of an overt sexual nature?" There aren't any on the site anymore and therefore no way to prove that. I don't even feel that the mention of the bigmuscle profile at all is relevent except that that's where he says Clay Aiken met him. - mixvio 20:23, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
The photos show that he has a history of expressing his sexuality in a public manner, further indicated by his work as an exotic dancer and his interest in being a porn star. He introduced the bigmuscle profile himself, so it becomes relevant as part of his story. -Jmh123 21:03, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't think that's necessary, but in the spirit of respecting the break that no one else really seems to be sticking to, I won't discuss it further. However, that aside, I hope you realize that when your first and only response to an edit is to revert it or change it a second after I've posted it, without discussing it in the talk page (as I came here to discuss your reversion to my edits instead of going back and forth) it's incredibly rude, incredibly reactionary, invites conflict, and shouldn't make you surprised that a month after initially coming to this debate I'm still in it. - mixvio 21:08, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Actually when an article has been scrutinized and the wording discussed as much as this one has, it's incredibly rude, incredibly reactionary, invites conflict to come in, drop a comment and make a change that is rather pivotal to the intent of the article and the history of events without waiting for commentary from others. Not to mention that you are the only person who had touched either the Aiken page (on the Paulus topic) or this page since you asked on the 29th for a break until the 5th before making any further changes, at which time each vested person chimed in to agree to grant you that moratorium. Then 2 days later you are editing over here, while everyone else was honoring the break. -- Michigan user 12:21, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
That's completely wrong, incidentally. I haven't touched the Aiken page whatsoever since I asked for the break. - mixvio 23:20, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Looking at Talk:Clay Aiken, it seems to me that the agreed-to break was to cover discussion of the John Paulus and related issues on Talk:Clay Aiken, not to prevent editing of John Paulus. Nowhere is was mentioned that the Paulus article was off-limits. Mixvio's edit of the Paulus article was not even in the Clay Aiken section, and was not related to any of the Clay Aiken allegations. While I wouldn't have done Mixvio's edit myself (I would have instead rewritten the clause, if only because I HATE the circumlocution "of a graphic nature") because it is an somewhat useful piece of information, I don't think Mixvio deserves what you said about him in this case. Also, when you say "you are the only person who had touched either the Aiken page (on the Paulus topic) or this page", that might be seen as a bit disingenuously worded -- nobody has edited Clay Aiken since March 10th when it was protected, Jmh123, Maria202 and Jalabi99 have edited Talk:Clay Aiken (but not about Paulus). None of the people -- including mixvio -- involved here have made edits that touched the Aiken allegations on either page. ArglebargleIV 19:25, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
No one would have said anything - until Mixvio admonished everyone else for not "respecting the break that no one else really seems to be sticking to". Really out of line in this case, since he is the one asking for a break from Wikipedia, then not sticking to it. And the comment about Mixvio's edit seems to be a direct response to his chewing everyone else out - since HIS exact words were used. Perhaps if Mixvio stops with the "telling off" everyone else- they will not be so inclined to point out HIS problems, and less energy would be wasted on stupid stuff. -- 69.19.14.27 23:08, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
I didn't admonish everybody, I made a remark to Jmh because literally between the time I pressed "save page" and Wikipedia loaded the revision of the article, my change was reverted. The comment I made in general was about the passive-aggressive remarks inputted into the Clay Aiken talk page post-break. And regardless, my comment was very polite and completely true, so your gripe about me "telling off" someone is ridiculously judgemental at best. - mixvio 23:19, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Quote "it's incredibly rude, incredibly reactionary, invites conflict, and shouldn't make you surprised . . . blah blah blah" - basically telling her off. She had a valid point. You blasted her anyway. But whatever. -- 69.19.14.36 01:53, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fan detectives

