Talk:Clay Aiken/Archive 13

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Religious affiliation category

I'd like to get some feedback from the other editors on an issue that has come up. Carlossuarez46 has twice deleted the category of Baptist from this entry. The second time the following exchange occurred:

from Carlossuarez46 talk page: I see that you have removed "Baptists" from Clay Aiken's entry again, again saying there is no evidence. In his memoirs Aiken states that he grew up in the Baptist church, attended the Moravian church for a time as a teen, and then returned to the Baptist church (pp. 212-213). On page 213 he states, "Today I am a proud Southern Baptist." In addition to that evidence, here's a link from the Raleigh Leesville Baptist Church's website: [1]. -Jmh123 00:35, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Simply put the cite in the article. Carlossuarez46 20:13, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I think some of the more general argument is that if it his being a Baptist is so insignificant that it is not mentioned in the article, then classifying him as such in a category would be unhelpful. On the other hand, if his being a Baptist is significant then it should be put in the article. --Hamiltonian 00:49, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
While his being a Christian is a significant part of his identity, being a Baptist is not especially so, in my opinion. Anyone have a different view? -Jmh123 04:41, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

A committed Baptist singer is apt to gain an immediate, strong following from that community. Often times, Baptists do indeed look favorably on each other, even on that basis alone. If it's true, this ought to be included. Merecat 07:52, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I swore I wasn't going to get into this, so someone else, please write about this. Aiken grew up a Southern Baptist, but he has had his issues with them. He talks in his book about leaving that church for a time and attending a Moravian church in Raleigh, before deciding that he felt comfortable distancing himself from the beliefs of the Southern Baptists while still worshipping with the church community he grew up in. He probably sang a lot in that church growing up, but I haven't seen anything written about this. Anyone? In the book he also talks about strong disagreement with an relative (an aunt?)'s stance towards homosexuality. Given the assumptions some have made about his fans' and Aiken's own attitudes towards religion, moral conservativism, homosexuality and so forth, it would be interesting to add a well-written section on some of these matters, in Wikipedia style--no original research, no speculation, NPOV, reliable and verifiable sources, and keeping to the tone and style of what has already been written. And given this lot, be prepared to argue. :) -Jmh123 02:51, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
The Moravian church wasn't in Raleigh. Give me a few days to do some research and I'll do an outline. - Maria202 03:02, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm glad you're interested, and look forward to reading what you come up with. -Jmh123 03:50, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
I may be wrong about where the Moravian church was located. I have a friend who's been filling my head with stories about the Baptist church and the Moravian chuch, so yeah - I'm interested. - Maria202 03:56, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Philosophy

"Adults have a responsibility to children-all children, not just their own."[1] Describing himself as a proud Southern Baptist, [2] coupled with his refusal to sing lyrics he considers unacceptable for children to hear[3] resulted in the magazine Christian Music Planet listing him as an American Idol Christian in addition to having him on the cover with a featured article of their January/February 2005 issue.[4] [5] Aiken will not hesitate to share his beliefs if asked in an interview. He is aware that not everyone shares his faith and says that while it's who he is, it is not his intention to offend.[6] - Maria202 17:48, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. It's a great start to work from, a lot of good research. I'm just getting ready to log off and catch up with work. I have some ideas; will respond more in detail later, probably not today, but I hope there will be a balancing perspective that shows ways in which he is atypical of Southern Baptists. Learning to Sing is a good source for that. I can work on that if no one else wants to. I hope others will offer input as well. -Jmh123 18:02, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Teacher category

Many sources credit him as a teacher. His university major is special ed. His autobiography states that he taught special ed at Brentwood. I say we add Category:American teachers to this article. -User:Carie

I have mixed feelings about this. I see that there are a few others in that category who are more notable for other things, such as Laura Bush and Strom Thurmond. I could go either way with this. I wonder if there's a policy or accepted standard regarding the number of categories per entry. -Jmh123 07:12, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm not so sure this is a good idea right now. He said he's certified to teach in NC and that's why he was able to tutor Gregory. I'm not clear on the difference between being certified and being licensed. Maybe at some future date when we have more facts available. Maria202 03:55, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

How did Clay Aiken help Kelly Clarkson break her "American Idol" contract?

I think that even more important than how good (or not) a singer he is, this question more than anything else occupies my mind. The AI contract was notorious in how restrictive it was to the winner's/contestant's subsequent careers. How did Aiken manage the feat of successfully breaking it, and in helping Kelly Clarkson achieve the same thing? The answer would reveal a side of the man not heretofore appreciated, that of a savvy, tough businessman. If anyone knows how he pulled the trick I would like to know. -- Jalabi99 22:17, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi Jalabi99. Normally we start new topics at the bottom of the "talk" age, but I'll leave it here so you can find my response. This story has not been told, and would require original research to verify it. Yes, I know it is stated elsewhere on Wikipedia, but we have higher standards here, or we try, anyway. All that is known is that Kelly signed with Clay's management of the time, The Firm. We don't know that Kelly broke her contract. We don't know for sure that Clay did either, though there were many rumors that he did. Rumor is that Clay was able to break his because AI had violated some terms, possibly by turning down some big endorsement deals without consulting him, but we prefer not to publish unsubstantiated rumors in this article. Now if reporters ever got back to reporting, and someone investigated and published on this topic in a reputable publication with multiple, verifiable sources, then we could include it in the article. He is the "savvy, tough businessman" you describe, so maybe we can think of another way to convey that. Thanks for the suggestion! (ETA: struck this statement since I can no longer find such a reference in Wikipedia.) -Jmh123 23:11, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

According to Kelly's fan boards Kelly's brother found that the materials she paid for to promote her cd were not being sent to the stores and that's how she got out of her contract. There was a lot of speculation that Clay had something to do with Kelly joining The Firm, the management company he was with at the time. As Jmh123 said, there are no verifiable sources for this information. - Maria202 00:37, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
An added thought. Most of the press about this came when Mario Vasquez quit American Idol last year. There were many reports that Mario had hired "Clay Aiken's lawyer" to get him out of his American Idol contract. [2][3][4] Bo Bice also hired "Clay Aiken's lawyer" after the show was over, and delayed signing his RCA contract as Clay had done, while, presumably, the lawyer was playing hardball (but there are no press links coming up on google regarding that connection). Perhaps "Clay Aiken's lawyer" should be the one who gets the Wikipedia attention. -Jmh123 01:12, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, "Clay Aiken's lawyer" must be the Johnnie Cochran of ex-A.I.ers...who you gonna call? Clay Aiken's lawyer! :) -- Jalabi99 10:27, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
And one more thing, Jmh123: I looked [here] and elsewhere, and nowhere did I see where it is official Wikipedia policy that "normally we start new topics at the bottom of the "talk" page"...but yeah, well, whatever floats your boat. -- Jalabi99 10:34, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
The Wikipedia tutorial on "talk" pages Wikipedia:Tutorial_(Talk_pages) says, "When you post a new comment, put it at the bottom of the talk page," but my intention was only to indicate common practice on this page. Apologies if I offended. -Jmh123 14:36, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Raleigh Boy Choir

