Talk:Clay Aiken

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

↓    Skip to table of contents    ↓

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Clay Aiken article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
This article has an assessment summary page.
Clay Aiken was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Reviewed version: August 21, 2006
Peer review Clay Aiken has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.
To-do list for Clay Aiken: edit · history · watch · refresh

Improvements

  • To Do: Add 19 Recordings to index of labels. Officially citation should be 19 Recordings first and RCA second. (July 13)
Portions of this talk page have been archived. You may wish to look up the previous discussion, as some of it is on issues that have already been resolved.

Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14

Contents

[edit] No mention of Aladdin

Clay Aiken appears in the 1992 Walt Disney animated feature film, Aladdin, performing the song "Proud Of Your Boy". I don't see any mention of this in the article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.136.226.205 (talk) 03:47, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

He's not in the film. He is on the DVD singing Proud Of Your Boy and that information is included in the discography. The song was cut from the original version and only added back as an extra on the DVD. Maria202 (talk) 04:53, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Heading information

Can someone please correct the intro to say that Clay was appointed to the Pres Committee in 2006, not 2007. Thanks. 69.19.14.20 15:27, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

It's fixed. Maria202 16:28, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Aiken is gay? (uh - No . . . )

This is barely mentioned in the article - it should be revamped with a section of "controversies" I mean people talk about Clay, two sentencnes laater is he gay? PhiloWisdom (talk) 22:44, 15 December 2007 (UTC)PhiloWisdom

I think we include substantially everything he's ever said on the matter. Pretty much anything that anyone else says about the matter is gossip and speculation. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:00, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Well then it should be in a seperate section rather than tucked away within the article - Clay may deny it which should be covered, but there is more buzz than this article lets on PhiloWisdom (talk)PhiloWisdom —Preceding comment was added at 22:44, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Read the last 14 archived pages, and THEN we can have this discussion. 66.82.9.85 (talk) 01:55, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


Why no mention of comedian Kathy Griffin and her description of Aiken's fans as "the gaymates"? Aiken himself has aknowledged her ribbing, and Griffin's reference to the often obsessive behavior of his fans demonstrates the impact this has had on Aiken's public image. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.18.25.60 (talk) 16:43, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Read the last 14 archived pages, and THEN we can have this discussion. 69.19.14.16 (talk) 11:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
That is, without a doubt, the most idiotic statement I have EVER heard. So school teachers can't be gay? Dearest God. Elefuntboy (talk) 08:22, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Well I don't think that Clay is gay - but I have to agree with the "Dearest God" comment. Sheesh. 69.19.14.16 (talk) 11:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I dont beleive Aiken is gay. He never acts gay. Why do you think he would be gay? —Preceding unsigned comment added by B-frog101 (talk • contribs) 21:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

You're kidding, right? Proxy User (talk) 07:52, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Really, he doesn't act gay. Have you ever seen him? He is totally gay and it is offensive that he refuses to admit it. It is not like he is Ricky Martin and has a sex symbol image to protect. He is Clay Aiken for goodness sake. Everyone already knows he is gay and no one would care, if he would just admit it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.179.168.89 (talk) 18:47, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

What does "act gay" mean? AuntFlo (talk) 14:00, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

AuntFlo are you really that naive? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.225.208.80 (talk) 07:01, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

There is a difference between camp and gay. Straight guys can be camp too. Fatlip90 (talk) 15:33, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Presidential committee

The additions to the entry regarding the Presidential committee are original research and have been removed. That is, there is no reliable, published source indicating that there is any question or concern on the part of the committee or any official entity regarding Aiken's participation in the committee. Just an FYI (irrelevant to Wikipedia, but since you are concerned), other, informal sources indicate that he has attended these meetings, and an earlier inquiry from a blogger resulted in a letter from a committee representative verifying his presence which subsequently made the rounds of the blogs and boards. -Jmh123 (talk) 09:23, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

