Talk:Clay Aiken/Archive 12

This is an archive of past discussions about Clay Aiken. 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.

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Shouldn't we change all the references over to the proper citation format, like so? I also am offering a suggested edit in the language of the NE phrase:

Aiken has been the subject of gay jokes by Conan O'Brien, Kathy Griffin, and Mad TV, among others. While a few communities among his internet fan sites speculate about his sexual orientation ^[1], many do not. In an interview with Rolling Stone in June 2003 Aiken stated that he is not gay. When he appeared as the musical guest on Saturday Night Live on February 7, 2004, he lampooned such speculation in the opening monologue, which featured him as a member of a gay men's chorus.^[2] Aiken has also been the subject of tabloid speculation and in early 2006, The National Enquirer launched a new series of tabloid stories alleging proof that "Clay is Gay".^[3] Aiken describes the incessant jokes and gossip as "...like having a gnat in your nose. You just want to kill it. It becomes unfortunately a negative part of what you do, and you need to kind of live with it. But if you could get up your nose and kill it, you would do it." ^[4]

deleted wonky reference section -Jmh123 01:10, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, Maria, I can't figure out how to keep it from modifying your reference section! Pretend the first two references aren't there in mine, and the last four in yours. Grrrr. -Jmh123

Don't worry, the software is scanning through and picking up each coded reference. It won't happen when there is only one reference table defined. Yes, we should change the article references but lets just concentrate on this paragraph for now. While I agree with Triage and would prefer none of this, I can live with your sentence change. - Maria202 13:40, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm having second thoughts. This series of stories was not the "first" so that statement is incorrect. How about this instead: Aiken has also been the subject of tabloid speculation and in the January 26, 2006 issue, The National Enquirer launched a new series tabloid stories alleging proof that "Clay is Gay". This satisfies Triage's statement about tabloid rumors being in the reference section, which I agree with. - Maria202 14:41, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I missed your second edit. I changed my last version and the test page as per your suggestion. See note below about still preferring no mention. -Jmh123 15:11, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Updated the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:ArglebargleIV/DraftOfClayAiken page with the version from Paragraph2 to see the references as intended. Although it is out of line to have all those rumor reference articles in an encyclopedia. -- Triage 14:07, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I changed the font size but I still don't like it. - Maria202 14:19, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I changed the other two references to the same format on the test page to provide a full visual. I think it's fine. I do like the change in the sentence as it zeroes in on the metaissue without providing salacious detail, and specifically states the media source, article name, and date. Just in case it needs saying, my preference remains to not include gossip and rumors on the page. The difficulty in changing even one word in the original paragraph nearly a year later highlights how important it is that we all agree on any new additions, because it won't be easy to change in the future. -Jmh123 14:52, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

We need to bear in mind that there is nothing stopping someone from coming forward in the future with more salacious stories and we wind up with an article that is nothing more than gossip mongering. - Maria202 15:52, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I added the 2 references to the American Idol paragraph for the visual. - Maria202 16:21, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I would like to suggest that maybe one of you should copy the text, including your recent changes, out of my User:ArglebargleIV/DraftOfClayAiken page to a subpage of your own, just for clarity's sake -- thanks. ArglebargleIV 20:32, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your help ArglebargleIV. I've created the subpage User:Maria202/DraftOfClayAiken#References. We can make any further changes on mine and leave ArglebargleIV's alone. - Maria202 21:07, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

• I'm having no further part in this because you, Jmh, 6 and so forth are not working in good faith, are not interested in working for a compromise, are only interested in pushing your own bizarrely personal agenda, are only interested in changing the paragraph to further distort the issue to support YOUR POVs, and I'm done with it. I will wait to see what happens with the RFAr, and rejected or not I will follow all further avenues until they're exhausted. Your viewpoints in this are null and wrong and if complete strangers who have nothing to do with the discussion can see that you're all stark raving mad, I rest my case. Do whatever mock "compromise" you want but it doesn't have my support and I'm sure it lacks the support of all the other rational individuals who see that you've hijacked and compromised both the spirit of Wikipedia in support of your Aiken-God and completely destroyed the validity, responsibility and point of the project. I'll continue to argue that the page remain protected so you cannot further corrupt it with your strangeness and I'll do everything in my power to prevent the four of you from enacting any further damage. You wanted a battle, here it is. - mixvio 19:20, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

So far the discussion has revolved around making an effort to make ArglebargleIV's suggestion work, even though it means including references to the Paulus event that I do not think belong in the article. However I am trying to compromise in good faith. If you do not want to participate - fine. -- Michigan user 20:34, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't want any mention of these allegations in the article at all. The NE is NOT a legitimate source and Paulus' story is not verifiable by any legitimate third party. I have been compromising on this all along while at the same time doing my best to Do No Harm to a living individual according to the Wikipedia guidelines. For the record, I do not appreciate your personal attacks and I am asking you to stop. - Maria202 20:49, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

A discussion amongst four editors (Arglebargle is outside of this count since he's the ONLY reasonable person here) who time and time again have violently opposed the issue in the first place is not "working on a compromise." A discussion amongst four editors who all have the exact identical opinion on the issue is not deriving a consensus. None of you have tried to compromise the issue. All you do is rewrite your wording slightly while still forcing the issue out of the article, while still inserting POV jargon that shows STRONG bias that you feel the allegations are a lie, and I have sat through a month of it remaining civil, remaining helpful, constantly changing MY revisions and constantly removing MY words in the clearly vain hope that sense would finally enter your skulls and you'd realize that I've tried harder to compromise than anyone else present. The only consistent request I've made is that Paulus' specific incident be mentioned in some form, to the detriment of every other piece of sentences I've offered. I've cut, I've chopped, I've let go, I've pleaded. But I've realized the futility, I've realized that you'll never accept it. Because Clay Aiken is your Jesus, and you will fight tooth and nail to keep anything out that might tarnish Jesus, all under the guise of benevolent kindness. Well I'm over it. You haven't worked on anything, you haven't tried to compromise anything, and I could care less what any of you want by this point. - mixvio 22:54, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I do not think that ANY of this trash belongs in an encyclopedia. The proposed solution mentions the exact incident that you want included, it just does not name the culprit. That is the compromise - you get the incident mentioned with references - we get to keep his name out. Anything else is just Mixvio forcing his will on everyone else. -- 69.19.14.25 23:13, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Correct! - Maria202 23:22, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Tough. You don't decide what goes in or out. - mixvio 23:23, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

So much for compromise. - 69.19.14.25 23:32, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Please, stop with the snipping and snarking. Everyone. That goes for Mixvio, Maria, and 69.19.14.25. And Mixvio, I know you're frustrated, but saying "I could care less what any of you want by this point" isn't going to get you anywhere. Hermione1980 23:39, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Test page with proposed edit is on: User:Maria202/DraftOfClayAiken#References.

