Talk:Clay Aiken/Archive 6

A proposal

"And come to think, what IS the value of linking to a fansite? What is there that is missing from/unavailable to this article? --Calton | Talk 6 July 2005 00:33 (UTC)"

"The simplest solution would be delete all but the official fan club and be done with it and not ones being pushed by fans as their personal favorites. --Calton | Talk 6 July 2005 02:54 (UTC)"

"The only fansites that need to be included in ANY "encyclopedia" are sites that are either official or contain reference information, Finding Clay Aiken, Clay Nation News, etc. .... cherrychpstck 19:49, 9 July 2005 (UTC)"

I have taken these quotations from the preceding dialogue. I propose that all links be removed from this entry other than the links to the Official Fan Club and Clay Nation News. I have no objection to removing those links as well. -Jmh123 23:57, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree with this proposal. The only relevant link is Clay Aiken's Official Fanclub. Any fans/non-fans pushing a personal favorite should be disregarded.

Miklos Szabo 00:19, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree with this proposal as well as no fansite is going to add anything to the article on Clay Aiken. I might add Clay Aiken's Office Site as well at this time as it is still functional and informational. cherrychpstck 00:51, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

I just took a look at the Aiken site and the only info I could find were four "news" items. The rest of the site seems to require paying $30 to visit. Did I miss something? MP3.com seems to have a much more complete profile. -Willmcw 02:29, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

Well since the profile is already listed in this article why would you need another site to provide that? The Official Fan Club site has been up and running for a week. You are also able to see the complete tour schedule and some media. The official site at www.clayaiken.com is also a source, or you can go to RCA Records as well. The point is these sites give information that isn't based on rumor and speculation which is what you get from the message board sites. There are a few fan sites that are not message boards which also provide information, but I would still be behind the proposal to include only official sites as message boards don't add anything significant to the discussion. cherrychpstck 12:36, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Willmcw. That's the Official Fanclub. The 30 dollar fee is the dues to join the fanclub for a year. There is access to pre-sale ticket information for members along with opportunites for Meet&Greet passes at the concerts,a complete tour itinerary, a store and Clay's own Blog along with news and upcoming appearances.

Miklos Szabo 02:50, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Since the www.clayaiken.com site is free that would seem like the preferable site, if there's to be only one. It seems to have more info that the fan club, and it's free. -Willmcw 02:51, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

Good point. I'll go with that. Miklos Szabo 02:55, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

But we don't know how long www.clayaiken.com is going to remain an active site. I would go for putting both up as they are both official. cherrychpstck 23:18, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

break for new arguments

I assume then, that you are going to go through Wiki and remove all extraneous links from all celebrities here? For example, Kelly Clarkson has 7 or 8 links listed. I assume you will remove all but one of them. No? Willmcw, please don't be taken in by these people. They are willing to sacrifice every single link for Clay to make sure Openly Clay is not linked from here. That is their sole purpose in being here. I suggest you listen to Kate, Hermione, Matthew, Blu etc and let them decide which links should be allowed here. I don't care whether you keep the link or not, but it's not up to me or Miklos Szabo or any of the others with a vested interest to decide, it should be up to neutral parties. --Wilykit 04:12, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

Quoting Blu: "But based on your descriptions of the site, which I have no real reason to doubt, and which do come from a different perspective than most of the "Claymates" have, I'd have to agree with you. It probably shouldn't be linked from the Wiki.--[Blu Aardvark] 23:00, 9 July 2005 (UTC)" :Is MatthewUND neutral? I haven't heard his response to any of the extensive discussion since his last post. Does your "sole purpose for being here" differ somehow from mine or Miklos'?

I believe we have discussed the pros and cons of the link ad nauseum. This seemed like a reasonable alternative, as it eliminates any jockeying among fans of message boards for links. There are hundreds of boards. One of those currently posted (Claydies.com) is tiny and not particularly active. I assume it was included by whatever anonymous editor/s posted the last set of links. If we include the Openly Clay link, then for balance we need a number of other links, and then we're back to arguing about what they should be. Why is it so vital that OC be linked here?