It is verifiable that Aiken was appointed to the committee, but it is also verifiable that he hasn't attended the meetings. Wouldn't the minutes of the committee in question, which are easily accessible and part of the public record, be considered a reliable source? Aiken's non-attendance is a legitimate point to raise in a section devoted to his activism, and supported by verifiable evidence. To leave out his attendence record leaves the reader with the implication that his involvement is greater than it actually is. Your FYI is, as you point out, wholly irrelevant without anything other than "informal sources making the rounds on blogs and boards", and it contradicts the minutes that are available as a public source. I am inclined to reinstate the relevant passage, however I will hold off for the present in the interest of seeing what others think.Adamsappleturnover (talk) 15:55, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
If a journalist wishes to pursue this, and then writes an article, then that article will be a reliable source (if the publication is reliable, and the information is independently verifiable). What you are doing is speculation based on incomplete information. -Jmh123 (talk) 16:02, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Adamsappleturnover, As stated in the December 7, 2006 meeting minutes, only those wishing to be identified are listed as attendees. They specifically recorded this to explain why Clay's (and others) names may not be included in the minutes. Therefore it is verifiable that the minutes are NOT verifiable evidance of lack of attendance. Especially since there is significant casual evidence showing that he has attended at least some, if not all of the meetings. Why is this an encyclopedic issue anyway? Is there eviedence that the committe has concerns. No. Then why are you trying to CREATE concerns? That would be new research, which Wikipedia does not allow. Triage (talk) 17:20, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Following Triage's comment, I looked at the minutes for that meeting, which would have been his second. The minutes state: "Executive Director Sally Atwater convened the official quarterly meeting of the President’s Committee for People with Intellectual Disabilities on December 7 at 3:00 PM, which was held via conference call.* This list may not be comprehensive given that it is composed of only those who identified themselves as participants."[1] -Jmh123 (talk) 18:05, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
There are only two facts that are verifable. The appointment to the committee and only those wishing to be identified are listed in the minutes. Anything else is original research. Maria202 (talk) 19:31, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, to be completely accurate, the note regarding the December 2007 list being non-comprehensive only applies to that particular set of minutes, and it would be speculation to assume it applies to all others. In fact, the presence of such a note for that one particular meeting lends more credence to the idea that that is the exception, not the norm. I'm willing to drop the matter, although I would be fascinated to know of the "significant casual evidence" that he has attended. We can revisit this if and when either a representative of the committee makes an official statement, and/or further information comes to light which is then picked up and reported by a reputable news source. Adamsappleturnover (talk) 19:53, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
The fact that that statement is in the minutes proves that having your name recorded is not mandatory and I can find no where on the PCPID site where it says otherwise. Wikipedia is not the place for speculation, it's an encyclopedia and as such deals only with facts. Maria202 (talk) 20:11, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Please re-read what I just wrote. The statement is only put into the December 2006 minutes, most likely because being conducted as a conference call it would be more difficult for the secretary recording the minutes to note which members were present unless they made it clear. Most of their meetings are conducted in person, and for the vast majority of the minutes you don't see this statement as it doesn't apply. To take a statement about the list of attendees in the December 2006, and extrapolate that Mr. Aiken's name being absent from every other set of minutes must be because he was there, but the committee failed to note his presence, is extreme speculation. I'm not sure why it is necessary to try to argue one way or the other. Until we hear from the committee regarding this matter, or something is printed in an attributable source, I have agreed not to press the issue. The assumption made by many that Clay Aiken is actively attending these meetings is based on speculation as well though, as has been rightly pointed out, the only thing we really know for sure is that he was appointed, and nothing is known beyond that, or of the work he has done with them since 2006, if any. Adamsappleturnover (talk) 20:34, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
And the article is limited to that verifiable evidence. Regarding this "significant casual evidence," since you expressed curiosity, I have already mentioned the blogger. There are also message board reports from fans--the meetings are open to the public and the date and time announced in advance. Finally, there is a fan from DC who has a friend on the committee who verifies his attendance. None of which is relevant to Wikipedia. Thanks for agreeing to let this go. -Jmh123 (talk) 21:05, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
The Post (gossip column) has spoken. -Jmh123 (talk) 08:52, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
And they probably got their lead right from this page. But a gossip column in not a reliable source. Triage (talk) 09:29, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
I'd say the Washington Post's gossip column is a reliable source. They're not going to lie about having called and asked. If it is incorrect, there will be a correction published, and/or a response from the committee. -Jmh123 (talk) 09:43, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
They called and asked WHO? Their mom? Pres Bush? Groucho? Without knowing who and what they are talking about - it is not reliable. Triage (talk) 11:54, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
I suppose we have to throw out the Washington Post's award-winning journalism of Watergate since they didn't reveal the real name of their source, Deep Throat, at the time. Anyway, they did say who they called: the committee and a representative for Clay Aiken, so I would say that they have covered their bases, and I would consider the Washington Post a very legitimate source. I don't think we can pick and choose which facts to believe. I had merely pointed out that his attendance record was "uncertain" and was told that I was engaging in "original research", so the statement was removed from the Wikipedia article. Now, we actually know that Clay Aiken has only attended one meeting, so thanks to the Washington Post, we know more than we did before, and from a reliable source. Adamsappleturnover (talk) 12:41, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
If the Watergate story was only printed in the gossip column, I don't think anyone would reasonably have believed it. So this writer calls "the committee" - hmmmmm, and asks for Aikens attendance record. The response is that the minutes only show him attending one meeting. How is that different from what we knew before? Of course we really don't know what person or what question was asked. Only that it was not strong enough to be printed as news, only gossip. I expect in a few days something will come out, one way or the other to clarify this situation. Triage (talk) 16:21, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
The WashPo's "gossip column" is denoted as gossip only insofar as it doesn't report hard news, but rather celebrity news. The items are researched, and true--obviously--otherwise, the paper could be sued. It is noteworthy that while Mr. Aiken may have been named to the committee, he has shown up for almost none of the meetings. This fact has been verified by a WashPo reporter, and is just as newsworthy as his appointment to the commission. For this reason I am undoing the undo to my revision. TommyUdo (talk) 18:19, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Can we invert the phrasing to make it less accusatory? Instead of saying "However, Aiken seldom attends Committee meetings, having appeared at only one of the quarterly meetings since his appointment", how about "Aiken is on record as attending one of the quarterly meetings since his appointment"? That's more direct and is unquestionably verifiable. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:24, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Well I still don't think a gossip column should be usable as a ref, however, as a compromise I made the change. Triage (talk) 00:20, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