Can it be added to early history that Clay went to for music training and is now an alumni of The Raleigh Boychoir? --Nate D 03:04, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Just want to acknowledge your request. - Maria202 16:23, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Added the statement. -- 66.82.9.91 02:49, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Style

I am not sure the putting the Br in the refs is a good idea. You just exchange a wide list for a longer page - and it looks less consistent. Michigan user 17:07, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Trouble is the two long references don't end up as a wider line; they end up two lines long even without the Br, but with just a few words carried over (at least on my computer). It ends up looking really bad to me. I am open to suggestions for better fixes. -Jmh123 23:54, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Issue becomes not every viewer is using your browser/screen resolution, typical wikipedia practice is to allow individual browsers to do line wrapping when necessary, not force them to wrap.  ALKIVAR™ 01:45, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
Wow, your siggy is scary. So sorry. I fixed it. -Jmh123 02:20, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Infobox Band vs. Musical Artist

  • 66.82.9.82 added the Band Infobox. If were going to have an infobox I think we should use the one for a musical artist which fits the subject better. I changed the color to the one for a solo artist. Under "formed" I added to the present. Comments? eta: I don't know where the "T" at the top is coming from but I'm not crazy about that. - Maria202 20:10, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
It looks like the musical artist infobox is still at the proposal stage and is subject to change. - Maria202 20:39, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks - I just stole the one from Bo Bice. Guess that I should have checked it out. Lucky you are running around cleaning up behind me. -- 66.82.9.70 22:57, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Sometimes I need to clean up after myself too. :) So if you won't be insulted I'll clean it up some more. - Maria202 23:33, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


RIAA certification

It has been certified 3x platinum !! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.137.84.101 (talk • contribs)

According to the RIAA's website it isn't. If you have any other information, please provide a reference. ArglebargleIV 20:34, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

It shipped 3x platinum a while back but has NOT been certified as yet. - Maria202 20:50, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Question: The RCA Press Release[5] states that MOAM is certified 3x platinum. RIAA is known for being slow to update. (Billboard is still showing May certifications and we are in August.) Is the press release sufficient proof of the certification? - Maria202 14:21, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Yes, and I'd footnote it with a reference to the press release. -- ArglebargleIV 14:31, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Restoring portion of archive

Hi guys - long time no see! I brought back a chunk of the archive. A few items are less relevant, but I didn't want to be moving selected sections within the archive, so I brought a big chunk of consecutive material that contains items of continued relevance. Please let me know if I missed anything. -Jmh123 16:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Paulus redux

While I'm here, anyone for removing that piped link? While there has been no retraction, even the Enquirer has called JP a liar. -Jmh123 16:25, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing back some of the relevant discussions. I vote for removing the piped link. Maria202 17:47, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I vote for removing the piped link. Triage 00:00, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone have a reference for the Enquirer calling Paulus a liar? I'd be really curious to see it. I've reserving my "vote" for now -- possibly a rewrite into a description of the fuss over an eventually false allegation (and similar info on the Paulus page) might be the way to go if the allegation is at the state mentioned by JMH. (I'm not saying I don't believe you, JMH, I'm saying that I just don't know for myself as of yet.) -- ArglebargleIV 00:25, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, just for organization's sake, I've put this discussion into a new section. -- ArglebargleIV 00:26, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I think that removing the link is sufficient. No need to dredge up old stories. Here's the NE quote. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13285579/ Maria202 01:05, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Arglebargle, have you had a chance to look at the article yet? The Enquirer doesn't say JP lied about his original story--I doubt they'd say that even if they suspect it--but they do portray him as having lied about his interactions with them. He told a different story to the press about those interactions, along with his recent "apology", just as he has told different stories all along the way. I suggested removing the piped link only, because we are still awaiting the possibility of a response during album promo--in-depth magazine or TV interview, etc. As for a rewrite on Paulus--adding the latest, sure. -Jmh123 23:08, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I read the article. Until the allegations are more comprehensively disposed of (or proven correct), I think the link through tabloid stories is correct. However, these new developments should be placed on the John Paulus page.
I half wonder if the actual correct solution is to NOT have a John Paulus article (because he personally isn't notable outside the controversy, upon further consideration), and to replace it by separate article, Clay Aiken allegations or Clay Aiken controversy, perhaps, where both sides of the allegations are presented. The allegations are the only reason we have a JP article, the rest of it is non-notable, so maybe only the allegations should remain? Just a thought. -- ArglebargleIV 04:27, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
With no comment from Clay Aiken there is no controversy nor are there two sides, only an allegation made by JP. I do agree with you that this is all that makes him notable. Maria202 18:06, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

The single NE editor's quote in the article does not rebut the content of Paulus original allegation, and only offers a statement on how it came about. The overwhelming amount of coverage that the original allegations, the subsequent webcam pictures, and continued reporting on other details (the JP blog apology for hurting Clay and his fans by the revelation) have received weighed against the single NE editor's quote and controversy over how the story came about does not quantify removal, simply because fan editors wish to disassociate Aiken with the allegations. I note that the amount of press coverage, before his now PEOPLE cover story announcement, dedicated to Lance Bass's sexuality paled in comparison to the overwhelming amount of press attention that Aiken has received on this issue. John Paulus has still, to-date, not retracted his story and continues to publicly stand by his public addmission that a sexual encounter occured between the two. If any rewritten is to be done, to include a more fuller picture, it should include reference to the webcam pictures, The FTC Complaint filed by the disgrunteled fans, as well as the cancellation of the performance at the Christian fashion show because of the scandal. --Rabinid 23:25, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Just a small note -- Lance Bass has had less press attention on the gay issue then Clay Aiken has had because, recently, Lance Bass has less attention on any issue compared to Aiken. Timing is everything. -- ArglebargleIV 04:27, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Rabinid's assessment is exaggerated in every way. It's pointless to argue, and it's all been argued before. Arglebargle, we can't remove the Paulus entry--we tried that--but I do agree on his lack of notability. I don't think his allegations warrant their own entry; after the tabloid media lost interest in him, Paulus publicized his story endlessly in a series of blogs, and received no further attention for it from the media other than for his "apology". There is no other side to present, as Aiken has had the good sense to ignore this whole thing, and blog battles between fans and haterz are not a reliable source for Wikipedia. -Jmh123 16:21, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Forgive me for being late to the discussion, but the agreement that all of us subscribed to was that the paragraph wouldn't be touched until Clay Aiken's cd comes out, and even then we would only discuss the possibility of changing it. I would hate to think anyone would reneg on that deal after the lengths we took to accomplish it. - mixvio 15:31, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Well, it hasn't been touched, so there's no reason to deal with anything so far. -- ArglebargleIV 16:02, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
    • The agreement was to wait 6 months at which time we thought the album would be out. But as ArglebargleIV said, no one has touched it. Maria202 16:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
No, as was extensively spelled out, the agreement was specifically to wait until the album came out, which was supposedly in July if I recall correctly, but as the release date was pushed up so was the agreement. It wasn't an X number of months, because if I recall this discussion was going on in April and it's certainly not been six months from April, right? The agreement was "we'll revisit this when the release date of the cd draws near." It's easily viewable in the archive of the discussion. I just wanted to make sure this point was clear before anyone does decide to touch it. - mixvio 20:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Album title