I don't see any sacrifice here. This is an encyclopedia, not an advertisement for Clay Aiken, as has been stated here repeatedly. -Jmh123 04:36, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

I haven't heard any good arguments for deleting any particular websites. The Openly Clay site seems to be fandom just like the others are. Also, I don't understand why the main site was deleted in the first place. There is something odd here. Anyway, do the other editors, some of whome have apparently been editing this article for months, have a different proposal? Allow all links? Some? Thanks, -Willmcw 05:00, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

Jmh123, it isn't vital that Openly Clay be linked here. As I said, I am neither for nor against keeping the link. And, yes, my purpose for being here is very different to yours or Miklos' purpose. You are here solely to make sure that Openly Clay is not linked, I am here to make sure the regulars here - the ones who should make the decisions - are aware of your agenda. I repeat, I do not care whether Openly Clay is linked or not, I just want the decision to be unbiased. I am fed up of the Claymates thinking they have to protect Clay, sick to death of the letters and e-mails that get sent to anyone who dares make the slightest negative comment about him, sick of the lies and manipulations that go on because you think Clay is being attacked. He's a big boy, he can take care of himself, he doesn't need ten thousand mothers looking out for him. He has a whole team of people he pays to do that. Linking to Openly Clay won't make people think he's gay, and removing the link won't stop the speculation. It makes no difference either way. --Wilykit 05:11, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

I have tried to be as straightforward as I can possibly be about who I am and what I'm doing here. I am not one of those Claymates you describe. As it relates to Clay, the issue for me is not whether people think Clay is gay or not, but that it appears to me Wikipedia is being used by a small group of people who think he is gay to push an agenda. In opposition to that, I saw the typical "Clay's not gay--he's a Christian" counterargument being employed, and others being angry and malignant, and thought there was a need for more reasoned arguments than these. I've stayed with this conversation because there are larger issues behind it that interest me, and because some of the people here are very good at intelligent discussion. I enjoy that. I wish there were more genuine discourse and less rhetoric and name-calling, but there's enough intelligent debate to have captured my attention. I'm also somewhat entranced by the technical aspects of this site--so I'm enjoying the challenges participating in this conversation presents. If I weren't, I wouldn't still be here. I'd prefer that the link to OC not be here, but my primary goal is that the link not stand alone or within a small selection as representative of his fan boards. I'd prefer no links, or more. If more, I would add http://p213.ezboard.com/ftheclayboardfrm11 (the Clayboard) and remove Claydies for Clay (never heard of them, and it's a very small board); I'd add http://www.clayaiken.com/ to the official site list as long as it is a functioning site, and http://lbfca.diaryland.com/index.html (the Lecherous Broads), and three or four more of the largest fansites to the currently posted mix. -Jmh123 09:46, 10 July 2005 (UTC) Adding the ClayDawgs: http://www.theclaydawgs.com/phpbb/ How could I forget them! -Jmh123 05:31, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Jmh, I appreciate the tenor of your contributions, your voice has been welcome. But regarding this portion of your post: but that it appears to me Wikipedia is being used by a small group of people who think he is gay to push an agenda -- it appears to me to be just the opposite. The folks who so far -- for the most part -- have been arguing for retaining the Openly Clay link have been neutral Wikipedians who have been editing here for a long time. The only agenda-pushing I've seen -- again, for the most part -- has been those who have sought, no matter the means, to remove the OC link because they disagree with their topics of discourse. · Katefan0^(scribble) 14:07, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

OK, fine. I don't believe that determining who has an agenda and who does not is crucial to solving this problem. Do you or any of the other neutral editors have any response to either of my proposals? -Jmh123 16:46, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

break for lengthy history

I read back through November 2004 of the Clay article page history.

Many different people, some anonymous some not have added links to fansites. Editors removed them promptly and not once reverted or replaced any of them, except Openly Clay.

Removed link to Latin American Clay Fanclub

(cur) (last) 15:13, 22 November 2004 143.107.122.148 (→External links)

Removed link to Clay Merch on amazon.com

(cur) (last) 22:48, 19 November 2004 Everyking m (Reverted edits by 66.189.209.7 to last version by Maveric149)

Removed link to Lyrics site

(cur) (last) 08:34, 27 October 2004 Golbez (i don't think we should have a lyrics link here unless it's to an official site, imo...)