To those who are trying to add the "We Support Clay Aiken" fan blog to the article: blogs are not reliable sources. No one has objected to the external link to Paulus' blog, so a matching link to the "debunkers" seems reasonable as a compromise. -Jmh123 03:52, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I would rather spell out the content of the Post Chronicle article. -- Triage 17:17, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Is the Post Chronicle a blog? I thought it was a newspaper but the more I looked the more it appeared to be a blog. Blog are not reliable sources. -Will Beback 19:18, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
To me it seems like some sort of group blog and news aggregator. Other than their opinion columns, it's quite unclear if they do any original reporting at all. ArglebargleIV 19:32, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
The Post-Chronicle link is not a blog, and trying to claim it is one is trying so hard to be unbiased that you end up shutting out the truth. Let the relevant information be posted and let the facts speak for themselves.
If it's not a blog then what is it? Is there an editorial staff which vets submitted material? Can you tell us more about it? Thanks, -Will Beback 22:39, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Nothing's being shut out -- the Post Chronicle is mentioned THREE times in the story and in the references section -- including the link you added to the External Links section, which I have removed to eliminate redundancy. ArglebargleIV 23:25, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Sigh... I personally find it a little weird and disturbing that both Paulus' blog and "we support Clay Aiken" are so prolific and zealous. But whatever, if it makes them feel better to get their POV out via the link to the weird site, by all means let it stay. - mixvio 00:14, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I know what you mean. Sometimes I think "some people need to get lives", but then I remember about stones and glass houses, so I shut up. :-) ArglebargleIV 00:32, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Quite a collection of "reliable sources" we have here for Paulus. I can see why the fans think they might as well get in the act. All the media cited here are of the sort that just makes it up as they go along, or repeats others' inventions without question. Still, it doesn't bode well, especially as their proof serves to call continued attention to the story without being particularly convincing on the whole. As if Paulus were the least bit convincing to begin with--it just dignifies his fabrications to try to "debunk" them. And the Busch Gardens stuff is liable to backfire and result in yet another Groban Brogan change of mind. -Jmh123 05:02, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Any interested party may "get in the act", afterall, that is why Wikipedia exists. Unfortunatley, Wikipedia is not the greatest source for information because it allows a platform for those wishing to spread rumors, rather than state proven facts. Even the devil can cite Scripture for his purpose. However, Jmh123, I wholeheartedly agree with you in regards to getting involved. I was merely trying to add some balance to this page, but after getting twice deleted...pfffft...the game is not worth the candle. Given enough rope, John Paulus will hang himself.
Please sign comments in talk using a dash - and four tildes ~. I agree, Wikipedia can be frustrating, and is limited by its vulnerability to people with agendas. I think your contribution is in the article now, is it not? Arglebargle's excellent revisions after your original edit provided a place for that text. I thought JP hung himself a long time ago--that's why "debunking" him at this point seems so unnecessary. The blog exists now simply as a place to taunt the fans who haven't the sense to stay away. -Jmh123 12:48, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Silently watching Paulus destroy his credibility with that blog. - Maria202 15:25, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Jmh123…My intention was not to “debunk” this. That’s not my job, and I only heard of this entire mess about one week ago so I am in no position to do that. However, I know a slanted story when I see one. Therefore, I added some further information with links in an effort to show there are opposing viewpoints, as any responsible media source should offer. I apologize for the redundancy, on one link, but it was in small print and difficult to locate without some type of reference point. At those alternative sites, there are people who are in fact attempting to debunk this story, and whether or not others agree with that is not my concern. From evaluating both sides, of presented information, people can make up their own minds as to what they wish to believe. If there are better sources, with opposing opinions, feel free to add them since you have an interest in this. I don’t have enough interest or time to research, but maybe the links provided will be a good starting point for those who do wish to hear the flipside of this. As to your previous comments about Busch Gardens and Groban, I have no idea as to who or what you are referring to. Sorry, but I am clearly clueless in regards to that matter. Like I said, I just found out about this, through a web link, so I don’t know if Mr. Paulus did or did not hang himself a long time ago. I am not a cheerleader for any of the blogs, or article links, but just saw an article here that clearly needed some alternative sources, that’s all, plain and simple. Finally, I have enough sense to let it drop as this entire scandal is typical of Hollywood, a place that sickens me. I like factual news, and I just don’t care what people do behind closed doors, whether it be nice or naughty.