Arglebargle, Jaymes Foster announced the album title A Thousand Different Ways in her blog on the Official Clay Aiken Fan Club. The rules of the fan club prevent members from copying her blog. Maria202 02:31, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

  • I didn't put the album title there, I just edited the sentence it was in to have it make more sense.
  • I am not a member of the Official Clay Aiken fan club, nor am I a member of any unofficial Aiken sites. I don't even read them, except when I'm Googling to check information. When I saw the title listed in the article, I googled, saw it listed on several fan sites, and assumed that it was public knowledge.
    I'm certainly not bound by any restrictions on fan club members when I'm not a member of the club -- perhaps your problem should be with the posters on fan sites (google them yourself!) who are repeating information that they aren't supposed to repeat. -- ArglebargleIV 04:12, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
  • You misunderstood me. You'd asked for a citation and since there hasn't been a press release yet, I was simply trying to explain where the title came from. If I offended you I am sorry. I certainly didn't mean to. Maria202 04:29, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Oh. I'm sorry about that -- I did misunderstand you. Please accept my apologies. -- ArglebargleIV 18:11, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

The album title and release date have been officially announced on the public portion of the fan club http://clayonline.sparkart.com/ so I've removed the citation needed request. - Maria202 20:06, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Image is gone

Does anybody know why Clay_Aiken.jpg was deleted? It's annoying when an image is deleted because the history goes with it. -- ArglebargleIV 14:33, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Not a clue. What do we need to do to get one back up? Maria202 14:51, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Well, I found out why -- [6] is the log record for it. Somebody has to upload a new image to use that is properly sourced and follows copyright rules, I guess. -- ArglebargleIV 15:20, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
  • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Soccerdude625 - Maria202 15:40, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
    • I uploaded a couple more. Never done this before. Each time I got a warning that the picture will be deleted in 7 days. I used tags that I thought would cover the situation (as per other images on the page--screencap, promo pic), but I guess not. At least this will hold us for the time being (7 days at least). -Jmh123 17:35, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Certification

Can't we put RIAA Certification as 2 x platinum and (UNOFFICIALLY 3x platinum) ? unsigned by 24.89.247.70

  • In their press release RCA said it was certified 3x platinum but RIAA hasn't updated their data base. It's probably better to wait for the update before changing it. Maria202 19:41, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

To do list

I'm not familiar with this aspect of Wikipedia. Does one individual have the right to determine how this article should be written? Is the individual who has made these pronouncements in a rather ostentatious way (box at the top of the page) familiar with the complexity of previous discussions on some of these issues? Do the rest of us have the right to disagree with these pronouncements, and what is the procedure for discussion/modification/deletion of the list? For example, Maria has already made some changes in response; can she delete portions of the list accordingly? The peer review is one sentence--not particularly helpful in this instance. At any rate, while I have no objections to including a balanced mention of the lawsuit, it isn't clear to me how we can "verify...rumors about his sexuality" beyond what has already been stated in the article. It isn't up to Wikipedia to pronounce Aiken gay or not gay, and the article has already addressed the rumors in some detail, including Aiken's own statements on the matter. We have agreed to postpone further edits on this matter until album promo, at which time there may or may not be more said. Aiken's response to the lawsuit, including the statement: "As a so-called 'celebrity' I have become used to scurrilous allegations and untruths being made about me and my work. I have always taken the path of not reacting to these matters and have accepted them as, somehow, coming with the 'job.' However, I cannot, and will not, stand by when these attacks are made on my family." [7] might be considered relevant. -Jmh123 20:07, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

From what I can tell, the review was done automatically. "Clay Aiken The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and may or may not be accurate for the article in question." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Peer_review/Automated/Archive_2#Clay_Aiken
I checked the other individuals on the archived page and the only other ToDo list I saw was for Paul McCartney, which just said check the suggestions. It appears that Aiken is the only one deemed worthy of a detailed list.
I did make most of the corrections/edits suggested but considering the history (archived) and staying away from libelous content I don't see how one person can overrule all the editors previously involved. I'm not familiar with how this works either. - Maria202 20:55, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Maria, I think your link is for the earlier peer review. The Good Article review (which somebody requested) was apparently performed by Davodd. He's saying that, in his (solicited) opinion, that the article is close, but to be listed as a Good Article there is a to-do list that would have to be satisfied, or it's not going to be approved. Good Article is a step toward Featured Article status, reserved for the best of the best, and which can appear on the front page as the article of the day. Now, about whether the to-do list should be done or not....uh, will discuss later, I have go get dinner. :-) However, possibly mentioning the lawsuit that Jeannie Holleman filed, a news story or two, and Clay's reaction, might be a good idea, even though I personally think the suit is a pile of steaming doodoo. -- ArglebargleIV 21:18, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
So does that mean that we could add a section like this? "Some bozo leach decided to try to use Clay to draw attention to her sucky book that no legitimate publisher would touch, and hopefully mooch some money out of it. Said bozo filed a lawsuit as step one of the publicty attempt." OK, maybe that won't work.  ;-) 66.82.9.82 22:16, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
BTW, Maria, nice work on the corrections! -- ArglebargleIV 21:18, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
You know, if Wikipedia has a goal of mentioning every frivolous lawsuit that is created against every celebrity - which I doubt, then they will be considerably contributing to the intent behind a good portion of those lawsuits, which is to get attention for some person or cause, however I could see mentioning the book lawsuit if it does not get thrown out of court.
However, when did it become Wikipedia's goal to be the source for current news and gossip/rumor? I do not think that it is. As a matter of fact there is considerable arguement - which we have been through in detail (see archives and arbitration) that suggest that this should NOT happen. Wikipedia is an encyclopedic reference, not a gossip column. If folks are coming to Wikepedia for current gossip and rumor, then that says that portions of Wikipedia need to be cleaned up to get rid of the trash, and get back to being an encyclopedia. Michigan user 11:36, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
By omitting real and notable controversies, you give an incomplete picture of the life of this celebrity. As the article reads now, the pain of fame endured by Mr. Aiken is not adequately documented. The ways people have taken (or tried to take) advantage of him are not documented well - or at all, despite abundant sources. This article is incomplete in that it does not address fully and place into context the downside of fame for this celebrity. Please note examples in the following artists with controversy sections: Madonna, Beatles. The fact is that this article was listed as a WP:GA candidate, which means it needs to be better than average. Until it transcends its current fan-oriented status it will not advance beyond being a well-written, PR-friendly (fan biased) profile. Davodd 20:06, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Relating the issue to Wikiguidelines:
From the “Presumption in favor of privacy” section:
In borderline cases, the rule of thumb should be "do no harm." Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. It is not our job to be sensationalist, or be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives.
Frankly this was discussed in detail. Pages and pages of detail. And the consensus was reached for the article to be stated the way that it is. It so happened that you were not involved at the time that the discussion was held, however you really need to re-read those many pages, and visit the arbitration relating to this. I see no reason to resurrect an issue that was already discussed to death. 66.82.9.82 21:51, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Many articles have a "To-do" list. It provides a shorthand way of listing issues that need addressed. They can be editied, modified, changed and altered by any of the editors using the project. Usually, as tasks are dealt with (or dismissed as unneeded, the are simply deleted from the to-do list. It does not need to be solely for WP:GA it can be used for planning any improvements needed of an article. Davodd 20:24, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your response - apparently the procedures are well underway. Frankly, I do not care if the article is noted as "good" or not. The general issue of rumors is addressed, and there is a link to Paulus' story. I do not want to rehash heated discussions we've had here before on multiple occasions. I have neither the time not the heart for it. The regular editors here of various POVs have an agreement not to address these issues further for the time being. ETA: Davodd, can you condense your list so we're not arguing the same point under several different categories? Thanks. -Jmh123 21:28, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying the ToDo list. The article was nominated on Aug. 11th by Esprit15d. Anyone not involved in editing can do the review.
Addressing the FTC complaint and aside from the fact it was a PR stunt, it was aimed at the record company, not Aiken. If it was to become part of an article it should be in the RCA/Sony BMG article. "We believe that this was absolutely fraudulent and that we may have actionable recourse against the record company"..."Among the premises being considered toward RCA Records and corporate parent Sony/BMG are False Advertising on the basis of Misrepresentation and Bait and Switch."
No where in the press release does it say anything about suing Aiken.
As for the legitimate lawsuit filed in court by the author, I agree with JMH regarding it being too soon. Aiken's attorney has 28 days from the file date to respond and it hasn't been 28 days yet. It can be thrown out, a gag order could be issued or Aiken could counter sue. It's best to wait a bit and see what happens.
Regarding the tabloid allegations there are pages and pages of discussion/arguments including arbitration which you can read beginning in January '06 through April '06 and are in Archive 8 through Archive 12. That's not an experience I care to repeat. - Maria202 23:03, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Discussion moved from todo