Removed link to fansite

(cur) (last) 06:20, 30 October 2004 RickK m (Reverted edits by 64.207.80.196 to last version by Golbez)

Removed links to ticket sale sites

(cur) (last) 08:24, 8 November 2004 Slowking Man m (Reverted edits by 198.81.26.73 to last version by RickK)

Removed a handfull of fansite links

(cur) (last) 21:23, 6 March 2005 Daniel Quinlan (way too many external links, use a few from google top 20)

Then someone added Openly Clay and removed a fansite, Our Man Clay.

Someone Added Openly Clay

(cur) (last) 00:23, 4 July 2005 69.232.101.234 (→Fansites)

Removed Our Man Clay

(cur) (last) 00:24, 4 July 2005 69.232.101.234 (→Fansites)

Someone removed Openly Clay

(cur) (last) 11:22, 5 July 2005 66.167.148.193 (→Fansites)

katefan0 replaced it but did not replace Our Man Clay. No other fansite link was ever reverted by an editor or was as tenaciously guarded and protected.

(cur) (last) 12:32, 5 July 2005 Katefan0 (rv censorship)

(cur) (last) 12:32, 5 July 2005 Katefan0 (rv censorship)

(cur) (last) 21:40, 7 July 2005 Katefan0 (revert -- there is not a consensus to delete this link)

(cur) (last) 17:42, 8 July 2005 Hermione1980 (rv per last reverter's reasoning)

(cur) (last) 17:55, 8 July 2005 Hermione1980 (rv)

(cur) (last) 18:07, 8 July 2005 Katefan0 m (rv)

(cur) (last) 18:11, 8 July 2005 Hermione1980 (rv)

(cur) (last) 18:29, 8 July 2005 Katefan0 (rv)

(cur) (last) 19:26, 8 July 2005 MatthewUND (rv)

(cur) (last) 11:44, 9 July 2005 Blu Aardvark m (Added link. In dispute on Talk:Clay Aiken, please discuss there.)

This pattern clearly shows an agenda and favoritism. As Golbez said in October 2004: "(i don't think we should have a lyrics link here unless it's to an official site, imo...)" I agree that only Official sites should be linked and so do many others. Miklos Szabo 06:18, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

It is hardly favoritism when actions follow consensus -- it's reflecting the will of the editors involved. Also, can you please start using the standard means of signing your contributions? Four tildes ~~~~. It's also much easier than hand-signing it each time. · Katefan0^(scribble) 14:13, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you Miklos. I would add that this particular dispute began when the section "Fansite Links" opened with the following post: "I notice that there are no less than eleven links to fansites. This strikes me as excessive, so which ones should make the cut? --[Calton | Talk] 5 July 2005 06:13 (UTC)" I entered this conversation at the point when the ONLY fansite linked was OC, which struck me as a strange resolution to the issue of too many links. -Jmh123 06:53, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't think it's quite as nefarious or coordinated as that. Someone suggested removing all the links and so then someone did it, even though there was no consensus to do such a thing. Someone else who believed Openly Clay should be added back did it. Since most of the debate has been over that one specific link, the edit war started over it without regard to what other links were listed. I think it was just a situation where people weren't paying attention to what the other links were because they weren't the topic under contention. I don't think anyone believes that OC should be the only fansite link; I believe that was probably just a circumstance borne of the current situation. · Katefan0^(scribble) 14:10, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

As that circumstance was the key to my entering this conversation, it was important to me, but OK, just a circumstance. As I have already stated (and stated from the beginning) I have no objection to the OC link in a representative context. I have now proposed either removing all fansite links, or including a sufficient number to reflect the demographic of the fansites. What say you? As I see it, the problem with having a section in this entry on fansites is that, as long as it is open to editing, there will be those who for various reasons choose to add or remove links, and this will be a continual annoyance to the editors. I see no need for fansite links. -Jmh123 16:46, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

If Openly Clay, a fan board of only 300 members is allowed to remain, then I think that just about any and every fan board that exists should be allowed to be listed. How about the board called Claytruth or one of the more religious toned but small boards? If a board dealing with speculation to Clay's sexual orientation then why not those that think he is the next coming of the lord? Both small, not mainstream factions of the fandom. cherrychpstck 16:34, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