<-- I'm not thrilled by the citation either, especially since it appears to be partly sourced to (or at least instigated by) some discussion on Wikipedia. While newspapers rarely label their gossip columns clearly and in some cases the distinction isn't clear, this column does appear indeed appear to be a gossip column. In this case, where the journalist reports actually confirming the information herself, it appears to be verifiable and reliable. However many things reported in gossip columns are not notable. If there is an error we can expect the Post will fix it. And if it's notable it will appear in other sources. So for those two reasons, I suggest we remove the material for now, and see if there is anything further reported or corrected to establish its notability and accuracy. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:23, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. However, I think that someone else should remove the statement, since I have reverted it several times already. Triage (talk) 02:26, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
I suspect Will Beback must be unfamiliar with the Washington Post. That "Gossip Column" appears on page three of the Style section during weekdays. The "Gossip" moniker is a nod to the fact that its news items usually concern celebrities with a Washington DC connection, or "fluff" pieces about politicians. It wouldn't, for example, run a Paris Hilton story unless Paris Hilton appeared in DC. The reports are independently verified, and not "gossip" in the traditional sense of hearsay. It's not hard news, but soft news. I concur with the less accusatory wording, but disagree that it should be removed. If it's important to have the Activism heading, it's important to tell the full story. TommyUdo (talk) 03:23, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Will's point. It is my understanding that this conversation started on a blog, attempted to move from there to Wikipedia, failing that, moved to contact with the Post gossip column, and then from the Post back to Wikipedia. That someone should instigate the creation of "news" simply for the benefit of shaping Wikipedia is contrary to the spirit of this effort. -Jmh123 (talk) 07:44, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
I am not very familiar with the WP. A gossip column in a respectable paper won't run unverified rumors, and this assertion doesn't look like one. Let's wait and see how the story develops, if at all. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:19, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Triage, Will and Jmh. Maria202 (talk) 17:28, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Again, I completely disagree, but I'll not redo my edit. The idea that we "wait and see how the story develops" is absurd. It's very doubtful the WashPo will update the story, because it's had the final word. A reporter called the committee and checked his attendance record. There's nowhere else for the story to go. It's closed. Maybe Clay will actually start attending meetings--that would be change in status. Otherwise, it's a fact that he hasn't been present for most of the meetings during his tenure. This is important to properly put his "activism" into context. As a comparison, I'm technically a member of, I believe, four high-level government working groups, but have never attended a meeting. I therefore don't trumpet these appointments in any bio or resume; it would be unethical. I find it wrong for Mr. Aiken to be given "credit" for something in which he has, at best, a passive role, and at worst a nonexistant role. The desire to continue to suppress this information smacks of fanboyism and hagiography. TommyUdo (talk) 22:00, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
In a sense I agree with you. When and if we can get a source that is not a gossip column or blog etc., then I would have no problem with putting in the "non-accusatory" version of the statement. But if we follow Wikipedia rules, we should not allow original research, which is what this started out as, and we need a different source. So for now, we need to wait. Just as as aside, I looked around and there have been non-sourcable comments from meet and greets that Clay found out that these sort of meetigs are more for show and not very functional, and expressed some frustration about it. So from that it is believable that he decided not to spend his time on them. But again, that is just hearsay, and he has not made a public statement. Thanks for not causing huge waves about this. Triage (talk) 22:58, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
If the committee isn't a big deal for Clay, and the sheer paucity of comments from Clay about it seems to support this, then I would question its placement in the article under Activism. As the article currently reads, it gives the impression that the appointment to the committee is a significant event in Clay's career, when in fact, it really should be more of a footnote amongst his other achievements in the area of activism. For the record, I have no qualm with the attention given to Clay's Unicef work and Bubel/Aiken Foundation. I just find the Presidential Committee to not be an important part of the Clay story. His choosing not to attend, and refusal to comment when asked about his non-attendence, would really make one question why his Wikipedia article should give such prominence to the appointment. Adamsappleturnover (talk) 01:50, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Activism IS a big deal for Clay. That is known and sourced with tons of examples. And all the rest that you just said is just conjecture, so does not belong in Wikipedia. Perhaps Clay has been working long, hard hours weekly for the committee, and just can not attend the sessions. Perhaps he proxies in. Perhaps when he attends it causes too much disruption, and etc. etc. All of which is just as possible as what you are conjecturing. We need to find a reliable SOURCE, not leap to huge assumptions based on stuff we just do not know. Triage (talk) 08:24, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
The current page seems overly positive in regards to Clay's involvement with the President's Committee. Leaving out his attendance record is in effect not telling the full story. I would propose changing the paragraph under Activism to read as follows:

"In September 2006 Aiken was appointed to the Presidential Committee for People with Intellectual Disabilities. The Committee acts in an advisory capacity to the President and the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services on matters relating to programs and services for persons with intellectual disabilities. Appointees serve a two-year term; Aiken was sworn in September 14, 2006 by HHS Assistant Secretary for Children and Families Wade F. Horn, Ph.D., and has so far attended one of the quarterly meetings."

This is, I feel, a fair reporting of the facts, verifiable, and doesn't make a judgement or express an opinion, but rather, provides all of the information known on the matter, which readers are welcome to draw conclusions about, but at least they will have all of the facts at hand. Rblume (talk) 15:31, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

And who is supposed to monitor and update it if he attends another meeting? And where is the verification that he is not putting in a lot of effort, and just can not attend the actual meetings? And how do we not know that when he attends, the disruption causes problems, and so he works in the background?? I just don't get attendance tracking in an encyclopedia. Especially when the one and only source is a gossip column that got it's information from THIS DISCUSSION. Find a reliable source, and then we can talk about it. 66.82.9.77 (talk) 11:11, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Confirmation finally from Clay Aiken regarding the missed Presidential Committee meetings. I think we either need to update the entry with this new information, or we need to downplay the importance of this assignment. It just wasn't a priority for Clay Aiken, yet the article puts it forth as some great accomplishment, without revealing that Clay didn't follow through.