<-- "We Support Clay Aiken" apears to have removed its relevant material and replaced it with a single photo of Aiken. Unless the content is hiden somewhere we should remove the link. -Will Beback 19:57, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Done - it was their decision to remove the "debunking" material. Anon, I totally agree with you that there is a need for alternative sources. Trouble is, no reliable journalists have seen fit, as yet, to provide us with such sources. Aiken has chosen not to dignify this with a response, and others have followed suit. Some prefer salacious gossip to the truth, and a lot of people are desperate for "proof" that Aiken is gay. Some greedy gossip bloggers, tabloids, Howard Stern, and a clever porn king teamed up with Paulus to take advantage of that, and Wikipedia was used in the process. I can't say as I'd blame Hollywood alone for this--most of this story was bred in NYC.
I don't see how fan speculation or questionable web publications, the sources you linked, can provide convincing balance in this entry. Opposing weak sources with other weak sources will impress no thinking person. Groban Brogan is the author of the article from the National Ledger that you linked to; if you read his article, and the blog before it was deleted, you would see that their "proof" is no more reliable than Paulus'. One day Groban Brogan is pro-Clay, the next day pro-Paulus. Really all he wants is the revenue he is getting from the hits to his website. Trust me, I am deeply disgusted by Paulus and his story. But, as Maria says, he can destroy his own credibility without any help from others. -Jmh123 20:50, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
He's graduated from trying to make everyone believe what he said to cyber-bullying, cyber-terrorism and cyber-stalking with that blog. - Maria202 01:23, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
I thought the links that I posted required as much thinking as the bulk of the article, and were a fair counterpoint to balance the information presented. In reference to the Hollywood remark, I didn’t mean Hollywood, as the California city, so much as the whole star chasing, rumor mongering, scandal loving, sensational seeking culture, regardless of which coast is responsible. I have come to realize that Wikipedia is equivalent to a biased presentation by a professor with an agenda in a college classroom. So you can look to it as a start for information, but in the final analysis, the Wikipedia user is unwise to not seek other sources of information. Thank you, Jmh123, for giving me an idea of how this whole mess developed. How desperate does one have to be for fame, right? Anyway, I’m done here because I feel like I just joined a message board, dang it, and never did much care for the likes of them. Also, I’m sick of talking about porn and gossip posing as information. -Anon
  • Let's be honest now, anybody can go read the pages and pages of debate on this issue in the Clay Aiken article and see that if there is a slant, it's in Clay Aiken's favor. That's why this issue was so drawn out. I personally don't think you can simultaneously claim the story is baseless and worthless, yet complain that alternate viewpoints should be provided and this article is so pro-Paulus. It's pretty neutral compared to the drama that ensued getting the Paulus link on the Aiken page. - mixvio 14:16, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The blog

The Paulus blog no longer has any particular relevance to his Wikipedia page. Up until now I have been in favor of leaving it as it illustrates his warped personality, but now I'm thinking that, more than anything, it constitutes a forum for expressing his hatred of Aiken and his fans. How do you all feel about deleting the link? -Jmh123 02:12, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

The article is about "John Paulus" and that's his "official" site in as much capacity as he has one. I don't agree that it should be deleted. - mixvio 02:09, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
I found a blog about the Tate-LaBianca murders linked under Charles Manson so I guess there is a precedent for linking blogs. Does Wikipedia have a position on linking to hate sites? If consensus is to remove it there will be no objection from me. - Maria202 13:36, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, I think this is far from a hate site, personally. It's his page and we can't remove links to pages because we might not like or agree with the content on them. Anyone going to his site is going there either to yell at him or see what's going on.... I personally think he's off his rocker, but it's still his page. We can't delete links to PETA because they compare eating meat to killing Jews, even though I find that more offensive than any ramblings about Paulus' crush. - mixvio 14:11, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Paulus's blog is pretty distasteful, and "off his rocker" is putting it very mildly. I certainly wouldn't want to go back for a second look, but it's his, and it should stay linked here. If Charles Manson himself had a blog (god forbid!), I'd link that in his article, but most of the blog links there don't belong, in my opinion. -- ArglebargleIV 15:49, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dead reference links

Someone ought to go through them and delete them or fix them. Many of the pro-Clay links don't work and no longer exist, or use the "We Support Clay" blog as evidence, which unfortunately isn't. - mixvio 01:23, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unsubstantiated

I have reinserted the word unsubstantiated before the word speculation. Contrary to the previous editors assertion, speculation is not, by nature, unsubstantiated. Speculation is akin to a theory, and can be substantiated or unsubstantiated, with facts to support it. This information, and the article cited, make it clear it is of the latter unsubstantiated variety. It is a wholly appropriate use of the term and gives NPOV context to the information. --Rabinid 18:40, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reported vs. Alleged

I have also restored my use of the word reported, as the NY Post did not alledge anything. They reported the information about the GMA appearance, the details surrounding it at that and backed up their reporting with a quote from Aiken's representatives.

[edit] NY Post article re: GMA appearance

I have reverted the latest edits as 1. The context of the article is clear - That Aiken refused to discuss the John Paulus allegations or his sexuality. 2. The information from the article should not be in quotes, unless it is an actual quote from an individual. 3. The statement that was added was issued in response to a filed lawsuit by an author of a book on Aiken. While it may be argued that it could allude to the John Paulus allegations, it references neither him or his allegations in any specific manner and therefore is not relevant to the subject of this article and is NPOV.--Rabinid 07:32, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