WP:GA review: as of 21:11, 21 August 2006 (UTC) Overall - an article well on its way to being one of Wikipedia's best Pop Culture profiles. But, it needs to realistically address negative issues as it does positive issues. Please re-nominate once these are fixed.

  1. Well-written: PASSED. Good professional tone. But one area of improvement: WP style issues on italics for all song titles should be consistent.
    Done - Maria202 13:41, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
    Comment - I hate to be the nitpicky grammar freak here, but where is this WP style guideline saying song titles must be italicized? WP:MOS-T says only that they need to be enclosed in quotation marks. - Gemtiger 18:41, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
This is Wikipedia, where one person's opinion expressed authoritatively carries more weight than the guidelines. -Jmh123 19:44, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  1. Factually accurate: FAILED.
    • All superlative factual claims need an in-line citation (or reference to original source). For example, "has become the most successful" need either a footnote or an attribution: "... according to the June ##, 2006 XXXXXX magazine."
    Done - Maria202 13:41, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
    Agree Michigan user 11:54, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Inaccuracy by omission. The controversies of his celebrity are not covered and put into their proper context. It is likely that users may come to this article wanting to verify lawsuits [8] or rumors about his sexuality [9].
    Disagree - Wikipedia is NOT the place for Rumors and gossip. Michigan user 11:54, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
    Disagree - An encyclopedia covers facts, not rumor and/or speculation - Maria202 13:41, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
    COMMENT: Please see my comment below on this topic. Davodd 19:42, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
    Agree in part -- I'll stay away from the third rail (sexuality rumors) here, but about lawsuits -- The filing of a lawsuit is a fact. That the lawsuit was covered in the news is a fact. It should be covered.
    COMMENT: See my comments on lawsuits under points #3 and #4. -Jmh123 21:26, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
    Agree - I've said from the beginning this article is STRONGLY biased against dealing with any of the issues that cast Clay Aiken in any light other than the return of Jesus Christ. - mixvio 17:44, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
  2. Broad in coverage: FAILED. as above, It is likely that users may come to this article wanting to verify lawsuits [10] or rumors about his sexuality [11]. We need to address these issues.
    Disagree - we need to stay away from issues that are not factual. Michigan user 11:54, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
    Disagree - An encyclopedia covers facts, not rumor and/or speculation - Maria202 13:41, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
    COMMENT: An encyclopedia is a complete resource. Including the real impact of false accusations and rumors. Do you propose we remove any reference of the rumors of a possible 2008 presidential bid from the Hillary Clinton article, since they are based upon rumor and speculation? I believe you are confusing two issues: Encyclopedias do not perpetuate unsubstantiated rumors and encyclopedias do report on substantiated fact. The FACT of a RUMOR is encyclopedic if its impact has a real, citable and substantiated effect. For instance, if the rumors about sexuality or other behaviors or actions (or lack thereof) caused some fan groups or others to protest in a documented way, (record burnings, boycotts, lawsuits) that is a truth that may shed some light on the tribulation of fame for this celebrity. As it stands, the group-endorsed censorship of this article to avoid unpleasant topics, is a violation of WP:NPOV. To make coverage of a rumor - it should be put into context and explained fully. To avoid controversy for the sake of avoiding controversy makes an article incomplete. There are many ways to write about the real, encyclopedic impact of rumors and allegations without perpetuating falsehoods. Davodd 19:42, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
There are hundreds of rumors out there about Clay Aiken. Who gets to be the one who decides which ones get publicized in Wikipedia? So far as I can tell the "gay rumors" have not had any real impact on Clay's career. Who gets to decide if it did? The ones who might benefit from the publicity it it gets included in the article? The fans with an agenda? The haters with an agenda? Frankly I think that including ANY rumor (including your Hillary example) just corrupts the reliability of Wikipedia, and opens it up to liability and ethical issues, and I am firmly against it. 66.82.9.82 22:42, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
That is not a valid academic argument. Wikipedia has a many guidelines and policy as to what is or is not notable (Wikipedia:Notability). Please remember we are writing an encyclopedia to be read by others; not a work of art for our own enjoyment. It is a fact that any given celebrity is constantly surrounded by rumors. The vast majority (and sometimes all of them) are not notable and are not appropriate for an encyclopedia. But those that are notable enough to make national headlines in non-celebrity rags become notable controversies that should be noted here (and debunked as appropriate). To censor them out completely is dishonest to the reader. What do we say to the reader who comes to Wikipedia to find the truth about the a sex scandal they heard about on CNN or read about in the New York Times? Nothing? They will leave Wikipedia thinking that this encyclopedia is either incomplete or a mouthpiece of Mr. Aiken's PR campaign. Davodd 10:11, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
There has been no mention of a "sex scandal" in the New York Times. Page Six is the New York Post gossip column. Quite a difference. Fundamentally, you are asking Wikipedia to go where legitimate news organizations have not, and for good reason. -Jmh123 16:33, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
The Notability issue was discussed in detail relating to the Paulus fanfic stuff. No mainstream news organization ever touched the topic. The entire saga was played out in the tabloids and gossip columns. Page Six of the New York Times is a gossip column, not a news source. CNN never once mentioned Paulus. The legit news sources wouldn't touch it with a 10 foot pole because the story stunk back then and the believability of the guy has gotten MUCH worse since then. The original tabloid, breaking the so called story, basically called him a liar in print. Actually the Paulus article was a candidate for deletion, due to non-notbility. It was unresolved, so the article is still there, waiting to see how things play out. The lack of mainstream coverage really irritated the guy and his cohorts. That is why the supposed 9 fan FTC complaint was entered, trying to escalate the topic into national coverage. However, that complaint never mentioned a word about Paulus. There were several incorrect mentions of the FTC complaint as a lawsuit by news sources (lousy news reporting, they need a fact checker). As others have mentioned, you need to go back and read the discussion. This has been hashed over before, and the Paulus story is just non-notable. It is basically a stalker harrassing a celebrity. Happens all the time. Since it had no impact, it is non-notable. This article already gives the topic more attention than it deserves. Michigan user 10:35, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  1. Disagree - Let's take the example of the supposed lawsuit by the 9 fans that was widely publicized, and to which you indirectly refer. If every news organ in the country that addressed this story got it wrong, and no original research is permitted here, how exactly does one proceed? The filing was obtained by someone I know via the Freedom of Information Act. I've seen it. There was never a suit at all, simply a complaint to the FTC, not in legal format and not signed. It was intended only as a way of publicizing false allegations--in other words, a publicity stunt. Just because some newspapers fell for it doesn't mean that Wikipedia should. -Jmh123 21:22, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
    Agree - See my string of comments. :) - mixvio 17:44, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
  2. NPOV compliance: FAILED. By focusing on the "positive" aspects of his fame and not adequately addressing the "negative" aspects, this article fails the to be neutral. As is, it reads more like a well-written fan site entry than a true encyclopedia article on a popular culture icon.
    Potenially agree, if based on sourced fact. Michigan user 11:54, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
    Disagree - Again, sticking to facts is not POV. - Maria202 13:41, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
    COMMENT: Choosing to emphasize some facts while downplaying other facts because of a personal bias or opinion, is indeed, a violation of the WP:NPOV rule. Davodd 19:42, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
    Disagree - Echoing Maria, sticking to facts is the way to go. I have no objection in principle to coverage of the lawsuit by Jeanne Holleman, although I think it is far too soon. To include this now is simply to participate in a publicity stunt intended to sell a product, as Wikipedia chose to do in the case of John Paulus. -Jmh123 21:22, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
    Agree - mixvio 17:44, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
  3. Stability: PASSED. Only cosmetic edits in the past seven days.
  4. Proper image use: FAILED PASSED. Improper use (source omitted) for copyrighted images. Source needs listed or adequately expanded for Image:Clay Aiken JNT poster.jpg, Image:Clay Aiken - Billboard Awards.jpg. This should include the image's owner and a justification as to why it is fair use.
    Done - Maria202 13:41, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