• Mixvio. Our suggestion for compromise is - you get the incident mentioned with references - we get to keep his name out. Insisting on having his specific name in there appears very POV. Why is this compromise not acceptable? And what do you propose as a compromise between leaving all the unsubstantiated gossip out, and fully detailing the incident in 2-3 sentences? -- 69.19.14.25 10:55, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Because the issue is not about ALL the tabloid stories. The issue is about PAULUS' story. It has more notoriety than the rest of them, it continues when the rest dropped away. It's the same as lumping Monica Lewinski in with all the other hoaxes that went against Clinton. Her story was the biggest. Paulus is the biggest of the claims against Aiken. He's the only one who says he slept with Aiken. To play it off as if it doesn't, as if it hasn't, is far more POV than having his name in. WHICH, incidentally, isn't POV at all. You don't want his name? Then fine. But your wording is inappropriate and biased and furthers your opinion that the story is meaningless because you choose to word it so that it is. THAT's not a "compromise" and is not acceptable. - mixvio 11:44, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, what is your CONSTRUCTIVE contribution to the compromise discussion? What is your proposal that reflects a compromise? -- Michigan user 13:18, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

"The issue is about PAULUS' story." Paulus' story is his only claim to fame, has had no significant impact on Clay Aiken's life and is hardly encyclopedic. Ten years from now no one will remember who Paulus was. Even now there are only three gossip columns that continue to mention his name and they do it for shock value. Surely you don't equate an international headline story leading to the impeachment of an American President with a tabloid story about a one night stand that most people never heard about or if they did hear about it don't care. - Maria202 14:06, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

It's your hyperbolic and meritless opinion that it's insignificant. And it bears no importance on the issue. THAT IS YOUR POV STATEMENT. If you want my "constructive" contribution, go back to my suggestion at the top of the thread that you tore apart. It was completely reasonable, and if you have a problem with Paulus' name, fine, refer to him as "an ex-green beret turned porn star" (since you're all so eager to simultaneously denounce his credibility for this fact yet constantly reaffirm that's what he does) instead with a link to the Paulus article. Trying to avoid it by referencing a single NE article instead of the Wikipedia page is just another example of your unwillingness to work on this. If you have a problem with my above submission then we're at an impasse, and I'm unwilling to make another concession on this issue in your favor. I have bent over backwards for you people, I've compromised both my values and principles on free speech to make you happy, and nothing is good enough. This is my final offer. Accept it or not but I'm not willing to reword another thing to make you happy that further subjugates the story. - mixvio 14:18, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way. - Maria202 14:32, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Now who's being condescending? - mixvio 14:41, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

So is this what you are aiming for?

Due to speculation that he is gay, Aiken has been the subject of gay jokes by Conan O'Brien, Kathy Griffin, and Mad TV, among others. While a few communities among his internet fan sites speculate about his sexual orientation [1], many do not. Aiken denied being gay to Rolling Stone in June 2003, and, when he appeared as the musical guest on Saturday Night Live on February 7, 2004 [2], he lampooned such speculation in the opening monologue, which featured him as a member of a gay men's chorus. One example of this gossip occurred in January 2006 when an ex-green beret turned gay porn actor told the National Enquirer and Howard Stern about an alleged sexual encounter he had with Aiken. Aiken describes the incessant jokes and gossip as "like having a gnat in your nose. You just want to kill it. It becomes unfortunately a negative part of what you do, and you need to kind of live with it. But if you could get up your nose and kill it, you would do it. It’s not so easy sometimes."

-- Michigan user 15:17, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

More like this:

Due to speculation that he is gay, Aiken has been the subject of gay jokes by Conan O'Brien, Kathy Griffin, and Mad TV, among others. While a few communities among his internet fan sites speculate about his sexual orientation [3], many do not. Aiken denied being gay to Rolling Stone in June 2003, and, when he appeared as the musical guest on Saturday Night Live on February 7, 2004 [4], he lampooned such speculation in the opening monologue, which featured him as a member of a gay men's chorus. One example of this gossip occurred in January 2006 when an ex-green beret turned gay porn actor told the National Enquirer and Howard Stern about an alleged sexual encounter he had with Aiken. Aiken describes the incessant jokes and gossip as "like having a gnat in your nose. You just want to kill it. It becomes unfortunately a negative part of what you do, and you need to kind of live with it. But if you could get up your nose and kill it, you would do it. It’s not so easy sometimes."

Though personally I see no reason to remove his rep's reply to this about Pluto, since they did make a comment in reference to the story, and regardless his quote should be moved above the Paulus part, perhaps after the mention of SNL, because otherwise it makes it seem as if the gnat comment was in response to Paulus. - mixvio 15:22, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

The reason for removing the Pluto comment (which I find hilarious) was just to limit the percent of the article devoted to snarky comments about dealing with gossip. It just does not deserve that much of the article just to show how ridiculous RCA thinks that the gossip is, and the other comment is directly from Clay - so it makes more sense to use that one. The reason for ending the paragraph with the Clay quote is because it DOES reflect his opinion of all this gossip stuff. He can't just repeat the same statement every time someone starts a new whisper about him.

Then - Maria202 and Jmh123 set up that whole test page thing so that we could use references, as ArglebargleIV suggested, INSTEAD of the link. If the user wants to read the references they will find out all about Paulus. I just did not practice doing those references when they did, and I don't have time to play with it right now, so the paragraph does not have them in it. Yet. We would have to look at it on the test page then. -- Michigan user 16:50, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

If a user wants to read more about Paulus they can click the link to his article just as easily, and they should click it to be presented with the rest of the story that you refuse to have present here. That's NPOV. Off-site tiny footnotes aren't appropriate and are a deliberate attempt to shrink the story. And as far as the RCA quote-- they haven't responded to each and every bit of gossip, and Paulus doesn't fall in line with each and every piece of gossip. No one else has gone out claiming to have slept with Clay Aiken. No one else has gone out claming to have DNA evidence of the encounter. No one else has provided pages of emails and chatlogs on the level that Paulus has. I'm not saying that any of these things are true, but I'm saying he's offered substantially more than "I slept with Clay Aiken" or "I webcammed with Clay Aiken and pressed 'print screen.'" And as such his story should not be lumped in with the rest of the other general gossipy things that are focused on his sexuality. It's not the same issue. This is what I've maintained all along. This story is bigger than the NE just printing a survey of subscribers who think he's gay. This is a sexual allegation. Whether you believe it to be true or not is irrelevent. The fact of the matter is it's NOT the same as an article about how gay Clay is. It shouldn't be made to seem as if it is, and your continual attempts to do so underscores the fact that you just want to erase this. Incidentally, Arglebargle didn't suggest references, he prefered an in-line link, but he thought references were the only thing that would make YOU happy. If you won't use Paulus' name, then you have to put an in-line link in the article itself. If you want references and no link, then you have to put Paulus' name in. You decide but you don't get both. THAT's a compromise. - mixvio 17:03, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

May I make a suggestion? Perhaps the way forward is to try an Easter egg. That is to say, add a line something like ... "... Aiken has also been the subject of tabloid rumors that he solicited other men for sex." Then we avoid reinventing the wheel here. The Paulus article was kept, that should be where most of this information is referenced. We can have one link to a reference to the tabloid rumors in some publication or another, with a link to Paulus (that does not explicitly mention his name, yet clicking on it will take you to the article about him). It's not an ideal situation, but maybe it's enough of a halfway point that everybody can agree? · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 17:08, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