1. The article discusses the fact that Clay will be the musical guest on GMA. Therefore there will be no interview. This has absolutely NOTHING to do with Paulus, Page Six was just reminding folks about the topic. The article did not mention that Clay refused to discuss Paulus. The only thing that it said was that that since there is no interview we should not expect Clay to discuss Paulus and that Clay has refused to discuss his sexuality. It just does NOT say that he refused to discuss Paulus.
2. It was a direct quote from the article. That is done all the time.
3. The Clay quote is a specific reference to why he does not address allegations. Paulus made allegations. It is relelvant. Especially when Paulus has gone to great extent to insinuate that there were different reasons for Clay to remain silent. By not allowing the response from Clay you are making the article POV. The quote itself explains why it does not reference Paulus or his allegations in any specific manner. 66.82.9.80 10:38, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't mind removing the reference to Remax, because of the damage to their reputation that Paulus has caused. However the fact that he had a pornographic profile on BigMuscle establishes the fact that he had porn inclinations long before this alleged event occurred. The so called (and short lived) porn career is the main reason that this article was not deleted for non-notability (see articles for deletion).

And the statue of David is a nude. The statue of David in full arousal is explicit. These photos were explicit. 69.19.14.26 00:44, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Note that the pornographic online profile is the most likely reason why Paulus was fired from Remax (not too suprisingly). However he has complained that it was harrassement by the Claymates that got him fired. The online profile is VERY revelant, and the fact that it was in place during his tenure selling real estate and way before these allegations surfaces is relevant to the article.
Note that without the gay porn career aspect, this article would strictly be about some guys alleged one night stand. Wikipedia does not keep articles on one night stands, especially when they are unsubstantiated. No matter how tittlating they are about some celebrity. 69.19.14.28 10:08, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Without the online profile, the entire story would not have a basis, and this article would not exist. If that is how they supposedly met while Paulus was a Real Estate Agent, then you have to include it. And you have to include it before the "Aiken allegations". It is Paulus who made the claims that the online profile was the mechanism for the meeting. The way Paulus told the story, Clay liked what he saw - and that is why he contacted Paulus. You can't just erase that. 69.19.14.28 01:00, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blog, deux

why was this touched? there's no reason why the link to his blog needs to be messed with, as per the previous discussion. it's HIS website. please refer to the prior conversation before you take it upon yourself to delete something otherwise appropriately kept. - mixvio 13:37, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree, the blog just shows what a nutcase the guy is - so leave it there. Michigan user 23:04, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
as long as we agree, I don't care about your rationale. ;) - mixvio 01:56, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ref to porn site

  • I've reverted the link again. It's not a legitimate news source. The blog is there only because it's Paulus's personal blog where he talks aobut it -- if it was anybody else's blog talking about Paulus it would be gone. Did Paulus say anything interesting and applicable to this article in the interview? If so, transcribe it and we'll take a look. If not, why is it there at all? -- ArglebargleIV 11:45, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
I am of the opinion this guy is the site owner for the porn site and is trying to get it injected. I traced the IP and I looked up the registrant info for the site and they look suspiciously similar. I'm asking an admin to get involved and possibly block him from editing further. - mixvio 13:41, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • So I took the time to listen to all of this silliness, he adds nothing new in the discussion and furthermore, this interview was given in March. It's not pertinent, and he just reiterates what's already been discussed and has already been examined in this article. And since "Joseph Fenity" isn't a real reporter it doesn't belong, whether it's an audio interview or not. - mixvio 19:05, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • It's back, and it's back, and it's back... I'd revert it again, but I really don't want to get into WP:3RR trouble, although I think that this is a spam link, and removing spam links shouldn't trigger a 3RR violation. I believe that the consensus of the editors is that the link does not belong, especially after Mixvio's report above. Should we open a WP:RFC on this subject to determine a wider consensus? -- ArglebargleIV 20:51, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't think an RfC is necessary, or would even get much response. The editor adding the material hasn't bothered to defend its inclusion here. Though I didn't listen to the interview I looked at the site and it is full of advertisements. -Will Beback 21:07, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
The user needs to be banned, at least temporarily. He ignores the 3RR rule himself and edits comments in his talk page. It's a junk inclusion. - mixvio 23:22, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Opening summary

I don't really like this sentence. He's not really a gay porn actor, at least that's not his claim to fame anymore. Wouldn't something like this be more appropriate?

"John Steven Paulus III (born 1967 in Connecticut) is a former real estate agent from North Carolina who in early 2006 alleged a sexual encounter with pop star Clay Aiken."

The porn isn't what he's notable for anymore. If anything it's the allegation. - mixvio 19:03, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Makes sense to me. -- ArglebargleIV 20:00, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
I'll go ahead and change it then, barring the onslaught of attack-revert. :p - mixvio 20:16, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Still notable?

Now that he's retracted his allegation, is this person still notable? That was his only claim to fame. Would a paragraph in the Clay Aiken article suffice? -Will Beback · † · 06:01, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../j/o/h/Talk%7EJohn_Paulus_0658.html"