- Davodd 21:11, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

External Links

There are literally HUNDREDS of fansites devoted to Clay. There was already a clean up discussion, and the compromise reached was that there would be one newletter listed and one site that would direct the user to all the OTHER zillion sites. Finding Clay Aiken has the expanded list allowing the readers to find the sites that they might be interested in. This is not spam, it was an agreed upon compromise. Michigan user 11:04, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Was there a compromise about the newsletter? FCA I can see, but are we sure the newsletter belongs there? Especially with the newish policy/tendency towards only allowing one fansite per article, if there was a compromise it may have to be revisited, and either the newsletter or the FCA link removed. -- ArglebargleIV 14:48, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Can you point me towards to policy about the fansite links? I can't find it. But yes, there was a bunch of discussion that included the Newsletter. Sort of buried in those archive pages - LOL. 66.82.9.59 22:18, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Clay Nation News is listed on Finding Clay Aiken so if one needs to be eliminated that's the one to eliminate. However a newsletter is not a fan site. - Maria202 23:14, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, I've seen people refer to the guideline about fansites, but I can't actually find it. I could be wrong. I don't mind if they both stay, myself. -- ArglebargleIV 23:30, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Biased tone

Until I happenstanced upon this site to do a WP:GA review, I didn't understand what was going on. It appears this article is flawed from chronic fancruft-type censoring. What is an otherwise well-written article is marred bias toward positive facets while not adequately addressing any notable controversy, even to debunk well-known and notable rumors.

Examples of credible sources of notable controversies not addressed in this article
Page Six of the New York Daily News is a gossip column, not a news source - and it IS mentioned and linked to in this article. Michigan user 11:20, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Tabloids and gossip columns are NOT considered credible sources. And your wrong. It was not picked up by national news, only by entertainment/gossip columns. No credible news source would touch it, probably because of a fear of libel suits. - Maria202 13:26, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
The scandal also got airplay on MSNBC, surely a credible news source. I would also add that the major news outlets reported on potential mismanagement of Mr. Aiken's charity, yet I see no reference here. Adamsappleturnover 01:42, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
No - the Paulus claim was not ever covered on MSNBC. The silly FTC complaint was mentioned, but that is a separate event from the Paulus stuff.
And you really think that we should mention the story about potential mismanagement of money, when the result of the research that WRAL did showed that the claim had no basis? They found that the foundation has a BETTER than average use of funds, and that 85% of the money collected went towards listed programs. If we list anytime any one make a bogus claims against celebrities in the hopes that something might be found, we might run out of Gigabytes. But HEY, it is a good way of mentioning how well the Bubel-Aiken Foundation is managing it's money - so I don't have a problem at all with mentioning it. 69.19.14.44 02:13, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
However, if you want to mention that it should go on the article for the Bubel Aiken Foundation - not the Clay Aiken article. 69.19.14.44 02:20, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
So your implying that Wikipedia is a newspaper and must report news as soon as it happens? - Maria202 13:44, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
This lawsuit should definitely be mentioned in the article. It's news now, and it doesn't become news only when Aiken's attorneys answer. And news is part of an encyclopedia like Wikipedia's scope. -- ArglebargleIV 14:28, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
From the “Presumption in favor of privacy” section:
In borderline cases, the rule of thumb should be "do no harm." Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. It is not our job to be sensationalist, or be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives.
Davodd 11:10, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Davodd - the first topic has been discussed for MANY pages - and it IS addressed and even linked in this article. The second topic you mention has not yet been responded to by Clay's lawyers, because the 28 day time frame is not over yet. At that time the decision can be made whether it is notable enough to mention. The third topic is ridiculous. Why would PETA get any attention from their outrageous misrepresentation of what happened. That is why PETA did it - to get attention. Why would we enable that? So basically there is nothing to do yet relating to your comments. Michigan user 11:19, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Because a newspaper writes a report about something does not make it so. PETA never launched that campaign. - Maria202 13:16, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
The PETA issue should be mentioned, as a debunking if needed, especially since they never followed through. -- ArglebargleIV 14:32, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
The proposed ad was defamatory and potentially libellous. Behind the scenes Aiken's attorneys stepped in and the ad never happened. "We're in a slight holding pattern. We're always flexible," PETA spokeswoman Ingrid Newkirk told the New York Daily News. "We got a lawyer calling and our lawyers said maybe we can work something out, make the ad evaporate, and put a leash on the insult dog."[12] I will not contribute to defaming any one regardless of who they are. - Maria202 15:33, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
How is mentioning that PETA tried something (stupid) and it failed due to Aiken's camp's actions defamatory? It's the truth. -- ArglebargleIV 15:37, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Because in order for the explanation to make sense it would take every bit of 2 fairly long paragraphs. You would have to tell the whole story about how Clay had a kitten and when he was 16 he accidently ran over it, and how he held that kitten while it died, and how that ripped him up inside. You would have to explain how he now has a bit of an aversion to cats because of the awful memories associated with that incident. Then you would have to explain how he chose some unfortunate wording when he had his interview with Rolling Stone (he has this tendancy to over-dramatasize stuff for effect).
Then you would have to explain how PETA was going to put out an ad saying that Clay hates cats so much that he killed his kitten on purpose, and how Clay's lawyers put an immediate stop to that. Not only that but now you have accomplished the result of giving PETA the attention and exposure that they were after to begin with at Clay's expense. All of which is entirely out of proportion to the importance of a 4 day event that happened years ago. 66.82.9.59 19:31, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  • It's weird that you guys never examine yourselves from outside of yourselves. This argument is almost word-for-word the same defense you were using against Paulus. "We can't give him attention," blah blah blah, "Just cos one place mentioned it doesn't make it newsworthy," blah blah blah, "It's libellous." Sheesh. Anything to protect poor Clay, huh? - mixvio 17:37, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
  • the bit written about Clay being a tenor-alto is obviously the work of a crazed fan who worships his vocal range. although it is impressive, he doesnt show the ability to go above the Tenor C (C5), which is quite normal for a trained tenor these days, as seen in many singers.