That was more along the lines of what I was suggesting. That the link not be necessarily Paulus' name, but that it goes to him instead of a footnote to one random NE article that you can't even get online. - mixvio 17:14, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah - if we went with the link - Mixvio showed it done nicely. But thanks for helping - we need all the help that we can get - LOL. Mixvio, just let me understand the reference option that you suggest. You are saying to add his name visibly to one of the references?? Like maybe saying "John Paulus article in the National Enquirer" or something? --Michigan user 17:26, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

No, I'm saying that if you choose to use the footnote instead of a link, instead of the wording "Aiken has also been the subject of tabloid rumors that he solicited other men for sex" or something general as such, I want Paulus' name specifically followed by the footnote. The footnote as it is is completely unacceptable -- it doesn't even go to the actual article in case someone wanted to look at it, it goes to the main NE website. Aside from the title of the article itself there's absolutely no way for someone to search for Paulus if they wanted to find out more info. How many searches in google do you think "Clay Is Gay" will bring up? I'm willing to bet enough that the user will give up trying to find the article. Ergo, if you use that footnote you have to explicitly state Paulus' name so someone can find out more information if they want. If you don't want to explicitly use Paulus' name, then you can't use a footnote and instead should use an easter egg as stated previously that links to the Paulus entry. This is my preference incidentally, because then you can word the entry as ambigously as makes you comfortable but the user is still clearly redirected to Paulus if they choose to click. - mixvio 17:31, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

The Paulus page was added just to get the story in Wikipedia (and I wouold have voted for deletion). With out Clay Paulus is a nobody. His Clay story is 67% of his article. It was a way to circumvent the opposition encountered here. To this day, no legimitate mainstream media has touched this. The tabloids print lies all the time and Howard Stern is a shock jock with a limited audience. I'm willing to go along with the NE mention against my better judgement but that's as far as I'll go. - Maria202 17:44, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I happen to agree with you, but for better or worse, he does have a page here. It seems strange, then, for Aiken's antagonist to have an entire Wikipedia article but no mention here, even if just a cursory one. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 17:51, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Exactly Kate. Thank you. - mixvio 17:52, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Without Bill Clinton Monica Lewinski is nobody. So what difference does that make? The fact that it was nominated for deletion by others present in this debate and they failed to have it removed underscores the bias you have. Howard Stern's audience is FAR from limited, and the National Enquirer, while mostly filled with garbage, has from time to time printed stories that later showed up in mainstream media. Again, it's your OPINION that it's garbage. However garbage it might be, that's not a requirement to be included. It's passed the test and the majority agrees with me, not you. If that's as far as you'll go, great. Then we're in a deadlock, because I'm not making any more concessions to get your approval. - mixvio 17:48, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Well I played with the test page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Maria202/DraftOfClayAiken#Post-.27.27Idol.27.27_career I tried putting the Pluto quote in - but I think that it is too much. I explicitly put Paulus name in the NE reference to see how it looks. -- Michigan user 17:51, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

That's not what I said. I said in the ENTRY Paulus name goes, in the text, not next to the tiny as hell footnote, and the footnote follows his name. Personally I don't like the footnote approach at all and I think it should be considered only as a last-ditch effort and not our main avenue. The easter egg idea is far more appropriate. - mixvio 17:56, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Well heck. I was trying. Well I have to go now. I have 30 teenagers from the Gay-Straight Alliance invading my home shortly (going to watch that Brokeback Mountain movie and dance) - and I doubt that I will have time or sanity to mess with this today. -- Michigan user 18:01, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm getting confused, but if I'm not mistaken, something like this would fit mixvio's proposal. I want to take him up on the non-salacious wording on the piped phrase, as a compromise for linking to Paulus in any way. If he doesn't care about a reference to the Enquirer's first article, I'd just as soon leave it out. Apologies if I'm not following the negotiations exactly--I'm trying.

Aiken has been the subject of gay jokes by Conan O'Brien, Kathy Griffin, and Mad TV, among others. While a few communities among his internet fan sites speculate about his sexual orientation ^[5], many do not. In an interview with Rolling Stone in June 2003 Aiken stated that he is not gay. When he appeared as the musical guest on Saturday Night Live on February 7, 2004, he lampooned such speculation in the opening monologue, which featured him as a member of a gay men's chorus. [5]. Aiken has also been the subject of tabloid speculation and in early 2006, The National Enquirer launched a new series of tabloid stories. Aiken describes the incessant jokes and gossip as "...like having a gnat in your nose. You just want to kill it. It becomes unfortunately a negative part of what you do, and you need to kind of live with it. But if you could get up your nose and kill it, you would do it." [6]

I also think we need an agreement that the piped link may be removed if Paulus is discredited or simply forgotten with time. -Jmh123 18:03, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I would change the sentence to "Aiken has also been the subject of tabloid speculation and in early 2006, The National Enquirer launched a new series of tabloid stories claiming that he solicited other men for sex" or something like that. That's what the stories were, after all; they weren't tabloid stories claiming he was fat, for example. Otherwise I'm fine with the paragraph. - mixvio 18:08, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm good with an "Easter egg" approach (I think it's referred to as a piped link). Indeed, I suggested it two days ago. If mixvio takes out the word "other" from "other men" I'm fine with that. It's inclusion just seems strange (with the text as it, it appears as if the article could be read as trying to make the distinction between soliciting himself and soliciting other men). --Hamiltonian 18:16, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

How about "alleging proof that Clay is gay"? "Clay is gay" is the title of the article. Also are you OK with no NE reference at all, and with agreement to remove in time if Paulus is discredited or forgotten? -Jmh123 18:18, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm fine with that too. No difference to me. If he's discredited, I think it actually belongs in the article even more since discrediting him will actually make him more notable. If he's eventually forgotten, I'm perfectly fine with removing it since that will be evidence that he wasn't all that notable to begin with. For me, I've maintained for a while that he's on the edge of notability where its essentially a tossup. --Hamiltonian 18:23, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

They aren't alleging proof that Clay is gay, they're saying he had sex with someone. Alleging proof would be a photograph of his manhunt profile, or a photograph of him at a gay club, or a photograph of a love letter he wrote to a guy. That's completely separate from what they actually claimed. So the wording I'd support would be: "Aiken has also been the subject of tabloid speculation, and in early 2006 The National Enquirer launched a new series of tabloid stories claiming that he solicited men for sex." And I don't think the article should be included as a reference at all, so no, get rid of it. If anything the reference can be on the Paulus page if it's not already there. And we would have to be very clear about "time" to determine whether or not the link goes away, but as long as your estimate of forgotten is reasonable I'm fine with it. If he's discredited then I'm fully in support of the link being removed or someone changing the paragraph to reflect the stories being proven false. However, we all know that's not very likely to happen. - mixvio 18:24, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

"Soliciting himself" - LOL (not going to touch that one . . . .). I guess that I can live with that paragraph if we get that agreement that Jmh123 mentioned. And yes - I AM avoiding the 30 teenager situation, why do you ask? -- Michigan user 18:26, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I actually did consider the difference between alleging that he is gay and alleging that he solicited men for sex. I think - and I'm going on memory here - that the article mentioned that "Clay" had come out to his mother. But I mean, I'm certainly not going to concern myself with the difference. --Hamiltonian 18:31, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

• I'll go along with the piped link providing it's this paragraph and providing there is no future argument about removing the link as Jmh stated. I'm saying this paragraph so that future edits (aside from the one piped link) are not necessary.