"It's been two months since we blew the lid off the simmering Clay Aiken scandal, revealing that the most successful "American Idol" runner-up ever has skipped all but one of the quarterly meetings of the Presidential Committee for People With Intellectual Disabilities since he was appointed in fall 2006. Much scorn was heaped upon our story by the fanatical Claymates community -- but silence from the crooner and his reps.

So we asked our colleague J. Freedom du Lac to confront Aiken during a scheduled Q&A for the Post Rock music blog. Aiken explained he's just so busy :"The last time I had two days off in a row was October. I was on tour throughout the country through Christmas, then I went straight to Mexico for UNICEF. [Then] I went straight to New York for 'Spamalot' . . ." Okay, gotcha. He added that "if there's something I can do remotely, I would've been happy to do it." Well, guess no one told him about the conference-call option." - Reliable Source - Washington Post - April 24, 2008 Adamsappleturnover (talk) 14:33, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

People Magazine has just reported that Clay Aiken claims he was "too busy" to attend the meetings. That makes two sources, correct? I feel it is going to be hard to continue to maintain the illusion that Clay is an active member of the committee at this point. Shall we still keep the fact that Clay was appointed, but follow up with the information that Clay stated that he was "too busy" to attend any of the meetings? What is the consensus? Rblume (talk) 00:35, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


[edit] relatives

Is Don Aiken who resides in Durham and was married to a Lelia Hobgood Aiken who passed away a few years ago, Clay's uncle? Lelia is a cousin of mine and I was just curious. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.106.204.46 (talk) 21:14, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Aiken and Jaymes Foster

Here's a cleaned up version of the text from [[User:]], with proper footnoting. (Why the link to britishcampaignfurniture.com was there is beyond me.)

On 29 May 2008, TMZ.com reported that Aiken and his executive producer Jaymes Foster are expecting a child in August. The was confirmed by Bill Vigars, a business associate of David Foster, confirmed the TMZ report in an interview he gave People magazine, forther explaining that Jaymes Foster had been artificially inseminated.[1][2]

  • just to show the references :
  1. ^ David Caplan. "Clay Aiken Is Going to Be a Dad", 2008-05-29. Retrieved on 2008-05-30. 
  2. ^ "Clay Aiken and best friend to be parents in August", 2008-05-29. Retrieved on 2008-05-30]. 

This appears to be moving past the rumor stage, although it's still developing. It should go somewhere in the article, but not in the early life section. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 14:59, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Now there is a conflicting report in a Canadian newspaper that says Jaymes is pregnant but Clay is not the father.[1] True or not I have no idea. Agreed it shouldn't be in the Early Life section. I reverted the entry yesterday when it was just TMZ reporting it but now it's all over the news media with most still crediting TMZ as the source. So far there is no official source. People come here looking for facts and at this point we just don't have any more than what they could find by using Google. ETA: It appears that private medical data was leaked and I'm not sure where Wikipedia stands on including that. Maria202 (talk) 15:47, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
    • I'm removing a portion of the statement from the article just because of possible legal ramifications.

"Criminal Penalties. A person who knowingly obtains or discloses individually identifiable health information in violation of HIPAA faces a fine of $50,000 and up to one-year imprisonment.89 The criminal penalties increase to $100,000 and up to five years imprisonment if the wrongful conduct involves false pretenses, and to $250,000 and up to ten years imprisonment if the wrongful conduct involves the intent to sell, transfer, or use individually identifiable health information for commercial advantage, personal gain, or malicious harm. Criminal sanctions will be enforced by the Department of Justice."