More Neutral

OK - the article now contains a paragraph for each of the controversies mentioned. For balance or whatever. Michigan user 22:31, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

  • I think the separate area is a big improvement and a step in the right direction. - mixvio 17:34, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Sexuality Speculation

As mentioned with his interview with Diane Sawyer, hes obviously gay. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.251.140.233 (talk • contribs)

  • For the article, citations are needed. -- ArglebargleIV 14:06, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

He is rumored to be dating Lucas Grabeel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.235.66.141 (talk • contribs)

  • This was part of a set of unsourced and apparently vandalistic edits by user:71.235.66.141 -- I deleted the other edits, but I should not have deleted this (and the previous) off of the talk page. -- ArglebargleIV 14:06, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Before this is touched again, deleting other people's comments on talk pages constitutes vandalism. If you have a gripe with the comment respond to it (or not) and be done with it. Deleting it is against the ToS. I appreciate Arglebargle took the time to restore the comment when I pointed this out to him even though we both think the particular comment is argumentative. Respecting other people's opinions and right to free speech is the entire reason this dramamongering keeps going. - mixvio 18:07, 25 September 2006 (UTC)


"I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons." [2] He considers "no" information to be better than "speculative" information and reemphasizes the need for sensitivity:

"Real people are involved, and they can be hurt by your words. We are not tabloid journalism, we are an encyclopedia."

"Editors should remove any negative material that is either unsourced or relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Reliable sources from any page, including those concerning living persons and related talk pages, without discussion; this is also listed as an exception to the three-revert rule. This principle also applies to biographical material about living persons found anywhere in Wikipedia."

You yourself said this was crap. "No, I agree, the contribution was meaningless bullshit, but I have an issue when stuff starts getting deleted off of talk pages whether it's dribble or not; it really makes me nervous. And it's the sortof bullying tactic I've seen employed by the other people involved in this particular powerstruggle; that's why I talked to you first, if it had been one of them who deleted it I would've just reverted it without asking."

Let's keep personal animosity out of this and stick to the guidelines. - Maria202 18:28, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

  • It's not in the article, it's in the talk page. If it were in the article then I would wholeheartedly agree it should be removed. It does no harm in the talk page. If you want to keep personal animosity out of it then don't follow my comments to another person's page. It only reinforces my point. - mixvio 18:52, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Restoring my comment that Mixvio accidently deleted.
Vandalism is vandalism regardless whether it's on the article or on the talk page and as such will be reverted per the guidelines for living people. That point is made very clear in the WP:Living. - Maria202 19:39, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

RFC Response: The relevant policy is Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, or WP:BLP for short. It says that unsourced or poorly sourced negative material is to be immediately removed anywhere in Wikipedia, specifically including talk pages, without discussion. That includes this talk page. Repeated removal of such material is a legitimate exception to the three revert rule; repeated reintroduction of such material is not a legitimate exception. Such material should be removed, and if it then needs to be discussed the discussion should reference diffs (if totally unsourced) or the possible sources (if it is viewed as poorly sourced).

As I read this, the issue is a claim about Clay's sexuality. I view it as a negative claim, but I know people who would view it as a positive claim. I therefore am choosing to refrain from removing the material herefrom, because I am not sufficiently convinced it is a negative statement about Clay. If you believe that it is a negative comment that would need to be removed from the article, it is your responsibility to also remove it from here. GRBerry 22:24, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