Aiken has been the subject of gay jokes by Conan O'Brien, Kathy Griffin, and Mad TV, among others. While a few communities among his internet fan sites speculate about his sexual orientation ^[6], many do not. In an interview with Rolling Stone in June 2003 Aiken stated that he is not gay. When he appeared as the musical guest on Saturday Night Live on February 7, 2004, he lampooned such speculation in the opening monologue, which featured him as a member of a gay men's chorus. [7]. Aiken has also been the subject of tabloid speculation and in early 2006, The National Enquirer launched a new series of tabloid stories. Aiken describes the incessant jokes and gossip as "...like having a gnat in your nose. You just want to kill it. It becomes unfortunately a negative part of what you do, and you need to kind of live with it. But if you could get up your nose and kill it, you would do it." [8]

Paulus is well on his way to discrediting himself. I'm compromising Mixvio, now it's your turn. - Maria202 18:40, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

As said previously Maria, and agreed upon by Michigan and Hamiltonian, the sentence would have to be "Aiken has also been the subject of tabloid speculation, and in early 2006 The National Enquirer launched a new series of tabloid stories claiming that he solicited men for sex." As for the gay part Hamiltonian, it did mention that Paulus claimed Clay Aiken told him he'd recently come out to his mother, but ultimately the bulk of the article and its real focus was the sexual encounter. Therefore it's not about just alleging he's gay, it's about alleging he had sex with a man. So the final paragraph should end up:

Aiken has been the subject of gay jokes by Conan O'Brien, Kathy Griffin, and Mad TV, among others. While a few communities among his internet fan sites speculate about his sexual orientation ^[7], many do not. In an interview with Rolling Stone in June 2003 Aiken stated that he is not gay. When he appeared as the musical guest on Saturday Night Live on February 7, 2004, he lampooned such speculation in the opening monologue, which featured him as a member of a gay men's chorus. [9]. Aiken has also been the subject of tabloid speculation and in early 2006, The National Enquirer launched a new series of tabloid stories claiming that he solicited men for sex. Aiken describes the incessant jokes and gossip as "...like having a gnat in your nose. You just want to kill it. It becomes unfortunately a negative part of what you do, and you need to kind of live with it. But if you could get up your nose and kill it, you would do it." [10]

I'm not agreeing to a suicide pact, but provided we all came to a reasonable determination on what amount of time was appropriate, I'd have no problem getting rid of the article. A month isn't a reasonable amount of time. I'd say leave it in until we see what happens as the supposed date of his cd release comes closer. I'm also not agreeing to anything you say along the lines of "if mixvio doesn't edit it ever again," as you've said in the past, because you've no right to attempt to restrict my access to anything in Wikipedia. However, if we all come to an agreement there's no need to edit anything else because we'll have consensus on the subject. If Paulus is on his way to discrediting his story as you so knowingly claim, then there's nothing you have to do but sit back and wait. - mixvio 18:47, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

It is not you that I worry about, You are aware of the sensitivity of this paragraph, and are well aware that you would need to discuss any changes to it and get consensus before changing it. But the rest of the WikiWorld is less aware, and many love to spread as much juicy gossip as they can. It is an ongoing problem in many of the articles. That is why the need for a nailed down consensus version. -- Michigan user 19:02, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Well if someone else changes it then I'd revert their changes myself. I've reverted several instances in the Paulus page where someone inputted garbage that was supportive of Paulus but still junk. I've reverted a few times where someone's added stuff about the "Wikicontroversy" this has generated. We've no way to prevent users in the future from changing it, but if we all agree on the paragraph I just submitted (or the majority of us do) then that's fine and we can revert their edits. I imagine we'll all have this page on watch for quite some time anyway. As the issue changes for more prominence or less we can discuss it then. - mixvio 19:06, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Mixvio, I'm appealing to your better judgement here. Wikipedia is used by main stream media as reference material when authors are writing articles about Clay Aiken. The sentence(s) your insisting on are at this point nothing more than an unverifable salacious allegation. Clay is a human being and deserves the same respect you'd want for yourself. Think about how you would feel if false allegations were made about you and it was you were defending. Do you want to be the one responsible for spreading this alleged story to the mainstream? I believe in the Golden Rule and this is not something I'd want done to me. Please, before you come jumping back on me give this some time and really think about it. - Maria202 19:30, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I think that the headline of the NE article indicates what they thought the focal point of the article was, so I do prefer the language I proposed, or no modifier to "tabloid stories" at all. As I have always argued for complete story arcs in Wikipedia, I won't be arguing for a change in this sentence every time there's something new on the news, pro or con. ETA: I believe mixvio's reply below mine is directed to Maria, so I'm changing the indention of my comment. I am not "fine with it" and I too have made/am making painful concessions in the name of compromise.

I find that a laughable statement to make, since you and your camp have made out considerably well in this. Regardless, I'm not giving anything further up. Take my offer and it will end, otherwise we're done discussing. - mixvio 20:10, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Just as an aside, because, as I understand it, we are not arguing the truth of Paulus' story here, "we" don't "all know that [the discrediting of Paulus]'s not very likely to happen." I think the spewing forth of so-called "evidence" in JP's blog, JP's abandonment by his earliest and among his staunchest supporters--Perez Hilton, Billy Masters, and their blog posters--along with new revelations about Page Six, "The billionaire, the Post and the $220G shakedown - Page Six writer wanted $$$ to stop inaccurate coverage", are indicative of the possibility that he will be discredited. Recalling that Paulus' story broke as a blind item on Page Six and has been pushed hard by continued items in Page Six, and looking at how many times someone on this page has referred to "an article in the New York Post" (when it was actually a Page Six item), as an example of reliable and verifiable mainstream coverage, the fact that a representative of Page Six (Jared Paul Stern) has been videotaped in a sting operation attempting to extort bribes to stop the publication of known lies on Page Six suggests to me that the dominoes may be starting to fall. -Jmh123 19:36, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I've thought about it and though the accusation's been levelled at me before, I reiterate if my aspiration was to do harm to Clay Aiken I wouldn't have begun my campaign of terror in a Wikipedia article. And I think you can already gather my reaction were someone making false accusations about me. It's not my job, nor yours, to protect celebrities from gossip or any other image attacks. You assume that responsibility upon yourself when you choose to compete on the highest-grossing reality television show in history. Completely regardless, however, the fact of the matter is this is what the NE actually printed. They didn't print a series of interviews from people who were friends with Clay Aiken and knew he was gay. They didn't print an article about his rainbow stuffed-dog collection and how this proves he's gay. They didn't print an article about him walking down 23rd st and 8th avenue in Chelsea walking his cat wearing a sweater. They printed a very detailed explicit allegation that someone slept with him. There's no sugar coating it and if Clay Aiken personally feels hurt and attacked by me he's more than welcome to take it up with me personally. That notwithstanding, he's an adult and doesn't need someone else to fight his own battles, illegitimate or not. I've conceded to allow you keep Paulus' name out, I'm not letting the sentence go. I've given up enough to appease you. If a mainstream media writer came to this page they'd see that the allegation is unsubstantiated and know the tags that carries. The fact that it's here does not in any way grant credence to Paulus' story. But his story doesn't have to be true to be noteworthy. So that's my offer, everyone else seems fine with it. - mixvio 19:38, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Mixvio said "I wouldn't have begun my campaign of terror in a Wikipedia article." So you admit your on a campaign to terriorize. - Maria202 20:03, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