Maria202 (talk) 16:17, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

  • It's not possible for us to get into trouble for reporting what someone said in People magazine, even if the original source can be traced back to a possible HIPAA violation. The law and the penalties apply to those who have normal access to the information, and are required to safeguard it, which we aren't. On the other hand, if that is coming from a HIPAA violation, it's going to be hard to eventually source the claim further, other than saying that "Such-And_Such says that JF had CA's baby via AI, but there is no confirmation". Removing the statement as you did is certainly best for now. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 17:46, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
While there are two sources, Newsday just quotes People. I restored the AI bit, which is reported in both. We're not disclosing anything- we're reporting what has been published in publications that have hundreds of thousands of readers. However, I think that this entire topic may be better omitted until it's been confirmed by someone from Aiken's camp. Right now it's just a claim by a brother. There'd be no harm in waiting a week or a month so that the facts can be better determined. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:13, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree with removing the entire topic. There are several sources that are reporting that while Jaymes is pregnant, Clay is in no way involved. Which is exactly why we should not be putting "breaking news" into articles. Triage (talk) 21:33, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

This is such a ridiculous conversation. It is all over the news that Clay the Gay Aiken has donated his sperm. Get over it. You people take yourselves and this page way too seriously. I can't believe he has been allowed to breed, but it appears to be true.

What Wikipedia takes seriously is sticking to factual verifiable information in an encyclopedia article while maintaining respect for the individual involved. Maria202 (talk) 13:49, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Maria 202--you must be the venerable keeper of Wikipedia. Undoubtedly some pathetic Claymate who has nothing better to do. Why not talk about how People and other magazines are reporting that Clay's "fans" support this apparent impregnation with Clay's seed, however, every regular blog out there (not fan sites) show that people are utterly disgusted by the possibility that Clay has potentially fathered a child. What will his Southern Baptist parents think of him fathering a child out of wedlock with a 50 year old woman? By the way, you don't get much gayer than that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.179.168.89 (talk) 14:19, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Why should Wikipedia report the opinions of a bunch of irrevelant bloggers? So what. The world is full of bigots - nothing new there. And their opinions are not based on fact, just thin air. When there is verifiable informaation, then we will include it. Until then - it is just gossip that may or may not be true. However in either case, what is gay about In Vitro Fertilization for a 50 year old? Not much chance of her getting pregnant without it at her age. But it is her personal medical information, not public domain. Heck, even if Clay and Jaymes have been lovers for years, she would probably need IVF if they wanted to have a baby. But -oh yeah - you are not interested in common sense. Just smearing gossip around. Sigh. Triage (talk) 17:41, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


  • Ignoring the sniping from the IP peanut gallery....

The problem here has moved past "the opinions of a bunch of irrevelant bloggers" (TMZ.com in particular) -- People magazine's short questions of a friend of David Foster's is more than that. The question now is the evaluation of disagreeing sources -- some usually reliable sources say yes, some say no. I think that until further information comes in to settle it OR the story hits a nationally prominent level (neither of which has occurred), then nothing about this should be in the article. At that time, we can re-evaluate. (Please note, however, that the story can be reported in this article even if no confirmation or denial comes from Aiken's camp if enough reliable sources come through, which, again, hasn't happened yet.) -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 19:11, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