The two comments in question would not stand on the article and would be immediately removed. Therefore they will not stand on the talk page. Both you yourself, Mixvio, and ArglebargleIV have said you consider them vandalism if they were in the article. I'm therefore removing them once again from the talk page. - Maria202 22:36, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Your inability to discuss or even entertain a differing viewpoint counter to that of your idolatry is why your article failed to maintain its nomination. There is no reason at all why the topic needs to be deleted from the talk page and in doing so you're only trying to quash the failing grasp you have over free speech. Considering the other gay-related topics in the article I don't see why this should be deleted from the talk page. The articles are for facts, the talk pages are for discussing introductions of more facts. Despite your attempts to the contrary you're not succeeding in purging the vile gayness that is Clay from the hearts and minds of Wikipedians. Get over it. Comment restored. - mixvio 22:58, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I find it amusing that you're continuing to edit-delete a passage in the hopes of killing it when continually editing it only serves to make it more and more visible. Anyone can come by now even if it remains deleted and see that once again you're making a fight to get rid of something you don't like about your boytoy, which is entirely why you lost out on your Good Article nomination and why you'll continue to lose out on it until you get a grip on your crush(es). - mixvio 02:32, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
As an uninvolved editor I second GRBerry's opinion wholeheartedly. People who want to spread rumors should gather at the water cooler, blog, or go to usenet. This is an encyclopedia. Durova 05:03, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Your high viewpoint aside, it's the TALK PAGE. We're not discussing information on the article. We're discussing information on the TALK PAGE. In the aforementioned referenced guideline there's only one mention of removing items from talk pages compared to the multitude of references saying removing them from articles, and even then the issue to remove them from talk pages is only if the item is negative. Is being gay negative? Is dating someone in the Disney musical Highschool High negative? No. So then it's only an issue of negativity of you have a problem with open discussion; the other involved parties in this debate have clearly exemplified that they do, what's your stance? I maintain, and I will continue to revert this until we're blue in the face, that deleting information off of a talk page is inappropriate and a violation of the ToS and free speech. These people love to latch on to any issue and turn it into a power struggle. Take for example the revert war with getting Kelly Clarkson out of the summary page. "Waah, Clay Aiken should be compared to other legitimate artists, not American Idol." Forget that he became famous only because of American Idol, forget that the item in question is a compliment, it's not an item that they themselves have contributed to their precious shrine. I don't know what you guys think, Maria et al, but I doubt Clay Aiken's going to pat you on the back for the good work you've done defending him. - mixvio 05:08, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
I need no reminder that this is a talk page. That consideration was one of the things I weighed. Clay Aiken has chosen to keep his sexuality a private matter. Per WP:DE I recommend you respect a consensus of impartial Wikipedians. Durova 14:51, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
First, let me reveal my possible bias here. Personally, I think he's gay, but I certainly don't have proof, just my personal weighing of the preponderance of the evidence. Really, as a mild fan at best, it doesn't matter that much to me which way he swings. What matters to me (if only because I've spent so much time on it) is the end result of a Good Article about Aiken. My personal opinions are not going to affect how I treat my contribution to the development of this article -- I'm fairly sure I can do that. I don't think the article should say that he is gay or straight, but just report on what he and others have (verifiably) said -- and I believe that's the Wikipedia way.
Mixvio, I think part of the problem here is that the comments above aren't worth defending -- basically, they're drive-by graffiti. There is a place here for serious discussion of evidence and allegations about Aiken's sexuality (as he is a public figure, and the repeated allegations and/or denials are part of the public story, despite his desire to keep it private), and I will defend the right to a serious discussion here of how it is to be treated in the article, because the allegations are part of the story and part of the penumbra around his public persona.
However, an unsigned comment like the first one isn't serious, isn't verifiable, and isn't constructive. The second comment was appears to be part of a vandalism spree by someone who was focused on the actor Lucas Grabeel. Just to be picky, I did a google and search check, I couldn't find a reference linking Aiken and Grabeel even on trashy gossip sites and blogs. Given the WP:BLP policy, they probably should go (being no more useful than "AIKEN IS TEH GAY" or "he CAN'T be GAAAAY cause i LOVE him", both of which I have heard) -- but, as I said in a comment to you, I'm not going to remove them myself.
There are useful fights to be fought here, over accurate representations of secondary and tertiary sources, and a full and unbiased representation of his career and public persona -- but I don't think this is one of them. -- ArglebargleIV 15:31, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I would agree that the comments aren't on par with the rest of the discussion but considering the tactics that Maria and Jmh specifically have employed I'm simply not comfortable walking down the slope of deleting other people's comments. The unsigned messages in particular aren't that offensive, they're pretty blase compared to other spam that HAS been deleted, and can you imagine the way this entire Paulus deal would have gone if they tried to delete comments in the talk page bringing it up? The same argument they're using to delete the two comments is entirely identical to the reasoning they tried to use to keep Paulus off. I'm not okay with that parallel. And that they still continue to delete this even after there's now a page of messages about the comments-- meaning it's entirely irrelevent now IF they're deleted because there's still a discussion about them anyway-- is so laughable that it wouldn't be offensive if it weren't on par with the bullying that they've employed for nearly a year now. I'm fine if you want to get into a revert war with stuff in an article but I am not okay with deletion of comments that aren't spam or the caliber of stuff that would get you in trouble with the law. I'm not going to stand by and allow it to happen because then it's only a matter of time until Maria or someone else deletes the 1818291391294194 pages of discussion about Paulus because they don't consider it verifiable and it's negative to Clay Aiken. - mixvio 15:41, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
  • In related news, it's on CNN now. [13]
Fame has its downside, too. Aiken has been the target of speculation about his sexuality. Tabloid reports earlier this year suggested he had a gay affair. Aiken has never directly addressed the rumors.
I hope now we can agree that the mentioning of the story in his article is worth merit. - mixvio 16:47, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Actually they did not report on the JP story. They just reported on the fact that there were tabloid stories. The article ALREADY mentions that there are tabloid stories. Triage 23:20, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Are you honestly that obtuse? "Tabloid reports earlier this year suggested he had a gay affair." There was only one tabloid story earlier this year making that suggestion. It doesn't matter if they didn't say "John Paulus" specifically, it's the SAME STORY. - mixvio 17:48, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
I think that the point is that CNN did not do a story ABOUT JP, they did a mention ABOUT the tabloids speculating. If the man's name was not even mentioned - then it is a far stretch to say that they reported his story. CNN does not really approve of participating in Libel actions. 69.19.14.38 02:34, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Oh, you work for CNN and develop their programming? Why didn't you say so? Don't be petty, it doesn't make a difference if they didn't say Paulus' name, there was only one story that happened in the beginning of the year and it was the Paulus one. Your standards for noteable change the further along it gets. And again, it's not libel. In the US it's pretty difficult to achieve that if you're a public figure. - mixvio 03:38, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
It was NOT the only story. There was the "unnamed gay teacher". There were the "anonymous" men who called in. While there is a huge probability that these were just JP trying to prop up his fairy tale, they were different stories. And your blanket assertion looks like grasping at straws. And you have called people obtuse and petty now, then resorted to dripping sarcasm. Not an effective communication mechanism. 69.19.14.35 11:04, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
It was the only story. The others have faded. The Paulus one was the highest one and you know that's the one referenced in the CNN article so why you would pretend to not "get" it is really silly. As for sarcasm I am confident in your ability to persevere. - mixvio 21:45, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Wow - you get to just decide all by yourself that the other stories don't count. I am impressed. (Some sarcasm for you). The point is NOT which story that CNN was referencing. The point is that CNN did not report JPs story or any of the other stories. CNN reported that the TABLOIDS carried stories - that is a huge difference. And CNN carefully did not report any details. CNN knows perfectly well that if they actually reported JPs story - they would be open to a libel suit, and they are not willing to take that risk. For good cause. This article already mentions that the tabloids carried such stories. Just like CNN, this article mentions the existence of stories without going into detail that crosses the libel line. So what is your complaint? And about the issues raised in the nomination raised by Davodd, those issues have already been addressed and corrected in the article. 69.19.14.30 14:48, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
"Wow - you get to just decide all by yourself that the other stories don't count." Sure I do. You certainly seem to think you can. - mixvio 21:16, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I find it particularly concerning that the section about his sexuality contains the word prurient (which means "marked by or arousing an immoderate or unwholesome interest or desire") right near the phrase "he doesn't know why people are offensive," which implies that being called gay is offensive. Is calling someone Thai when they're actually Korean offensive, too? The prejudices shine through pretty clearly in this article. 64.240.142.2 22:16, 27 September 2006 (UTC)David in NYC (who is straight and happily married with kids)

He's said on a number of occasions he is not gay so why be surprised he finds the rumors offensive. The words "prurient stuff" were used by Sawyer. - Maria202 04:36, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Why was my quote deleted? It was an actual quote from a transcript of a John Paulus interview on 2/9/06. Clay fans deserve to know Aiken's gaping truth.