"if my aspiration was to do harm to Clay Aiken I wouldn't have begun my campaign of terror in a Wikipedia article" Try to use the entire quote. - mixvio 20:05, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

In response to mixvio's comment embedded in my previous comment, earlier today you stated, "This is my preference incidentally, because then you can word the entry as ambigously as makes you comfortable but the user is still clearly redirected to Paulus if they choose to click." I took you at your word and have been negotiating on that basis. -Jmh123 20:28, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I meant specifically the pipe itself, be it "ex-green beret" or "some guy." Regardless, that was earlier today. We've now been through several revisions back and forth and I've submitted the version that I am most comfortable with. If you want to discuss specific wording, fine, but I don't agree to any changes that cut out the basic facts of the NE article. It was about a sex story and it should be represented as such. I've allowed many changes that further chop and reduce the story and I find no further reductions acceptable. You can work with the text I presented if you prefer a different word here or there, but otherwise that's it. I'm done discussing possible versions. This has gone on long enough. - mixvio 20:32, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Arbitration denied, no more discussion, then what, exactly? Off to do some things. I'll check back tonight or tomorrow. -Jmh123 23:11, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

To refocus discussions. Is this the version we're working off of?

Aiken has been the subject of gay jokes by Conan O'Brien, Kathy Griffin, and Mad TV, among others. While a few communities among his Internet fan sites speculate about his sexual orientation ^[8], many do not. In an interview with Rolling Stone in June 2003 Aiken stated that he is not gay. When he appeared as the musical guest on Saturday Night Live on February 7, 2004, he lampooned such speculation in the opening monologue, which featured him as a member of a gay men's chorus. [11]. Aiken has also been the subject of tabloid speculation and in early 2006, The National Enquirer launched a new series of tabloid stories claiming that he solicited men for sex. Aiken describes the incessant jokes and gossip as "...like having a gnat in your nose. You just want to kill it. It becomes unfortunately a negative part of what you do, and you need to kind of live with it. But if you could get up your nose and kill it, you would do it." [12]

This seems all right. If there are objections, folks should raise them and propose an alternative, and please avoid commenting on other contributors in the process. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 20:41, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally, I am fine with this. --Hamiltonian 20:43, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes Kate, that's exactly the version I approve of. So that's three against Maria and Jmh. Michigan also seemed to be fine with it, but I'll wait for him to come back and specifically state so. I see no reason why this version shouldn't pass. - mixvio 20:52, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

As you've stated repeatedly, you don't get to decide and you don't own this page. - Maria202 20:42, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Maria: Is there anything wrong with the text above? · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 20:45, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I do get to decide when I'm done discussing, however. And you won't garner a consensus just between you and Jmh. As far as the arbitration goes, I'd be more than happy to withdraw it were I to feel your objections were less about me personally and more about the issue itself. As it is, it seems to me when you fail to have a reasonable argument to the issue at hand you lash out with a personal attack. [13] - mixvio 20:52, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Katefan, I missed your edit. Maria can restate her objections. I proposed the following alternative. Got to go, I'm late.

Aiken has been the subject of gay jokes by Conan O'Brien, Kathy Griffin, and Mad TV, among others. While a few communities among his internet fan sites speculate about his sexual orientation ^[9], many do not. In an interview with Rolling Stone in June 2003 Aiken stated that he is not gay. When he appeared as the musical guest on Saturday Night Live on February 7, 2004, he lampooned such speculation in the opening monologue, which featured him as a member of a gay men's chorus. [14]. Aiken has also been the subject of tabloid speculation and in early 2006, The National Enquirer launched a new series of tabloid stories (OR with the following addition: "alleging proof that "Clay is gay.") Aiken describes the incessant jokes and gossip as "...like having a gnat in your nose. You just want to kill it. It becomes unfortunately a negative part of what you do, and you need to kind of live with it. But if you could get up your nose and kill it, you would do it." [15] -Jmh123 20:42, 7 April 2006 (UTC) -Jmh123 20:42, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

As I've also repeatedly said, I'd rather this be settled amongst us. I'd be happy to remove the request if I thought you and Maria were going to pull your heels out of the dirt a bit. I do NOT support the wording without the clarification of what the NE article was, and I most certainly do not support "alleging proof that 'Clay is gay'" because that's flat out NOT what the article was presenting. It only made a statement on Clay Aiken being gay through mentioning a possible sexual encounter with a man. The article was ABOUT that encounter. NOT his homosexuality and "proof" of it. If you have a gripe with "claiming that he solicited men for sex" then tone the word soliciting down. - mixvio 20:52, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

• My objection is that is that the option I struck out is unverifiable salacious allegations(s)from a non-credible source and violates the Wikipedia guideline of Do No Harm when dealing with a living person. ETA: I'm tired and thought I was striking this " claiming that he solicited men for sex." The one I struck was in the NE Reference and I didn't object to it being there. I do object to it being here.

Aiken has been the subject of gay jokes by Conan O'Brien, Kathy Griffin, and Mad TV, among others. While a few communities among his internet fan sites speculate about his sexual orientation ^[10], many do not. In an interview with Rolling Stone in June 2003 Aiken stated that he is not gay. When he appeared as the musical guest on Saturday Night Live on February 7, 2004, he lampooned such speculation in the opening monologue, which featured him as a member of a gay men's chorus. [16]. Aiken has also been the subject of tabloid speculation and in early 2006, The National Enquirer launched a new series of tabloid stories (OR with the following addition: "alleging proof that "Clay is gay.") Aiken describes the incessant jokes and gossip as "...like having a gnat in your nose. You just want to kill it. It becomes unfortunately a negative part of what you do, and you need to kind of live with it. But if you could get up your nose and kill it, you would do it." [17] - Maria202 21:01, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