So, Fox News is not nationally prominent? http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,361402,00.html Quite frankly, the lack of inclusion of this news event STINKS of blissful cover-up and denial by the owner-editors of this article. People, do a Google News search. It's time to write a NPOV synopsis of this event for inclusion. Proxy User (talk) 07:56, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately, that link isn't a news report, it's a commentary about the rumor, and it's more about Jaymes Foster than Aiken. Due to WP:BLP, reliable sources are needed to mention the story inthe article. I feel the sourcing is close (especially the People magazine report), but not close enough to satisfy most people here, and to avoid edit-warring it can wait until better sources arrive. Wikipedia isn't a news source, it can wait to be right. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 11:28, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, it's pretty obvious that the "editors" who control / own this article are dead set against inclusion of this notable event. Sad, really, denial of factual reality. It reduces the value of the article because it taints what is there with the dishonesty of censoring what is not.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/sfgate/detail?blogid=7&entry_id=26917
A spokesman for Foster's music mogul brother, David Foster, has confirmed that Jaymes, 50, became pregnant through artificial insemination and is due to give birth to the 29-year-old "American Idol" star's child in August. Bill Vigars tells People.com, "The story is true... Clay is the father. She was artificially inseminated by Clay. She's due in August... She looks great, glowing and very happy.
http://www.newsday.com/services/newspaper/printedition/friday/news/ny-etclay305706749may30,0,5171452.story
Clay Aiken is going to be a father, People magazine reports. "The story is true," Bill Vigars, a Vancouver-based rep for David Foster, told People of the TMZ.com report that Aiken, 29, impregnated David's sister, music producer Jaymes Foster. "It is true Clay is the father. She was artificially inseminated by Clay. She's due in August."
http://www.actressarchives.com/news.php?id=10756
Last week, singer and American Idol alum Clay Aiken (29) announced that he is having a baby with his best gal pal, music producer Jaymes Foster (50) via artificial insemination.
This article is not an encyclopedic biography, it's a Fan Site. Ah well, live in your fantasy. Proxy User (talk) 04:06, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Just the opposite. Fan sites are the first to report rumors. As an encyclopedia, we should wait until the facts are well-established. Due to the nature of pregnancies, we can expect that more information will be forthcoming. There is no harm in waiting a week or a month. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:46, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Bologna. Fan Sites (like this one) seek to keep "embarrassing" details out regardless of the factual basis. This IS a Fan Site the way it stands right now. Proxy User (talk) 09:25, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I believe the information is true, and will be glad to put it in when we get solid confirmation. But I STRONGLY feel that it should not be in this article - which is an encyclopedic summary - not a news tracker - until there is confirmation from a source that is not 4 degrees removed. Right now we do not even have a statement from a rep for Clay or Jaymes. Just statements from the rep of a brother of the mother - who then said that he was mis-quoted and tried to get the story revised. That is NOT solid enough to put in a factual article. Everyone elses expounding on the topic is even more removed. We have NOTHING from anyone actually involved. Sheesh. Triage (talk) 13:55, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Triage and Will Beback, I agree with everything you both said. Maria202 (talk) 16:32, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
So, if "Clay or Jaymes" never make a public statement about it, the owners WP:OWN of this "article" will not allow the information to be included? That just screams FAN SITE! WP:FAN Proxy User (talk) 09:19, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't see what your objection is to waiting a decent interval in order to allow the details of the story to be confirmed. This is a long-term project. Why does this edit need to be made today instead of next week? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:52, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
OK, it's been a week since the original report, and there have been no denials from the Clay camp. I think we can now assume that the reports are not just a rumor and are worth mentioning. FYI, it caused a noticeable blip in Aiken's search ranking.[2] ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:07, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
I think it is unfair to post something as fact when there has been no confirmation made by the 2 people involved. There are other articles that have sources just as creditable denying Clay is the father, and the article also states that the person People.com used as their original source(Bill Vigars) has said he was misquoted [3]....why the need to rush to add something that has not been confirmed by anyone other than people that would themselves have reason to seek PR for their own personal projects. Even the Calgary Herald that first reported the rumor was true has since change their mind and are reporting the rumor is false [4] Moretothislife (talk) 07:11, 8 June 2008 (UTC) moretothislife

Perhaps we could instead put in a story saying "Rumors that Clay is having a baby with Jaymes Foster are false [5]). That is just as documented as the other version. Who gets to pick?? Triage (talk) 10:52, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