Clay Aiken: Innocent Crooner -or- Spawn of Satan??? http://p203.ezboard.com/ftruechristiansunitefrm25 is an interesting little group as well. Actually, it's just a forum on the True Christians Unite!!! board: http://p203.ezboard.com/btruechristiansunite Just trying to add a little levity. - Jmh123 17:00, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Once again it comes back to the fans. Clay's article is about Clay and his career. There are hundreds of fansites and its not the OC vs Every Other Fansite. There are those that take turns praying around the clock for him. Those that write poetry and essays that are inspirational, sites that are dedicated to raising money for poorer fans to buy them fanclub memberships. Sites that offer multimedia downloads, Cancer Survivors for Clay, Lecherous older Women who cleverly and humorously express their lust for him, Sites geared just to kids. One group raises money for FunCenters for Children's Hospitals, another Makes quilts for sick babies. There are plenty of sites that target Clay for his beliefs. One is all about hating him for being Liberal. Another because they don't like Southern Baptists. The True Christians Unite group think he's Satan. One site collects information about his foundation in an effort to prove that he is a fake philanthropist. There are lovers and haters. It goes on and on. If OC must be considered a representative of a portion of Clay's fans than so must all of the other specialty groups and I have listed just a few.

We haven't even begun to include his normal fans. There are hundreds of those groups as well. This war can go on forever with personal favorites see-sawing to infinity. If all fansites were included the links would go on for pages. All of them have one thing in common, they are all about Clay and what they can do for or against him.

Only Official sites should be listed. Any fan owned site should not qualify. If the readers of Wikipedia want to find more info about fansites, there's always Google.

Miklos Szabo 20:36, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

break for additions/removals history

Looking through the history of the article, the link was added 15 times recently, and removed 14.

Added by

• 69.232.101.234
• Katefan0
• Katefan0
• 4.250.123.89
• Hermione1980
• Hermione1980
• Katefan0
• Hermione1980
• Katefan0
• MatthewUND
• El C
• Blu Aardvark
• Blu Aardvark
• MatthewUND
• Wilykit (after page protection)

Removed by

• 66.167.148.193
• 63.241.174.129
• Miklos Szabo
• Miklos Szabo
• Miklos Szabo
• Miklos Szabo
• Miklos Szabo
• 66.173.235.43
• 24.21.94.17
• Claytageous
• 141.149.110.104
• 68.61.141.237
• 24ip
• 12.210.57.186

So, added by five registered users, two unregistered. Removed by three registered users, seven unregistered. The consensus between the regulars (relating to page edits regarding the link) appears to have been to leave it. That's the article page, though.

From the discussion page, up to the "Fansites" subjection above, it appears that the addition is opposed by:

• Miklos Szabo
• Cherrychpstck
• Jmh123
• Marie Lavaux
• Mouse316
• Calton
• 12.210.57.186 (AIFan)
• 68.127.230.187 (Flofan)
• 206.117.15.4 ("WebTraveler")

It appears that the addition is supported by: Katefan0, Hermione1980, and 206.117.15.4 (No Sig)

It appears that the following users have no particular preference regarding the link: Wilykit, Blu Aardvark

Apologies if I misread somebody's comment as supporting or opposing, at it was in fact the opposite. I made as much effort as possible to gather the above information.

It appears as though the consensus is to remove the link. --Blu Aardvark 22:12, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

It also appears as if most of these editors began contributing only in the last week, after other editors pointed out that there was no consensus. It also appears as if many of these editors are only interested in this one article. Also, a consensus is more than a bare majority - it is the feeling of the entire group. I still don't see a convincing argument against adding any links that people want to add. The pressure to add a pay site makes it appear as if commercial interests may be involved. - Willmcw 23:15, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

You do have a good point, and I can't really say I've seen any convincing arguments as to why the links should be removed. I just felt it might be a good idea to list that information, and get a general idea of who stands where. As I stated above, I have no particular preference regarding the link, but I don't see any problem with it being there, and can see no issues with the publicly accessable portion of the site. The accusations of it being a "porn site" don't seem to be accurate, and the argument that "kids might stumble on it" is weak, at best. --Blu Aardvark 23:21, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

A question to Willmcw: Does "I still don't see a convincing argument against adding any links that people want to add" apply only to the OC link, or to all links. Once this entry is unlocked, this will be an important question. I'd rather this be settled now than to see this argument begin all over again. -Jmh123 23:38, 10 July 2005 (UTC)