It's not doing harm. It's a FACT of what the NE wrote the article about. Are you disputing that fact? Are you trying to claim the NE printed an article that the crux was NOT about Paulus' sexual encounter? If you aren't then you have no basis to argue. Do Not Harm doesn't shield living persons from facts in Wikipedia articles. What Paulus said and what the NE printed are verifiable facts. - mixvio 21:05, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok, hold on. Let's stop the back and forth sniping just a bit. Jmh, I'm struggling to understand what it is that you object to. You object to describing the nature of the tabloid stories? I think it's not quite enough to just leave hanging out there that there were tabloid stories; it begs the question of what they said. We need to characterize the stories somehow, if for no other reason than to follow basic rules of good writing. How about, then, something like: "... launched a new series of tabloid stories alleging a sexual encounter with a man." I'm struggling to find a way that this wording might be acceptable. If I'm understanding correctly, you objected to the use of the word solicit; is this any better? Makes it sound less like prostitution. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 21:53, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Kate, this is the sentence that had been proposed along with the complete reference. "Aiken has also been the subject of tabloid speculation and in early 2006, The National Enquirer launched a new series of tabloid stories alleging proof that "Clay is Gay".^[11]." It addresses your concern about characterization and with the blind link added it should be enough. While Paulus did tell the story, the NE printed it without his permission. A source from the NE passed it on to Billy Masters who in turn passed it on to Page Six and then the NE turned around and printed it anyway. Paulus was just as much a victim of sleazy journalism as Aiken was. I object to following the same route and adding more of it. - Maria202 22:30, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your input Katefan. I regret having to leave when I did. I supported Maria's objection to Mixvio's proposed text, and proposed an alternative. Mixvio said earlier today he didn't care about the language if he got the pipe link, and I believed that he meant that. That's the only reason I agreed to it. The Enquirer story is entitled "Clay is Gay"; it has been received and represented as "proof" by many. One click and people can read about Paulus' story in detail. I prefer Maria's version. (But don't accept the notion that Paulus is a victim--he hasn't hesitated to recount the details of his fan fic endlessly.) -Jmh123 22:59, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Once again, the article was NOT about "Clay is Gay." It was about CLAY AIKEN having sex with JOHN PAULUS. To characterise it as otherwise is a lie and a POV push to further dillute the story because you don't like it. According to Paulus anyway, he called the NE and they immediately flew someone out to interview him for the story. He's never made any claims that it was printed without his permission. Just because other people have viewed the scandal as proof of Clay Aiken's homosexuality doesn't change that the article was printed to expose Paulus' sexual allegations and was not touted as "here's our proof." And when I said that I didn't care about the language if the link was piped, I said explicitly that the language of the link itself, not the sentence around it. I've repeated the same sentence each time and only suggested you change the link itself if you don't want it to say "Paulus." - mixvio 23:02, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Mixvio - I may be very dense - but I really don't understand the difference. How can you say you can PROVE "Clay is Gay" - without proving that he had sex with a man? Is there any OTHER way? And the NE did title the article "Clay is Gay" so it really makes more sense to use their words. So I am a bit confused what the difference is. -- 69.19.14.26

The difference is the wording of Jmh hides the actual story. It's not about proving Clay Aiken is gay. If Jmh wanted to change the sentence to read: "Aiken has also been the subject of tabloid speculation and in early 2006, The National Enquirer printed a tabloid story titled "Clay is Gay" about an alleged sexual encounter with another man" that would be completely different. But the wording Jmh uses is deceitful -- whether intentionally or not -- and hides the story itself. I can only assume it's because he hopes that users won't click the Paulus link if they think it's just a random tabloid story. - mixvio 23:21, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Apologies, mixvio, I obviously misinterpreted this statement: "then you can word the entry as ambigously as makes you comfortable but the user is still clearly redirected to Paulus if they choose to click" as something different than what you meant. I agreed to the pipe link because I believed that there was an understanding that it would be attached to a phrase I felt comfortable with. -Jmh123 23:22, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

• Look at my first edit. [18] Compare that to the current one: Aiken has also been the subject of tabloid speculation and in early 2006, The National Enquirer launched a new series of tabloid stories claiming that he solicited men for sex. You CANNOT argue that I haven't made many cuts and accomidations hoping to please you guys. I'm finished with it. Accept the offer I've made and be happy I'm not demanding my first edit in all its entirety be included. This is absolutely ridiculous that you'd continue to argue when you've won so much. - mixvio 23:24, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I agreed to the link for the same reason. I thought we got the sentence and you got the link. - Maria202 23:27, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I apologise for not being clearer then. I thought not having Paulus' name in was sufficient for you since that's all you've argued against the entire time this debate's been going on. Nevertheless when I said entry I meant the link. Not the sentence. That's why I took the same sentence that Arglebargle already posted and Michigan user already posted and have consistently repeated it thus far. I meant you could change the wording of the link from "Paulus" to something you were more comfortable with. Since you've said you don't want his name on the link. Regardless, you've been given enough. It's one detail. You can make a compromise when I've clearly given you well above and beyond what I've asked in return. - mixvio 23:33, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I realize that you feel that way. I feel that I have gone far above and beyond to accommodate you as well. I regret that you cannot see that. -Jmh123 23:49, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

But Paulus' name is there. If you hover over that link you DO see his name - so that is not really what we were asking for. But adding the piped link was a compromise . . . . . . -- 69.19.14.26 00:00, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

The differences between both of my edits are so stark anyone can tell you haven't accomidated anything. What have YOU given up? Nothing. You've sat back and just chimed "no" "no" "no" while I did the work to get your approval. Regardless, you're two (perhaps three) against the rest now. We don't need unanimous approval. - mixvio 00:02, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

There was no way that your original novel was going to be left even a quarter that long - even if these folks did not participate. It was not realistic from any viewpoint. You DID concede the details of the story - and I appreciate that. However, we don't think the tabloid trash should be mentioned at all. Instead it IS mentioned AND Paulus is linked AND you can see his name when you hover. How about:

Aiken has been the subject of gay jokes by Conan O'Brien, Kathy Griffin, and Mad TV, among others. While a few communities among his internet fan sites speculate about his sexual orientation ^[12], many do not. In an interview with Rolling Stone in June 2003 Aiken stated that he is not gay. When he appeared as the musical guest on Saturday Night Live on February 7, 2004, he lampooned such speculation in the opening monologue, which featured him as a member of a gay men's chorus. [19]. Aiken has also been the subject of tabloid speculation and in early 2006, The National Enquirer launched a new series of tabloid stories alleging proof of a gay liason. Aiken describes the incessant jokes and gossip as "...like having a gnat in your nose. You just want to kill it. It becomes unfortunately a negative part of what you do, and you need to kind of live with it. But if you could get up your nose and kill it, you would do it." [20]

-- 66.82.9.91 00:42, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

This is where I'm at a complete loss for logic. You're willing to say "gay liason" but "sexual encounter with a man" is wrong???? - mixvio 00:43, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Not using the NE's own headline is reinterperting using POV - no matter who is doing it. - Maria202 00:52, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Bullshit. YOU'RE "reinterperting" it so it lessens the story. - mixvio 00:57, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

That would be because the story does not deserve much attention. And it was my suggestion. I never made any complaint about the other phrase - I just did not understand your objection. So I am trying to wordsmith a phrase that other editors might be more comfortable with. Jumping all over me for trying an alternative is just argumentative. -- 66.82.9.91 01:06, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Again, YOU think the story doesn't deserve to be here, but YOU aren't the majority. I'm finished "wordsmithing." Take what you've been very graciously given or refuse it. - mixvio 01:11, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