That's one source against dozens or hundreds. The comment by Cook appears to qualify as a minority vewpoint. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 11:06, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
The comment by Vigars is ALL that there is confirming it - there is no one else. Then it was repeated 100 times. That is not the same as 100's of sources. And he retracted it. He says that he was confirming that Foster is pregnant. Not that Clay is the father. Which exactly agrees with what Cook says. Where is a second source confirming that Clay is the father?? For that matter, at this point, where is the FIRST source, since he denies ever saying it, and tried to get the story pulled? Triage (talk) 11:47, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
As far as I know Vigars asked People.com to pull the article saying he was misquoted. They refused. I think it was the NY Post that stated David Foster said there would be no comment until the birth. Jaymes and Clay have not commented nor have their representatives. That leaves us with one verifiable fact, Jaymes Foster is pregnant. The rest is rumor and POV commentary on that rumor. If Clay is the father, good for him. If he is not have we been fair and accurate or are we guilty of spreading gossip and turning it into fact. The baby is due in August so what is the harm in waiting for a reliable and verifiable source. I don't understand the rush to get breaking "news" into an encyclopedia article. Maria202 (talk) 16:50, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Maria, how do you know that Vigars asked for the story to be pulled? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:58, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Will, I'll see if I can find where I read it but there is so much out there it's hard to keep track. CNN Headline News is running a piece on why Aiken won't comment on his personal life if anyone is interested. It seems to be running every half hour. Ironically, Aiken was quoted on Channel Newsaisa[6] as saying “That’s what’s so great about America,” he said, laughing. “One of our valuable amendments to the Constitution — freedom of the press — is also one of the crappiest. You can write anything you want. You don’t need to have any proof or any truth to what you write.” This showed up on the morning of the 29th and the TMZ leak on the afternood of the 29th. Maria202 (talk) 19:25, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Found it. "Earlier, website People.com quoted David Foster's agent, Bill Vigars, confirming the reports. Vigars has since denied making the remarks and asked People to pull the article." It came from the Times Colonist Published: Friday, May 30, 2008[7]Maria202 (talk) 20:00, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
That's the same single article that is the only one which contains any denial. The right way to handle this is to say the brother says one thing while the former sister in law says something else. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:06, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
The brother did not say anything except that there would be no comment until after the baby is born. His REP made the statement about Jaymes, which was embellished to contain the comments about Clay. And are we really going to put a statement in an encylopedic reference based on one person's statement, a person who is not even a rep for the parties involved, and who tried to get the story pulled?? Not a single other confirmation or endorsement? Just a best friend saying that for a fact it is NOT true. In what way is that factual?? That is just pandering to the gossip mongers. IMHO Triage (talk) 20:54, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
We can assume that spokesmen speak on behalf of their clients. This has been widely reported and the only denial comes from a former sister in law reported in a small newspaper in Canada. We can always update and correct the story as more details emerge. But this story does not appear to be just a spurious rumor. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:00, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Vigars is not Jaymes Foster's rep. He is the publicist for David Foster's charity. Maria202 (talk) 03:27, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
I was fine for waiting to see if more information or a denial, but I haven't seen any. Presumably Aiken's people have heard about this and could easily have denied it. All we need to say is that it's been reported, which is undoutedly true. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Will, why do you feel you need to do anything?...nothing has been confirmed by anyone, the only person who reportedly confirmed anything has since said he was misquoted, and he is not even a representative of either Jaymes or Clay. I would hope that tabloid sources and attention seeking bloggers are not what we use to confirm real news, or make additions to what is suppose to be an encyclopedia of facts. And to say we can add something and then remove it later if it proves to not be true is really unfair..isn't that the same as closing the barn door after the cows get out...the harm will have been done. To remove the reporting of what amounts to gossip was the right and ethical thing to do. Moretothislife (talk) 05:12, 10 June 2008 (UTC)moretothislife
This matter has been reported in hundreds of places. What harm do you think is going to happen if the reports are mentioned in Wikipedia? What cow are we going to let out that isn't out already? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:43, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes Will, it has been reported on 100's of gossip sites and blogs...so would you like Wikipedia to be reduced to the same caliber as a gossip site or would you prefer to maintain some creditability as medium that only reports the facts?... what you want to include is a rumor...pure and simple, it is gossip. What harm can there be?..well I think most people with any sense can see tabloids for what they are, but if you report a rumor in Wikipedia then it turns tabloid gossip into fact for some...there in lies the harm. It will be a sad day when Wikipedia decides to use or acknowledge tabloids and attention seeking bloggers as a reliable source of information. Can you explain what harm there is in waiting to hear from the 2 people it concerns the most, or at least wait to hear from Mr Aiken who this entire entry is about...it is called having some respect and integrity, something I realize is rare these days when it comes to reporting the newsMoretothislife (talk) 08:26, 10 June 2008 (UTC)