Ryanweath 18:56, 8 October 2006 (UTC) ryanweath

You need to get consensus before adding a comment on a subject that has been disputed. And this topic was dealt with for pages and pages of discussion. What is in the article is the consensus of that discussion. Triage 23:16, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Album Sales

Don't get me wrong on this because I'm a fan of Kelly's too and I edit her page right along with this one. I'm not going to get into an edit war over this but I do not think this sentence belongs in the opening paragraph. "Aiken has also sold more albums than any American Idol winner, with the lone exception being the winner from American Idol, Season One, Kelly Clarkson." As I stated when I reverted the first time, album sales fluctuate and what is true today can change tomorrow. Additionaly, it is not sourced and comes off sounding POV. We already have a sentence calling Aiken the most successful 2nd place finisher with a citation and the second sentence to me is redundant. I felt that first sentence didn't really belong there either but I did go searching for a source for it. If I went and put Clay's name in Kelly's opening paragraph, it's my opinion that the editors of that page would be having a fit.

Comments? - Maria202 16:25, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

  • I think a version that sentence is useful (if the info changes, then we change it), but not where it is -- it doesn't belong in the opening paragraph, I agree -- but not because of the Kelly Clarkson reference, becaus eit just isn't opening paragraph material. I'm not sure where to put it though, not that I re-examine the article. -- ArglebargleIV 18:51, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Yeah - what ArglebargleIV said. Except I don't think that they AI comparisons need to go on forever. Sheesh. 69.19.14.35 19:05, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

gay Clay

I'm tired of bastards worrying about his homosexuality. Why does everyone have to ask if someone is gay? No one is going around badgering people if their heterosexual. Twentyboy 13:06, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

The lack of respect for the subject of this article and some of the editors here is appalling. 12.76.216.15 15:07, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm equally tired of fanboys and girls worried about his heterosexuality. However the issue is reporting fair and factual news and attempts to stomp on the Paulus story, while other mainstream media has picked it up and other people turned this down as a Good Article nomination because of the biased grip some editors have on this page, have thus far turned up unsuccessful. - mixvio 21:48, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
No mainstream media has mentioned JP. 69.19.14.41 02:51, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Continually avoiding the topic is why your article failed the nomination. Others can see your bias, I don't get why you have such difficulty with it. - mixvio 13:33, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
The tabloids were careful to use the word alleged. alleged - declared but not proved, supposed. Aiken said the tabloid stories were not true. Not true - false. "One thing I've found of people in the public eye...either you're a womanizer or you've got to be gay. Since I'm neither one of those, people are completely concerned about me... They're like...what are you then?" - Clay Aiken (Rollingstone). It's to bad you think believing what a man says about himself is biased. But, like Aiken said - people are going to believe what they want to believe. - Maria202 20:11, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
No, I find absolute denial that a story was reported in the press to be biased. I don't care whether or not he's gay, or whether or not you think he's gay. It doesn't change the fact that the story exists. Trying to hide it is why you lost the nomination. - mixvio 04:15, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
The point is not hiding the story, it is minimizing damage that false tabloid stories can do to a celebrity, and minimizing the libel exposure that Wikipedia has. Right or wrong, this sort of a story CAN damage a mans reputation. Which was the intent. Right now the world has passed by this story. Wikipedia is pretty much the only vehicle that there is any push to spread the gossip in- which is against Wikipedia guidelines. The article does refer to the stories exising. How much more damage should Wikipedia endorse? Note the caution above: " " This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material (negative, positive, or just highly questionable) that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. The three-revert rule does not apply to such removals. Concerns relative to this policy can be addressed on the living persons biographies noticeboard." Tabloids are NOT a good source. You are trying to subvert the intent of Wikipedia using technicalities. 69.19.14.37 11:17, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
A quick check of the contribution history shows that Mixvio's contributions to this article are mainly confined to arguing for the Paulus story on the this articles talk page. It seems that when he refers to it as "your article" he is correct, considering he has made minimal contributions to anything other than the one tabloid allegation. The belligerent attitude toward other editors appears to be POV. - Maria202 15:02, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
I have no interest in Clay Aiken whatsoever. I find his music barely passable for 40 year old housewives and bubblegum. I don't care about his life, or his church experiences, or anything. That's why I have no other contributions besides trying to ensure that you don't succeed in POVing up this article with denial. Attacking me still doesn't change the reason why you lost. Because perfect strangers could come by, who are editors and admins and have vast experience in Wikipedia besides you two and know what's good and what's bad, and said "Holy crap, can we say bias?" Belligerence is earned, dearbear, and you certainly have earned it in spades. And besides I make most of my edits anonymously unless it's something that needs to be discussed. I'm not in the business of running around like it's a badge of honor because I have 138728947147134 edits under my name. - mixvio 21:14, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Well you seem to have a lot of interest in Clay's sexual orientation, and in pushing to include salacious details of tabloid stories based on lies in this article. Can we say bias? And if you think that getting a Good Article nomination is a reason for adding libelous content to an article and potentially damaging another human beings reputation - then frankly your priorities are really messed. And your priorities are not in line with the "living persons biographies" guidelines of Wikipedia. So there is really not all that much to continue talking about. We had a consensus. That still stands. 69.19.14.19 22:29, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
I had nothing to do with you losing the nomination. Others made that decision. You can't blame me for it. :) - mixvio 18:59, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
The issues that Davodd listed have been addressed. Why do you keep harping on it? What exactly are you complaining about now? It is just as possible for fancruft to be anti as well as pro. And at this point that looks like what you are engaging in. The objective shoud be a balance, and I believe that is what we have at this point. 69.19.14.30 19:31, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm "harping" because you still don't get what the problem derived from in the beginning. The article is better now, yes, but it's not as unbiased as it really should be, in my opinion, but I'm willing to compromise for the sake of this argument having gone on for nearly a year now. But you still don't understand what the issue is, hence me pointing it out. - mixvio 02:04, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
A consensus was reached and the article reflects that. If you can't see that fellow editors have differing opinions that is your problem. At this stage, posting the same point over and over seems argumentative and an attempt to have the last word. Stop suggesting that any opinion other than your own is invalid, foolish and biased. The Wikipedia community is better served with cooperation rather than an agressive attempt to have your own way. Your passion is getting in the way of reason and you'd be much better served by respecting your fellow editors and working with them instead of against them. - Maria202 14:20, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
I'd say the same about you, dear. - mixvio 14:27, 16 October 2006 (UTC)