OK - explain to me what is WRONG with "alleging proof of a gay liason", since you were clear that it means the same thing. It conveys the allegations of a sexual encounter with a man - which is what you are asking for, WITHOUT be overtly salacious. Sort of encyclopedic vs tabloid. -- 66.82.9.91 01:17, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with it aside from it being ugly gramatically and a poor word choice. I'm merely driven completely insane that you find that acceptable when the less sensitive version I put forward was wrong. "alleging proof of a liason with another man" or "alleging proof of a gay liason he was involved in" would be more gramatically correct anyway. Ending the sentence that way is fuzzy. - mixvio 01:27, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Nope - your way has a dangling participle. LOL. "in which he was involved". yuck. Don't like that either. And I don't KNOW that they will find this acceptable - I was just offering something different so that we might make some headway. -- 66.82.9.91 01:32, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

• I just want it noted I have purposely avoided jumping right back into this because there are a few reports that say a new investigation is underway by a TV news magazine. If that turns out to be so then all of this debate may be becoming entirely moot. Frankly I'm sick of the battling and resistance on these points, especially if this topic and paragraph will only have to be revisited again in a few weeks time. --Rabinid 05:15, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh? Do you know something about Paulus cooking up another publicity stunt? And exactly HOW do you have that insider knowledge? Or are you talking about the Federal Investigation into the Page Six extortion by purposely printing lies about celebrities? Or Paulus' latest attempt to get an interview in a mainstrem news source before he totally cracks up? Or the Stalker investigation into the Paulus case? In any case, including breaking news by a TV news magazine is not Wikipedia's intent. So we can give it several months, or whatever is a fair amount of time, to find out if it really has any merit. Then we can start discussing a revision that we can get consensus on. -- 66.82.9.86 05:40, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Richard Johnson of Page Six, who is implicated in the investigation, "broke" JP's story and was at Howard Stern's show with JP, Lucas, and a guy from the Enquirer. New York Times:[21]: "Mr. Stern spoke of Page Six's power. 'We know how to destroy people,' Mr. Stern said, according to a person reading a transcript of the meeting. 'It's what we do. We do it without creating liability. That's our specialty.'" -Jmh123 06:02, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

He apparently has a bra-collection. I think thats interesting! But, come on. Thats so not true you weirdos. Made up by some random 40 year old man with no life and nothing to do but sit in his mom's basement and harass little girls online.

Yeahh you know its true. Is that you? Ha well no worries its not me, and I wont tell anyone your secret.

• Sigh. Is it permissible to delete babbling (like the above) from a talk page? I'm not sure of the etiquette there. ArglebargleIV 15:57, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

• You wouldn't hurt my feelings. Can you archive it? - Maria202 16:13, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

So then how's this?

Aiken has been the subject of gay jokes by Conan O'Brien, Kathy Griffin, and Mad TV, among others. While a few communities among his internet fan sites speculate about his sexual orientation ^[13], many do not. In an interview with Rolling Stone in June 2003 Aiken stated that he is not gay. When he appeared as the musical guest on Saturday Night Live on February 7, 2004, he lampooned such speculation in the opening monologue, which featured him as a member of a gay men's chorus. ^[14] Aiken has also been the subject of tabloid speculation and in early 2006, The National Enquirer launched a new series of tabloid stories alleging proof of a liaison with another man. Aiken describes the jokes and gossip as "...like having a gnat in your nose. You just want to kill it. It becomes unfortunately a negative part of what you do, and you need to kind of live with it. But if you could get up your nose and kill it, you would do it." ^[15]

- mixvio 01:34, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Well - obviously I would prefer to leave it out - but as a compromise I think this works for me. -- 66.82.9.91 01:43, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Well if I won you over, the others can't be half as hard. :P Maria? Jmh? Michigan? - mixvio 01:44, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I took out three levels of indent since this is a new section, if that's okay.
Just a couple of things for me -- liason should be liaison, Aiken describes should be Aiken described (just to get the right tense).
To maintain continuity with Michigan User's general rewrite to consistently use <ref> citations, the SNL and flymagazine links should do that -- and BTW, using <ref> citations throughout the whole article is a good idea IMO.
And perhaps the big one -- should the link to John Paulus be on the word man at the end of that sentence rather than tabloid stories? Either way, it provides a link without exposing it directly.
Anyway, that's what I think -- this version seems reasonable to me. As a demo, I copied Maria202's version of the page back to the version on my temppage User:ArglebargleIV/DraftOfClayAiken (with the references) and put in mixvio's paragraph, with my two corrections. Fire away... ArglebargleIV 03:28, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

ArglebargleIV - we're going to do that but wanted to get this done first. I started with my draft page. - Maria202 03:31, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Ah, sorry about that -- never mind. </emilylatella> ArglebargleIV 03:34, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm fine with this version, except I think incessant should be removed; it borders on breathless commentary and isn't really needed. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 04:38, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

OK with the text with the pipe link at tabloid stories, and without "incessant", with previously agreed on provisos that this will be revisited around album promo time and the link can be removed if the Paulus story dies or is refuted. "Won over" is not the term that comes to mind. The chronology of that paragraph (2004 to 2006 to 2004) is going to bug me until the entry is revamped, so I am hoping we can all cooperate well in improving the quality of the page in the future. -Jmh123 05:04, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Good compromise using reliable sources. It presents the gossip as gossip, and accurately captures Aiken's public responses to the allegations. FloNight ^talk 11:40, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

It works for me, and when we get closer to the album release we can discuss it further to see whether or not this should be removed. I deleted my RFAr, by the way. - mixvio 14:17, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

"Won over" does not apply to me either, however I will reluctantly go along with the current change. Like Jmh, I want the proviso that we revisit this issue if the story dies or is refuted. If you take out the word incessant shouldn't described be changed to describes? - Maria202 14:51, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I took out the incessant word in the statement above. I think that using "describes" accurately conveys the idea that this is Clay's ongoing opinion - not just a one time feeling. Well, I think that Mixvio should do the honors and actually make the change. -- Michigan user 15:04, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, thank you Michigan. Anybody else want to do it or should I? - mixvio 15:14, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I corrected the spelling of liaison and changed those 2 refs per ArglebargleIV - but we can't check them on this page properly. Not sure why the italics are not showing up on the quote. -- Michigan user 15:39, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Fixed the ital problem--it was double coded. -Jmh123 15:38, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Cheers. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 15:39, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Katefan. Maria, you're taking care of adding the reference coding for the rest of the article, correct? Let us know if you want help. -Jmh123 15:42, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I'll take care of the references. I'll practice on my draft page first and do one paragraph at a time. - Maria202 16:31, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Maria, it looks like there was some miscommunication. So sorry. The references have been converted, and I tweaked the formatting to make it standard throughout. -Jmh123 17:09, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

No wonder I was having a hard time finding any that needed to be fixed. :) - Maria202 17:27, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Jmh123 - I think that the statement above has all the corections in it. So I say go for it Mixvio. -- Michigan user 15:47, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

• All right, done. Did I put it in the place you wanted? - mixvio 15:49, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Look perfect to me. And the refs came out right. Michigan user 15:58, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Fantastic. :P I, for one, am glad this is resolved. - mixvio 16:17, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Should all of this gay business be archived now? It's quite a long discussion. :P - mixvio 23:19, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I've archived a lot of material. I've never done it before, so my approach was a little odd, but it's all there, and in order exactly as it was here on "talk". If anyone is concerned, this link: [22] takes you to the page before archiving, so you can easily check my work, or, if you prefer, revert and start all over. The current "talk" page is still longer than recommended, but I thought it best to leave a substantial amount of discussion for anyone who might come along and question the process or the result. -Jmh123 00:46, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

What about creating a sub-article for all the preponderance of Clay Aiken gayness allegations? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Family Guy Guy (talk • contribs)

I would rather not, personally. - mixvio 19:36, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I see Alkivar has unprotected the page. Do not, I implore all of you, take this as an invitation to begin edit warring, or I will have to restore the protection. Hermione1980 00:54, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I've asked him to restore protection again anyway. Last time Will Beback wanted to unprotect it we were all in agreement it shouldn't be. If you can do it yourself I think that's better. - mixvio 00:56, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I actually think it's better if its left unprotected. I seriously doubt anyone particularly involved in this conversation will do anything - and I think we will have total consensus among all of us participating that were something concerning this topic to change on the article page that it should be reverted until consensus is reached. --Hamiltonian 04:20, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I brought together the following categories from the archives which had not yet been dealt with on the page, just so we'd have them all in the same place. -Jmh123 01:24, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I've read some of the eleven pages of discussion (11 pages! How did that happen? There's not even 11 pages of discussion on the entry for the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima.) on this topic. I see one much-dicussed item is the Paulus controversy. Since the topic has received wide-spread publicity and been heard by probably millions of people in the US, why isn't the subject mentioned in the main article? The fact that it has been discussed so much in the media makes it in and of itself a news item, whether or not the actual truth of the story is known. After reading the discussions over this subject, I have to wonder if the opponents of mentioning the story on the main page are really just "fans" of Clay Aiken. I get the impression that at least some of their livelihoods may be dependent on Aiken's evanescent fame. If that's the case, then they have a different agenda than the one that most contributors to Wikipedia are supposed to have- to present the entire story in neutral terms, and assume that the readers will have the intelligence to make up their own minds as to where the real truth probably lies. Hiding issues or trying to sweep them under the carpet are counterproductive in the long run, especially in open societies like we like to believe we live in. Just my two cents... 68.100.190.166 02:04, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

It is there. Re-read the discussion and the article. -- 69.19.14.36 02:13, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I only wish I had been paid for this month of Wikimania. Please read the mediation case: [23] Read carefully tufflaw's comments as a mediator, look at the comments of Will Beback, Katefan, and Kspraydad here [24]. Not everyone shares your view on this, or mine. Thanks. -Jmh123 02:43, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

68.100.190.166, we did discuss it very vocally and we came to a conclusion that we're all accepting for the time being. I suggested that parts of the discussion be archived since this talk page is simply way too long. Trust me, we've debated the issue into a hole in the ground and I think the changes are positive and while not exactly what either side wanted 100%, acceptable. Personally though I'd appreciate it if changes can be avoided to the page as a whole (by which I mean clicking "edit this page" instead of the edits as a section) or to the Post-Idol career section whenever possible, and have the change clearly marked when it's not avoidable. I trust you guys and I don't believe anything would sneak anything through, but this way it makes it easier to tell if anyone new comes through on either side and makes an edit against the consensus version. I got a little skittery when I saw all the upheaval and I was afraid the argument had started up again. :P - mixvio 05:24, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry you got skittery, mixvio. A deal is a deal, but even if you don't trust us, people like the guy with the big scary yellow triangle will be watching us for you. Alkivar wore that triangle cause he's the word on coding, but he's also the admin who unlocked the page. Today we were just working hard to modify all the citations in the article so they're up to snuff, and doing some editing we couldn't work on while the page was locked--but so far every edit as been exactly as you asked. No editing from the top, every change clearly marked. You can relax. -Jmh123 06:13, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

No, I'm not worried about you guys. We all understand the fragile alliance we've struck. :) I worry about the random person who comes along and decides to delete it or add a bunch of junk about how Paulus says Aiken's penis is small... it's easier for all of us if we can immediately see a change. :) - mixvio 06:20, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah - edits like Mixvio describes show up all OVER Wikipedia - sigh. Really the only defense is to keep monitoring the page and revert any revisions back to the consensus version. You would think that there would be a better way . . . . -- 69.19.14.41 13:44, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

If it's there and I missed it, then thank-you for the civil and patient responses to my question. I read through the article but missed it somehow. Nice work everyone, although I still wonder why it took 11 pages of discussion plus mediation in order to add such a small, albeit important, item to the article. 68.100.190.166 15:59, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually only 3 of those archived pages are concerned with JP. If you read them and the mediation, it is possible to gain some insight as to why it took so long. -Jmh123 16:18, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Clay is just a fun guy to talk about, endlessly fascinating - thus the many pages of discussion - LOL. -- 66.82.9.70 17:36, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

• While I am willing to let the information stand for now, I want it noted that I believe the "consensus", as it is, is marginalized by fan editors that refuse to be objective about the material information. The entire debate and article itself is reflective of this POV. It is interesting though that the same consensus that finally found the widely published information finally begrudgingly referenced here is now sought to be censored at sex scandal and being debated anew. --Rabinid 01:26, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Maybe because it does not DESERVE to be mentioned over there either. -- Triage 21:53, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Snarking gets us nowhere. Please stop. Hermione1980 23:12, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. However, Triage is an example of a user that makes even my sarcasm seem tame. - mixvio 03:07, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Why would the American Idol infobox be irrelevant to this article? I think it could be smaller, perhaps, with a separate version for each season, but I would imagine that there are people who are looking for American Idol contestants, and Aiken was one. ArglebargleIV 22:45, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

We already wikilink American Idol and the chart is on that page as it should be. The chart itself is out of date and incomplete, besides being huge. It doesn't list the Season 1 or Season 2 albums. Anyone looking for AI contestants would normaly go to the AI page.

This is a biography page for Clay Aiken. Why list every contestant for every other season when all Clay has in common is that they were all on the same show. Kelly Clarkson and Clay Aiken are both artists in their own right now and both have gained fans that never saw AI. Both have also made a point of saying they want to be recognized as individuals and not part of the AI stable. They have both hired new, non AI management.

To be consistant, the chart would have to be placed in each article for an AI contestant in Wikipedia. I think that's a bit much and I doubt the editors on the Kelly page would accept having that chart added to her bio. - Maria202 23:25, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I would be fine with an American Idol template - just not this one. It's huge! --Hamiltonian 23:29, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I recently read that he was dropped from a Christian concert because they got wind of the gay scandal. Does anyone know if this is true or not? If so, shouldn't it be mentioned in the article? -- Andrew Parodi 14:44, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Do you have a link to the article? --Hamiltonian 15:03, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I didn't read it online. It was an "off-line" (i.e., "real") magazine. -- Andrew Parodi 21:21, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Pure Fashion posted on their website that Clay could not appear because of a scheduling conflict and that they looked forward to working with him in the future. - Maria202 15:05, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Amazing. This Paulus guy uses his blog to get his buddys to set up a smear job via email, then turns around and calls the story into a tabloid. Of course he has to take the credit and brag about how many friends he has at said tabloid. If this gets reported as news the only place it belongs is on the Paulus page under how to destroy another person. 4.152.147.220 21:52, 16 May 2006 (UTC)